House of Commons

Thursday 25th June 2015 Commons Chamber

Thursday 25 June 2015

The House met at half-past Nine o’clock

Prayers

Thursday 25th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions

Thursday 25th June 2015 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

1. What contribution her Department is making to cross-departmental work on the Government’s environmental agenda.

[Ben Howlett (Bath) (Con)]

12. What contribution her Department is making to cross-departmental work on the Government’s environmental agenda.

[The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change (Amber Rudd)]

On 5 June, I marked world environment day by visiting the Thames barrier, an important defence and an iconic part of London’s landscape. When designed, it was expected to close once or twice a year, but has closed 61 times in the last five years alone, clearly demonstrating the impact of climate change. We are determined to protect and enhance our natural environment for everyone and pass it on to future generations. That is why my Department is leading the cross-Government work to push for a strong global deal in Paris, and ensure that we are the greenest Government ever.

[Fiona Bruce]

I thank the Secretary of State for that answer and welcome her to her post, to which I know she will bring great expertise and passion. It is especially pleasing to have a Conservative Secretary of State for this Department—for the first time in 18 years. Which Departments has my right hon. Friend had discussions with and why are the discussions important?

[Amber Rudd]

My hon. Friend is of course right. Cross-governmental work is incredibly important for delivering our ambitious targets. It is already happening, including between my Department and the Department for Transport through a joint unit on ultra-low emissions vehicles. There is also DECC-Department for Communities and Local Government collaboration on energy efficiency in homes, and DECC-Department for Business, Innovation and Skills collaboration on helping businesses to save money on their energy costs by cutting their energy use. Government policies have contributed to an overall 22% decline in energy intensity since 2004—more than for most comparable economies.

[Ben Howlett]

May I echo the congratulatory comments made to the Secretary of State? In my Bath constituency, an incredibly active climate change lobby is working very hard day to day to educate young people about the impact of climate change on future generations. Will the Secretary of State update us on proposals to work with the Secretary of State for Education to ensure that climate change is taught as part of the national curriculum?

[Amber Rudd]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Making sure that the dangers of climate change are communicated to the next generation remains an important part of our plan. We work closely with the Department for Education to ensure that that happens. I recommend to my hon. Friend and to other Members the global calculator, which demonstrates to people what levers need to be pulled and what changes need to be made in order to achieve our climate change targets. We have a particularly user-friendly children’s version, which hon. Members might choose to show at their schools.

[Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab)]

What is the Conservative Government as opposed to the coalition Government policy on carbon capture? There are three deep-mine pits left in Britain, and they are going to close within the next 12 months unless something is done on that front. The Conservatives always say that they differ from the coalition Government, so I want to test this new Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change. Will she save those three pits? The last Government took £700 million out of the miners’ pension fund. Let us give some of it back, apply for state aid, save the three pits in question and save a lot of jobs.

[Amber Rudd]

The hon. Gentleman made an interesting point on which we can agree—that carbon capture and storage could and should be a very important part of our future. If we are to achieve our climate change targets and reduce emissions, we must have success with carbon capture and storage. We are committed to continuing to spend on and invest in CCS, and we hope that it will yield a positive result for our targets in the 2020s.

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

I welcome the Secretary of State to her new job, but want to press her on this. Could we see more sign of joint research and development innovation with Departments such as the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs? At the moment, I am getting very little response from DEFRA on squaring up to the fact that climate change is changing the nature of the plants we can grow in this country, which is a great challenge to our economy.

[Amber Rudd]

The hon. Gentleman is right that we need more joint working. The ambitions we have to address our climate change targets require joint working. I will meet my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in order to work more closely with her. If we are to protect our environment from dangerous climate change, all Departments need to play an active role—and I will ensure that they do so.

[Liz McInnes (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab)]

2. What steps she is taking to increase the proportion of energy that is generated from renewable sources.

[The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Andrea Leadsom)]

As the hon. Lady may know, the most recent step we have taken to support renewable energy deployment is the introduction of contracts for difference, which give companies the certainty they need to make long-term investments. This has helped us to drive down costs and focus on best value for consumers by requiring renewable technologies to compete for support for the first time.

[Liz McInnes]

Last week it was revealed that we had missed our interim EU 2020 target for renewable energy generation. How will pulling the plug on the cheapest form of renewable energy help us to achieve it?

[Andrea Leadsom]

We do not accept that we have missed it. Our interim reporting covers the period to the end of 2015, and we believe that we are on track to meet that target.

The important point made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in her announcement last week was that we do not want to over-deploy onshore wind, because only a certain amount of subsidy is available to meet the requirements of decarbonisation while keeping bills down. Any over-deployment of onshore wind could cause other, important, technologies to lose out.

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

It is pleasing that the Secretary of State recently granted development consent to the Swansea Bay tidal lagoon. Does the Minister agree that tidal lagoons offer the potential of not only reliable, large-scale renewable generation, but a world-beating British industry?

[Andrea Leadsom]

My right hon. Friend is right: this is an exciting new opportunity. It is at a very early stage, but it is a perfect example of the newer technologies that the United Kingdom should support and promote when it has the chance to be a world leader, and we are certainly doing that.

[Mr Douglas Carswell (Clacton) (UKIP)]

The tidal lagoon project in Swansea will undoubtedly generate renewable energy, but the payment that the Government will guarantee for that energy will be three times the current market price. Does the Minister think that that is a good use of public money, and does she think that it is good for our energy competitiveness?

[Andrea Leadsom]

The hon. Gentleman must recognise that a diverse set of energy sources is vital not just to our energy security but to decarbonisation, and to our ability to keep consumer costs down. The Government are looking into the different opportunities presented by different technologies. The price of the lagoon project is a long way away from being agreed, but we are keen to promote new ideas and new technologies, and we want the United Kingdom to be at the forefront of that.

[Callum McCaig (Aberdeen South) (SNP)]

The announcement that the renewables obligation for onshore wind will be closed early has caused huge uncertainty and anxiety in the renewables sector in Scotland and throughout the United Kingdom. With that in mind, will the Minister tell us when the timetable for the next contracts for difference allocation round will be published?

[Andrea Leadsom]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, we called time on the renewables obligations for onshore wind early as a result of the success of its deployment, and we are now thinking about what to do next. We are considering all our policies, including those relating to CfDs. We have the tools that will enable us to meet our manifesto commitments on onshore wind, and we will present proposals on the new CfD round in the near future.

[Callum McCaig]

The Minister’s response suggests that uncertainty still reigns. The Green Investment Bank, whose headquarters are in Edinburgh, is to be privatised by the Government. How will the Minister ensure that the original purpose of the bank, which was to accelerate the transition to a low-carbon economy, will be maintained when it is in private hands?

[Andrea Leadsom]

Conservative Members are delighted to learn that owing to the success of the Green Investment Bank, which was only created under the last Parliament, it is now in a position to expand even further by means of private sector investment and access to capital markets, and to do yet more to support and improve the emergence of a green carbon economy. The hon. Gentleman should join us in welcoming that announcement, rather than expressing concern.

[Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab)]

I apologise for the fact that my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) is at a hustings in Scotland this morning, and is therefore unable to be present. As this is the first session of Energy and Climate Change questions of the new Parliament, let me take the opportunity to welcome the Secretary of State and the Minister to their positions.

Will the Minister explain how, given a fixed renewables target and a fixed budget, replacing the cheapest renewable electricity technology—which is onshore wind—with more expensive technologies can possibly lead to lower bills for consumers?

[Andrea Leadsom]

I welcome the hon. Lady to her position.

We have explained time and again that the bill payer’s subsidy is there to promote emerging technologies in the low-carbon and renewables sector. It is not there to give long-term support to different projects. Interestingly, representatives of the industry to whom I have spoken in the last few days think that, in the near future, they could envisage contracts for onshore wind with no subsidies at all, and that is exactly where we want to go.

[Julie Elliott]

I thank the Minister for that response. She wants to decarbonise at the lowest possible cost but is effectively banning the cheapest renewable technology; she wants to help boost our economy but is thwarting a sector that contributes £1.7 billion in gross value added; and she wants a good relationship with the clean energy sector but could soon find herself being sued by two of its primary industries. Is it not the case that the only conceivable reason for that policy is to placate Conservative Back Benchers?

[Andrea Leadsom]

I really do fail to understand why Opposition Members keep insisting that onshore wind should be the only game in town. Onshore wind employs 19,000 people; offshore wind, 14,000; solar, 34,500; and biomass and bioenergy, 32,000. What about the whole range of energy sources that we want to promote? We cannot simply keep putting up the costs to the bill payer. My Department’s priorities are to keep the bills down while decarbonising at the lowest cost possible, and that is what we will do.

[Craig Williams (Cardiff North) (Con)]

3. What preparations her Department is making for the 2015 Paris climate change conference.

[Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

6. What preparations her Department is making for the 2015 Paris climate change conference.

[The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change (Amber Rudd)]

I can assure the House that securing a global climate deal in Paris is my highest priority this year. Within the first two weeks of becoming Secretary of State, I attended the Petersburg dialogue in Berlin, and G7 Climate Ministers recently reported on the shape of the deal in their meeting. We will take every opportunity to press for an agreement that is ambitious, with regular reviews to further increase ambition and effective rules to allow us to track progress. I should also like to thank my predecessor, Ed Davey, for the leadership that he brought to this critical issue.

[Craig Williams]

I, like other Members, was delighted to welcome constituents led by Christian Aid, in my case from Cardiff North, to talk about climate change last week. I spoke to members of Beulah church about the importance of the Paris conference and, in particular, about ensuring that countries such as China and India are brought along. Will the Secretary of State update us on that?

[Amber Rudd]

I, too, met constituents and leaders from that climate change campaign last week, part of the “Speak Up For The Love Of” climate lobby, which demonstrates support across many sectors. Many MPs met their constituents to discuss the issue. I spoke to counterparts in India and China when I attended the Berlin talks last month, and I was reassured by their commitment to a successful outcome in Paris. We look forward to both countries submitting their intended nationally determined contributions as soon as possible, and we are pressing for them to be ambitious.

[Huw Merriman]

I know the Secretary of State will be familiar with Glenleigh Park school in Bexhill-on-Sea, which was the first school in the Schools Energy Co-operative and has the largest community-owned primary school solar installation in the UK. How important does she think it is that all age groups engage with the issue of climate change ahead of the Paris conference?

[Amber Rudd]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right: Glenleigh Park school is an excellent example of the engagement of young people with climate change, because it has the largest solar array of any primary school in the UK, generating clean, green energy, helping to cut the school’s carbon emissions but, above all, showing children how important and easy it is to access green energy in their everyday lives.

[Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)]

May I welcome both Ministers to their new roles and wish them well in their jobs? In addition to the Paris conference, there is the important New York conference on sustainable development goals, including climate change and energy. Will the Secretary of State make sure that her Department works with the Department for International Development to ensure that those issues are high on the agenda and we do not have a missed opportunity for the next 15 years?

[Amber Rudd]

I share the hon. Gentleman’s commitment to ensuring that the sustainable development goals become as binding and successful as the millennium development goals. I am working with my colleagues at the Department for International Development to ensure that we make those commitments happen in New York.

[John McNally (Falkirk) (SNP)]

In my constituency, many people are concerned about the impact of fracking on their area, as it has a direct effect on their lives. Will the Secretary of State present a detailed health and environmental impact assessment of fracking to the conference in Paris?

[Amber Rudd]

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that this Government have made a commitment to ensuring that we can extract shale and to do it in the safest and most environmentally friendly way. This country has a long history and record of safe environmental working in oil and gas. Let me reassure him that that will always be a priority in ensuring that we access the shale.

[David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)]

It is important that we make progress in Paris, and the EU must have a position on that. Is the Secretary of State concerned that no other country within Europe has made carbon reduction commitments that equate to what we are doing in the Climate Change Act 2008? In particular, I am thinking of countries such as Germany, which is now building unabated coal power stations at scale and whose carbon emissions are a third higher than ours per capita already.

[Amber Rudd]

My hon. Friend will be aware that Germany, despite that, has continued to reduce its emissions, but he makes the good point that we are ahead of our European counterparts. The great thing about that is that it gives us the leadership potential we need to make sure that the EU works as one unit and is ambitious in driving the agreement that we hope to get in Paris at the end of the year. It gives us that leadership opportunity.

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

Will the Secretary of State give us her assessment of the importance of Britain’s membership of the EU to our achieving a successful outcome at the Paris climate change conference? Following on from what she has just said, is she keen to see Europe agree an even more ambitious reduction in greenhouse gas emissions than the 40% already announced?

[Amber Rudd]

Let me take the opportunity to welcome the hon. Gentleman to his place, stepping in for the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint), who I understand had something else to do this morning. He is absolutely right to say that making these targets is essential to us. The leadership provided by this Government within the EU was an important part of uniting the EU to make sure that we made the targets which enabled us to provide international leadership. The leadership role we have been able to play in the EU will be crucial to getting the Paris deal, and hon. Members on both sides of the House will draw their own conclusions about how important that is in terms of delivering on this important issue.

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I welcome those words from the Secretary of State, but she did not appear to want to make the specific commitment to a 50% reduction in Europe’s greenhouse gas emissions. She will, of course, be aware that our domestic interim target of a 50% reduction by 2025 is already tougher, so does she not agree that it would be in our best interests, as well as those of the EU, to commit now to tougher action?

[Amber Rudd]

The hon. Gentleman is right to say that we have reserved our position; having brought the EU to the agreement, we will make a 40% reduction by 2030. We would still like to see it go further, but we are not pushing for that at the moment because we are looking to hold the whole of the EU together. We are working to make sure that we can use that unity to get a global deal, but that proposal is still on the table as a possibility we may yet push.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

4. What her policy is on investment in future nuclear generating capacity.

[The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Andrea Leadsom)]

The Government fully support the expansion of nuclear generation. My hon. Friend might be interested to know that nuclear already supplies 19% of our electricity in the UK, which is broadly equivalent to the amount provided by renewables. It is therefore a key part of our base energy supply, and I am delighted that the industry has plans to develop approximately 16 GW of new nuclear power, across five sites.

[Bob Blackman]

I welcome my hon. Friend to her new position. Clearly there is a need to replace the ageing nuclear power stations that we already have in order to create the mixed environment to which she has referred. What plans does she have to accelerate the development of new nuclear power stations so that we have that proper mixed economy?

[Andrea Leadsom]

The Government and EDF are working together to finalise the Hinkley project documentation. EDF anticipates Hinkley Point C beginning production in 2023. I can assure my hon. Friend that we are committed to the next wave of new nuclear projects, and we hope to be able to meet 35% of UK power needs from nuclear by 2028.

[John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)]

Will the nuclear generation programme require any state subsidies, either direct or indirect?

[Andrea Leadsom]

The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that we are looking at all options for the production of new nuclear. As he will know, an arrangement has already been made for Hinkley Point C, and we are looking at the options for further nuclear projects.

[Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)]

Back in 2008, and in their manifesto, the Conservatives promised no nuclear subsidies on any account, yet the European Commission has granted a subsidy to the UK Government of £17.6 billion for Hinkley Point. How is it that we can subsidise nuclear to that extent yet the Government are cutting subsidies to renewable energy sources?

[Andrea Leadsom]

I think I have said a number of times that diverse sources of energy are vital for our energy security. Currently, 36% of our electricity comes from coal, and around 19% is from old nuclear, much of which will shut down in the next decade. It is vital that we look to new nuclear to provide the base energy supply to meet the bulk of our energy security needs. Other technologies are also vital for diverse sources of energy. That is the approach we are taking.

[Phil Wilson (Sedgefield) (Lab)]

5. What assessment she has made of the effect of the reduction in Government subsidies on the number of wind farm applications.

[The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Andrea Leadsom)]

As my right hon. Friend said during her statement to the House on Monday, we estimate that around 7.1 GW of onshore wind capacity proposed across the UK will not be eligible for the grace period and is therefore unlikely to go ahead as a result of the announcement of 18 June. That equates to around 250 projects totalling around 2,500 turbines.

[Phil Wilson]

Durham county has an excellent record on renewable energy development, especially wind farms. The issue now in the county is the cumulative impact of so many wind farms in a given area, and, because of that, the planning system is now working and further development is being rejected. If the planning system is working, why is there a need to have a blanket ban on wind farm subsidies, which will affect jobs and investment in the future?

[Andrea Leadsom]

As I and my right hon. Friend have said on a number of occasions, we believe that onshore wind has met our targets. Deployment will reach between 11 GW and 13 GW, which is within our target range. We want to keep bills down for consumers and to promote other sources of renewable technologies that will add to our energy mix. The hon. Gentleman must accept that, as the cost of onshore wind comes down, we do not want permanently to subsidise an industry that has the ability to stand on its own two feet.

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that we have heard an awful lot about the generation of power, but in my constituency of Tonbridge and Malling a lot is being done to insulate and therefore save power in a different way? Will she please tell us a little about what she is doing to bring forward the commitment to do more with 1 million homes?

[Andrea Leadsom]

My hon. Friend is right that energy generation is one part of the story but so too is energy use and ensuring that we have proper policies to try to manage the demand for energy. Our policies, such as insulating homes and the warm home discounts, are under review, and we will make a statement soon.

[Mr Speaker]

That is a fascinating reply, but it is not altogether adjacent to the issue of wind farm applications, from which I think the Minister was led astray, good naturedly, by the hon. Gentleman.

[Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)]

Will the Minister confirm that, under existing secondary legislation, her Department is obliged to issue renewable energy certificates to all applicants until March 2017? Will she also confirm that her Department will continue to issue renewables obligation certificates after March 2016 in the event that her proposed legislation to bring them to an end is not on the statute book by that date?

[Andrea Leadsom]

We intend to bring forward primary legislation in the Energy Bill to close the renewables obligation for onshore wind early. As my right hon. Friend said in her statement, that will mean that the grace period will be for those that already have planning consent, grid connection and land rights.

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

May I thank the Government for having the guts to get rid of the subsidy on wind turbines? If it does mean fewer applications, it will bring three cheers from the people of the Ribble Valley. Does my right hon. Friend agree that wind turbines have a visual impact, and is it not about time that local people finally had their wishes known as far as their siting is concerned?

[Andrea Leadsom]

Yes, my hon. Friend is exactly right. It is vital that local communities’ views are taken into account and, under this Government’s policy, they now will be.

[Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)]

8. What recent discussions she has had with representatives of the renewable energy industry on the future of that industry.

[Mike Weir (Angus) (SNP)]

17. What recent discussions she has had with representatives of the renewable energy industry on the future of that industry.

[The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Andrea Leadsom)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) does not need to despair. There are plenty of opportunities. It is rare for him to be silent for very long. We will hear from him in due course.

[Andrea Leadsom]

I have had the pleasure of meeting a number of representatives of the renewable energy industry in my new role. I am delighted to hear how the sector is thriving in the UK, with seriously good prospects for new, emerging technologies, including storage, on the horizon.

[Owen Thompson]

Following the comments of Keith Anderson, the chief executive of ScottishPower Renewables, that

“if you prematurely bring onshore wind to a halt you will end up costing consumers £2bn to £3bn”,

does the Minister share my concern that the Government’s headlong rush to scrap subsidies for onshore wind will hit the pockets of consumers hardest?

[Andrea Leadsom]

As we have explained, the early closure of the RO for onshore wind will save consumers money. The subsidies in their bills, which would have gone towards an excess of deployment above our target would have cost consumers hundreds of millions of pounds more.

[Mike Weir]

Following the announcement of the closure of ROs for onshore wind, many renewables developers are worried about what else might be in the pipeline. Will the Minister give an absolute assurance that there are no plans to cut the funds available through contracts for difference for offshore wind developments?

[Andrea Leadsom]

As the hon. Gentleman will know, the policy on CfDs is being considered right now. It is certainly our intention to continue to promote a successful and thriving renewables industry and we will make announcements in due course.

[Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)]

The hon. Lady has already mentioned the Swansea Bay tidal lagoon, which is an excellent and very exciting project that will create thousands of jobs in my constituency. It is critical that the foot is kept on the accelerator; otherwise the timings will be seriously out, seriously jeopardising the future of the project. What discussions has she had with state aid officials in Brussels to ensure that the project is not held up there?

[Andrea Leadsom]

We are very focused on removing all the potential obstacles to the project, including by having conversations with the European Commission on state aid issues. Our foot is firmly on the accelerator and we will do everything we can to support the project.

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

9. What steps she is taking to help households improve their energy efficiency.

[Sue Hayman (Workington) (Lab)]

16. What steps she is taking to help households improve their energy efficiency.

[Joan Ryan (Enfield North) (Lab)]

20. What steps she is taking to help households improve their energy efficiency.

[The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change (Amber Rudd)]

I am determined to help keep homes warmer for less, save carbon and meet our important fuel poverty targets. We need a long-term, coherent and affordable policy framework that ensures that Government support is targeted at those who need it most. My Department is already working closely with consumer groups and industry alike to test and develop ideas based on evidence of what works, and I look forward to setting out our approach in the autumn.

[Debbie Abrahams]

More than 2 million households are in fuel poverty, including 4,259 in my constituency of Oldham East and Saddleworth. Energy efficiency is key to tackling fuel poverty, but with an 80% reduction in such measures in this Parliament, is the Secretary of State serious about doing that or is she just going to redefine what it is?

[Amber Rudd]

The hon. Lady will be aware that the previous Government redefined fuel poverty to the satisfaction of most groups, who agreed that we had proposed a better definition. She should be under no illusion: addressing fuel poverty will remain a priority of this Government. She is probably aware that the energy company obligation, or ECO, measures installed by the energy companies have been the most efficient way of delivering energy efficiency. In her constituency, 6,323 measures were installed to nearly 5,000 individual households and £700,000 was invested through the green deal communities fund. I hope that she saw some significant improvements under the previous Government and we will continue on that route.

[Sue Hayman]

In the coming years, there is a huge amount of proposed infrastructure investment in west Cumbria as well as a new academy school to be built in my constituency. We also have the new National College for Nuclear. What financial incentives and support will the Government provide to developers so that energy efficiency is central when we build these large projects?

[Amber Rudd]

The hon. Lady is right to focus on the need for energy efficiency in large buildings. I am delighted to hear about the infrastructure investment in her constituency. The National College for Nuclear will help the UK seize opportunities for economic growth in the nuclear industry and provide skills and jobs. I remind her that the DECC-funded Salix loan scheme provides public sector organisations with interest-free loans to make a range of energy efficiency improvements in their existing estates. The scheme has already supported more than 1,000 public bodies, so she might find it helpful.

[Joan Ryan]

Some 4,000 households in my constituency —that is one in 10—are in fuel poverty. The energy company obligation, which suffered severe cuts in the last Parliament, is due to end in 2017. How will the Government meet their responsibilities to people in fuel poverty once the ECO has ended?

[Amber Rudd]

The right hon. Lady is right that the ECO continues until 2017. Under the last Government, 2,000 measures were installed in her constituency, and the ECO remains a successful way of accessing homes in fuel poverty. Of course, we also have our fuel poverty commitments to ensure that, through five-year measuring plans, we deliver a C band for homes by 2030, with bands E and D on the way to getting there. There are many different ways of delivering efficiencies in homes to reduce fuel poverty, and the best thing we can do at the moment is take advice from industry and work with voluntary groups to work out what they think is the best way do that. We will come back to the House with the results of that.

[Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)]

I welcome the Secretary of State and the Minister of State to their new positions. They have made a good start, although “putting your foot down on the accelerator”—a phrase they have used repeatedly—is perhaps not the most energy efficient approach. Does my right hon. Friend share my astonishment at the ruling by the European Court of Justice earlier this month that effectively directs the UK to charge full-rate VAT on the supply and installation of energy-saving materials? Will she robustly, and jointly with the Treasury, challenge that ruling and impress on our European partners that if they are serious about energy efficiency, that is exactly the wrong way to go about it?

[Amber Rudd]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. The ruling is unwelcome and we are considering the full implications. No one who has already pre-ordered or prepaid will be affected by the changes required as a result of the ECJ ruling, but we remain committed to tackling fuel poverty, and we will look at it very carefully.

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

Energy efficiency measures are the only way to prevent fuel poverty, and the levels of fuel poverty in the UK are a national disgrace. The Conservative manifesto promised that just 1 million homes would be insulated in this Parliament—a reduction of more than 80% from what was done in the last Parliament. At that rate, it will take more than 100 years to eliminate fuel poverty. That would be financially and morally wrong. What is the Secretary of State going to do to put that right?

[Amber Rudd]

It is disappointing that the hon. Gentleman fails to recognise the good progress we made in the last Parliament, both with the ECO and various grant groups that went out and reached people in fuel poverty. I was particularly pleased with the green deal communities programme, which went street by street to reach people in fuel poverty and was able to build community confidence in the programme—not everybody wants strangers coming to their door. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are engaging with industry and voluntary groups to make sure that the new proposals from this Government tackle fuel poverty in the most efficient way. We are also working with the Department for Work and Pensions to use, where possible, the data that it holds to target measures more efficiently.

[Mr Speaker]

Nobody could accuse the right hon. Lady of excluding from her answers any matter that she judges in any circumstance might be thought material.

[Stuart Blair Donaldson (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (SNP)]

10. What steps the Government are taking to support the oil and gas industry; and if she will make a statement.

[The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Andrea Leadsom)]

The Government are committed to supporting the oil and gas industry, which is vital to our energy supply, as well as supporting 375,000 jobs across the UK. We are establishing the new Oil and Gas Authority, which is already helping industry to drive down costs and improve efficiencies. The Chancellor has also introduced strong fiscal measures to maintain and build investment.

[Stuart Blair Donaldson]

The Aberdeen and Grampian chamber of commerce oil and gas survey showed that the industry believes that more needs to be done to increase exploration drilling, without which there will be no new projects. Will the Minister engage with the industry to develop proposals to incentivise exploration and protect long-term employment?

[Andrea Leadsom]

We are absolutely committed to that. The establishment of the Oil and Gas Authority under Dr Andy Samuel is a vital part of that. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Government have provided some money for seismic studies to identify potential new finds. I assure him that we and the Oil and Gas Authority will be doing everything we can to support the very important work to maximise economic recovery from the North sea basin.

[Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)]

The oil and gas industry in the North sea faces very challenging times, and it is very important to the East Anglian economy. New Anglia local enterprise partnership is creating an oil and gas taskforce to support the industry in these difficult times. Will my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State arrange for her Department to be represented on the taskforce, alongside my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis) and me?

[Andrea Leadsom]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for mentioning this to me. I had the great pleasure of speaking in Parliament at a recent east of England oil and gas meeting. I would be delighted to meet him to discuss this further, and if appropriate, we will certainly make sure that officials attend the meeting he mentions.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

11. What estimate she has made of the number of jobs in Scotland supported by the renewable energy industry.

[Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)]

15. What estimate she has made of the number of jobs in Scotland supported by the renewable energy industry.

[The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change (Amber Rudd)]

Renewable energy supported around 23,200 jobs in Scotland in 2013. As green energy is not about having wind farms

“any time, any place, anywhere”,

which is how the Scottish Minister for Business, Energy and Tourism once criticised the approach in Scotland, it is important to note that these jobs were supported across a variety of renewable energy technologies, and by supply chains.

[Peter Grant]

We know that some jobs will be lost as a result of the Government’s decision prematurely to withdraw the subsidy from onshore wind farms. The Government were reluctant to tell us how many jobs they thought would be lost. Will they tell us what an acceptable price would be, in terms of Scottish jobs? How many jobs would have to be lost in the Scottish renewables sector before the price was deemed too high?

[Amber Rudd]

The hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to hear me say that job creation and job support are incredibly important in Scotland, and in the UK overall. Renewable energy remains a growth area, with high employment and investment. Scotland has a number of employees in the offshore wind sector, which continues to grow. I attended a conference on the sector yesterday. It is beginning to have a serious impact on exports.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

Of course, it is not only existing jobs that will be affected by the Government’s short-sighted policy on onshore wind; the opportunity to create further highly skilled and well-paid jobs will also be affected, perhaps even more so. As the Minister of State said, around 19,000 people owe their livelihoods to the UK’s onshore wind industry, but according to RenewableUK, that figure could have increased to as many as 37,000 by 2023 if Government policies had remained supportive. Is it not nonsense for the Government to turn their back on an industry with such enormous jobs potential?

[Amber Rudd]

As my hon. Friend the Minister of State pointed out, onshore wind has been a great success. If we continued to support it at the level that we had done over the past few years, there would be an impact on everybody’s bills, because we already have an aim for 2020 of getting between 11 GW to 13 GW from onshore wind; if onshore wind continues to be deployed at the level it has been over the past few years, that will contribute to an additional cost on people’s bills. I urge the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald) to think about his constituents, who would not welcome another £10 or £15 on their bills.

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

Has my right hon. Friend any estimates of, or would she care to hazard a guess, how much it would cost the average Scottish household if the ambitions of the Scottish National party to resume subsidising wind farms were realised, but the cost was met by the Scottish Government and Scottish taxpayer?

[Amber Rudd]

My right hon. Friend makes a very good point that highlights the impact on people’s bills of supporting these subsidies. We have the levy control framework to make sure that we provide for a cap. As for what it would cost the Scottish Government to reapply the subsidies, I urge them to look at that themselves.

[Ms Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)]

19. The Secretary of State will by now have received a copy of a letter from the Binn Group in my constituency, with whom I met earlier this morning. It is involved in one of the £3 billion-worth of onshore wind projects that are in the planning pipeline and at risk owing to the Government’s recent decision. Will she confirm that her Department will consider that letter, to help protect at least 100 jobs at the Binn Group and ensure the creation of at least 100 more?

[Amber Rudd]

I thank the hon. Lady for her question. I have not yet seen her letter, but of course I will look carefully at what she has asked me to look at. I would, however, ask her, her constituents, and the developers who have obviously come to see her to bear it in mind that we have made our statement, and that our decision will be taken forward in primary legislation: we will end onshore wind subsidies.

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

13. What recent assessment she has made of the potential contribution of carbon abatement technologies to the Government’s decarbonisation strategy.

[The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Andrea Leadsom)]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new position as Chairman of the Environmental Audit Committee. To meet our legally binding target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 80% by 2050 we are taking action right across the economy. This means delivering carbon savings through a range of technologies from nuclear and carbon capture and storage to low carbon heat technologies and energy efficiency measures in homes and businesses.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

I welcome both Ministers to their positions. The fourth carbon budget report stressed the criticality of carbon abatement technology, and increasingly so post-2030, but the International Energy Agency report shows that if we fail, particularly on carbon capture and storage, the costs of decarbonisation and lower emissions could be up to 70% higher. On that basis, if the fifth carbon budget recommends greater investment in carbon abatement technologies and a faster trajectory to decarbonisation, will the Government accept those recommendations without reservation?

[Andrea Leadsom]

The Government have an open mind on the subject. We will put forward our policies towards the fifth carbon budget by the end of 2016. The hon. Gentleman is exactly right to point out the vital importance for the future of carbon capture and storage. He will be aware of the two projects—White Rose and Peterhead—that are currently under discussion, looking to achieve fulfilment so that we can prove the technology works. We hope to make progress on that.

[Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)]

Trees can play a very important part in combating greenhouse gases—the gases that we are all talking about which cause climate change. How much is the Department encouraging tree planting, especially in my constituency, Taunton Deane—where we have had terrible flooding and are dealing with the wider area—and worldwide? If we stopped cutting down the rain forest, that would have an enormous effect.

[Andrea Leadsom]

My hon. Friend is right to raise that point. She will be aware that tree planting has benefits not only for reducing carbon emissions, but for improving public health. In our environment it is vital to have trees and proper landscaping, so I can assure her that the Government are committed to such projects, and that the private sector, too, is pretty good at ensuring that its developments are properly screened and properly planted.

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

21. The Prime Minister told the Liaison Committee in 2010 that he supported a substantially decarbonised electricity sector by 2020. Is that still his view, and does “substantially” mean more or less than 75%?

[Andrea Leadsom]

It is, indeed, still the Prime Minister’s view. The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that in real terms between 1990 and 2013 emissions dropped by 30%. That is good. There is a lot more to be done, but we are making progress and we are fully committed to it.

[Mr Speaker]

Patience rewarded. I call Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil.

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

Thank you for the encouragement, Mr Speaker. On the environment, since the Secretary of State said what she did about onshore wind, the industry needs to know what the Government intend for feed-in tariffs, contracts for difference and islands with regard to onshore wind.

[Andrea Leadsom]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new position. He is right. We want investor certainty. Our priority for the Department is to keep the bills down, to keep energy security and to decarbonise. In order to do that, we recognise that significant private sector investment is needed. We want to give certainty as soon as possible, and that is what we will be doing.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

T1. If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

[The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change (Amber Rudd)]

I would like to take this opportunity to highlight an issue that crossed my desk earlier this week. Tuesday was National Women in Engineering Day, and in a visit to National Grid I was pleased not only to see the robust arrangements that it has in place to ensure the security of our energy supply, but to meet some of its fantastic female engineers. We had an excellent discussion in which I heard their views on what more we need to do to encourage girls and women to become engineers, including identifying more role models and challenging stereotypes, which are often reinforced from a young age. Only 6% of UK engineers are female—clearly, too few. That demonstrates how much remains to be done, and I was delighted to meet this group of inspiring women who go out and act as role models.

[Kerry McCarthy]

The Competition and Markets Authority will publish its remedies for the energy retail market next week, but what does the Minister think should be done to address the persistent exploitation by the big six of their most loyal customers? New customers are attracted with loss-leading tariffs, whereas the most vulnerable customers are often kept on the highest tariffs. What consideration has the Secretary of State given to a proposal by Ovo Energy that Ofgem set a 12-month social tariff for which all the suppliers’ most vulnerable customers should be auto-enrolled?

[Amber Rudd]

The hon. Lady raises an important point. We have taken several helpful steps to encourage switching; we had a campaign to do that at the end of the previous Parliament, and we had outreach campaigns to support local communities in getting to the harder-to-reach people, so there are great opportunities for switching. However, I accept her point that there are still people on a default tariff, so something needs to be done to access them. That is why we referred this to the Competition and Markets Authority, and I very much look forward to its response and, hopefully, to taking its guidelines to ensure we address that.

[Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)]

T6. My constituency will benefit from the knock-on effects of the development of Hinkley Point C, the first new nuclear power station to be built in the UK for decades, which will bring with it a predicted 4,000 jobs across Somerset. Can the Secretary of State give assurances: a, that the project is progressing; and b, that the Government are working to enable and encourage other low-carbon industries to develop around it, as they will benefit not only Taunton Deane and Somerset, but the wider economy?

[The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Andrea Leadsom)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that important point. As she knows, the Government are committed to supporting new nuclear. Hinkley Point C is close to a final investment decision, and we are doing everything we can to push that as fast as we can. We are also excited about other opportunities for new nuclear, and we will be lending those as much support as possible.

[Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab)]

The Green Investment Bank is a vital tool for boosting our clean energy generation. Thus far, the bank has used £2 billion of investment to leverage a further £6 billion of private capital. However, it has been shackled by the Government’s refusal to grant crucial borrowing powers. The Minister has confirmed that the Government will privatise the bank. What reassurances can the Secretary of State give that the Chancellor is not simply raiding the bank’s capital reserves and, in so doing, robbing the UK of a unique tool to power the clean energy sector?

[Amber Rudd]

As the hon. Lady is surely aware, the green investment bank has been very successful in unlocking private sector investment. It was set up by the Government in the previous Parliament, with £1.8 billion of Government money, and it has successfully become a market leader, located as it is in Edinburgh. In the previous Parliament the Labour party called for the bank to have more borrowing powers, but we have gone one step further and are now allowing it to raise more capital in order to take advantage of that. I can reassure her and hon. Members that the purpose of the Green Investment Bank is, and will remain, green investment.

[Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con)]

T7. Improving home energy efficiency in my constituency is important for reducing fuel poverty. Will the Minister update me on the progress the Government are making in Kingswood in that regard?

[Amber Rudd]

The Government are committed to tackling fuel poverty and meeting the 2030 statutory target. We estimate that in 2013 there were around 3,300 fuel-poor households in Kingswood. By the end of March 2015 the energy company obligation had delivered over 1,600 measures in around 1,400 households in Kingswood, including 336 affordable warmth measures, which were targeted at low-income and vulnerable households. Keeping homes warmer for less and helping those who find it most difficult to pay are my top priorities.

[Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)]

T2. This week The Lancet commission on health and climate change stated that tackling climate change could be the greatest global health opportunity of the 21st century, but it will require cross-Department co-operation and Government action. What reassurance can the Secretary of State give my constituents that there will be cross-Department Government action on the issue and that there will be support for Government health programmes such as those explaining the benefits of walking and cycling as part of the lasting legacy of Bristol being the green capital of Europe?

[Amber Rudd]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on representing Europe’s green capital city. I visited Bristol last year and saw the great initiatives that are being taken. I can reassure her that we are taking action to ensure that we remain at the forefront of green targets and campaigns. She should take comfort from the action that this Government are taking.

[Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)]

T8. Will the Secretary of State update the House on the progress being made towards developing fusion technology?

[Amber Rudd]

The United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority carries out fusion research on behalf of the Government. Its scientists and engineers are working with partners around the globe to develop that potential source of clean energy. It is an example of an exciting potential source of clean energy, and we are very keen to use our scientist and funds to back innovation to take our targets forward.

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

T3. The MOZES—Meadows Ozone Energy Services —community energy co-operative was to be at the forefront of the clean energy revolution in my constituency, but the Government have not delivered on promised support for the project, despite the best efforts of Greg Barker when he was a Minister in the Department, and it is now at risk of collapse. Will the Secretary of State agree to meet me and representatives of the project to see if a solution can be found?

[Amber Rudd]

I will of course meet the hon. Lady. She is right: there are measures in place to support community energy groups like MOZES. Community energy groups can now apply for the rural and urban community energy funds, which provide funding to support community electricity projects in England. I am pleased to say that the community energy sector is thriving, having attracted up to £29 million through community shares since 2012. I understand that the Government have provided financial support to MOZES and other community energy projects through the low-carbon communities challenge. I recognise the particular issues that the hon. Lady may have regarding the community group, and I will meet her to take the matter further if necessary.

[Dr Tania Mathias (Twickenham) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that a vital part of the debate about how to address climate change is our energy consumption? In that context, people in Twickenham are very aware of the three Rs—reduce, reuse, recycle—but we do not have smart meters everywhere. I do not see a smart meter here; I do not have one in my office. How is the roll-out of smart meters going?

[Amber Rudd]

My hon. Friend is exactly right. It is incredibly important to reduce the amount of energy we use in order to be more efficient, pay lower bills, and reduce our carbon footprint. I can tell her that good progress has been made. The industry is making extensive preparations in meter procurement, in building and testing its systems, and in staff recruitment and training. Consumers are already benefiting from the roll-out. About 1.5 million meters are already operating under the programme, putting consumers in control, but the full roll-out is due to complete by 2020.

[Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)]

T4. The Secretary of State will be aware of the very serious pressures that Hatfield colliery in my constituency is under, partly as a result of the doubling of the carbon price floor earlier this year. May I urge her to work urgently with her colleagues at the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills to ensure that the mine can at least stay open until the summer of next year, as originally planned, because fairness to workers in industries affected is an essential part of a just low- carbon transition?

[Amber Rudd]

The right hon. Gentleman is aware that the Government agreed in May to provide Hatfield Colliery Partnership with the £20 million support it needed to continue operating until its planned closure in August. To protect the taxpayer interest, the repayable grant is available for drawing down in tranches subject to performance. To date, the company has drawn down £12.6 million. My officials are in regular contact with Hatfield and are fully aware of the situation.

[Ben Howlett (Bath) (Con)]

During her visit to Bath prior to the election, the Secretary of State saw the sustainable energy plant, one of the UK’s leading centres, which is providing hot water to thousands of homes. What plans do the Government have for a roll-out across the rest of the UK?

[Amber Rudd]

I thank my hon. Friend for that question and, indeed, for the visit, when we saw an excellent example of industry and finance coming together to promote different innovations in this area. I would be delighted to hear more about progress that the initiative has made, because the fascinating thing about this whole area of energy use and development is that it is so fast-changing, and we need to make sure that we access all the innovations we can in order to deliver.

[Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)]

T5. There is a huge opportunity to increase renewable energy production and save public money by installing solar panels on public buildings such as schools. This has the added benefit of providing an opportunity for children to learn about climate change and to see at first hand how it can be addressed. Given the up-front cost of installation at a time when school budgets are already under pressure, what additional assistance can the Secretary of State provide to make it easier for schools and communities to generate their own clean energy?

[Amber Rudd]

I share the hon. Lady’s view. Having solar on schools is a fantastic way for young people to understand that energy can be collected from the sun, and they can link that closely to what they do in school. We in the Department are very keen to find ways to enable schools to do this. People will hear more from the Government very soon about the use of solar specifically on public buildings and on schools.

[David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)]

Last year there was a considerable increase in the amount of electricity produced from nuclear globally, but that was not the case in the UK. Do Ministers agree that it is extremely important that we make progress not just on Hinkley Point C, but on Sizewell, Wylfa and other stations, if we are going to come close to meeting our climate change obligations?

[Andrea Leadsom]

My hon. Friend is exactly right. About 19% of our electricity needs today come from old nuclear, much of which is due to shut down in the next decade, so it is vital that the Government set out a single, coherent energy policy that gets us to where we need to be: keeping the lights on, powering the economy with cleaner energy and making sure that people pay less for their bills. New nuclear is a vital part of the UK’s energy mix and we are absolutely committed to bringing it forward.

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

If it is right and just to subsidise by billions of pounds French multinational energy companies, is it not right and just to subsidise the British deep-mining coal industry and save British jobs?

[Andrea Leadsom]

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that there is cross-House agreement that unabated coal cannot continue. It is extremely high carbon-using and dangerous to human health, and there is a long legacy of coal, which is not desirable. We have invested to enable coal mines to close down in an orderly fashion. Where possible, we are looking at alternative solutions and, of course, we are bringing forward carbon capture and storage as a long-term solution.

[Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)]

Offshore wind has the potential to create many jobs in East Anglia and it is great news that two schemes—East Anglia One and Galloper—are now moving quickly forward. For the industry to realise its full potential, it is vital for it to have a long-term economic plan beyond 2020. Will my right hon. Friend work with the industry to put that plan in place?

[Amber Rudd]

I share my hon. Friend’s enthusiasm for offshore wind in terms both of generation in the UK and of the supply chain. It has fantastic potential for export. Yesterday I visited the offshore wind conference in London and it was buzzing with excitement and enthusiasm. I reassure him that we will provide that certainty in due course.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

May I also wish the Ministers well for the future in their new positions? What steps are they taking to ensure greater collaboration between the agri-food industry and the renewable energy sector, particularly on solar farms and panels and on diversification for farmers?

[Amber Rudd]

The hon. Gentleman is right that there needs to be increased collaboration between the agri-businesses and my Department to ensure that there is no further friction on solar. Solar can no longer access the renewable obligation, which was for the large-scale solar farms, and we will review the best way to ensure that solar is used in the most efficient manner, including on public buildings and schools.

[Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab)]

As the Member for Swansea East, where the tidal bay lagoon will be based, I know that there is a great desire to get the project up and running and delivering on what it promises. Will the Secretary of State give an indication of the timescales in announcing the conclusion of negotiations for the contract for difference?

[Amber Rudd]

I share in principle the hon. Lady’s enthusiasm, but there is a lot of due diligence to do first, in order to reach any final numbers. There is also the issue of state aid and of cost, as has been raised by the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock), who is no longer in his place. Although we share in principle the hon. Lady’s enthusiasm, it is at an early stage and we cannot give a timetable at the moment.

[Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

I have been saving the hon. Lady up and her time has arrived.

[Mary Glindon]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Does the Secretary of State share my concern that Maersk, in receiving a substantial tax allowance from the Treasury for its Culzean project, will place very few jobs in the UK? Will she meet me and representatives of the industry from my region to discuss how her Department can ensure fair play for the UK industry before she makes a decision or approves the fuel development plan?

[Amber Rudd]

The hon. Lady has, of course, long run the oil and gas parliamentary group. I look forward to working closely with her to ensure that the oil and gas industry gets fair treatment and is supported as much as it can be, given the situation with the oil price. We need to make sure that we give it as much support as possible. I will certainly meet her to discuss it further.

[Mr Speaker]

Last but not least, I call Graham Jones.

[Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)]

Fuel poverty in east Lancashire is linked to hard-to-treat cavities, and the Government’s changes to the energy company obligation cancelled a lot of programmes. There is a large stock of terraced houses in my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Kate Hollern). What policies are the Government going to introduce to deal with hard-to-treat cavities, after they effectively cancelled the previous programmes by reducing the subsidy?

[Amber Rudd]

I take issue with the hon. Gentleman’s description of us cancelling the previous programme. In fact, what we did was get the balance right to ensure that bill payers were not overburdened by the costs of ECO, while continuing to focus ECO on the most fuel-poor. That element was not changed. We recognise that cavity wall insulation and cavity walls in general are an important part of making homes more fuel-efficient. ECO carries on until 2017 and we will be coming forward with more suggestions before then.

Child Poverty

Thursday 25th June 2015 Commons Chamber

10:35

[Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will answer a question about the state of child poverty.

[The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr Iain Duncan Smith)]

The latest low-income statistics, based on the “Households Below Average Income” report, are published today, covering April 2013 to March 2014. They show that the percentage of individuals and children in relative low income is at its lowest since the 1980s. The latest figures also show that the proportion of people in both relative and absolute low income remained flat on the year for children, working-age adults and disabled people. For pensioners, there is a statistical change, but the proportion in relative and absolute low income has increased slightly.

The figures that I have quoted are measured against the retail prices index. As the House will know, the RPI has become a discredited measurement anyway, as the consumer prices index is used everywhere else in the world. Therefore, I have also taken the liberty of putting into the publication what the UK Statistics Authority has also produced: the effects when measured against CPI, which is much more widely used. Those figures are even more positive than the others we have seen today. Today’s figures demonstrate that if we deal with the root causes of poverty—as I believe this Government are doing—then even under a measure of poverty that I have consistently over the last few years described as flawed, we can still have an impact.

Let me remind the House of some of the important things that my Government have done to help families on low income through tackling root causes. In education, we have introduced the pupil premium and tackled failing schools with the free schools programme. There is our commitment to supporting families through the groundbreaking troubled families programme, which is turning really difficult families around in difficult communities. There is our investment in early-years support and childcare and our unprecedented back-to-work programmes that have helped support hundreds of thousands of people, once written off, back into work. We have also raised the tax threshold, which means that those on the lowest incomes often do not pay any tax, or if they do, they pay a lower rate of tax and keep more of their own income. Finally, there is our fundamental belief that the most powerful way to change lives is by creating a welfare system that makes work pay, writes no one off and supports people into work.

That is what we have been doing and what the left has failed to understand—particularly the Labour party. If you deal with the root causes of poverty, of which work is a critical component, many of the symptoms start to sort themselves out. Today’s figures show, I believe, how important it is to both balance the books and continue reforming welfare.

[Chris Leslie]

This morning’s statistics show a depressing slowdown in the progress that we should be making as a country towards the abolition of child poverty in the UK. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the numbers of children in absolute poverty have risen over his time in office? Will he confirm that last year, 19% of children were in absolute poverty, and that this year, 19% of children are still in absolute poverty? Will he also confirm that this year, 17% of children were in relative poverty, and that there are still 17% of children in relative poverty today?

Has the Secretary of State dropped the ambition to end child poverty by 2020? This is not a time for complacency. The Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission has warned that there is now “no realistic hope” of that target being met. The Prime Minister says that he will be

“judged on how we tackle poverty”,

so what is the Government’s plan to catch up on the lost ground? Will the Secretary of State pause and reflect on the fact that nearly one in five children in this country is still growing up without some of the basics? We are talking about the lives of children up and down this country—about whether their parents can put money in the meter to keep their home warm in winter, and about whether they have something or very little for their tea.

The Child Poverty Act 2010, which Ministers opposite supported, placed one of the most important duties on the Government: to ensure that in the 21st century, children do not grow up suffering deprivation or lacking the necessities that most of us take for granted. Yet progress has now slowed to a snail’s pace. Would it not be shocking if the Government departed from the consensus that children should be free from such disadvantage by the end of this decade? I therefore ask the Secretary of State to give a straight answer to the House today: does he remain committed to the Child Poverty Act or not?

Do not the Government need a serious strategy to address low pay and boost productivity? They should be providing incentives for a living wage and new opportunities for high-quality skills, as a more positive route out of poverty. But what does this Secretary of State do when faced with an end to the progress in reducing child poverty? He threatens to cut £5 billion from the tax credits of children, which would mean 3.7 million working families losing, on average, £1,400 a year. That will not address child poverty; it will add to it.

Does the Secretary of State realise that it is parents who are already working who would be hit by such a decision? How does it help to make work pay to pull the rug from underneath them in that way? Why is he trying to kid people into thinking that such a hit to incomes can be easily replaced? Unless he is planning a rise of 25% in the minimum wage, that will not happen.

Labour lifted more than 1 million children out of relative poverty and more than 2 million children out of absolute poverty. On the Secretary of State’s watch, progress has stalled. Is it true that, instead of developing policies to tackle low pay, the Government, faced with statistics that show such poor progress, will try to erase the figure altogether, redefine the measure and pretend that the problem has gone away? Is he really going to propose that statistical redefinition? The Conservative party manifesto promised that they would

“work to eliminate child poverty and introduce better measures to drive real change”.

Nobody realised that meant that they would just change the measure. Instead of shifting the goalposts when things get uncomfortable, Ministers should take responsibility and tackle low pay, not attack the low-paid.

[Mr Duncan Smith]

The Opposition, and particularly the hon. Gentleman, have scored a massive own goal today. They tabled the urgent question before the statistics came out, so certain were they and their friends on the left that the statistics would show a massive rise. They were wrong. They cannot accept that our welfare reforms, which they never made in their time, are working.

I remind the hon. Gentleman that I am committed to the purpose of getting people out of poverty and ending the process of families being in poverty. Most of what I have done over the past 10 years has been dedicated to doing that. The trouble with the Labour party is that it is wedded to this income measure. Its whole policy was skewed as a direct result of that.

Our reforms have tackled the root causes of poverty. Employment is up by over 2 million since 2010. I remember the hon. Gentleman saying that employment would fall as a direct result of our changes. The level and rate of children in workless households is at a record low. The proportion of households in social housing that are in work is the highest it has ever been since records began. The rate and level of children in workless households is also at a record low. That is tackling the root causes of poverty.

The truth is that the Opposition have egg all over their face today. I find the hon. Gentleman’s comments close to rank hypocrisy, because they comprehensively failed to meet their own targets, despite dumping huge sums of money into the welfare system. They did nothing to transform people’s lives. They missed their own target to halve child poverty by 2010. Under the Labour Government, in-work poverty rose by 20%, even though they ploughed money into the welfare system, increasing welfare spending by 60%. Let me remind the Opposition how they did that. Tax credit spending rocketed in the years before each election. In 2003-04 it rose by 60%, and in 2004-05 it rose by 7.2%. Then, strangely, between elections it went flat and even fell slightly. Then just before the 2010 election, it rose by 14.4% and then 8.5%.

The reality is that we set out in our manifesto that we need to look at new measures of child poverty. Looking at life chances is the right way to do it, to get to the root causes of why people get into poverty. The current measures led the last Labour Government to a benefit system that gave families an extra pound here or there just to push them above the poverty line but did nothing to transform their lives.

Let me give an example of a family who are officially in poverty under those measures, with parents who have huge drug problems. When they go over the line, according to the measurement, they are not in poverty, but because the parents are likely to spend all their money on drugs, the children do not get fed. The reality is that the measurement is not of that family’s life chances but only of the income transfer.

At the beginning of the last Parliament, I started a debate about whether the current measures were a sensible way of directing Government efforts towards changing people’s lives. We undertook a consultation in 2012 and 2013 that received a wide range of responses, with a broad consensus that the current measures did not recognise the range of actions needed to improve children’s life chances. As a result, the Government have a clear manifesto commitment on child poverty—we will work to eliminate it and introduce better measures to drive real change in children’s lives by getting to the root causes.

I believe that we have a proud record of tackling the problem. We have raised the minimum wage faster and further than the last Government did and focused on supporting families, improving educational attainment, supporting people into work and allowing people to keep more of what they earn. Today’s figures are a vindication of our approach, and as the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field), whom I see in his place, said this morning:

“Most of the electorate…find the definition of poverty…as defined by academics and politicians to be utterly bewildering.”

I have always believed passionately in a welfare system focused on changing lives. Today shows that not only has Labour lost the election, it has lost the argument. No wonder it is referred to as the welfare party. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. There has been a very considerable cacophony in the Chamber. I can advise the House that at least three dozen colleagues are seeking to catch my eye on this important matter. I want to try to accommodate the level of interest, but we have business questions to follow and then a statement by the Secretary of State for Transport, before we embark on a significantly subscribed debate following the Anderson report, so there is a premium on brevity from both Back and Front Benchers. I hope that we will be given a tutorial in that by Sir Oliver Heald.

[Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)]

I start by congratulating my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on the best figures in his and my time in the House.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is sad to see Labour concentrating on statistics and benefits when the central insight that the Government have had, which is working, is that this is all about work, education and tackling barriers to employment?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

My hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right. We are determined to bring about life change to improve people’s lives in the poorest communities. I made the point that more households in social housing are in work than ever before, and that is life change. They are taking control of their lives.

[Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Lab)]

May I congratulate the Secretary of State on the public relations success of winding up the media with the idea that these would be the worst figures ever published? Might that ingenuity now be applied to developing indices on life chances? What taxpayers are interested in is whether we can prevent poor children from becoming poor adults. Might he ask the Select Committee on Work and Pensions to undertake that inquiry and report to the House and then to his Social Justice Committee, so that the Government might act on it before the year is out?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

May I just correct the right hon. Gentleman on one small fact? I have not spent my time winding up the media. With respect, I think he needs to look at those on his Front Bench, and some of their friends, who have spent the whole time winding up the media.

I welcome the right hon. Gentleman to his new post. He knows very well that the door is open, and I am happy to sit down and discuss that proposition, and, more importantly, what I believe should be in the measures.

[Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)]

Making sure that work pays is vital to lifting families out of poverty. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the effective roll-out of universal credit is critical to achieving the goal of reducing poverty?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I welcome my hon. Friend to her place. Yes, universal credit will reduce poverty, because it makes every hour of work pay. That means that going into work is no longer a tough decision: it becomes an easier decision and progressing into full-time work becomes much easier.

[Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)]

It is a sad day for all of us when we come to this Chamber and hear that the Conservative Government wish to redefine child poverty. It takes me back to what we faced under the Thatcher Government at the end of the ’70s and the beginning of the ’80s, when they fiddled and changed the unemployment statistics. History is repeating itself. The Child Poverty Action Group in Scotland has said that on the basis of the £12 billion of cuts that are to come between now and 2020, an additional 100,000 children in Scotland will be pushed into poverty. It is an utter, shameful disgrace that that is happening today in a civilised society and wealthy country.

I see from the figures released for Scotland that 210,000 children in Scotland are living in relative poverty after housing costs—22% of children in the country of Scotland. After housing costs, 140,000 children are living in combined low income and material deprivation—an increase of more than 20,000 in the past year. That is the reality of what the previous Government’s economic agenda has done to Scotland, and we know there is more to come if the right hon. Gentleman and his Government get their way. [Interruption.] Because of the impact of the Government’s policy in Scotland—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Let me explain for the benefit of the House, because some people do not have long enough memories, that when the Liberal Democrats were the third party, in respect of urgent questions they received an allocation of time comparable to that of the person who tabled the question. Of course, the hon. Gentleman will wish to try to preserve the attention of the House, but the hon. Gentleman is enjoying the entitlement only that was previously accorded to third parties. I hope he will therefore be accorded appropriate courtesy.

[Ian Blackford]

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

As I was saying, the Scottish Government are having to intervene. We have funded poverty action campaigns in Scotland, with an additional £300 million, against the bedroom tax and other measures to try to alleviate some of the problems this Government are causing for our people. Is it not a disgrace that in my own constituency, for example, the biggest increase in food bank use has come from those who are in work? That is the reality of this Government’s policies and that is why, in the election campaign, the Scottish National party campaigned for a £2 increase in the minimum wage over the lifetime of this Parliament and the adoption of the living wage. It is unacceptable that anyone in this country should be living in poverty. Far too many families in Scotland, and throughout the UK, are having to make the choice of whether to heat their home or feed their children. That is morally unacceptable.

We believe the best way to deal with poverty is to have an integration of tax and benefits, leading to a ladder that would take people out of poverty, not the stigmatisation we see from this Government which punishes the poor in our society. I ask—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. When I am on my feet, the hon. Gentleman resumes his seat—that is the situation. I am trying to be helpful to the hon. Gentleman, but I fear that subtlety did not quite work. When I see a process of constant page turning, that is a source of anxiety to the Chair. I simply say to the hon. Gentleman that the thrust of the matter has to be a series of questions. Once we get beyond that to a series of comments or rhetorical questions, I feel that the hon. Gentleman, in the interests of the House and in the interests of himself, can appropriately resume his seat. We are very grateful to him.

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I had been looking at those sheets of paper and assumed there was a bit more to come! I welcome the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) to his post. I agree that there is always more to be done. We want to eradicate poverty and child poverty. I think the figures show that we have made good progress, but I am not complacent.

The Scottish nationalists have campaigned, obviously, for independence, but they have many of the levers in their hands, and if the hon. Gentleman complains about poverty and child poverty in Scotland, my question would be: to what degree have the Scottish Government acted to make some of the changes that he wants? He made a couple of points, but my point would be that employment in Scotland is at a record high, which has not been the case in the past after a recession. The work that we have done to get people back into work, including those in workless households and in social housing, has been a huge success. It is worth reminding the hon. Gentleman that across the board in the UK, some 800,000 fewer people are in relative low income before housing costs, and 300,000 fewer children are in relative low-income households.

The hon. Gentleman spoke about reforming the benefit system so that it has a connection with the tax system; I can tell him that universal credit is exactly what he is hoping for. So far, we have had a bit of resistance from his Government. I hope he will now go back and say, “Let’s go for this full time.”

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

Does the Secretary of State agree that working to support families to prevent family breakdown is critical to improving children’s life chances, especially as family breakdown hits the poorest hardest? Does he also agree that Labour singularly failed to address that when they were in government?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

My hon. Friend is a doughty campaigner for families and for assisting families to stay to together. Many of our reforms are helping families to stay together. Our reforms to the Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission—the Child Support Agency, as it was often known in the past—hugely offers families the chance to sort their problems out before they go through the system. We are now seeing record numbers of those making their own balanced arrangements. We have put extra money—millions of pounds—into counselling for families on the verge of break-up, and we believe that that is helping them. The troubled families programme is aimed at stabilising families.

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

Poverty in inner London after housing costs is the highest in the country, at a scandalous 33%. Does the Secretary of State share my disappointment that, while we all believe that work should pay and is the best route out of poverty for many, the numbers on low pay in London have risen for the fourth year in a row and a third of a million more Londoners are now on low pay than in 2010? Can he reassure me that the way to tackle low pay is not to cut tax credits?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

What the figures show is that, as I know as a London MP, parts of London have particular and deep-rooted problems. We want to address those particular problems. First of all, it is true that people are better off in work than they would be out of work, because without work they would have no chance of raising their income. As I made clear on Monday, we also want companies to start paying people a proper wage. I have campaigned endlessly to raise the minimum wage. We have raised it, and the Government are committed to raising it further. I have said to companies, “It is time now that you pay more money to your employees, to rate them as they should be for the work that they have done.”

[Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the target-based culture of the left actually encourages dependency and makes people stay in poverty because that is the right incentive for them, and that his policies are offering a new opportunity, which is transforming people’s lives? He deserves the full support of the House and the country.

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I thank my hon. Friend, who makes a critical point. If we set up a target process that deals with only one aspect of a symptom, we will not get to the root causes. We have set out to get to those families who are the furthest away from employment, and move them into independence through employment. The figures I have given on the number of people in social housing now back in work and those on the lowest incomes now back in work are dramatic. They are better than any other records previously established.

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State has been in his post for five years. In that time, the number of households living in absolute poverty has gone up by 2 million and the number of children doing so has gone up by half a million. Is not ditching the relative poverty measure and moving to focus on absolute poverty a complete own goal?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

Let me remind the hon. Lady of the statistics. There are 800,000 fewer people on relative low income, 300,000 fewer children on relative low income, 100,000 fewer pensioners on relative low income, 670,000 fewer workless households, and 390,000 fewer children living in workless households. Those are the real statistics. Let me make this point to the hon. Lady: it is far better for us to look at the real life chances of families that were left behind by Labour. Those families were trapped in poverty because they could not change their lives, but we are changing them.

[Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the single best way out of poverty is to have a job, and is he pleased that the number of children in workless households is at a record low under this Government?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I welcome my hon. Friend to the House, and I agree with what he has said. Let me tell him about a couple of record lows. The number of workless households has fallen by more than 670,000 since 2010 and there are 50,000 fewer households in which no one has ever worked. Those are people who were left behind by the Labour Government.

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

Does the Secretary of State agree that, given the limited powers of the Scottish Government, Scottish children cannot be protected from the extreme breadth and extent of the attacks made on the welfare system by successive Conservative Governments?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I welcome the hon. Lady to the House, but she cannot have it both ways. The Scottish Government demanded and were given extra powers relating to, for instance, taxation. They cannot turn around and say, “It is not our fault that we cannot change anything in Scotland.” If SNP Members want those powers, they cannot come to the House of Commons and complain because they cannot change anything in Scotland.

[Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con)]

Poverty levels are at their lowest since the mid-1980s. That is good news, and it shows that work actually does pay, but does my right hon. Friend agree that the current poverty measure is out of date, and that we need a measure that highlights the root causes of poverty?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

As the House will know, we began a debate about that back in 2011, and engaged in a full consultation not long before the last election. I have thought for some time that we need a better way of measuring what happens to families who are trapped at the lowest income levels and do not seem to be able to change their lives. The current measures are inadequate and give no indication of how that problem can be resolved. Life change is the key, and we need to be able to measure the way in which we can bring it about.

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

Unemployment in Wales has clearly fallen, but a third of the children in Wales—200,000 children—are living in absolute poverty. What plans has the Secretary of State to tackle zero-hours contracts, insecurity at work and low pay, and does he think that cuts in child tax credit will improve the present situation dramatically?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

As the right hon. Gentleman knows, Wales has historically experienced deep-rooted problems. Some of its communities have often found themselves literally, physically, distanced from developments in other parts of Wales. However, we are working hard to ensure, through transport links, that people can travel to work more quickly, and can travel further to find jobs. As the right hon. Gentleman said, employment in Wales has improved, which it was not doing previously. We are working hard, but I should be happy to talk to him about any specific details, because I am determined to help Wales to improve even more than it has already.

[Craig Tracey (North Warwickshire) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that ensuring that all children are given a high-quality education and an opportunity to acquire vital skills is critical to enabling those who are growing up in low-income households to escape from welfare dependency and find well-paid jobs?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

Indeed I do. My hon. Friend—whom I welcome to the House—is exactly right. We must work harder to ensure that the circumstances of families with deep-rooted and deep-seated problems are turned around, and that they can obtain work and become independent, rather than depending on what the Government do.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

When the Secretary of State received the confidential Government assessment marked “sensitive”, which warned him that reducing the benefit cap could plunge up to 40,000 more children into poverty, did he stop to think about the consequences, or is he sticking to his insulting idea that people want to be on benefits, despite the reality that most people want to work but the decently paid work they need simply is not there?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I have never believed that people want to be on benefits; I actually believe the vast majority of people on benefits want to do something about that and change their lives. Everything I do is about trying to do that: every policy we have is aimed at getting the economy right and helping people get back into work.

[Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)]

The Secretary of State is right to stress that child poverty is a problem not just of income, but many families on low income need support—to make them work-ready, or those with mental health problems—and there are still many tens of thousands of children in this country with attachment problems. Although he rightly mentions the success of the troubled families programme, does he agree that we also need a pre-troubled families programme to tackle inherited problems at source, often involving attachment disorder?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I recognise and pay tribute to the huge work that my hon. Friend has done, and continues to do, to try to transform the lives of the most troubled families. The troubled families programme was a success but we are now extending it, and within that extension there is scope to do exactly what he wants to do.

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

Does the Secretary of State agree that all of us who want every child in our country to have a full and happy life do get worried about not just the issues in this morning’s debate, but the fact that responsibility for children is spread over so many Departments? There is no longer enough focus on children in a holistic sense. Will he lead the Government in doing something quite quickly about that?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

The hon. Gentleman is right—I often find myself in agreement with him. I am now tasked with chairing the Social Justice Cabinet Committee, the purpose of which is to bring together all work on families and children and to ensure that we have a concerted, single approach to it. But he is absolutely right that that is half the problem in government.

[Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

Does the Secretary of State agree that today’s statistics, showing that the percentage of children in relative low income is at its lowest level since the 1980s, are proof that this Government’s policy is working not just in that area, but in terms of social justice as a whole?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I believe that is the case, but there is hugely more to do. I do not for a moment stand here today and say, “It is all brilliantly successful”—quite the contrary. This is a very difficult area, but we are dealing with and trying to turn around some of the most troubled and difficult families. My hon. Friend is right, but we have more to do, and that is my purpose and why I am here.

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

If the situation has, according to the Secretary of State, improved substantially, why are there so many food banks—a far larger number than previously? Is it not quite clear that some Tory Members have no idea at all about the amount of poverty that exists—in many cases in their own constituencies?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. Most of my colleagues are hugely involved in food banks and help them. I welcome food banks: I welcome decent people in society trying to help others who may, for various reasons, have fallen into difficulty. I do not accept that the single cause of that is welfare reform—quite the contrary. Food bank usage has been rising over a period. It was never part of the British system, but in Germany, where we can argue that their welfare payments are higher, 1.5 million people a week use food banks—much more than people do here.

[Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)]

I welcome the Secretary of State’s commitment to tackling the root causes of poverty, but one big issue for low-income families is their level of debt. What more can the Government do to help families in that situation?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

Problem debt is a huge issue. With universal credit, through “Universal Support—delivered locally”, we are working with local authorities so that if people have a debt problem, we will continue to pay their rent but insist that, working with the council, they are put on debt programmes to help them manage their money and become independent. If they are in debt, they will not sustain themselves through work. That is the key thing to change; my hon. Friend is right.

[Conor McGinn (St Helens North) (Lab)]

Child poverty in St Helens is higher than the national average. Does the right hon. Gentleman think that taking in-work benefits away from working families would increase or decrease the level of child poverty in my constituency?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

Our purpose is to support people as they go into work and progress into full-time work—that is what universal credit is all about. I believe that what the hon. Gentleman will see as we complete its roll-out is that more families will benefit, to the degree of taking control of their lives and having that independence of a pay packet.

[Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con)]

Does the Secretary of State share my desire to focus on those children in persistent poverty—those in that situation for three years out of four—many of whom are, sadly, in my constituency and face multiple disadvantages within their family? Does he agree that they were a specific group wholly ignored by the previous Labour Government’s anti-poverty strategy?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

My hon. Friend has campaigned hard on this and he is right; one problem with setting a narrow measure such as this and then being governed by it is that it is all about rotating people at the top of the relative poverty scale and not actually dealing with the deepest and deep-set problems. Dealing with those is what our purpose must be as we go forward to look at new measures.

[Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

Blue-collar Conservatism did not last long. Instead of hitting hard-working families with billions of pounds-worth of cuts, driving up child poverty, why does the Secretary of State not instead shift the burden of deficit reduction to the very wealthy and implement sound Liberal Democrat policies, such as extending free school meals and childcare?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I welcome the right hon. Gentleman to his position. I simply remind him that for five years he was part of what we were doing, so I hope that he would welcome today’s figures. I am sure that he has a new set of policies and I am happy to look at what he has come up with.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

Before the Secretary of State was in his post, I encountered a benefit culture in my constituency surgeries; people in families where nobody had ever worked were coming to my surgeries. Gradually, over time, that has shifted, with more and more people getting jobs. Is that not the root success story: if we can get people into work, we break the benefit culture?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

That is exactly the point. It is work that takes people out of poverty. We must support those who are furthest away and have the greatest difficulty, but we want the rest of them to move into work. We want the barriers, the debt problems and all those issues to be removed and we want to get them into work. We want to improve their kids’ education and improve their life chances. My hon. Friend is spot on.

[Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)]

A failure to increase child benefit and child tax credit in line with the cost of living means that more than one in five families struggle to provide the basics for their children. Given that unacceptable situation, does the Secretary of State support the End Child Poverty campaign calling on the Government to give children’s benefits the same triple lock protection as the state pension?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his post. May I say that the latest figures from Scotland show a fall of 40,000 in the number in relative poverty between 2012-13 and 2013-14? Our position is to help the worst-off, to support pensioners through the triple lock and to get all of them into a sustained life of good income.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

This week, I attended the launch of Scope’s Extra Costs Commission, which is looking at the barriers faced by disabled people in entering the workplace. May I urge my right hon. Friend to do all he can to continue the Government’s strategy to ensure that more disabled people are able to enter the workplace?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. It is worth reminding hon. Members that, through our Disability Confident programme and the support we are putting in to get more people with disabilities back into work, there are now more people with disabilities in work than ever before. That is still not good enough—the line is still too far below the line for others in work. We want to halve that gap by the end of this Parliament.

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

The Secretary of State can use any definition he likes, but the root cause of child poverty in my area is the fact that a quarter of all the full-time jobs pay less than the living wage. What is this Government’s strategy on low pay and in-work poverty?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

One of the greatest causes of difficulties for those families was the economy crashing and people losing their jobs. It is my Government who have raised the minimum wage faster and higher. Is it high enough? No, but we are committed to raising it again in October, and we want to drive it further up. I have made it clear that employers should be paying that living wage, as the Prime Minister has said. The hon. Gentleman will have to watch this space.

[Dr Tania Mathias (Twickenham) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that we want to eradicate poverty and I even have it in my constituency of Twickenham? [Interruption.] I have seen poverty in different parts of the world, but I have not seen there the isolation of families who are relatively poor in my area. May I applaud the continuing plans for free childcare for two-year-olds? That is where I have seen part of the eradication of poverty—families coming together and being part of the community in Twickenham.

[Mr Duncan Smith]

May I welcome my hon. Friend to her post? Opposition Members were making noise while she was speaking, but they should recognise that her back story is remarkable: the work she has done to help communities and families. I welcome her to the House. She is absolutely right. Getting those families who have educational difficulties and who are isolated from the community back into the community, and supported and helped back into work is absolutely key. She is right on the money.

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

With 48% of children in Orchard Park and Greenwood ward in my constituency living in poverty, does the Secretary of State think that removing the in-work benefits will increase or reduce that number?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

The best thing we can do for those families is provide the support programmes that I have talked about. Those programmes are about helping those families get a better education, be more stable and get into work. Being in work and progressing in work is the greatest solution to poverty in the hon. Lady’s area, as it is in mine.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

Clearly, one triumph of the coalition Government was the troubled families initiative, which concentrated resources on those most in need. Will my right hon. Friend describe the impact there has been on the child poverty aspects of those families who have been assisted?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

The impact has been enormous. We dealt with 120,000 families. Against all the target measures, including being in work and educational attainment, more than 105,000 of them had their lives turned around by February 2015. We will extend that programme to incorporate more troubled families.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

For the avoidance of doubt, I should like to ask the Secretary of State a question about people who are already in work. Will he tell me whether cutting tax credits for people in work will help or harm the poorest children?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

Quite simply, the view is that we need to support people in work to ensure that they have the support that is necessary and that they progress in work. I make a simple point that I have made already in this House, which is that it is also the responsibility of companies to pay people a decent wage, and not to rely solely on Government to top up those incomes. We will continue to back those families, and universal credit will make that even more relevant with a greater level of support.

[Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con)]

What is the impact of the Government’s policy of taking low-income families out of tax altogether and how many families directly benefit from that approach?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

We have taken millions of people out of tax altogether, which has dramatically improved their incomes. Something like 25 million people have seen their tax bill reduce directly. For those who have a limited amount of income, this is a huge change and a huge support. That is not ever recognised by the Opposition, who basically raised taxes rather than lowered them.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State will have no doubt read “The Spirit Level”, which shows that social ills correlate strongly with income inequality—crime, mental illness, infant mortality and much more besides. At the worst end, there is the USA, and at the best end, the Scandinavian countries. These social ills cost billions to the public purse. We continually languish close to the USA end, rather than the Scandinavian end. Does that not make a powerful case for dramatically reducing income inequality and thus reducing child poverty?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. The purpose is to get income inequality down, and it actually fell over the last Parliament. The way to do that is to improve the numbers going into work, to get them to go further and into full-time work. Universal credit helps that enormously.

[Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)]

I invite the Secretary of State to come to Taunton and to Halcon, where he will see how the Government’s long-term strategy to address the root causes of poverty is working. Halcon is among the 4% most deprived parts of the country and has four generations of unemployed families. The One team’s project with police, education and everybody working together is working, so may I urge him to come and have a look?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I welcome my hon. Friend to this place. I absolutely will—it would not take much to get me out to Taunton. As my right hon. Friend the Chief Whip is sitting next to me, I hope that he will be tolerant when my hon. Friend asks me and I ask for a slip.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am going to try to accommodate the remaining interested colleagues, but they need to be extremely brief. I know that the Secretary of State will follow suit.

[Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State will find support on the Labour Benches if he champions a higher minimum wage and asks employers to pay the living wage. Is it not the case, however, that getting every employer to pay the living wage will take considerable time, whereas his Government are looking to cut tax credits for people who are in work and on poverty pay overnight?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

It is interesting that the hon. Gentleman says that, because I genuinely believe that we should expect British employers to pay a decent wage to the people they employ, and I am engaged in that process. I do not think that he is right, as I think it will take a much shorter time to get employers to face up to their responsibilities, but as he has offered his support I am very happy to talk about it.

[Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)]

I thank the Secretary of State for taking time to visit Nelson job centre with me. In Pendle, we have some fantastic local organisations, such as branches of Christians Against Poverty, the local citizens advice bureau, Colne Open Door and many others, running job clubs. What is his Department doing to work with such organisations and charities to help families out of poverty?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

Job centres have been given the freedom of the flexible support fund, so they have money to help to support some of these organisations. We now do a lot of work with debt counselling, and we use both local and national debt counsellors.

[Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)]

London has some of the highest levels of child poverty in the country. Given that the Secretary of State’s welfare cuts will be particularly harsh for working Londoners because of our high housing costs, why is he not at least calling for the implementation of the London living wage?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I have done. I insisted that all the contractors in my Department pay a London living wage and the Department for Work and Pensions pays a London living wage. We showed that we did not lose any jobs, that efficiency improved, and that people were happier and did a better job. I agree with the hon. Lady. I am determined that others should learn from that and recognise that we need to pay people a decent wage for the job that they do.

[Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con)]

In Kingswood, unemployment is down from 1,320 in May 2010 to 609 today, a fall of 54%. Does my right hon. Friend welcome this and agree with me that the most important action that can be taken to reduce child poverty is to reduce long-term unemployment, ultimately ending long-term welfare dependency?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I agree with my hon. Friend. Long-term unemployment is falling and we are getting to the root causes of the problem. That will continue and is the key to helping people out of poverty.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

With the approaching long school summer holidays, this is a particularly difficult time for children living in food poverty, as they do not have access to free school meals or breakfast clubs. What is the Department going to do to tackle that issue?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

That is not directly in my Department, but I am very happy to talk about any specific issues and problems if the hon. Lady wants to come and see me. Through my Social Justice Cabinet Committee, we can drive to ensure that the support is available for those who need it.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

I thank the Secretary of State for his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands), in which he perhaps unintentionally highlighted some of the successes of the Scottish Government in using their limited powers to mitigate the worst impacts of his Government’s cuts. Does the Secretary of State not agree that the Government could immediately stop making child poverty worse by announcing an immediate end to any benefit sanction against families with young children?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

Actually, it is improving. The last bit of the hon. Gentleman’s question was slightly lost, but I think I heard that he was raising sanctions.

[Peter Grant]

On families with children.

[Mr Duncan Smith]

Right. If we do sanction someone, the processes before that happens are exhaustive—[Interruption.] Oh yes they are. People continue to be supported through all the child support mechanisms, including child benefit, and the household support that is available as well.

[Ruth Smeeth (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)]

In my constituency, 31% of the children—more than 6,000 children —are born into poverty, and the parents of 36% of them earn less than the living wage. I have already had people who are working arrive at my surgeries in tears, terrified about what will happen when the Government chop tax credits. What would the Secretary of State like me to tell my constituents?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I should tell them that they should wait, as should the hon. Lady, to see what we bring forward. They may be surprised.

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

Has the Secretary of State considered calls for the establishment of a child poverty prevention board or council, as happens elsewhere, so that we can focus all our energies on the things that really make a difference and avoid getting trapped in a sterile debate about how we measure, rather than how we reduce, poverty?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

That is an interesting question. I agree that it is important to get beyond this sterile debate. I want to bring to the House what I consider to be the right measures, and then I will be happy to discuss options. The right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field) has come up with an idea, and I am happy to discuss that as well.

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

I have to say I found the Secretary of State’s tone absolutely breathtaking. Given that two thirds of children living in poverty are from working families, will he answer the question—this is the sixth time of asking—what assessment have his Government undertaken of the proposed cuts in tax credits and how they will affect child poverty levels?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

We have got more people back into work and more people progressing through work, and more people are better off. They are better off in work than they are out of work—a fact that the hon. Lady seems to miss completely. The tax changes and the reductions in tax on take-home pay mean that people are actually better off. The answer to her question is simple: we will continue to support people who need that support through getting into work and beyond. That is the purpose of universal credit, she should stand assured.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

Today’s households below average income survey report, on page 45, makes it quite clear that the percentage of children in relative income poverty has been flatlining since 2011-12, so it is not the policies of either this or the previous coalition Government that have reduced poverty; it is the legacy of the previous Labour Governments. Does the Secretary of State agree?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

Okay, that is an interesting argument. I simply say that, if the hon. Lady wants to claim that, she can also claim the disaster of the crashed economy that the Labour party delivered, putting millions of people out of work.

[Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)]

Following his damascene conversion on the road to a Glasgow housing estate, the Secretary of State pledged that there would be no going back on Labour’s target to end child poverty. With nearly 9,000 children in poverty in Erdington, the great majority in working households, what does he have to say to the working mums I met in the Erdington food bank, who despair at what now looms for them in the next stages? To use the grotesque words of the Chancellor, these are strivers, not shirkers, but his Government are about to make them and their children poorer.

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I hope the hon. Gentleman also tells them that his Government failed to halve child poverty against their target. Before we get another lecture about child poverty from that lot over there, I simply say to them that their economic mess—crashing the economy and putting millions out of work—did more damage to his constituents than anything else. We are here to help them and get them back into work.

Business of the House

Thursday 25th June 2015 Commons Chamber

11:29

[Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

Will the Leader of the House give us the business for next week?

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Chris Grayling)]

Before I do, it may be appropriate—I hope this view is shared by Members in all parts of the House—for us to express our solidarity with and good will towards the Parliament in Kabul, after the dreadful terrorist attack there this week. We express all our sympathies for those affected. It is a matter of great dismay to me when a democratically elected Parliament is a target in this way.

The business for next week is as follows:

Monday 29 June—Consideration in Committee of the Scotland Bill (day 2).

Tuesday 30 June—Consideration in Committee of the Scotland Bill (day 3).

Wednesday 1 July—Opposition day (4th allotted day). There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.

Thursday 2 July—General debate on Britain and international security.

Friday 3 July—The House will not be sitting.

The provisional business for the week commencing 6 July will include:

Monday 6 July—Conclusion of consideration in Committee of the Scotland Bill.

Tuesday 7 July—Opposition day (5th allotted day). There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.

Wednesday 8 July—My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will deliver his Budget statement.

Thursday 9 July—Continuation of the Budget debate.

Friday 10 July—The House will not be sitting.

[Ms Eagle]

May I associate myself with the Leader of the House’s commiserations and good thoughts for those caught up in the awful events in the Parliament in Kabul?

There is just over a year and a half until the BBC’s charter runs out, but the Government still have not set out a timetable or plan for its renewal. After the Prime Minister’s election threat to close down the BBC, and given that the last charter renewal process began three years before the charter expired, could the Leader of the House say when and how the House will be kept informed of progress on this important issue?

On Tuesday, the Equality and Human Rights Commission revealed that a staggering 88% of lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans people had experienced some form of hate crime, and 35,000 such cases go unreported every year. As I dust off my pink Stetson, ready to join the LGBT community at Pride, does the Leader of the House agree that we need to redouble our efforts to root out prejudice and discrimination at home and abroad? Does he agree that the Foreign Secretary’s decision to ban the Pride flag from being flown at UK embassies around the world sends exactly the wrong signal?

Later today, EU leaders will meet in Brussels. The Prime Minister has briefed that the meeting is all about his renegotiation, but I read this morning that one senior EU diplomat has said that discussion on the subject would be “cursory”, so I thought I would take a look at the agenda. I can see items on migration, terrorism, jobs, growth and competitiveness. Squeezed in just before the end, above the adoption of the minutes of the last meeting, is our Prime Minister. His Back Benchers have got him on the run, and his tour of European capitals has been an object lesson in how to lose friends and alienate people. One Slovak official said:

“He is not the brightest spark in terms of getting what he wants…His approach is making him irrelevant”.

But not to worry: the Prime Minister has come up with a cunning plan. Instead of successful renegotiation, he has apparently decided to rebrand our membership of the EU by calling us associate members. Given that the right hon. Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox) has indicated that Eurosceptics, such as the Leader of the House, will resign before the referendum, perhaps the Prime Minister should consider offering his Cabinet associate membership to hold his Government together.

This Government really do say one thing and do another. Just last year, they promised more disabled people would be in work. Now we know that fewer than one in 10 disabled people on the Work programme have actually found a job. Before the election, the Government claimed they had exceeded their target for selling off Government land for house building, but now we know that they were counting land sold off from 1997. On Monday, the Prime Minister claimed he had saved £1.2 billion through the troubled families programme, but within minutes the National Institute of Economic and Social Research had dismissed his comments as “pure, unadulterated fiction”, so may we have a debate in Government time on the Tory parallel universe where a person can say something and do the complete opposite, and hope nobody will notice?

It is three months since the right hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove) ceased being Chief Whip. I would be missing him, if he had ever bothered turning up, so I thought I would take a look at what he has been up to in the Ministry of Justice. After a period of uncharacteristic silence, he has suddenly sprung to life and issued a detailed guide on grammar for his civil servants. His rules include never using the word “impact” and avoiding “anything too pompous”. I wonder who on earth he has in mind, Mr Speaker. Over at his old Department, I notice that the Secretary of State for Education has also been tackling the big issues. She has appointed a new low level bad behaviour tsar, presumably to help deal with Tory Eurosceptics.

Finally, I feel compelled to mention the developing drama in the Liberal Democrat leadership race. Only the Liberal Democrats could manage to have a split when they have eight MPs. This week the right hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) had to apologise after his activists were caught discrediting his rival by calling round the party’s entire membership, which cannot have taken very long, although he earned the endorsement of boxer Frank Bruno, which means that at least he has one big hitter.

[Chris Grayling]

The hon. Lady began with a question about the BBC. The next 18 months will be an important period in deciding how the future of the BBC will be shaped. We have a new Secretary of State—a very welcome appointment—who has been in post only a few weeks. He has already started work on this important issue and the House will be updated in due course about progress on that front.

On hate crime, I absolutely agree with the hon. Lady. It is not simply a matter of those in the LGBT community; in other parts of society hate crime is wholly unacceptable in whatever form—in relation to sex, colour, creed or whatever. All of us in the House should deprecate it and we should always seek to ensure that our authorities deal with it in the appropriate way. I hear the hon. Lady’s comments about flags. She will no doubt raise that question also with the Foreign Secretary. There are many countries around the world which need to change their approach to gay rights and I very much hope they will do so.

On Europe, let us be clear. What I hope and believe will come out of the European summit is a historic agreement with our European partners to renegotiate our membership of the European Union. That is a major step forward. I listen with interest to the Labour party, which seems to waver in the wind on this issue. It opposed a referendum; now it supports a referendum. It seems to support some form of renegotiation, but it does not appear to believe that any change is necessary to our relationship with the European Union. When Labour Members have a clear policy and a clear view on what our relationship should be, perhaps we will start to listen to them and take them seriously, but right now, we will not do so.

On the employment front, I am sorry to tell the hon. Lady that the Work programme has been a great success. It has led to a massive drop in the number of long-term unemployed in this country. This Government have, and the coalition Government as well had, a fantastic record on employment. We have seen a huge increase in the number of people in work to record levels. We have seen a massive drop in unemployment and a very welcome increase in the number of disabled people in work.

The hon. Lady mentioned guidelines issued by Ministers —in this case, on grammar. I would rather have a former Education Secretary issuing guidance to his correspondence team on how best to phrase letters from his Department than a Chief Secretary to the Treasury issuing instructions to his civil servants about how to make his coffee.

Finally, it would be wrong to end without a quick glimpse at the Labour leadership contest this week. I have, as usual, taken a look to see what has been happening. I had a look at the website of the Wallasey Labour party—where else to get an insight into what is going on? There, on the front page, I found an article about the Labour leadership candidates with the headline “The candidates are awful”. Enough said.

[Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on burial and cremation services, as Government burial funds are not keeping pace with the increasing costs of making dignified funeral arrangements?

[Chris Grayling]

My hon. Friend raises an important point. Through the current system, the Government provide nearly £50 million of support a year for people going through the trauma of bereavement. I encourage him to bring forward a debate in the House or to raise the matter in oral questions, and I know that Ministers will listen sensitively to the points that he raises.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

I thank the Leader of the House for announcing the business for next week and for his comments on the attack on the Parliament in Kabul, which I think were well made.

Next week we will return to consideration of the Scotland Bill, with two days for further amendments to try to improve it and return to it the principles of the Smith commission, which the Scottish Parliament’s devolution Committee believes have not been met, and neither does the House of Commons Library, as my hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) told the Prime Minister yesterday. Will the Secretary of State for Scotland therefore come to the House next Monday and Tuesday in a much more accommodating mood, in order to ensure that the principles of the Smith commission are met?

The Leader of the House had better not be thinking about amending the Scotland Bill in the unelected House of Lords. The House of Lords, I can tell him, has never been held in such contempt by the Scottish people, who see it as nothing other than a repository for the donors and cronies of the UK parties. The Bill must be amended in the elected House of Commons, so may we have an assurance that any important amendments will be made here and not in that bloated, ermine-coated, absurd legislature down the corridor?

I see that we are to have a debate next week on English votes for English laws as it would apply to north Wales, secured by the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen)—I do not see him in his place. Perhaps we will at last get some answers on English votes for English laws, because the Leader of the House has failed to answer a single parliamentary question on the matter. We now have three weeks until the summer recess, so will he bring forward his plans and start answering questions? He is going to have to turn up to the debate next Wednesday, so can we hear some more about English votes for English laws and how that will affect my hon. Friends and you, Mr Speaker, because it will place you in the most invidious political position. We need some answers.

Lastly, the Scottish schools go on holiday next week. Our recess is almost three months long, yet we seem unable to match our recess arrangements with the school holidays in a large part of the United Kingdom. Many of my hon. Friends have young children. It is great that English Members will get to spend the whole recess in their constituencies with their families, but my hon. Friends will not. We are off for almost three months! Surely it is not beyond the wit of this House to design a recess period to cover that. I suggest that we do away with the Daily Mail fortnight in September and with the conference recess. Let us have a recess that covers all the school holidays and then let us return here, like everybody else in the country, after the August bank holiday. Surely that makes sense for everybody. I hope that the Leader of the House will consider that suggestion.

[Chris Grayling]

First, on the Scotland Bill, I can only reiterate that the Government are fulfilling our obligation and implementing the Smith commission’s report. The hon. Gentleman will have plenty of opportunities to bring forward amendments if he so chooses and to question Scotland Office Ministers about the content of the Bill. However, as the Prime Minister said clearly yesterday during Prime Minister’s questions, we are fulfilling our obligation to the Scottish people by delivering the package of devolution that we set out before them. They looked at it and chose to stay within the United Kingdom, and I am very grateful that they did. We are fulfilling the agreement we made at the time, and that is what the Bill does.

On English votes for English laws, I can only reiterate that we will bring forward our proposals shortly. They are measures that both the Labour party and the Scottish National party should support—the Labour party because it no longer has a presence in Scotland, so it should understand the need for fairness in this country’s devolution settlement, and the SNP because, as a champion of devolution, it should understand the need for fairness. I hope that when I bring forward the proposals shortly they will welcome them and see them as an important part of solidifying our constitutional arrangements.

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point about the recess arrangements. The Chief Whip and I will always think carefully about how best to structure the parliamentary calendar. It is not always easy to provide a solution that satisfies everyone, but we will always try to make this place as child and family-friendly as possible.

Finally, although there are still some terrible conflicts around the world, which we hope to see resolved, I have to report to the House that one conflict close to home appears to have been resolved. The morning race for the Front Bench below the Gangway on the Opposition side has stopped, peace has broken out and an agreement has been reached between the two parties on where they will sit in future. That is good news for this House, although perhaps bad news for the bookmakers.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. As I mentioned earlier, a statement by the Secretary of State for Transport will follow these exchanges, and thereafter there is to be a very well subscribed debate. Therefore, there is a premium upon brevity. I am looking for single, short supplementary questions, preferably without preamble, and the Leader of the House’s characteristically pithy replies.

[Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con)]

Yesterday I initiated a well-attended Westminster Hall debate on superfast broadband. Does the Leader of the House agree that that matter is vitally important to all our constituents and should be debated more fully?

[Chris Grayling]

I commend my hon. Friend for initiating that well-attended debate. We have now established the new Committee structure, and the Backbench Business Committee will be able to meet shortly. I encourage him to talk to the Committee members with a view to trying to secure one of the Back-Bench business days for that purpose.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

May we have a debate on the role of the National Crime Agency in preventing harm to children? I have been raising my concerns about a substance called Miracle Mineral Solution, which is being promoted particularly to parents of children with autism as a cure for that condition. I have been asking the National Crime Agency why this is not considered a direct threat to children. It is being promoted as something that can be given orally in a baby’s bottle or even as an enema. May we have a debate to ensure that the National Crime Agency is on top of issues like this?

[Chris Grayling]

The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. I was not aware of that particular substance. We have Home Office questions on Monday week, and I hope he will take advantage of the opportunity to raise this issue with Home Office Ministers. We should clearly take it very seriously.

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

I do not have a pink T-shirt or even the use of a pink bus, but this weekend hundreds of thousands of people will be celebrating the diversity and equality that we all cherish in this country. Unfortunately, in about 80 countries people cannot do that because it is illegal. Mr Speaker, few people have done more than you to promote LGBT rights in this Parliament. Will the Leader of the House please have a word with the Foreign Secretary about the displaying of the rainbow flag over the Foreign Office and high commissions and embassies throughout the world? That would send the important signal that we stand by the side of those who are oppressed, and indeed, in some cases, those who fear death for the crime of being born gay.

[Chris Grayling]

I am happy to communicate the issue to my right hon. Friend. I am very sympathetic to the work that has been done to address this around the world. As I said earlier, it is shocking that many countries still regard homosexuality as illegal. All of us in this House should work to end that.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

May we have an urgent debate on the Government plans to sell off a majority stake in the Green Investment Bank—a move that will damage investor confidence, set back the low-carbon economy, and, crucially, undermine the very reason for setting up the bank, which was to lever private investment by de-risking it?

[Chris Grayling]

I am not surprised to hear the hon. Lady’s concerns given her views. I believe that it is far better for an organisation like the Green Investment Bank to be able to stand on its own two feet. If it can function as an effective organisation without the need for taxpayer support, that is surely a good thing. It is a sign that investment in green business, green industries and green technologies is becoming more and more mainstream in the investment world.

[Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate about the provision of healthcare across south Gloucestershire, especially the long-awaited and much anticipated community hospital on the old Frenchay hospital site, which has been delayed for long enough?

[Chris Grayling]

I commend my hon. Friend for being such a powerful advocate for his constituency. He has campaigned on this issue for a long time. My colleagues in the Department of Health will have heard what he said. A lot of this is now down to local decision making, so the influence that he has locally will play a big part in it. Health questions will take place in 10 days’ time, and he will have the opportunity to restate his point then.

[Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)]

As we see the dangerous situation in Kobani in Syria, is it not time that we had a full debate in this House about our strategy towards Syria and the region, and what we can do to help the brave Kurdish fighters who are fighting against the horrible Daesh cult and its misogynist, homophobic, murderous policies?

[Chris Grayling]

I endorse the hon. Gentleman’s concerns about the dreadful things happening in parts of Iraq and Syria. It is absolutely right and proper that the international community should stand against this and be supportive of those who are resisting that terrible regime, and of course we are playing our part as a nation in doing so. One of the reasons we are having next Thursday’s debate on international affairs is that over the past few weeks I have listened carefully to the comments made by Members on both sides of the House on the need for this and similar issues to be debated. That opportunity will be available this time next week.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

Although investigatory powers in Britain and international security are undoubtedly important topics, it is also important that this House debates what everybody else in the country is talking about. Night after night we see on our television screens the wave of human misery coming to our shores from the middle east and north Africa and the problems being caused at Calais. That is what everybody is talking and concerned about, so may we have a full day’s debate on the Floor of the House about Britain’s immigration policy and how we are going to tackle both legal and illegal immigration being too high?

[Chris Grayling]

I recognise that this is a matter of great concern to the public and, indeed, the Government. My hon. Friend will be aware that my right hon. Friend addressed the issue in the House yesterday. What is happening in Iraq and Syria and the crisis in the Mediterranean were two of the key reasons for ensuring that there is a full day’s debate next Thursday—I hope my hon. Friend will take advantage of that—to discuss what we all regard as a crucial issue. What is happening in north Africa and the Mediterranean is frankly shocking.

[Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)]

May we have a statement on what steps are being taken to prevent companies funded by the Department for International Development from pursuing policies and contract terms that lead to systemic food wastage?

[Chris Grayling]

The hon. Lady raises an important point. I will make sure that her concerns are passed to DFID and I suggest that she look to bring an International Development Minister to the House through an Adjournment debate, in order to raise the issue directly. I know she will continue to ask questions about the issue.

[Paul Scully (Sutton and Cheam) (Con)]

At their school assembly yesterday, the pupils of Cheam Park Farm junior school gave me several messages in support of the Send my Friend to School campaign. May we have a debate to discuss how this Government can help in the objective of making free education available to more children around the world?

[Chris Grayling]

I commend the teachers at Cheam Park Farm junior school for their work in raising awareness and helping their pupils to raise their concerns. My hon. Friend can look those pupils in the eye and say that this Government have an excellent record in providing financial support through our international aid budget to those parts of the world where young people do not have adequate access to education or, indeed, other basic needs in life, such as clean food and water. We are doing everything we can internationally to help the development of those communities, and those young people should feel proud to be part of a country that is doing its bit in the world.

[Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)]

Two years ago a constituent of mine used Safestyle UK to fit windows throughout her property. Two years on, the windows still rattle and leak water, but Safestyle UK denies any responsibility. May we have a debate about consumer rights and how we can improve them so that people are not ripped off by cowboys?

[Chris Grayling]

The hon. Gentleman is performing one of the most important functions of a constituency Member of Parliament, which is to put pressure on organisations that are simply not delivering for the people we represent. I am sure that merely by having raised the issue today, he will have stirred some people outside this place. He will have another opportunity to do so in BIS questions on Tuesday and I hope he will continue to do so. It is right and proper that we put pressure on organisations that fail to deliver for our constituents.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

When the Leader of the House referred to the European Council summit and said that he expected the Prime Minister to report back that the European Union had agreed to the fundamental reforms, I think I saw, for the first time in 10 years, some flying pigs looping and laughing. I do not know whether you caught that, Mr Speaker. Will the Leader of the House confirm that the Prime Minister will make a statement on Monday about the European Council?

[Chris Grayling]

I was not necessarily commenting on the outcome of the negotiations, but merely that the negotiations are starting. My hon. Friend will form his own view about whether there are flying pigs around, but I assure him that there will be a statement on Monday. The Prime Minister will appear before this House and take questions in detail not only about this issue, but about the Mediterranean, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) referred.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

This week North Yorkshire police held a summit on the sharp increase in antisocial behaviour fuelled by excess drinking in York city centre at weekends. When will this House have an opportunity to debate an increase in police levels linked to licensing legislation, to ensure that city centres can be safe, family-friendly and good for business?

[Chris Grayling]

One of the things we have always believed is that it was a mistake for the last Labour Government to go as far as they did on the road towards all-night drinking. I think it had an effect on antisocial behaviour and put extra pressure on police. We have taken a number of measures since then that will contribute to easing that problem. The hon. Lady will always have the opportunity, at Home Affairs questions and through the Adjournment debate system, to raise concerns related to her constituency when she feels the existing powers do not go far enough.

[Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

Following the brouhaha over the Crown Estate, the Scotland Bill and the Sovereign Grant Act 2011, will my right hon. Friend make time available for a debate to allow our friends in the Scottish National party to reaffirm their loyalty to our and their sovereign?

[Chris Grayling]

I note the welcome nods from Scottish National party Members. I am glad that the First Minister has clarified the situation this morning in no uncertain terms. I think that we, on both sides of this House and in all parts of the United Kingdom, should be absolutely proud of our monarch. We value her and are amazingly grateful for everything she has done for us. The fact that she is in Germany today, representing this country again, is an example of how well served we are by her and by our royal family.

[Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

The Leader of the House has announced that we will have a debate next Thursday on international affairs in Government time. May I suggest that the House should have the opportunity to discuss some domestic issues, notably the proposed £200 million cut in public health budgets, £3.6 million of which is to be cut from Durham County Council in my area? It flies in the face of all the evidence and expert opinion, will damage preventive healthcare and is extremely short term. Members from all across the country would like the opportunity to discuss it.

[Chris Grayling]

I simply remind the hon. Gentleman that we, both in coalition and in Government, have continued to increase funding for healthcare, somewhat against the wishes of the shadow Health Secretary, who argued that we should reduce funding for healthcare and that it would be irresponsible to continue to increase it in the way we have. I am very happy with our record.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

My constituent, Mohamed Kalefa Aisa, is currently studying in Salisbury on a visitor visa. There are no flights back to Libya because of the turmoil and my constituent is stranded here. The border agency expects him to travel to another country to reapply for a visa. Will the Leader of the House make time for a debate on our immigration rules in the light of the impractical and unrealistic advice my constituent has received?

[Chris Grayling]

I understand the difficulty that my hon. Friend’s constituent faces, given the very difficult situation in Libya. My advice is to approach the relevant Minister directly. I know that Ministers try to be flexible when there are exceptional circumstances, although, of course, given the immigration pressures upon us, they have to be pretty rigid in upholding the rules, otherwise we would be opening the door to very large numbers of other people who wish to come here.

[Liz McInnes (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab)]

May we have a statement on why the Ministry of Justice is still paying G4S and Serco millions of pounds every month to supply electronic tagging equipment more than a year after both companies were barred from running the contract?

[Chris Grayling]

G4S and Serco do not run the contracts— Capita does.

[Dr Tania Mathias (Twickenham) (Con)]

With the Davies commission about to report any day, do the Government plan to have a debate on the commission’s findings before the summer recess, and will the Government put them to a vote?

[Chris Grayling]

I assure my hon. Friend that the Secretary of State for Transport is well aware of how important the issue is in this House. Once the report is received by Government, he will certainly come to the House and take questions, before deciding how to proceed.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)]

The roll-out of universal credit has begun in my constituency, with it having been available to single new claimants since April. It has enormous implications for very vulnerable people, many of whom do not have access to the internet and now have to get used to managing money differently. Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on access to universal credit for the most vulnerable people in our society?

[Chris Grayling]

Labour’s policy has been, I think, to be supportive of universal credit, so I am not sure how the hon. Gentleman’s comment fits in with that. The reality is that universal credit creates a new structure that means that people are better off in work than sitting at home on benefits doing nothing. If people are going to get away from the benefits environment that many of them live in and get into the workplace, as we all want them to, they will need knowledge of, access to, and the ability to use technology, which is available through jobcentres, public libraries and other facilities. I think we have got this absolutely right and that universal credit will make a transformational difference to people’s lives.

[Craig Tracey (North Warwickshire) (Con)]

My constituency has a growing problem of heavy goods vehicle drivers parking overnight on industrial parks and in neighbouring residential areas, such as Coleshill. They are predominantly drivers from eastern European countries. Hams Hall distribution centre is seeing up to 70 trailers a night. As a result, there is an increase in accidents and antisocial behaviour. May we have an urgent debate on the provision of adequate lorry parks and on the need for consideration to be given to this matter when granting planning on industrial parks?

[Chris Grayling]

By coincidence, the Secretary of State for Transport has just walked into the Chamber, so he will have heard my hon. Friend’s remarks. I understand the nature of the challenge and there are things that could be done to address it. I would like service station providers to cater more for this need, which is clearly present. It should not be imposed on local communities and estates. I know that the Department for Transport will be happy to listen to his comments.

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

In the last Parliament, the Government established, at considerable cost, the post of police and crime commissioner, which they argued was vital for democratic accountability. The post is now to be subsumed into the office of metro mayor, which will be imposed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government with an additional precept, whether local people want it or not. May we have a debate on what the Government mean by democratic accountability?

[Chris Grayling]

I think that police and crime commissioners have made a real difference by providing a focal point for those who are concerned about local policing. Of course, the two posts are combined in London. I know that the Labour party has always been sceptical about police and crime commissioners, but that does not seem to have stopped a large number of former Labour Members of Parliament standing to be police and crime commissioners.

[Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)]

Exactly a year ago today at Prime Minister’s questions, I raised the tragic case of 17-year-old James Goodship, who had tragically drowned just days before in Lake Burwain in my constituency. As this week is drowning prevention week, may we have a debate on how we can reduce the rate of such drownings and tragedies across the UK?

[Chris Grayling]

That was a tragic event and our sympathies are very much with James Goodship’s family. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for taking up the mantle of this issue and for working intensively in Parliament to raise awareness of the risks. His comments will be heard in this place and outside it. An Adjournment debate might provide a valuable opportunity to discuss the issue with Ministers and to allow other Members of Parliament who have experienced similar tragedies in their constituencies to contribute.

[Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

I have received many emails about the case of Andargachew Tsige, as I suspect has the Leader of the House and every other Member of the House. He is a British man who is being held under a death sentence in incommunicado detention in Ethiopia. Has the Leader of the House had any requests from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to come and debate the matter? If he has not, will he follow the matter up with FCO Ministers?

[Chris Grayling]

I, too, have received a number of emails on the matter, as I suspect have many Members. I deprecate the death penalty wherever it is in place around the world. I have always opposed it and I oppose it in this case. This is clearly a worrying case. I will certainly pass on the concerns to the Foreign Office, so that it is aware how many Members have had constituents raise these concerns with them.

[Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con)]

Steel production is a crucial employer in Corby. As vice-chairman of the all-party parliamentary group for steel and metal related industries, I know that Members from all parts of the House want to come together to secure the future of the industry. May we have a debate in Government time on carbon taxation and the steel industry, with a Treasury Minister at the Dispatch Box?

[Chris Grayling]

It is enormously important that we support key industries like steel. It is an important part of the local economy in my hon. Friend’s constituency and in many other parts of the country. Ministers from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills will be before the House next week. I hope that he will take that opportunity to raise his concerns with them. Of course we have a challenge ahead in tackling climate change and bringing down carbon emissions, but we also have to be smart when it comes to looking after our industries.

[Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)]

Two weeks ago, the Leader of the House kindly offered to pass on a request to the Prime Minister to meet Muscular Dystrophy UK and six young boys with Duchenne muscular dystrophy who need Translarna. The decision on the drug is imminent, but the boys have heard nothing. Will the Leader of the House kindly do something to hasten the response from No. 10?

[Chris Grayling]

I will duly apply a nudge. The Prime Minister is well aware of the issue, because as I said previously he met one of the boys back in January, but I will make sure that the message is passed to No. 10 for the hon. Lady.

[Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)]

At a meeting I hosted this morning with higher education sector leaders, concern was once again raised about the damaging impact that the inclusion of students in the Government’s net migration cap is having on one of our most important export industries. Will the Leader of the House arrange a debate about that? There is concern about the policy in all parts of the House and beyond.

[Chris Grayling]

I do regard it is an anomaly that students are contained in some of the migration figures, but that is not a matter for this country. It is set by international statisticians and statistical rules. A large number of students come to this country, and we have taken appropriate steps to make sure that those who come here are legitimate. That is right and proper. We have a thriving higher education sector, but we must also have a system that is careful in ensuring that people who come here should be here.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

Joseph Gleave and Son, an SME based in Stretford that has supplied the Ministry of Defence for many years, reports chaotic tendering practices, onerous timescales and contracts being extended or awarded without proper competition. That is good for neither the business nor the taxpayer. May we have a debate in Government time on defence procurement?

[Chris Grayling]

Of course, we will have Defence questions again early in July, so I encourage the hon. Lady to raise the issue with Ministers at that point, but I will make sure that I pass on her concerns on behalf of the company in her constituency to my colleagues at the Ministry of Defence after this session.

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

During the passage of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013, Rev. Melvin Tinker in Hull told me that if I supported it, he would instruct his congregation not to vote for me. That might have something to do with why my majority went from 641 to 12,899. However, this weekend he has equated homosexuality with paedophilia and put it in the same category. May we please have a debate in Government time about the responsibilities of the established Church of England on community cohesion and not inciting crimes of hate?

[Chris Grayling]

First, let us be absolutely clear: there is absolutely no connection whatever between homosexuality and paedophilia. Paedophilia is a crime; homosexuality is a reality of our society and something we have moved to support through same-sex marriage and other changes in recent years. It is never acceptable to equate the two.

I would also say that it is important to be sensitive about these issues, as we were during the passage of the Act, particularly in relation to those with strong religious views. We are, and we should be, but there is never any justification for equating homosexuality and paedophilia.

[Mr Speaker]

The misguided Reverend is obviously rather a blinkered fellow, to put it mildly.

[Conor McGinn (St Helens North) (Lab)]

It was announced yesterday that my local authority in St Helens is having a further £23 million cut from its budget, meaning that by 2020 it will have suffered a 50% reduction in funding under this Government. May we have a debate on the crisis in local government funding and its impact on critical services?

[Chris Grayling]

Local government has certainly faced budget reductions in recent years, as have many parts of government, but it has also been noticeable how well most councils across the country have adapted to the changes and sustained their services. If the hon. Gentleman’s council, which I have a sneaking suspicion may be a Labour council, has not been able to do that, maybe it is time for a Conservative council in St Helens.

Network Rail

Thursday 25th June 2015 Commons Chamber

12:08

[The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Patrick McLoughlin)]

With permission, Mr Speaker, I wish to make a statement about Network Rail following today’s publication of its annual report.

In September 2014, Network Rail was reclassified as a public body as result of an accounting decision by the Office for National Statistics. Since then the Government have had greater direct oversight of the company. I want to report to the House on Network Rail’s performance and the actions that I am taking to hold it to account.

Some things are working well. Our railways are carrying more passengers than ever before, and journeys have more than doubled since privatisation—they went up on average by 4.2% in the last year alone. Safety has improved, and the reliability of assets on the railways is up. Network Rail reopened the line at Dawlish after the horrendous storms in the time expected. It has opened a new station at Reading ahead of schedule and under budget, and a modernised Birmingham New Street complex will be fully open later this year.

I do not pretend that everything is perfect, however, because it is not. Where performance has fallen below the standards I expect, I want it sorted out. What we saw at Kings Cross at Christmas and at London Bridge earlier this year was unacceptable, and I said so at the time. Since then, Network Rail has demonstrated that it has learned those lessons. I pay tribute to the significant programmes of work it delivered over Easter and the May day bank holidays, but to improve performance we need to invest and we need good management. The truth is that much of this work should have been done decades ago. Successive Governments failed to invest the sums necessary in our rail network, and that is why we find ourselves in the current situation.

When faced with a choice between building the infrastructure our country needs and our railway becoming a brake on growth and opportunity, the Government choose to invest for the future, in projects such as Crossrail in London and HS2. In 2012, the Government set out the most ambitious rail investment programme since the Victorians: a £38 billion programme on enhancing, operating and maintaining the current network. That means hard work and good design; and thousands of people working night after night, sometimes in very difficult conditions. On the 216 miles of the Great Western line alone, Network Rail needs to alter about 170 bridges, lower parts of the track bed, install 14,000 masts of overhead line equipment and electrify parts of the railway constructed by Brunel in the 1830s, so that new British-built fast trains can speed up services and provide more seats and services. Members and their constituents want these improvements, and I am determined that they will happen.

In parts of this programme, Network Rail’s performance has not been good enough. Already, the chief executive and the board are responding. Since joining Network Rail in 2014, the chief executive Mark Carne has reviewed the organisation’s structure, performance and accountability. He has strengthened his team and he has a structure for improvement. I want to see him drive that forward, but there are still challenges. Important aspects of Network Rail’s investment programme are costing more and taking longer: electrification is difficult; the UK supply chain for complex signalling works needs to be stronger; construction rates have been slow; and it has taken longer than expected to obtain planning consents from some local authorities. That is no excuse, however. All those problems could and should have been foreseen by Network Rail, so I want to inform the House of the action I am taking to reset the programme and get it back on track.

First, none of Network Rail’s executive directors will receive a bonus for the past year. The current Chairman, Mr Richard Parry-Jones, is stepping down. His replacement will be the current transport commissioner in London, Sir Peter Hendy, someone of huge experience who helped to keep London moving during the Olympics. I am asking him to develop proposals, by autumn, for how the rail upgrade programme will be carried out. Secondly, I am appointing Richard Brown as a special director of Network Rail with immediate effect. He will update me, and report directly to me, on progress. Thirdly, I intend to simplify Network Rail’s governance by ending the role of the public members. I thank them for their commitment, but the reclassification of Network Rail has changed the organisation’s accountability. Fourthly, it is important that we understand what can be done better in future investment programmes. I have therefore asked Dame Colette Bowe, an experienced economist and regulator, to look at lessons learned and to make recommendations for better investment planning in future. I will publish her report in the autumn.

I know that Members on both sides of the House value the improvements that are planned to the railway in their area. Network Rail’s spending should stay within its funding allowance. Electrification of the Great Western line is a top priority and I want Network Rail to concentrate its efforts on getting that right. On the midland main line, better services can be delivered through works such as speed improvement. Electrification will be paused: I want it to be done and done well; it will be part of our future plans for the route.

Meanwhile, the next franchise for the trans-Pennine route between Leeds and Manchester will bring modern trains and additional capacity. Current work on electrification will be paused, because we need to be much more ambitious for that route, building a powerhouse for the north with a fast, high capacity trans-Pennine electric route. We are working with businesses and cities in the north to make that happen. We have seen electric trains introduced this year between Liverpool and Manchester, and between Liverpool and Wigan, and the work that will see them spread to Bolton and Blackpool is under way.

In the south-east, Crossrail and Thameslink are well under way. In Anglia, we will bring about modern, faster trains to Ipswich and Norwich in the next franchise. For passengers in the south-west, the new contract with First Great Western will provide significant extra capacity. I hope to be able to announce news on further new trains for the region soon.

We will keep commuter rail fares capped in real terms for the whole of this Parliament. People’s earnings will rise more quickly than rail fares—the first time that this has happened since 2002. Passengers want a railway that is better, faster and more reliable than today. Powered by a huge increase in investment and ambition right across the country, that is what they will get. I commend the statement to the House.

12:16

[Michael Dugher (Barnsley East) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement.

Let us be absolutely clear: the Government’s total failure to deliver a fit-for-purpose railway has today been completely and damningly exposed. First, the publication of the latest national rail passenger survey—I note the Secretary of State did not mention it—shows that passenger satisfaction has dropped once again. Now we have the Secretary of State announcing that vital investment projects, such as electrification of the midland main line, which he promised to deliver, are being shelved owing to his repeated failure to get a grip of Network Rail. The electrification of the trans-Pennine express railway line between Manchester, Leeds and York has also been shelved—so much for the northern powerhouse—and we remain concerned about the future of the electrification of the Great Western line.

The Secretary of State spent the election campaign repeating promises that he knew he would break after the election. That is what has been revealed today. The truth is that passengers have had to endure a catalogue of failure on our railways by Ministers since 2010. There was the Christmas rail chaos, which the Secretary of State referred to, although he neglected to mention that Ministers had been warned about that and failed to act. While delusional Ministers talk about “fair fares” and “comfortable commuting”—which is a world away from the misery for commuters at London Bridge—there have been inflation-busting fare rises of on average more than 20%. We have also seen the collapse of the west coast franchise competition, which cost the taxpayer £50 million. Ministers may try today to shift all the blame to Network Rail, but this happened on the Government’s watch and the responsibility for the mess lays squarely with the Government.

Let me turn to a number of specific questions. Will the Secretary of State confirm that when the Government placed the development of key Network Rail projects on hold for up to two years after the 2010 election, important preparation work was not undertaken, and therefore, as the rail regulator has said, they committed to the projects in 2012 based on “limited development work”? We know that Network Rail started to put together a list of projects that would be axed back in November. Why has it taken so long for the Government to reveal them to the House and to be honest with the travelling public? Crucially, can the Secretary of State confirm that he received a report on 1 September last year on the state of those programmes from Network Rail, his Department and the regulator? He has refused to publish it. Why did he sit on the report and pretend to the public that everything was fine until after the election?

Labour first raised the issue of delays to the Great Western project in the House more than a year ago. Why has it taken so long for the Government to admit that there were fundamental problems with the project? Why did the Secretary of State not listen to the Transport Select Committee six months ago when it warned that key rail enhancement projects had

“been announced by Ministers without Network Rail having a clear estimate of what the projects will cost, leading to uncertainty about whether the projects will be delivered on time, or at all”?

Why did he not raise the alarm when the estimated cost of electrifying the midland main line rose from £250 million to £540 million and then to £1.3 billion; or when the cost estimates for Great Western electrification rose from £548 million to £930 million and then to £1.7 billion?

Just two weeks ago, the Secretary of State refused to answer my questions about the need to tackle the failures at Network Rail and whether he was planning changes to Network Rail. Will he explain why he has dithered for so long when he has had the power to exert more ministerial responsibility over Network Rail, including by appointing a special director, since September last year?

The Opposition have warned time and again that fundamental change in how our railways are run is needed, that Ministers need to get a grip, that passengers should have a proper voice and that more public control is needed. We welcome the appointment of Sir Peter Hendy as chairman of Network Rail, and we will look carefully at some of the other announcements that the Government have made.

The news today exposes a catalogue of failure by Ministers, and it deals a fatal blow to the Government’s claim that they are delivering a better railway for passengers. Is it not clear that the Government’s real legacy is one of rail fare hikes, plummeting passenger satisfaction, ongoing disruptions and delays, major projects running years behind schedule, promises of vital investment betrayed, and a railway that is not fit for purpose, and all the while out-of-touch Ministers sat in Whitehall overseeing a complete and utter shambles?

[Mr McLoughlin]

It is true that I have been Transport Secretary for two and a half years. Despite the catalogue of terror that the hon. Gentleman has outlined, over those two and a half years there have been only two occasions on which the Opposition have chosen to debate transport on Opposition days. One was a day after I was appointed, and the other was on the day that the hon. Gentleman’s predecessor was sacked as shadow Transport Secretary. With regard to their warning us and wanting the subject lifted up the political agenda, we have heard nothing from the Opposition, because they are truly embarrassed by their record, whereas we have invested in the railways, lifted them and given encouragement to the railway industry.

Today I have made no cuts whatever to the rail investment strategy—the largest rail investment strategy that has ever taken place. The amount of money invested is exactly the same as it was last week—the budget within which the strategy has to be delivered. I will take no lessons from a Labour party that in 13 years electrified 10 miles of railway lines; we have electrified more this year than it did in all that time. Then there is the £895 million project to rebuild the railways around Reading and to remove major bottlenecks; the £750 million transformation and upgrade of Birmingham New Street station; the refurbishment of Nottingham station, with all the investment going into it. There has been more investment in Nottingham in the last five years than was seen in the 13 years of the last Labour Government. Then there is the new station built at Wakefield; the completed Ipswich Chord and the Doncaster Chord; phase 1 of the £6.5 billion Thameslink project; the completion of Crossrail tunnelling. I could go on a lot more, Mr Speaker. I will take no lectures. I am determined to get on top of, and see the delivery of, those programmes, which are so important for our constituents.

[Sir Simon Burns (Chelmsford) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend accept that my constituents are fed up to the back teeth with points and signalling failures that, through the failings of Network Rail, have too often disrupted their services, and that it is the same with the electrification and upgrading of the track? They will warmly welcome my right hon. Friend’s initiative to seek improvements, and to pin Network Rail down to deliver and to maintain the £38.5 billion investment. Can he confirm that the new franchise for Anglia, which will be warmly welcomed in Chelmsford, includes the new rolling stock and will cover inter-city trains and, more importantly, the vast majority of trains that my constituents use—the commuter trains into Liverpool Street?

[Mr McLoughlin]

Let me first congratulate my right hon. Friend on his well-deserved inclusion in the recent honours list. I am looking forward to receiving the invitations to tender for the franchise and the results of the franchise competition for the Greater Anglia line. I think we need improvements on that line so that Ipswich and Norwich can be reached in 60 and 90 minutes. As my right hon. Friend well knows, the inclusion of new rolling stock will score very highly on the franchises that are currently being tendered.

[Mike Weir (Angus) (SNP)]

I note the change in the structure of Network Rail announced by the right hon. Gentleman today. Given that Network Rail still plays a part in Scotland’s rail network, will he consult Scottish Ministers before implementing those changes? Most of the changes in railways refer only to England, and I have no real comment on them, but when HS2 was announced, it was said that it would not be extended to Scotland because of the increased journey times through the rest of the network. Will he assure us that none of the changes will jeopardise journey times to Scotland?

[Mr McLoughlin]

I spoke to Keith Brown last night to outline what I anticipated saying this morning, and I shall meet him again on Monday, when we will discuss a number of these issues. On HS2, as soon as it starts to operate, I believe Scotland will benefit. Anyone travelling on the Javelin train from St Pancras down to areas in Kent that are not served completely by the high-speed line will get the advantage of using that line. I hope that that answers the hon. Gentleman’s questions.

[Sir Alan Haselhurst (Saffron Walden) (Con)]

Is my right hon. Friend aware that perceptive travellers on the West Anglia and Great Eastern lines will recognise that his statement shows that he has listened to and responded to all the various pieces of advice he has had from all different quarters, and therefore this statement is particularly welcome? It will be enhanced if the more reliable journeys that we hope these changes will bring about will be on new trains as well.

[Mr McLoughlin]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, who has never lost an opportunity to impress on me the importance of train services for his constituency or indeed to press for extra investment in the railways. I come back to the point I made at the start of my statement: this Government are fully committed to huge investment on our railway network. When we announced the £38 billion, it was beyond the expectations of many people in the railway industry, and I want to ensure that it is delivered efficiently and effectively—for the part that is paid for by fare-paying passengers, as well as for the part that is funded directly by the taxpayer.

[Mrs Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op)]

Network Rail certainly has many good achievements, but last January the Transport Select Committee warned that escalating costs and poor planning jeopardised the investment programme and, indeed, questioned whether that programme was ever realistic. Will the Secretary of State explain precisely what his statement means for the pause in electrification in the north and for the midland main line service?

[Mr McLoughlin]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on being elected unopposed as the Chair of the Transport Select Committee. The pause is exactly what I said—a pausing of that particular scheme until I receive the report from Sir Peter Hendy. I made it clear that the midland electrification would always follow the Great Western, which would always be the priority. When people see some of the challenges facing the Great Western electrification, they will certainly understand that.

[Jeremy Quin (Horsham) (Con)]

My constituents will warmly welcome my right hon. Friend’s commitment on commuter rail fares, but will he reassure them that his getting to grips with Network Rail will help to resolve all the outstanding issues in the southern region?

[Mr McLoughlin]

I can give that reassurance. Let me add that the railways Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Claire Perry), has been particularly good at keeping all local Members in touch, especially those who have experienced problems. I must, however, say to my hon. Friend in all fairness that there will be occasions, during what will be a major refurbishment, when passengers will be caused discomfort and inconvenienced. I am afraid that that is part of our legacy of having to catch up with all the under-investment that was happening for so many years. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Barnsley East (Michael Dugher) mentions London Bridge. I am the first to admit that some of the conditions faced by people there have been unacceptable, but some of the conditions faced by me at St Pancras were unacceptable, and it is now a fantastic station that is almost a destination in its own right.

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

I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I am the chair of the RMT parliamentary group.

I assume from his statement that the Secretary of State has resisted some of the calls from the wider elements of his party for the breaking up and privatisation of Network Rail. The fourth point that he made in his statement was,

“it is important that we understand what can be done better in future investment programmes.”

May I suggest to him that one of the key elements of that would be to start listening to some of the workers on the front line? May I also suggest that Dame Colette Bowe’s review should include a mechanism for ongoing consultation with the trade unions about how those programmes can be improved?

[Mr McLoughlin]

I am certainly willing to consider the hon. Gentleman’s suggestions. Some of those workers on the front line do an incredibly difficult job, sometimes in the most horrendous conditions and often in the middle of the night. That is one of the lessons on which we should draw when considering what happened at King’s Cross over Christmas.

[Sir Edward Garnier (Harborough) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend and I are regular users of the midland main line from St Pancras through Market Harborough to Leicester and, in my right hon. Friend’s case, beyond. Our experience, I suggest, is fairly satisfactory. This morning, however, local government leaders in the east midlands, and in Leicester in particular, expressed a fear that the so-called pausing of the electrification might have an effect on development in the east midlands. Can my right hon. Friend assure me that it will have no effect whatsoever on the commercial and economic development of the area?

[Mr McLoughlin]

As my right hon. and learned Friend says, both he and I use that line regularly. The priority for the route is to improve capacity and speeds, so that there can be six rather than five trains an hour from St Pancras. We will press on with the rebuilding to speed up and straighten the track at Market Harborough, and with the rebuilding of the Derby track layout. That will mean faster services soon, and it will enable us to make the most of the electrification and new trains that will result from future franchises.

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)]

Eight months ago, when the Secretary of State appeared before the Transport Committee, I asked him whether he was satisfied with the governance arrangement for Network Rail whereby it was, in effect, marking its own homework. He said then that he was completely satisfied with the arrangement, but today he has come to the House and changed it. Does he not regret that decision? In his statement, he blamed Network Rail for not having foreseen these problems, but if he had taken action then, would he not have been able to foresee them and do something about them?

[Mr McLoughlin]

As I said, the reclassification took place in September. When I appeared before the Transport Committee, I was asked to give my opinions on matters as they were at the time. Since then, owing to the greater accessibility and more direct control from which we have benefited, I have had a chance to think a bit more about what ought to be done, which is why I have made my statement today.

[Mims Davies (Eastleigh) (Con)]

May I urge my right hon. Friend to work positively with the new management of Network Rail, the Solent local enterprise partnership and local stakeholders in my constituency to accelerate the development of the Chicken Hall Lane link road?

[Mr McLoughlin]

I shall be more than happy to look into what my hon. Friend has suggested, and respond to her in due course.

I was a junior Transport Minister some 25 years ago, and in those days railways were not talked about. Today, however, it is clear that they are very important in providing connections for all our constituents, and that they are benefiting from investment as a result of what this Government and the last Government have done.

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

There will be a great deal of anger in Sheffield today about the decision on the midland main line, especially among businesses. There will also be some cynicism about the fact that the electrification which was on track before 7 May has been abandoned so soon after that date. Will the Secretary of State confirm that, contrary to what he has just said, Ministers gave clear commitments—both in the House and in writing—that it would be completed by 2020? He has reneged on those commitments today, and he really has no idea when, or if, electrification will actually take place.

[Mr McLoughlin]

It is wrong to say that I have reneged on those commitments. What I have said is that the Great Western railway line was always a priority for electrification, but that I want to see electrification on the other lines as well. A fair amount of the work that is required, such as bridge building and replacement, has already been done on the midland main line, and I hope very much that the line will be electrified, but at present it is right for us to ensure that we secure the best value for money on the railways.

[Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend is right to say that electrification is difficult. I know that he has spent a great deal of time in the past year ensuring that Network Rail bears down on its costs. I warmly welcome his statement, particularly what he said about governance measures. May I urge him, however, to take all necessary measures to ensure that Network Rail stays within its spending and funding allowances? That, and only that, will enable passengers to see the benefit of the Government’s long-term commitment to rail investment.

[Mr McLoughlin]

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The level of our investment in the railways is unprecedented in comparison with that of recent Governments, but it is also important for us to secure best value for our investment. That is one of the tasks with which I have charged Sir Peter Hendy, and I look forward to receiving his report later this year.

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

I am glad that the Secretary of State has confirmed that the electrification of the Great Western line is a priority, but can he confirm that the pre-election promise made to the people of the west of my country that the line would be electrified as far as Swansea by 2018 will be honoured?

[Mr McLoughlin]

What I can tell the people of Swansea and the hon. Gentleman’s constituents is that they will experience the benefits of the new intercity express programme in—I think—2018. I will clarify the exact date in a letter to the hon. Gentleman. As for electrification all the way to Swansea, it is part of the programme that, as I have said, is a top priority.

[Edward Argar (Charnwood) (Con)]

My constituents will welcome, as I do, my right hon. Friend’s clear commitment and determination to improve our railways, and his strong track record on tackling issues that the Labour party left unaddressed for so long. They will, however, be a little disappointed by the pause in the electrification of the midland main line. I shall not labour the point, but can my right hon. Friend reassure me that it is just that—a pause, not a cancellation—and that he remains committed to the electrification? Will he, or the railways Minister, agree to meet me to discuss the rail services that are used by my constituents in Leicestershire?

[Mr McLoughlin]

Either the railways Minister or I will certainly meet my hon. Friend to discuss that issue in more detail. As I said earlier, the priority for the midland main line is still the provision of six trains an hour from St Pancras, which we can achieve by rebuilding and straightening the track at Market Harborough and remodelling the track at Derby station, but I still want to see the electrification of that line.

[Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

The Secretary of State was generous in describing Network Rail’s performance at London Bridge as “unacceptable”. I think it was an absolute shambles and a disgrace, and passengers suffered the consequences for months afterwards. I am pleased that he has cancelled any bonuses and hope that if, in the next financial year, Network Rail’s performance is just as diabolical, it will not get any then, either. Will he consider whether passengers should be compensated if trains are delayed by just 15 minutes, and encourage the train companies and Network Rail to publicise on every delayed train, and at every station at which delayed trains arrive, how passengers can claim compensation?

[Mr McLoughlin]

I accept that what passengers had to put up with earlier this year at London Bridge was unacceptable; I do not think anybody would argue with that for one second. I will certainly look at the right hon. Gentleman’s suggestions on how passenger services can be improved, but the refurbishment taking place at London Bridge means that passengers will see a hugely better-built station with more capacity. It will be a great enhancement to passenger services once it is finished, but I accept that some of the delays and the way in which information was given out was absolutely unacceptable, and both Network Rail and we have learned lessons from that incident.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

A pause in the electrification project for the midland main line is not good news from my Kettering constituents, especially when the rate of return on the project is greater than that for the Great Western electrification, where all the delays and problems have occurred. What effect will that have, if any, on the timing of the franchise renewal for the midland main line? Given that my right hon. Friend has just told the House that better services can be achieved before electrification, will he do his best to reinstate either before or in the franchise renewal the half-hourly service north from Kettering, which was halved under the previous Labour Government?

[Mr McLoughlin]

I will certainly look at what my hon. Friend asks for and see if it is possible. The extended franchise that I have set out, and which we will look at, for East Midlands Trains is on target, but when we go out for re-franchising there will be an opportunity to look in greater detail at some of the improvements that my hon. Friend has just called for.

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State knows that his deliberate decision to choose to de-prioritise electrification for the midland main line means that talk of a northern powerhouse will be seen as empty words in Sheffield, but he also said that the line improvements will continue. Will he confirm that that means all the line improvements, including Market Harborough, and will he say when the work will be completed?

[Mr McLoughlin]

I have just confirmed to many of my hon. Friends that the Market Harborough work will go on. I find it a little hard to take from Opposition Members that we have done nothing for the northern powerhouse. Labour did nothing in 2004 when it let the previous franchise to Northern Rail on a zero-growth plan. That was its ambition in 2004 for the north: zero. We have a great ambition for the north and there will be improvements, as we see the roll-out of the electric services that I referred to in my statement. Anybody who goes today to Sheffield’s Victoria station will see a station that has been rebuilt as a result of this Government’s investment.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

We have at the Despatch Box one of the very best Ministers in the Government, but my constituents will be very disappointed about the midland main line news. That could be corrected, however, by the improvements he has described. The real problem with the line is capacity and train numbers. If we get that sorted, we will see that my constituents are quite happy.

[Mr McLoughlin]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend; it is fair to say that I get more support from him in this job than I did in my previous one. The point he rightly makes about trains and their increasing frequency from St Pancras is very important, and I am glad to say that—although not a direct link as far as his constituents are concerned—I was able to attend the opening of a new station in Northampton, and also to see lots of road investment in Northamptonshire.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

My constituents will be alarmed at the pause in the electrification of the route between Manchester and Leeds, and not just those who use it. What consequences will there be for improved train services on other lines that depend on electrification for the release of rolling stock?

[Mr McLoughlin]

I went some way to say what we have done as far as the northern area is concerned and the northern powerhouse. For the first time we are seeing electric trains from Manchester to Preston and from Preston to Blackpool, and huge investment in the Manchester Victoria line. I have talked about the release of rolling stock as far as the Great Western main line is concerned, and that is one reason why I chose that area to take priority.

[Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)]

I thank the Secretary of State for continuing the investment in the Great Western main line, but having visited my constituents recently he will be acutely aware that they take longer to get to and from the capital than they did in 1910. Can he reassure me that nothing in the statement will delay the pressure on First Great Western to deliver a two-hour service between Worcester and the capital, or the delivery of Worcestershire Parkway station?

[Mr McLoughlin]

I can confirm that nothing in the statement will impact on the improvements that my hon. Friend wishes to see.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

I welcome the assurance that the Great Western main line will remain a priority, but as we have heard, the cost of the scheme has more than trebled to £1.7 billion, and the rumours are that it has already been delayed by more than a year. What reassurance can the Secretary of State give people travelling on that line from Bristol to London that there will not be any further pain and misery in the months and years to come?

[Mr McLoughlin]

When the hon. Lady says “further pain and misery”, I note there may be occasions when, because of ongoing work, trains will be altered and timetables changed. We cannot carry out this huge electrification programme, as I outlined earlier in my statement, over the length of track and through some of the tunnels we are talking about, without there being some big engineering challenges, but it is absolutely right that the Great Western main line takes priority, and that the new trains that will run on the line from 2017 to 2018 are there and used.

[Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement on Network Rail. As someone who has worked with Sir Peter Hendy in London government, I know he is a world-class transport executive and will make a better job of delivering major projects like London Bridge than those that my constituents have had to put up with so far. Will my right hon. Friend to keep up the pressure started by his rail Minister on existing franchise holders such as South East Trains? I can top my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr Walker): Napoleon III chose to live in exile in Chislehurst because it had a fast and reliable train service to London. My constituents are now selling their houses and moving out because it is so bad on a daily basis, as I know.

[Mr McLoughlin]

I thank my hon. Friend for his comments about Sir Peter Hendy. My hon. Friend the rail Minister needs no encouragement from my hon. Friend or anybody else to keep up the pressure on those services.

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

What does pausing trans-Pennine electrification mean for the privately funded initiative put forward to electrify the line from Selby to Hull—which was, of course, missed out in his Department’s original plans?

[Mr McLoughlin]

The hon. Lady is not being quite fair, because I made some extra money available to take that route to the next GRIP stage. To say that we missed it out is slightly unfair, but leaving that to one side, I hope that the plans being developed will be acted on.

[Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)]

The pause in electrification of the midland main line has a potential impact on the selection of the route to complete the east-west rail link—a crucial issue for my constituents in Bedford and Kempston. Will my right hon. Friend show his characteristically robust and decisive approach, write to the head of Network Rail and ask him to stop dawdling and decide which of the two routes from Bedford is the right one to complete the link? Will my right hon. Friend also ask my hon. Friend the rail Minister to visit Bedford and speak to me and the Mayor of Bedford about this very important issue?

[Mr McLoughlin]

I am sure the rail Minister will be more than happy to meet my hon. Friend in his constituency to discuss the problems being faced. I will certainly feed in what he has said to Sir Peter Hendy as he completes the review that I have asked him to undertake.

[Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)]

My constituents will also be disappointed by the pause in the electrification of the midland main line. They want to know whether it is a pause or a cancellation, so will the Secretary of State say when he might expect that electrification to happen? Is it by 2025 or might it be a bit earlier than that?

[Mr McLoughlin]

If my hon. Friend will allow me, I will allow Sir Peter to make his report before I start saying what will be in it. I usually find that that is the best course of action on these occasions, rather than anticipating what will be in a report that I have just commissioned before I have received it. As I have said to other colleagues on the subject of the line that my hon. Friend and I both use regularly, getting to the position where we have six trains an hour from St Pancras will be an improvement.

[Ben Howlett (Bath) (Con)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement and I am pleased that the largest investment in the Great Western main line through Bath since the Victorians is a top priority—I am sure that has nothing to do with the fact that Sir Peter Hendy comes from Bath. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is shameful that the Opposition are making political capital out of this statement, given their appalling record when they were in government?

[Mr McLoughlin]

My hon. Friend will soon find out, as he is here a bit longer, that the Labour party just taking political opportunity and making political capital out of something it failed in all its time in government to do anything about is nothing new. I walked with my hon. Friend through the park area in Bath where some of the electrification of the railway will take place. One problem we face is that going through huge heritage areas and great conservation areas such as his constituency is more problematic, but we are determined to meet the challenge.

[Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con)]

Along with my constituents in Corby and east Northamptonshire, I am very frustrated about the content of today’s announcement in relation to the midland main line electrification. I know what they will ask me when I return to the constituency tonight. They will say, “How can you justify spending billions of pounds on HS2 yet delay the progress of this electrification?” What reassurance can the Minister give to my constituents?

[Mr McLoughlin]

The reassurance I give to my hon. Friend’s constituents is that HS2 is about improving and increasing the capacity on our railways because of the growth we are seeing. If we did not improve that capacity, we would have even greater problems down the line in providing the kind of extra services he wants for his constituents, not only on passenger services but on freight, which has grown hugely on our railways—by more than 100%. I would say that to his constituents, and that our Government are committed to the infrastructure investment that I know he is keen to see in the rest of his county, not least on some of the roads around his constituency.

[Craig Williams (Cardiff North) (Con)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. As a Cardiff Member, I particularly welcome the commitment to the Great Western line as his top priority—the biggest railway investment going on in Wales for some time. Have the under-investment problems been compounding Network Rail’s skills shortage? I am thinking in particular of the huge under-investment by the Labour party in 13 years.

[Mr McLoughlin]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that. A huge amount of investment will be going into Wales, in terms not only of the track, but the new trains. They are on order and are being built at this moment.

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend please say a few words about what he is going to do in the southern area? A lot in this statement addresses the midlands and the north, but a lot of my constituents, whom I have the honour to represent, rely on Southeastern and Southern rail, which are not mentioned at all in the statement. Network Rail’s efforts would be greatly appreciated in improving the service there, too.

[Mr McLoughlin]

My hon. Friend’s area does get the advantage of the 115 new train sets—1,140 carriages—for the Thameslink programme, which will have a massive impact on his constituents. I accept that there is growing pressure for more services right across the country, but huge amounts of investment are already being made and what I am doing today is making sure that both the fare-paying passengers and the taxpayer are getting the best value for the money that they are investing in our railways.

[Mr Speaker]

I am most grateful to the Secretary of State and to colleagues. Before we embark on the next business—the general debate—I should mention in passing that by my calculation no fewer than half a dozen hon. Members who will be seeking to catch the eye of the Chair in the course of the debate are not yet present in the Chamber. [Interruption.] The Secretary of State rightly, as a parliamentary veteran, looks duly shocked by that, and I hope that at this very moment they are beetling along towards the Chamber. It is worth gently making the point that it is a very well-established expectation that a Member who wishes to speak in a debate should in almost all circumstances, and certainly unless he or she has given notice otherwise, be present at the start to hear the opening speeches.

Reports into Investigatory Powers

Thursday 25th June 2015 Commons Chamber

12:55

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered reports into investigatory powers.

When I made my statement on the publication of the Anderson report two weeks ago, several right hon. and hon. Members requested a full debate in this House. As I said then, and as I have said many times in the past, these are serious and sensitive matters. They require careful deliberation of the evidence, to ensure that the legal and privacy framework governing the use of investigatory powers is properly accountable and as robust as possible. These principles—accountability, transparency and a robust legal framework—are underscored by the report by David Anderson, QC. His report was preceded by the Intelligence and Security Committee’s “Privacy and Security” report, which was published in March and which examined the appropriate balance between the need for security and respect for privacy.

Today, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has laid two further reports before the House: the annual report of the Chief Surveillance Commissioner and the annual report of the Intelligence Services Commissioner. Later this summer, a panel co-ordinated by the Royal United Services Institute and established by the former Deputy Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr Clegg), will report on the legality, effectiveness and privacy implications of the UK’s surveillance programmes and assess how law enforcement and intelligence capability can be maintained in the face of technological change. Together, those reports represent substantial independent review of the frameworks and oversight governing the use of investigatory powers.

In addition, last year, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister appointed Sir Nigel Sheinwald as his data envoy. Sir Nigel has submitted his report to my right hon. Friend and although, for obvious reasons of sensitivity, it cannot be published, a summary has been placed on the Cabinet Office website. Sir Nigel focused both on short-term and longer-term co-operation, and on the need to create an international framework between democratic countries. That would ensure that, where necessary and proportionate, data can be accessed even when they are held outside the requesting country’s jurisdiction.

As I have said before, and as the Anderson and other reports make clear, the use of investigatory powers by the police and the security and intelligence agencies is essential for national security and for the fight against crime. If the police are to investigate serious crimes such as murder and rape, if our law enforcement agencies are to track down criminals that operate online and if we are to protect the vulnerable and stop those who mean to do us harm, the police and the security and intelligence agencies need access to these powers when appropriate.

As this morning’s figures show, the threat from terrorism is serious and it is growing. In 2014, 289 people were arrested for terrorism-related offences, an increase of 30% compared with the previous year. We know that investigatory powers are important for tackling terrorism, and that communications data have played a significant role in every Security Service counter-terrorism operation over the last decade. Since 2010, the majority of MI5’s top-priority UK counter-terrorism investigations have used intercept capabilities in some form to identify, understand or disrupt plots seeking to harm the UK and its citizens.

Although the Anderson report and others recognise the necessity of investigatory powers, just as important is having the right regulatory framework, the right oversight and the right authorisation arrangements governing their use. As David Anderson has said, he regards it as imperative that the use of sensitive powers is overseen and fully declared under arrangements set by Parliament. It is therefore entirely right that Parliament should have the opportunity to debate those arrangements. Just as the Anderson review was undertaken with cross-party support, I am committed to ensuring that we take forward these arrangements on the same basis.

I want to turn first to David Anderson’s report. It is, as I have said before, a comprehensive report, covering the full range of sensitive intelligence capabilities, and there are 124 recommendations. I hope that right hon. and hon. Members have now had the opportunity to read it for themselves, and reflect on what David Anderson has said. David Anderson makes it clear that there is a need for investigatory powers—within an appropriate framework—in the fight against terrorism and serious crime. He notes the significance of communications data in prosecutions and that sensitive interception powers are not used routinely. He said:

“Interception is therefore used only in the most serious cases... But interception can still be of vital importance for intelligence, for disruption, and for the detection and investigation of crime.”

He also agrees with the Intelligence and Security Committee and others on the importance of bulk data, saying that

“its utility, particularly in fighting terrorism in the years since the London bombings of 2005, has been made clear to me.”

But David Anderson is also firmly of the view that the system needs updating, and he supports the need for a new legislative framework, noting that the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 was enacted 15 years ago. He makes a number of recommendations regarding transparency, oversight and authorisation.

On the legislative framework, David Anderson makes the point that legislation is currently spread over several different Acts, and recommends bringing it together in a single law. On oversight, he recommends the merging of the three oversight commissioners—the Interception of Communications Commissioner’s Office, the Office of Surveillance Commissioners and the Intelligence Services Commissioner— into a new single independent surveillance and intelligence commission. On authorisation, Anderson comes down on the side of judicial authorisation of warrantry, although the ISC takes a different view and has endorsed the existing system. Anderson points out the care with which Secretaries of State approach the task and makes it clear that European Court of Human Rights jurisprudence does not require a system of judicial authorisation, but he is of course mindful that requirements may change in the future.

[Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)]

Shortly after the right hon. Lady spoke in the House two weeks ago, The Guardian reported that Downing Street was indicating that the Prime Minister is unlikely to agree to David Anderson’s recommendation for a judicial authorisation of warrants. Does that mean that she is effectively ruling out judicial authorisation of warrants at this early stage?

[Mrs May]

Perhaps the hon. and learned Lady will let me read the very next sentence in my speech, which says that, on these recommendations, the Government have not yet reached a decision. These are important matters and we must consider them carefully. Today’s debate will inform our view.

The ISC’s review into privacy and security also supports the agencies’ need for investigatory powers, but recommends that the legal framework needs updating and calls for increased transparency, strengthened safeguards and improved oversight. The review involved a detailed investigation into the capabilities of the intelligence agencies and contained an unprecedented amount of information about how they are used and the legal framework that regulates their use.

The Committee found that all the surveillance activities of the intelligence agencies are lawful and proportionate. It concluded that the agencies do not seek to circumvent UK law—including the Human Rights Act 1998—and do not have the resources, capability, or the desire to conduct mass surveillance. It commended the agencies for the care and attention they give to complying with the law.

None the less, it concluded that the current legal framework is “unnecessarily complex” and should be replaced with a single Act of Parliament, governing everything the agencies do to increase transparency. Going further than David Anderson, the ISC’s recommendations include replacing the legislation that underpins the agencies as well as the legislation relating to interception and communications data. Its recommendations include allowing Secretaries of State to disclose the existence of warrants where that can be done without damage to national security; increased checks, scrutiny and use of the warrant process; and more resources—and more checking of the agencies’ activities—by the Intelligence Services Commissioner and the Interception of Communications Commissioner. As with David Anderson’s report, debate on these issues will inform the Government’s view.

[Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend is making an important point. On informing the Government’s view, I welcome her concession that the Government will think carefully about the Anderson review on judicial oversight. She also mentioned earlier the importance of cross-party working on parliamentary oversight, where appropriate. Will she undertake to include the relevant Select Committees of this House in that cross-party approach?

[Mrs May]

First, may I congratulate my hon. Friend on his election to a chairmanship of one of those Select Committees? I suspect that he is thinking of the Justice Committee. Of course it is not for the Government to indicate to Select Committees what business they should be undertaking, but I have every expectation that relevant Select Committees will wish to look at this matter. The Government will take all representations and consider them in the round in their response to the reports.

In addition, as I mentioned earlier, the Prime Minister has today published the annual reports of the Chief Surveillance Commissioner and the Intelligence Services Commissioner. I commend both of those reports to the House. Both demonstrate the value of rigorous independent oversight and provide reassurance on the work of the agencies and the powers that they oversee. I thank the Chief Surveillance Commissioner, the Intelligence Services Commissioner and their staff for their excellent work, their dedication and public service.

I appreciate that Members of the House will not yet have had time to study the reports in detail, but I would like to draw their attention to the findings of the Intelligence Services Commissioner, who is clear about the seriousness with which these powers and the granting of warrants are approached by the agencies and Government. He says:

“The agencies take great care to seek other less intrusive means before undertaking this level of intrusion and often consult their lawyers to ensure the legality of their submission.”

He goes on to say that great care is carried out by the warranty units at the Foreign Office, Home Office and Northern Ireland Office, which

“will question the agencies concerning the use and applicability of the suggested activity.”

The final check in the process is the oversight provided by a Secretary of State, who can refuse a warrant and who he says

“are aware that they are ultimately accountable for the operation.”

As I have already said, the Government have not yet taken firm decisions on particular recommendations in David Anderson’s report, or indeed on any of the other reports we will discuss today. There are many voices both inside and outside the House who have important views that need to be heard. We must consult those, including the police, the security and intelligence agencies, law enforcement agencies, and the telecommunications companies, as they are most directly affected. We also need to hear what Members of this House have to say.

I am clear that, whatever legal and privacy framework we propose, it will need to be agile and capable of responding to urgent cases. It will need to be clear and accountable, to be capable of commanding public confidence, and to ensure that sensitive powers are available in a way that will stand the test of time.

The reports that we are discussing today provide a firm basis for consultation, and today’s debate—the second time this House has discussed this matter in two weeks— will be an important contribution to that process. As I have said previously, the operation and regulation of the investigatory powers used by the police and the security and intelligence agencies is a matter of great importance to the security of this country and an issue of great interest to many Members.

The Government are committed to introducing a Bill on investigatory powers early next year, so that it can receive Royal Assent before the sunset clause in the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act comes into effect at the end of 2016. In order to meet that timetable and allow the full parliamentary scrutiny, we intend to bring forward a draft Bill for consideration in the autumn, which will be subject to full pre-legislative scrutiny, including by a Joint Committee of both Houses.

As we move forward in our discussions, it is important that we remind ourselves about the very serious nature of what we are debating, because these powers are about protecting and saving people’s lives. In any debate about the right balance between security and privacy, it is important that we remember the full context of the threats we face. They include the threat from terrorism—both from overseas and home-grown in the UK. Since the attacks on 7 July 2005, the Security Service believes that around 40 terrorist plots have been disrupted. Around 700 people have gone from the UK to Syria and Iraq to fight or support terrorist organisations—a number of them to join ISIL or Daesh—and around half have returned. ISIL has made it clear that it wants to strike us here in Europe, and we know that it uses sophisticated propaganda and modern technology to spread hatred and in some cases advocate or facilitate acts of terrorism.

We also face other threats from organised criminals and the proliferation of cybercrimes such as child sexual exploitation, and threats from hostile foreign states and from military and industrial espionage.

Without the use of investigatory powers, it would be difficult to investigate, prosecute and prevent not only terrorist-related activity but crimes such as murder, rape, human trafficking, child sexual exploitation, cybercrime and kidnap. We know that communications data are used in 95% of serious and organised crime investigations handled by the Crown Prosecution Service. Similarly, intercept has played a significant role in investigating crime and preventing terrorism. In 2014, 2,795 interception warrants were issued. Of those, the majority—68%—were issued for serious crime, 31% for national security and 1% for a combination of serious crime and national security.

In the face of such threats, the Government would be negligent if we did not ensure that those whose job it is to keep us safe have the powers, support and capabilities they need. I am committed to ensuring that. However, security and privacy are not, as I said before, a zero-sum game. We can only enjoy our privacy if we have our security, just as we can only be free to live our lives as we wish, enjoy the many benefits that this country has to offer and go about our lives unimpeded and free from threats because security underpins our way of life.

Too often in the debate about investigatory powers, we are drawn into arguments in which privacy is prioritised at the expense of security or security at the expense of privacy, but it is possible to have a proper balance between the two. We must consider these issues in the round. Through parliamentary scrutiny, we must ensure that we have a framework set by Parliament that delivers as it is intended to and that can command public confidence. That framework must be underpinned by thoughtful and constructive debate, and I look forward to hearing what right hon. and hon. Members have to say in what I believe will be a well-informed and interesting debate.

13:11

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

I thank the Home Secretary for her thoughtful speech and for scheduling the debate so swiftly after the publication of David Anderson’s report. I called for the debate in response to the statement two weeks ago and it has been swiftly delivered.

I should also apologise to the House, as I already have to the Home Secretary and to you, Mr Speaker, for the fact that I cannot be here for the closing speeches. It is my daughter’s school graduation, so I hope the House will forgive me for being there instead.

This will be a good debate and it is an opportunity to debate the right legal framework to protect our liberty and security in the digital age. I join the Home Secretary in paying tribute to the quiet heroism of our intelligence services, agents and counter-terror police. Their work is necessarily secret and their successes are rarely reported, but their success is measured, bluntly, by a lack of column inches and TV headlines. We are rightly all proud of them.

There is also no doubt that as the world becomes increasingly connected and as we increasingly rely on smartphones, tablets and other technology to communicate and organise our lives, that has repercussions for the fight against terrorism and serious and organised crime. David Anderson’s report contains the startling fact that in 1975 there were 1 billion connected places, that by 2010 there were 5 billion connected people and that by 2020 there will be 50 billion connected devices.

Our lives are increasingly online, and with that opportunity come great challenges. For example, we know that Twitter is a lot of fun for many people, including many Members of this House—although, perhaps, not yet the Home Secretary—but it has also been used to connect extremists and recruiters with young people in the United Kingdom, including the young girls who left for Syria from Bethnal Green earlier this year. New devices, mail services and apps are used to help us all keep in touch, build amazing new businesses and organise our lives, but also by some to commit crimes and abuse. Online crime has risen exponentially and we have also seen awful cases of online child abuse that we are still failing to address as a country.

We have also seen growing problems with organised cyber-attacks for major companies, infrastructure and the Government. The operations of the police and intelligence agencies need to be able to keep up with these new forms of crime and national security threats, but at the same time the checks and balances, safeguards and oversight that are needed must keep up with new technology. We have a long and proud tradition in Britain of having those checks, balances and safeguards for our liberty and our privacy. We must ensure that action by the state is proportionate, so those checks and balances must keep up with the fast-moving changing technology.

We have argued for some time that the legal framework is out of date. The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act is, in David Anderson’s words,

“incomprehensible to all but a tiny band of initiates”

and in the long run that means that it is “intolerable”. Its interaction with previous legislation, including the Telecommunications Act 1984, is baffling, too, and even after being briefed on some of the work that the agencies do and having studied the legislation over seven years—often with a wet towel wrapped around my head, which was the only thing that enabled me to get my head around it even temporarily—I still find it hard to be clear about what is possible and what is not under the law as it stands and about the extent of existing safeguards. That is unsustainable as a framework for legitimacy for the vital work the agencies do, which is why we have called for some time for a review of RIPA, why we argued for it in the debates last summer and why we have welcomed the Government’s agreement to ask David Anderson to produce this report.

The report is extremely thorough and ranges from ideas of privacy in ancient Babylonia to what Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg, the founder of a rather different kind of empire, thinks of the topic. It provides us with an opportunity for Parliament, civil society, the intelligence community, law enforcement, communication providers and, crucially, the public properly to consider the powers and safeguards we need.

As David Anderson recently said:

“The threat that I see of not accepting my recommendations, or recommendations along these lines is that people become disenchanted with the whole business of intelligence gathering. They believe some of the wilder allegations…that the state is reading into people’s emails the whole time when patently it isn’t. If this sense of disillusionment and disenchantment is perpetuated and spreads further then I think both law enforcement and intelligence lose the public confidence that they actually need if they are going to do an effective job.”

[Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)]

My right hon. Friend is making a good and comprehensive speech. Is it not appropriate that David Anderson’s report is entitled “A Question of Trust”? Surely that is one of the most important things in bringing the public with us on this issue.

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend is exactly right. There is strong support for the work of the intelligence agencies and the work they do in Britain, which has historically always been the case, but we should never take that for granted. It would not be fair on the intelligence agencies to take it for granted, so maintaining that sense of trust and confidence across the whole of society and not simply across the majority of people is extremely important for the work that they do. If we are to protect both our liberty and security in a democracy, we need to achieve consent for and understanding of the law and it is not just those who are concerned about surveillance who value greater clarity. It is also an essential mission of our intelligence agencies as part of defending democracy and protecting liberty and security.

The Home Secretary has been clear that there is no doubt that investigatory powers are vital in confronting terrorism, child abuse and other serious and organised crime. During the Home Secretary’s statement two weeks ago, I mentioned the awful case cited in David Anderson’s report in which communications data were used, rightly, to stop the abuse of three children who were all less than four years old. There are other cases. For example, Operation Overt dealt with the largest and most serious terrorist plot we have ever faced. Between 2008 and 2010, 10 individuals were convicted of plotting to blow up multiple transatlantic airliners. A key part of the evidence that brought the plotters to justice was coded conversations by email between the conspirators and extremists abroad in which they discussed the preparation for their attacks and the selection of targets.

It is clear from the review and other evidence that the powers passed through the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014 last summer are essential and must be renewed, and will need to be renewed in good time before the sunset clause at the end of next year. It is also right, however, that we ensure that the legal framework that governs them is updated so that it properly reflects the needs of security and the need for safeguards.

In 2012, the Home Secretary made proposals in the draft Communications Data Bill that would have gone much further than the current legislation. I argued at the time that there were serious problems with the Bill, because it put too much power in the hands of the Home Secretary. The Joint Committee set up to scrutinise the draft Bill also, rightly, raised substantial concerns. David Anderson’s report makes it clear that he does not think that the draft Bill was the right approach. He noted that the first clause was “excessively broad”. The important question of IP addresses, which was encompassed in the draft Bill, has now been dealt with in other legislation. On weblogs, which the Home Office said at the time it wanted to pursue, David Anderson concluded that he

“was not presented with a detailed or unified case”

on the viability, practicalities or legal considerations.

On perhaps the most significant and the most controversial measure in the draft Bill—requiring internet service providers to hold huge amounts of third-party data—he commented:

“I did not get the sense that this was judged to be the priority that it once was, even within law enforcement”,

and he concluded:

“Accordingly…there should be no question of progressing this element of the old draft Bill until such time as a compelling operational case has been made, there has been full consultation with CSPs and the various legal and technical issues have been fully bottomed out. None of those conditions appears to me to be currently satisfied.”

Experts have also expressed substantial concerns about encryption and the cost and proportionality of the proposals.

Where David Anderson and the agencies confirm that there is a problem is in ensuring that companies whose headquarters are overseas comply with UK law, particularly for data and communications that involve those who are living and operating in the UK and those who pose threats to the UK. The Home Secretary referred to the report by Nigel Sheinwald, whose work is vital because, as the agencies and the Home Secretary recognise, UK law is only part of the answer; legal and diplomatic arrangements with other countries are immensely important. In fact, there is a growing range of views that the proposals in the draft Communications Data Bill were not the right way to deal with that genuine and significant problem in relation to companies based overseas.

On that basis, I ask the Home Secretary to confirm that she has dropped the original draft Communications Data Bill and is starting with a fresh approach. I think it would help our debate in this place and the development of future proposals that should balance the appropriate powers and the appropriate safeguards. Will she confirm that that draft Bill has been dropped and a new approach will be taken?

[Mrs May]

After the Joint Committee that scrutinised that draft Bill had done its work, we made it clear that we would take on board in principle the various recommendations the Committee made. Obviously, David Anderson’s report refers to some of the issues in the draft Communications Data Bill, so we will have to look at that in the context of subsequent proposals. We were clear that we would accept all the principles that that Committee set out, including that the original draft Communications Data Bill, which was an attempt to future-proof our legislation, was too wide ranging.

[Yvette Cooper]

I thank the Home Secretary for that reassurance that the Government agree that the old draft Bill was too wide ranging. We look forward to the replacement proposals and hope they will meet the assessment test set out by David Anderson, whose report is pretty comprehensive and well judged on these matters.

I also warmly welcome David Anderson’s recommendations for a fundamental overhaul of the commissioner system and the establishment of a new body, the independent surveillance and intelligence commission. The current commissioner system, although undoubtedly staffed by excellent people who have taken their roles forward, is too low profile and not substantial enough in performing a vital oversight role. It is hard for the public to assess where oversight properly lies. When one considers that we regulate our TV channels in a more high-profile and systematic way than our intelligence agencies, it is clear that reform is needed.

The new body would have supervisory responsibility and aim to build public trust. I would like it also to have a role in working with the Home Secretary on a suitable process for transparency, where that is possible in line with operational requirements, about both the law and our country’s capability. David Anderson’s report calls for greater public avowal and transparency about capabilities and legal powers. While everyone understands that many national security operations need to be secret to be effective, I know the Home Secretary will consider that recommendation closely, because sufficient transparency is of course needed if we in Parliament are to be able to take responsible decisions and get the legislation right.

The report recommends transforming the system of authorisation for interception warrants. The proposals on judicial authorisation are among the most significant reforms to the framework that David Anderson proposes. There is precedent: a system of judicial approval by commissioners exists for the police in relation to property interference, intrusive surveillance and long-term undercover operations. Also, as the report notes, the UK is an outlier among the “Five Eyes” states—the others are Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the USA—in not having prior judicial authorisation of interceptions of communications.

Importantly for the safety and security of our country, such a provision could go some way to solving one of the most significant challenges our agencies face: getting co-operation from communications companies based in the United States. In his report, David Anderson states:

“One major company went so far as to suggest that if the UK introduced judicial authorisation, more cooperation would be forthcoming, though I was not left with the impression that this was a universal view.”

He adds that

“US companies…find it difficult to understand why they should honour a warrant signed by the Secretary of State”

when the US has a system of judicial authorisation of warrants. So there are pragmatic considerations as well as constitutional considerations for us in determining what impact increasing judicial authorisation might have on that greater co-operation involving overseas companies.

Of course the detail must be right and reforms should not adversely affect the relationship between the Executive and the judiciary in relation to other aspects of Government powers. They should also recognise the importance of the Home Secretary’s role in determining what the threats are to national security, rather than leave such an important task to the judiciary. However, it should be possible to make those reforms, and I believe that now is the right time to introduce judicial authorisation into the process. Clearly, there are different ways of doing it—for example, it would be possible to have different frameworks for different kinds of warrant. David Anderson recognises that there would be differences in relation to sensitive missions that affect other countries and our relationships with them. Clearly, rather than leave such cases to a purely judicial process, such cases would require decisions to be made by the Foreign Secretary, who is accountable to Parliament for those sensitive relationships with other Governments.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

How does the right hon. Lady reconcile the need to take account of the wider political construct with the duty of the judiciary to act according to the law? Surely she is making a powerful argument for the status quo.

[Yvette Cooper]

No, I am not. I am part way through an argument that there are different kinds of warrant and different circumstances. In cases involving foreign affairs, where sensitive relationships with other Governments may be at stake, the Executive clearly have an important role to play; they cannot be seen simply as judicial matters. However, there are other kinds of warrant—for example, intercept warrants for the purposes of tackling serious and organised crime, where if the action was not intercept, but was instead knocking down someone’s door and breaking into their home, authorisation would be an entirely judicial process. There are significant questions about why intercept in the interests of pursuing serious and organised crime should have no judicial authorisation, whereas knocking down somebody’s door should have judicial authorisation.

That is why I think there is a strong case for introducing judicial authorisation to provide a clearer system of separation of Executive and judiciary and to introduce clearer checks and balances into the process. It does have to be done in the right way and there will be different considerations around crime and national security and foreign affairs, but I believe it is possible because other countries manage it. If we were the only country in the “Five Eyes” that did not have a process of judicial authorisation, even though we have similar intercept arrangements, that would pose a big question for us. Those who simply defend the status quo need to explain why they think the arrangements in all those other countries are inadequate and worse than ours, given the added legitimacy that some judicial authorisation processes should bring.

I recognise the complexity here; that is why it is wise that we hold this debate now, in advance of the Government making their final decisions on the issue and setting out their proposals. It is also wise that we have a period of consultation on the draft legislation, so that people can table amendments and have these debates. However, I do not see why judicial authorisation need threaten or jeopardise the work of the agencies—quite the reverse. If it is a way to provide greater legitimacy, and support from overseas, for this work, it could add strongly to the process, and to agencies’ work.

On the legislative process, I welcome the Home Secretary’s proposal for a period of proper reflection and discussion on the detail before final votes are taken in Parliament. That is the right approach. We are keen to continue discussions with her on this subject, and I welcome the briefing that she provided for me to enable us to do that. When the Snowden leaks first appeared in the media, there was a sense that Parliament was not debating these issues, that the Government were not responding, and that other countries were having a more informed and up-to-date debate about the response and the processes.

[Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

On the subject of having a more informed debate, does the right hon. Lady agree that the Sheinwald report, redacted if necessary, should be published? Many believe that its proposals, including on international treaties, would do away with the need for some of what is proposed for any investigatory powers Bill.

[Yvette Cooper]

I have not seen the Sheinwald report or had prior briefing on it, so I could not say how much redaction would be needed, but the right hon. Gentleman is right that the more transparency we can have in this debate, the better, so I urge the Government to consider allowing maximum transparency in this regard, to the extent possible, given the operational sensitivities and our relationship with the US Government on this. Clearly, the more we can look at the detail of alternative ways of providing the powers, safeguards and legitimacy needed, the better, and the better informed the parliamentary debate will be.

The initial debates and the response from the Government were not sufficient. However, we have since had reports from the Intelligence and Security Committee and David Anderson, and we have another forthcoming external report from the Royal United Services Institute for Defence Studies. This is the opportunity for Parliament to make sure that we have a proper updated response on the complexities of the digital age and how we maintain our security and liberty in it. More safeguards and checks and balances are needed, but it is also important that our intelligence agencies can deal with the serious and growing threats that the Home Secretary talked about. We need to make sure that our talented men and women in the agencies can face those real and serious threats, but also have legitimacy for the work that they do, and the continued confidence of the public. That is in all our interests.

In a democracy, our liberty and security are the targets of terrorists who seek to harm and divide us. Liberal democracy will triumph over extremism and tyranny, but for it to do so, we need to strengthen ourselves by renewing our security and our liberty. The Anderson report helps us to have a debate about how best we do that to protect our democracy.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. It might be helpful for the House to know that approximately 20 Back-Benchers are seeking to catch my eye. At this stage, I am not imposing a formal time limit, but a certain self-restraint, or self-denying ordinance, would be helpful. We can be led in this important mission by Mr Dominic Grieve.

13:34

[Mr Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I think we can indeed be led in it by me, for this reason: notwithstanding my wholehearted thanks to the Home Secretary for the speed with which she enabled this debate to take place, a consequence of that speed—I hope she will not take this as a criticism—is that the material in our possession is now of such infinite complexity and depth that to do justice to all of it in this debate would be impossible. Indeed, one of the clear advantages of starting the legislative process in the autumn is that those of us who would like to participate properly in it have time to do a lot of holiday homework before we come back to the House then. I have always felt that one of the problems with the subject is that most of us in Parliament labour under a state of extraordinary ignorance, and have great difficulty getting to grips with some of the issues.

I spent four years and two months in the Government as the Attorney General, and without betraying state secrets, it may come as little surprise to the House to hear that I had some involvement with issues surrounding the lawfulness of Government. Of course, lawfulness extends to the interception of communications, and communications data, just as much as it does to everything else. It is possible that in that time, I had the wool pulled over my eyes—by the agencies, for example. However, my impression of the agencies from my dealings with them, particularly on surveillance and interception—this point is properly made in the ISC report—was of an absolutely rigorous desire to maintain legality; a willingness to get legal advice on areas of difficulty, as was mentioned earlier; and a very high standard of ethics. That standard of ethics went beyond legality to an understanding that in trying to protect us and prevent crime, they had to do a difficult job that could intrude into the privacy of the citizen, and that at all times they had to act in a reasonable, necessary and proportionate way. That was the clearest impression that I took from them. I left office with considerable admiration for the work done in that field.

That is not to say that everything can simply be left as it is, and that we can adopt a Panglossian view of the current state of affairs. As I mentioned in a previous intervention on this matter since the election, I think that there is complete unanimity in the House on the view that the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 is not fit for purpose. I hope I may be forgiven for saying this: it has been described as almost incomprehensible, except to initiates, but I think even the initiates sometimes found it incomprehensible. I have a little lurking suspicion that because there has always been an anxiety that the legal framework will betray the level of operational capability, certain aspects of the Act were made deliberately opaque, even when it was drafted. We can hardly be surprised if, 10 years down the track, it appears even more incomprehensible than I suspect it was to those parliamentarians whose unhappy lot it was to scrutinise it when it was first being enacted.

The Act clearly is not fit for purpose. It clearly needs replacing. How we craft that replacement will—David Anderson’s report says this will be key—determine whether we can build trust. I will not get too carried away on the subject of distrust. David Anderson’s report rather highlights that notwithstanding Snowden, trust in the work of the agencies in this country on matters of surveillance and interception are rather high, and I have no reason to think that the public are hoodwinked. They seem, on the whole, to regard the institutions as benign and there to protect us, and I think they are right.

The question is, therefore, how we go about that process. I want to make only one point about this. We have had—let us face it—the complexity and the problems to which the Snowden revelations led. I have little doubt that those revelations have done very considerable damage in many cases, as has been cited, to the operational capacities of the agencies involved and their ability to protect us. On the positive side, that provides an opportunity for a more informed discussion so that the issues surrounding predictability in relation to what we legislate on can be better established for the future, and we do not end up with, or we have less of a problem with, people arguing that the legislation does not mean what it says.

That will be one of the great challenges for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. I wish her well in it. Those of us who have some inkling of what this is about will endeavour to help her as much as we can so that we can succeed in bridging the two requirements—that the legislation is open, transparent and understandable, and at the same time that it preserves operational secrecy, which will be a particular difficulty. I look forward to doing that aspect of the work in this House when the legislation comes back.

I turn to a number of the broad recommendations in David Anderson’s report, which is an amazing piece of work. I was delighted when he was appointed as independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, and the rigour with which he has delivered the report has entirely vindicated my right hon. Friend in trusting him to do this work. For the purposes of today’s debate, I shall centre on two or three points.

The first, which I suspect will be one of the big issues, concerns judicial authorisation. I am conscious that it may be argued, and I have heard it argued, that because our system broadly seems, particularly to the Executive, to function quite well, we should stick to the ISC report and continue with the current warrantry system. Against that, the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) was right to make the point that we are very unusual in having our current system of warrantry. In other “Five Eyes” countries with high levels of intelligence capability and responsibility, a judicial system has been operated successfully. It is clear to me that a judicial oversight system, with possible exceptions where complex issues of policy may be involved, would probably enhance trust, although I would not get totally carried away with that. One must always bear in mind the potential problem that if the judiciary is seen to be turned into a rubber stamp for the Administration, that slightly removes the judiciary from the key work that it normally does: the arbitration of disputes, which is a different issue.

Nevertheless, my broad approach is that—if I may put it this way to the Home Secretary—the burden of proof is a little bit reversed. It seems to me, in the light of David Anderson’s report, that if the Government wish to maintain the current system, they will have to make a case why it is markedly better than that which would replace it. Beyond that, I am open minded. One argument I have heard is an anxiety that flexibility would be lost, and that it would not be possible to get warrants authorised quickly. I am not persuaded by that. I have seen injunctions obtained from judges in the middle of the night—indeed, judges signing injunctions in the bath and handing them out through the bathroom door—so that is not necessarily an overwhelming obstacle to involving judicial commissioners. They would necessarily be judges, though ex-judges and others might be able to do this work, and it would produce a measure of independence. If the Home Secretary concludes against David Anderson’s recommendation, I am quite prepared to listen, but she will have to make the case as to what would be lost by shifting the system to that which he has suggested.

Linked to that is the question of whether we should have a single commission. The two probably go together. A single commission makes a lot of sense. I am not sure about cost—it might cost no more, but it would certainly enable people to perform slightly different roles within one organisation. Again, I shall be interested to hear the Home Secretary’s views on that.

Other matters that have cropped up could be looked at today. Some anxiety over legal professional privilege has been expressed by both the Law Society and the Bar in the light of David Anderson’s recommendations. I am not entirely persuaded by that. One problem is that we need to preserve legal professional privilege, but the great difficulty has always been how to decide whether legal professional privilege applies if both the lawyer and the client are in criminal collusion with each other and legal professional privilege does not apply to the material that must be examined to decide whether that is the case. That will be another thorny subject, and I hope we can come back to it and craft legislation that provides the reassurance that lawyers undoubtedly need, preserves the principle of legal professional privilege, and also ensures that the material can, if necessary, be accessed if there is good reason to believe that what is taking place is not covered by legal professional privilege at all.

To conclude, I have covered only a number of very broad topics. There is so much more in the report that we will have to look at. I hope we have time before and during legislation to do justice to an immensely complicated issue. Of one thing I am convinced: we have been very well served by our agencies in this area hitherto, both in maintaining the very standards that we should be proud of in a democratic society, and in carrying out a difficult job that sometimes involves a difficult balancing act between privacy and the necessity of serving the wider public, all done in a spirit of which this House and the public should be proud. That was absolutely the impression I was left with. I would like to see us succeed in putting in place a framework for the future that ensures that in 10, 20 or 30 years people can still say the same thing.

13:47

[Mr Nick Clegg (Sheffield, Hallam) (LD)]

I speak as someone who, as the Home Secretary knows, had a hand in the commissioning of this excellent report. The right hon. Lady will remember with fond, misty-eyed nostalgia the debates that she and I had on this complex, fraught and all-important area of public policy. One of the consequences of those debates and disagreements was that a number of reports were commissioned, including David Anderson’s. We look forward, as the Home Secretary said, to the publication of the report by RUSI. I strongly endorse her compliments to David Anderson and to the authors of the other reports, and I join in all that has been said in complimenting the professionalism and integrity of the work of the agencies—professionalism and integrity that I found on display daily in my work with them in government. As I will explain, my quibbles were invariably with proposals emanating from the Home Office about what new power should make its way on to the statute book, rather than with the day-to-day conduct of our highly effective intelligence agencies.

On the back of this excellent report from David Anderson, we have an unusual opportunity to try to reset the balance between privacy and liberty on the one hand, and safety and security on the other, in a digital age. As the Home Secretary rightly pointed out, all too often this debate is falsely caricatured, as if people who worry about security do not worry about liberty, and people who worry about liberty do not worry about security. In this area, as in so many other walks of life, it is necessary to strike the right balance. To somewhat misquote Benjamin Franklin, if we give up our liberty to gain a little security, we will deserve neither and lose both. As the shadow Home Secretary said, we should be striving to strengthen both liberty and security in tandem.

I am certainly no slouch when it comes to introducing new surveillance powers on to the statute book when it is demonstrably the case that doing so makes us safer and is necessary in order to keep up with new technologies. That is one of the reasons, as the Home Secretary is aware, why I always advocated legislating, as we have done, to enable enforcement agencies to match IP addresses to handheld devices, and why we legislated in the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014—the acronym is DRIPA, unfortunately—to improve data-sharing between UK and US enforcement agencies. However, I have always drawn the line—I did in government and I do now—at proposals that I feel are either not based on proper evidence or not adequately proportionate and transparent. It is in that light that I would like to turn to a few of the points made by David Anderson.

I will not dwell on the points that have already been made about introducing a judicial role in the issuing of warrants, but I want to underline the shadow Home Secretary’s point that David Anderson made his case on the basis not just of principle, by pointing out that our practice is significantly out of line with how warrants are issued in other analogous jurisdictions, but of his observation—this was surprising, at least to me—that there might be operational value in introducing a judicial element in the issuing of warrants, as it would enable us more readily to secure data from American communications service providers, which are used to that kind of system.

I want to dwell on David Anderson’s comments on the draft Communications Data Bill—the so-called snoopers charter. David Anderson is scathing in his report about the proposals in the Bill to force UK network providers to collect and store third-party data relating to services operated by companies based overseas. He says quite unambiguously that,

“there should be no question of progressing this element of the old draft Bill until such time as a compelling operational case has been made”.

It is worth reflecting on that for a moment. I was told categorically and repeatedly in government that that was absolutely necessary for the safety of the public; that public safety would be in jeopardy if I did not endorse it. David Anderson has now found that no operational case has been made for that. Echoing an earlier question to the Home Secretary, I seek clarity from the Government on whether the forthcoming Bill will contain third-party data provisions, which David Anderson has said it should not.

In the light of that, I think that we should treat other proposals that do not have a clear evidence base or rationale—most importantly, the Home Office’s proposal to require CSPs to store so-called weblogs—with an equal amount of healthy and considered scepticism.

[Tom Brake]

Is my right hon. Friend aware of any reason why the Government should be intent on joining Russia as the only liberal democracy in the world that captures weblog information?

[Mr Clegg]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention, which I will come to in a moment, because David Anderson has made some specific recommendations on how we compare with other jurisdictions.

David Anderson has managed to do something that I certainly did not manage to do in government: to get the Home Office to define the somewhat nebulous term of weblogs. Weblogs, according to his report, are

“a record of the interaction that a user of the internet has with other computers connected to the internet.”

The House should take a long, hard look at that definition. It encompasses just about everything someone is likely to do on an internet-connected device—every step they take, every app they open, every edit they make to an online document—and that would be stored for the entire population for 12 months. David Anderson says that, remarkably, at no point was he presented with a “detailed or unified case” for such sweeping powers.

David Anderson also makes it clear—this relates to the point my right hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) has just raised—that we would be seriously out of step with the rest of the world. He states:

“I am not aware of other European or Commonwealth countries in which service providers are compelled to retain their customers’ web logs for inspection by law enforcement. I was told by law enforcement both in Canada and in the US that there would be constitutional difficulties in such a proposal.”

The House will also be interested to know that the new Australian data retention law specifically excludes the collection of weblogs precisely because the Australian police told their Government that it would be a disproportionate invasion of privacy.

It is entirely reasonable for law enforcement to want to identify how a known suspect is communicating online, but that is a completely different proposition from the one that the Home Office has now been putting forward in one form or another for eight years. David Anderson sets out a strict process, including using existing powers better but less intrusively than planned by the Home Office, and the presentation of a proper operational case before any detailed proposal is put forward by the Government. I am obviously keen to know from the Government whether that reasonable approach that he advocates will indeed now be pursued.

Finally, I welcome the Home Secretary’s announcement today that the Bill will be published for pre-legislative scrutiny, which will allow further debate on its undoubtedly complex and important provisions. The Bill must be as comprehensive as possible. Both the Intelligence and Security Committee and David Anderson have argued that it should incorporate all the powers that exist in different statutes at present. In that spirit, I hope that the Government will undertake to avow all undeclared surveillance capabilities and major programmes as part of that process.

I have come to the view that the Government’s standard blanket position of “neither confirm nor deny” is simply no longer tenable. Recent disclosures mean that the public are able to read detailed accounts of alleged surveillance capabilities, but Government Ministers are unable to explain or defend the need for them in this House or in public. I believe that undermines public trust, feeding a suspicion that there are parts of the system that somehow operate beyond proper scrutiny and transparency. Although we cannot and should not reveal details of operations and specific investigatory techniques, will the Home Secretary ensure that large- scale programmes, such as those referred to in recent revelations, are properly avowed at some point in the near future?

In conclusion, it seems to me that, as has already been said, and as the Home Secretary herself has suggested, we have a big opportunity. The deadline of December 2016 is approaching, when the current data retention powers will fall. Decisions must be taken—they simply cannot be ducked any longer—and they must be taken as consensually as possible, and on the basis of clear principles of necessity, transparency and proportionality. Surveillance powers are a necessary part of a liberal society, as we must have the ability to prevent criminals from curtailing the liberty of others to live their lives free from crime, but those powers must be based on evidence that they are both necessary and proportionate to the threat we face. I suggest that this House should not entertain proposals for significant, intrusive new laws based on assertion and rhetoric alone.

13:58

[Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

It would be remiss of me not first to apologise to you, Mr Speaker, and to the Home Secretary for my absence for the earliest part of this debate; I had a long-standing constituency engagement—an occupational hazard of representing a central London seat. Actually, I am having to miss my daughter’s end-of-term ballet show, so I suspect that I will have rather fewer brownie points in my household than the shadow Home Secretary will have in the Balls-Cooper household.

This is anything but routine and uncontroversial business. As someone who served throughout the previous Parliament on the Intelligence and Security Committee, I am fully aware of the intensive work that went into at least one of the reports that we are discussing today. Naturally, it was the Edward Snowden revelations in The Guardian that first led to allegations in the US—we have a close intelligence relationship—that UK Government agencies were engaged in blanket surveillance on the internet. The inherent tension between the individual’s right to privacy and the collective entitlement to security referred to by the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr Clegg) set the context for all these inquiries.

We looked first at interception. The agencies conduct two types of interception depending on the information they have and what GCHQ, MI5 and MI6 are charged with trying to achieve. The first type can be used as an investigative tool only where there is specific knowledge of a threat, allowing agencies to intercept a specific individual’s communications. That is known as targeted interception. However, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) said, the watchwords of necessity and proportionality lie very much at the heart of everything that our agencies wish to do. If the target is in the UK, the activity must be authorised by the Secretary of State under RIPA. Even the most ardent of privacy campaigners accept that principle of targeted interception.

The second sort of interception arises as a discovery or part of an intelligence-gathering tool. This allows the agencies to use targeted interception only after they have discovered that a threat exists. Such separate capabilities are required in order to uncover threats in the first place so that the agencies can determine patterns and associations that can generate the leads and obtain the information used to target individuals under suspicion. Bulk interception is primarily used as a discovery tool. This capability attracts the most controversy, as we have seen. It has helped to create an impression—misguided, in my view—that GCHQ is monitoring the communications of everyone in the UK. I should make it clear that, if that were the case, GCHQ’s actions would be illegal.

Our Committee rightly scrutinised in great detail the agencies’ capability to intercept internet communications, and we had a number of key findings. First and foremost, bulk interception involves three stages: filtering, targeting, and selection. The first of those involves choosing which communication links are to be accessed. It is worth pointing out that each and every minute the internet carries some 4.1 million Google searches, 6.9 million Facebook messages, 350,000 Twitter posts, and 204 million emails. Most of those communications are carried out through fibre-optic cables that carry bearers, of which there are only about 100,000. GCHQ can theoretically access only a tiny percentage of those bearers. It is therefore misleading to use the phrase “blanket surveillance” for what it does.

The second stage that GCHQ has in mind is to select which communications to collect from the very small number of bearers that it is accessing. A decision is then made on how it collects the communications to read. For communications collected under the first processing system, GCHQ undertakes a so-called triage process to determine which messages have the highest intelligence value. Even when GCHQ knows that communications relate to a known national security target, it does not have the capacity to read them all and must therefore, even within that context, prioritise. This all means that only a very small proportion of collected messages are ever read.

When we scrutinised those arrangements, we found that GCHQ will search for and select communications to examine only on the basis of a selector relating to an individual here in the UK, if—and only if—it first obtains a specific authorisation from a Secretary of State naming that individual. It is unlawful for our security services to search for and examine the communications of someone in the UK without a targeted additional authorisation. Our Committee found that the regulations and safeguards in place were, on the whole, pretty reassuring. That said, as Members will be aware, we made a number of recommendations in order to address concerns about transparency. This was very much mirrored in much of the Anderson report. Anderson was critical about some of the legal framework, of which I will say a little more later, but ultimately he gave the actions of GCHQ very much a clean bill of health.

We also examined the concerns that have been expressed over how the agencies use communications data—the “who, when and where” of a communication. This debate is increasingly complicated by widespread confusion about what information is classed as communications data and what is classed as content. There is a grey area involved. For example, looking at information that would not usually be classified as content, but has the potential to reveal a great deal about someone’s private life, should be placed in a special category where more scrutiny is placed on it than there ordinarily would be merely on the basis of its being communications data.

On the other rather intrusive capabilities potentially used by the agencies, the ISC report contains a number of detailed recommendations primarily in relation to specific statutory oversight and greater transparency, where that is possible without damaging national security; that must always be at the forefront of our minds in these matters. The most significant finding in our report, and in the Anderson report, relates, as other Members have rightly pointed out, to the legislative framework that governs the use of all these intrusive capabilities. At present, no single piece of legislation governs the powers and responsibilities of our intelligence and security agencies. The current framework is, as we have heard, complicated and unwieldy. Consolidation is now essential to maintain or sometimes—dare I say it?—to re-establish public confidence.

While we saw no direct evidence that the agencies were in any way seeking to circumvent the law—in truth, their constant watchwords are necessity and proportionality—I am afraid that the lack of clarity in the existing legislation has understandably fuelled suspicion that our security agencies are, on occasion, able to arbitrage the plethora of statutes to choose the easiest route in seeking authorisation. That cannot be a satisfactory situation. I therefore believe that the purposes, functions, capabilities and, importantly, obligations of our security agencies will need to be set out clearly in a single Act of Parliament. Like my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield, I have some sympathy for the plight that the Home Secretary will face in having to get such a Bill through Parliament. It will be essential, but it will be a complicated matter. It will have to include issues such as privacy constraints, transparency arrangements, targeting criteria, sharing arrangements, and other safeguards that apply to the use of the security agencies’ capabilities.

The single most profound impact of the Snowden revelations has been felt by the global communications service providers. Exposing the hitherto cosy—perhaps over-cosy—relationships that existed between many household-name internet giants and security services and Governments across the world has resulted in a furious insistence from the CSPs that such co-operation must in future be governed by a clear legal framework.

That has potentially very serious implications, especially if there is any demand by globally run CSPs that such protocols should also operate on a global basis. This is, not least, because we have in this country a different culture regarding the security services, with a different framework and understanding of the way in which they operate within our Government compared even with other members of the “Five Eyes”. There is a glaring difference between the average UK citizen’s acceptance of the work of the secret intelligence agencies and the cultural approach taken to such matters in the USA, where there is a great sense of the individual being up against an all-powerful state, and in much of continental Europe. That is understandable. One need only look to my mother’s homeland. For six years of her life, she was brought up in Nazi Germany under the rigours of the Gestapo, and then under the Stasi in East Germany between 1945 and 1954. That has had a very strong bearing on these cultural differences. There is a danger that we in this country, after Bletchley Park and the glamour of James Bond, could be a little complacent about the way in which we view how the security services operate. It is very different in other parts of the world. If there were to be a push towards such global protocols, it would be more difficult to make the case for our exceptionalism.

[Mr Grieve]

My right hon. Friend makes a powerful case. This is one of the factors that we will have to take into account when we consider whether there might be advantages to judicial warrant systems because they are likely to command more acceptance internationally even if they do not necessarily seem to be required in this country.

[Mark Field]

I do not entirely agree with that, but I will touch on it in my concluding comments, which I will move on to fairly shortly.

There are potentially serious implications for the operational capabilities of our security services in their counter-terrorism operations. I am struck, however, by the clear irony that the business models of most internet service providers hinge on the exploitation of knowledge from their own user customers, which can then be sold for profit to third party advertisers. The protection of privacy obviously has its limits.

Snowden’s impact has also revolutionised the demand for and the creation of ever-more effective encryption, which further and seriously depletes the capabilities of our security services. In the aftermath of the terrorist attacks of 2001 and, more recently, the attacks that took place on the streets of London almost exactly 10 years ago, the conventional wisdom was that public safety could be protected only by ever more sophisticated targeted internet surveillance. The events of recent times mean that it would be unwise to neglect the future importance of developing more traditional security tradecraft. Our security services will need to invest extensively and prudently in agent expertise on the ground, rather than simply relying on ever-more sophisticated electronic surveillance expertise.

May I make a final observation on the highly contentious issue of the authorisation of warrants? As has been pointed out, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation contends that all warrants should be subject to judicial authorisation. I also accept that, in the interests of promoting public confidence, it is now probably necessary that the regime of judicial oversight applying after the event will need substantial bolstering.

We need to remember, however, that it is senior Foreign and Home Office Ministers who are answerable to this House and to Parliament in the event of a major terrorist incident, which invasive surveillance is, of course, designed to prevent. It will be elected politicians, not judges, who will ultimately be accountable to the court of public opinion. Ultimately, therefore, I stand by the ISC’s view that Ministers should authorise warrants. Nevertheless, it is important that senior judges will need to be given a more significant role in scrutinising the operation of the process.

Our intelligence agencies do a very important, and increasingly very challenging, job in what are very difficult times. I believe that the UK public have good cause to maintain confidence in what they do, but I also contend that only greater transparency and scrutiny of their work will improve public understanding and reinforce that sense of confidence.

14:12

[Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)]

The Scottish National party welcomes the publication of the Anderson report, which, as others have noted, is very thorough, and one can have only admiration for the job David Anderson QC has done. The SNP wants to work constructively with Members of Parliament across the Chamber to make sure that when the new Bill to which the Home Secretary has referred is introduced it takes adequate account of civil liberties and human rights issues.

The SNP recognises the need for law enforcement and security services to have access to the information they require in respect of the threat not just of terrorist offences, but of serious crime, such as the significant evil posed by child sexual exploitation. However, the SNP will always be vigilant to ensure that appropriate safeguards are put in place to balance the need to keep our communities safe with the need to protect civil liberties.

Although we have some concerns about the report’s recommendations, we welcome many of its aspects. We welcome in particular the call for a comprehensive and comprehensible new law to be drafted from scratch, to replace the multitude of current powers and to provide for clear limits and safeguards on any intrusive power that it may be necessary for public authorities to use.

We also very much welcome David Anderson’s recognition of the need for the new law to comply with international human rights standards and to be subject to the visible and demanding safeguards reflecting the central importance of both the European convention on human rights and the Human Rights Act.

We welcome the fact that the report urges much stronger oversight of the activities of the police and security services. We support the recommendation that interception warrants should be granted by judges rather than politicians. That properly reflects the separation of powers between Executive and judiciary, as applies in democratic countries across the world that pay more than lip service to the importance of the rule of law. In that respect, I wish to associate myself with the insightful comments of the shadow Home Secretary and the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve).

The SNP also welcomes David Anderson’s recommendation that the Investigatory Powers Tribunal should be able to make declarations of incompatibility under the Human Rights Act and that its rulings should be subject to appeals on points of law.

Finally and most importantly, we welcome David Anderson’s statement that no operational case has yet been made for the compulsory retention of third party data. He has also questioned the lawfulness, intrusiveness and cost of the proposals of the draft Communications Data Bill in 2012. His comments are a serious blow to previous Government attempts to introduce what was in effect a snoopers charter. David Anderson notes that no other European Union or Commonwealth country requires the blanket retention of weblogs and, as the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr Clegg) has noted, Australia recently prohibited that in law—and for very good reason.

When the report was introduced to the House two weeks ago, the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) noted that both the European Court of Justice and David Anderson have now made it clear that blanket retention of data is unlawful. The SNP hopes that the UK Government will take serious cognisance of that.

The director of Liberty, Shami Chakrabarti, has noted:

“It’s striking that—despite a five-year campaign by the Home Secretary to convince us of its absolute necessity—David Anderson concludes that no operational case for the snooper’s charter has yet been made.”

The SNP hopes that David Anderson’s report will be the death knell for the snoopers charter.

[Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)]

My hon. and learned Friend, who has enjoyed a distinguished career as a lawyer, has rightly welcomed large parts of Mr Anderson’s report. Does she, like me, but perhaps unlike the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), share the concerns of many lawyers across the UK that the rule of law and, indeed, the proper administration of justice may be undermined if the protection offered by legal professional privilege is not fully respected by investigatory powers legislation?

[Joanna Cherry]

I share that concern and note the comments of the English Bar Council and the English Law Society, and I know that the Scottish Bar, of which I am a member, and the Law Society of Scotland also share concerns that legal professional privilege ought not to be interfered with. It is important to note that insisting on proper protection for legal professional privilege is not special pleading on behalf of lawyers; the privilege is that of the client, rather than the lawyer, and the underlying rationale is the public interest in ensuring the proper administration of justice. I share the concerns of legal bodies in that respect.

I will now to turn to the Scottish angle on these matters. When I spoke in this House on the occasion of the publication of the Anderson report, I asked the Home Secretary to commit fully to engaging with her Scottish Government counterparts in so far as there will be measures in the new Bill that impinge on the devolved competences. Her response was that national security is a reserved matter.

That is simply not good enough. The Bill will touch on issues beyond national security, including particularly serious crime. Crime is a devolved matter and the new Bill will clearly include measures directed against the investigation of serious crime. I and others have already mentioned child sexual exploitation as an important example of that. Much of what is to be covered in the new Bill may impinge on areas of Scots law that are clearly devolved and under the jurisdiction of the Scottish Government or Scotland’s law enforcement agencies, including the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service.

I would like to give the Home Secretary at least two examples of proposals, which, if taken forward, would have implications for Scottish Ministers and Scottish legislation. The first is a return to judicial authorisation of interception warrants on serious crime grounds. At present, interception for the purpose of preventing or detecting serious crime in Scotland is authorised by Scottish Ministers. On the basis of David Anderson’s recommendations, that will, in future, be in the hands of members of the Scottish judiciary.

A second proposal that may have implications for Scotland is the recommendation that the three existing commissioners for interception, surveillance and intelligence services be replaced with a single independent surveillance and intelligence commission. A number of provisions in the Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Scotland) Act 2000 place duties on the Office of Surveillance Commissioners in respect of surveillance and the use of covert human intelligence sources. Any change in that area would almost certainly trigger the requirement for a legislative consent motion from the Scottish Parliament. Accordingly, I hope that the Home Secretary will stand respectfully corrected and now accept that there is a need for her to commit to engaging fully with the Scottish Government, insofar as any legislation introduced later this year and at the beginning of the next year will impinge on the devolved competences.

I mentioned that, although the Scottish National party welcomes the Anderson report, there are areas of concern about its contents. We are particularly disappointed at the suggestion that bulk collection of external communications should continue subject only to what are described as “additional safeguards” and at the recommendation that existing compulsory data retention capabilities under the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014 be maintained. The Anderson report offers six agency case studies in an attempt at justifying mass interception. However, as others, including Liberty, have noted, the information in these case studies is vague and limited, so it is impossible to assess whether the security outcomes could have been achieved just as easily by using the wealth of targeted and operation-led intrusive surveillance powers at the agencies’ disposal.

The Scottish National party does not dispute the use and value of targeted and proportional intrusive surveillance. We believe, however, that the mass speculative interception of communications and data retention is unlawful, unnecessary and disproportionate. We are pleased to see that Liberty is currently challenging the lawfulness of mass interception in the European Court of Human Rights and representing Members of this House in their legal challenge to DRIPA.

[Mr Grieve]

I appreciate the hon. and learned Lady’s concern—and I appreciate, too, that this is one of the issues we will have to look at during the passage of the Bill—but I wonder whether she is right in her belief that a sort of mass trawl of a speculative character is taking place. I do not think it is, and listening to what my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field) was saying, which I think correctly reflected what has been taking place, I do not think the way in which she has described it is the correct way of identifying what has been going on. It may be, therefore, that she can get some reassurance on this as the Bill goes through.

[Joanna Cherry]

I clearly defer to the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s experience, as he has been a Law Officer in England and has direct knowledge of the issue. I cannot speak from direct knowledge, but I can say that there is significant public perception and concern that what is at stake is mass, speculative trawling. The House must take that concern very seriously, and it is perhaps backed up by recent revelations.

When the Anderson report was first introduced to the House on 11 June, the Home Secretary, in her statement, did not commit to the root-and-branch reform recommended by Anderson. I am not sure whether she committed to it in her contribution today, but clearly we will have to wait and see the draft Bill that is introduced in the autumn. The SNP wishes to see that Bill bringing about the comprehensive and comprehensible reform recommended by Anderson, as well as achieving the appropriate balance with civil liberties and the recognition of international human rights norms.

The last time we spoke about this matter, the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) invited the Home Secretary to look hard at the recommendation for judicial warrants, but I am afraid that I found her response on that—both two weeks ago and today—decidedly lukewarm. However, I note her assurance that no decision has been taken as yet. This is a matter of serious concern for the SNP, and I very much support what the shadow Home Secretary said in that respect.

Cross-party co-operation in this Parliament has already forced the Government to backtrack on their plans to repeal the Human Rights Act, at least for the time being. Everything about David Anderson’s report emphasises the need for human rights to be protected under internationally recognised norms. The SNP will seek to defeat any Government plans to curb civil liberties in the forthcoming Bill. In particular, we are concerned that the mass collection of data, without any suggestion of criminality or wrongdoing, impinges on civil liberties, and we are committed to opposing any snoopers charter that sanctions mass spying on the public at large. I mention that, because it is a matter of huge public concern. In opposing any snoopers charter, the SNP will do so secure in the knowledge that both the Anderson report and the Court of Justice of the European Union agree that such a charter would be unlawful.

We support the targeted and proportionate use of lawful intrusive powers, but the Snowden revelations of 2013 and subsequent litigation brought by Liberty and others show just how far we have moved from a model whereby those under suspicion are targeted and the innocent are left free from state intrusion. Even more worrying is the fact that prior to recent revelations, the public and many politicians were unaware of the nature and extent of blanket surveillance.

In order for trust to be restored, this Parliament must assert its democratic function and set clear limits on the use of intrusive powers and prohibit their use on a mass scale.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)]

Order. Before I call the next speaker, may I point out that a very large number of Members still wish to catch my eye? I do not want to impose a time limit, but if we can keep speeches to eight minutes, we can be sure of getting everybody in.

14:27

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

I start by paying tribute to our security services, whose work I have seen at first hand over many years. They are superb professionals, who, unspoken and silently, keep us safe every day on the streets of Britain in a way that we want and is emulated across the world.

I pay tribute to David Anderson’s report. From its very wisely chosen title to annexe 18, 373 pages later, it is truly magisterial. If I had a criticism, it would be that there are too many acronyms, but stand fast in my view that it is a truly superb work. The Intelligence and Security Committee report, too, in its own way, is also worthy of very close attention and provides a backdrop for the consideration that this House will be engaged in as we run up to autumn and the much anticipated consideration of the draft legislation.

We heard today, from my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field), about his daughter’s ballet. We have heard about the shadow Home Secretary’s child’s graduation. A feature of this point in the academic year is that we are concerned about our children and their achievements. At the weekend, I had the very great pleasure of being at my daughters’ sports day. What impressed me most, apart from the athletic prowess of my daughters, was the camera overhead, monitoring this business, with the full consent of the school, the children and—I think probably implicitly—the parents for posterity. At first glance, it looked a fairly benign exercise, but I do not think that I was the only one who felt slightly uneasy. In my recollection, it was the first time I had come across this particular piece of technology—a great cumbersome, burdensome thing, very obvious and very noisy. In 10 years’ time, it will be replaced—I have no doubt—by a thing the size of a small insect, and at that point, it will become far more sinister. If I had one plea, it would be this: as we consider the draft legislation towards the end of this year, we must make sure that we future-proof the Bill and the Act that eventually transpires. That measure must be good for many years to come, and at a time when we will be faced with technology that most of us can only imagine at the moment.

My interest in this matter stems from my experience as the Minister for international security strategy and a Minister in the Northern Ireland Office, and as a Member of Parliament who represents a large number of people who are engaged, in one way or another, in the security services. Of course, all of us in this place are intimately involved with the product of the security services, since all our constituents are affected by it in one way or another.

I am very impressed by the National Crime Agency’s statistics on what it has done as a direct result of material that has been intercepted: the 750 kg of heroin and 2,000 kg of cocaine that were intercepted in 2012-14; the 2,200 arrests; the 140 firearms that were intercepted; and the £20 million of illicit loot that was seized. I note Operation Notarise and the resulting 600 arrests for suspected child abuse. All that represents a great well of human misery. Such things will not be dealt with unless we invest in our security services the powers they need to intercept material in a fast-evolving electronic space.

Clearly, the balance needs to be struck between our need to keep people safe in a complex world and privacy; between the extremes of Big Brother and the anarchy and lawlessness of laissez-faire. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary touched on that in her remarks. To be honest, I do not know where on that Likert scale between Big Brother and laissez-faire we need to pitch our legislation. That is a matter for debate in the months ahead.

I was alarmed that the Intelligence and Security Committee report from earlier this year reported that organisations such as Big Brother Watch, Justice, Liberty and Rights Watch UK felt that the security environment was having a “chilling effect” on society. I do not believe that that is the case. I think that my constituents would be “chilled”, however, if we were not able to interdict and intercept the sorts of villains who would do them down and create havoc on the streets of this country. My constituents would be “chilled” in the event that we accepted, as those organisations appear to do, atrocities on the streets of London like the murder of Fusilier Lee Rigby. That is the consequence of not giving our security services the powers that that they need. It is as straight- forward as that, notwithstanding my remarks about balance.

There are many matters to be considered in the autumn. I welcome the opportunity this House will have for pre-legislative scrutiny. In the short time available to me, I would like to touch on one or two of those matters. Right hon. and hon. Members have commented on the need for public awareness and education to avoid confusion. I do not agree with the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) in so far as she suggested that there was widespread concern about snooping. There is not much evidence to sustain that. However, it is our duty, as we approach this legislation, to do our best to educate the people in whose name we act to ensure that they have the sort of understanding that is needed in a civil society to have confidence that the powers invested in the security services are appropriate, necessary, proportionate and legal. It is the job of Members of this House and, if I may say so ever so gently, the re-formed Intelligence and Security Committee to inculcate that understanding among the public, as far as is possible.

Snooping is a complete misnomer and, as we have heard this afternoon, there is nothing to sustain that description. That does not mean to say that we should not put in place the mechanisms that are necessary to ensure that our security services do not, wittingly or unwittingly, abuse the position of trust in which they are invested.

We need to be conscious that technology is proceeding apace. Quantum computing, probably in the next 10 years, will provide a double-edged sword, because it will increase the ability to encrypt data and thus the ability of villains to do bad stuff, but it will also improve the ability of our security services to survey bulk data, which brings significant implications for the legislation that we will consider in the autumn. As well as the requirements that the collection of material be necessary, proportionate and legal, the fourth hurdle is the impossibility of surveying the great bulk of the data. It is simply not possible for the security services to snoop in the way that has been suggested, because there is so much data and the technology does not exist to spy or snoop on people or invade their personal liberty in the way that some people seem to think is routinely possible. That may change, however, and we must ensure that the legislation we consider in the autumn is up to the task of dealing with this stuff as it evolves, as it surely will, over the next decade.

There are various things that we can do to mitigate that risk. We can insist on a time limit for the retention of data. We can be wary of allowing internet service providers to hold bulk data that are capable of being mined—so-called “big data”. I am persuaded that there is a distinct possibility that, in the near future, agencies will be able to profile people and predict not what they have done, but what they might do in the future on the basis of the profile that they have built up. That is extremely sinister.

Although it would be illegal to do that as things stand, if we could no longer rely on the fourth hurdle that I mentioned, namely the physical inability to tap the data because of their extent, it may just be possible with quantum computing and the changes in technology over the coming years, providing a sort of electronic version of Dixon of Dock Green that eyes up wrong ‘uns who might get involved in criminality or worse in the future. We need to future-proof the legislation to avoid that.

I am aware that other Members want to speak, so let me say very quickly that we need to be careful about the status of communications data—the who, where and when. Given the increasing importance of the data, the sophistication of them and the profiling that is capable of being built up on the basis of them, we need to look at the status of the designated person. I am not convinced that it is proper to vest those powers in a middle-grade person. We need to look at whether that needs to be changed in order to preserve the liberties that we have discussed today.

I want to comment briefly on who signs warrants for intrusive activities, because that is an important part of the material that we are discussing. Sir David Omand and the Home Secretary are quite clear on that point and I agree with them because of my ministerial experience, although I was at a far lower level than my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve). I am less persuaded—indeed, my right hon. and learned Friend was not persuaded—by the immediacy argument. That seems to me to be superficial and easily dealt with. I am persuaded about the need to consider the wider political context. That is an important point. I am also persuaded on the point about accountability. We in this place are elected to represent real people. Nobody ever put a cross by the name of a member of the judiciary.

[Mr Grieve]

The accountability argument is, without doubt, the most powerful argument for Ministers doing the warrantry process. Of course, there remains the problem that, due to the nature of the work, accountability to this House can sometimes be difficult to achieve in practice because, inevitably, it is not made public. That is a tension that the House will have to debate and resolve.

[Dr Murrison]

As one would expect, my right hon. and learned Friend puts his finger on it. The mechanism that my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster described so well may be a remedy for that, but nevertheless my opinion is that the power has to remain with Ministers. We need to guard jealously the power vested in our politicians, who are accountable to the House and the people for the extraordinarily important things that they do.

At the heart of the matter lies an improvement in public understanding. In the months before December next year, we have to do everything we can to inculcate in the public a far better understanding of these sensitive issues. Each of us has a job to do in that respect, and I hope that the Intelligence and Security Committee will play its part in improving public understanding. Our civil society will be in a much better place as a result.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)]

Order. If Members insist on putting their own interpretation on what is eight minutes, I will unfortunately have to impose a time limit. I would be grateful if Members kept to eight minutes or less.

14:40

[Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)]

I may speak very quickly to get through everything I want to say, Madam Deputy Speaker.

I will refer to the reports by the ISC and the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, not the two later reports, which we have not really had an opportunity to read or consider properly. The report by David Anderson, QC, aptly entitled “A Question of Trust”, has rightly been complimented in the House for its thoroughness and rigour. Perhaps we should give a warning to those who might want to read it, though—do not drop it on your foot. Anderson’s recommendation that the law on investigatory powers should be made both comprehensive and comprehensible has also been widely endorsed, and it is surely right. If it is unintelligible to a lay reader, it will seem esoteric and inaccessible to all and will therefore not inspire public confidence.

I would like to focus on the main bone of contention, which is who should have authority to grant permission for access to the content of people’s private communications. The ISC’s report, for all its strengths, offers an insider’s view. The Home Secretary no doubt found much more to agree with in that report than in others, not least because she found herself extensively quoted in it. After hearing evidence that, in my view, was heavily weighted towards Ministers and officials from the security services, the ISC came down squarely on the side of the status quo. It concluded that the current system of ministerial authorisation of interception warrants should be maintained. I listened with some interest to the comments of the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field) on that issue.

The Committee appears to have reached its conclusion based almost wholly on the recommendations of Ministers themselves, with the concerns of civil liberties groups being given comparatively short shrift. In concluding that Ministers were better equipped than judges to make decisions on warrants, the Committee relied on arguments some of which, in my view, were based on flawed logic. I will give one example. It argued that,

“Ministers are able to take into account the wider context of each warrant application and the risks involved, whereas judges can only decide whether a warrant application is legally compliant.”

The example that the Committee provided by way of support for that rather extraordinary claim was the diplomatic fracas following the allegations in 2013 that the US National Security Agency had tapped the German Chancellor’s phone. The ISC’s less than subtle implication was that whereas a Minister would have the wisdom to reject such an application, judges would be too clueless to understand the requirements of international diplomacy and could not possibly be trusted to understand the diplomatic implications of such a decision.

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)]

Does the hon. Lady not accept that Ministers and judges have a different role? The report recognises that the role of a Minister is to represent Her Majesty’s Government across a broad swathe of areas, including international policy, and the role of a judge is to adjudicate on a question of law.

[Emily Thornberry]

Yes, of course, but it underestimates the subtle role that judges have come to play in recent years. For example, the development of administrative law has meant that judges have to be able to balance a number of factors. Are we essentially saying that the only way for Ministers to have some form of oversight of the security services is by giving permission for intercepts? There must be greater oversight than that. For example, if there was a suggestion that—I am plucking an idea from the air—we should tap the phone of the President of France, are we saying that the Home Secretary would not be aware of it if there were a system of applying to the court? If that is our current system, we need to examine it carefully. We need to ensure that our Ministers have some form of oversight of the security services, but that does not preclude the need for judges as a back-up. Surely Ministers would welcome the idea that they can not only make their own judgment but have it backed up with the authority of a judge.

The caricature of judges as being completely out of the world does not bear up, in my experience. I have to declare an interest at this point—I am married to a judge, and there have been times when my husband has been duty judge. Although the phone has not necessarily been passed to him while he has been in the bath, it is quite right that judges are flexible and can move quickly to make decisions as and when necessary.

[Tom Tugendhat]

rose—

[Emily Thornberry]

I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman, and I want to try to keep to your strictures, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am not doing very well—I have only three minutes left if I am to do so. I suspect that I might not, but I will go as fast as I can.

Judges do not live in a vacuum. Their job requires them to have some form of judgment. There have been great challenges to the establishment, and the public have great scepticism about not only politics but all sorts of pillars of the establishment. I find it interesting that the judiciary is one of the few areas that are not challenged in the same way. Whenever a difficult issue needs to be decided on or there has been a crisis, it does not take people long to call for a full judicial inquiry. When we are talking about trust in the highly contentious field of investigatory powers, it seems to me that it would be a mistake for Ministers not to call for the back-up of the judiciary. When we are considering a radical overhaul of the legislative and regulatory framework, we need to be bold.

There is great sense in David Anderson’s report. He talks about the establishment of a new body, which is the backbone of his recommendations, not just one of many proposals that he has put forward. It is absolutely essential, and last time we discussed the matter in this place I was a little alarmed to hear the Home Secretary refer to it as being only one of many recommendations. Actually, the body features in about 50 of the recommendations, so I hope that it is not pushed aside as being a peripheral issue. Clearly, it is not.

Transparency is another important part of David Anderson’s report. The new commission would not only take on responsibility for approving warrants but would incorporate the retrospective audit functions currently exercised by the interception of communications commissioner and the intelligence services commissioner. Those officers currently fit into what I see as a deeply foggy regulatory arrangement, which in many ways is reminiscent of Wall Street before the crash, when not a single one of the half a dozen or so agencies that were given the job of regulating and supervising the banks seemed to be able to exert its authority sufficiently or even know what was going on under its nose, let alone have the power to stop it.

The Home Secretary said to the ISC at that stage that it was important for the decision to be taken by somebody who is democratically accountable to the public. I understand that, but the reality is that thousands of warrants for interception are issued under RIPA. We do not know what proportion of applications the Home Secretary does not approve when they appear on her desk, because both she and successive Governments have refused to say. The current Home Secretary admitted in evidence to the ISC that the proportion of applications she approves is very high. That is not surprising, given that reviewing such applications takes up such a significant proportion of her day and it is not as though she does not have lots of other things to do. She relies heavily on the judgment of her officials—we would, of course, expect her to do so—but we have to be careful that it is not a rubber-stamping exercise. I am sure it is not, but we have to be mindful about what it looks like when we are considering a question of trust. Let us look at the reality before deciding whether a change would be a bad thing.

Taken together, David Anderson’s proposals represent a radical overhaul of the existing framework. I do not believe they are the worse for that. When looking at the report, we must go back and say to ourselves that, in the end, we need a radical overhaul. We need to bring the public with us. We need to be unafraid to bring in additional expertise. A clearer framework in which we can have traditional oversight of such sensitive things as intercepts must be a good thing.

14:50

[Victoria Prentis (Banbury) (Con)]

I am honoured to be called, after such distinguished speakers and in such an important debate, to give my maiden speech.

For me, paying tribute to my predecessor is more than a convention; it is something I do with real affection. Sir Tony Baldry has served our area since I was a little girl. In the 32 years he spent in this place, he helped, as a Minister, to privatise the energy industry, served as Chairman of the Select Committee on International Development, and, more recently, sat on the Government Benches as Second Church Estates Commissioner. He acted as the voice of God in this place and was responsible for everything from bats and bishops to blasphemy. Sir Tony believes in God, but he also believed in Mrs Thatcher. In his first political job as a young man, he was proud to act as keeper of the hairspray. He is loved locally as our very own “Sir Cumference”, but it is his loyalty, decency and sheer hard work that will make him so hard to follow.

There is another former Member, now in another place, to whom I must pay tribute. I owe to my father my lifelong knowledge of, and love for, our area and its people. I am one of the very fortunate band of Members able to represent their home-town.

North Oxfordshire is a beautiful place to live. I am sure many Members can picture our river valley, rolling hills and medieval churches encircled by villages. It is true that at home I make cider and keep ferrets.

Four generations of my family have the soil of north Oxfordshire under our fingernails, yet this is only partially a rural constituency. The vast majority of my constituents live in one of our two major thriving and substantial market towns: Banbury and Bicester.

Business is booming. Thanks to the long-term economic plan and the impressive industry of my constituents, we have almost no unemployment. That is not something my predecessor was able to say until the very end of his term here. We excel at food production and engineering, often with agricultural roots; town and country balanced to provide the perfect setting. The Bicester hunt meets in a factory that produces engines for lawnmowers. The diversity of commerce found in converted barns is extraordinary. We have high-end technical businesses, hospitality and national charities where once we had cowsheds.

Many of those businesses now operate internationally. Whatever the result of the referendum, our businesses need an easily accessible market for trade in Europe and strong global trading connections. Bicester village is the most visited attraction outside London for Chinese tourists and is known to many well-dressed Members of this House. All this is, in part, down to our very fortunate geographical position. We benefit from superb road and rail links, with which I am, as a commuter who lives in the middle of the constituency, very familiar. We also have the excellent Horton general hospital, where I was born, which now boasts more consultants than ever before.

It does not surprise me that so many people want to move to our area and join us. The challenge facing us over the next few years is how to manage unprecedented expansion across the area and to ensure that Bicester can blossom into a garden town. We must provide new infrastructure and work hard to ensure that we preserve what matters to us while building for the future.

Although I love my home, I am not blind to its problems. I am proud that this summer, for the first time, students in all our secondary schools will finally be able to take A-levels, but we must raise aspirations much higher. Child sexual exploitation has been a problem for us, but it is being recognised and tackled at all levels, not least by the changes I hope we will make following today’s debate.

As the mother of two girls, I am acutely aware of the pressures now heaped on our children in the social media age. Creative measures to build their self-worth and to protect them must be a priority for us all this Parliament. Only by tackling these difficult issues can we create the one nation we have pledged to deliver. Compassionate Conservatives, such as my predecessor and my father, know that the marginalised and vulnerable must be protected for society to thrive.

As a Conservative, I am committed to standing up for the rights of the individual. I am fortunate to have had a front seat in courts for the development of human rights law over the last 20 years. When I started out as a young Government lawyer, protecting issues of national security, we used to joke that we represented “the powers of darkness”. Since then, battle-hardened by so many inquests into the deaths of servicemen killed fighting for us, those who died in the 7/7 bombings and, more recently, Alexander Litvinenko, it has become ever clearer to me that our Security Services are nothing of the sort. They have been proved repeatedly to be both efficient and decent, and a great example of the values we hold so dear in this country. They, and others in our civil service, get on with the business of protecting us for modest salaries and little public recognition. We are lucky to have them.

We face a grave combination of threats. We must not allow those who mean to harm us to exploit any credibility gap in our regulation of investigatory powers. Checks and balances are welcome, but the process must not become so burdensome as to result in delays that mean we cannot respond to threats as quickly as we need to. As a lawyer, married to another lawyer, I am of course very comfortable with the idea of judicial oversight! This is precisely what judges are trained for and able to provide and they are very good at it, but the system must retain sufficient flexibility to enable us to act at great speed when necessary.

I am indebted to my pupil master, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), for his support throughout my legal career. I was amused to note that he, and several of the initiates on the Opposition Benches, were happy to admit that they find the existing regulatory framework somewhat difficult to understand. I share their concerns, but at this stage of my parliamentary career, I am not going to make any such admissions! Going forward, I would add that we must make sure that the language used is wide enough to encompass threats that have not yet materialised—whether or not they be at a school sports day. Technology is moving faster than regulatory drafting.

Our regulation of investigatory powers should be seen in the wider context of protections that we are fortunate to enjoy in the United Kingdom. As a nation, we should be proud of our record on human rights. In the 800 years since the signing of the Magna Carta, our perceptions have quite rightly evolved. The greatness of the common law is that it has evolved with them. The European convention on human rights is a masterful document, and we must remain a signatory to it, but it is very much a product of the cataclysmic events that it was designed to prevent from re-occurring. In this country, the courts are unable to quash an Act of Parliament. It seems we need to re-state that, while our courts should have regard to the decisions of the ECHR, these are on the same footing, and Parliament is sovereign. I am pleased that the Government are consulting wide legal minds in a variety of venues on how to take this forward.

We can now, if we wish, formulate rights for today—including, for example, parental rights and those of children—and we can discuss sexuality and disability rights in a way that would have been unthinkable 65 years ago. I hope that, in so doing, we can deal with some of the more unwieldy aspects of the Human Rights Act. I have seen how the principle of extraterritoriality adds to the burdens on the soldiers whom I was so proud to represent, and how the interpretation of the investigative obligation under article 2 has benefited lawyers rather than bereaved families. I have seen those who face the enemy with bravery quail at the idea of a significant disclosure exercise. We must not allow excessive requests for paperwork and over-burdensome oversight to become themselves deadly weapons.

I am, as I said, battle-hardened, but not battle-weary, and I look forward to fighting hard to represent the people of north Oxfordshire in the years to come.

15:00

[Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)]

I commend the hon. Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis) on her maiden speech. Listening to her description of her constituency, I thought that in many ways it sounded much like my own. I must try to visit it at some point during the years ahead.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to make my own maiden speech. I look forward to undertaking the duties with which my constituents have entrusted me, and I shall seek to use every possible opportunity to promote the issues that are most important to the communities that I represent. I thank Members in all parts of the House for the warm welcome that I received on my arrival here, and I especially thank my induction buddy, David Nicholas, who got me off to the best possible start of my tenure.

I also pay tribute to my predecessor, David Hamilton. Many Members will know David of old, as he was a Member of Parliament for 14 years. I am fortunate in that I have known David for a large part of that time, and have always found him very easy to get on with. I do not know whether that is due to the fact that we have never actually stood against each other, but it has certainly made things a lot easier. I welcomed the warm comments that David made to me about my successful election. While we may disagree on many matters, I think it safe to say that we are very much in agreement on the importance of representing our constituents in the House of Commons.

I am the first SNP Member to be elected to this House from Midlothian, and the first non-miner for decades to represent it. In many ways, that reflects the wider changes that we have seen in Midlothian over the years. Ten years ago, there was not a single elected SNP representative there. Nine and a half years ago, I was elected to Midlothian council in what became a process of gradual growth. In 2007, there was a group of six on the council. In 2011, both Members of the Scottish Parliament returned as SNP members. In 2012, the SNP took the lead in Midlothian council, and at the time of the general election I was its leader. It has been quite a journey over those 10 years.

Today, Midlothian is one of the fastest growing parts of Scotland. The growth of world-leading animal science at the Bush, the reintroduction of the Borders railway—or the Waverley line, as we in Midlothian call it—and the blossoming of a multitude of smaller businesses have all helped to make Midlothian the destination of choice for many. I understand that more people are employed on the site of the old Bilston Glen colliery today than were employed there at the height of the mining industry, which shows how things have moved on. However, Midlothian is still very much a community, with a strong identity which each of our towns defends vigorously, loudly and often.

I am sure you have noticed, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I am wearing a Midlothian tartan tie. There is a very good reason for that. In many ways, it helps me to paint a picture of Midlothian for the benefit of Members. The green represents the large rural landscapes and agricultural nature of the county. Although Midlothian is only a short drive from the centre of Edinburgh, people certainly know that they are there when they see the sweeping green spaces at the foot of the Moorfoot, Lammermuir and Pentland hills. The Pentland hills are, of course, the home of Europe’s longest dry ski slope. It now includes tubing runs, and those who are brave enough can try their hand at a “rolling haggis”.

The blue represents the reservoirs in the surrounding hills, while the twin pale blue lines represent the rivers of the North and South Esk. The gold thread represents the grain that made Midlothian the breadbasket of Edinburgh, and today we certainly have a flourishing food and drink industry, boasting internationally recognised brands such as Macsween Haggis and Stewart Brewing, which I confess is a personal favourite of mine.

Of course, there is also the black—who could miss the black? This represents the coal, first mined by the Cistercian monks of Newbattle abbey, founded by them in 1140. Coal formed a key part of the history of Midlothian until the late 1980s, which is also when I moved there, and Newbattle abbey is the home of the Declaration of Arbroath—the very place where it was drafted by the Abbot of Arbroath. That is certainly something I wish to take forward in the years ahead. My county is deeply proud of its heritage, and I invite all Members to visit many of its tourist attractions, from the National Mining Museum to Rosslyn chapel, made famous by “The Da Vinci Code.”

I am not the first person to be elected to this Chamber from Midlothian in such a stunning political landslide. In 1878 Midlothian elected W.E. Gladstone, following his decision not to stand again for Greenwich. He decided to challenge the incumbent, Lord Dalkeith, and his Midlothian campaigns of 1879 and 1880 engaged the population in a way that was uncommon for the time. In 1879 Gladstone was reported to have given some 30 substantial speeches, said to have been heard by almost 87,000 persons. I cannot claim to have had anything like that number at the hustings in which I participated, but there are similarities in our general approach. I, like colleagues, was very keen to get out, to have meetings and discussions with people—not simply to have invited audiences at closed-door meetings—and to engage the population. Gladstone was determined to take his message to the people, which I shall look to continue and drive forward as I undertake my new role as the MP for Midlothian. Gladstone’s foresight in that regard leads me to wonder what he might have made of today’s social media. No doubt he would be one of the top Twitterati, with thousands of followers hanging on his every word, and perhaps some of us treated to a description of what he was eating for his tea every night.

As I look to follow in the footsteps of those who have come before me, I will do so in my own way. I am not here to settle down; I am here to make a difference to the community that has placed its trust in me. I therefore ask hon. Members to consider what Gladstone might have thought about the investigatory powers Bill, which will be presented in draft form in autumn 2015, followed by a substantive Bill in 2016. In line with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry), I welcome much of the Anderson report, but I have some real concerns about some of its content and strong feelings, as my hon. and learned Friend does, about any potential snoopers charter, thought police or mass spying on the public at large. We need to be very careful about how we take these issues forward.

My predecessor, David Hamilton, was himself a victim of snooping during the miners strike, an action that was rightly referred to in this Chamber, with a call for a full inquiry and the release of suppressed papers and a public apology to the miners and their communities. Sadly, such actions, along with blacklisting, are still issues today, and we need to ensure we do everything we can to tackle them. I urge Members to bear that in mind when we consider the findings of the Anderson review.

My predecessor said in his maiden speech that

“as we meet the new challenges, I hope that we will not forget the values for which many of us came into politics—free education, a free health service and support for the weak in our society”.—[Official Report, 12 July 2001; Vol. 371, c. 1014.]

I wholeheartedly agree with Mr Hamilton on those points, as I hope many in this Chamber do, and I look forward to working towards those goals.

15:09

[James Morris (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con)]

May I say what a pleasure it is to follow the maiden speeches we have just heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis) and the hon. Member for Midlothian (Owen Thompson)? Given their contributions, I am sure they are both embarking on very solid parliamentary careers.

One of the most striking things about the Anderson report was the early chapters describing the technology landscape that we face across the world and that is faced by our security and intelligence services. That landscape is changing almost daily in its innovation and capabilities: new applications are emerging; new methods of encryption are being developed as we speak; and more and more data are travelling around the world, connecting people together and often connecting our enemies together. In the past 25 to 30 years, technology has provided massive opportunities for our society, but it also represents a profound threat to our future national security. It provides opportunities for our enemies—for countries operating and wanting to develop cyber-attacks against our infrastructure; it enables terror groups to communicate below the radar in encrypted chatrooms on the dark web; and it allows networks to develop which are difficult to detect and to analyse.

Before I came to this House, I worked in the IT and technology industry for 20 years and I have seen the changes taking place. Our enemies are very skilled in the use of this technology. They use it to disseminate their message through social media and through other networks. They are very skilled at creating methods of cyber-attack and at avoiding detection, and they are becoming increasingly skilled in collaborating across the world. The key challenge facing us, therefore, is: how do we respond to that ever-changing and complex landscape, and how do the Government and the state respond?

As other hon. Members have said, David Anderson’s review is an excellent, magisterial piece of work, which really sets out the landscape. He focuses on the fundamental principles we need to be following to ensure that our security and intelligence services have the tools necessary to do the job, within a legal framework that not only protects privacy and the freedom of the individual, but, as other hon. Members have said, is integrated under a single new law which is comprehensible. Our enemies can use technology flexibly and innovatively, and can respond to new trends without constraint, so the Government and the state face a challenge because we cannot afford to be static and unresponsive in the light of the new challenges we face, as ultimately our citizens will pay the price.

The Anderson review is therefore right to call for a new set of laws—or a new law—that consolidate the myriad different pieces of legislation that have built up over time; clearly articulate the correct balance between enabling our security and intelligence services to do their jobs and having the necessary transparency; are written in a language that a layman can understand and which is comprehensible; and that ensure that we have a framework where not only can the security and intelligence services operate, but where the police and other public bodies are clear about their legal responsibilities and operate proportionately.

The freedom of the individual and freedom of expression are absolutely fundamental to our democratic society. But a mature democratic country such as Britain, with all the connections that we have around the world, needs to have the capability and the framework to combat its enemies, wherever those enemies may manifest themselves.

As David Anderson says in his report, it would simply not be acceptable for a modern democratic society to allow paedophiles, for example, to operate on the dark net with guaranteed impunity, or to allow terrorists to render themselves undetectable simply by selecting an application that encrypts their communication history so that it is inaccessible. It would not be acceptable for a modern democratic society and Government to cede responsibility, and say, “All this is too complicated and we will allow our enemies or criminals to act with impunity.” But we do not have to become a totalitarian society to achieve our goal. As David Anderson also says, if the UK is to set an example to the world, it will not be by withdrawing from those dark spaces that we see emerging on the web, but by demonstrating that our democratic society has the ability to patrol those spaces in tightly defined circumstances and with sufficient safeguards against abuse. That is one of the fundamental underlying principles that needs to drive our thinking when we come to debate the new legislation that will be introduced in the autumn.

As the Government consider the recommendations made by Anderson, the challenge for us all is to enable a debate to take place, so that the state can engage in the complex battle against very intelligent enemies, especially those operating in this newly emerging dark space on the internet. That dark space has the danger of allowing our enemies to act with impunity. Fundamentally, we need to create the appropriate legal framework to ensure that our enemies are held accountable for their activities, because that is what a democratic society demands.

15:17

[John Mc Nally (Falkirk) (SNP)]

I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to make my maiden speech as the newly elected Member for Falkirk. It is an immense privilege to follow the hon. Members who have set such an incredibly high standard today and in the recent weeks. I thank the staff in the House and my buddy, Charlotte Every, for their unending patience in showing us around these buildings. Some of us have blisters on our feet having lost our way so often.

The constituents of Falkirk elected me by a large majority, for which I humbly thank them. However, nice though it would be, I do not believe that that was down to any personal qualities that I may have. [Hon. Members: “Ah!”] Well, I am not exactly tall, thin and good looking, but I do the best with what I have. My majority speaks to the desire for change that we have seen expressed so passionately by many people, both last year in the referendum and in our recent general election. It will be my honour to represent every individual in my constituency regardless of how they voted. I will endeavour to work on their behalf, to the very best of my ability, now and throughout the years ahead.

As is customary, may I offer my best wishes to my immediate predecessor in Falkirk, Mr Eric Joyce? He is an able man who has been through some difficult times. In the words of Oscar Wilde, it is worth remembering that

“Every saint has a past, and every sinner has a future.”

I wish him peace and success in his future endeavours.

Before Mr Joyce, Falkirk’s representative in Parliament was Mr Dennis Canavan. Dennis served the constituency tirelessly and was respected across the House. When he announced his retirement before the 2007 Scottish Parliament elections, he had completed a combined 33 years in Westminster and Holyrood. Particularly close to his heart was his determination to end complacency in politics and remind us that those elected to serve the public should remain hungry for social justice and civil liberties. I draw inspiration from his desire to tackle all forms of inequality.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I believe that if you want to change the world, you get busy in your own little corner. At a grassroots level in Scotland, people have become very busy. People are involved in politics as never before, with public meetings and community activism. Some are just accidental activists and we, the SNP, are largely supportive of the Anderson report, which protects those civil liberties.

The Scottish National party has a soaring membership with more women members than men and a wonderful strong and honest leader, a lawyer herself, who has helped the democratic renewal we have seen since last year’s referendum. That should warm the hearts of all in this House, regardless of the political tribe to which they belong. I believe that our voters tired of “politics as usual”. Too often, they see empty promises and stale rhetoric in place of principle and action. There were lofty thoughts and lofty words, but we also need deeds. The sense of this House as remote from the lives of ordinary people and disconnected from the challenges and difficulties they face every day is real, should concern us all and must be addressed. The introduction of a snoopers charter would make politicians ever more remote from those who they represent.

What we saw in Scotland in May was an appetite among voters to be represented by people like them, who have lived and worked in the communities that send them to this House. I have not only served as a local councillor since 2005 but have run a barber shop in the village of Denny and Dunipace in my constituency for nearly 50 years—do not say that I do not look my age. Shortly after being elected, while having a wee blether in my barber shop, one customer pointed out that I should perhaps replace the shop’s red bench with a green one. I asked why, and he said that people might think that I was getting a wee bit overly ambitious. I am referring to the place next door.

I understand only too well the pressures and constraints of running a small business in good times and bad. There are more parallels between being a barber and an MP than anyone might imagine—[Interruption.] Let your imagination run wild. Both require listening closely to public opinion and, where possible, acting on it. There is also a great deal of hot air and we have to do our best, sometimes with not very much to work with—although none of my hon. Friends has that problem. Cuts are also a key part of my daily routine, but I can assure you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that they are not the ones that the Chancellor favours.

Falkirk is situated in the beautiful central lowlands of Scotland and lies almost midway between the cities of Glasgow and Edinburgh. It has a proud history, having been at the very centre of the industrial revolution and of Scotland’s iron and steel industry. The days of producing cannons for the Royal Navy and beams for the early steam engines might be behind us, but over the past 50 years Falkirk has emerged from some hard days to become a modern cultural delight. There is an ongoing transformation in which art, industry and innovation have combined to create a powerful magnet for tourism.

The Kelpies are towering steel statues that represent a mythical Scottish water spirit held to possess the strength and endurance of 100 horses. They are the largest equine sculptures in the world and dominate the skyline, speaking to the animals that pulled the wagons, ploughs, barges and coal ships that shaped much of my constituency. They also epitomise the endurance of a community that is finding its voice and can be optimistic about its future.

The Falkirk wheel is a marvel of modern engineering that ties together the present technical innovation with the history of Falkirk’s incredible canal systems and waterways. My constituency is also an area of outstanding natural beauty peppered with historic gems, including the Antonine Roman wall.

The Falkirk constituency, its villages and towns, has suffered due to the austerity measures pursued by the Conservative party. It is austerity and its harsh consequences that I am here to fight every step of the way. Anything that threatens the wellbeing of my constituents and their communities will be absolutely, totally opposed by me. Why should society’s poor pay for the mistakes of society’s rich?

We have a threat to my area and across Scotland: principally, shale gas fracking. Scotland has a worldwide reputation for the purity of its water and a huge and growing food and drink industry that relies on that reputation. Nothing should jeopardise it. Fossil fuels cannot last forever in Scotland. We can make the transition from fossil to renewable energy through investment, research and development, but we need control of our own energy resources. Those powers need to be transferred to the Scottish Parliament now.

The next five years that I serve here are for the Falkirk bairns. I can assure this House and the community of Falkirk that I will be very busy in my own little corner.

15:25

[Kelly Tolhurst (Rochester and Strood) (Con)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me to make my maiden speech in this important debate. It is a real pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Falkirk (John Mc Nally)—a small business owner like myself, who I am sure will make a great contribution to this House—and the hon. Member for Midlothian (Owen Thompson). I am proud also to be following my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis), who made an excellent speech. I think my hon. Friends will agree that she will be an asset to this House.

I feel truly honoured to be standing here today, charged with the privilege of representing the very constituency in which I was born and bred. I follow a line of representatives who were of an independent nature and character—[Laughter.] My immediate predecessor, Mark Reckless, worked hard to win back the seat for the Conservatives in 2010. His steadfast position on Europe will be remembered in this House. He gave his constituents a chance to have their say in a by-election dominated by that position, in which he was victorious, but he also gave me an opportunity that I never thought I would have: the chance to stand as a candidate to represent my home towns.

My wonderful constituency and my fellow constituents have been thrown somewhat into the spotlight in recent months, with the eyes of the nation and numerous news agencies watching us. To some, it felt like our towns were experiencing a mini-invasion. To use a phrase coined by the BBC, this was the start of the battle for Rochester and Strood. The people of my constituency are resilient, forthright and determined, and I am immensely proud of the way they had their voices heard and how they dealt with the focus put on us in that period. However, after a short interlude, they decided that the leadership and the future prosperity of our country were more than a single issue—something that the people of Rochester and Strood were not prepared to gamble with.

My constituency is steeped in maritime, military and industrial history, and has a diverse landscape and community. It forms part of the Medway towns and includes Strood, Chatham, the old city of Rochester and numerous surrounding villages. The area is named after the tidal River Medway, which meanders through them. Over the centuries, that natural resource has shaped the development of the landscape and the lives of the people who live there.

In Rochester, our magnificent Norman castle and cathedral have been well documented, but the House may not be aware that we are also blessed with Upnor castle—an Elizabethan fort built to defend warships moored on the river, where in 1582 Queen Elizabeth I reviewed the fleet—on the opposite bank of the river to the Royal Chatham dockyard, which in its heyday was the most important shipbuilding and repair dockyard in the country.

It is a lesser-known fact that it was on the River Medway that one of our most famous 16th-century seafarers, Sir Francis Drake, learned to sail. He went on to circumnavigate the world, defeat the Spanish armada and become a Member of Parliament. Given that I, too, learned to sail on the River Medway, and have become a Member of Parliament, one does wonder where this path will take me.

There are many subtle reminders of past industry in my constituency, none of them greater than the chalk cliffs that show themselves to us every now and then—a reminder of when cement works were scattered across the towns of Medway. That cement was shipped by barge to grow an expanding London, and was most notably used in the reconstruction of San Francisco after the great earthquake of 1906. There is also the old slipway at Borstal, where the Short brothers would launch their seaplanes, built at the factory, and the car park in Strood, where Aveling and Porter once stood—the company that became the largest manufacturer of steamrollers in the world.

The ingenuity and entrepreneurship of the hard-working people of my constituency have created a local economy where small enterprises thrive and grow. Since Labour was in power, unemployment has fallen by 46% and 6,200 apprenticeships were started; there are over 10,000 across the Medway towns. Our future economy is intrinsically linked to the provision of education and skills to our future generations.

I congratulate this Conservative Government on their determination to challenge all educational establishments that are not delivering for our children. As a Medway councillor, I held the educational improvement portfolio. Outcomes for our young people have not been what they should. Often I have seen the interests of the adults involved in underperforming schools put before the outcomes for the young people they served, and being a barrier to prompt improvement. Our schools community must be led by inspirational professionals who have high expectations and aspirations for the young people of my towns. I am a local comprehensive school girl from a working-class background who has worked hard, run her own business and become a Member of Parliament. My journey is one that every young person in my community should feel is possible for them, with the values, skills and experiences they receive, which should prepare them to be the next generation to see Rochester and Strood through changing times.

I welcome today’s debate. We live in a technologically advanced world, and it is right that our security services and police should have the tools to tackle the threats that we face. I have a sister who is a talented social worker, and through that connection have had the honour of working with some wonderful children who have come into our care system. All too often, our young children have been pushed from pillar to post for long periods while decisions are taken about their future care plans, with further lengthy waits to be matched with new parents. I know one young person who had the system and the timescales fail her at a young age. That is simply not good enough, and it is right that Ministers are looking at ways to address this.

My sister and I have taken very different paths, but we have both thrived because of the love and stability of our mother and father. It was our parents who gave us the tools to succeed. I want every child to be as lucky as I was to experience the love and stability that a permanent family can bring, so that our children can thrive, and their future life chances are no longer uncertain. The safety of our young people is of paramount importance, so we must have powers to investigate and tackle criminals who target and exploit our vulnerable young people; they must be thwarted and brought to justice.

I have much to focus on over the coming Parliament—supporting my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in his renegotiations on Britain’s future with Europe, working with colleagues and leaders at Medway hospital to build on the improvements we are now starting to see, protecting our beautiful Hoo peninsula, the fine agricultural land, marshland habitats, and our villages from overdevelopment, and continuing to make it quite clear that we are not an extension of London and no airport is wanted in Rochester and Strood. As mentioned previously, we, the people of Medway, are determined and we like to win our battles.

Finally, I would like to bring it to the attention of the House that it is 45 years since the previous Conservative woman was elected to represent the constituency that preceded Rochester and Strood. Dame Peggy Fenner was first elected to this House in 1970, a formidable women, remembered for her fierce opposition to the closure of Chatham dockyard in the 1980s. She asked the Defence Secretary of the time:

“Does my right hon. Friend believe that the people of Rochester and Chatham elected me to support a Government that would do what has just been done to their dockyard? My right hon. Friend need not reply. I shall tell him the answer: they did not, and I will not.”—[Official Report, 25 June 1981; Vol. 7, c. 391.]

Sadly, she passed away last September at the age of 91. I hope I can follow in her footsteps, being also a strong Conservative woman, and be a formidable defender of the needs of the people in my constituency, Rochester and Strood.

15:36

[Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Kelly Tolhurst) on an excellent and forthright maiden speech, and I pay tribute to all Members who have made maiden speeches this afternoon, which were among the best that I have heard.

I welcome the debate this afternoon and David Anderson’s report. These are important issues and they have become pressing. I was the Director of Public Prosecutions for five years, had a great deal of exposure to the exercise of investigatory powers and recognise the background that David Anderson sets out in his report. There has been a long-term shift from telephone communications via UK service providers towards internet-based communications through overseas service providers. Encryption capability has changed and the law, as I discovered, is not as clear or as comprehensive as it should be.

The Snowden revelations have given us a line of sight on this important issue. There will be tension in this debate that is picked up in this House. It is laid out in David Anderson’s report. As the volume of electronic communications grows, the authorities, on the one hand, understandably fear the emergence of new channels of communication which cannot be monitored, and thus they seek new powers. Privacy advocates, on the other hand, raise the spectre of a surveillance state. That tension is not unfortunate. It is welcome and necessary in a democratic society and should play its part in our debates. Striking the balance in the new draft Bill will be critical.

As the Home Secretary said when she last spoke on this issue on 11 June, it is impossible to have that debate without first considering the threat that we face as a country. This is not the place for me to detail that threat, but when I was DPP I was asked about the importance of communications data in prosecuting terrorist offences and I provided that information to the Government in a letter. David Anderson’s report provides an update on the information that I provided and quotes the Crown Prosecution Service evidence as of 1 October 2014. That gives a snapshot of the recent prosecutions.

The CPS evidence shows that, in 26 recent terrorist cases, of which 17 have thus far concluded with a conviction, 23 could not have been pursued without communications data, and in 11 of the cases the conviction was dependent on those data. One of the cases that I oversaw as DPP has already been referred to, Operation Overt. That was the operation that involved thwarting a co-ordinated suicide plot to bring down seven transatlantic flights at the same time, using liquid explosives. The plot was thwarted by the careful and painstaking work of the police and security services, and the case was then prosecuted by my staff in the counter-terrorism team. The ability to access communications data was vital to the successful outcome of that important case.

However, it would be wrong to conduct this debate on the basis that it is only in terrorist cases that communications data are relevant, because they are used widely in cases of serious organised crime, online fraud and child sexual exploitation. That is why I have always argued that investigators and prosecutors need to maintain the capacity they have, and that any reduction in their capability might jeopardise future prosecutions.

Proportionate surveillance and interception are vital to saving lives and to the successful investigation and prosecution of serious crime. That is why I and others have listened carefully to the case for change made by the police and the security agencies, and why I think that there is now near consensus that reform and extension of investigatory powers are needed. But—and it is a big but—as the case for greater powers for our police and security agencies becomes more powerful, so too does the case for strong checks and balances. The guiding principles that must take us through that are clear.

First, the powers to intrude on privacy must be provided by accessible and foreseeable laws. In that regard, we must be clear that sensitive powers need to be fully declared before the law is enacted. Secondly, such powers should be used only when their use is necessary and proportionate. The burden is on the Government to establish necessity and proportionality when they bring forth the draft Bill, and it is on the police and other agencies each time they exercise their powers. Thirdly, authorisation and oversight must be clear and comprehensive. Fourthly, there must be an effective remedy for individuals whose rights might have been infringed.

Against that background, I welcome David Anderson’s recommendation that the existing authorisation and oversight regime should be replaced by a system of judicial authorisation, as has been touched on in this afternoon’s debate. It is a step change, as it will change the practice that has been in place for many years, but I believe that it is the right step. David Anderson sets out the arguments for and against the change. It is not a question of whether the Secretary of State or the judges can do the function, because they can, and it is not to call into question the good faith in which the powers have been exercised until now; it is a step change that is needed for the reasons set out in David Anderson’s report.

On the vital question of accountability, David Anderson sets out why, in truth, the argument about accountability does not really stack up, for some of the reasons that have been alluded to this afternoon, because ultimately the limitations on looking at the material are such that, whoever exercises the power, the real accountability is with the Investigatory Powers Tribunal. I think that is a step in the right direction. I recognise that it is a big step and that it needs to be carefully debated, but it adds considerably to the oversight and is in keeping with the extension of powers that is sought.

I also welcome David Anderson’s recommendation that there should be no question of progressing proposals for the compulsory retention of third party data before a compelling operational case has been made. It is now for that case to be made by those who want to make it. Those recommendations are consistent with the guiding principles that I have just set out.

In my view, those guiding principles also need to be applied to the difficult and possibly more controversial areas where David Anderson left room for further debate, recognising that his was not necessarily the last voice. They relate to the distinction between content and communications data.

In the first instance, David Anderson recognises that there needs to be a review of the borderline between content and communications data. That review needs to be open and inclusive, and it needs to be carried out urgently, because this matter crops up in an operational context. When the review is complete, a final decision can be taken on whether the current distinction is maintained. However, I am acutely aware of the ramifications for authorisation and admissibility of evidence if there is any alteration of that distinction.

Secondly, there is bulk data collection; I do understand how this works. David Anderson acknowledges that the question of whether the current section 8(4) regime is proportionate for the purposes of article 8 of the European convention is yet to be authoritatively determined by the European Court of Human Rights, but I am not sure that this House can duck the issue on that basis. The guiding principles have to be applied. Bulk data collection is a huge power, and if it is to be included in the draft Bill, then a compelling case has to be made for its necessity and proportionality. That is the ongoing challenge on bulk data collection.

As for the treatment of journalistic material and legal professional privilege, both of those rightly attract special protection. David Anderson has said that there must be no no-go areas, and I am inclined to the view that he is right, having myself seen material that falls into both categories. If he is right, and if that is the position under the draft Bill, there must be very close scrutiny of the provisions to ensure that the protection that is rightly in place for journalists and for clients of lawyers is properly protected according to the guiding principles.

15:46

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate and to follow the hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), who brought to bear his experience of the absolutely vital nature of communications data to securing the prosecution of those who are serious threats to our nation. I thank him for that.

The homework for this debate was “A Question of Trust”, the Anderson report; and “Privacy and Security”, the ISC’s report. The third bit, the report by the Royal United Services Institute, has not come out yet, so we are having the debate before all the homework is available to us.

I want to focus on the element of threat covered in the Anderson report. His remit was to focus on the threats, the capabilities required to deal with them, the safeguards on privacy, the challenges of technology, and issues relating to transparency and oversight. Two of those five issues relate to threat. Interestingly, the responses by groups and organisations interested in this subject—I have read at least two, including one from Liberty and one from Big Brother Watch—hardly alluded to the threat element at all; they focused entirely, and perhaps understandably, on privacy. To some extent, Mr Anderson gave them some cover for that, because, to quote him directly,

“claims of exceptional or unprecedented threat levels—particularly if relied upon for the purposes of curbing well-established liberties—should be approached with scepticism.”

However, he did not go on to spell out what those well-established liberties were, particularly in relation to the internet and communications data, which are still new to our society. He went on to ask what are the uniform views of the law enforcement community. The Government could help him in establishing what those views are. The Minister might well want to comment on that.

The threat is of course enormous, and it is not just terrorism, alarming as that is. Members have alluded to at least two other elements: they include internet pornography and, perhaps most emotionally, the whole business of sexual exploitation of children. It is hard to believe that after everything that has happened in Rotherham, with all the reports on that, and in other cities across our land, anyone could imagine that that threat is not serious.

I therefore share to some extent the amazement of Lord Carlile, the Liberal Democrat peer, who, after a decade as the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, was shocked when his own party leader vetoed the Communications Data Bill in the last Parliament. He implied that the veto was a political decision rather than one based on the merits of the case. I hope that the Minister, who is perhaps not renowned for his libertarian instincts, but who is renowned for his staunch support of the liberties of our people, will touch on how vital that Bill is as part of our armoury to face the threats.

There is a lot of agreement between the Anderson report and the Intelligence and Security Committee’s report. First, on the complexity of the existing number of laws, when my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) says that the laws are virtually incomprehensible, it is surely time for a single, united Bill. When my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field) says that he has his own concerns as a member of the ISC about the way in which different agencies might be able to “arbitrage” between different Bills, I think we can all agree that the Government are surely entitled to conclude that it is time for one overriding umbrella Bill.

Secondly, the two reports were not exactly the same on the issue of reform of the commission system, but it seems to me that everyone agrees that it would be simpler and clearer to have a single commissioner with overall responsibility.

There was a difference of opinion on warrants and whether they should be subject to judicial authority or continue to be the responsibility of Ministers. Mr Anderson raised two interesting points. The first was that, whatever the system is, it must have public confidence. I am not really aware that the current system does not have public confidence, but perhaps that should be explored. Secondly, he intimated that a system of judicial responsibility would make co-operation with US technology companies easier. I had not heard that before. It seems slightly improbable, but perhaps the Minister will comment on it, because it is clearly an important issue.

Thirdly, the Anderson report—and possibly the ISC report—mentioned the domestic right of appeal. I am sure that the Minister will want to say something about that. Instinctively, I feel that it is a good idea, and others probably do, too.

There was less agreement between the reports on some of the other elements. I have touched on the Communications Data Bill. Clearly there is a need to make a strong operational case, but none of us should be in any doubt about the critical role that such data play in the prosecution of serious threats. I hope that elements of the Bill will be incorporated into the eventual law.

There was also a question mark over whether the framework for interception of external communications needs to be compliant with the European convention on human rights. That is an interesting question in itself and in relation to other activities the Government are pursuing. The Minister might want to comment on that.

There were areas of agreement in the two reports we were invited to study that the Government can take forward. There were some queries of the Government’s own responses, which they may wish to mull over and respond to. Mr Anderson also raised other question marks and issues that will need to be considered further before the final Bill emerges.

There is clearly a significant lobby group focused on liberty issues, which we all understand and all think are important. However, I want to finish by emphasising that, when we consider the details of the new law, the new commissioner, the right of appeal, the collection of third party data and so on, I hope that this House and the Minister will bear it in mind that, if a terrorist blows someone or something up, or if young girls are groomed, exploited and damaged, it is not the libertarians who will clean up the pieces, but the families of those physically or mentally scarred, the emergency services and the communities around them. It is that threat that our agencies strive against. Our task—balancing the privacy, carrying the quiet majority with us—is surely to give our agencies the tools to do the job. Those tools, by common consent, are currently not in the best shape, and in reshaping them let us never forget the vital task for which we must design them.

15:55

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

I am chair of the cross-party National Union of Journalists parliamentary group, and for the last two years, with Government co-operation, we have gone through the highways and byways of each piece of legislation—ranging from the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 to RIPA to DRIPA, then on to the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015—to see how we can best protect journalists and their sources. I thank the Government for their co-operation throughout. We have had detailed consideration of the codes of practice to each piece of legislation, and with our lawyers meeting on a regular basis, and with the Society of Editors, we have tried to move the debate forward.

On the protection of journalists, I say to the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) that an issue of confidence was raised in this House by all parties. As he may recall, that stemmed from the introduction of PACE procedures, whereby there was an understanding in Government that journalists and in particular, their sources, should be protected as an inherent part of protecting our democracy. Under PACE, there was a protection whereby, if there was an application for seeking information, a journalist would be notified. They would have their day in court and be able to represent themselves, and there would be a right of appeal. That process was generally accepted by all, except some authorities.

Many of us were shocked 18 months ago when we received reports that to avoid the use of PACE, a number of authorities—the police, the intelligence services, and even local councils—had used RIPA to avoid the due process of applying, judicial overview and the right of appeal. The scale of the use of RIPA by individual authorities was immense, and I think it shocked us all when that was exposed. Local councils were using it to spy on their own staff or even people who were making applications for local schools, and so on. There was shock on both sides of the House and a feeling that that was inappropriate use of the legislation.

We then went through discussions about DRIPA. Through the NUJ and the Society of Editors, we met the Government and applied our minds to getting some protections within the codes of practice, and eventually, under the Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill. Throughout the continuing theme was the same as in today’s debate—that there was a need to rationalise the legislation, so that not only was it effective and understandable, but that it had protections in place for those with privileged or confidential information.

Anderson has been welcomed by the NUJ and others, because it goes some way towards doing that. The NUJ’s position was straightforward: it wanted an independent judicial process. In addition, it wanted automatic and mandatory prior notification of requests for accessing information, and it wanted mechanisms to challenge an application with the right of appeal. Anderson goes some way towards doing the first, and in recommendations 67 to 69, he makes special consideration with regard to journalists. He clearly states that the designated person

“should be obliged either to refuse the request”—

when it comes to identifying a journalist’s information or confidential source, and then automatically—

“refer the matter to ISIC for a Judicial Commissioner to decide”.

The NUJ welcomes that process, but I speak briefly to make a couple of appeals on the matter. Anderson recommends that there is a code of practice or ISIC guidance that specifies:

“the rare circumstances in which it may be acceptable to seek communications data for such a purpose, and…the circumstances in which such requests should be referred to ISIC.”

I say to the Minister that it would be really helpful, if the Government are going down the route of further guidance, to start the consultation process now. Again, the NUJ would welcome access to officials to commence those discussions in advance of the publication of any such guidance.

[The Minister for Security (Mr John Hayes)]

Given the brevity that I will no doubt be obliged to adopt at the end of this debate, I am more that happy to meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss the specific point that he is making.

[John McDonnell]

I am grateful to the Minister; I thought that would be his response.

May I ask that, this time round, any draft guidance is published in advance of the primary legislation, so that we are fully conversant with the implications of the primary legislation in detail when we discuss it? We were not capable of doing that in the past because of the rush of emergency legislation, but it would be helpful.

One issue that is not addressed effectively by Anderson is prior notification. I accept that there are circumstances in which prior notification becomes difficult, some of which have been mentioned today. However, there needs to be wider discussion of this issue and it must not just be dismissed in the way that it was in the report. There also needs to be further discussion about the right of appeal in respect of any decisions by the judicial commissioners in addition to those that are set out in the Anderson report. I would welcome further consultation on those elements.

I will make one final point because I know that I must be brief and that others wish to speak. Anderson does, to give him his due, stress the importance of the protection of journalists and their sources, and quotes Liberty on the issue. We must remember that those are the journalists that we sometimes do not hold in great affection. They are the journalists who exposed the MPs expenses scandal and who expose corruption. They do so on the basis of information that is brought to them by sources that need to be protected. The word “chilling” was used earlier. We said in the debates about the movement from PACE to RIPA that any undermining of the protection of sources would have a chilling effect and they would not come forward, thereby undermining the democratic accountability of administrations at all levels.

I am grateful that David Anderson quotes Liberty and bases his proposals on its principles, which state that a

“free press and the right to free speech is dependent on respect for private correspondence”.

If we establish those principles in the legislation that is brought forward, it will lay the basis for firm legislation. That will also inform the debate that we eventually have on the Pitchford inquiry into surveillance more generally.

16:02

[Mims Davies (Eastleigh) (Con)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak in this fascinating debate. As someone who used to be involved in the media, I found the comments of the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and the point that the hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) made about there being no no-go areas extremely interesting.

I am not a lawyer or a legal expert. I come to this debate as someone who was pregnant with their first child at the time of the 7/7 bombing. I remember the bewilderment and fear at the barbarity on the streets. I, too, have pressing school engagements to head to, which I am sure cameras will be recording. The debate about taking suitable pictures at such events has been had many times, because the impact of the surveillance society pervades all levels.

It is a pleasure to follow such barnstorming maiden speeches by my hon. Friends the Members for Banbury (Victoria Prentis) and for Rochester and Strood (Kelly Tolhurst).

I pay tribute to the vital work of the men and women in the intelligence and law enforcement community. Their success is often unrecognised as it is not always known about, but they keep this country safe, day in, day out.

I will make some specific points about vital areas of this key topic. This debate is a useful first step ahead of the draft Bill and the coming into effect of the sunset clause of the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014. I welcome this opportunity to re-evaluate our arrangements in the face of the changing circumstances.

Clearly, we must balance our right to privacy with the need for greater national security. I am sure that no one here believes that to be an easy balance to strike. This country has always been the strongest proponent of freedom around the world. From being the last bastion of European freedom in the second world war to our dynamic, modern, free economy today, it is this United Kingdom that represents all that is best about a free society. Today we have the challenging task of creating a balance whereby our freedoms are not only preserved but protected from those who wish to do us harm. I am reassured that the foundation of the privacy and civil liberties board will provide an additional safeguard on our security policy.

I welcome the Anderson report, which is broad and wide ranging and has certainly given me an insight into the work that needs to be done on the draft Bill. The modern world presents new challenges for our security—challenges from terrorism at home and overseas, from cyber-attacks, from criminals and from gangs seeking to commit evil acts such as child sexual exploitation.

The importance of investigatory powers can be seen in the fact that 95% of all serious and organised crime prosecutions include the use of communications data. Skype, FaceTime, Twitter and Instagram provide immediate access to direct communications systems, and the Anderson report represents an assessment of how we must meet the new challenges in the pursuit of our future security. It is a comprehensive and independent investigation that will give us greater insight as we prepare to build the investigatory powers Bill, which I hope will ensure that there is appropriate oversight and provide stronger safeguards while updating the capabilities of our intelligence services so that they can intercept what terrorists and criminals are saying, doing and planning.

As a mum of two daughters, I want to focus on the issue of child sexual exploitation. I am proud of the work that the Government have undertaken to find and bring to justice those who seek to do harm to our children and exploit them. The men who groomed young girls in Rochdale were prosecuted using mobile phone call evidence, which showed that they had contact with their victims and association with each other. I look forward to the opportunity to contribute to the Bill and strengthen our services’ capacity to protect children from such heinous individuals.

Just last week I met in my constituency a senior member of Hampshire police, who reported to me that it is using its full investigatory powers to examine child exploitation concerns. It is fully investigating those who may have been, or continue to be, at risk. That is sleepy Hampshire, so it would seem.

I welcome the Government’s commitment to a full debate on the new arrangements, and I welcome the fact that the Home Secretary is promising to ensure that we examine the powers and responsibilities properly and do not undertake the creation of the Bill lightly. On such a critical issue, the Government have clearly shown that the combined experience of the House will have a key role in forming the new legislation, and I will welcome the further chance to scrutinise and reflect on technological changes and the full range of safeguards that we need to keep our country safe.

16:08

[Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)]

It is a great honour to have listened to two maiden speeches today, by the hon. Members for Rochester and Strood (Kelly Tolhurst) and for Falkirk (John Mc Nally). It is clear that at least the former is a significant improvement on her predecessor.

I am pleased to be able to speak in today’s important debate. It is clear that there is agreement throughout the House that surveillance is necessary to protect the public from the serious threats that we as a country face. However, in recent years we have gradually become aware that there is also surveillance of perfectly legitimate activity. For instance, just this week the Investigatory Powers Tribunal revealed that GCHQ had spied on two international human rights organisations: the South African Legal Resources Centre and the Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights. Both are entirely legitimate civil liberties organisations, and are co-claimants in a legal challenge against GCHQ, alongside Privacy International and Amnesty International, brought after the Edward Snowden revelations.

The IPT ruled that GCHQ’s mass surveillance systems violated the Egyptian NGO’s fundamental rights by intercepting, accessing and then unlawfully retaining material for longer than permitted. For the other NGOs that took the case, including Privacy International, Amnesty International and Liberty—all UK-based civil society organisations that are leaders in their field—no statement was made by the IPT as to whether they were spied on. The court’s finding of no determination means either they were not spied on, or, more worryingly, they were but the spying was done in line with GCHQ’s internal rules and so, under the current inadequate law, the spying was done lawfully.

It is not just perfectly legal NGOs that have been put under surveillance, as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell). The intelligence services routinely intercept legal privileged communications between, for example, lawyers and their clients in sensitive security cases, according to internal MI5, MI6 and GCHQ documents. We also now know that the Metropolitan police used RIPA to access the phone records of journalists to expose their sources. A number of leading civil liberties lawyers believe they have been put under surveillance by the Metropolitan police. Former undercover police officer, Peter Francis, even disclosed that Scotland Yard had a special file on the leading London human rights firm, Bindmans.

As Anderson notes in his report, there can be no fairness in litigation involving the state if one party to it has the ability to monitor the privileged communications of the other. Anderson’s report, as we have already heard, makes a serious recommendation that could help to prevent abuses of power such as these, namely his call for judicial commissioners to approve surveillance warrants. This recommendation is critical and I hope the Government take heed of it in their deliberations. Introducing impartial arbiters into the process of authorising surveillance would put us in line with the practice undertaken in other democracies, and make the system more rigorous and accountable. Clearly, this should be taken by the independent judiciary.

I also hope the Government listen to Anderson’s recommendation that legislation should not be brought back to Parliament until a strong operational case has been made. Anderson is clear that so far the Government have failed to do so.

We need targeted surveillance against those suspected of breaking the law, but the case for mass untargeted surveillance against entirely innocent British citizens has simply not been made. We need to ensure that journalists, lawyers and human rights activists can go about their lawful democratic activities without the chill from surveillance that is enabled by an overly broad law and too few legal safeguards. Both Anderson’s report and the ISC’s make the case for fundamental legal reform. I hope the Government do this in a way that respects the recommendations of both reports.

16:12

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

It is with some trepidation, as a non-lawyer and a technophobe, that I intrude in this debate.

I have read the Anderson report. There seems to be general support and a very clear argument for merging all the various competing commissioner offices to create the independent surveillance and intelligence commission. That should provide clarity and certainty. I have a concern, however, regarding the creation of the chief commissioner, not by dint of the creation of the position but the definition of qualification that Anderson attaches to the post. He or she

“should be a person of unquestioned professional distinction and independence”,

and yet he or she is to be appointed by the Prime Minister of the day. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, with the best of intention, has had a difficult job finding somebody to chair the inquiry into child sex abuse. It would be a very difficult job if we were to adopt fully the definition of that commissioner, as far as Anderson has it, to find that person. Frankly, I am not entirely sure that he or she exists. Those are my two specific observations on the report.

I have been very encouraged by the debate. I had rather expected it to be a flag-waving exercise of civil libertarians who believe that, somehow or other, prior to the enactment of the Human Rights Act, we lived in a country that could easily have been mistaken for being Nicaragua or pre-apartheid South Africa, where gangs of police roved our streets, taking people off for questioning and so on, with a very corrupt judiciary and the like.

It is worth pointing out, as have other hon. Members, that we have a proud tradition in this country of an independent judiciary and of championing freedom and liberty, which is to be encouraged. Pretending that any changes to, or repeal of, the Human Rights Act will reduce us to a banana republic is, I think, very far from the mark.

One of the more inspired appointments made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was the appointment of my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes) as the Minister for Security, as he entirely understands the job that needs to be done.

[Mr John Hayes]

indicated assent.

[Simon Hoare]

My hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mims Davies) clearly said that balances and judgments will always have to be made. As we see the proposals evolve through this Session and as we have our Divisions and debates, I would urge all hon. Members to keep one thing in mind. Yes, we must always maintain the checks and balances to ensure that things have not gone too far out of kilter, but we should always have at the back of our mind this one salient point. If we have another atrocity such as the one we had a few years ago in central London, or indeed in any other towns and cities, we should not have to look into the eyes of grieving relatives and communities and say, “We could have stopped that; we could have broken the chain of terrorism, but we were unable to do it because we were too concerned about the maintenance of the ‘virgo intacta’ of civil liberties.” I hope that is not an unparliamentary term to use, Madam Deputy Speaker.

We are accountable to our electorate; that is our duty. If the first duty of Government is the protection and defence of the realm, the vital role played by the security services within that must be taken into account, as other Members have made abundantly clear. In a changing landscape where technology changes every day and the terrorist or person who wishes our country ill is moving forward faster than we think they are, we must ensure that we are as fleet of foot and that there is scope within the regulations to ensure that we respond to the threats.

Finally, because we are accountable to our electorate, I am not persuaded by the argument put forward in the Anderson report that the final decision should be taken by a judge. I think that power should rest with the Home Secretary, who is, after all, accountable to this House, accountable to Cabinet colleagues and accountable to senior Committees. Yes, there should be judicial review and judicial oversight, but to put the responsibility for taking away democratic accountability in the hands of judges would, I think, be a step too far.

16:18

[James Berry (Kingston and Surbiton) (Con)]

People in the UK face a range of threats to their liberty and security from terrorists and criminals on a daily basis. The police and the security services, in whom we put our faith to keep us safe, are not assisted in their task by the fast pace at which communications technology is advancing. Devices and applications that have become features of everyday life for our general use and pleasure have routinely been exploited by those who mean us harm.

RIPA was enacted in 2000, shortly before I went to university to study law. At first flush, RIPA looked very straightforward. It governed large proportions of the law on surveillance and interception of communication, and did not require eager students to resort to vast swathes of case law in the way that the laws of tort or equity did. On further examination, however, RIPA was indeed one of the most impenetrable pieces of legislation with which a law student could possibly have to grapple.

What is worse is that RIPA was out of date almost as soon as it was enacted. In 2000, about 27% of us in the United Kingdom were internet users, and most of us used static devices. By 2013 the figure had climbed to 90%, and most people were using mobile rather than static devices. As a result, RIPA and associated regulations and guidance have been repeatedly amended, and, while that process may have introduced necessary changes that have brought the law up to speed with changes in technology, it has not made the law in this area any more penetrable for either the layman or the lawyer. It is incumbent on the House of Commons to pass laws that can be applied, and applied straightforwardly, by those on whom we call to keep us safe. I therefore endorse David Anderson’s recommendation that RIPA and other related legislation should be replaced by one—and this time, hopefully, one straightforward—piece of legislation.

Simplifying the law in this area is important for another reason, and that is public confidence. When applied properly, RIPA offers safeguards against the unlawful infringement of article 8 of the European convention on human rights, which confers the right to privacy. While there are cases at the margins in which the courts can rightly be accused of stretching the proper interpretation of article 8 beyond its natural meaning, the interception of communications is certainly not one of them. It is a classic infringement of article 8, and one that will be lawful only when the infringement is both necessary and proportionate.

It is right for the law in this area to be reformed so that it commands the confidence of the public, but that will happen only if the face of the law is plain, if there are clear avenues for challenge, and if the overall system of surveillance and interception of communications is transparent. With that in mind, I commend the Anderson proposal for the oversight commissioners to be merged into one. The role of the unified commissioner should, in my view, involve producing clear and accessible guidance for the public on the whole issue of surveillance and interception of communications, as the Information Commissioner has done.

The proposals for reform of the Investigatory Powers Tribunal are also interesting, and worthy of careful consideration. In my limited professional experience of the tribunal, it has striven to ensure that hearings are conducted on an inter partes basis. That said, however, it deals with an area of our law that is little understood. Its procedures need to be streamlined, and that should be done through clear procedural rules to avoid the need for the public—and, indeed, lawyers—to pick through its published judgments.

Section 17(1) of RIPA prohibits absolutely the use of intercept evidence in criminal prosecutions and proceedings. That prohibition is strict, and extends even to mention of the fact of the interception. It does not just prevent intercept evidence from being used in criminal proceedings; it also prohibits its use in cases of serious misconduct by police officers, and cases in which state agents, including the police, are being sued for damages or challenged by judicial review. While I entirely understand the basis of the section 17 rule, it does little for public confidence to know that relevant, important and perhaps even decisive evidence cannot be adduced in cases in which it would have ensured the conviction of a dangerous criminal or avoided a payout to a claimant that was entirely unmeritorious. Clearly a balance would have to be struck—in some cases, it would be impossible to disclose the facts or the products of interception because it would compromise a covert tactic or put life at risk—but I think that the relaxation of the absolute terms of section 17(1) so that it can be approached on a case-by-case basis is worthy of careful consideration.

I shall not touch on the issue of judicial oversight, which has already been covered by other Members, and which will no doubt be the subject of a wider debate involving human rights organisations, lawyers, Members of Parliament and, of course, the public. Let me end by saying that, while the public do need to have confidence in the system of checks and balances that regulates our interception and surveillance system, they also need to feel confident that the state has the powers and capabilities to keep us safe from the ever more technologically adept enemies of our freedom.

16:24

[James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)]

There is a natural and proper tension between the desire for personal privacy and the need for national security. In this afternoon’s debate, both sides of that argument have been discussed with the calmness and clarity that the issue merits. Absolutist positions, whether libertarian or on the side of state security, are unhelpful. They may be fun in university or school debating societies, but in this place we have to think about the practical implementation of our discussions, so it is welcome that Members in all parts of the House have taken pragmatic and logical positions.

I do not pretend to be an expert on security matters, but I was part of the Metropolitan Police Authority at City Hall in London for a number of years. I sat on its scrutiny committee, which looked into the counter-terrorism and protective services work of the Metropolitan police, so in a small way I had some exposure to the security work that we demand our public servants conduct. I was, in small part, one of those people who watched the watchmen.

The speed of change in communications is both exciting and frightening. There was a time when communications interception meant snaring a carrier pigeon or steaming open a letter; those days are long passed. We are now in a world where state-of-the-art encryption technology exists not just on traditional desktop or laptop computers, but on every mobile phone and tablet that we carry around—and in forms that people do not normally think of. My sons regularly play on a games console and are able to communicate with their friends across the globe using encrypted communications technology. I am pleased to say—I am fairly sure—that they do so with entirely innocent motivations, but it does not take much of a leap of imagination to understand that people with much more sinister intent use such encrypted technology with ease. So it is not enough for people to say that the current state of affairs is good enough, and I welcome those parts of the Anderson report that highlight the fact that communications technology is moving apace. The status quo is not good enough. We are either at least trying to keep up, or being left badly behind.

I was on the Metropolitan Police Authority when the student riots that afflicted Westminster took place, and I remember how those protesters were able to move with great speed through London and, in particular, the time when they attacked the car carrying the Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall. The protesters were able to stay ahead of the police in a way that historically has not been possible. For most of the recent history of the police, they have been alone in being able to utilise peer-to-peer communications technologies; the bobby’s radio gave them a significant strategic advantage over those they sought to apprehend. Those student protesters, using BlackBerry Messenger, which, let us remind ourselves, is five to six years out of date, were able to stay well ahead of the police officers who were trying to do their duty.

I look at that incident as a very real and credible indicator of the challenge we now face at a national level. The situation where the security services are potentially behind the curve is worrying and it needs addressing. It is essential that we give our security services the tools they need to protect us, but the counterbalance of that is also ensuring that there is proper scrutiny of the work they do.

In conclusion, I suggest that our aim in this House and in this debate is to ensure that those who watch the watchmen are able to do so effectively and with real teeth, but this should not be to prevent the watchmen from watching.

16:30

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

Let me start by welcoming the Minister to his place and paying tribute to the excellent report we have been discussing this afternoon: “A Question of Trust—Report of the Investigatory Powers Review”, written by David Anderson, QC. He has a formidable reputation as the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation. The report ranges far wider than the areas the independent reviewer is usually required to look at. It tackles matters such as the use of the internet by paedophiles, an issue that the hon. Members for Halesowen and Rowley Regis (James Morris), for Gloucester (Richard Graham) and for Eastleigh (Mims Davies) mentioned in their contributions. It deals with the use that local authorities have made of powers under RIPA, a matter discussed by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell). It also deals with the growing threat from cybercrime and cyber-attacks. It is a very good report and, as the former Attorney General, the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) said, it is an amazing piece of work. It contains 124 recommendations, five guiding principles and more than 300 pages, giving us a lot of holiday homework over the summer in this immensely complicated area. It is detailed and thorough, and it is a report that will assist us in the coming months in our deliberations when we start to consider the Government’s specific proposals for legislation relating to the security, intelligence and law enforcement agencies’ use of investigatory powers.

We know that the Government will be bringing forward the draft legislation in the autumn, well ahead of the sunset provisions in the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014, which take effect on 31 December 2016. Of course the Anderson report was commissioned on the basis of an Opposition amendment when Parliament was asked to legislate very quickly to introduce DRIPA in 2014. We proposed that it was the right time for a thorough review of the existing legal framework to be conducted, as we no longer felt, alongside many others, that the current arrangements were fit for purpose. That statutory obligation was then set out in section 7 of DRIPA.

I thank the Government for finding time for this afternoon’s debate, which my right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary requested when the Home Secretary made her statement to Parliament at the publication of the report on 11 June. As my right hon. Friend said in her opening remarks, it has indeed been delivered “very swiftly”, and for that we are very grateful.

This debate is important because, as my right hon. Friend said, we need to ensure that Members of all parties may discuss the report fully and to foster a wider public debate to get the widest possible debate and legitimacy for the new framework. The hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) referred in his contribution to that need to engage in the public debate.

I also pay tribute to the work of the Intelligence and Security Committee, which produced the “Privacy and Security” report in March. That was a review of the intelligence agencies’ capabilities and the legal and privacy framework that governed their use. We are still awaiting the third report in this area from RUSI, a report established by the former Deputy Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr Clegg), who also spoke in today’s debate.

The Opposition accept the need for reform. Obviously, we need to wait to see what is in the draft legislation, which will be introduced shortly, but we are grateful to the Government for bringing this matter forward with cross-party agreement and discussions. We want a robust and up-to-date legal framework and the protection of liberty, as well as security and democracy. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh) referred to that point in her contribution.

We want strong powers with strong checks and balances and strong oversight of how the system is to work. The five Anderson principles will be a key part in the development of law and the practice of investigatory powers. Those principles are: minimisation of no-go areas; limits on powers; rights compliance; clarity and transparency; and a unified approach.

Let me mention some of the contributions in this very good debate. I will start with the maiden speeches, which were of an exceptionally high standard. The hon. Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis) told me something that I did not know about her predecessor, Tony Baldry. She said that he was the keeper of the hairspray for Margaret Thatcher. She also told us that she makes cider and keeps ferrets. I agree with her recommendation of the Bicester outlet shopping experience.

The second contribution was from the hon. Member for Midlothian (Owen Thompson) who painted a fine picture of his constituency. He talked about the importance of coal, his role as leader of the council and, rather intriguingly, the rolling haggis. Then we had the hon. Member for Falkirk (John Mc Nally) who gave a very generous tribute to his predecessor. He talked about running a shop for 50 years as a barber, and about the similarities between being a barber and a politician.

Finally, we heard from the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Kelly Tolhurst) who represents her home town. She talked about the similarities between herself and Francis Drake, learning to sail locally, and becoming a Member of Parliament. I just wondered how Hansard might record the parliamentary wiggle that she gave as part of her maiden speech.

We also had some learned contributions from experienced and senior Members of the House: the former Attorney General, the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield; the former Deputy Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam; the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field), who was a member of the ISC in the previous Parliament; the hon. Member for South West Wiltshire, with his ministerial responsibility; the former shadow Attorney General, my hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry); and the former Director of Public Prosecutions for five years, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), who spoke about the practical application of the current law with great knowledge. Many Members paid tribute to the intelligence and security services and the law enforcement agencies, which work day in, day out to keep us all safe. I wish to add my tribute to the vital work that they do.

As time is quite limited, I will refer to two particular areas that many Members raised today. The first was the proposal by David Anderson on merging the current commissioners and setting up the new office of the independent surveillance and intelligence commission. My right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary had talked about that previously, and we welcome the idea. It will increase transparency, strengthen the role of the commissioners, raise the public profile and help to build public trust. I note that the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (James Berry) also spoke about that matter.

The second issue was the proposal on judicial authorisation. The Opposition welcome that proposal from David Anderson, but we do not want to see a delay or detraction from the Home Secretary’s wider responsibility, which is to assess risk to national security and be answerable to Parliament. As my right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary said, the reforms will strengthen the legitimacy of our long-term framework, and I urge the Home Secretary to agree to them.

There was a mixed view in the House this afternoon. The right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield talked about the burden of proof being reversed in this case and said the Government needed to make the case for not accepting the Anderson recommendation. The right hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam mentioned his surprise about the operational benefits that might arise from judicial authorisation. The right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster reminded us about political accountability and how important it was, but spoke about the benefit that could be gained from judicial involvement. The hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) also supported the proposal on behalf of her party. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury gave her first-hand experience of the workings and worldliness of judges in balancing competing interests if they are to carry out this task. The hon. Member for Gloucester also talked about the need for public confidence in whatever system is going to be introduced. The hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) talked again about accountability.

In conclusion, we look forward to the publication of the draft Bill and to the pre-legislative scrutiny. The balance between security and liberty should always be struck with great care and constant scrutiny, including in this complex sphere of surveillance and data communication. Whatever the difficulties, we should aspire to achieve both objectives and never one at the expense of the other. We do so in the certain knowledge that the enemies of this country want to destroy both.

16:41

[The Minister for Security (Mr John Hayes)]

May I say what an honour it is to conclude such a measured, informed and significant debate? I am grateful to all hon. and right hon. Members who participated. It has been both in tone and content—as typified by the shadow Minister’s speech just a moment ago—dignified, reflective, measured and determined to do the right thing. There is a determination across the House to get this right.

That is not surprising, given that we are dealing with very serious matters relating to the security of the nation and its citizens. That is at the heart of the national interest and essential to the common good. My hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) made that absolutely clear in a powerful speech, made all the more powerful by his tribute in it to me. That is why I chose to mention him first.

Most powerful, however, were the maiden speeches we heard today. As the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson), generously said, we had maiden speeches from a variety of places in the country and in this House. I congratulate all those who made their maiden speeches, but, as Members would expect, particularly my hon. Friends the Members for Banbury (Victoria Prentis) and for Rochester and Strood (Kelly Tolhurst). Even in this non-partisan debate, I cannot help but reveal just a slight prejudice in favour of those on this side of the House.

Keeping people safe, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset also said, is the primary responsibility of Government. It is a responsibility on which all else depends and it transcends partisan politics. That is an axiomatic point; there should not be party divisions about the security of our nation and its people. We must stand together, as this House at its best always does, in the national interest and for the common good. It is also important, as my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (James Cleverly) argued, that we consider these matters in a measured way. I was pleased that those on the Opposition Front Bench acknowledged that the Government are doing just that. We wanted to have an early opportunity to explore these matters in this debate and we are determined to proceed on a consultative basis, listening to all arguments. These are not simple matters and they must be considered in that way, and they will be—make no mistake about that.

The right hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr Clegg), whom I have known and worked with in all kinds of guises over some time, always speaks with great conviction on these subjects. He made important points about the considerations that dictate the extent to which the agencies’ capabilities may be made public. As ever, we will ensure that we make information available where it can be made available, and in that respect we are considering the recommendations in the Anderson report carefully. I understand the right hon. Gentleman’s perspective and we take that seriously.

The right hon. Gentleman and many others raised the issue of third party data. It is essential that we understand that David Anderson did not say that one thing or another should be introduced; he said only that the case should be made for that capability. I think we all agree that to legitimise the exercise, a case should be made to this House and more widely. I do not think there is any difference between us on the need to explore these matters properly and to make the arguments persuasively, precisely as he asked us to do.

My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) made it clear that it is right to consider the issues of domestic appeal. I will not say more than that at this stage, but I note what David Anderson said about that and I note too that my hon. Friend amplified it.

Others made the point repeatedly, and rightly so, that the environment we are working in requires nothing less than that consultative and measured consideration, because it is such a challenging environment. The House should be under no illusions that the UK does not face serious threats from home and abroad. Reasonableness must be tested against reality. It was Hegel who said—it is a pity the Speaker is not in his place, Madam Deputy Speaker, because he likes it when I draw on Hegel, but I know you do too, and I am coming to one of your favourites later—

“What is reasonable is real; that which is real is reasonable.”

Matching our response to the reality of the threat we face is, in that sense, a test of its reasonableness. Recent attacks on allies around the globe show us that there must be no complacency, but that we must always be alert and ready to act. We will shortly mark the 10th anniversary of the 7 July attacks in London that resulted in the deaths of 52 innocent people and injury to 700 others. Those terrible events are seared on the memories of us all, I think—a heart-wrenching reminder of just how real the threat we face is.

As the shadow Home Secretary said, it is not only terrorist threats that our intelligence agencies thwart in exemplary fashion. Daily in each of our constituencies lives are touched, and sometimes ruined, by serious crimes such as murder, rape, child sexual exploitation and trafficking. The hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) made the highly pertinent point that investigations into all those subjects require scrutiny of all sorts of information, including historical information. We know that in some of the recent and most notable cases, that has been vital to bringing people to justice. I thought that was a powerful argument about not just dealing with now or what might be, but dealing with what has been in the terms that he described.

There are certainly no grounds for complacency. As well as dealing with what has been, we have to be aware that the threat we face is highly dynamic. My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury said that the adequacy of our response will be tested by its capacity to deal with that very dynamism. The ability of our enemies, those who want to do us damage, to move quickly must be matched by our ability to respond with just such alacrity. It is true that, as the shadow Home Secretary and others have said, although the internet has undoubtedly served many virtuous purposes, we cannot ignore the fact that it has also created opportunities for criminals and terrorists, which they have been fast and keen to exploit.

My hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Rowley Regis (James Morris) drew our attention to the dark web, and some of the things that happen in that place. In a digital age, our laws must be framed to give our law enforcement and intelligence agencies the tools and capabilities they need to perform their essential work, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field) made clear. As he said, those services will look at only a tiny fraction of the multitude of activities that take place in that area. He drew our attention to the report of the Committee on which he so ably serves, which has looked at these matters in considerable detail.

We are clear that there is a need for new legislation on the subject of investigatory powers. We note and take very seriously David Anderson’s remark, repeated in this Chamber, that there is a need for coherence and clarity in all we do. We have heard many hon. Members repeat his claim, including my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), the former Attorney General, who was very bold in admitting his ignorance. He suggested that that ignorance applied to us all; I am only prepared to admit to bliss. He said that the nature of what we were dealing with was so complex that it was almost incomprehensible, and that that would have an effect on faith, belief and confidence in the system for all involved. He made a powerful contribution to our debate, and I know that he will continue to do so as we consider these matters over the coming weeks and months.

We hear clearly the message that David Anderson broadcast, which has been repeated today: coherence, clarity and, to some degree, simplification have merit of themselves in assuring people about what we do and why. As the House knows, the sunset clause in the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014 provides a clear deadline. Legislation is needed, and David Anderson’s report provides a clear starting point for constructing that legislation. His report is complemented by the report on privacy and security that the Intelligence and Security Committee, which I mentioned, published in March. As the shadow Minister said, we also look forward to receiving the Royal United Services Institute report in the coming weeks. Together, those reports will form a firm basis for considering legislation, but I make no apology for repeating the point that this is a consultative process. Not only do we intend to discuss these matters in the House, as we have done today, but we will publish a draft Bill precisely to facilitate pre-legislative scrutiny of the kind that was called for in this discussion. Today’s debate has been held in that spirit.

I have listened carefully to the many and varied speeches made. Some very specific contributions, including that of the hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) and the shadow Home Secretary, require careful consideration and will no doubt form the basis of further discussions.

We have heard many tributes paid to our security and intelligence agencies; I want to amplify those remarks. The work they do every day to keep us safe—at great personal risk, as the Home Secretary has often said—is by necessity undertaken in secret, and is consequently unknown and often unheralded. Like her, I applaud what they do. As Security Minister, I am now able to see in person just how impressive those charged with protecting us are, and I welcome the opportunity to place on record the House’s appreciation for their determination, dedication and diligence.

There has been considerable discussion, not unanticipated, of who issues warrants. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield raised the issue with his usual style, and made some interesting remarks about the impact that changes might have on operational effectiveness. Others argued that the system could be affected detrimentally by what would be a more bureaucratic and possibly less responsive approach. Those are matters to be explored and discussed; I make no definitive remark on either position today, but those are certainly likely to be the sort of things that we will consider in considerable detail over the coming weeks.

What is absolutely clear is that wherever that consideration leads, the system must have two fundamental attributes at its core—first, that it is practical and workable, for as hon. Members have repeatedly argued, the price of failure is almost unimaginably horrible. Secondly, it should reflect where functions should reside in our parliamentary democracy. There has been something of a fashion among politicians in recent years, perhaps because of a certain degree of insecurity—a lack of confidence, which of course I do not share—which has led to the giving of powers to others which might more properly rest in this House. That was the case made by my hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) when he talked about the accountability to the people through the power—“sovereignty” was the word used—of this House. I do not want to exaggerate the case, but it must be taken fully into account.

The Executive, answerable to this House, and through this House answerable to the people, play an important role in safeguarding our democracy. The argument that others should be involved must not be allowed to erode public confidence. There has been some confusion about public confidence. I do not mean to be unkind to the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry)—I will become more unkind to her when she has been here longer because I will feel more right to be so, but at present it would be excessively harsh—but I do not agree with her about public confidence in the system. The facts do not support her argument. She must know that all surveys of public opinion suggest a very high level of confidence in our intelligence and security services. They suggest that the public support the work they do in keeping us safe, and I do not hear a clarion call for change or the radical spirit that she conveyed reflected in the views and sentiment expressed to me, but perhaps we move in different places in different circles at different times.

We have heard a lot said today about bulk collection of data. Let us be clear. Both the ISC and David Anderson have examined what happens at present and suggested that those capabilities are required, are properly used and are not subject to abuse. Just as clear is the need to address the so-called snoopers charter. I am sorry that it was raised in those terms. There was never a snoopers charter. David Anderson’s report puts that canard back in its nest once and for all.

Despite what some have suggested, David Anderson does not say there is no case for the capabilities that were to have been included in the former Communications Data Bill, though I accept, and the Home Secretary made it clear, that we are taking a step back, thinking afresh and taking into account all that has been said and done. Clarity and coherence are frequently the hallmarks of understanding and almost always the prerequisites of confidence. I acknowledge and accept that and will look at legislation very much in that spirit.

What a valuable debate we have had today. As I thought about our intelligence services, the guardians of our freedom, I thought of C. S. Lewis, who I knew you would want me to say a word about, Madam Deputy Speaker. He said:

“Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point.”

Our intelligence services are tested regularly. This is vital legislation because it affects the safety of the British people. It must be right and fit for purpose for many years to come—no small challenge, given that we are dealing with fast-moving and ever-changing technology, as many hon. Members said. Parliament will, of course, be fundamental to that process, both in the pre-legislative scrutiny to which the draft Bill will be subjected, and in the rigorous scrutiny which I fully expect will be applied to the Bill. That is how it should be.

We must act with the certainty epitomised by my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood, tempered by the care recommended by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield. We must proceed with the confidence illustrated by my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury, coloured by the honest assessment of the scale of the challenge we face, made clear by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster, but most of all we must act with the determination personified by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who knows that we must do what is necessary, but fundamentally we must do what is right.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered reports into investigatory powers.

National Gallery Industrial Dispute

Thursday 25th June 2015 Commons Chamber

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Jackie Doyle-Price.)

17:00

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

I want to draw to the House’s attention the dispute taking place at the National Gallery, which has been the most extended period of industrial action at the gallery in the history of British cultural institutions. It is time for the Government and all those who want to see the dispute brought to an end to intervene so that we can bring both sides together before further damage is done to the gallery, its staff and its reputation.

There have now been 45 days of strike action since February by staff who have a reputation for loyalty to their service. It has been caused by plans by the management to privatise two thirds of the workforce—400 of the 600 jobs—which would be so damaging to the gallery and to the service provided to the general public. The dispute has disrupted the gallery’s functioning and damaged its reputation. During the period of industrial action, most of the rooms are closed to the public, talks and educational events are cancelled and much of the gallery cannot function as normal.

Staff morale at all grades is at rock bottom, and that has been intensified by the gallery’s decision to dismiss Candy Udwin as the senior Public and Commercial Services Union representative at the gallery. The gallery has so far refused to reinstate her, despite a ruling by an interim relief hearing that it is likely that she was unfairly dismissed for trade union activities.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am seeing a distressing trend across the public services of trade union activists being dismissed in the course of their duty of raising concerns about their services. Does my hon. Friend agree that the trend seems to be escalating? I am thinking of the situation in Barts hospital, where the occupational therapist Charlotte Monro was also dismissed, although she was just reinstated in March.

[John McDonnell]

There have been a series of examples of what can only be described as victimisation, and I fear that this is one of them.

[Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, the National Gallery is in my constituency. I have received a number of representations and am very concerned about what is said tonight. I am afraid that I will have to leave shortly, but I will read the full Hansard report of the debate. This dispute is particularly regrettable because the gallery was one of the first employers in central London to pay the living wage, which we should all support. I hope that he will give at least some credit in that regard, although I accept that there are some very worrying specifics in relation to the case to which he refers.

[John McDonnell]

I certainly will, because it was a campaign by the PCS that achieved the living wage, but it was intervention by Ministers and others, as the right hon. Gentleman will recall, that urged the employers to give the living wage in London. That shows that interventions by Ministers and others do work in these cases. All that I am asking for today is that we all recognise our responsibility to try to bring both sides together to resolve the dispute, because the gallery is a national institution of great significance.

Some 22,000 have already written to Mark Getty, who chairs the gallery’s board of trustees, calling for Candy Udwin to be reinstated. The gallery’s argument on the matter is that cuts in its grant aid require it to organise a greater number of fundraising events, and that it therefore requires greater flexibility from its workforce. The gallery claims that the staff and PCS have

“refused to agree any changes”

or to agree greater flexibility and that, therefore, it had no choice but to outsource them to a private company. That is simply untrue, as has been shown in the evidence I have seen directly from the union and in meetings with the staff. The union has put forward an alternative plan that proposes a new flexible contract that would guarantee the gallery all the flexibility it needs, as well as being supported by the staff. The union has persistently asked gallery managers and trustees for the opportunity to discuss the alternative plan properly, which it believes has never happened.

The PCS tried to engage in talks at the gallery last year, and at ACAS earlier this year, and it continues to call for talks. The union has even carried out its own scoping exercise, which confirms that there would be support from the staff for its plan and that its proposals would guarantee the flexibility that the gallery requires. The union will shortly present its detailed proposals to ACAS and invite it to organise an independent scoping exercise to confirm the union’s findings with regard to the flexibility of working that will meet the gallery’s demands. Interestingly, as recently as this week, in Newsweek magazine, the outgoing director, Nicholas Penny, was reported as

“voicing a preference to keep visitor services in house.”

There is a responsibility on all of us, including the Minister, to encourage a resolution to this dispute to help get both sides back to talks before further damage is done to the gallery and its reputation. If we can help to encourage the gallery and the union to find an agreeable solution, that would give the incoming director, Dr Gabriele Finaldi, and the new chair of trustees, Hannah Rothschild, who take up their posts in August, an opportunity to heal the wounds of this dispute and the damage done by it and take the gallery forward with the staff in support of them.

I know that Ministers are loth to intervene in arm’s length bodies, but the National Gallery is funded by the taxpayer and has national significance, so it is a special case, where ministerial involvement is required. As the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field) said, everyone was pleased when the intervention took place that helped to ensure that the gallery overturned its previous refusal to pay the London living wage, which will now be paid from 1 July. It would be possible for all of us present in the House, including the Minister, to make a statement to encourage the gallery to attend talks at ACAS in an attempt to resolve this dispute. That has happened before in past disputes and should happen again today.

The crux of the issue is that the National Gallery is arguing that it needs to raise additional funds through out-of-hours fundraising events—an important part of its strategy to cope with the reduction in grant aid. However, everyone is now saying that that should not be at the expense of the quality of the service that the gallery provides to those who visit it for free. In November 2013, the gallery and the board of trustees agreed with this, arguing that privatisation would not be in the interests of the gallery in terms of the quality of service or financially. A document published by the trustees said:

“A well trained and committed workforce in-house, with a good understanding of the Gallery’s specific circumstances”

will provide the best quality of service for the National Gallery, its 6 million visitors, and all those who access its collections for education and enjoyment.

There is no evidence that that does not remain the case. In fact, all the evidence shows that so far the privatisation and outsourcing is leading to reductions in the quality of terms and conditions for staff and of the service that those staff provide. There is some evidence for this at the National Gallery. CIS, the private company that has been brought in on a temporary basis to provide visitor services and security, has told its staff that it is not their job to answer questions from the public about the paintings. This is a gallery! PCS believes that there has also been an increase in the number of complaints from members of the public about the behaviour of the staff working for CIS.

Let us contrast that with the National Gallery’s own staff. They are extremely knowledgeable about the collection and see it as part of their duties to inform the public about the paintings, where they are located, and if they are off-show for any reason, as well as giving information or advice if asked. That is a crucial service provided at the gallery, especially for those visiting for the first time or those without specialist knowledge of the collection. Staff who are planned to be outsourced include those in the information service, those who deal with school bookings and support for school visits, and those who deal with complaints and freedom of information requests. The process of privatisation is going on apace, threatening all the expertise that has been built up over generations.

[Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is long overdue that the Government intervened in this dispute in one of the jewels of our heritage? Does he also agree that it is extremely shortsighted of the management of the National Gallery to seek to privatise public sector jobs in this way, because what will happen is what always happens—permanent, stable staff, who are invested in their work and in the museum, are replaced with non-permanent, insecure, privatised staff, and that must, over time, lead to a diminution of the offer to the general public?

[John McDonnell]

It is interesting that the shortlisted companies bidding to take over two thirds of the staff jobs are security companies: CIS and G4S. These are companies with specialist knowledge of security, not of art, the gallery itself or its history, and certainly not of dealing with people who want to see and enjoy artistic talents going back centuries.

The National Gallery managers claim that they are only doing something that has already happened in other museums and galleries, but that is just not true: no large gallery or museum has introduced an across-the-board outsourcing of two thirds of its workforce, including all the front-facing staff, which is what the National Gallery proposes to do. The National Gallery is therefore proposing an experiment in the face of widespread opposition from not only the staff, but the general public: 45,000 people have signed a petition against the proposals.

The costs already involved in the employment of CIS are shocking: £1 million has been spent on this private company, effectively to use it as a strikebreaking force during this dispute and to avoid the current legal restrictions on the use of temporary staff to replace striking workers. The company was introduced when outsourcing was first announced in July 2014. The stated reason was the need for additional events during the Rembrandt exhibition. However, the gallery’s own staff have covered all other exhibitions, including the Leonardo exhibition in 2011-12, which was even busier, with more extended opening. To be frank, if there was £1 million to spend on the National Gallery, it should be spent on ensuring that it operates more effectively and to redress the 20% fall in the number of visitors over the past five years.

What has made this dispute even more bitter is the victimisation that I mentioned earlier. The management has refused to engage seriously with the union on the alternative plans, but it has also gone further and victimised a PCS representative, which, to be frank, is despicable. Candy Udwin was a PCS representative involved in helping lead the union’s campaign against the privatisation plans. She was dismissed. What for? For sending an email to a union representative which included an estimate of the CIS costs and suggesting he request information about the costs from the head of human resources. Even though the head of human resources replied that the figure was entirely wrong, Candy Udwin has been dismissed for gross misconduct, since sharing that estimated figure was deemed to be a breach of commercial confidentiality. This would be farcical were it not for the effect it is having on this PCS representative.

An employment tribunal recently awarded Candy Udwin interim relief and ruled that it was likely that a full hearing would find that she had been unfairly dismissed on the grounds of her trade union activity. The judge’s ruling stated that it was likely that her actions would be found

“not to be blameworthy let alone gross misconduct.”

I urge the Minister to encourage the National Gallery to review its decision to dismiss Candy Udwin and to allow her to return to the job she loves and to represent PCS members at the gallery.

The National Gallery has failed to carry out an equality impact assessment of part of the proposed changes and to meet its public sector equality duty under the Equality Act 2010. This has been raised with the gallery and with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. The Government’s Equalities Office works from within the Minister’s Department, but his Department claims that the provisions of the Equality Act and the public sector equality duty do not apply and can be ignored. Staff protected under the Act, such as the disabled and the aged, are to be told that they have to stand all day, and women with childcare and caring responsibilities could have flexible working practices imposed on them. The union has pressed for six months to work constructively in this area with the Minister’s Department, but without success. Is the Minister comfortable with the equality duty being ignored in that way, and will he review the Department’s decision?

Why is this happening? To be frank, I think there is a crisis of management at the National Gallery. If the director still claims, as has been quoted in Newsweek this week, that he would prefer the staff to remain in-house, and if the executive committee and the trustees still believe, as they did up to the beginning of 2014, that outsourcing would not be in the best interests of the gallery, it might be instructive to understand why there has been such a change of heart. I think it is because of the crisis of management there.

Over the course of two years, nearly all the senior managers left the gallery, whether voluntarily or otherwise. Ten National Gallery directors and senior managers resigned, were dismissed or left with a compensation package between 2012 and 2014. The gallery’s leadership style in response to the problem that they are now experiencing appears to be to remove and replace personnel, rather than to tackle any of the issues that they have to confront.

Once removed, staff have often been replaced by temporary advisers. Where do they come from? For example, there is the employment of David Commins—previously G4S security manager for the Olympics—as the gallery’s security adviser, who was then responsible for the introduction of CIS and the development of the privatisation proposals. A new head of human resources, RoseMarie Loft, was also employed at that time. This appears to reflect an absolute crisis of management at the gallery. I think there is concern right the way across the piece that, actually, unless the issue is resolved, it will sour the introduction of the new director and the new chair of the trustees.

There has been a huge campaign on this issue. Only a few weeks ago, Trafalgar Square was filled not just with strikers, but with their supporters. Artists turned up to read speeches and poems and to present artwork expressing their concern about this overall dispute. An alliance has developed right the way across those who receive the services of the National Gallery and enjoy them and those who provide them, so there must be a way forward before further damage is inflicted on the staff, the reputation of the gallery and the future of the service. This dispute is not going away, because there is such a sense of grievance among the staff themselves, particularly with regard to the victimisation of their trade union representative. There is a view that constructive talks could be held immediately that would find a resolution to the problem on the basis of the alternative plans proposed by PCS. It would not take much to get both sides together to resolve the dispute.

I suggest that we agree some proposals today, and I urge the Minister to back them. First, from this House, we should set a deadline for management and unions voluntarily to come together within 10 days. We should urge them both to get round the table and negotiate. At the end of that 10 days, however, if management and unions have not entered into talks, I believe that the Minister should intervene. His Department funds the National Gallery, and his Department will be held responsible if the National Gallery’s reputation and service is damaged beyond repair as a result of the dispute. Therefore, if there is a lack of willingness from the National Gallery’s management at the end of the 10 days voluntarily to meet with the unions, I believe it is up to the Minister to force them to come together, to convene the meeting, to be at the round-table discussions and, at least, to plan out how the dispute can be resolved. This is too important a dispute for Ministers or individual MPs—particularly London MPs—to stand on one side.

As has been said, this is one of our national treasures—the National Gallery—with 6 million people visiting it every year. We have cherished it over generations, but its reputation could now be severely damaged. I urge the Minister to intervene at this stage. All of us who have looked at the issue think there is a resolution to the dispute if there can be serious negotiations. The onus falls upon all of us to ensure that those negotiations take place.

17:19

[The Minister for Culture and the Digital Economy (Mr Edward Vaizey)]

I am grateful for the chance to respond to the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and I thank him for securing this debate on this important issue. It is obviously a very sensitive matter and it has caused some emotion. He referred to the rally that was held at the end of May in Trafalgar Square. I had the privilege of watching his speech on YouTube today, and I certainly recommend it to all other hon. Members. It was an impassioned and passionate speech in which he talked about how he would bring this issue to the Floor of the House. He described the trustees of the National Gallery, in respect of this dispute, as “philistines”. He used another word that I do not think I would get away with passing off as parliamentary language, but you can watch it on YouTube, Madam Deputy Speaker, as I am sure you will after the debate.

As the hon. Gentleman has pointed out, although the National Gallery is funded by Government, it operates at arm’s length from Government and is responsible for its own staffing arrangements. This debate is really about the National Gallery’s much-needed plans to modernise its arrangements. There is an ongoing modernisation programme and I think that the National Gallery is doing what is needed to provide a service that meets the needs of the public today.

At its heart, the National Gallery has a duty to protect, preserve and curate its priceless collection, and to preserve free access to its galleries. I am pleased that the Government have been able to maintain free access to the permanent collections of our national museums. However, the gallery also has to provide a relevant service to the public—a public whose demands have changed over the years. Visitors have different and high expectations of the gallery, and I want those expectations to be met.

As the hon. Gentleman pointed out, the gallery is a great success story. It is the third most visited museum or gallery in the world, after only the Louvre and the British Museum. As he mentioned, more than 6 million people come through its doors every year. The National Gallery needs to meet that huge demand and to provide a good offer to the people who visit it that matches their expectations on security and facilities.

The current staffing arrangements mean that the National Gallery cannot provide a guaranteed level of service outside the restrictive set of standard hours. That limits what it can offer the visiting public. The management of the gallery have decided that the ability to extend opening hours is necessary, and I agree with them. Under the current arrangements, there is no contract to guarantee the availability of staff for evening openings, meaning that for its Friday evening openings, the gallery has to employ a completely separate workforce. On occasion, an insufficiency of in-house staff has led to the contracting in of external staff to cover even exhibition openings and other evening events. I understand that staffing costs at the gallery are projected to increase by almost a third over the next five years, with no extra provision of service. That is a wholly unsustainable situation.

As has been mentioned, the National Gallery engaged with its staff and the unions for five months, in an attempt to increase flexibility, introduce new working patterns and guarantee a minimum level of service at all times. As part of that process, a basic salary above the London living wage was offered as a minimum for all staff. After that extended period of negotiation, no agreement was reached. With the lack of an agreement, the gallery was keen to move ahead with the necessary changes. I have been assured that engagement with the union has continued, via ACAS. More recently, the union was again invited to offer an alternative to the provision of services by an external provider.

Any move will see the 315 staff transferred to an external provider via TUPE, meaning that all their terms and conditions of employment will be protected. There will be no redundancies as a direct result of the transfer.

[John McDonnell]

The union has come up with its alternative plans, which the management have not yet considered. It wants the management to go to ACAS to look at those plans. Would the Minister welcome that initiative, because it would bring them back round the table?

[Mr Vaizey]

That is new information to me. My understanding is that the National Gallery has made it clear to the unions that it would look at any alternative offer. I am not sure what the status of the offer that the hon. Gentleman mentions is and I have not had a chance to hear the National Gallery’s perspective. However, the gallery is at quite a late stage of the procurement process and, in theory, contracts for outsourcing the service will begin later in the year.

[John McDonnell]

Can I get this clear? As a matter of principle, the Minister would welcome the management and the unions going to ACAS together.

[Mr Vaizey]

As a former lawyer, I am cautious about making commitments on the Floor of the House that go beyond the general principle that I do not think it is appropriate for the DCMS to interfere in the negotiations between the National Gallery and the unions. Given that there have been five months of talks, I would say that it is, in principle, for the National Gallery to decide whether it thinks the unions have come up with something that is qualitatively different from offers that have been made before and whether it is therefore appropriate to re-engage in any talks. I would say that—

[John McDonnell]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Vaizey]

No, I will not give way for a third time at the moment. If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me, I will make a couple of extra points, and then perhaps there will be time for me to give way again.

If the modernisation programme goes ahead, the gallery will be able to extend its opening hours and guarantee provision for extended evening openings on Fridays and at weekends, which is when a lot of people now wish to visit galleries, and for special events. That will lead to increased income for the gallery, but even more importantly it will make it relevant to a whole new group of visitors. Late events attract more and more people—I believe that as many as 5,000 visitors attend some of them. The gallery has also introduced a great new membership scheme, with 20,000 members, so it is making great strides to increase its income, which will allow it to be more resilient.

It is my understanding that staff will benefit from the modernisation programme. The previous Culture Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid), worked with the National Gallery to ensure that it was in a suitable situation to supply the London living wage to all staff. That will start next week, and we should all welcome it. I believe that the National Gallery is the first national museum to introduce the London living wage for all its staff.

I understand that the incoming director, Gabriele Finaldi, and the new chairman of trustees, Hannah Rothschild, are aware of the situation. Ms Rothschild was of course a member of the board that took the decision to outsource staffing services as part of the modernisation programme. It is important to make the point that I do not believe the process is being rushed through.

I think this would be an appropriate point at which to give way to the hon. Gentleman for a third time.

[John McDonnell]

I just want to get the Minister’s view clear. Surely he would welcome a resolution through negotiation and talks, and would therefore urge all sides to get together for those talks at this stage.

[Mr Vaizey]

At some point the National Gallery has to take a decision to move on, and my understanding is that it asked the unions to come up with an alternative offer by 8 June. That deadline, which I understand was an agreement between ACAS, PCS and the National Gallery, was not met. As I have said, it is not my intention to tell the National Gallery what it should do. The process has not been rushed and there has been a great deal of engagement with the union during the process.

The hon. Gentleman talked about the individual who has left the gallery. As he made clear, there is a legal process, and the National Gallery has acted in line with the judge’s orders to this point in ensuring that no detriment is suffered pending the tribunal in October. Of course, it would not be appropriate for me to comment on a case that is effectively sub judice.

I think we can all agree that the National Gallery is a fantastic institution with a truly world-class permanent collection owned by the public of this nation.

[John McDonnell]

The Minister has received his briefing from the National Gallery, and I will happily provide him with a briefing from the union so that he can get a more balanced view. As far as I am aware, the management have not considered the alternative plan. He tells us that there was a deadline of 8 June. I know of no such deadline, but we are talking about a matter of a fortnight. The staff have put forward alternative proposals that could resolve the dispute. Does he not think that in the long-term interests of the gallery, the management and the union should be urged to get together to consider that alternative plan? That would at least give the new director and the new chair of trustees a way to take the gallery forward to a long-term future in the interests of all those who cherish it.

[Mr Vaizey]

As I think I have made clear a number of times during this important debate, from what I know of the dispute, the National Gallery has engaged extensively with the union to seek a way forward. We know what its aim is—to modernise its working practices to take account of the desires and needs of visitors in the 21st century. As I have said, I support its modernisation programme, and I think the National Gallery is a fantastic institution. I particularly support the introduction of the London living wage next week.

Question put and agreed to.

17:29

House adjourned.

Petition

Thursday 25th June 2015 Petitions

Thursday 25 June 2015

Downsizing of UK visa and immigration services in India and Bangladesh

Thursday 25th June 2015 Petitions

The Petition of residents of the UK,

Declares that the Government’s decision to downsize the Mumbai Deputy High Commission’s visa services will inconvenience hundreds of thousands of people; further that these changes to one of the busiest visa centres in the world will move the majority of decision-making powers to New Delhi; further that in Dhaka in Bangladesh, visa decision-making powers have been removed altogether which de-prioritises the importance of the UK’s relationship with Bangladesh; further that the decision was made under ‘cost-cutting’ measures as it may take longer for decisions on visas for friends and families of British Indians and Bangladeshis to be made and may cause them to encounter numerous problems and further that a local petition on this matter was signed by 196 residents of Leicester East.

The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to immediately review the decision to downsize visa and immigration services in India and Bangladesh.

And the Petitioners remain, etc.—[Presented by Keith Vaz, Official Report, 23 March 2015; Vol. 594, c. 11P.] [P001467]

Observations from the Secretary of State for Home Department:

The decision to move visa processing from Bangladesh to Delhi, which was completed in September 2014, in no way reflects a de-prioritisation of the importance of the UK’s relationship with Bangladesh. UK Visas and Immigration (UKVI) continues to retain a team of staff in our High Commission in Dhaka and all passports are retained in Bangladesh.

The decision is as a result of the way we continue to modernise how we process UK visa applications to ensure we provide safe and secure decisions, excellent customer service and value for money to the taxpayer.

From as early as 2006, the international operation has been moving towards a consolidated ‘hub and spoke’ model. As well as reducing costs, making decisions on larger numbers of cases in regional hubs increases resilience and improves security. This model allows flexibility in reacting to changes in demand; and improves decision quality, by standardising decisions and allowing UKVI to share intelligence across regions.

Only a small proportion of applications worldwide are now decided in the same city where they were lodged. Moving work from smaller more expensive locations to more stable regional hubs has reduced the risks to staff and created a visa network that is more flexible and responsive.

There has been, and will be, no change to the process for customers in Bangladesh and Western India applying for a UK visa. Customers are still able to make visa applications in visa application centres (2 in Bangladesh and 4 in Western India) and access a range of premium services such as a 3-5 working day priority visa service. Visa applications will also be processed under the same global customer service standards.

Westminster Hall

Thursday 25th June 2015 Westminster Hall

Thursday 25 June 2015

[Andrew Rosindell in the Chair]

Older Industrial Areas: Economic Disparities

Thursday 25th June 2015 Westminster Hall

13:30

[Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered economic disparities in older industrial areas.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time in this Session of the new Parliament, Mr Rosindell.

I take this opportunity to thank the Chairman of Ways and Means, who I understand has allocated the time for this important debate. It is significant not only to my constituents and other people living in some of the older industrial areas in England, but to people in similar areas in Scotland and Wales.

Older industrial areas make up a substantial part of Britain. According to the definition used in the report that I will refer to extensively, 96 of the districts in England, Scotland and Wales account for 30% of the population of Great Britain, and these areas have been hard hit by many years of job losses. I place on record my thanks to the Industrial Communities Alliance for helping me to prepare for today’s debate, and for its informative report, “Whose Recovery?”, which shows how the upturn in economic growth is leaving older industrial areas behind.

I draw the Minister’s attention both to that report and to early-day motion 171, “Industrial Communities Alliance report on the Economic Disparities in Older Industrial Areas”. That was tabled only yesterday, but it has already attracted more than 30 signatures.

The report provides an insight into the challenges faced by former industrial communities in the English regions, Scotland and Wales. It shows that the economic gap between London and former industrial communities continues to widen, not only during difficult economic periods, such as the one that we experienced after the global financial crisis in 2008, but throughout the recession, and even today, as the UK returns to modest growth.

I hope that during this debate the Minister will provide more details regarding the northern powerhouse initiative, which is of special interest to my constituents. In particular, will it be tasked with reducing the immense economic disparities between the north-east and London and the south-east? I welcome the Prime Minister and the Chancellor’s intention to create a northern powerhouse, but I must point out that good intentions will not get us very far. We need the political rhetoric to be translated into practical policies and targeted support for the poorest regional economies.

We need a strong voice in Cabinet as an advocate for our regions. I fear that such a voice is missing, particularly when I read comments by newly appointed Ministers, such as the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, who questions the existence of the widening economic inequalities between the regions and London, despite the fact that the evidence is absolutely clear and presented very concisely in the report that I have referred to. The first step on the road to recovery is acknowledgement of the problem.

That problem has been evident in the lack of support for my area, and in particular the lack of support from the DCLG for Durham County Council, which is my local authority. The rhetoric about the northern powerhouse has not been reflected in the council’s budget allocation, which has been cut by £250 million—40% of its total budget. That situation is mirrored in other local authorities, where there are huge pressures, in other older industrial areas in England, Scotland and Wales. They are experiencing similar problems to those in my area. That reduction in the council’s budget is despite the fact it is providing services and support to some of the most deprived communities in the country, including some in my own constituency of Easington.

The lack of support for the council is not only felt in terms of budget cuts. The recently published County Durham plan outlined ambitious targets to create 30,000 new jobs, build 31,000 new homes and create 500 hectares of space for business, warehouses and office development by 2030. Indeed, the scope of Durham County Council’s ambition has been welcomed by the local business community, and I also welcome it as we seek to promote economic development and prosperity in my constituency and throughout County Durham and the north-east.

However, the plan was dismissed by the Planning Inspectorate for being too ambitious and, despite our best efforts, Ministers refused to intervene to support its bold proposals. We had a debate here in Westminster Hall in the last Parliament on this subject, but it was not until Durham County Council filed legal papers with the High Court for a judicial review that the Government listened and became involved in the issue. My current understanding—perhaps the Minister can give an update on events—is that there is a 30-day stay to Court proceedings, but I am disappointed that the only way to get the Government to engage in economic development plans in County Durham seems to be to seek legal redress, which could have been avoided altogether if the Minister for Housing and Planning, who responded to that debate on 3 March, had been more forthcoming when we originally discussed the matter.

The report, “Whose Recovery?”, by the Industrial Communities Alliance found that the economic upturn since the recession had been much weaker in Britain’s older industrial areas than in London and the south-east. Whereas the number of jobs in London and the south-east was 540,000 higher at the end of 2013 than in 2009, in the older industrial areas the number of jobs was 70,000 lower. Similarly, the rate of growth in private sector employment in older industrial Britain during this period was just a 10th of the rate in London and the south-east.

When I am sitting in the main Chamber and listening to Government Members reciting examples of economic success and private sector employment, I often think that that is not reflected in the area that I represent, or indeed in many of the other older industrial areas, and part of the purpose of this debate is to draw these inequalities and problems to the attention of Government, to hold them to account, and to seek some redress.

Between 2010 and 2014, employment in older industrial areas rose by 230,000, or 2.9%, but during the same period employment in London and the south-east rose by 440,000, or 5.8%. When we look a little deeper at the figures, we see that there is not only a widening gap between the total number of jobs but a higher reliance on part-time work in the older industrial areas. In London and the south-east, virtually all the job growth since 2010 has been in full-time employment. By contrast, in the older industrial areas such as mine, almost a fifth of the increase in jobs has been in part-time jobs. In London and the south-east, the ratio between new full-time jobs and new part-time jobs is 16:1; in areas such as mine, in the older industrial areas in Britain, the ratio is just 4:1, so there is a considerable difference.

Another feature of job growth in older industrial areas has been the rapid rise in the number of people who are self-employed, which accounted for almost 40% of the increase in employment. An impartial observer might think that is a good thing, but I will drill down into this figure. A rising level of self-employment can be an indication of a vibrant economy, but it can also mask fundamental weaknesses in the labour market. This seems to have been confirmed by evidence gathered by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, in its self-employment evidence base, which found that in the south a higher proportion of the self-employed are in professional and higher-skilled occupations, whereas in much of the rest of the country, particularly the older industrial areas, more people are self-employed in elementary or low-skill occupations.

I am concerned that self-employment in older industrial areas, along with the expansion of zero-hours contracts, is creating a low-wage, insecure economy that is leading to the further casualisation of the labour market. Disparities in regional economies are deep rooted. In its report, “Northern prosperity is national prosperity”, the Institute for Public Policy Research North noted that

“regional inequalities date back nearly 150 years”—

this is not a new phenomenon—but

“despite some narrowing of the disparities between north and south in the post-war period, since 1985 the UK has had a higher rate of regional divergence than France, Germany, Italy and even the United States.”

It suggests that regional inequalities and disparities, far from being addressed, as they have been in many of our competitor countries in the European Union and in the United States, are getting worse in the United Kingdom.

We have allowed the north and south to pull apart. We should all be concerned about this, because it has led not only to an economic loss but to a loss of life chances for people in the poorest economies, in terms of education, health and income. I say respectfully to the Minister and the Government that there is also an impact on quality of life in London and the south-east, due to overcrowding and congestion.

Addressing the regional economic gap would provide significant benefits for the national economy. Halving the gap between the north and the national average would increase national economic output by £41 billion. If we are to achieve these gains, we need real commitments from the Government, but these are lacking.

I have some figures on transport investment that highlight the problems that we face. IPPR North found huge disparity between infrastructure spending in London and the north-east. London receives £5,426 per resident in capital investment, compared with just £223 per resident in the north-east; and a single project, Crossrail, is earmarked to receive nine times more funding than all the rail projects from the north’s three regions combined.

We are told of the benefits and economic importance of new projects such as High Speed 2, but I suspect that these will have little impact on vast areas of the north. The north-east has been entirely overlooked, with the line ending at Leeds—which many of us who live in the real north believe, with all due respect, is actually in the midlands. We think HS2 will offer little practical benefit to the north-east or my constituents. It may have the opposite effect. A Network Rail consultation document suggested that the benefits to my constituents would be a cut in journey times from Durham to London of just 11 minutes by 2033, with the loss of direct services to the capital and slower journey times to major Scottish cities. At a cost ranging between £50 billion and £80 billion, I can think of few policies that are so expensive and likely to deliver so little to my community. A tiny shift in spending to constituencies like mine in east Durham would have a transformative impact on our transport infrastructure, as we seek to achieve our aim to improve connectivity to major lines and increase rail services.

In my constituency, I continue to work towards a new rail station at Horden, on the Seaview site. If the Government had shown the same commitment to my area as they do to London, I could press for an integrated public transport system, the extension of Tyne and Wear Metro and improvements to our bus network, which would expand access to a wider labour market for residents. There would be huge economic benefits to the area locally and to the wider economy.

Another matter of great importance in my constituency is housing. Other hon. Members wish to speak, so I will say less about this than I intended. The villages and towns that make up my constituency were established specifically to serve local collieries in this coalmining area. The mines have gone, but investment to transform and redevelop the local communities has not followed. This is as true in terms of infrastructure spending on transport and economic development as it is in respect of housing. These issues have recently come to a head in the villages of Horden and Blackhall, following a series of problems experienced by Accent homes, a registered social landlord with properties in these villages. This situation was the subject of an Adjournment debate just before the old Parliament was dissolved. Accent cited the introduction of the bedroom tax as a cause of the fall in demand for its properties. As tenants vacated their Accent properties, the housing associations decided not to let them but to board them up.

It is soul-destroying to watch your community suffer. I invite the Minister and any of her colleagues to Horden and Blackhall to see at first hand the situation in the numbered streets as these properties fall into decay and disrepair. Many former tenants have vacated the area. Homeowners are trapped, unable to sell their property as there is no demand, and they have to live on streets with boarded-up properties, which are a target for antisocial behaviour, vandalism and crime. This situation is replicated elsewhere in the constituency, particularly in areas where private landlords have bought up properties at low cost and are seeking a return, mostly at the taxpayers’ expense, funded through the housing benefit system.

Local residents do not accept the situation. I commend the work of the Horden residents’ association, which has been engaged in meetings and discussions with Accent housing, the Homes and Communities Agency and the Coalfields Regeneration Trust, and other private and public sector partners and agencies, to find a way forward. Local councillors do not accept the situation, but the cuts to local authority budgets and the lack of any national housing regeneration fund is holding back the redevelopment of east Durham. This is disappointing, particularly given the level of funding that is available but seems to be diverted almost exclusively towards London and the south-east.

There is immense potential for redevelopment in older industrial areas, including my own in the north-east, especially as the properties that I mentioned are located in an area of immense natural beauty bordering the award-winning east Durham heritage coast—a newly declared nature reserve—and tracking one of the first stretches of the England coast path. These areas of natural beauty are at the forefront of our efforts to promote leisure and tourism on the east Durham heritage coast, but the Minister must accept that these efforts will continue to be hampered due to the deteriorating situation in the villages. Poor, derelict housing will also undermine our efforts to bring forward economic development, which is the only way to create jobs. We need to ensure that local people have skills and training and that those who acquire skills are not forced to move away from the region to find work.

We need to deliver a complete package of housing, transport investment and education if we are to attract new business and industries that will sustain our communities in the future and bring forward the economic development that is needed to narrow the wealth gap between the regions and London. We need a redistribution of economic activity to provide a new purpose for communities such as the ones I represent in east Durham, which have lost their core industry over the past 30 years.

We have had some recent successes. Only last weekend, I was delighted to attend a groundbreaking—a ceremony to mark the start of work on Dalton Park phase 2, which is a £45 million investment that we hope will deliver up to 1,000 new jobs in my constituency— 500 during the construction phase. The new retail and leisure facilities will be very welcome in east Durham and the wider region, after nearly two decades of campaigning by the local community, supported by the local council, to secure the investment.

We need greater economic diversification in east Durham and to grasp all of the opportunities available. We need new industries to sustain my constituency in the future. There is a rare opportunity in Easington to secure significant private sector investment for the proposed centre for creative excellence to be built on the east Durham heritage coast. The project would deliver more than £200 million of private sector investment and could create 2,000 jobs and training opportunities in a ready-made global film and media communications market. Our regional development agency, One North East, was supporting the project until it was abolished. I sought to discuss the importance of that project with Ministers in the previous Parliament, but I am afraid that I received little support from the Government.

In view of the Government’s conversion to a northern powerhouse, I will welcome the Minister’s input on any direct support that they are prepared to offer to that unique and potentially transformative project in my constituency. Unfortunately, I am yet to witness the positive impact of my local enterprise partnership, and the Government’s other flagship policy designed to support business development, the regional growth fund, which I feel has a misleading name. It should be called a national growth fund, since it is open to all regions. Widening economic disparities between the various regions, especially between the older industrial regions and London and the south-east, are proof of that fund’s failure. That is why I advocate direct Government intervention for the centre for creative excellence.

If the northern powerhouse is anything other than rhetoric, we need a real development fund that is targeted specifically at weaker regional economies to bring in developments such as the one in my constituency and to address the employment and skills imbalance between the regions. There is a moral duty on the Government to close the gap and address regional inequalities that damage our national economy and leave generations of people in the poorest economies behind, as well as reducing their life chances. There are development opportunities if the Government want to seize them.

The modest return to growth in the last quarter has not been a recovery for all. In older industrial communities, the recovery is in fact reinforcing existing economic divides. If we are to rebalance the economy and deliver a sustainable recovery, the Government need to back up the rhetoric. We need to ensure that the same level of resources and development that is directed towards London and the south-east is targeted at the weakest regional economies. Delivering those practical policies would give us an opportunity to narrow the economic gap and deliver much-needed jobs and growth to the former industrial communities that have been ignored by the Government for too long.

I have made a number of practical suggestions, and I hope that the Minister will reflect on them. They are opportunities to take forward the Government’s vision of a northern powerhouse in a practical, meaningful way that would benefit the region. I will be interested to hear her comments on my proposals.

13:54

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

I thank the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) for securing this important debate. I represent a constituency that includes several older industrial areas and bounds other areas in Glasgow and South Lanarkshire with a huge industrial legacy. The legacy comes with real, long-standing issues of contaminated, vacant and derelict land that prevent economic initiatives from happening and private capital from being invested, because the cost of cleaning up the land is astronomical.

Clyde Gateway is an urban regeneration company in my constituency that covers Glasgow and South Lanarkshire. It is a partnership with Scottish Enterprise and the Scottish Government. In the seven years since its establishment, Clyde Gateway has made ready for use 200 hectares of previously derelict and contaminated land, some of which had been derelict for 50 years and a serious blight on the area. Clyde Gateway found that the derelict land was contaminated with, for example, chromium, which is hugely toxic. It had to develop techniques to extract the chromium before it could do anything with the land.

When power stations in other parts of my constituency were taken out of production, they were simply demolished and the land was not cleared or made ready for use. Clyde Gateway’s contractors found sluices, underground works and all kinds of things when they examined the land. No private industry could ever have taken on the cost of cleaning that up. It therefore falls to agencies such as Clyde Gateway, to local authorities and to Government to invest in the land and make it ready for use, so that jobs can be brought into the area.

Unless we tackle such long-standing issues within communities, nothing else can happen. That is true of my own area and of many other parts of post-industrial Scotland. The area in Motherwell where Ravenscraig steelworks used to stand had serious contamination to deal with before anything else could happen.

Clyde Gateway’s work over the past seven years has brought £100 million of public and private investment into the area, as well as jobs, and it has created 40,000 square metres of business space in the east end of Glasgow and Rutherglen. That is absolutely amazing. It is key that such work in post-industrial communities is seen as an investment, because if we do not invest, nothing will happen and the neglect will continue. In Scotland, the latest vacant and derelict land survey figures show that there are 10,874 hectares of vacant and derelict land in cities and rural settings, causing a serious issue for those communities, who have no means to deal with it. Serious investment is needed to overcome the huge problem of post-industrial legacies.

The Scottish Government’s regeneration capital grant fund works with local communities on what they would like to see in their areas and what projects could bring investment, new life and jobs to industrial areas. That fund has been a real success. Despite having an annual budget of only £25 million, it has been very popular and was quickly oversubscribed. Twenty-two projects across Scotland are already being supported. It is absolutely right to ask local communities, “What would you like to see? How can we help?”

In my constituency, there have been changes over time to the fabric of the area. I say “fabric” because the area’s street names—Muslin Street and Cotton Street, for example—reference its former industries. There were dyeworks and the famous Templeton carpet factory in the area. All those heavy industries have now gone. Some of the land has been filled with housing, while other parts lie empty and are waiting to be dealt with. The industries have not failed to leave scars.

Something more positive in the Glasgow and Clyde valley area is the city deal that was negotiated with local authorities, the Scottish Government and the UK Government under the previous Administration. The deal has the potential to bring huge benefits, with local authorities working together across the areas that bear the scars of past heavy industry. We need to collaborate and find ways to work together to deal with such long-standing issues. Many people viewing things from outside just see that there is derelict land; they do not see what is underneath. There is a need for investment to create jobs and overcome the barriers. It is not as simple as saying, “There is a post-industrial area; throw some money at it.” The land must be made ready for use by private and public industry. It means investing a huge amount of money in holes in the ground, but that must be done before the areas in question can move forward.

I thank the hon. Member for Easington for securing this important debate. We should learn from each other about what is happening in different areas, and about what we can take back to our constituencies to tackle long-standing issues.

14:00

[Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)]

I apologise, Mr Rosindell, for being slightly late for the debate. It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) for securing the debate. He has done much over the years to champion communities that have suffered decades of neglect and decline. I also congratulate the Industrial Communities Alliance, which has published an excellent report.

In my brief speech I shall share experiences from my neck of the woods in Sheffield—a beautiful city with a thriving cultural and music scene, a proud sporting heritage and a strong sense of its industrial and political history. I am sure that hon. Members will see similarities between its challenges and those that all former industrial communities face; the pattern is all too familiar.

Much was done in the 1980s to undermine the skills and extinguish the expertise that working-class men and women of my city built up over centuries. They led the world in forging steel, unmatched in brute strength and unrivalled in craft. Pockets of that skill remain in Sheffield. Companies and Governments from across the globe still flock to Sheffield Forgemasters in search of the best there is. Thirty-one thousand people are still employed in manufacturing in my city, in no small part thanks to the fantastic work being done by the former Member for Sheffield Central, Richard Caborn, and the Advanced Manufacturing Research Centre. However, there is no doubt that we are still scarred by the legacy of Thatcher—not only in my community, but, as we have heard, in communities across swathes of the country. The legacy of that Government and their most misguided industrial strategy casts a dark shadow.

The sanitised management-speak term “de-industrialisation” is shorthand for a set of complex issues, which we have heard about, and which my community faces to this day. Generations of families relied on the manufacturing base of Sheffield to make a living. Generally it was well paid, long-term skilled work. However, the legacy of decline is that those jobs have been replaced largely with low-paid work, if there is work at all. The figures bear that out. Wages have flatlined over three decades for all but the super-rich, and the number of people in low-paid work, barely able to afford the basics, has risen from 13% in the late 1970s to 21% today.

Even more alarmingly, the number of people who may not be low-paid now but who have experienced low pay in the past four years is at a shocking 33%—some 8 million people. That is the living, breathing legacy of industrial decline. It is what we mean when we talk about insecure work and low pay, and that is why Labour Members will continue to raise the subject time and again in this place and outside it.

The heart of the debate is about the make-up of the economy. The report by the Industrial Communities Alliance rightly highlights the fact that London and the south-east have pulled away from the rest of the country—not just during the current recovery, but in the past three decades. The trend towards de-industrialisation has gone hand in hand with the financialisation of the economy, which began with the deregulation of the financial system. We witnessed the all too real consequences of that in the 2008 crash: our communities, having been hit once in the 1980s, were forced to pay the price all over again. That will continue unless we fundamentally reform the economy, tackling the short-termist, risk-taking culture that continues apace in the City of London and Canary Wharf and redirecting investment towards the productive, high-skilled and green industries that we need to secure a sustainable future.

The short-termism of our economic system is a major factor in the failure of many communities to recover, as capital is driven towards sectors and activities that provide an immediate return rather than those that can build up jobs, productivity and growth in the long term. Because of that, we have a recovery that is anything but shared. For all the talk of a jobs miracle, in Sheffield there are still 6,000 fewer people in work than just before the crash. The Government have, unfortunately, learned nothing, and they seem determined to repeat the mistakes of the past—mistakes that, we admit, the last Labour Government made in failing to draw in the financial system and rebalance the economy.

Finally, we cannot have this discussion apart from the continuing debate about devolution. The Government’s much-vaunted strategy of pursuing a “northern powerhouse”, however welcome, should not be simplified into a focus on the great cities of Leeds and Manchester. If investment does not reach Sheffield, Copeland, Barnsley and Falkirk, it cannot be a success. Only today the Government have abandoned their plans to electrify the midland main line linking London to Sheffield. That will be incredibly disappointing to small businesses in my region. I welcome the findings in the Industrial Communities Alliance report about the need for the Government to put forward resources and tax breaks to encourage investment in manufacturing, research and development across older industrial communities; I and colleagues in Sheffield have been talking about that for some time.

It is evident from the debate that there is a determination to put an end to three decades of economic illiteracy, during which inequality has increased and opportunity has been stifled in communities throughout the country. Financial services continue to enjoy a boom while a rich seam of opportunity is overlooked in the older industrial communities that many Members represent. We need a strategy fit for the 21st century and this debate is a good place to start.

14:05

[Christina Rees (Neath) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) for securing this important debate. I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on this matter, which is of paramount importance to my constituents in Neath, a truly beautiful part of Wales.

The Neath constituency has a long and proud industrial heritage. However, since the beginning of the 1980s the British coal industry has lost more than 250,000 jobs. That finally signalled the end, after decades of decline, of the industry across most of the country. Unemployment soared and with it household incomes plummeted, taking with them aspirations and hope. The closure of the pits ripped the heart out of the valleys communities and left a scar that is still felt and seen today.

Prior to the global economic recession, there was some progress in generating new jobs in coalfield areas, but former coalmining areas continue to suffer from a legacy of unemployment. Current statistics show that many areas of the Neath constituency are well below the national average. The Office for National Statistics figure for the rate of economic activity for working-age people in Neath Port Talbot local authority area is 70.6%, but in the Dulais Valley the figure falls to just 35%—more or less a third.

Ill health is part and parcel of that legacy. Residents of coalfield areas across the UK report levels of ill health and limitations on day-to-day activities that are double those of the more prosperous region of south-east England, according to the Coalfields Regeneration Trust 2014 report, “The State of the Coalfields”. Neath Port Talbot as a whole has the highest percentage of respiratory illness, the second highest incidence of strokes and diabetes, the third highest incidence of obesity and the fifth highest death rate from chronic heart disease in Wales. As we know, there is a strong correlation between economic disadvantage and ill health, and that is clearly and sadly reflected in my constituency.

The combination of unemployment and poor health has led to a higher reliance on welfare benefits in many communities. The effect of the Welfare Reform Act 2012 is another blow to us, and we are braced for a further £12 billion of cuts yet to come from the Conservative Government, at which we are yet to see the fine detail. Although losses will widely vary depending on personal circumstances, it was estimated by the Welsh Government last year that the changes will constitute an annual loss of £500 per working-age adult in Wales. Neath Port Talbot is expected to be among the hardest hit in Wales, with losses closer to £600 per year per working-age adult. Likewise, a report from Sheffield Hallam University in 2014 identified the south Wales valleys, with their higher proportion of people reliant on benefits, as being hit harder by the reforms than anywhere in Britain. The valleys as a whole are expected to lose about £430 million a year when the reforms have come to full fruition. Those losses far exceed the flow of funding for economic development that the area receives from sources such as the European Union.

Large reductions in income have an obvious knock-on effect on local consumer spending, straining local businesses and communities and supporting fewer jobs in the local economy, with ensuing detrimental effects on our communities—a vicious cycle. Spending cuts have also affected many voluntary and community organisations and reduced the level of services delivered by local government.

Critically, the Sheffield Hallam report, despite the rather gloomy statistics, had some good news: regeneration does work and, prerecession, progress was clearly being made in the UK’s coalfield areas. Moreover, the report found that raising economic growth would deliver similar levels of savings for the UK Treasury, which is the impetus behind the welfare reforms. The anticipated savings for the Treasury of £1 billion a year once those reforms are implemented could be made with the creation of 100,000 new jobs, which would both reduce the number of people reliant on benefits and provide higher tax revenues.

Initially, the UK Government’s response to the collapse of the mining industry was poor, with token gestures that had little impact. In Wales, it was really only from the late 1980s, with the launch of “Community Investment: An Initiative for the Valleys” and the establishment in 1989 of the European regional development fund, alongside initiatives by the Welsh Development Agency, formed in 1976, that the momentum began to bear fruit. That has accelerated since 1997 with the establishment of the Welsh Assembly Government, who now have responsibility for regeneration and development. Since then, UK, Welsh and European funding, working in partnership with the third sector, has supported a series of initiatives aimed at regenerating the Welsh valleys. Efforts have rightly focused on retraining and the development of skills for the workforce and on diversifying the economy beyond traditional industries.

The Coalfields Regeneration Trust, created by the Labour Government of 1997 and working in Wales since 1999 with the support of Welsh and local government funding, has a mission to champion coalfield communities, generating resources to respond to their needs and delivering programmes that make a positive and lasting difference. In the past 14 years, it has invested more than £14 million in community regeneration in Wales, working with and within the community.

The partnership between the EU and the Welsh Government has been critical in regenerating the Neath constituency. The European regional development fund and the Welsh Government regional area programme, plus contributions from Cadw and the Heritage Lottery Fund, have funded the £9.2 million restoration of the Gwyn Hall in Neath town centre. That has re-established a centre for arts and culture in the locality, as well as providing much-needed employment. The £1.4 million renovation of the Victoria Gardens has also been funded. That beautiful and historic green space in the town centre provides residents and visitors with meeting and leisure opportunities—the opportunity to relax. The redevelopment of Neath town centre itself will encompass new retail units, 600-space multi-storey car parking and housing, including flats above shops that will provide the necessary increase in footfall for the shops and businesses in the locality.

In Neath, we have a very strong community spirit and social networks, but that is not enough. If we are to solve the complex economic and social legacy that our coalfield communities have inherited, financial support and targeted measures are needed. They must be designed in a collaborative spirit with the communities, not imposed.

Organisations such as the Bevan Foundation—an independent social justice think-tank in Wales—and the Industrial Communities Alliance have looked closely at these complex issues and identified a number of important factors. We are talking about measures such as low interest rates to encourage investment; rebalancing the economy towards industry and the regions; a more measured approach to deficit reduction; investing in infrastructure such as strategic transport links and fast broadband; and job creation programmes targeting those areas where need is greatest. Communities First, a Welsh Government programme, has invested in excess of £500 million in the poorest communities in Wales, working with communities on the design, development and delivery of community regeneration programmes and job creation.

As has been mentioned, key to our economic redevelopment has been European funding and the EU’s partnership with the Assembly in Wales, which has made and is making a real difference locally and demonstrates why, for my constituents in Neath, continued membership of the EU is critical. Through a collaborative, creative, constantly evolving and co-ordinated approach, it is possible to sow seeds of renewal and long-term recovery in our communities and to move towards a new model whereby we can provide opportunities for everyone, creating the vibrant, viable communities that we all want and deserve.

14:15

[Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell, for what I think is the first time. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) on securing the debate and on his extensive and incredibly important contribution. As we have heard in the other contributions in what has been a one-sided debate, the issues that he raises about his community are felt in many other communities in older industrial areas.

My hon. Friend quoted extensively from the Industrial Communities Alliance report. That is an important piece of work by a very important organisation that ensures that these issues are brought before the Government and that the Government are forced to consider the legacy that exists in our older industrial areas and cannot close their eyes to the poverty and deprivation that have resulted particularly from the collapse of the mining industry, but also from post-industrialisation—the attack on the manufacturing sector that happened, as others have said, under the Conservative Governments of 1979 to 1997. Therefore, the work of the Industrial Communities Alliance is incredibly important, and my hon. Friend reflected its report very well.

My hon. Friend spoke many times about the northern powerhouse and whether that was a real thing or simply a chimera—an illusion—or possibly just a press release. I think that he is on to something there. We have all seen in the past few months the Chancellor of the Exchequer suddenly discovering the north after many years of policies that have made life in northern communities much more difficult. I am talking about huge cuts to local government in the north and the huge increase in inequality that we saw under the previous Government. Suddenly, he arrived in his hard hat and high-visibility vest and announced that we had a northern powerhouse or, if not, he was going to create one.

[Grahame M. Morris]

This is a very important issue, worthy of the Government’s full attention, not just a photo opportunity with a brightly coloured jacket pre- election. As my hon. Friends have said, many of the problems faced by coal closure areas, such as mine, are multifaceted. The legacy is not just joblessness, but an environment impact, derelict land, substandard former colliery housing, despoliation and ill health. It requires the Government to take a co-ordinated approach, beginning with a recognition of the particular problems of not just coalmining areas, but steel areas, textile areas and, indeed, many of the old industrial areas that face similar problems.

[Toby Perkins]

I could not agree more. My hon. Friend’s contribution was speaking to many of the partnership approaches that were taken under the last Government. These problems are complex. He is absolutely right to talk about the combination of poverty, historical benefit dependency and ill health that results from what people have put their bodies through while working in heavy industry and from the link, which other hon. Members referred to, between poverty and ill health more generally.

A co-ordinated approach and a Government who take the situation seriously are required. The Government must prioritise the regeneration of our industrial areas and recognise that the situation is not easily resolved. The situation cannot be resolved with a press release or a photo opportunity; substantial partnership and cross-agency work between all organisations—central Government, local government, the business community, the voluntary sector and health authorities—over a considerable period is required to alleviate the situation.

My hon. Friend will be aware that my constituency of Chesterfield features in the Industrial Communities Alliance report. The area had a significant history of coalmining and manufacturing, much of which has now gone. Chesterfield was once a town in which five or six employers employed 3,000 or 4,000 people each; and now it is a town in which 3,000 or 4,000 employers employ five or six people each. The changing face of our economy poses significant challenges, including inequality.

[Grahame M. Morris]

I take issue with my hon. Friend’s suggestion that we have had a long-term dependence on benefits. Historically, Easington had a long tradition of almost full employment when the pits were working. We are in our current predicament because of the difficulty of attracting inward investment due to the complexity of the problems, which are compounded by various aspects of Government policy, including this week’s announcement of a £200 million cut in public health funding. Indeed, £3.5 million will be cut from Durham County Council’s budgets. That funding is used to address the long-term issues of ill health and poor diet in some of the poorest communities. The Government need to end their short-term approach and take the long-term, co-ordinated approach needed to address the problems in Chesterfield, Easington, Neath, Sheffield, Glasgow and all older industrial areas.

[Toby Perkins]

I agree with my hon. Friend. I am referring to what happened in such areas, particularly after the closure of the coalmines and manufacturing sector. The irony of the Government’s approach to welfare—they suggest that there is a group of people who want to live on welfare—is that that was precisely Mrs Thatcher’s approach when she shut all the pits. She went to all these people, shut down entire communities and threw them out of work. She put huge numbers of people on incapacity benefit and parked them there for a long time. Inasmuch as there was a history of welfare dependency, it was Mrs Thatcher who caused it, and my hon. Friend is right to clarify that point.

My hon. Friend also spoke about local enterprise partnerships, and I will speak in more detail about their role and the previous role of regional development agencies and how the Government’s decisions prevented them from being as effective as they could have been, particularly when their help was really needed. He raised a couple of issues that I want to explore. He talked about the insecurity that goes with the increase in self-employment. I was self-employed for six years before first coming to Parliament, and I know that self-employment is an insecure line of work, but we should be encouraging self-employment, which is a great thing. Simultaneously, we must recognise that some people set up their own businesses because there are no other options. Self-employment is sometimes a sign of a local economy’s weakness; and at other times self-employment should be welcomed. It is important to recognise such insecurity in the workplace. He may also have been referring to bogus self-employment. Some people who appear to the majority of us to be self-employed are actually in insecure employment.

[Grahame M. Morris]

My hon. Friend is being generous in giving way. It is important to challenge the accepted logic that an increase in self-employment is necessarily a good thing. We need to consider where it is happening. The Union of Construction, Allied Trades and Technicians and other trade unions that organise in the construction sector are concerned about the increase in casualisation and the use of umbrella companies by unscrupulous employers to decrease job security and drive down terms, wages and conditions on building sites, and there are other such examples. A number of people who were directly employed in the offshore industry are now classed as self-employed not by choice but because they have been forced down that route. Self-employment is not necessarily a positive thing for local economies. I accept that we want to encourage small businesses to grow and to take on employees, but that does not necessarily translate in the figures that have been quoted on the growth in self-employment in areas such as mine.

[Toby Perkins]

This is a multifaceted issue. I feel like I have been responding to my hon. Friend’s speech for longer than it took him to deliver it, so I will move on. [Interruption.] He rightly says that we have a bit of time.

There were other important contributions. The hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) reflected on the extent to which industrial jobs have gone from her constituency. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh), she represents a city that has seen huge regeneration and positive change, but there is still the legacy of industrial decline in such older industrial communities. When listening to the hon. Member for Glasgow Central, I was struck by the similarity between the experiences of her constituents and the experiences described by other hon. Members. After hearing Glasgow and Sheffield Members reflecting on the challenges in their cities and hearing my hon. Friends the Members for Easington and for Neath (Christina Rees) talk about the impact on former mining communities like mine in Chesterfield, I am struck that there is a lot more that links us than divides us in the industrial areas of England, Scotland and Wales. We should consider that as we think more broadly about the direction in which our country is going. A huge number of issues affect us all. We have shared experiences and new opportunities, but we have also endured and shared painful legacies.

My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley said that the legacy of Mrs Thatcher has cast a dark shadow over older industrial areas, and she reflected on the importance of rebalancing our economy. My hon. Friend the Member for Neath said that the scar of mine closures is still felt today, and she spoke powerfully about the impact of ill health and its link with poverty. She also made an important point about the impact of spending cuts on local government and the knock-on impact on the voluntary sector. We all know that, over many years, the voluntary sector was incredibly powerful and important in the Labour Government’s approach to regeneration. Ironically, a Conservative Government who came to power promising us a big society and a revolution in the voluntary sector have achieved the absolute opposite: a weakened voluntary sector that is unable to pick up the pieces in many of the ways that it did previously.

Many issues raised in the report, complex and long-standing as they are, were being addressed under the Labour Government. We saw huge regeneration of our great cities. On the motorway in my area we have the new junction 29A, which is still known as “Skinner’s junction” after the campaigning of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner), and next to it is a huge new industrial estate. The Industrial Communities Alliance report says that there are 4,900 extra jobs in Bolsover, which is one of the most successful older industrial areas in terms of employment growth precisely because the Labour Government made the decision to invest in such communities. So we can get results if we invest. The Coalfields Regeneration Trust did so much work and was strongly supported by the Labour Government.

The Labour Government made huge investments in health promotion, which my hon. Friend the Member for Easington mentioned, and recognised the massive challenges that face older industrial communities. We recently saw the announcement of a £200 million cut in health promotion, which will have a significant impact. The powerful contributions to today’s debate have expressed the importance of this issue.

In terms of earned income, the United Kingdom is the fourth most unequal of the 30 countries in the OECD; only the USA, Israel and Mexico are more unequal than we are. My right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) was absolutely right to say that inequality is one of the huge challenges facing our country, although not only our country. The Labour party will give considerable thought to it over the next five years as we attempt to put together a programme that can again win the support of the British people.

Income is spread unequally across the UK’s regions and nations. The average household income in London is massively higher than in the north-east. In addition to income, overall wealth is unevenly spread across the UK—the average household in the south-east has almost twice as much wealth as an average household in Scotland—and different regions of the country have a different percentage share of UK gross disposable household income: London and the south-east have 32%, and the north-east has just 3.5%. Those disparities exist. It is important to recognise that poverty is not the preserve of the north. Areas throughout our country face substantial challenges: for example, Cornwall, which we might have expected to be represented here. None the less, a specific challenge faces the older industrial areas, and it is important to reflect that.

Many Members have discussed why we are in this position. There are three or four key reasons. The first is the failure to invest in retraining and vocational skills for the forgotten 50%, leaving people in the older industrial areas vulnerable to falling into a life of low pay. Far too many people in the UK today do a hard day’s work and still live in poverty and visit the food bank on the way home. The Prime Minister continually tells us that a job is the route out of poverty, but increasingly, people in poverty are also in work. Under this Government, work alone no longer pays enough to allow people the dignity of being able to feed their family.

More than 5 million people are now in low-paid jobs, and more than 250,000 are estimated to earn less than the national minimum wage. The problem of low pay has got significantly worse under this Government. Not only has the national minimum wage fallen in real terms since 2010; the official figures show that without action to tackle low wages, spending on tax credits for people in work is set to rise by an estimated £2.5 billion over the course of this Parliament. Only this Government could think that the response to that environment of low pay, and to all those people who work hard all week and still do not have enough money at the end of it to put food on their table for their kids, is to cut tax credits.

What an appalling legacy this Government will leave in terms of that increase in child poverty. We already hear that this Government are thinking of repealing the Child Poverty Act 2010, so that they will no longer be held to account for that increase in child poverty, but in communities throughout our country, people sitting around the kitchen table know the reality of life under this Government.

There has been a huge increase in the productivity gap. Professor Van Reenen, head of the Centre for Economic Performance at the London School of Economics, has said:

“By Thursday lunchtime the other”

major countries in Europe

“have produced as much as it takes us to produce by Friday afternoon… So basically, we could take every Friday off if we could be as productive as those other countries and earn the same amount of money.”

The productivity challenge is partly linked to the lack of investment and the short-termism that other colleagues have mentioned. For too long, the British economy has taken a short-term approach to matters of research and development. There are far fewer people involved in R and D in this country than in many of our European competitors. Likewise, although we have waited an age for a final decision on a new runway for London, Charles de Gaulle airport outside Paris has had four runways for years. There are many reasons why the endemic challenges in the older industrial areas have not been addressed.

The Government are exacerbating problems. The policies of a truly one nation Government would help overcome regional disparities, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Easington discussed, spending on infrastructure increases such disparities. Spending per head on London is 24 times higher than on the north-east of England. He quoted statistics that bear repeating; I also have them. The amount spent on Crossrail alone is nine times more than the amount earmarked for rail projects in the whole of Yorkshire, the north-east and the north-west.

There is a substantial gap in the ability of businesses in older industrial areas to access finance. The access to finance market is much less competitive there, so the amount of money lent by the banking sector to our businesses is substantially different depending on location: £2,647 per head of population was lent to businesses in London, but less than half that was lent to businesses in the north-east and the east midlands. Entrepreneurs in areas with huge growth potential are crying out for support but finding that, unless they live in an area that is already coping better than most with the post-crash world, the Government’s door is shut to them.

My hon. Friend the Member for Easington referred to the closure of One North East and the local enterprise partnership’s ineffectiveness in his case. Many local enterprise partnerships are working hard to make a contribution, but it was a strange decision at a time when the economy was desperate for growth—we should remember that we already had growth then, in 2010 at the end of the last Government, but we still needed a great deal more—for the Government to shut the regional development agencies and set up those fledgling agencies with limited resources and an unclear role. They have all attempted to the best of their ability to find a role, but they have been inconsistent in their ability to do so. Only now, five years after they were desperately needed, are some of them starting to come to fruition. That is another Government measure that has had a negative impact.

Strengthening local enterprise partnerships so they can provide greater capacity and stronger services is an important part of the solution, as is strengthening local authorities. We welcome steps to strengthen the combined authority in Greater Manchester, but we want more combined authorities to tackle the chronic problems of poor skills, infrastructure and economic development. We need reform of our business rate system, which has worked against business development in older industrial areas. If we had had the business rate re-evaluation counselled by the last Government, business rate bills for people in my hon. Friend’s constituency would be hundreds if not thousands of pounds lower and business rate bills in central London would be higher. That would have made a big impact on our local communities.

We believe that local areas and local authorities should be supported where they are succeeding in attracting and supporting businesses by retaining more of the business rate revenue generated by growth to invest in building further success. We also need greater decentralisation of Government infrastructure, so that more Government money is spent in the older industrial areas.

We support a Government with a commitment to a high-wage, high-skill workforce; devolution to English city and county regions that puts local councils at the heart of building up the older industrial areas; dealing with the huge increase in the productivity fall under this Government; an access to finance system in which money goes to businesses in our older industrial areas; expanding the capacity and strength of the local enterprise partnerships; fair funding for local authorities in the poorest areas; and a reform of business rates that supports small businesses in our communities. That is the kind of programme that will start to support and improve our older industrial areas.

This debate has been important in putting the issues before the Government, but we need them to stop the rhetoric and start the action; if they did, our communities might get the support that they deserve.

14:39

[The Minister for Small Business, Industry and Enterprise (Anna Soubry)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) on securing this important debate on economic disparities in the older industrial areas. I want to make it clear from the outset that the Government’s economic ambition is to create a fairer and more balanced economy by supporting policies that grow the economy as a whole and generate new jobs and higher wages for everybody.

The debate has been interesting. I must confess that, as I was listening to some of the speeches by Opposition Members, at times I thought I had stepped back in history and returned to my old student union days in the 1970s. I am slightly concerned about the memories of some hon. Members.

[Grahame M. Morris]

rose—

[Anna Soubry]

One moment. I have not even finished this particular insight. With few exceptions, Opposition Members all seem to have completely forgotten that for 13 years we had a Labour Government. They now complain about things that they might have put right—but did not—during the 13 years of Labour Government. The policies, notably towards the end of that Labour Government—a Government that failed to save and fix the roof when the sun was shining, and continued, as some now recognise, to overspend when the world economy had suffered a crash—exacerbated things.

[Grahame M. Morris]

Will the Minister give way?

[Anna Soubry]

Obviously, I will take interventions, but may I give some advice to hon. Members? If they do not learn from the experience of what happened in May, they will be out of office not only for five years, but for a generation.

[Grahame M. Morris]

I am familiar with the standard response that Labour is to blame, but my job as the Labour MP for Easington is to hold the Government to account. I have specific suggestions that would help my area and the areas represented by my hon. Friends who are suffering similar problems. For example, the Government’s policy on further education college funding has had a huge, negative impact on East Durham College, because it concentrates on apprenticeship training for young people and does not provide funding for older workers to retrain. Specific proposals are identified in the report. Without being disrespectful, rather than a lecture about what happened years ago, addressing the issues in the report, which we raised in the debate, would be really helpful.

[Anna Soubry]

Of course, I am going to deal in detail with the situation in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency and in the constituencies of all those who have spoken, with the exception of the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Toby Perkins). I am more than happy to write to him to tell him about the advances that have been made in the past five years in Chesterfield. I want to put this matter into context. I, too, have had to sit listening not only to a lecture, but to a rewriting of history that even the most red historians would struggle to produce.

I want to talk about the industrial communities in the alliance’s report. Since the beginning of the 1970s, UK cities have experienced an ongoing historical shift in economic orientation, driven on the one hand by a process of sustained de-industrialisation, as we have heard, and on the other by a progressive rise in service and tertiary activity. The report focuses on old industrial centres that have been slower to replace declining industries. Former industrial centres that have moved on, such as London—we often forget that London used to be a heavily industrial city, but it moved on—do not appear in the list. Therein lies an important point: there is nothing pre-ordained about past or current trends continuing into the future.

Over the past three decades, some cities have experienced positive shifts of direction, or positive turnarounds, in their differential growth paths. Oxford is an example, as are Brighton, Ipswich and London. I recognise—I am an east midlands MP, as is the hon. Member for Chesterfield—that those cities are in the south of England, and much will depend on how different older industrial centres are able to attract and develop the growth sectors of the future.

[Toby Perkins]

Will the right hon. Lady give way?

[Anna Soubry]

In a moment. I want to turn to the economy in Easington, because the hon. Member for Easington is a champion for his constituency. We have all witnessed tremendous technological change in our lifetimes. I am certainly old enough to say that, given that I come from Worksop in north Nottinghamshire where there was a coalmine. The whole town depended on the success or otherwise of the Manton colliery and surrounding collieries, so I am familiar with pits.

Industries that did not exist 20 years ago are now the most productive in the world. In the constituency of the hon. Member for Easington, this change has been more apparent than most. Since the closure of the dominant coalmine in 1993, the area has undergone a tremendous change. The legacy of coalmining is still being dealt with, but great progress has been made in remediating the industrial pollution, for example. The Durham coast, as the hon. Gentleman has told us, is now home to one of the most stunning coastal walks in the United Kingdom, with the Durham heritage coast highlighting the great natural, historical and geological interest of the area with dramatic views along the coastline and out across the North sea, framed by magnesian limestone cliffs. I have not been to the area, but I would love to go to the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, and I hope to arrange a visit.

A former slag heap is now the site of one of the country’s most dynamic retail centres, with more expansion about to start at Dalton Park.

My officials have provided me with a note about the regional growth fund’s investment in Easington. We might think from the hon. Gentleman’s speech that there had been no investment in his constituency. On the contrary, eight projects in Easington have been awarded a total of £13.4 million. They are contracted to lever in a further £81.6 million of private sector investment and to create or safeguard 1,189 jobs. I hope the hon. Gentleman will welcome such great investment of taxpayers’ money.

[Grahame M. Morris]

I congratulate the Minister on an excellent brief and on the description of the Durham heritage coast. It was absolutely perfect; I cannot fault it. The problem is that we are not able to access the coast because of the lack of transport infrastructure and railway halts. On the regional growth fund awards, much of that is linked to the automotive supply chain, so doubts about our continued membership of the European Union cause considerable concern. Yes, there are positive things in relation to support for businesses, but my concern is that they are not as comprehensive as the support and expertise given by One North East. The reorganisation, as always happens whether it is in local government or health, caused a huge hiatus and a delay in taking forward investment for projects that would have benefited the area considerably.

[Anna Soubry]

I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is saying that the investment in his constituency is considerable and great. I have read out the figures. They are substantial. As I have said, the money is part of a contract, so it relies on securing the features that I have identified. I am more than happy to respond to what the hon. Gentleman has said in more detail in a letter, or by meeting him. I would also like to meet his local enterprise partnership, because I strongly suspect that it might have a different view of the situation in his area from the one that he has given us today. The projects include, for example, NSK Bearings Ltd, which was awarded £3.45 million in round three to assist with business expansion. The award by the regional growth fund was part of a £19.9 million investment that helped to safeguard 265 jobs. Again, I hope the hon. Gentleman welcomes that.

It should also be noted that unemployment in the constituency of the hon. Member for Easington continues to fall. There are 6,400 more people in work today than in 2010. Those people would otherwise be at home and on benefits, but they now have the benefit of a job. I find it difficult to understand why hon. Members do not welcome the fact that people are going into the world of work. Surely it is better to be in a job than to be sat at home on the dole.

On the northern powerhouse, the hon. Member for Chesterfield seems to have forgotten that the Chancellor has represented the northern constituency of Tatton in Cheshire for many years, so the idea that he is new to the north of our country is nonsense. The northern powerhouse has not been imposed on northern councils. On the contrary, councils of all political persuasions—I give them full credit, especially the Labour-run councils in Liverpool and Manchester—have not only trumpeted the northern powerhouse, but led the way on its creation. I am concerned that hon. Members in this place are not supporting their colleagues in those great councils, who have come together and are championing the northern powerhouse.

[Louise Haigh]

Opposition Members are, of course, in favour of the northern powerhouse. We welcome the discussions on devolution, but they have to lead to resources and investment going to the north. Does the Minister not understand why we are sceptical about the northern powerhouse when there are announcements such as today’s on the scrapping of investment in the electrification of the route from London to Sheffield?

[Anna Soubry]

May I correct the hon. Lady? She said that investment has been scrapped and that the electrification of the midland main line had been abandoned, but she is absolutely wrong. [Interruption.] The hon. Lady is shaking her head, but I was in the Chamber when the Secretary of State for Transport made his announcement—I do not know whether the hon. Lady was there—and I heard exactly what he said. The process has been put on hold because of problems and failings in Network Rail. It has not been scrapped or abandoned. I remind the hon. Lady that in the 13 years of her party’s Government, 10 miles of rail were electrified in this country. We have not turned our back on investment; the £40 billion in railway improvements will continue.

Like the hon. Lady, I travel on the midland main line. Beeston station, in my constituency, lies on it. I assure her that the improvements that will be made to it mean that six more trains per hour will leave St Pancras. I am afraid that the hon. Lady is misleading people and her constituents when she says that the investment has been abandoned or scrapped.

[Toby Perkins]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way on the subject of misleading constituents. She is a representative of a marginal east midlands town, and up until the election a few weeks ago all her constituents believed the Government were going to deliver electrification of the midland main line. The truth is that, as soon as the election was over, the Government said, “Actually, we are not going ahead with it.” It may be a pause, or it may never happen. The Minister ought to be careful when she accuses other people of misleading their constituents.

[Anna Soubry]

This is not the debate we are meant to be having. I sat in the Chamber and heard what the Transport Secretary said. He made it very clear that it has not been abandoned or scrapped. He deliberately used the word “pause”.

[Toby Perkins]

Why did he not say that before the election?

[Anna Soubry]

There is no point heckling from a sedentary position. It does not advance the debate, and it does not address the complaints of the hon. Member for Easington or his constituents’ concerns. The Transport Secretary said it had been paused because of the failings of Network Rail. The improvements to the rest of the line will certainly continue.

Let me return to the constituency of the hon. Member for Easington and the fact that a new economy is beginning to grow in the wider north-east. In Peterlee alone, Caterpillar employs 1,000 people in a global centre for research and development that produces Caterpillar’s articulated truck range. Caterpillar is one of the United Kingdom’s largest heavy equipment manufacturers, with annual exports worth more than £1.5 billion. Some 85% of the United Kingdom’s production of construction equipment is for export. That is something to be championed in this place by the hon. Gentleman.

Nissan’s Sunderland plant secured £250 million of investment to manufacture the Infiniti Q30, creating up to 1,000 new jobs, 300 of which are being recruited now. It is the first new volume manufactured brand in the United Kingdom for more than 20 years. Production starts later this year. I am often reminded that more cars are now being produced in Sunderland than in the whole of Italy. The Sunderland plant currently employs just under 7,000 people on two lines, and it produced just over half a million cars in 2014—the equivalent of one in three of all cars made in the United Kingdom. The northern powerhouse regions—the north-east, the north-west, Yorkshire and the Humber—account for 25% of the UK’s automotive sector, and the work of the newly created North East Automotive Alliance should build on that strength.

Science and innovation also play a considerable part. NETPark in Sedgefield is an outstanding example of how world-class science and innovation can be partnered with great facilities and business support to continue their significant growth. It is now a significant employment site, with plans to expand and to employ more than 3,000 people in the next 10 years. Last week, NETPark announced that it has nearly 160 active collaborations with universities, illustrating its existing global position and helping to translate first-class research into products that have a real social impact and create jobs and prosperity.

The Government recognise the continuing historical challenges facing the local economy in Easington. Similar challenges face many former industrial communities across England, but the solutions to the challenges are not the same. A one-size-fits-all solution from Whitehall will not work. For Britain to prosper, every part of the country needs to fulfil its potential. That is why the Government are so committed to devolving power not only to the northern powerhouse but to great cities such as Sheffield, where the number of people in jobs has risen by some 700, and where there are two outstanding universities and £11 million-worth of technical incubators. Those are just some of the great things that are happening in Sheffield, where £23.8 million of funding is going into skills and 4,000 apprenticeships to be created by 2016. None of those things were mentioned by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh).

I have some details about the city deal in Glasgow, in reply to the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss). I will write to the hon. Member for Neath (Christina Rees) about the investment that the Government are making in her constituency and in her part of Wales.

I will be brief, because I think I have to finish at 3 pm.

[Andrew Rosindell (in the Chair)]

The Minister may be aware that the proposer of the debate wishes to have a short summing-up period.

[Anna Soubry]

Thank you for that guidance, Mr Rosindell. I will bring my remarks to a close.

I will write to the hon. Member for Easington with all the other statistics I have not only about Easington but about his part of the north-east. He and other hon. Members can be assured that, because of the Government’s long-term economic plan, which has already proved successful in growing our economy and creating jobs—hon. Members too often sneer at it, rather than praising it—success and growth will continue not only in the south but throughout the country, right into the northern powerhouse, which includes the north-east and the hon. Gentleman’s constituency.

14:58

[Grahame M. Morris]

I thank the Minister for her response, although I take issue with her geography and a number of the points she made.

I thank all Members who participated in the debate. In particular, I thank the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) and my hon. Friends the Members for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh), for Neath (Christina Rees) and for Chesterfield (Toby Perkins) for their contributions. They highlighted some important issues about contaminated land, the need to address skill shortages, industrial decline and the need for diversity. They spoke about having a multi-agency approach, the importance of European funding and of our membership of the European Union, particularly for the automotive supply chain. There are many issues that require a co-ordinated approach from the Government, and I hope that the Minister will reflect on the report and the representations from the Industrial Communities Alliance, which has come forward with some solid proposals that will benefit areas such as Easington, Wales, Scotland and the other older industrial areas that need an impetus and initiative from the Government.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered economic disparities in older industrial areas.

School Transport

Thursday 25th June 2015 Westminster Hall

[Mr Charles Walker in the Chair]

15:00

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

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the cost of school transport.

It is a delight to start the debate under your chairmanship, Mr Walker. It is also a delight to see the Minister for Schools in his place. He is known as a champion of parental choice in education. I look forward to his response to this debate on school transport costs.

In many ways, this is not a partisan debate; it is all about parental choice and whether people should be, in essence, fined or taxed for sending their youngsters to the school that they prefer. That could be a faith-based school or a grammar school to which someone who has managed to pass the 11-plus or admission exam has been admitted. The child and parents might prefer a single-sex school. I will focus on the Ribble Valley, but I understand that the problem is happening increasingly in other areas now.

We know that a lot of local authorities are under financial stress; they must live within their budgets and must look for savings, but irrespective of the colour of party control of authorities, they are picking on school transport costs because they have, in the main, an element of discretion on them. Youngsters who are on free school meals or working tax credit will get support paid for irrespective of where they live, but the vast majority of everybody else in Lancashire could find themselves having to pay more than £500 per child simply because the school that they wish their child to go to is a bit further than the next nearest school. Later in my speech, I hope to pick at least one absurd example where that happens: the schools back on to one another and yet parents are asked to fork out £500 a time simply because they want their child to go to a Catholic school.

I am not being partisan. The hon. Member for West Lancashire (Rosie Cooper), who would have liked to be here today but has had to return to her constituency, emailed me to say that she strongly opposes the county’s stand on education transport costs. She said:

“Those who exercise their right to religious education where the school is more than the specified distance from home are forced to pay transport costs if there is a state school closer. Outrageous! You have my full support on this issue”.

She said that she would be delighted if I shared that with the Chamber today.

A number of parents have contacted my office over the past 12 months about their youngsters and the fact that they found that their choices came with financial strings. A lot of people who are just above the income level for free school meals or working tax credits find themselves being stung for up to £500 of taxed income. Parents from Mellor, one from near Burnley, which is just outside my patch, Lango, which is inside my area, Samlesbury, Chipping, Bamber Bridge, Wilpshire, Lostock Hall and several parents from Waddington, Dunstop Bridge and surrounding districts contacted me just before the general election to say that they were outraged by one particular instance. The local authority was edging them towards a school, suggesting that it was the school—Bowland high school—that it wanted them to take, because it was in the catchment area and was where all the youngsters tended to go. The parents who got in touch with me said, “We put the school down as No. 1, Mr Evans, and we were delighted when we got it.”—maybe it was where the child’s siblings or friends were going—“but then the bombshell happened.” They received a letter from the county council saying, “You’ve been given the school that was your first preference, but we have to tell you that as the crow flies your nearest school is in Clitheroe. You are now going to be charged £500 per child for sending your youngster to the school we wanted you to send them to.” That is absolutely outrageous. Of course, once a parent has made a choice, there is nothing they can do. If the parents had known that in advance, they could have put Clitheroe down as their first choice, and would more than likely have been turned down, because the school would have been full of youngsters from the area. The local authority would then have said, “You now have to take your second choice, which is Bowland high, and because it is your second choice, we will pay.” A huge anomaly has resulted from the fact that the council wants to save money and thinks that it can do so by scorching parents for £500 a child.

I wrote to the chief executive of Lancashire County Council to say that the situation was appalling and ask her to do something about it. She wrote back to me in September 2014:

“The Council has no statutory duty to provide transport assistance in circumstances where pupils do not attend their nearest school or academy. Granting assistance to pupils who attend faith schools and academies which are not the nearest establishments to a home address is a discretionary element of the Council’s policy.”

The “discretionary” bit is what it is all about. Council after council throughout the country are deciding, “It’s easy pickings. We’re going to ignore the discretionary bit and we’re not going to give it.” Even on appeal, when people write to say that they are finding it hard to provide £500 per child, they still get turned down. If they want their youngster to go to the school, they have to pay.

In the olden days, when deciding where to put the Catholic school in Clitheroe, many people thought that it should be in the centre. They were told, “No, we have some land out in Billington, so that is where it’s going to go. Don’t worry, there will be school transport for the youngsters to be ferried from Clitheroe to Billington at no cost.” Therefore, no protest was made about the siting of the school. It is a very good school. Lots of Catholic parents in Clitheroe want to send their youngsters there. They have to pass at least two schools in some cases, if not just one, before they get to the Catholic school. If they want their youngsters to go to the Catholic school and they are from Clitheroe or outlying villages, they have to pay the full cost. Call me old fashioned, but I think that is discrimination. We are saying to the parents, “If you want a faith-based education, you’re going to have to pay, but if you want to go to the non-faith-based school, you’ll get it for free.” That cannot be right. I know that the Minister believes in parental choice; he is a champion of parental choice. Surely we should ensure that if people wish to travel a reasonable distance—perhaps a distance that they prescribe themselves, which could be up to 15 miles—they should be eligible for free school transport. I am not saying that someone should be able to travel 40 miles down the road to a school.

In her letter, Jo Turton, the chief executive of Lancashire County Council, explained how much money the council had to cut, and how it requires difficult decisions. I looked at it and decided to find out how much the chief executive of Lancashire County Council earns. It is a package, including pensions and all that sort of stuff, of £206,000. That is a bit eye-watering; it is rather high. Why does she not make some difficult decisions there? Cut it back. The salary bit is £169,000, so she could make a difficult decision and cut it to below what the Prime Minister earns, which as we know is £147,000, if he took it all, which he does not. That would be a nice, difficult decision for her to make. Indeed, seven salaries on Lancashire County Council add up to over £1 million. Make a difficult decision there; cut it back. Lead from the front. That would be courageous. No, they will not do that, but they expect parents to dip into their own taxed income to pay £500 a child, and that cannot be right.

One area where two schools back on to one another is Longridge. There is Longridge high school and the Catholic school St Cecilia’s just behind. I have 30-odd wonderful, lovely villages. If parents want their child to be educated in Longridge, which is where the nearest secondary schools are, and they happen to be Catholic, the bus stops outside Longridge high school first. The schools back on to one another and the youngsters can—and do—get out at Longridge high and walk through a ginnel to get to St Cecilia’s. That is fine, but the Catholics get charged. It is only those who go to Longridge high who do not get charged. That is clearly absurd.

Woe betide those who decide that they want the education that is offered by the grammar school and manage to pass the admissions exam. If they pass another school that is non-grammar, they have to pay. That seems like a tax or penalty on academic success. I am really lucky that I have some very good schools. There is not a single school in my constituency that I would have reservations about sending my children to, if I had any. If I decided that I wanted them to go to the grammar school, the Catholic school or another faith-based school, I do not see why I should be penalised for taking my parental choice.

I mentioned Bowland high school, which is smaller than Ribblesdale school in Clitheroe. Some parents decide, if they have a sensitive child, that they would prefer him or her to be educated in a more rural setting. It has a brilliant and relatively new sports centre and they might prefer their child to be at that school. It may be that a school specialises in the arts or sciences. If parents choose that school, they will be penalised because the local authority, while it has discretion, has decided that it is not going to use it.

I am delighted to see the newly elected Chairman of the Education Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael)—a popular choice. I took the opportunity to raise this issue with him as soon as the jubilation at his success had died down, and suggested that his Committee might like to conduct an inquiry into this policy. We all believe that education should be free at the point of use. Parents have the choice, if they wish, to pay for their youngster to go, for example in my constituency, to Stonyhurst. That is a private school and, if parents want to pay the fees, their child can go there; it is a fantastic school.

I do not think anybody would quibble with parents paying transport costs to get their youngster to that private school. They have made that firm decision. If parents wish their child to go to a school within the state sector and decide that it should be a single-sex, faith-based or grammar school, I do not believe that they deserve to be caned. If they have two or three children, it can be incredibly expensive. Mr Walker, you might find that people are making choices based not on what is in the best interest of the youngster but, sadly, on what is in the best interests of their wallets or purses, simply because they have difficult financial decisions to make.

I have also received correspondence from the Association of Colleges, which pointed out to me that, of course, parents now have to pay anyway after their child is 16. We have moved into a different era now, when—in the main—people are expected to go to college between 16 and 18. Local authorities have not caught up with that, and it can be incredibly expensive for parents to send their 16-year-old to a specialist college a few miles away, but they have to stump up for them.

This problem hits people irrespective of their constituency, but it hits people harder in rural areas, where the grammar schools or secondary schools tend to be further spaced out than in urban areas, and of course people in rural areas often live in villages that are miles away from schools. In many cases, rural transport is inferior to urban transport, so it may well be that parents have to make a decision about whether they themselves ferry their youngsters to school as they go to work. It is particularly galling for parents when they see the bus coming into their village, youngsters going to the nearest school getting on for free, and spaces on that bus, and yet they have to take their child to school themselves because they cannot afford the £500 or so each year for school transport.

What is even more surprising is that the county council has already stated that each year the cost to parents will go up by 5% above inflation. We are delighted that inflation is as low as it is, thanks to the long-term economic plan, but a 5% rise, year on year, and compounded, can be incredibly expensive.

I would like the Minister to do something. I have raised this issue several times in the House, and I know that it is the responsibility of another Government Department, but I dearly want that Department to back up parental choice and not to fine parents; not to penalise academic success; and to allow parents living within a reasonable distance of a school to get their youngsters ferried to that school. In some rural areas, it is very dangerous even to attempt walking or cycling on the roads.

I want the discretion removed. I want every youngster to be put on the same level, so that parents can choose a school within a reasonable distance in their own best interests without being penalised. I do not want the local authority to use them as cash cows to make up the shortfall because it will not make difficult decisions in other areas.

I plead with the Minister not to let this situation drag on. Let us help the local authorities to make the decision by removing the discretion, and let us ensure that people have full parental choice about where they send their youngsters.

15:18

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Walker.

I have a great interest in this motion and I thank the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr Evans) for securing this debate. In Glasgow this afternoon, there are people outside Glasgow City Chambers protesting at the cuts to bus services within the Glasgow city area. Glasgow City Council has decided to raise the qualifying distance for free bus passes in the city from 1.2 miles to 2 miles for primary school pupils, and from 2.2 miles to 3 miles for secondary school pupils. Those are quite considerable distances, especially for primary one pupils who will be starting school, aged five, come August.

I may not be able to refrain from being partisan in my comments today, because that choice has been made as a result of austerity programmes and cuts being made here, then passed to the Scottish Parliament and down on to councils. Councils have a difficult choice to make in coming to these decisions.

In Scotland, we also have a slightly less complex picture of schools, with fewer choices for pupils. Although Glasgow has catchment areas that can be complex, by and large children go to local schools of their choice in the catchment area; they do not often have to travel past a school they want to go to, to get to the one they have a place at.

Glasgow City Council’s decisions on changing the cost of bus passes—putting that back on parents—could cause serious difficulties for parents who cannot afford to pay for one. If their parents cannot afford it, children will have to walk significant distances, across busy roads and perhaps through industrial estates and derelict areas. If that is a daunting prospect in our glorious Scottish summer, what will it be like in winter time? In Scotland it is often dark on leaving the house in the morning and dark when coming back in the afternoon. It is a pretty grim thought.

Parents are advised by Glasgow’s education department that children should be accompanied—and of course, young children should be accompanied. But that causes serious difficulties for parents with more than one child who have to take their children to different places in the morning. There may be drop-offs at a nursery in one area, at a primary school in another and perhaps even at a secondary school, too. It is practically impossible for parents to make all those journeys.

The level of car ownership in Glasgow is low, particularly in deprived areas, where there is greater reliance on bus services. In 2012, only about half of households in Glasgow had access to a car. Bus transport is important for families and a lot of people without access to a car, because there is no other option for them other than using public transport.

The Labour council administration has made several attempts to introduce the proposal I have mentioned, but it has been rejected by the people and eventually rolled back on by the council; I hope that this time the council sees sense and finds the money elsewhere. More significantly, the proposal means that Glasgow City Council is reneging on promises it made during city school closures in the past, when lots of schools were closed or merged: parents were reassured about transport costs and told that school bus passes would be provided so that children could get to the schools. That was in 2008. Now parents find that the council has reneged on that promise and they are facing serious costs for school transport. That is unfair and will lead to further disadvantage for children in many parts of the city—areas with food banks and areas of multiple deprivation—who are already suffering from significant poverty. People trying to get several children to school face a disproportionate cost. It is deeply unfair that the cost of transport is falling on families at this time.

I understand that some rules about qualifying distances come from a House of Lords ruling in 1986. If that is so, it is time for that to be revised; something decided so long ago that is affecting people now is surely ripe for revision. Things have changed—far more cars are on the road and our cities are much busier, with heavier goods vehicles moving across them. We need to be mindful that young children, some of whom may want to walk to school, will find a great deal of traffic on the roads.

I support this debate. There should be further action on and consideration of this matter, particularly in respect of Scotland, where we have a slightly different situation, with children trying to go to their local schools and parents trying to get them there. We could do a lot to help parents in this situation, including looking again at the qualifying distances to find out whether something better could be put in place.

15:24

[Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Walker.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr Evans) on securing the debate. I endorse all the remarks he made in his eloquent, articulate speech. His debate is timely: only this morning, I received an email from a parent in my constituency asking for my views on the school transport proposals. I should explain that Warwickshire County Council has, like Lancashire County Council, embarked on a consultation on changes to the supply of school transport for children whose parents do not choose their closest school. The consultation opened on Tuesday and runs until 17 September. If the proposals are adopted, children who enter secondary school this year or in September 2016 will not be affected, but those who start in September 2017 will be—by exactly the changes that my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley spoke of.

In Rugby, the issue is grammar schools. My hon. Friend spoke about the impact on parents who wish their children to attend faith-based schools, single-sex schools or grammar schools. In Rugby, we have retained a selective system and in that respect are relatively unique in east Warwickshire. We have spectacular grammar schools in Lawrence Sheriff school, of which I am proud to be a product and therefore have a vested interest in, and Rugby high school, where my daughter is a pupil. We also have a bilateral school, Ashlawn school, which has a grammar stream alongside the secondary modern stream. Those schools are very popular with parents. An enormous number of children sit examinations to secure places there, and some parents move to Rugby simply to gain access to its schools.

The email I received this morning is from a parent who lives in the village of Binley Woods, to which I also have a connection because I grew up there. I travelled from Binley Woods to Lawrence Sheriff school in Rugby every day—a journey of about 8 miles. The email says:

“My son is due to attend Lawrence Sheriff School in September.”

My constituent’s son will not be affected by the proposals because they will not take effect for her son’s entry. However, there might be a concern if Warwickshire County Council makes changes similar to those that Lancashire is considering. What would happen if her son goes to the grammar school in September and a change is made thereafter? If any county council makes such a change, I hope that children who entered schools before the change will continue to get discretionary support.

My hon. Friend drew attention to an absurd example in his constituency, and I will give the Minister another. My constituent tells me that the allocated non-selective school for children who live in Binley Woods is Bilton school. That is a very good school that I visit regularly, but it is 8 miles away. Lawrence Sheriff school is just as far away. We have an absurd situation where a child who does well in a selective exam and goes to the appropriate school for their abilities—the school that will bring them on best in life—will have their travel paid for if they choose to turn down a place at the grammar school because the secondary modern, Bilton, is closest. However, if the child, having worked hard, takes the place they have secured at the grammar school, their transport will not be paid for. That is absolutely crazy and cannot happen.

My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the issue of students from low-income backgrounds. Warwickshire County Council’s policy states that the discretionary payment would continue to apply to families with relatively modest means, whether or not Warwickshire makes the change, but my concern is the parents who fall short of that category. There is something of a cliff face here. For a parent, the cost of paying for transport to a grammar school is conceivably a reason for their child not to take up a place there.

I attended a grammar school and am a great supporter of retaining our grammar schools. I sat in a class with fellow pupils from ordinary backgrounds, with parents who were engineers, electricians or worked in cement factories. Those pupils took advantage of their grammar school education and went on to do well in life. There is a grave danger of putting a barrier in people’s way by denying them the opportunity to access the excellent education that our grammar schools provide. I join my hon. Friend on this issue. I have made my views clear today and will make my own representation to the consultation.

Will the Minister consider extending the statutory requirements to include parents who wish their child to go to a school other than the nearest one? Will he also comment on the absurd situation where two schools are almost exactly the same distance away and transport is paid for a pupil going to one but not the other?

[Mr Nigel Evans]

Is my hon. Friend somewhat suspicious, as I am, of such consultations? Lancashire, too, had a consultation. There is no doubt in my mind that the vast majority of people would say, “We prefer the system to carry on as it is and that the county uses its discretion.” Irrespective of how persuasive I know my hon. Friend and his constituents can be, my suspicion is that the consultation will end up saying, “Well, I’m sorry, we have to save the money. They do this in Lancashire and several other places, and we’re going to force people to pay.”

[Mark Pawsey]

My hon. Friend makes a fair point about consultations. I will, however, be making representations and I will encourage the parents whom I come into contact with in my constituency to make representations to Warwickshire County Council in the same way. We understand the pressure on local government finance and it is entirely right for local authorities to look wherever they can to avoid excessive expenditure—to get more for less and to spend taxpayers’ money wisely—but not in a situation such as this. I am horrified on behalf of bright and capable children from households just outside the category eligible for support; the measure might act as a disincentive against such youngsters coming forward, putting their name in for the selection exam and getting an education that could enable them to do well later in life.

I will take the consultation at face value, and I will continue to lobby county councillors in Warwickshire so that they know and understand the possible consequences. I am pretty certain about our representations during the consultation.

[Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)]

I apologise for being late to this excellent debate. The Select Committee on Education has not yet been formed, but I suggest that this issue is one that it might well consider in due course, in the context of proper choice of schools and ensuring value for money.

[Mark Pawsey]

It is encouraging to hear that the Select Committee will consider the subject.

I will sum up by reading out my constituent’s question regarding her son:

“Why is he potentially being discriminated against for passing his 11-plus?”

15:33

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Walker. I congratulate the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr Evans) on securing this important debate. I doubt whether a single Member has not at some time or other come across the vexed issue of school transport, usually at some kind of advice centre.

I will quickly cover what I understand to be the duties and powers of the local authorities in England to provide home-to-school transport under the Education Act 1996, as amended; I am sure that the Minister will confirm this. The “Home to school travel and transport guidance” for local authorities provides further clarification. The guidance was updated recently—only in July last year—and it covers the statutory duties that a local authority must abide by when making home-to-school arrangements. It also provides local authorities with advice on discretionary powers to make provision for children where there is no statutory obligation; the hon. Member for Ribble Valley focused on that point.

The guidance applies to the vast majority of schools—community, foundation, voluntary, non-maintained and special schools, referral units, maintained nurseries, city technology colleges, city colleges for the technology of the arts, academies, free schools and university technology colleges. An independent school can also be covered if that school is named in the child’s education, health and care plan, so the guidance is pretty comprehensive.

Three main issues affect the arguments about the provision of school transport. First, there is the cost. The hon. Member for Ribble Valley and I might not have identical views, but we all heard his point about that issue. I am concerned that the cost is borne increasingly by impoverished local authorities. Secondly, there is the allocation and provision of school places, which seems to be resulting in an ever-increasing number of children in some parts of the country having to travel substantial distances to school. Finally, there is the question of safety and the emphasis on motor transport rather than walking or cycling. That point was alluded to by the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss).

As the pressure on public spending intensifies, many local authorities have found themselves facing funding reductions of about 37% over the period 2010-11 to 2015-16. Many hon. Members will recognise that those cuts are not applied fairly across the board, with reductions that can vary from 5% to 40%. Needless to say, councils with the greatest needs and deprivation, such as my own in Birmingham, are required to take the largest share of the cuts. It is hardly surprising in those circumstances that local authorities are finding it harder to provide school transport. The Public Accounts Committee report of 28 January this year warned that further cuts might undermine the viability of not just optional services, but even some statutory ones.

When it comes to school transport, that is exactly what is happening. It is often a case of local authorities tinkering with the distance rules as a means of excluding people. In essence, there is an attempt to save costs. Schools have plenty of other pressures, not least the pensions issue that is looming for the Minister, but they are sitting on quite large reserves. The Department for Education’s figures show that 4,400 academies, as of March 2014, had reserves of £2.47 billion; some way behind are the 18,700 local authority maintained schools, which had reserves of £2.18 billion.

I meet plenty of local authority leaders who ask me why schools, given that they are sitting on these reserves, should not pay for or at least contribute to the transport costs, while local authorities are facing such cuts.

[Mr Nigel Evans]

I am a former school governor and I was on West Glamorgan County Council. In many cases, schools save that money for capital projects, some of which can run into millions, so that money would not be available to spend on other projects.

[Steve McCabe]

I am also a former school governor. I acknowledge that there are other pressures in schools. I was pointing out that they are sitting with reserves. Local authorities have largely been encouraged by the Secretary of State to use up theirs.

The hon. Gentleman referred to the problem, with which I totally sympathise, of parents being asked to pay £500. I do not know whether he saw the recent article in the Bournemouth Echo; I am sure he is an avid reader of it. It highlighted the plight of parents whose children attend the Parkfield free school. The school was set up and is now having to move to a more satisfactory base. Unfortunately, its new location is not particularly well served by public transport. There is a business willing to provide a school bus service, but at a cost of £650 to the parents. Neither the school nor the local authority feels able to subsidise that transport cost. When I read about that and as I listened to the hon. Gentleman, I wondered whether he was simply describing the shape of things to come.

Given the importance of getting children to school safely, I wonder whether the Government need to look again at the guidance, even if it was reviewed only last year, and at the funding arrangements. As to the suggestion that we might perhaps extend the travel distance or cut some local authority officers’ salaries, that might be one approach, but perhaps the Minister could also consider whether it is right for the duty to rest solely with local authorities.

We all tend to look a bit nostalgically back to the time when many of us would have walked to school, but at that time, of course, the concept of a local school was common. The hon. Member for Ribble Valley referred to problems of choice and locality, and the confusion over preferences and allocation of places. I certainly recognised what he was describing, but I suggest that the pressure on school places results largely from the imbalance in current provision, which results directly from Government policy. It has resulted in additional capacity in some areas and insufficient places in others, often in areas with the highest numbers of children.

Some Members, including the hon. Member for Rugby (Mark Pawsey), have spoken of the barriers to children’s attendance at grammar schools and other schools of their choice, and that is certainly happening. In other cases, the capacity argument means that children are sometimes forced to travel great distances to school.

I know that the Minister is fond of reading the Daily Mail; in March, it reported on a mother from south London who complained that she was forced to drive her son 25 miles to his current school because she cannot obtain a place at the local school, which is down the road and round the corner. We hear stories repeatedly about children who must make journeys involving several buses, after they fail to get a local place. That pressure is added to by admissions policies that often result in children in the same household attending different schools. Again, that is a point to which the hon. Member for Glasgow Central drew our attention.

Every year at around this time, I am inundated at my advice centres with parents who have experienced the problem of not getting the school of their preference. Can it be right that a five-year-old is expected to make a two-and-a-half mile taxi journey to school, because he cannot get a place at the school nearest to where he lives? What assessment has the Minister made of the pressure on school places and the distance that children must travel? Does the situation mean that, whatever the arguments about academies or free schools, we need a more rational planning arrangement so that we have more school places where they are needed?

It is worth noting that, under the guidance, local authorities are obliged to provide free transport where there is no safe walking route, however close to the school the child may live. There cannot be many of us who have not witnessed the traffic problems around local schools at the start and end of the school day—traffic problems largely generated by parents who not only want to drop off and collect their children, but want to park as close to the school gate as possible.

I was told recently about an incident at one school in my constituency. A parent managed to knock down a child as she attempted that manoeuvre. Fortunately, no serious damage was done, but the stressed driver, rather than apologising immediately, got out of her car and castigated the child for not paying sufficient attention while she was trying to park. That pressure around the school gate is making life far too difficult for too many children.

I note that more than 27% of parents now automatically drive their children to school; 23% of cars on the road at peak times are taking children to or from school, despite 19% of school journeys being under a mile—a distance that I am told people can comfortably walk in about 20 minutes, even if they are not trying very hard.

Clearly, we need to give much more thought to how to create a safer environment in the immediate vicinity of schools and what the Government can do to help to deliver a sensible cycling and walking strategy, as proposed by the Living Streets charity. At a time when we are rightly concerned about childhood health and obesity, it is remarkable how few children walk to school. I am very impressed by Brake and other road safety charities, which have been calling for safe travel zones around our schools. That approach covers speeding traffic, crossings, inconsiderate parking, and cycling and walking. In that context, I welcome the Government’s target of 55% of five to 10-year-olds walking to school, but we will not achieve that without deliberate and specific action. Can the Minister say what he has in mind?

I conclude by asking the Minister to look again at the guidance and whether schools, local authorities and others could be encouraged to share the burden of the cost of school transport. I have given up hope of local authorities getting fair funding deals, but his own Back-Bench colleagues are now asking him to look at this issue. Can he look at the provision of places and the possibility of a more rational planning framework and tell us what parental choice means in this day and age if parents are not able to send their children to the school of their choice, for the reasons that his hon. Friends state? Finally, can the Minister tell us what steps he has taken regarding safer, healthier alternatives for getting children to and from school?

[Mr Charles Walker (in the Chair)]

The Minister has a lot to get his teeth into, and the debate is due to end at 4.30 pm. Actually, that is quite a long time, but if he is minded to take up most of it, could he leave a couple of minutes at the end for Mr Evans to respond?

15:47

[The Minister for Schools (Mr Nick Gibb)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Walker. I will try to squeeze my remarks into the remaining time.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr Evans) on securing the debate and on his excellent and compelling opening speech. He is a strong advocate for his constituency on a range of issues, and this is another example of that advocacy. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mark Pawsey) and the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) on their contributions, in which they cited their own constituency issues.

The hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) was unwise to talk about school places planning, given that the previous Labour Government eliminated 200,000 primary school places when it was absolutely clear that the birth rate was increasing. One of the first things that the coalition Government had to do was to double the spending on creating new school places at a time of enormous constraint on the public finances. Over that period, we have spent several billion pounds on providing more school places to make up for the backlog that we inherited in 2010.

[Steve McCabe]

In case the Minister misunderstood me, I point out that I am not disputing whether the Government are creating more places; I am talking about the problem that they are creating by giving us over-capacity in one area and insufficient places where children are living. That is the difficulty; it is about the planning, not the number.

[Mr Gibb]

But of course the planning is easier if we do not have to catch up on a huge deficit in school places.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley has consistently championed the practical importance of school transport to children and their parents in his constituency. Where schools are beyond reasonable walking distance, parents should be entitled to expect the local authority to support transport arrangements. That rightly remains a statutory duty on local authorities. This afternoon, my hon. Friend has highlighted the impact of local authorities’ decisions, in the context of a tight fiscal position, to consider the availability of transport to schools that are the parents’ first choice but that the local authority deems are not the nearest suitable school.

The Government are committed to securing a good school place for every child. Today, more than 1 million more children attend good or outstanding schools than in 2010, and 260 new free schools set up by local charities, trusts and groups of parents are offering education that meets the needs of their communities. Additionally, in the previous Parliament, the Government spent more than £5 billion in funding local authorities to create new school places, and we have announced a further £3.6 billion over the next three years. The sponsored academies programme has turned around 1,154 underperforming schools over the past five years, ensuring that more pupils benefit from the highest standards of education.

Parents make few choices for their child that are more important than the choice of which school they attend and, thanks to our reforms, in many cases it will increasingly be the nearest and most conveniently located school. Some parents, however, might decide that their child’s education would best be served by attending a school further away from home because the performance of the nearest school is not yet good enough or because of considerations about a school’s specialism, ethos, faith status—my hon. Friend alluded to that—or, in some areas, whether it is academically selective, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby.

Local authorities have a statutory duty to provide free transport for pupils in compulsory education at their nearest suitable school if it is beyond the statutory walking distances. Those thresholds, as has been said, are 2 miles for children under the age of eight and 3 miles for those aged eight and above. Under the universal statutory duty, “suitable school” is taken to mean the nearest qualifying school with places available that provides education appropriate to the child’s age, ability and aptitude. If a child has passed a grammar school entry test, for example, the local authority would not necessarily deem other, nearer schools unsuitable.

All local authorities have an additional duty to enable children from low-income family backgrounds to access a wider range of schools, including faith schools. That duty is known as “extended rights” and attracts national funding worth almost £20 million in this financial year. The extended rights policy helps children from low-income groups for whom a lack of affordable transport might act as a barrier to choice, thus enabling some of the most disadvantaged pupils to secure fair access to a wider range of schools. Children are eligible for extended rights if they are entitled to free school meals or if their parents are in receipt of maximum working tax credit. Where those criteria apply, pupils are given additional financial support towards school transport.

The policy amends the statutory walking distances, so that local authorities must provide free transport for such pupils where the nearest suitable school is beyond 2 miles if the pupil is over the age of eight but below the age 11; beyond 2 miles but within 6 miles for pupils aged 11 or over and there are not more than three suitable nearer schools; or beyond 2 miles but within 15 miles for pupils aged 11 or over who are attending the nearest suitable school on the grounds of religion or belief. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley said, the policy does not apply to children whose parents do not qualify for extended rights. Although parents do not enjoy a specific right to have their children educated at a school with a religious character or at a secular school, or to have transport arrangements made by their local authority to and from such a school, the extended rights policy includes the nearest suitable school on the grounds of religion or belief up to 15 miles, as there are often fewer faith schools within a reasonable distance. Even if children do not have a statutory entitlement to free home-to-school transport, local authorities have a discretionary power to provide free or assisted transport if they believe it necessary and local funding is available.

Lancashire County Council has historically provided free home-to-school transport to catchment area schools in Ribble Valley, regardless of whether they are the nearest school. Nationally, expenditure on home-to-school transport currently totals some £1 billion, and approximately £600 million of that is spent on transport for pupils with special educational needs. The total figure has remained broadly consistent over the past three financial years, although the proportion allocated to special educational needs transport shows a gradual increase over that period.

Lancashire County Council’s total expenditure on home-to-school transport has remained broadly consistent with the slight reduction in the amount spent on special educational needs over the three-year period. I understand that from September 2015, as my hon. Friend has explained, Lancashire County Council will introduce a package of measures to reduce its home-to-school travel costs, one of which is to remove the county-wide discretion to pay travelling expenses to catchment area schools when there is a nearer school. For new pupils starting this September, the local authority will fund transport only to the nearest school. Those changes are being phased in, and a child who started at a school under one set of arrangements will continue under those arrangements. For some parents who wish to send their child to a religiously designated school, their chosen school may not be their nearest. In that case, Lancashire County Council requires parents to contribute towards the overall cost of transport.

Where possible, I urge local authorities, including Lancashire County Council, to consider preserving discretionary school transport support for disadvantaged pupils and to consult widely about any plans to change arrangements. Good practice suggests that when parents are asked to pay all or some of the costs of non-statutory transport provision, low-income families who are not eligible for the extended rights should not have to pay. That is good practice, although it is not compulsory under law.

My hon. Friend asked about schools that back on to each other, citing the example of the Catholic school along a ginnel—I think that was the word he used—from the school whose students were entitled to free school transport. I urge the local authority to be reasonable and consider the issue in the context that my hon. Friend so ably explained. I make the same point to my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby about the example that he cited from Binley Woods, with the Lawrence Sheriff school and the grammar school under Warwickshire County Council. I know that he has responded to the consultation, which is ongoing.

The Government encourage more pupils to cycle or walk to school, particularly in urban areas. We have set an ambition to increase the percentage of schoolchildren aged five to 10 who walk to school to 55% by 2025, and we have made a long-term funding commitment of more than £400 million for cycling and walking available to every local authority in the country until 2021. To cite one example, Darlington Borough Council has encouraged a shift away from cars to more sustainable methods under the brand Local Motion. Central Government have provided funding for the project since 2011. It ensures that schools, young people and their families receive relevant information to enable them to choose sustainable travel options to get to and from school. As a result, the cycling rate among secondary school pupils in that local authority area has increased from 1% to 7%.

[Steve McCabe]

I am interested in what the Minister is describing. Am I right in thinking that local authorities are not obliged to tie that funding to travel to school plans and that some local authorities can choose to spend it in other ways? If so, would it not make more sense to require them specifically to take the travel to school issue into account when spending the money?

[Mr Gibb]

We believe in local discretion. My hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley argued that we should remove that discretion and the hon. Gentleman is hinting that he would like to remove some of it, but the Government’s philosophy has been that local authorities should have discretion to spend that money as they see fit, to respond to local circumstances. That has been the policy for many years. We believe that they are best placed to determine how resources should be used in the areas that they serve and to balance the demands of a broad range of discretionary travel against their budget priorities. If we were to remove this discretion from local authorities’ responsibilities, it would hugely increase the number of eligible children at a substantial cost to the taxpayer. Therefore, it is much more practical and helpful to allow local authorities to continue to make these important decisions locally, but they still need to make the right decisions locally.

Many authorities are doing some very good work, for example, by encouraging schools to collaborate with one another and to use some of their own resources to fund transport. For instance, many academies are collaborating with other stakeholders and providers to offer discretionary transport to their schools. Hertfordshire, for example, will save between £5 million and £6 million per annum as a result of schools doing that. From September 2012 onwards, that local authority has only provided statutory home-to-school transport. It wanted to build capacity locally to encourage schools, community groups and commercial operators to provide home-to-school transport, and from September 2013 onwards, 130 routes to schools have operated without a financial subsidy from the council. So creative ways to provide transport are being used by innovative local authorities around the country. I urge both Warwickshire County Council and Lancashire County Council to look at such examples and at Darlington Borough Council to see whether they can learn from them.

The Government recognise that rural areas face particular transport difficulties. Therefore, the Department for Transport has provided £7.6 million in funding for 37 schemes to deliver improved local transport in rural and isolated areas. That funding will provide the essential first step for local authorities to implement service integration. People living in those areas will be able to benefit from integrated public transport, and local authorities will work with schools, hospitals and other local organisations to deliver local services more efficiently and at lower cost.

In conclusion, I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising these important issues on behalf of his constituents. A good local school within easy commuting reach is something that every parent has the right to expect for their child, and even as we continue to reduce the deficit, local authorities will continue to have a duty to provide school transport in many circumstances. And I share his view that discretionary services should be protected, wherever possible.

16:02

[Mr Nigel Evans]

I thank the Minister for the generosity of spirit with which he has treated this debate. The way that we are praising one another sounds like a bit of a love-in, but I know that he is dedicated to ensuring that every parent is given choice, where possible, and that every child has a decent education, which is what we all want. Part of that, clearly, is the ability to choose.

I am also grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mark Pawsey) for illustrating some of the anomalies that exist in his own constituency, including the absurdity of the eight-mile range. I wonder whether anyone has measured it; one school may be an inch further away than another one. However, the fact is that parents are being penalised simply for choosing one school over another. I went to a selective school myself and I believe in a mix, so I am delighted to hear that his selective schools are doing very well.

As I said right at the outset, I am so lucky that all the schools in my patch are excellent. However, we do not want to get into the position, although I know that it is increasingly happening, whereby parents move to ensure that their youngsters can get into certain schools. We want all schools to be good, so that nobody has to move.

I am also grateful to the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) for illustrating the problems that face an increasing number of parents in Glasgow. There always seems to be a sense of blame-shifting, whereby somebody else is responsible and it is not really our fault, and people say, “We would prefer not to do it, but we have to. Our hands are tied.” However, the real victims in all this are the parents and their children, who increasingly have to put their hands in their pockets.

I am also extremely grateful to the shadow Minister for some of his comments. I would encourage youngsters to walk where they can, but sometimes in rural areas the road system is bad and the distances great, in particular if the school is not a primary—most villages tend to have a primary school, although in some cases they do not. For secondary education, the situation is clearly more difficult.

I was delighted to hear that the new Chair of the Education Committee has now put the subject on his shopping list of inquiries. Perhaps we will make some progress. The Minister talked about his belief that the Government’s philosophy is discretion. At the same time, he wants that discretion to be used to ensure that parents get choice, and therefore local authorities pay for school transport. If, however, in particular in the inquiry, it is demonstrated that local authorities are increasingly not giving any discretion whatever, but seeing the transport as an opportunity to dip into parents’ pockets—not supporting parents in their parental choice—I hope that that will be exposed and the Minister will look again.

We give discretion to local authorities up to a point on council tax, but we encourage them to freeze and certainly not to go above a certain rate, otherwise things are punitive for them. Perhaps we could look at that for local authorities if they are ignoring wholesale the discretion that they have and if they are imposing those transport costs on parents with—in Lancashire’s case, as I said—a 5% real-terms increase year on year, which can be financially painful for some parents. That is particularly the case for those parents just over the limit, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby pointed out, for tax credits or free school meals, or if they have more than one child.

Clearly, the book is not closed on the subject. I hope that the Minister will keep a beady eye—I trust that he will—on the situation. I will ensure that Lancashire county council gets a report of today’s proceedings in Westminster Hall, so that it can see what the Government’s intention is and what they want the county councils to do. If the councils do not follow that intention, we will revisit the subject in the coming months.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the cost of school transport.

16:07

Sitting adjourned.

Written Statements

Thursday 25th June 2015 Written Statements

Thursday 25 June 2015

Green Investment Bank

Thursday 25th June 2015 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills and President of the Board of Trade (Sajid Javid)]

Over the last two years, the UK Green Investment Bank has seen success in unlocking private sector investment in key low-carbon and green sectors. The GIB has helped develop markets and shown that investment in green projects is good business. I want to see this success continue and to see the GIB continue to accelerate investment across the UK’s green sectors.

To meet our low-carbon and green objectives, we know that we need to continue to see significant investment. I want to see the GIB continue to play an important role in the transition to a green economy.

Attracting private investment to GIB will, I believe, enable the company to do this. It will allow the bank to grow its business, giving the expert teams we have established within GIB access to a much greater volume of capital than would be the case if GIB were to remain in 100% Government ownership. This will enable the company to have the greatest possible impact in mobilising investment and lead to more green projects getting financed more quickly than would otherwise be the case.

In the debate on the Budget in March, the then Secretary of State for Business updated Parliament about work to explore options for bringing in additional capital into the Green Investment Bank as a way to ensure it is an enduring institution and has the operational freedom for investment across the green economy. We have therefore been exploring options for how best to get that capital and, with my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change and the Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, we have concluded that the best approach is to move GIB into private ownership subject to ensuring we achieve value for money. This should bring a number of important benefits, giving GIB greater freedom to operate across a wider range of green sectors in accordance with its green purposes, which are enshrined in legislation.

It has always been our intention that GIB should leverage the maximum amount of private capital into green sectors for the minimum amount of public money. Moving the company into private ownership is a natural development for GIB that further delivers this aim. Our aim is that a transaction should result in GIB no longer being classified as a public sector body. This would mean GIB would be free to borrow capital so as to achieve its business ambitions without this having an effect on public sector net debt.

The detail and timing of any transaction will be set out in due course.

[HCWS54]

Leveson Inquiry

Thursday 25th June 2015 Written Statements

[The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Matthew Hancock)]

The cost of support provided to Government witnesses to the Leveson inquiry though the Government Legal Department (formerly Treasury Solicitors) is £287,491.10.

[HCWS55]

UK Debt Management Office (Business Plan)

Thursday 25th June 2015 Written Statements

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Harriett Baldwin)]

The United Kingdom Debt Management Office (DMO) has today published its business plan for the year 2015-16. Copies have been deposited in the Libraries of both Houses and are available on the DMO’s website, www.dmo.gov.uk.

It is also available online at: http://www.parliament.uk/writtenstatements.

[HCWS58]

Sasha Wass Inquiry

Thursday 25th June 2015 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (James Duddridge)]

It is normal practice, when a Government Department proposes to undertake a contingent liability in excess of £300,000 for which there is not 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 statement, except in cases of special emergency. I have today laid a departmental minute proposing to provide an indemnity that is necessary in respect of a Foreign Office-established independent inquiry into alleged child abuse and associated cover-up on the British overseas territory of St Helena. The Government take any such allegations extremely seriously, and the inquiry reflects their commitment to a full and independent investigation into any wrongdoing. Last year (2014), the Foreign Secretary announced the establishment of the inquiry (Hansard, column 13-14WS, on 20 November 2014) to be led by Sasha Wass QC. This indemnity will cover the entire duration of the inquiry’s work, from November 2014 until when the inquiry submits its report in the autumn of 2015. The indemnity will cover Sasha Wass QC, the inquiry panel, the inquiry solicitor and one staff member against any liability for any act done or omission made honestly and in good faith in the execution of his or her duty as such, or in the purported execution of his or her duty as such. The indemnity only applies to acts done or omissions made during the course of the inquiry. If the liability is called, provision for any payment will be sought through the normal supply procedure. 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, 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.

[HCWS61]

Arm’s Length Bodies (Triennial Reviews)

Thursday 25th June 2015 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Jane Ellison)]

I am today announcing the start of the triennial reviews of the Committee on Mutagenicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, the Human Tissue Authority, and NHS Blood and Transplant.

The triennial review programme ensures that all Government Departments review their non-departmental public bodies on a regular basis. In order to ensure that the Department of Health is operating as an effective system steward and can be assured of all the bodies it is responsible for, it has extended the programme of reviews over the period 2014-17 to include all of its arm’s length bodies.

The reviews are conducted in two stages. The first stage will examine the continuing need for the function and whether the organisation’s form, including operating at arm’s length from Government, remains appropriate. If the outcome of this stage is that delivery should continue, the second stage of the review will assess whether the bodies are operating efficiently and in line with the recognised principles of good corporate governance.

[HCWS57]

Health Council

Thursday 25th June 2015 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Jane Ellison)]

The Health Council met in Luxembourg on 19 June 2015 as part of the Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs (EPSCO) Council meetings. I represented the UK.

Medical devices

Member states agreed to a partial general approach on regulations concerning medical devices and in vitro medical devices. The compromise brokered by the Latvian presidency represents significant progress on this issue—after almost three years of negotiations—and paves the way for trilogue negotiations with the European Parliament and Commission once remaining work on the recitals (and certain technical aspects of the texts) is completed. Overall it was a very positive outcome for the UK, enhancing patient safety but ensuring pre-market scrutiny remains light-touch and clinically led, and that NHS in-house tests are exempted from most of the requirements of the regulations.

Alcohol strategy

Slovenia requested that the Commission produces a new alcohol strategy, given the growing problems caused by alcohol abuse and the need for EU-level action to support member states’ own efforts to tackle it. The UK joined many other countries which spoke in favour of this proposition, highlighting the sharp rise in alcohol-related deaths and the strain being put on vital public services. In response, the Commission—Health Commissioner Andriukaitis—committed to considering the issue further.

Migration

Greece, Cyprus, Italy and Malta introduced a paper on the health aspects of the migration crisis in the Mediterranean, highlighting the strain being put on their health systems. The Commission noted that 60 million euros had recently been allocated in emergency funding to assist them, but reiterated his call to member states to provide bilateral assistance through the EU’s civil protection mechanism. The UK acknowledged the health dimension of the crisis, and saluted the efforts of hard-pressed health professionals in front-line Mediterranean countries. Further, the UK emphasised the contribution of our armed forces in saving lives at sea, but also noted that the most effective solution remains addressing the root cause of the problem, and highlighted the work of DFID promoting stability and prosperity in source countries.

Diphtheria

Spain introduced an addition to the agenda concerning the recent discovery of its first case of Diphtheria in 28 years. The main issue is one of access to Diphtheria anti-toxin (DAT), which is now patchy across Europe. Speakers called on member states to work together to ensure that all have access to this treatment.

Luxembourg presidency

Luxembourg set out its priorities for its upcoming EU presidency, which begins on 1 July. These include innovation and personalised medicine, dementia, and cross-border healthcare. As mentioned above, Luxembourg will oversee the finalisation of the Council position on medical devices, and further work will also be undertaken on alcohol and lessons learnt from Ebola.

[HCWS56]

Judicial Diversity Taskforce (Annual Report)

Thursday 25th June 2015 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Shailesh Vara)]

The judicial diversity taskforce has today published its fourth annual report, which details the progress the group has made in addressing the 53 recommendations of the advisory panel on judicial diversity. The taskforce comprises of senior members of the judiciary, the Judicial Appointments Commission, the Bar Council, the Law Society, the Chartered Institute of Legal Executives and the Ministry of Justice.

Our judges are rightly held in high regard around the world, and it is important that they reflect today’s diverse society, which is why we are pleased such significant progress was made by members of the taskforce over 2014. In large part this was driven by our collaborative approach to improving diversity and engaging in new ways of working across the legal and judicial professions.

Some of the achievements of the taskforce include:

Successful implementation of the equal merit provision; which allows for a candidate to be recommended for appointment for the purpose of improving diversity within the judiciary in instances when two or more candidates are of equal merit.

Extending the opportunity for salaried office holders to sit part time in the High Court and above.

Identification of ways to improve the selection and recommendation process for judicial appointments through an external review.

Improvements in statistical reporting, and in data collection and management, to better monitor and evaluate progress on judicial diversity.

Arranging a series of workshops and training programmes aimed at encouraging under- represented groups to enter the judiciary.

Increasing the amount of Diversity and Community Relation Judges, who play a key role in outreach events and act as figureheads for diversity and community engagement.

The judicial diversity taskforce held its last meeting in November 2014 and this will be its final annual report.

The oversight function of the taskforce will now be the responsibility of the Judicial Diversity Forum, which brings together most of the parties who were in the taskforce. The forum will continue to review progress against the outstanding and ongoing recommendations listed at the end of the report, and will work to identify new opportunities for action. This will ensure that the goal of improving judicial diversity continues to be embedded in the working practices of the judiciary, legal professions and Government.

Copies of the taskforce’s report have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

The report is also available online at:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/judicial-diversity-taskforce-annual-report-2014

[HCWS60]

Intelligence Services Commissioner and Chief Surveillance Commissioner (Annual Reports)

Thursday 25th June 2015 Written Statements

[The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)]

I have today laid before both Houses copies of the latest annual reports from the Intelligence Services Commissioner and the Chief Surveillance Commissioner.

The Intelligence Services Commissioner, the right hon. Sir Mark Waller, was appointed by me to keep under review the exercise by the Secretaries of State of their powers to issue warrants and authorisations to enable the intelligence services to carry out their vital functions. The Commissioner also uses his position to check the lawful use of the powers and duties imposed on the intelligence services and the Ministry of Defence by the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 and the Intelligence Services Act 1994.

The Chief Surveillance Commissioner, the right hon. Sir Christopher Rose, was appointed by me to keep under review public authority use of covert surveillance, covert human intelligence sources (CHIS) and property interference powers. The Commissioner provides statutory oversight to ensure that public authorities use correctly and lawfully the relevant provisions of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, the Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Scotland) Act 2000 and the Police Act 1997.

Both reports provide a comprehensive summary of the conscientious inspection, authorisation and oversight regimes that have been undertaken.

The Intelligence Services Commissioner makes it clear that those involved in the authorisation of investigatory powers that he oversees take compliance very seriously. It is reassuring that in all cases inspected by the Commissioner there has been proper consideration of the necessity and proportionality of the proposed action, including careful consideration of the intrusion into the target’s and other people’s privacy.

I am also grateful for the Commissioner for identifying a number of administrative errors and making recommendations on how these can be avoided in future. While it is reassuring that these errors were not deliberative or significant, we cannot be complacent. Sir Mark also makes some helpful recommendations in relation to amending the legislation which we will consider as part of the future legislation relating to investigatory powers.

Sir Mark’s annual report considers the intelligence’s use of bulk personal data for the first time as a result of my direction on 12 March 2015. I welcome his finding that the safeguards over the use of, and access to, bulk personal data are satisfactory and that the data is properly used for the statutory purposes for which it was collected.

The Office of Surveillance Commissioners, under Sir Christopher, continues to carry out a thorough and detailed inspection of all public authorities’ use of the surveillance powers, looking at both operational usage and management structures. The commission also scrutinises a high proportion of surveillance deployments including those which the legislation requires to be individually notified to the commission and those which require the prior approval of the Commissioners. The report reflects that there continue to be a small number of errors in public authorities’ practices in this area, though these are not indicative of any systematic abuse or failing. It shows that public authorities are taking their responsibilities seriously and applying good standards of management and control over their covert surveillance activities. The report highlights, in particular, real improvements in the management of undercover police officers.

I want to thank both Commissioners for the diligence and rigour with which they undertake their oversight roles and commend these reports to the House.

[HCWS62]

Personal Independence Payments

Thursday 25th June 2015 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Justin Tomlinson)]

Personal Independence Payment (PIP) is a major reform which is transforming the way we support disabled people to live independently.

PIP replaces the outdated Disability Living Allowance (DLA). PIP focuses support on those who need it most and, unlike DLA, a significant majority of claimants will have a face-to-face assessment as part of the application process. It is a more dynamic benefit with regular reviews to check entitlement remains correct—payments can increase as well as decrease—whereas 70% of those receiving DLA were on indefinite awards. And PIP is a more modern benefit which takes better account of mental health conditions.

I now intend to roll out the final phase of this vital reform, that of the reassessment of all remaining people on DLA for PIP. We have already rolled out PIP across GB for new claimants and for individuals who choose to claim PIP or whose circumstances change or where their DLA award comes to an end, including for children when they reach 16.

My original intention was to start this final phase in October 2015 GB wide. In May departmental statistics confirmed that average reassessment claims for PIP were waiting only four weeks from returning their PIP forms until an assessment, which is in line with our expectations. This improved performance means I am pleased to announce that we are now in a position to begin the final phase in July, initially at small volumes and in a limited number of areas. We recognise that this will result in some claimants being invited to reassessment earlier than they might have expected. But by operating at a smaller scale initially, this will enable us to monitor the system closely in small volumes to ensure an efficient reassessment process is in place.

It will also provide us with an opportunity to test key parts of the PIP process, such as the way in which we communicate with claimants. This is in line with the previous Government’s response to recommendations in the independent review of PIP carried out by Paul Gray in December 2014. My priority remains safe and secure delivery of PIP and we will use evidence from this early roll-out to ensure we are continuously improving the way in which we deliver PIP, offering the best claimant experience possible.

[HCWS59]

House of Lords

Thursday 25th June 2015 Lords Chamber

Thursday, 25 June 2015.

11:00

Prayers—read by the Lord Bishop of Bristol.

NHS: GP Clinics

Thursday 25th June 2015 Lords Chamber

Question

11:07

Asked by

[Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they will provide an annual report to Parliament regarding the operation of seven-day opening of general practitioner clinics.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Prior of Brampton) (Con)]

My Lords, we are committed to seven-day GP access. We have already invested £175 million in 57 schemes covering 2,500 practices, offering improved access including evening and weekend appointments. The 2016-17 mandate to NHS England, to be published later this year, is expected to reflect Government commitments, including on access. The Government hold NHS England to account for progress against these objectives and publish an annual assessment of NHS England, including progress in delivering the mandate.

[Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for the information he has just given. Will he recall that earlier in the week, in reply to a Question about the number of GPs in practices, he said that the general practice model “is largely broken”? His second statement was that it “is probably broken”. In the light of that expression of his concerns about what was happening in GP practices, I presume that he was associating himself with those millions of NHS patients who increasingly find it difficult to see a GP within the time they want, or to see a GP of their choice. If so, can he say whether moving from what is broadly a five and a half-day weekly GP practice to seven days for all will improve matters for those patients or make matters worse, especially as it is being done on a broken model, to use his own words? In those circumstances—

[Noble Lords]

Too long!

[Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe]

In those circumstances will he say what the new model will be, spell it out to the public and say how many GP practices will have to close?

[Lord Prior of Brampton]

The noble Lord makes a number of interesting points. One of the leaders of the BMA talked yesterday about the need for a renaissance in general practice, which was about the only thing in that speech that I agreed with. We need a renaissance and a complete transformation in general practice because the structure of primary care is largely unchanged since being set up in 1947, and the population’s requirements have changed fundamentally. So over the next five years, I expect primary care to go through a renaissance and be transformed from the bottom up.

[Baroness Meacher (CB)]

My Lords, the Minister referred to a renaissance of general practice. Given that about 30% of GPs are expected to retire in the next five years and even the most popular training schemes cannot find anyone to come and train—I should not say “anyone”; however, Winchester has six people but places for 16—what sort of renaissance will it be? We actually need GPs, so perhaps the Minister can explain.

[Lord Prior of Brampton]

The noble Baroness is quite right. We do need GPs, and they will be at the heart of the renaissance in general practice. The Government are committed to recruiting an extra 5,000 GPs into general practice over the next five years—that figure is net of people retiring. We accept entirely the noble Baroness’s proposition that we must persuade more newly qualified junior doctors to opt for general practice rather than for working in hospitals.

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, what discussions have the Government had with the Royal College of Emergency Medicine about the idea of collocating GP clinics in A&E departments? Surely such a strategy has the potential for killing two birds with one stone.

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Lord Prior of Brampton]

I agree with the sentiments of the noble Baroness. There are indeed many GP practices that are collocating outside or very close to A&E departments. For example, I saw one at the Royal Free only last week. It is one of a number of new models of care that we should be exploring.

[Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)]

My Lords, may I press the Minister a little more on recruitment? In an answer to me earlier in the week, he made the same reply—that the Government were committed to recruiting more GPs—but he has not yet told us what incentives would make a newly qualified doctor wish to go into general practice, and whether those incentives are financial or otherwise. In particular, the idea that part of your commitment would be to a seven-day week is possibly not quite as alluring as he would like it to appear.

[Lord Prior of Brampton]

The right answer to the noble Baroness is twofold. First, we have to paint a picture that inspires young doctors to go into general practice. There is no doubt in my mind that the solution to the health needs of today’s population depends on a different model of general practice. We can paint that picture, and I hope that leaders of the BMA might wish to help paint it as well. Secondly, on the seven-day week issue, we are living in 2015 and people expect to be able to see GPs at the weekend. People get ill at weekends, and if we want good quality of care, we have to provide that care seven days a week. If we wish people to be treated outside hospitals, we have to provide good access seven days a week in primary care.

[Lord Colwyn (Con)]

Will my noble friend make it easier for GPs who have retired to come back to work in part-time practice? I am told this is extremely difficult at the moment.

[Lord Prior of Brampton]

My noble friend makes a very good point. Health Education England and NHS England have a return-to-practice scheme precisely to do as he suggests, making it easier for those who have temporarily left practice by going overseas, or taken time out, to come back to practice.

[Baroness Wheeler (Lab)]

How does the Minister see the plans for seven-day working going forward in the light of recent data showing that there is growing pressure on surgeries and that practice closures have resulted in one in four GPs now working as locums, who are increasingly forming an integral part of practice teams? Does the Minister see the new models of care and the transformation he refers to embracing these new forms of working, together with partnered and salaried GPs? We often hear the view that local and part-time working, particularly for women GPs, is one of the major causes of GP shortages.

[Lord Prior of Brampton]

The noble Baroness makes a good point. The old model, based largely around partners, often in small practices, is the one that I think will evolve over the next five years. We will certainly see many more salaried GPs coming into the workforce. The fact that there are now many more women doctors, who will wish to take time out to look after their children or for maternity leave and the like, means that the structure of general practice will change fundamentally. It may also mean more locums. I do not have a view on that particular aspect of the noble Baroness’s question.

[Baroness Howarth of Breckland (CB)]

My Lords, if the Minister believes that we have had the same model since 1948, what was the House doing taking through during the last Session the health legislation that changed the structure so that the business model was around GP practices? Many GPs find that extremely onerous. They want to be doctors, not business managers. There has been significant change and not necessarily for the better. Would the Minister not agree?

[Lord Prior of Brampton]

The noble Baroness—

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab)]

Has a very good point.

[Lord Prior of Brampton]

The main thrust of the legislation was to put GPs more in control of the delivery and structuring of local healthcare.

Employment: Tribunals

Thursday 25th June 2015 Lords Chamber

Question

11:15

Asked by

[Baroness Turner of Camden]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the ability of individuals who have been dismissed to invoke their employment rights when they cannot afford tribunal costs.

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)]

On 11 June, we announced the start of the post-implementation review of the introduction of fees in the employment tribunal. The review will consider how successful the policy has been in achieving its original objectives, which included maintaining access to justice for those seeking to bring disputes to the tribunal. Our intention is to complete the review later this year.

[Baroness Turner of Camden (Lab)]

My Lords, is the noble Baroness not aware that for many people, losing their job is an absolute disaster? There is also a feeling of grievance. Those feelings can be assuaged if people have access to a tribunal. In fact, to get to a tribunal they must make a quite large payment of £1,000. Why should they have to do that? Where is the justice in it? It is about time we had a revision of these procedures. They are most unfair to many people.

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

I know that the noble Baroness has raised this issue on many occasions. I hope I can reassure her that the very purpose of this review is to ensure that the original objective of maintaining access to justice for everyone has been achieved. Of course she is right that there has been an implementation of fees, but we also introduced other reforms that have had an impact. For instance, early mandatory conciliation helps to divert people from going through acrimonious hearings. That must surely be a better approach. In its first nine months, more than 60,000 people accessed this scheme. We are very clear that of course people must maintain and have access to justice, but there are other, better ways for employees with legitimate claims to try and resolve their disputes outside a tribunal if they can.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, will the Government also establish a review into the substantial increases in court fees that are damaging access to justice for small businesses that seek to recover debts and for victims of personal injuries who are seeking compensation?

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

My Lords, I have a slight sense of how Daniel might have felt when he first faced Goliath when I have to answer a question from the learned noble Lord. I assure noble Lords that any specific proposals that the Government have for changes to court or tribunal fees will be consulted on and brought before Parliament for the appropriate level of scrutiny.

[Lord Lester of Herne Hill (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister referred the House to the review that will be carried out. Will she accept from me that the terms of reference of that review are grotesque, give the appearance of pre-judgment and ask questions that no human being could possibly answer? For example, one question that should win a prize is whether there has been a reduction in weak or unmeritorious claims—not whether there has been a reduction in meritorious claims but only in weak ones. How anyone could possibly answer that I do not know. Will the Minister please ask the Ministers dealing with this to review the terms of reference and consider whether an independent body ought not to carry out the review rather than the Government as a judge in their own cause?

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

My Lords, this will be a very fair review, which will look at all factors. It is absolutely critical to ensure that we understand what is happening. As I previously said, of course fees have had an impact, but they were not introduced on their own. The Government also brought forward early mandatory conciliation which, as I said, is having a good impact. But the system was not perfect before the introduction of fees. Individuals and employees with legitimate claims who were forced to go through acrimonious tribunals now have the option of mandatory conciliation. Businesses often had to face speculative claims, which obviously was very distressing and difficult for them to deal with, and the taxpayer was footing a £71 million bill. This review will look at all the factors involved and, if the Government believe that further action needs to be taken, of course it will be brought to the House and a consultation will happen in the normal way.

[Lord Davies of Stamford (Lab)]

My Lords, let me ask a question which I have asked the Government before, both in writing and orally, and never had other than a completely evasive response. As the Minister and the whole House know, there are very widespread allegations of job discrimination among job applicants. When jobcentres encounter prima facie evidence of job discrimination against their applicants, what is their policy? Do they keep a record of those occasions? If so, what are the numbers for the latest period available? Do they take legal action or support the applicant in taking legal action under the law? They can hardly expect the applicant himself or herself to have the resources to pursue legal action. If they do, on how many occasions has such legal action been taken or supported?

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

I am afraid that I will have to take that question back and return to the noble Lord at a later stage.

[Lord Harrison (Lab)]

Will the Minister address the problem raised by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, about small businesses being prevented by rising court fees from having justice within the system? That was something echoed last week when we talked about late payment of commercial debt.

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

My Lords, we are doing everything we can to ensure that everybody has fair access to the justice system. Part of the reason we reformed the employment tribunals was very much so that small businesses could therefore start to be able to deal with these and go through conciliation.

[Lord Goldsmith (Lab)]

My Lords, I understand why the Minister feels that she is entering the lions’ den, but is not that because the policy of this Government, as before, has been to reduce the opportunities for the vulnerable to seek legal advice and assistance—for example, through the destruction of the legal aid system? Would she consider the implications of that, please?

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

I am not sure whether the noble and learned Lord had the opportunity to hear the speech earlier this week from my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor. The speech was extremely clear about making sure that we are absolutely committed to ensuring that everyone has access to justice and that we are very focused on the needs of those most in need.

House of Lords: Appointments

Thursday 25th June 2015 Lords Chamber

Question

11:23

Asked by

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what proposals they have for constitutional reform and the appointment system to the House of Lords.

[Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)]

My Lords, in asking the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, I make it clear that my Question is not born of political opportunism or malice, but of a matter of principle.

[The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Stowell of Beeston) (Con)]

Okay, then! Appointments to this House remain a matter for the Prime Minister. On constitutional reform, we have set out in the Queen’s Speech and our manifesto a range of measures, including those on delivering our commitments to the nations and regions of the United Kingdom and for a referendum on our membership of the EU. Noble Lords will be able to discuss those issues in full in the debate later today.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

My Lords, just for the record, both Labour and the Conservatives increased their share of the poll at the last general election. How can we justify adding to the existing 101 Liberal Democrat Peers, who already form 21% of the whipped party-affiliated membership of this House, when their party secured only 7.9% of the poll, winning only eight seats on a collapsed national vote at the general election? Surely, if we are listening to the people, even UKIP and the Greens have a greater claim on new peerages—otherwise, we bring this House into disrepute and, indeed, ridicule.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

My Lords, I certainly understand the point that the noble Lord makes in his Question, and his view is shared by many noble Lords around the House. I shall make two points in response. If and when a Dissolution Honours List marking the end of the previous Parliament is published, it would be surprising if it did not reflect the fact that there were two parties in government. More importantly, the message I want to direct to all noble Lords is that, regardless of party balance, this House has a very important role in the legislative process, and in doing our work, this House is not, and should not become, an alternative platform for party politics.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

My Lords, can my noble friend confirm that, had the coalition agreement proposal on appointments to this House—which was that it should be proportionate to the result of the previous election—been carried out, the number of Liberal Democrat Peers in this House should be 42? Has she had applications for retirement from 60 Liberal Peers?

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

My noble friend refers to what was in the coalition agreement. I stress that it was in the coalition agreement; it was not in the Conservative Party manifesto in 2010 or 2015. One of the things we were able to introduce in the previous Parliament is the facility for permanent retirement from this House, which is now a route we can all consider for departure at the right time.

[Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)]

My Lords, the Childcare Bill was introduced in this House last week. It applies only to children in England. It will have the benefit of full scrutiny by this House and the other place and its committees. At the same time, primary legislation passed by the Parliaments of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland has no such second examination, consideration or scrutiny. Is it not time for us to have a federal United Kingdom second Chamber, wholly elected, and dispose of this place altogether?

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

No, I do not agree with the noble Lord. The proposals that my party made in our manifesto at the election for constitutional change and greater powers for all parts of the United Kingdom are the mandate on which we are governing and are what we are getting on with delivering.

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

My Lords, the question is whether the Prime Minister stands by the document he signed, which said that appointments to this House should be,

“reflective of the share of the vote secured by the political parties in the last general election”.

If the Leader of the House is saying that that system no longer applies, will she explain what principle the Prime Minister now intends to abide by in making recommendations for appointments to this House?

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

This Prime Minister will follow the same principles he followed in the previous Parliament and the principles that his predecessors followed in making appointments to this House. There is always an acknowledgement of the results of general elections but, historically, this House has never reflected party balance. This House has an important role and all Peers are doing the country good service if we focus on that role.

[Baroness Hayman (CB)]

My Lords, the Leader of the House said in her original Answer that appointments to this House are a matter for the Prime Minister. The Conservative Party manifesto said that they would,

“ensure the House of Lords continues to work well by addressing issues such as the size of the chamber and the retirement of peers”.

When will we hear details of how those manifesto commitments will be implemented?

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

On the size of the House, it is worth our being aware of two points. First, since permanent retirement was made available to Peers last August, 27 noble Lords have retired. That is a far greater number than people expected when we brought in that provision. To me, that shows a good direction of travel; I am sure that a trend is now being set and more will follow. Secondly, the statistics for attendance in the previous Session show that the numbers are starting to go down.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, in opposition David Cameron pledged to cut the cost of politics, including by cutting the number of Members of Parliament in the other place. The noble Baroness talks about the numbers in this House, but is she aware that each year in government the Prime Minister has appointed more Members of your Lordships’ House than any Prime Minister in my lifetime, with more from the government parties than any Prime Minister in my lifetime? How does that contribute to cutting the cost of politics? How many more new Conservative government Peers does she expect on her Benches?

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

I remind the noble Baroness that the peerages created in the previous Parliament by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister included 47 Labour Peers. I remind her and all noble Lords that the cost of this House in the previous Parliament went down by about 13%. As individual Peers, we must not forget that we cost four times less per head than Members of the other place.

Communities: Young Muslims

Thursday 25th June 2015 Lords Chamber

Question

11:31

Asked by

[Baroness Afshar]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what measures they have put in place to counter the impact of Islamophobia and stigmatisation on young Muslims.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)]

My Lords, this Government are committed to preventing anti-Muslim hatred and the stigmatisation of young Muslims. We are continuing the extensive community engagement of my predecessors to help to understand the concerns faced by Muslim communities, including working with the cross-government Anti-Muslim Hatred Working Group and Tell MAMA in order to record and monitor anti-Muslim hate crime.

[Baroness Afshar (CB)]

I think the Minister for her reply. Have the Government considered celebrating differences by marking occasions such as Eid al-Fitr and applauding actions such as those by Muslims in this month of Ramadan in forgoing eating all day in order to share an evening meal with those who cannot afford it? Could we have more celebration and less condemnation?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, this Government and the Prime Minister himself have done extensive engagement in celebrating some of the occasions in communities of different faiths, in marking those occasions that are so important to them. In the Prime Minister’s message for Ramadan, he talked—as indeed did my honourable friend Greg Clark in the other place—about the peaceful nature of Islam and the phenomenal contribution of Muslims to this country. I have been one of the lucky recipients of several invitations to Big Iftars, and that coming together of different faiths has been a great success.

[Baroness Warsi (Con)]

My Lords, I pay tribute to the extensive relationship and engagement that my noble friend has with British Muslim communities, but is she aware of the Government’s report on the review of Prevent and other reports that identify Islamophobia as a driver of radicalisation? In light of the Government’s determined effort to defeat extremism, when can we expect to hear from them about the rising phenomenon of Islamophobia in a keynote speech? What is the Government’s policy response to tackle it?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I return the compliment to my noble friend, who over the years has, not just in her words but in her actions, worked hard to tackle Islamophobia in this country. She has been a great support to me in some of the multifaith work that we have done. My noble friend makes a good point about the problems of the disaffection and isolation of young men. Those problems do not apply just to the Muslim community but can apply to young men and women in all areas of this country. The Government have put £8 million into supporting adults in learning English, which is a very good measure in terms of tackling the isolation and disaffection that young people may have. One of the projects that I visited in Rochdale was a Near Neighbours project, which has done phenomenal work in bringing together not just different faiths but different age groups and different aspects of the community. It has created some very peaceful outcomes in terms of that community’s well-being.

[Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)]

My Lords, amid reports that the Government have started to disengage with Muslim grass-roots communities, does the Minister think that it is helpful for the Prime Minister to say that some Muslims “quietly condone” radicalisation—apparently we are sitting at home, quietly condoning it? Or does the Minister agree with the Home Secretary’s most senior counterterrorism adviser, Charles Farr, who was quoted in the Telegraph the other day saying that there is a danger of oversimplification, given that there are 2.7 million Muslims in the UK, and just a few hundred have joined Daesh—so-called ISIS? Who does the noble Baroness think is right?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I agree with both of them. The Prime Minister is not saying that Muslims are a problem but that Islamic ideology is a problem that needs to be tackled, and Charles Farr was making a similar point.

[Lord Singh of Wimbledon (CB)]

My Lords, is the Minister aware that ever since 9/11 there has been a huge increase in the number of attacks on Sikhs and Sikh places of worship in cases of mistaken identity? The most recent case was a machete attack on a young Sikh dentist in south Wales, which was described on “Newsnight” as Islamophobia. Does the Minister agree that hate crime is hate crime against any community, and that it should be tackled even-handedly, irrespective of the size of the community?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The noble Lord is absolutely right—hate crime is hate crime.

[Lord Beecham (Lab)]

My Lords, will the Government consider convening a meeting of the different faith communities to encourage collaboration around combating Islamophobia? Perhaps that could draw on the experience of the Community Security Trust, which works with both Jewish and Muslim communities to protect places of worship—a very good example of interfaith collaboration.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I have a long history of work with interfaith communities, which is well established back in my home area of Trafford. I am pleased to be able to tell the noble Lord that I am already engaging in that work.

European Union (Approvals) Bill [HL]

Thursday 25th June 2015 Lords Chamber

First Reading

11:38

A Bill to make provision approving for the purposes of Section 8 of the European Union Act 2011 certain draft decisions under Article 352 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

The Bill was introduced by Lord Gardiner of Kimble (on behalf of Lord Freud), read a first time and ordered to be printed.

Business of the House

Thursday 25th June 2015 Lords Chamber

Timing of Debates

11:38

Moved by

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

That the debates on the motions in the names of Lord Wills and Lord Whitty set down for today shall each be limited to 2½ hours.

Motion agreed.

Child Poverty

Thursday 25th June 2015 Lords Chamber

Statement

11:38

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)]

My Lords, I shall now repeat in the form of a Statement the Answer given by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to an Urgent Question in another place. The Statement is as follows.

“The latest low-income statistics based on the Households Below Average Income report are published today, covering April 2013 to March 2014. They show that the percentage of individuals and children in relative low income is at its lowest level since the 1980s. The latest figures show that the proportion of people in both relative and absolute low income remained flat on the year for children, working-age adults and disabled people. For pensioners, the proportion both in relative and absolute low income increased, but it was not statistically significant.

The figures I have quoted are measured against RPI. In the publication, we have also shown the effects when measured against CPI—a much more widely accepted measure of inflation—and those figures are more positive.

I believe that today’s figures demonstrate that if you deal with the root causes of poverty, as this Government have done, then even under a measure of poverty that I have consistently described as flawed you can have an impact.

I remind the House of some of the important things we have done to help families on low incomes through tackling root causes, whether it is in education, where we have introduced the pupil premium and tackled failing schools with the free schools programme, our commitment to supporting families through the ground-breaking troubled families programme, our investment in early years support and childcare, or our unprecedented back to work programmes, which have helped support hundreds of thousands of people into work. Our fundamental belief is that the most powerful way to change lives is by creating a welfare system that makes work pay, writes no one off and supports people into work. This is what we have been doing, and what the left has failed to understand—that if you deal with the root causes of poverty, the symptoms will sort themselves. Today’s figures show how important it is both to balance the books and to continue reforming welfare”.

11:41

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for repeating the Answer, but I am not really sure that it addresses the Question. Perhaps I may take her back. When the Labour Government brought in the Child Poverty Act, the commitment then was to seriously tackle the problem and it was enshrined in legislation. At that point, it was supported by the Conservative Party. Today, we hear that the Government are seeking to redefine child poverty now that it is on the rise for the first time in 10 years, with children turning up hungry at the school gate.

Will this decision be subject to the Prime Minister’s promised family test? What is more important: either tackling the problem by genuinely understanding how many children are living in poverty so that action can be taken to protect and support them and their families, or just masking the problem by massaging the statistics?

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

I reassure the noble Baroness that tackling child poverty is, and always will be, a priority for this Government. We have focused on tackling the root causes of poverty. That is how you really make an impact on people’s lives.

[Lord Storey (LD)]

My Lords, there is a legitimate argument to be had about whether relative poverty is the most effective measure of poverty, but there can be no doubt that the significance of the Child Poverty Act is that it legally binds the Government to reduce poverty. Will the Minister therefore assure the House that, whatever happens, there will remain a legally binding target on Ministers to reduce the number of children in poverty and that there is not simply an attempt to pave the way for cuts in tax credits and other benefits that will hurt children and their life chances?

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

I confirm that we fully intend to implement the Conservative manifesto pledge, which states:

“We will work to eliminate child poverty and introduce better measures to drive real change in children’s lives, by recognising the root causes of poverty: entrenched worklessness, family breakdown, problem debt, and drug and alcohol dependency”.

This is something that we will certainly be tackling.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

My Lords, the Minister will of course be aware that many children are still being born into poverty and that their lives will be blighted through disadvantage. Would she be prepared to discuss with some of us some of the problems that are currently arising?

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

The noble and learned Baroness is absolutely right. This is extremely important and I would be very happy to meet her and others to discuss it. However, we must remember that work is the single most important route out of poverty. That is why we are extremely proud that, since 2010, 2 million more people are in work. We are also helping people to get back to work through the Work Programme. We are focused on tackling the root causes of poverty.

[Baroness Corston (Lab)]

My Lords, as the widow of Professor Peter Townsend, who did more than anyone in the world to establish the concept of relative deprivation as an international policy standard that is accepted even by UNICEF, I remind the Minister that it was a participation standard; it was about whether families could take part in what we think of as normal life—for example, whether parents could afford to give their children a birthday party and whether they could accept a birthday party invitation because they had the money for a gift. It was intended to tackle exclusion. When I think of the people whom I used to represent in the House of Commons and the way they struggled with their lives, to suggest that money does not play a very big part is an absolute disgrace.

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

The noble Baroness speaks extremely passionately. I reassure her that this Government are absolutely committed to tackling child poverty. There are many facets to it, which is why we are looking at the root causes in trying to make sure that all children have the best start in life.

[The Earl of Listowel (CB)]

My Lords, while I recognise the value of the Government’s very welcome policies on employment, childcare and the pupil premium, and following on from the question asked by my noble and learned friend, will the Minister consider arranging a meeting with the Secretary of State for Education or the Education Minister of State, Edward Timpson, so that we can talk about these important issues? We are all very concerned about families in this time of austerity and that policy is focused on their needs. As the Minister is keen to address the roots of poverty, will she discuss with the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford, government policy on social housing, particularly social housing for families in housing need and homeless families, so that their needs are not overlooked, and then write to us?

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

I am very happy to pass on the noble Earl’s request to the relevant Secretaries of State.

[Lord Liddle (Lab)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that whatever the intellectual merits of different definitions of poverty, if the Government proceed with what is widely rumoured in the press to be £5 billion of cuts in working families’ tax credits, the impact of that will inevitably be to increase very considerably the amount of child poverty in this country?

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

The noble Lord will understand that I cannot comment on speculation in the press, but once again I assure him that tackling child poverty is a priority for this Government and that we are determined to help to improve and transform the lives of the poorest and most disadvantaged in our society.

[Earl Attlee (Con)]

Can my noble friend the Minister remind the House how much we are spending on welfare?

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

A lot. Large amounts. I am afraid that I do not have the figure directly to hand, but I can assure the noble Earl that we are focused on ensuring that people can get out of poverty. The best way to do that is to get people into work, which is why our focus has been on improving the economic situation as well as on helping to tackle the root causes of poverty.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham (Lab)]

My Lords, forgive me, but that is simply not the case. It is already true that more than half the children who are in poverty have a parent already in work. Work for them is not the route out of poverty. The obvious response is to seek to increase the minimum wage to a living wage level, but even so, families will still need tax credits to make work pay. Can the Minister not accept that the proposed working tax credit cuts will not only increase the number of children in poverty—the IFS estimates by 300,000—but will absolutely destroy the Government’s mantra that work is the best route out of poverty?

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

I can say to the noble Baroness that we have halved the tax bill for somebody working full time on the minimum wage and have delivered the first above-inflation rise in the minimum wage since the recession. That is something that we are very proud of.

[Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope (LD)]

Can I take the Minister back to the answer that she gave to my noble friend Lord Storey when she quoted parts of the Conservative manifesto? I make it clear to her that as far as I am concerned that is not a statutory legal target that commits the Government to an outcome at some time in the future. Will she confirm that whatever else changes, there will still be a statutory legal target that Governments will have to observe in future?

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

I can confirm to the noble Lord that we will be implementing our manifesto commitments.

[The Lord Bishop of Durham]

Will the Minister recognise that across the country, churches and other organisations reckon that they will be providing more help for holiday hunger this summer than ever before because of children going hungry during school holidays? Will she also recognise that there is a serious problem regionally and that we need to tackle this in the north more significantly than in the south?

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

I thank the right reverend Prelate for his question. He can be assured that we take extremely seriously the issues that he raised. I also pay tribute to the great work that the churches do in providing support to the people who need it most.

[Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury (Con)]

Bearing in mind the importance of the policy on welfare, is the Minister able to tell the House what the policies on welfare are of the party opposite?

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

We are making sure that the welfare system rewards a willingness to work, and of course one of the key reforms of the Government is the implementation of universal credit, which will make sure that people are always better off by taking on more work. We also have our Work Programme, the largest programme to get people into work since the 1930s.

[Lord Elystan-Morgan (CB)]

The Minister referred to her party’s manifesto. Will there be a definite statutory commitment to the eradication of child poverty or not, either under the current formula or under a reformed and better formula?

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

I am very happy to refer again to our commitment in the manifesto, which says that we will work,

“to eliminate child poverty and introduce better measures to drive real changes in children’s lives”.

Constitution: Gracious Speech

Thursday 25th June 2015 Lords Chamber

Motion to Take Note

11:51

Moved by

[Lord Wills]

That this House takes note of the implications of the constitutional changes proposed in the Gracious Speech.

[Lord Wills (Lab)]

My Lords, in 2007, when the last Labour Government launched their programme of constitutional reform, the political editor of the BBC pronounced that this was all very well but nobody would be talking about it down at the Dog and Duck. Last year, in the aftermath of the Scottish referendum, the same Nick Robinson said that such constitutional issues were,

“what politics is really about—who should have power over what?”.

He was right on both occasions.

Constitutional issues are often esoteric, but they are also always important. They reflect and determine how power is distributed in our country and, in turn, that determines how every other question in our public life will be answered. These issues are particularly important now. The politics of our democracy are febrile. Too many voters feel adrift and alienated, disillusioned and distrustful of politicians and suspicious of the established and powerful. In response, successive Governments have sought to make changes in the wiring of our democracy. There have been attempts to rebalance power away from Westminster and Whitehall, to reform Parliament and to restrict the power of the Executive. Now, this Government have announced themselves with a raft of new constitutional proposals in their manifesto and in the gracious Speech.

The Government are right to recognise the need for reform. Our constitutional arrangements urgently need to adapt to changing political realities. The union is fraying. Our relationship with the European Union is now in play. Everyone agrees that your Lordships’ House needs to change but very few agree how. At the last election, UKIP received nearly 4 million votes and has one Member of Parliament, and the SNP has 56 out of 59 MPs in Scotland and not a single Member in your Lordships’ House. George Osborne is the only member of the Cabinet with a constituency in the north of England. The main parties are increasingly sequestered in their redoubts. This is a fragmenting polity. Only 16% of the British people trust politicians to tell the truth but 31% trust bankers. Constitutional reform is needed.

Some of the Government’s proposals are welcome. Their measures that significantly devolve power to cities, Scotland, Wales and Ireland have received widespread support and will help to recreate a sense of belonging that is so important in countering this toxic sense of alienation. These reforms build on previous developments. The other proposals also address long-standing concerns.

However, the more closely those other proposals are scrutinised, the harder it is to avoid the conclusion that they are partisan and short-sighted, and driven not by the needs of the nation but by the short-term, sectarian interests of the Conservative Party. They do not adopt a one-nation approach, as promised in the gracious Speech; they are a departure from the welcome custom that successful and enduring constitutional reform needs to be framed by proportion and consensus. I want to discuss this in relation to four key proposals which, taken together, reveal an unmistakable pattern of behaviour. I am pleased to see that so many distinguished Members of your Lordships’ House from all sides are going to speak after me to provide their wisdom and insight into these issues and others, I hope.

Perhaps the most glaring example of this Government’s narrow and partisan approach is in their approach towards the union. For more than 300 years, the United Kingdom has in my view been a uniquely successful enterprise in multicultural and multinational living, but it now faces what one can only say is an existential threat. For those of us who care about the future of this remarkable institution, this is a time for statesmanship and vision, a time to bring the people of these islands together again. But what we are getting from the Government instead is a short-sighted, self-interested approach to one of the most difficult and intractable constitutional questions. The Daily Mail reported that on the night of the Scottish referendum result, over a curry dinner, the Prime Minister decided that he was,

“going to explode a bomb in Labour territory”.

That bomb was giving English MPs a veto over matters affecting only England, which it is widely agreed will tend to give that veto to the Conservative Party. It constitutes and continues the process of setting nation against nation which is so destructive of the union. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is reported to have been an enthusiast for this bomb—relishing, it is reported, the “raw politics” of it.

The Prime Minister and the Chancellor did not try to build on the Scottish referendum result to cement the union. Instead, the very next morning they went out to explode a bomb in Labour territory. Once the veto is scrutinised in detail, its flaws reveal themselves. Quite apart from the technical problems of definition, critically, it ignores the principle of the need for differential protections for the minority nations of the United Kingdom. The Economist chided its favoured party of government by saying:

“Britain’s union is a delicate balancing act. It is the only stable rich country of its kind: one in which the population of one constituent part is much greater than all the others put together”.

That Conservative bomb on Labour territory was followed by another one during the recent election campaign with that party’s scare stories about Labour and the SNP—again setting the nations of this United Kingdom one against the other. On this I can do no better than to quote one of your Lordships who sits on the Conservative Benches opposite and who has unsurpassed experience in these issues. The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, was quoted in the Guardian in April as saying of his party’s approach that:

“It doesn’t seem to me to be a very good policy to try and deal with the rise of Scottish nationalism by stirring up English nationalism. I think you have to, we need to find ways of binding the United Kingdom together, of binding that partnership together”.

That is exactly so. The survival of the United Kingdom is not a tactical munition to be chucked around in some politician’s jape after a curry dinner.

That brings me to this Government’s onslaught on the Human Rights Act, which among other things was designed to help foster a sense of belonging by providing the individual citizen with protection against the overweening power of the state. One rule of law must command broad support in society for it to be sustained. It should not come at the price of requiring majority support for every leaky judgment. That would leave minorities and individuals defenceless. We forget at our peril where the orthodoxies of majorities can lead. Modern human rights were born from the terrible experiences of the 20th century, where the protections that we take for granted—democracy and the rule of law—proved frail and millions and millions paid a terrible price.

The Government’s commitment to scrap the Human Rights Act is intended to suggest that human rights judgments in the courts that have provoked disquiet in sections of the media and the population will no longer occur. That is simply not true, not least because many such cases have resulted from judgments not in British courts but in the European Court of Human Rights. If the Government then seek to satisfy those populist demands by also withdrawing from the European Convention on Human Rights, as some senior Ministers are reported to be advocating, they will be turning their backs on those fundamental protections for the individual.

Noble Lords should not take my word for that. In 2009 Jesse Norman, now a respected Conservative Member of Parliament and chair of the Commons Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee, and Peter Oborne, a prominent right-wing commentator, wrote this:

“As a General Election approaches, it is important for the Conservative Party to drive home the message that it stands for freedom, decency and British liberty. It should drop its opposition to the Human Rights Act”.

The fact that it has not, again, speaks for the short-term and partisan nature of this Government’s approach.

Anyone who still has doubts about that should chart, as I have done, the occasions of the Prime Minister’s public pronouncements on the Human Rights Act. Their timing is characterised by coming after the Prime Minister has had some difficulty or other with the more extreme dwellers on his party’s right wing. The Human Rights Act is the meat that he throws from the sledge to keep those wolves at bay. The protection of the individual against the state really should be more precious than that.

Finally, I want to address two issues that are perhaps so technical that the Government might have hoped that they would sneak through without anyone in the media or the public taking much notice. Both of them will nevertheless fundamentally alter the way in which elections are fought in this country and how Governments are elected. In the light of this Government’s track record it is not surprising, perhaps, that they will alter them in favour of the Conservative Party.

The first concerns political party funding and the Government’s proposals that trade unions should opt in to this. There are two fundamental principles that should govern any attempt to solve the intractable problems with political party funding. First, it should remove the public perception that political influence can be bought; and secondly, it must do so in a way that is roughly equivalent in its impact on all the main political parties. In other words, it should be seen to be fair. This proposal satisfies neither principle. It will do little to address the popular perception that political influence can be bought and, while there may be good arguments for an opt-in, there are none for doing it in this way in isolation.

Why are the Government bringing forward this measure and not also one that, for example, would ban all party political donations from individuals who had evaded tax through aggressive tax avoidance schemes? There is at least as good a case to exclude such donations. This Government’s partial approach makes it impossible to avoid the conclusion that they do not want to secure a long-overdue clean-up of party funding. Instead, they want to privilege the short-term interests of the Conservative Party.

My last example of this Government’s partisan approach is the superficially innocuous commitment in their manifesto to try again to,

“address the unfairness of the current Parliamentary boundaries, reduce the number of MPs to 600 to cut the costs of politics and make votes of more equal value”.

There is nothing inherently objectionable about that proposal. However, the statistical basis on which the size of constituencies is equalised is crucial. The Government appear to be opposing this not on the basis of population but on the basis of an electoral register that remains neither comprehensive nor accurate. The most recent assessment by the Electoral Commission last year suggested that it was still only 85% complete. That means that 8 million voters who are eligible to vote cannot do so because they are not on the register. This matters for specific electoral reasons as well as on the grounds of general democratic principle. Most agree that those eligible voters not registered to vote are more likely to vote Labour when they do vote and the Liberal Democrat vote in the inner cities, such as it still is, is also likely to suffer. The Electoral Commission found that underregistration is notably higher than average among the young, private sector tenants, and black and ethnic-minority British residents, and that the highest concentrations of underregistration are most likely to be found in metropolitan areas.

The evidence suggests that the party that will suffer least, if at all, from such a flawed electoral register is the Conservative Party. Electoral registration has been significantly lower in Labour areas than in Conservative ones. The Daily Telegraph, with its hotline into the inner sanctum of the Conservative Party, revealed on 8 May this year the real motivation behind this reform:

“Redrawing constituency boundaries to lock Labour out of power for decades is at the top of the agenda for the new Conservative government, senior Tories have said”.

Our electoral arrangements should never become the object of partisan manoeuvring; it corrodes public trust and undermines the foundations of our democracy. So for many years all political parties have sought consensus on such issues and have, for the most part, succeeded in finding it—but no longer, apparently.

These are all far-reaching reforms being pursued by a Government who have hardly received a resounding endorsement from the electorate. In the last 50 years, only one Government have had a smaller absolute majority. In these circumstances it might have been thought prudent to embark on an extensive and comprehensive programme of public engagement and consultation, but there has been no sign of that so far. The Government may argue that this is a matter for Parliament and that it is through Parliament that popular consensus is secure. Of course our system of representative democracy is one that we should continue to cherish, but it can be augmented. In the case of such profound changes, it should be.

Many of my noble friends, and others in your Lordships’ House, believe that there should be a constitutional convention to discuss all these issues in a way that properly reflects their interdependence. I have long been a supporter of this; I wrote a pamphlet advocating it 10 years ago, although it is important that such a convention should not just convene the usual great and good, but accommodate the peoples of these islands through a randomly selected, demographically representative sample of them. Even if a constitutional convention is too great a stretch, there are other means to engage the public through new technologies and deliberative forums. Again, there has been not a word from the Government about any of these forms of public engagement.

Worse than this, earlier this week we heard from the Justice Secretary his intention to restrict the ability of the public to engage with these issues by emasculating their rights to know under the Freedom of Information Act. It is no surprise that Ministers and civil servants do not like that Act—it would not be doing its job if they did—but it is essential to open up the Government to the public whom they serve. How do the Government think they will enhance the public’s confidence in their politicians if they restrict their rights to know in this way? What exactly is it that the Government want to stop the public finding out about their plans for the country?

I understand that the Minister is an Oxford historian. I do not know whether he took the paper on theories of the state when he was up there, but if he did he may recall what Aristotle said about constitutions. The great philosopher wrote that:

“constitutions which aim at the common advantage are correct and just without qualification, whereas those which aim only at the advantage of the rulers are deviant and unjust, because they involve despotic rule which is inappropriate for a community of free persons”.

If he does not recall those words, I commend them to him now. In the context of these short-sighted and partisan proposals, I conclude by also commending to him and to everyone in your Lordships’ House the conclusion of the royal commission in 2000, which was that your Lordships’ House’s key function is,

“to act as a ‘constitutional long-stop’”,

to ensure that,

“changes are not made to the constitution without full and open debate and an awareness of the consequences”.

12:08

[Lord Steel of Aikwood (LD)]

My Lords, the House should be grateful to the Labour Party, and, indeed, to the noble Lord, Lord Wills, for introducing this timely subject. I suspect that much of this Parliament will be taken up with arguments on constitutional issues. We look forward with no hesitation to the Private Member’s Bill that my noble friend Lord Purvis of Tweed will introduce to the House for further debate in due course.

It was interesting that during the days of the debate on the gracious Speech so many Members on the Conservative Benches spoke in support of the idea of a constitutional convention. I hope that, at the end of today’s debate, the Minister will not be—how can I put it politely?—disappointingly coy on the subject of a constitutional commission or convention. I am sure that that is what is needed, rather than endless debates in both Houses of Parliament.

I shall make six points in my speech today, which means one point per minute. First, there is some confusion in the Government’s mind between devolution and home rule. My party has always believed in the latter. Jo Grimond put it very well when he wrote about the distinction:

“I do not like the word devolution … It implies that power rests at Westminster, from which centre some may be graciously devolved … Power should rest with the people who entrust it to their representatives to discharge the essential tasks of government. Once we accept that the Scots and the Welsh are nations, then we must accord them parliaments which have all the normal powers of government, except for those that they delegate to the United Kingdom government or the EEC”.

Jo Grimond was my great guru and I have always thought that that is a perfect description of the difference between devolution and home rule.

Secondly, people talk loosely about devo-max. I would rather talk about the maximum amount of home rule consistent with common sense—and it is common sense to retain a united foreign and defence policy together with a common currency, pension arrangements and macroeconomic strategy. The SNP based its financial forecasts at the time of the independence referendum on oil income at $105 per barrel. It has since fallen below $50 per barrel and is forecast to stay below $60 for the foreseeable future, which is why full fiscal autonomy is a dangerous myth.

Thirdly, that is why we need a constitutional convention or commission which would include more than just the political parties—as the noble Lord said in introducing the debate—to pursue a confederal approach to the United Kingdom. The arguments are not new. My distinguished predecessors as Liberal leaders, Mr Gladstone and Mr Asquith, both wrestled with “Home Rule All Round”, but were balked by the Conservative majority in the House of Lords. I hope that history will not repeat itself.

After the Parliament Act 1911, we had a very large, heavyweight constitutional commission, which reported in 1918 and recommended that this place should be elected by the other place. Of course, that was long before we had a Northern Ireland Assembly, a Scottish Parliament and a Welsh Assembly. The electoral potential today is much greater than was available to that commission in 1918. Professor Vernon Bogdanor, in a somewhat unprofessorial phrase in a recent article, said about the constitution of this country:

“If one joined a tennis club, paid one’s subscription, and asked to be shown the rules, one would not be pleased to be told that the rules had never been gathered together in one place, that they were to be found in past decisions of the club’s committee over many generations, and that they lay scattered among many different documents”,

and that in any case some of the rules—conventions—were not written down at all. That is a pretty good description of the constitution as we know it today.

Fourthly, I believe that any constitutional convention would have to include on its agenda a proposal to replace this House with a smaller senate elected by the component parts of the United Kingdom—the institutions in Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland—and that, as far as the House of Commons is concerned, any such election should be by region to avoid the overweighting of London membership in a future Chamber. It should also include plans for an independent element such as we have now on the Cross Benches, which we would not wish to lose.

Fifthly, we in Scotland must wake up to the dangers of a one-party state. We are all proud patriots, but nationalism is never of itself a satisfactory creed, as has been seen in other countries, and can be seen today in the utterances of the cybernats. It is to the credit of Nicola Sturgeon that she has done her best to counter them, but at the next Scottish Parliament elections, less than a year away, we must roll back the drift towards an unhealthy one-party autocracy which we have north of the border.

Sixthly, and lastly, the noble Lord who introduced the debate mentioned electoral reform. It is interesting that after almost every election there is criticism of the electoral system but somehow, as Parliaments progress, that discontent dies away and we never get electoral reform. In creating the new Scottish Parliament, we at least created a proportional election system. I am not a great fan of the regional list system but at least it is proportional and it does mean that people are represented correctly in that Parliament. We also managed to obtain proportional representation for local government in Scotland, which means that every council elected in Scotland correctly represents the people in their area. I do not wish to be put off by reference to the past AV referendum, because that was not about proportional representation at all.

There is much work to be done by a constitutional commission. I hope that this little debate moves us directly in that direction.

12:15

[Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)]

My Lords, I have been engaged with constitutional issues for over 25 years. I was one of the initial signatories to Charter 88, a cross-party organisation, set up in the late 1980s, which was concerned that in our modern democracy institutions did not work in the best way and that we should look at ways in which our constitutional arrangements needed to be reformed. I became chair of that organisation and there developed a very clear set of intentions. The idea was that there should be reform of Parliament, particularly this House. It did indeed lead, when Labour came into government, to reform, so that there was a much reduced number of hereditary Peers, the hereditary principle clearly being so outmoded. There were discussions about a written constitution and the need for devolution—perhaps, as the noble Lord, Lord Steel, said, home rule is a better description. We talked also about a Bill of Rights, reform of the judiciary, the Freedom of Information Act and proportional representation.

When Labour came into government in 1997, it was because of my involvement in constitutional reform that I came to be in this House. Many of those issues were the platform upon which Labour had become the Government, and many of the reforms took place in the following years, though not all of them. I remind the current Government that when we talked about a British Bill of Rights, it was seen to be quite complicated. If we spoke about trial by jury being one of those rights, for example, it had to be circumscribed and it became difficult to work out who would be entitled to it and how to write that into a Bill. It could not be everybody, as in America, because that would be financially impossible. It became clear that incorporating the European Convention on Human Rights and bringing rights home was a more satisfactory way of doing things. That became our British Bill of Rights. In turn, that was incorporated into the Scotland Bill—Scotland, of course, has its own legal system—which too incorporated the European convention. In Northern Ireland it became part and parcel of the peace process. So, disentangling some of these things that become built into constitutions becomes rather difficult.

We did reform the judiciary but we should remember that, when you seek to reform, you should be careful what you wish for. The reform of the Lord Chancellor’s role was done in rather a back-of-an-envelope way. While I wanted to see reform of that role and, for example, the ways in which judges were appointed, the way it was done has led to a reduction in that great role and problems for us. We created a role that meant that people without legal training have become Lord Chancellor, which has reduced the greatness of that role. The reform had to be cobbled together because there had not been proper consideration of how it should take place. I say to this House: we are the guardians of the constitution. We have a wealth of experience and we should call upon the Government to look more carefully before they step into reform, because there can be unimagined consequences.

In 2006 I was invited by the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust to chair an inquiry into the failure of people to vote, as we were seeing a big reduction in voting numbers. We held what was then called the Power inquiry. We thought about how it should be titled and decided on “Power” because, precisely as my noble friend Lord Wills said, it is all about power. That is what constitutional reform and constitutions are about: who has power, how the checks and balances are created and so on. When we did that inquiry—I emphasise that it was not a great and grand inquiry—it was quite useful to have people who were not the same old faces involved. That inquiry went round the country. We spoke to people in community centres and so on and asked them why they did not vote. What we got were the answers that my noble friend Lord Wills has referred to: real disengagement because people felt they were not listened to and that wealthy and well-connected people had access to power in a way that they did not. That is still bubbling away under the discontent that I think there is in our nation.

I warn the House that constitutional change is a very interconnected issue. I say this particularly with a view to Scotland. We saw what happened in the referendum. In many ways, the Prime Minister, Mr Cameron, was outplayed by Alex Salmond in the preparation for that referendum: the question ended up being written by Mr Salmond; the timing was chosen by Mr Salmond; and votes for the young—which I support—was pressed for by Mr Salmond. Our Prime Minister is currently under the same kinds of pressures from the anti-European lobby in his own party, and he is being much too compliant over how to set up a referendum and how it should take place. I ask him to think carefully about how he does that. If we are not careful, a referendum on the European Union which does lead to our leaving Europe will have enormous consequences internally for the United Kingdom. It is almost inevitable that at that point, Scotland would say, “We want to have another referendum on whether we stay part of the United Kingdom”, and I would regret that enormously. I see all these things as being interconnected, and great risks are being taken with our unity.

I know that my time is running out but I want to speak about how Scots will read the business of English votes for English laws. If it is done on the cheap—the solution being that Scots leave the Chamber when England gets to deal with its own subject matter—that, too, creates a second-class citizen feeling for people in Scotland. This business of English votes, which I thought was a terrible thing to announce on the steps of Downing Street the day after the referendum had been won by the no campaign, has to be handled with great caution because of how the Scottish people feel. The Scots feel at the moment that they are discussed in derogatory, sidelining and insulting ways. So we have to be mindful of how this dialogue is conducted and how we speak about each other if we want to retain a United Kingdom.

Finally, on the Human Rights Act, it will not surprise your Lordships to learn that I feel most alarmed that we are talking about leaving the European Convention on Human Rights and the European court. We are part of a tapestry in which we have played a leading role, not just in Europe but throughout the world. Our place in this tapestry is so powerful and we have the high ground. We are a beacon for the way in which we protect human rights. We wrote this thing, so the idea that we are stepping away from it is a tragedy but it also has implications for our relationship with the European Union. Once we want to step outside the court, there are questions about whether we can remain part of the Council of Europe, and that in turn has implications for whether we can actually be in the European Union, which has embraced the European convention so wholeheartedly into its systems.

We have to bear in mind the risks in all of this and the interconnectedness. We are the place that can do this best, but we have to speak to the Government about the risks they are taking with the United Kingdom, never mind with our relationship with the rest of the world.

12:23

[Lord Butler of Brockwell (CB)]

My Lords, having missed the opportunity to take part in the third day of the debate on the gracious Speech, I welcome the chance to offer my two pennyworth—or rather seven minutes’ worth—today on this major part of the Government’s agenda for the year ahead, although I am not as censorious of the Government’s proposals as the noble Lord, Lord Wills.

It is a paradox that in a Queen’s Speech of which the avowed theme was “one nation” the Government should be doing so much to fragment power in the United Kingdom. Nevertheless, I welcome the direction of march, as well as many of the individual measures in the Queen’s Speech. I have never believed that the man in Whitehall knows best. On the contrary, I believe that services are best delivered by empowering those nearest to the point of delivering them. Empowering managers and recognising local diversity was the theme of the Civil Service reform programme, Next Steps, which I led for 10 years as head of the Civil Service.

I sympathise with those speakers in the debate on the gracious Speech who looked at the variety of constitutional measures in the Government’s programme and yearned for a unifying theme. The noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, made a similar point. Nevertheless, I do not support the notion that these measures should be delayed pending a constitutional convention or commission to give logic and consistency to the reform programme. For one thing, there are pledges that need to be delivered. We may feel that the vows made to the people of Scotland in the days before the independence referendum were made in precipitate haste. I remind the noble Lord, Lord Wills, that they were made at the prompting of the former leader of his party. Nevertheless, they were made with the agreement of all parties and the Government are honour-bound to deliver them.

I believe that the Smith commission—despite the fact that it, too, had to act under great pressure—did a good job in producing a package that could be acted on. There will be matters that Parliament will need to look at closely in legislating for that package but the Government are nevertheless right to press ahead with implementing it. Similarly, the Government are right to press ahead with legislation to implement the Stormont agreement for Northern Ireland and the St David’s Day agreement for Wales. I welcome the intentions underlying the Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill, which is currently being debated in your Lordships’ House.

Then there are the proposals about English votes for English laws, which the noble Lord, Lord Wills, said were prompted by the political interests of the Conservative Party. There is no entirely logical answer to the West Lothian question. Nevertheless, it is a nettle which has to be grasped. It would have been made even more urgent if the last election had produced a Government who had no majority in England and Wales, and who would only have been able to pass laws restricted to England and Wales through Scottish votes. The fact that this so easily could have happened underlines the need to find some arrangement which reconciles the right of English and Welsh MPs to determine laws affecting their own country, with the role of the Westminster Parliament to legislate for the United Kingdom as a whole. The Government have produced proposals to achieve that balance. I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Wills, that these are simply motivated by the political interests of the Conservative Party but good will is going to be needed from all parties to reach a reasonable outcome, recognising and balancing the undoubted rights of all parties to legislate on behalf of the United Kingdom.

I have not spoken about the British Bill of Rights or the referendum on EU membership. Nevertheless, this is a formidable programme of constitutional change. We should not postpone it while we set up a constitutional convention designed to produce a logical and lasting framework. The British constitution has always developed pragmatically. We may feel that at this moment it is developing with precipitate haste but stasis is not an option. This would be absolutely the wrong time to propose the chimera of a written constitution. There are too many moving parts. Nevertheless, this is very important and major stuff, as the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, said.

The role of Parliament in this coming Session will be crucial in dealing with this programme of constitutional change. Both Houses will need to look at and debate the details of these changes with the greatest possible care. We have a very heavy responsibility and we will need the advice of our Select Committees. I believe that the Government abolished the Political and Constitutional Reform Select Committee in another place at entirely the wrong time. Nevertheless, the Public Administration Select Committee has been given that role, and it will have a very important part in this. In this House, we are fortunate in having the Constitution Committee, with a very distinguished membership. That Select Committee will have a very important role in advising us, and the House as a whole will have a major part to play in the months ahead.

12:30

[Lord Desai (Lab)]

My Lords, it is an honour to follow the noble Lord, Lord Butler. I have a very different perspective on the question at hand and will make two new propositions. First, we have a sort of written constitution. The noble Lord, Lord Norton, who is about to follow me, once added a schedule to a regulatory reform Bill which listed all the Acts that no subsequent Government could change—the core of the UK’s written constitution. I once tried to play the game of asking what acquis Britannique someone wanting to join the United Kingdom from outside would have to sign. The acquis Britannique exists—we know it exists but we just do not admit its existence.

Secondly, we have been in an ongoing constitutional convention for about the last 40 years. In the 1970s, we joined the European Union and had the Kilbrandon commission. The decision to join the European Union continues to be somewhat fraught and disputed, although I believe the forthcoming referendum will confirm that it was the right decision. We decided not to become a federation when the Kilbrandon commission reported. Ever since then, we have been playing with this question of whether to have a federation or not and have created a somewhat patchy sub-federation which is not yet complete. The whole question of English votes for English MPs, or whatever it is called, is really the final capstone in creating a proper federation: we have devolved power to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland but have not found a way of devolving power to England because we do not want to create another Parliament for England. That is the problem: if we could only afford another Parliament for England, the English votes question would not matter, as we would have devolved power in England.

We have done various things but do not want to admit that these things have happened. My noble friend Lady Kennedy referred to the very peculiar way in which we reformed the Lord Chancellorship. It was very much a Thursday afternoon decision. Everybody had gone home, suddenly the Lord Chancellorship was about to be abolished and new tights had to be found for the new Lord Chancellor early on Friday morning, otherwise we would not have met. We also reformed the judiciary—remember how contentious that Bill was as it went through your Lordships’ House. We successfully made one of the biggest reforms when we did that.

We have done reform, but it can be done only by the party in power. It is not possible to say that the party in power should be more consensual. That is not what power is about: if you are in power, you have a majority and you exercise it. You then wait for the next Government, if they have a chance, to reverse what you do. That is exactly what the Conservative Party is trying to do with the Human Rights Act. It was not in power when it was passed; it is now in power and saying, “Let us have a go at this Human Rights Act and see if we can do it more to our satisfaction”. It is a very imperfect, clumsy way of doing reform, but it is the way we have in this country and we have to make the best of what we have. We must understand that we are in a continual process of constitutional reform. It is just that nobody has written it all down, although maybe the noble Lord, Lord Norton, has and teaches it every week to his students.

Let me give one example. The noble Lord, Lord Steel, pointed out how representation in Scotland, at both parliamentary and local level, has an element of PR added. When the boundaries Bill passes here and the number of MPs is reduced from 650 to 600—if the Prime Minister can still satisfy his Back-Benchers to get that done—there is no reason why the 50 extra people should not then come from a top-up through PR. That could be done without any major referendum on voting procedures or anything like that. It would then be very easy for us to correct the kind of historic wrongs that have happened to UKIP, the Greens and so on. We would have 600 seats by the conventional first past the post method and 50 by a top-up method. That would be the beginning of reform and done in the standard British way of adding an amendment to a Bill. We do not need a major reform of voting procedure or the entire election process. We have opportunities here. We need to consolidate somewhere in our minds or in some written form what are the major gaps left and why they are there. If we can do things that way, we have the opportunity now, especially through your Lordships’ House, to point out to the Government where those gaps are.

To end, one major gap is key and dealing with it could create a proper federal constitution here. As I said, we have about three-fourths of a federal constitution. If we reformed your Lordships’ House—another endless saga, I know—in a way that it would be elected but elected through a regional representation or list system, and if you could have, let us say, 10 regions in England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales, we could have 30 representatives from each of those regions. We would then have an Upper Chamber that would be a truly good and federal one as well as representing a lot of local and devolved authorities. There are possibilities like that. There are omissions in what the Government said. However, it must be said that we do not trust them to actually do things right. The right thing is to never trust any Government to do things right unless they have a check put upon them. That is what your Lordships’ House should do.

12:37

[Lord Norton of Louth (Con)]

My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Wills, on initiating the debate. The Motion addresses the implications of constitutional changes. I propose to focus on the constitutional implications of those changes.

Robert Stevens, in his book The English Judges, published in 2002, makes the point that the nation witnessed massive constitutional change in the period from 1640 to 1720. He notes that there were major constitutional developments in later years, such as the Reform Acts, but these were essentially,

“independent acts rather than part of a dramatic period of constitutional restructuring”.

He then—this is my key point—says:

“For lawyers and courts, however, the period from 1970 to 2000 provided a practical and psychological transformation comparable with the earlier constitutional revolution”.

The Labour Government returned in 1997 introduced a whole raft of constitutional measures. Anyone expecting a period of quiet after 2010 was to be disappointed. The coalition agreement heralded concessions and compromises on a number of measures of constitutional reform. The current Government are committed to several major constitutional measures, not least—as we heard—in relation to devolution and the European Union. The sheer scale means that we are not looking at independent Acts—that is, piecemeal changes that have time to bed in before other changes are made. We are looking at a whole gamut of changes to our constitutional arrangements, changes that are significant quantitatively and qualitatively.

During the 1980s and 1990s, several coherent approaches to constitutional change developed, each stipulating a particular constitutional structure deemed most appropriate to the United Kingdom. The problem with the constitutional reforms implemented by the Blair Government was that they bore no clear relation to any approach. When I asked Ministers what was the intellectually coherent approach to constitutional change being taken by the Government, I received no answer. In 2002, I initiated a debate on the constitution. In replying, the then Lord Chancellor, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, admitted that there was no such approach. Rather, he said, the Government proceeded,

“by way of pragmatism based on principle, without the need for an all-embracing theory”.—[Official Report, 18/12/2002; col. 691.]

The principles that he enunciated were not necessarily compatible with one another, as they appeared to embrace power residing at the centre and power not residing at the centre.

The coalition Government fared no better in that they were formed by parties which adopted approaches that were almost diametrically opposed to one another. The Liberal Democrats adhere to the liberal approach to constitutional change and the Conservatives to the traditional, or Westminster, approach—approaches that are at different ends of the spectrum of negative and positive constitutionalism, of what one sees a constitution as being for.

The result is that we are seeing, and pursuing, major changes to our constitution without having a clear appreciation of the implications for the constitution as a constitution. What is the principled approach to constitutional change? What type of constitution are we trying to craft for the United Kingdom? As things stand, we are in danger of ending up with a constitution that is the sum of a raft of disparate constitutional changes, rather than a coherent framework that we have set out to create.

In the debate on the gracious Address, I made the case for a constitutional convocation, not to draft a new constitution, but rather to make sense of where we are. We need an exercise in constitutional cartography. My purpose today is not to repeat what I said then, but rather to put specific questions to my noble friend Lord Bridges about the Government’s approach to constitutional change—not to specific proposals, not to the implications of particular measures to be introduced, but rather to constitutional change as such.

First, what is the Government’s intellectually coherent approach to constitutional change? How do they see the constitution as a constitution? Are they wedded to maintaining the Westminster model and the attributes ascribed to it? Secondly, what are the mechanisms within government to ensure that it engages in joined-up thinking on constitutional measures? Who is in charge of constitutional issues, not least in terms of ensuring a coherent approach to constitutional change? This is a question not about, or not just about, co-ordination, but about leadership. It would be helpful to know from my noble friend how government is now structured in order to consider constitutional issues as constitutional issues.

My key point in this debate is to stress that in looking at the implications of constitutional change, we should not confine ourselves—indeed, must not confine ourselves—to looking solely at the implications of this Bill or that Bill. We must look at the implications for the constitution as a whole. To do that, we need to be clear as to what type of constitution we have, and want, for the United Kingdom.

12:43

[Lord Lipsey (Lab)]

My Lords, two constitutional dogs did not bark in the Queen’s Speech, although they should have done—parliamentary boundaries and the voting system. I shall say a word or two on each.

On parliamentary boundaries, under the Bill passed in the last Parliament, constituencies will have to have electorates within 5% of the average. An associated proposal would reduce the size of the House of Commons from 650 MPs to 600. In the last Parliament, noble Lords on this side of the House fought hard to stop the Bill. I am shocked to see that I spoke 166 times, according to Hansard. Noble Lords opposite accused of us of partisanship. Partisanship—moi? In fact, we had a case of great substance on two points, which got lost. One was that the 5% tolerance was too low; a 10% tolerance would mean far less disruptive change to constituency boundaries without ruining the effect of making every vote of roughly equal weight.

The second was that the reduction in the number of MPs was not justified, given that the number of electors per seat will, if that change goes through, have increased by 22% since 1950—and the workload of an MP is now many times what it used to be. I was very pleased that in March this year the now late constitutional affairs Select Committee produced a report which endorsed both these points.

The Government could just ignore the committee and plough on, but it would be a mistake—and this is the crucial point—from their own partisan point of view. The bias in the electoral system has gone. Before the 2015 election, it favoured Labour. Now it favours the Tories. Had the general election vote nationally been tied, the Tories would have won 301 seats to Labour’s 254, according to the electoral geographers Ron Johnston and Charles Pattie. However, if the changes to the rules go through, the Tories will be torn apart by internal conflict. There will be fewer seats for their MPs to represent. Even in the seats that remain, there will be fundamental changes in boundaries. These measures combined will mean a plethora of deadly duels, mostly in Tory seats, often between sitting Tory MPs, regularly involving clashes between new, young Members—winner takes all. It is a recipe for dissent.

Less obviously, it will have a terrific effect on the Prime Minister’s European goal, which I assume is to recommend to the country that we stay in. Tory grass roots are fundamentally Eurosceptic—I do not think anybody would deny that—so any MP who thinks, suspects or is worried that their seat may change or disappear will have every incentive to adopt a very Eurosceptic position. The prospect of Tory civil war—which in some ways I welcome—over Europe will be magnified several times over by these proposals. It is unusual that I appeal to the Government to exercise their self-interest, but they should have another look at the combined effect of these proposals.

I am not surprised that electoral reform was not in the Queen’s Speech. In my experience, parties rarely question a system that has delivered them an overall majority. I sat on the Jenkins commission—the result of a pledge by Labour in opposition to look at the electoral system—which somehow seemed a lot less attractive after we had just won an overwhelming majority under Tony Blair. Yet this election has again shown the unfairness in modern conditions of Britain’s electoral system. The Government’s overall majority is based on the votes of less than a quarter of the electorate. We now have a set of completely new injustices on top of the old ones. Lib Dem underrepresentation, which used to be the big concern, is now as nothing compared with UKIP underrepresentation: it got 14% of the vote and one seat. Then there is SNP over- representation: with just over 50% of the Scots vote, it got 95% of Scots MPs—so, because of the voting system, Scotland, which just last year rejected independence, now has MPs nearly all of whom favour it. This is very odd.

There was, of course, a referendum on electoral reform in 2011 which came down against change, but Nicola Sturgeon’s threats of a new Scottish referendum on independence show that in our febrile age referendum results do not last for ever. The previous European referendum has lasted for more than 40 years. Would anyone like to have a bet with me that we will have another referendum on Scotland within 20 years? You cannot say that electoral reform can never be subject to another referendum and that it will not happen but is permanent.

In the mean time, I hope that attitudes in my party will change. It gives me no pleasure to say this, but the prospect of an overall Labour majority under the present system is now, and for the foreseeable future, near to nil. This is for three reasons. First, the bias of the electoral system is now against it, and will be even more against it if the boundary changes go ahead. Secondly, the 2015 general election showed a sharp decline in the number of marginal seats; again using the evidence of Professor Johnston. Whereas at the last election 75 seats would have fallen on a 5% swing to us, now it is only 49. Thirdly, Scotland is and may well remain a virtually Labour-free zone.

Given that the Government will not do anything, I wonder whether my party ought not to take an initiative on this, get together with the other parties that have been so badly affected by the electoral system and see whether there are any outline proposals that might come about that would improve it. We will not have an overall Labour majority in the foreseeable future but there could still be a hung Parliament—we only just avoided one this time—in which case it would again be possible to change the electoral system. At any rate, this is a matter that deserves to be debated.

12:50

[Lord Rennard (LD)]

My Lords, I very much welcome the Labour Party’s continuing interest in constitutional matters, as reflected in its choice of subject for this debate.

In the period before the election of the last Labour Government in 1997, I was the joint secretary of the committee examining constitutional reform that was established by the Labour and Liberal Democrat parties and chaired jointly by the late Robin Cook and my noble friend Lord Maclennan of Rogart. That committee demonstrated then that cross-party work in opposition could help to deliver real measures of reform when a Government are then willing to act to improve the health of our democracy. Contrary to the view expressed a few moments ago by the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, I believe that the committee agreed a coherent programme. Our work helped to prepare for the rapid introduction of legislation for the creation of the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the London Assembly, all of which use forms of proportional representation, as well as the incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights into British law and the establishment of freedom of information legislation.

When that committee was established, we agreed that it is dangerous for any one party to propose on its own what it considers to be reforming changes to the constitution. That is why I am so committed to the principle of a constitutional convention, as currently proposed in the Bill introduced by my noble friend Lord Purvis of Tweed. The experience of the Scottish constitutional convention, in that same pre-1997 period, also showed the benefits of the involvement of civic society, working with people in all parties committed to making our country more democratic, enabling home rule, devolving power and making government at different levels more representative of the people who vote for it.

The Labour Government who were elected in 1997 failed, however, to deliver on their manifesto promise of a referendum on proportional representation—something very different from the system offered in the referendum four years ago. After introducing proportional representation for the 1999 European Parliament elections, progress on constitutional reform then faltered. The late and very much missed Lord Jenkins of Hillhead referred, in a report commissioned by the Labour Government proposing an alternative electoral system for Westminster, to the rich cornucopia of fruits delivered to the Labour Party in that 1997 landslide which caused a diminution of its interest in voting reform for the House of Commons. It is regrettable that the efforts put into the Jenkins commission by the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, as he has just referred to, and the noble Baroness, Lady Gould of Potternewton, were spurned by those in their own party who probably considered at that time that the Labour Party had become invulnerable in general elections. They could not think that now.

Perhaps one of the greatest mistakes made by my own party in its 27-year existence was its failure at that time to accept the Labour Government’s offer of the alternative vote system, which was clearly being made as an alternative to the promised referendum on a proportional system. I begged my noble friend Lord Ashdown, who was leader at the time, not to reject such an offer. However, when the AV system was offered to the people four years ago, the referendum clearly killed off the prospects of adopting it as the sole means of electing Members of the House of Commons in the foreseeable future. Nevertheless, the election last month of another majority Conservative Government with a minority vote of just under 37% has again awakened interest in the subject of voting reform, at least among those parties that between them received over 63% of the vote, but also among those who do not want to see one-party states established in the parts of the UK towards which more power is now being devolved. I suspect that it was the distorting effect of first past the post in Scotland last month that has particularly caused some figures within the Labour Party again to consider voting reform. It simply cannot be right that 50% of the vote for the SNP in Scotland entitled it to 95% of Scottish MPs.

I noted carefully some of the contributions made in the debate on the gracious Speech by some Labour Members of the House. The noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of the Shaws, spoke then and today of her work with the Power commission, which recommended moving away from first past the post and giving the vote to 16 and 17 year-olds, and made significant suggestions for the reform of the funding of political parties—all of which should now be addressed in a constitutional convention. In that debate, the noble Baroness, Lady Adams of Craigielea, said:

“We are in a constitutional mess”,

and that,

“we have to look again at the voting system that produces such a result”.—[Official Report, 1/6/15; cols. 229-30.]

I always listen with particular interest to the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, although we have often disagreed in the past about the issue of voting reform. The noble Lord described himself in that debate as having been a “Neanderthal” or “dinosaur” when it comes to first past the post, but he agreed that we must look at the issue again, and in a comprehensive way, through the vehicle of a constitutional convention. The noble Lord, Lord Elder, who is much respected, speaking with what he described as “fear and trepidation”, acknowledged that,

“the present system, which has given absolute power to a Government with only just over a third of the votes cast and denies effective representation to other parties which have polled millions, is no longer fit for purpose”.—[Official Report, 1/6/15; col. 222.]

I could not put it better.

Finally, I will refer briefly to the absence of any proper democratic accountability in the current proposals for mayors to control combined local authorities. The present proposals will in effect provide for one-party states, which cannot be good for the governance of those authorities. That is why my noble friends Lord Shipley and Lord Tyler are tabling amendments to the Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill to provide for elections on a fair basis, so that representative bodies will be able to hold such mayors properly to account in an open and democratic way.

12:58

[Lord Judd (Lab)]

My Lords, I very much thank my noble friend Lord Wills for having introduced such an important debate and for having done it so well.

It is clear from what he said—and this was very much reinforced by my noble friend Lord Lipsey—that the present arrangements are just not adequate. In fact, they are fundamentally flawed and lack credibility. Piecemeal reform is not the way to proceed; we need a road map and a destination which the road map will assist us in reaching. I am inclined to believe that we will have to go down the road of federalism and regionalism, even if we have several attempts, and whatever happens in Scotland. I also believe that it will also be necessary to introduce a new approach to voting that enables a far wider cross-section of the population to identify with those who claim to be representing them.

In recent times there has been a lot of talk about Magna Carta. I am as excited about Magna Carta as anybody—it has tremendous significance in our history. But we are trustees of a great deal more than just Magna Carta. It opened a door by taking on the exclusive power of the king and demonstrating that this could no longer prevail, but it also opened a door to a process of evolution to which the role of the people was absolutely essential.

Let us cast our minds back over our history just for a moment to William III, the Bill of Rights, the Levellers, Peterloo and the Tolpuddle martyrs. My wife, who is a historian, said to me this morning, “Aren’t you talking about social issues here rather than constitutional issues?”, but of course my point is that social and constitutional issues are essentially linked because the constitution has to reflect the social realities of the time in which one is living. There is a post-First World War endorsement of the essential role of women. We in this House should never forget the incredible courage of the Suffragettes, but of course they were preceded in the previous century by the Tolpuddle martyrs, and before that, more generally in politics, by the Great Reform Act 1832.

After the Second World War we saw very significant developments. There was the drive for the UN declaration on human rights, in which great people such as Eleanor Roosevelt played such a key part, as did leading statesmen in our own country from both left and right. They were central to the creation of that declaration. That then moved on to the European convention. Of course these had implications for our constitution—it was part of the process of evolution.

Another thing happened after 1945. We began to see in a highly interdependent world the indispensability of international institutions. Some people would ask whether this raised issues of sovereignty. Of course it did, but we were recognising that the interests of the people who happened to live in the British Isles could best be served by contributing—let us not talk about sacrificing—some of that sovereignty to the wider international community, because that was indispensably in our interests. More recently—and it will be with us for a long time—we have had the struggle for identity in Ireland and Scotland. In Scotland—I am a half-Scot—let us never forget that very much lingering at the back of a lot of people’s minds has been a feeling that the Act of Union was not something that they brought about but was very much a stitch-up between the Scottish establishment and the English, and that the day of reckoning will come.

I am trying to describe the fact that it has been evolution and struggle that has brought us to where we are, and we still have a very enviable society in many ways. Now, we are trying to engage in top-down management. We are saying, “We’re the people who manage things at the moment. How are we going to get it right for the future?”. I believe that that is destined to fail unless we re-engage the people in the process. We are practitioners within the existing constitution. We do not own it; the constitution belongs to the people. Therefore, if we are to have a lasting and sustainable way forward, it has to re-engage the people. It seems to me from that standpoint that a national convention on the constitution, with wider representative participation in society as a whole, is critical. I sometimes fear that we are determined in all we are doing to retain the power of the Executive. The time has come when we have to re-examine the role of the Executive, which is to reflect the will of the people. It is their servant, not their master.

13:05

[Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood (CB)]

My Lords, I want to touch briefly on the proposed British Bill of Rights. Of course, I recognise that a delay for consultation is now proposed, but there could be no clearer commitment than for such a Bill. Indeed, just two days ago in the other place, Dominic Raab, the new Justice Minister, full of enthusiasm, stated:

“We will legislate for a Bill of Rights to protect our fundamental rights, prevent abuse of the system and restore some common sense to our human rights laws”.—[Official Report, Commons, 23/6/15; col. 748.]

He continued by saying that, although leaving the convention was not the Government’s objective, no option was off the table.

There is time today to make only one or two brief points. First, in the debate on the gracious Speech on 1 June, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern—whom I am happy to see in his place—with regard to our failure to implement Strasbourg’s judgment on prisoner voting, confessed to,

“a feeling of great anxiety that the United Kingdom, with its tradition for respect of the rule of law, not the rule of lawyers, should be in breach of a treaty by which it is bound”.—[Official Report, 1/6/15; col. 179.]

That of course was entirely consistent with evidence that the noble and learned Lord had given the Joint Committee on the Draft Voting Eligibility (Prisoners) Bill, as recorded at paragraph 92 of its report, HL Paper 103. Later in his speech, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, suggested a possible way of dealing with this sort of situation short of withdrawing from the convention. He suggested—as reported at cols. 179-80 of the Official Report for 1 June—that the convention should recognise the possibility that member states such as the UK whose Parliament is sovereign and not subject to having its Acts set aside or modified by the courts of that country should be exempt from the obligation to implement a decision of the Strasbourg court that one of its statutes contravenes the convention, provided only that the state’s legislature passes a resolution which, for stated reasons, declines to implement the Strasbourg court’s decision.

Clearly, the noble and learned Lord was attempting to avoid the unthinkable possibility of withdrawing from the convention and to put forward a constructive suggestion. However, with the best will in the world, it seems to me inevitably doomed. In the first place, it is surely inconceivable that all the states party to the convention would agree to such an amendment of the convention. In any event, would we really be happy to achieve a position where, for example, if the Russian Duma, or indeed the Irish Parliament, wanted to recriminalise homosexuality, it would be perfectly able to do so? In truth, we must recognise that our preparedness to accept the very occasional unwelcome ruling against us is the price we pay for the huge benefits to the wider population of the Council of Europe of subjecting less liberal states to the constraints and disciplines of the convention.

I should make it plain that I, too, regret a number, although in fact only a very small number, of Strasbourg’s decisions. Frankly, they do not include that on prisoner voting—a decision that we could satisfy simply by giving the vote only to those serving 12 months or less. Surely we are, after all, trying not to outlaw prisoners but to instil in them some sense of civic responsibility. However, I regret one or two Strasbourg decisions—for example, the cases of Al-Skeini and Al-Jedda, which are in direct disagreement with our own final court’s decisions, to which I was party respectively in this House and in the Supreme Court, and which tend to undermine our forces’ fighting capabilities in armed conflicts abroad. I am troubled, too, by the extent to which Strasbourg has extended the scope of the Article 8 right to respect for private and family life.

As to the application of the convention to warlike operations, there are possible solutions. Indeed, I canvassed them in a conference last month at Oxford, but there is not time to develop them today, although I hope that we may one day come back to them. With regard to Article 8 and, in particular, its impact on the deportation of foreign criminals, let us see how the changes to the legislation introduced by last year’s Immigration Act work out. According to the Times, there is shortly to be a Court of Appeal case which questions those changes.

There has been extensive debate during recent years about Section 2 of the Human Rights Act requiring our courts to “take into account” Strasbourg’s jurisprudence on the convention. High authority in our courts dictates that we should not only take account of that case law but, where it is settled, directly on point and authoritative —for example, a clear decision of the Grand Chamber—follow it. The object of the 1998 Act was, after all, to “bring rights home”. If our courts were to refuse to apply a clear Strasbourg decision, the inevitable consequence would be, as the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, mentioned, to drive the disappointed litigant back to Strasbourg to establish the claim there.

Of course, success in Strasbourg would bind the Government only in international law, as with prisoner voting, where primary legislation stands in the way of domestic enforceability. But I can see some arguments for preferring that to the present position, which, just very occasionally, requires our Supreme Court to follow a Strasbourg case against its own better judgment—those arguments were indeed canvassed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, back in December 2011. But it is one thing to elaborate Section 2 of the Act to spell out that our courts are not obliged to follow Strasbourg or, indeed, to repeal the 1998 Act—essentially reverting to the position before 2000, when we merely took account of the UK’s international law obligations—but quite another to legislate contrary to certain specific convention requirements as determined by the Strasbourg court, and that is what I understand the Government presently have in mind. We shall need to watch their proposals very carefully indeed.

13:13

[Lord Soley (Lab)]

My Lords, it was a pleasure to listen to the very constructive and thoughtful opening speech of my noble friend Lord Wills. It was a pleasure, too, to listen to many of the other speeches, including that of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, to which I would add simply one line: one person in the European continent who will be delighted if we withdraw from the convention is Vladimir Putin. If you find yourself doing something that is on the same side as Vladimir Putin on human rights, it really is time to think again.

On the wider issue, I have reread the Queen’s Speech today. There is not a lot in it on the constitution. I agree with the mayoral approach, which was introduced by the Blair Government. I supported it then and I still do. I like the idea of the northern powerhouse and, yes, we should do that elsewhere as well. After that, the speech descends into vagueness. One line that troubles me is:

“My government will also bring forward legislation to secure a strong and lasting constitutional settlement”.

That is usually the triumph of hope over experience. Listening to the noble Lord, Lord Norton, with whom I agree on many things on the constitution, I think he always seeks a logical structure, which, frankly, I do not think you will ever get, especially with the British constitution. It is the triumph of hope over experience because, basically, we make it up as we go along. That is not entirely a bad thing, because I sometimes think that overpredictability in politics is an anti-democratic approach; you should find yourselves at times in unpredictable situations because that is where you lose. Occasionally, we need to lose in politics, whether we are talking individually or as parties, because it sobers you up and makes you think through policies again.

I find the vagueness about how we handle this reform of the constitution deeply worrying. Like a number of other speakers today, including on the Tory side, I was deeply worried about the call for English votes for English laws immediately after the Scottish referendum. If you wave the English flag in front of the Scottish flag, you will provoke conflict and disagreement. It is only 300 years since we fought around that border and it is an issue in people’s hearts and minds. It could also easily give a boost to UKIP. If it finds itself speaking for English nationalism—previously, it tended to present itself as speaking for United Kingdom nationalism—it would create a greater danger within England. Although I have always found Scottish nationalism deeply disturbing, I consider English nationalism no less disturbing, and we could break up this precious union that we have had for so many years. So I do not think that English votes for English laws—or Welsh votes for Welsh laws—is the way forward.

That is not to say that there is no need to reflect the problem that England does not have a parliamentary structure of its own. We have to work out how we handle the relationship between the four parts of the United Kingdom. The big, obvious problem is that England is bigger than the other three parts put together, but there are problems within that. As I indicated when I last spoke on the constitution here, some 22 million people live in the south-east corner of England, which makes it bigger than the other three parts of the United Kingdom and bigger virtually than much of the rest of England. There is a distortion there. You also have the problem whereby, if you try to change the relationship between the various parts of the United Kingdom, you always have to remember that one part, Northern Ireland, would require, if you made too many changes, either the unstitching of some of the agreements already made or the altering of some international agreements that were lodged at the United Nations as part of the settlement with southern Ireland. So there is a complication there, which is why I think so many of us in the Labour Party, the Liberal Democrat party and, to some extent, the Conservative Party have been saying that the way forward is to have a constitutional conference of some type and to involve the people in it—not to have simply a top-down approach. Many people throughout the United Kingdom have lost confidence in the political system, so we need to involve people in change. I am not saying what those changes should be. The noble Lord, Lord Steel, made a good point when he talked about the difference between devolution and home rule. His point about home rule was powerful and we should give thought to it.

I have also been encouraged by the group that has been set up by, I think, the noble Lords, Lord Purvis and Lord Foulkes. It crosses all parties and involves Members of both Houses as well as members of local authorities. The discussions within that group have been incredibly co-operative and quite indicative of ways forward. A key question that we must all answer at the end of the day, touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Steel, is what the United Kingdom is for. The more we devolve power, or give home rule—as the noble Lord, Lord Steel, phrased it—the more we raise the question: what is the United Kingdom Government to do and what is their purpose? In fighting the referendum, we put great effort into spelling out the dangers of a break-up of the United Kingdom. We were right to do so. The noble Lord, Lord Steel, mentioned the oil price, but it was not just that: if the Royal Bank of Scotland had gone belly up in an independent Scotland, the impact would have been disastrous for Scotland. The case for the union was very strong. But in drawing attention to the dangers of a break-up, we understated the advantages of staying together. I cannot spell them out now in this short contribution, but they are to do with issues such as macroeconomic policy, defence and foreign affairs, pensions and so on. If we are to start talking in a constitutional convention about what the role of the United Kingdom is, we can make it meaningful again for the people of the United Kingdom. We can show people in Scotland—or England if we see a rise in English nationalism—the advantages of being part of the UK.

We are in a strange situation at the moment. In a way, the SNP’s view of the United Kingdom is a bit like the Tories’ view of Europe: “We don’t really want to be part of this but maybe we have to be”. That is a very negative approach. We need to think of the advantages and about how we do this. If the Government are not going to go down the road of a constitutional convention, will they please say what their strategy is to deliver what they said they would do in the Queen’s Speech, which is to create a strong and lasting settlement for the United Kingdom?

13:20

[Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab)]

My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Wills on initiating this debate. I was going to congratulate him on his timeliness, but this debate would have been timely at any point during the last Parliament and probably any time during this one as well, such is the pace of change that this Government are introducing and have introduced in the past.

We have heard today that there is very little in terms of a common approach from the Government regarding constitutional change. There is one common thread, in that most of these changes are botched, fragmentary and not thought through. Many of them, as my noble friend said, are determined by political advantage, which is not a good driving force for constitutional change. During the last Parliament, we had the AV referendum, although I disagree with my noble friend Lord Lipsey on electoral reform. We had the referendum not because the Government as a whole wanted to consider electoral reform but for the wrong reason—because of the coalition deal.

Then we had the Fixed-term Parliaments Act, which certainly suited some in terms of political advantage at the time, although I am not sure that the electorate were enamoured of it when it came to that very long election campaign. I wish my noble friend Lord Grocott well in his attempt to repeal that Act. We also had the boundary changes, which several colleagues have talked about today. They were blatantly political. The idea of creating constituencies regardless of the natural boundaries in an area is dangerous. It makes the link between a Member of Parliament and their constituency all the more difficult. Any such constitutional change that has cutting the cost of politics as its purpose is going in the wrong direction. We should be defending the need for an effective representative democracy and not making cheap jibes in order to curry favour.

Nobody has mentioned the House of Lords reform that Nick Clegg introduced. That sank very quickly so perhaps it is best not to do dwell on it. But we saw other changes, such as voter registration. My noble friend produced figures that show that 8 million people will now be off the register. That is a serious situation, not just for our democracy but for our society. It will increase the alienation of many people, which is the last thing this country needs at this particular time.

Many noble Lords spoke about the Scottish referendum, of course. Many noble Lords in this House worked very hard to ensure that the result of that referendum was the right one—a vote for “better together”. However, our efforts were somewhat undermined when, after everyone had rejected the idea of a second question about devo-max on the ballot paper, we then had that vow—the panic measure a couple of days before, on the part of all parties—that undermined all that we had been trying to do.

Then, as others have said, it was even worse after the result, when separation had been rejected. Instead of making a statement consolidating the union, the Prime Minister, as my noble friend said, exploded a time bomb outside Downing Street in the morning, stoking up problems with his announcement about English votes for English laws being such a priority. As my noble friend said, you do not counter Scottish nationalism by fanning the flames of English nationalism— so much for the Government’s apparently enduring settlement aim, which totally contradicts what the Prime Minister did on that day.

It has been said that the purpose of EVEL is to harm the Labour Party. I am not sure that it will as much as people say, but some of that is in our own hands. I am sure that that was the motive behind what the Prime Minister said. Everybody within Parliament should be concerned that the Prime Minister is going to try to change our constitution by introducing English votes for English laws by changing the Standing Orders in the House of Commons, which could be done—and he wants to do it within 100 days. That is rather a fundamental change to go through simply on the basis of changing Standing Orders in another place. It is very serious indeed.

We have seen lots of piecemeal changes. Mention has been made today of the possibility of a constitutional convention, conference, convocation, commission or whatever—call it what you will. I do not think that the name matters. Maybe there should be a Joint Committee of both Houses. We need to know how all of these changes will knit together or I fear that we will have a ridiculous and unnecessary situation with many tensions and challenges, and too many times the courts will end up making decisions and not Parliament. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Norton: we need to step back, not to try to write a new codified constitution but to clarify the framework and get a coherent approach.

I want to make a final point about one type of creeping constitutional change that has not so far been mentioned: the increasing use—some would say abuse—of Henry VIII powers in legislation. Sweeping changes are now being made by regulation and no proper indication is being given about the nature of those changes at the time that the legislation goes through—even in Committee and on Report. As Ministers we have all tried to push the boundary on that a little, but we used to have in government a legislation committee—a Cabinet committee—that actually looked at how legislation was fit for purpose and fit for being introduced. One of the tests of that was whether the statutory instruments that were being proposed were proportionate. We have got well away from SIs being proportionate. It is almost as if Ministers are competing to see who can get away with the most—on my count the noble Lord, Lord Nash, is winning at the moment. This House probably needs to look at whether we need a new mechanism so that it does not reject or accept an SI but has some powers of delay. That would be very helpful.

I congratulate my noble friend. He is right that we should keep returning to this issue and keep asking the questions about how the constitutional changes will fit together. He reminded the House that part of our role is to be a constitutional long-stop. This House has to take that responsibility very seriously indeed.

13:29

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, to abuse an allusion from a former Prime Minister’s phrase, our union is one that is not at ease with itself. In his opening remarks the noble Lord, Lord Wills, said that our union is frayed, and I cannot disagree with that. I thank him for bringing this debate to the House. The absence of ease within our union was demonstrated in the general election when the political imperative in our nation became almost overpowering, with fear of government in one part of the United Kingdom being set against that in another. The last posters of the nature we saw being displayed in the United Kingdom were those of a century ago on the Irish question. The union is a remarkable and resilient creation, but I fear that its resilience will be tested if we have perpetual government in the same manner as the kind of election campaign we saw in May. Government of the United Kingdom cannot be sustainable in the long term if it is formed from only one nation within the union and a one-party state in another part of the country, always using opposition against that union Government to its electoral advantage.

Surely for all of us who believe in the union, there must be discomfort with the greater political incentive being identity rather than philosophy. We in the United Kingdom are not immune to the wave of nationalism in Europe that has been gaining ground either. In May, some 6 million people in these islands voted for overtly nationalist parties. However, there is nothing to be gained from criticising or blaming the people for doing that. Our role must be to consider carefully what our union means in all parts of it and what it offers for every citizen, from the northern islands to Cornwall and from Wales to the east coast or the south coast. With all their different political imperatives and pressures, and all their different economic situations, they are still part of the union, and it seems that it is indeed becoming more frayed.

Our task in this Parliament is therefore to work on how we can resolve our relationship within the union, and its relationship with the wider European Union. If the union is to be at ease with itself, surely it must be outward-looking rather than one where, even on reading all the party manifestos in the election, one gets the impression that we will be spending the next five years looking inwards at ourselves and not beyond. If there is any lesson to be learned from the Scottish referendum, I would caution the Minister that if he thinks the European referendum will be the resolution of many of these issues, that is perhaps a naive thought. As the noble Lord, Lord Norton, said, this debate is about the implications of constitutional change, but I wish to take a slightly different slant and consider what the implications are for the union as a whole. However, I cannot but draw the conclusion that if we continue with perpetual changes to one part of the constitution in isolation from consideration of their impact on the other parts, the pressure on the whole will become too great.

My noble friend Lord Steel highlighted the consistent view of Liberals and others for many generations that home rule or a federal arrangement is the most appropriate framework for government. Even in the constitutional crisis a century ago that led to the Parliament Act and others, there was no referendum in any one part of the union to secede from another. We have challenges ahead of us of a larger order than those which previous generations faced and we are not yet in a position to make a response in a commensurate way. We have not considered sufficiently what the referendum in Scotland tells us; we are still in the process of carrying out a sigh of relief rather than making a proper and rational assessment of what is required for the future. That is because for many years we have not been ahead of the debate on the constitution. We have debated it often, as has been indicated by other speakers, but we have done so almost in complaint about and in response to difficulties in one part of the United Kingdom, not to propose a new relationship for the country. As we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell, and others, I do not question for one moment the ability of our Civil Service to make a silver purse out of a constitutional sow’s ear; we can do remarkable things by attaching a crown to something and giving it a historical name—suddenly it becomes a convention or a constitutional practice. But such a piecemeal approach, even with a degree of finesse, is no longer sufficient and it cannot be the pattern of things to come.

As my noble friend Lord Rennard indicated, it does not need to be that way. There can be cross-party agreements and ways forward so that we can secure some form of agreement. But we must change our mindset so that constitutional reform is not the Government having to do something in response to a political pressure of the day, but wanting to do something to hold the whole together. I hope therefore that my Constitutional Convention Bill will receive a fair hearing. It is meant to be one way of trying to gather together as much consensus as possible, along with a specific remit which means that we can address what the noble Lord, Lord Butler, indicated was his concern; namely, that we delay one part in order to try to make what is perhaps a naive attempt at achieving the whole in the future. We need not delay the Government, which to be fair are seeking to honour their commitment to Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the cities, but it is important that we should commence at the same time a process to consider how the whole brings this together in a holistic way.

My Bill is a vehicle through which the Government can address the human rights legislation issue and how it fits in with our constitutional arrangements; about how we can have fair financing, not only for the cities and regions of England, but also about the formula which holds the whole together across the nations. And, yes, it also means that from that, we can then work out what the appropriate role for this institution is under the electoral system for this Chamber. I hope that the outcome may well be a charter of new union. It may well be a document which, while not a written constitution, would certainly signal what this union is and what it is for.

Finally, I know that a constitutional convention was not in the Conservative manifesto; it did not propose a convention, but nor did it rule one out. I am of an optimistic disposition and I know that the Minister is greatly experienced and a shrewd adviser. Since he was an adviser to the former Prime Minister who was seeking a nation that was at ease with itself, I hope that he will see the merit in a process that will assist in having a union at ease with itself too.

13:37

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I warmly welcome this debate and thank my noble friend Lord Wills for his opening remarks. I certainly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Norton, on the need for a coherent approach to constitutional change. He has made the point many times before. Any objective analysis of the Government’s proposals would show that they have produced anything but that coherence, and they certainly do not answer the questions raised by my noble friend Lord Soley when he asked what the nature of the UK itself is in the current context and about the need for a lasting settlement. Indeed, as my noble friend Lord Wills said, many of the proposals seem to be motivated by short-term political advantage rather than in order to provide any long-term national benefit. I certainly see nothing in them that would bring our nation together, nor do I see anything which would restore public confidence in the health of our political system. I shall take one example. As my noble friend Lady Taylor said, we have proposals to create two tiers of Members of Parliament on the basis of Commons Standing Orders. A change of such immense importance surely deserves the full scrutiny of both Houses of Parliament, looking not only just at the proposal, but at the impact on the rest of the constitution.

We also see proposals for the repeal of the Human Rights Act which will reduce the ability of those who find themselves the victims of state abuse to defend themselves adequately, along with proposals which may involve the Human Rights Act continuing to apply in Scotland and Northern Ireland but not in England, thus driving a further wedge between England and Wales on the one hand and the rest of the United Kingdom on the other. My noble friend Lady Kennedy pointed out the risks of that.

There are proposals from the Justice Secretary to limit the public’s right to know by emasculating the Freedom of Information Act, and proposals to make it more difficult for unions to donate to political parties and ballot their members. These proposals do absolutely nothing to increase the transparency of donations made by private donors to political parties, particularly the Conservative Party. In the Bills that the Government intend to introduce, nowhere is there any sense of the public crisis in confidence in our constitutional arrangements. Where is the response to the work of my noble friend Lady Kennedy and the Power inquiry and the disengagement of so many people from those who wield power? Where are the proposals to deal with the imbalance in registration of voters? The young, the renters—those who do not own their own homes—the poor and those from minority ethnic groups have the highest levels of non-registration. What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that electoral registration does not leave millions of people unregistered? My noble friend suggested that the figure is 8 million.

What steps will the Minister take to stop new constituencies being created that fail to take account of the actual number of people who live there? What is his response to my noble friend Lord Lipsey, who pointed out that the bias in favour of Labour has now been reversed, which should give the Government a greater sense of interest in providing greater tolerance in the numbers that will be allowed for each constituency? I also want to ask about the recent report of the Electoral Commission of the 1.9 million people retained on the electoral register under transitional arrangements. The Electoral Commission wants to delay bringing forward the order to bring an end to the IER. Will the Minister say whether the Government agree?

On human rights, my noble friend Lord Judd spoke of the indispensability of international institutions. How right he is. My noble friend Lady Kennedy spoke of the tragedy of our potential withdrawal on human rights. We have a Government who say that they support human rights but that they should be British human rights. Of course, one has to go back to the October 2014 document which said that the Conservatives would reintroduce the rights in the same wording as the convention rights, but would make it clear that there are aspects of those rights that would be specifically excluded. For example—the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, has already pointed this out—on the prohibition of deportations if the deportee would be tortured or killed on return, such deportations could go ahead. Another example is the application of human rights law to the military.

We are very confused about what the Government intend partly because Ministers keep making remarks that seem to be in direct contradiction to each other. The Minister has a very good opportunity to spell out what are the Government’s intentions. Can he say whether they will withdraw from the convention? The Lord Chancellor made remarks on this yesterday that directly contradicted something one of his junior Ministers said very recently.

On devolution, I will simply say that in relation to Scotland we want the Smith commission to be implemented in a comprehensive way. We want to keep the Barnett formula alongside more powers to make the Scottish Parliament one of the most powerful devolved Parliaments in the world. We also want to put devolution on a stronger statutory basis. We agree with the proposals of the Silk commission but Wales should not be unfairly disadvantaged by the Barnett formula, and we support a fair funding system for Wales by introducing a funding floor. In Northern Ireland we welcome any aspects of the Stormont House agreement, but the current deferment of decisions on welfare mean that the agreement is in a precarious position. I should like to know what the Government are doing with the Northern Ireland Executive to deal with this issue.

On English devolution, I want to pick up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Rennard. We certainly support the devolution of much greater powers and control of budgets to the city regions and counties, but surely it is for those cities and counties to decide on their own leadership arrangements. Why, when the people of Birmingham made it abundantly clear in a referendum that we did not want an elected mayor, are we now being effectively blackmailed into having one to get powers commensurate with the importance of the greater Birmingham region to the UK economy?

On Lords reform, my noble friend Lord Desai put forward a perfectly coherent set of proposals and the noble Lord, Lord Steel, mentioned the Bryce commission of 1918, which bears a rather uncanny resemblance to the Billy Bragg secondary mandate proposals. The Conservative manifesto states:

“While we still see a strong case for introducing an elected element into our second chamber, this is not a priority in the next Parliament … will ensure the House of Lords continues to work well by addressing issues such as the size of the chamber and the retirement of peers”.

I assume it means that the Government will do absolutely nothing except address the size of the Chamber by appointing even more Conservative life Peers.

I want to ask about the increasing practice, raised by my noble friend Lady Taylor, which we have noticed in the number of Bills coming forward. They seem to be skeleton Bills with lots of Henry VIII powers. My noble friend said that we should look at whether the House should respond in the way in which it deals with statutory instruments. If the Government are using Commons Standing Orders to introduce two tiers of MPs in the House of Commons they should not be surprised if we seek to use Standing Orders in this House to give greater scrutiny to secondary legislation. The precedent will have been set in the other place.

My noble friend is so right. This is a programme aimed at short-term advantage and promotes division. It threatens the union, the reach of our voting system, the rights of our citizens and the strength of our nation as a defender of human rights in the world. Our political system is in trouble. The union is fragile. Our place in Europe is uncertain. Politicians are held in low esteem. Only 43% of those registered aged 18 to 24 voted at the last election. What better illustration of the problems in our political system?

No one should be complacent about the state of the health of our constitution. We have to re-engage and strengthen our constitutional arrangements. If ever we needed to look at the constitution in the round, the time is now. That is why we support the establishment of a constitutional convention. Why will the Government not agree to that?

13:47

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Lord Bridges of Headley) (Con)]

My Lords, what a fantastic debate this has been, and I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Wills, on securing it. He is quite right, I did read history at Oxford, but sadly, I clearly was somewhere else—maybe somewhere involving alcohol and thinking about things. It is another sign of my misspent youth; for example, when they were trying to teach us about Aristotle, I missed it.

When I was told there was to be a short debate on the constitution I looked at my officials in bemusement and asked whether this was not a contradiction in terms or actually a physical impossibility. This debate has been excellent; we have covered a lot of ground. I feel as if I have just been hit by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, with a tidal wave of questions about the constitution.

I remind your Lordships that Walter Bagehot began his seminal work on the constitution by quoting John Stuart Mill, who said that,

“on all great subjects, there still remain many things to be said”.

Of no subject is this more true than the British constitution. Much more remains to be said but I thank all noble Lords for their contributions, creating what the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, described as a constitutional cornucopia, from which I shall try to pluck some of the fruits.

Trying to sum up is a little daunting. I feel like I am facing one of those test papers in that great source of insight into the British constitution, which I am sure noble Lords know well—1066 and All That—where students face questions such as:

“Examine the state of mind of (1) Charles I, half an hour after his head was cut off (2) Charles II, half a moment after first sighting Nell Gwyn”.

As the noble Lord, Lord Norton, said, the exam question before us today, and for me to try to answer, is to note the implications of the constitutional changes proposed in the gracious Speech.

Let me start by rehearsing the intention behind those measures. As has been said, including by the noble Lord, Lord Butler, the Government intend to govern in the interests of one nation. This was a clear theme of the gracious Speech. What does that mean? In practice it means ensuring that our constitution, the institutions and the democratic processes that underpin our nation create a stable polity. Let me try to address my noble friend Lord Norton’s excellent exam question: this means that we need a constitutional settlement in which Parliament is sovereign and which is characterised by the principles of giving power to the people—a point that the noble Lord, Lord Butler, made so well. It is also a fair settlement and one that has a pragmatic recognition—two words that I emphasise—of the unique nature and characteristics of the different parts of our union. I am unsure that that answers my noble friend Lord Norton’s question, but I would be happy to debate with him further on it.

What does this mean in practice? We have rehearsed a number of these points today. It means that we will meet our commitment to deliver further powers to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. It means—a critical point here on giving power to the people—a referendum on this country’s continued membership of the EU. It means, in the interests of fairness, that we will address the English question through the introduction of English votes, a point that I will return to. Further, it means that we will introduce a Bill of Rights, which will uphold fundamental human rights while protecting against the abuses of the Human Rights Act, a point that I will also return to. To answer my noble friend Lord Norton’s question about the machinery of government, clearly my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has oversight of all government policy, while my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster co-ordinates the constitutional reform programme.

I turn to the constitutional convention, or convocation, or however others might like it. I applaud the speech on this by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed. He spoke eloquently, as always. I shall answer this not by being coy, as the noble Lord, Lord Steel, suggested; I shall address it head on. The Government do not plan to establish a constitutional convention. Instead, our focus must be on delivering the commitments that we made to the people of the United Kingdom. The Government were elected with a mandate to deliver the commitments that I have listed and that should not be delayed, as the noble Lord, Lord Butler, said in his powerful contribution.

There is nothing to suggest that the public want a constitutional convention. Instead, I point out that they were offered one at the last election by the Labour Party. It was one of the policies that was rejected and no doubt went the same way as the “Ed stone”. Instead, I argue that the British people want the Government to get on with the job they were elected to do. It might seem odd to quote Elvis Presley in this context, but I kept thinking of his song, “A Little Less Conversation”—a little more action. That is what I think the British people want on this point.

I know that the noble Lord, Lord Wills, has been keen on such a convention for some time. Indeed, I read his pamphlet back in 2006. He proposed that a convention might consist of 300 members who would be elected at a general election. They would look at everything: from devolution to an issue that I know matters to your Lordships—age restrictions on Peers—the whole gamut. Their contributions would be put to the public in a referendum. I should add that the noble Lord suggested that no one who ever stood for election would be able to serve on this convention, so that includes himself and a number of your Lordships.

I mention this not to put in lights the noble Lord’s contribution to the debate, but really to make the point that every person who wants an official convention has their own particular view as to who should be on it and what it should do. To get any agreement, I suspect that we would need a convention on a convention. Furthermore, international experience shows the challenges that lie in dealing with the outcomes of such conventions and then securing public and political legitimacy for their conclusions. In Ireland, of the 18 recommendations made by its constitutional conventions, just two were put to a referendum. In British Columbia and in Ontario the public rejected the outcomes.

Rather than go down this route, I argue that we must press ahead with the package of reforms that we have set out and scrutinise them vigorously, as a number of noble Lords have said. If others wish to look at these issues in a broader context, either here in Parliament or elsewhere, or even to set up their own convention, they are more than welcome to do so. Let a thousand flowers bloom, I say; knowing that your Lordships are not shrinking violets, I am sure they will. As the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, implored, your Lordships should do this as we are the best placed to do the job. What we cannot afford is an expensive talking shop that would delay, rather than deliver, reform. If we are really to listen to the people, kicking this issue into the long grass is not the answer. Those are not my words, but those of Margaret Hodge. For once, I entirely agree with her.

I turn to the reforms. Through the measures that we are introducing in this Parliament, the Government will deliver some of the most powerful devolved Parliaments in the world. I dispute with those noble Lords who contend that there is not a programme here. It is important that those increased decision-making powers be accompanied by enhanced accountability to ensure that the devolved Administrations are responsible to the people who elect them.

On Scotland, I dispute what some of your Lordships have said: that the approach the Government are adopting is partisan. The Scotland Bill delivers the Smith commission agreement, on which there was cross-party agreement, in full. We are providing extensive new powers and more control over tax and spending. As set out in the St David’s Day agreement, we will devolve additional powers to Wales over areas such as transport, energy and the environment, and empower the Assembly to manage its own affairs. For Northern Ireland, the Stormont House agreement offers the prospect of a more prosperous, stable and secure future. I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State is meeting the parties again today, having held a series of bilaterals with all parties over the last week.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed]

The Minister referred to the Smith commission, which was established by the Prime Minister and chaired so well by the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Kelvin. Perhaps that indicates that commissions —which can be cross-party, consensual and result in clear conclusions that the Government then honour a commitment to deliver—need not be “long grass” and need not necessarily be in a party manifesto.

[Lord Bridges of Headley]

I argue instead that that commission was drawn up in response to a very specific point. It was brought about by the consequences of the referendum. What we have here is a much broader set of issues; as I argued, we do not have agreement on what a convention would do, its terms of reference or those who would sit on it. Furthermore, we have a mandate and a clear plan of action that we need to deliver. No doubt we will return to this in due course. I very much look forward to doing so.

Meanwhile, we are devolving more powers to cities and to communities. The local government Bill that is currently before your Lordships puts in place the legal framework enabling us to decentralise powers to cities and counties across the country. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Soley, for his support on that point. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, it would be for people to elect their local decision-makers and to hold them to account. I dispute the concept that they would be one-party states.

All this reflects the fact that the Government recognise that a one-size-fits-all approach to constitutional change will not work. The individual devolution settlements reflect the distinct histories and circumstances of the different parts of the United Kingdom. To make sure that those settlements function effectively, we must ensure that the Governments of the different nations of the United Kingdom work together. As such, all four of our Governments are working together to review the formal and informal processes that govern our relationships, and we will collectively agree the best way forward. As part of this, we will explore the recommendations of the House of Lords Constitution Committee’s report on intergovernmental relations.

I turn to English votes, another issue that a number of noble Lords have spoken about. Just as devolution has strengthened the voices of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland within our union, the Government’s proposals for English votes will create fairer procedures to ensure that decisions affecting England, or England and Wales, can be taken only with the consent of the majority of Members of Parliament representing constituencies in those parts of United Kingdom.

Once again, I refute the argument made by a number of noble Lords that this approach is partisan. As the noble Lord, Lord Butler, said, this issue and proposal is addressing something that was created by devolution. The West Lothian question is almost as old as I am. It sits there in the triptych of those other constitutional questions: the Schleswig-Holstein question and the Irish question. It deserves to be answered, as the noble Lord, Lord Soley, said.

What we need is a balanced and fair settlement which gives MPs from across the House a role in making legislation but ensures that English matters are approved by English MPs, just as Members of the Scottish Parliament have the final say on devolved matters. Importantly, every MP from every part of the UK will still be able to debate and vote on every piece of legislation in the Commons. English votes for English laws will therefore help safeguard the union by embedding fairness into Parliament’s law-making processes.

Several noble Lords referred to the Bill of Rights. As the noble Lord, Lord Wills, mentioned, this is obviously something a number of your Lordships have scrutinised in depth. This Government were elected with a clear mandate to reform and modernise the UK human rights framework. As such, we will bring forward proposals, as was set out, for a Bill of Rights to replace the Human Rights Act.

The Government are currently developing proposals on which we will consult fully in due course. The noble Lord, Lord Wills, and others argued that the Bill of Rights could undermine human rights. Once again, I disagree. Our Bill of Rights will protect fundamental human rights but also prevent their abuse and restore common sense to the system. We want to remain part of the European Convention on Human Rights but the system must be reformed to ensure that British judges decide how to interpret the law. Our Bill of Rights will therefore be based on convention rights but will take into account our common law tradition and make clear where the balance should lie between Strasbourg and the British courts—a point I think the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, referred to. We believe that we can make progress as part of the ECHR. However, to repeat what has been said before, we do not rule out leaving it if that proves impossible.

We will of course reflect on the devolution implications of a Bill of Rights as we develop our proposals, and we will engage the devolved Administrations in that process and make the case for reform. I know that this matter, like all the topics we are covering today, is of keen interest to your Lordships. Therefore, I reassure noble Lords, especially the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, that there will be significantly more consultation on and scrutiny of the Bill of Rights than there was for the Human Rights Act, which was introduced without formal consultation and within just six months.

The boundary review is, once again, an issue of fairness in order to give votes more equal value. Individual electoral registration policy has cross-party support and has been consulted upon widely and debated extensively in Parliament. The new online application service has made registration easier and more accessible than ever before, and it now takes as little as three minutes to submit an application. Indeed, there were more voters on the register at the general election than when the new IER was introduced a year before. As the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said, last week the Electoral Commission published its analysis of the registers used to administer the general election in May 2015. I can confirm that the Government will indeed respond to that report in due course.

Our constitutional history is one of change, some sudden, some gradual. Once again, Sir Walter Bagehot put this very well when he referred to,

“an ancient and ever-altering constitution”,

full of “hidden inner change”.

Our programme for this Session, as set out in the humble Address, aims to create a fair and balanced settlement which empowers people across the United Kingdom. As we proceed, obviously the proposals must be debated and scrutinised. I am sure that those points that have been raised today which I have failed to address will be debated further in full, but here the role of this House will be invaluable. John Stuart Mill was quite right, though: much remains to be said. I look forward to hearing more in the weeks and months ahead.

14:03

[Lord Wills]

My Lords, it was daunting enough to open this debate. It is even more daunting to close it after such a distinguished and compelling succession of speeches. I thank everyone on all sides of the House who took part in the debate. Every single contribution illuminated these extremely important issues.

I wish to pick up on only one point made by the noble Lord, Lord Butler, before I turn briefly to the Minister’s remarks. I do so only to set the record straight because he seemed to suggest that I was opposed to any attempt to deal with the West Lothian question, on the grounds that to do so would be partisan. That is not my position, as I think he will see when he reads Hansard tomorrow, as I hope he will. I am simply opposed to the way of dealing with it—the veto—set out in the Conservative Party manifesto. It is interesting that in his comprehensive remarks, the Minister did not seek to deny the story that I cited: that the Government’s motivation was to put a bomb on Labour territory. I do not know how the noble Lord, Lord Butler, defines “partisan”, but putting a bomb on the opposition’s territory seems a pretty good definition of it to me.

I thank the Minister for a very illuminating and comprehensive response to what I agree was an excellent debate. I am extremely grateful to him for reading our pamphlet, which means that I can now start counting its readership on my second hand. That is a devotion to duty that goes well beyond anything that could reasonably be expected of him, so I am grateful to him for that. I am also grateful to him for the wide range of references. I do not think I have ever been bracketed in the same paragraph with Elvis Presley before, something for which I will always be in the Minister’s debt.

Apart from that, I am afraid that the substance of the Minister’s response did nothing to allay my concerns about the Government’s programme. There are a whole range of issues on which we shall have to differ. I was particularly alarmed to note that the Government are still not ruling out leaving the European Convention on Human Rights. However, I have no doubt that we shall return to these issues again and again and again in the coming months. In the mean time, I beg to move.

Motion agreed.

Mental Health Services

Thursday 25th June 2015 Lords Chamber

Question for Short Debate

14:06

Asked by

[Baroness Thornton]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what action they plan to take in the light of the report by the Care Quality Commission, Right Here, Right Now, regarding providing young people with adequate help, care and support during a mental health crisis.

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

My Lords, I know that the Minister is now almost a veteran in your Lordships’ House, but he is new to me and I have not had the opportunity to welcome him to his position, which is one that I held in the past. I hope that he will enjoy his job as much as I did, and I know that, like me, he will probably by now know his place in your Lordships’ House, given its huge expertise on health matters. If he knows that, he will almost certainly succeed in his position.

Earlier this month, the Care Quality Commission produced Right Here, Right Now, an investigation into people’s experience of help, care and support as a result of a mental health crisis. In your Lordships’ House, we fought for, and won, the battle for parity of esteem. Indeed, I am very pleased to say that it was Labour votes in the House of Lords that ensured that the Government wrote parity of esteem between mental health and physical health into law. However, I am afraid that since then it has become clear that the reality does not match the rhetoric. Despite the Government saying that they would protect front-line services, on the coalition Government’s watch the budget for child and adolescent mental health was reduced year on year, and we have seen key prevention and early intervention services stripped back, such as child and adolescent mental health services—CAMHS—and early intervention in psychosis services.

This latest report found that people’s experience of mental health crisis care was simply not good enough, with children and young people in particular experiencing very poor care. I commend the CQC for this report, which clearly shows significant variations in the help, care and support available to people in crisis, and that often a person’s experience depends not only on where they live but on what part of the system they come into contact with. The CQC asked people to share their experiences, and what people told it demonstrates a real weakness in mainstream mental health provision as regards 24-hour crisis care. In some cases, the only recourse for people trying to access crisis services is to a phone line telling them to go to their local emergency department.

For children and young people, the problems are even more acute. There is a lack of health-based places of safety for children and young people. Many units do not accept children under 16, there is the problem of places of safety being already occupied, and there is a lack of CAMHS availability to support out-of-hours care. These issues often mean that children end up travelling many miles away from home. In June 2014, the Royal College of Psychiatrists conducted a survey that revealed that 83% of those surveyed had experienced difficulty at least once in finding an appropriate bed for children and young people, and that 22% of respondents who worked in child and adolescent mental health services had placed a child 200 miles away from their family.

Right Here, Right Now reveals a disparity between adult and child crisis care, particularly in accident and emergency. It found that:

“Through our local area inspections on people presenting to A&E in crisis, we found that there were clear differences in the quality of care experienced by those under 16 compared to those over 18 years old. The liaison psychiatry service met specifications set out in the RAID model. Adults were seen promptly and there were clear pathways through to community services. People aged 16 or 17 would be seen and assessed by the RAID team with support from CAMHS, while those under 16 were referred directly to the child and adolescent mental health service … This may be an appropriate referral route, but in practice it meant that if a CAMHS referral was made after 12.00 noon, the child would not be seen until the following day or potentially after the weekend, as the CAMHS team did not offer out-of-hours service”.

The disparity in care at accident and emergency is particularly concerning given that the number of children under 18 attending accident and emergency for psychiatric conditions increased by 82.5% between 2010-11 and 2013-14.

Young Minds, an organisation that does excellent work, believes that as well as improving the response to children attending accident and emergency with mental health crises, much more should be done to provide early intervention support so that children do not end up in a crisis in the first place. A freedom of information request by Young Minds found that 74 out of 96—77%— of NHS clinical commissioning groups froze or cut their CAMHS budgets between 2013-14 and 2014-15. It also found that 59 out of 98—60%—of local authorities in England have cut or frozen their child and adult mental health services budgets since 2010-11, and that 56 out of 101—55%—of local authorities that supplied data have cut, frozen or increased below inflation their budgets in this area. It has also been revealed that 80 educational psychologist posts have been lost since 2010.

As well as the disparity between experiences of attending accident and emergency, there is a disparity between adults and children when it comes to health-based places of safety under the Mental Health Act. While I am sure that everybody would welcome the move to end the practice of detaining children and young people in police cells, Right Here, Right Now says:

“The decrease in the use of police custody may not mean that people are more likely to be detained under section 136 in dedicated places of safety based in mental health services. It may be that a desire to avoid using police custody has moved the pressure to elsewhere in the local system”.

It also says:

“We also had concerns about the provision of appropriate places of safety for children and younger people. We found that too many providers had policies that excluded young people from all their places of safety … These restrictions created untenable situations where people under 18 were one and a half times more likely to end up in police custody. However, there has been a major drive to reduce the number of children and young people in police custody”,

which we welcome. It goes on to say:

“Between 2012/13 and 2013/14, the percentage of under 18s detained in police custody fell from approximately 45% to around 31% ... This is a positive achievement, but it still means that nearly one in three people under 18 ended up in police custody rather than somewhere they could receive appropriate treatment”.

I have some questions for the Minister. Future in Mind, the report of the Children and Young People’s Mental Health and Wellbeing Taskforce, states:

“If you have a crisis, you should get extra help straightaway, whatever time of day or night it is. You should be in a safe place where a team will work with you to figure out what needs to happen next to help you in the best possible way”.

For many children and young people, as the CQC report makes clear, this is simply not the case. What steps is the Department of Health taking to implement Future in Mind? Indeed, what are the Government doing to ensure that early intervention actually happens? How will they persuade the CCGs to give this the priority that it needs, as this is the obvious and oft repeated answer to how to mitigate these crises? Given the paucity of child-appropriate health-based places of safety, as the CQC highlights, does the Minister share the CQC’s concern that the banning of police cells, while most welcome, will create pressure in other parts of the system? Does the department have any solutions?

In Stamp Out Stigma, the Time to Change campaign seeks to tackle the stigma surrounding mental health and to break the taboo that is often associated with mental health problems. I was recently surprised to read the comments made by a Member of this House about mental health, which illustrates why we need to be on our guard not to perpetuate, even by accident, the stigma that goes with mental health issues. In a discussion about lowering the voting age, a noble Lord said:

“My Lords, does the Minister agree that an important part of due diligence in the policy of lowering the voting age would be to consult child development experts? Is she interested to learn that the view of a child development expert who has treated 16 and 17 year-olds for depression, eating disorders and other health issues over many years is that while quite a few 16 and 17 year-olds would be old enough to make a good decision in this area, many would not?”.—[Official Report, 1/6/15; col. 157.]

Several arguments can be made about not lowering the voting age. The issue of mental health is not one of them. In fact, it is probably a rather dangerous road down which to tread.

I have a final question for the Minister. Labour committed to enshrining in the constitution a right to mental health therapies. Just before the election, the Conservatives announced that they would do the same. The Government have launched a consultation, which has subsequently concluded. When can we see a response to that, and what action might be taken?

Right Here, Right Now highlights yet again that mental health services are failing and that this is a very unsatisfactory situation that creates terrible distress, stress and heart break, and sometimes even worse, for people with mental health problems and their families.

14:16

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, for introducing this debate. I was delighted that she and her colleagues felt able to support the Liberal Democrat amendment on parity of esteem. The noble Baroness has given a very comprehensive outline of the problems highlighted by the report and I will not repeat them. Suffice it to say that we on these Benches will support anything the Government do to alleviate the problems of young people with mental health issues before and during crisis situations. Early access to treatment is the key to reducing the number of crisis occurrences and good planning of adequate services and information to patients are key to making sure that people in crisis can get the help, as the CQC says, “right here, right now”.

We are proud of the record of our Liberal Democrat Ministers, Paul Burstow and Norman Lamb, in the last Government. They were involved in announcing: parity of esteem for physical and mental health; an increase in funding for mental health, including more in-patient beds; increased focus on child and adolescent mental health; and equal waiting time targets. The Children and Young People’s Mental Health Taskforce report Future in Mind is an excellent blueprint for the five-year national programme of improvement commenced under the auspices of my right honourable friend Norman Lamb and it is part of his excellent legacy in the Department of Health. The mental health crisis care concordat was another great achievement and it is good to know that everyone has now signed up to it and that most local authorities have a plan to deliver it. However, resources have been scarce for most of the past five years so this progress has to be seen in the context of an earlier reduction in the number of mental health beds and years of insufficient focus on children and young people.

I welcome the Government’s proposal to ban the use of police cells for young people in crisis. However, I want to talk about timing. There are times when Governments, in their rush to do the right thing, forget that if they do not put other things in place before acting, they can make things worse. I can think of the spare room subsidy which the previous Government imposed without ensuring that sufficient smaller properties were available for people to downsize. That is why my party put forward a Private Member’s Bill to ensure that tenants would not have to contribute for spare rooms unless they had been offered suitable smaller accommodation and refused it. Sadly, that was defeated in another place. Another potential example is the current Government's plan for seven-day availability of GP services at a time when we have not even got enough GPs to fulfil current demand.

I am concerned that if the ban on use of police cells is brought in before the problems highlighted in this thematic report from the CQC are addressed, we will be leaving young people in crisis with nowhere to go. I do not want to see police officers disciplined for bringing young people into police stations when there are no age-appropriate therapeutic services available for them and that is the only thing they can do. I do not want to see A&E departments trying to cope with these young people, who need time that the staff do not have and a calm atmosphere—which is not going to be found in A&E. I do not want to see young people failing to call for help when they need it because they know that the police cannot protect them—often from themselves—and neither can A&E.

It really does not seem right that people are being turned away from services when they ask for help only to be detained when their condition deteriorates. However, although they are not the appropriate service to help in mental health crises, it has to be said that the police do their best, and many patients in this situation report that they get better help from them than from some other services. Some forces have implemented rather creative strategies. I have heard of at least one force where officers called out after hours to a person who clearly is having a mental health crisis take a community psychiatric nurse with them. These nurses are able to assess the situation and calm the patient, allowing him to be dealt with appropriately. This is an excellent example of thinking outside the box and is to be commended.

I ask the Government to ensure that before this very welcome ban comes into force they have all their ducks in a row, so to speak. My question, therefore, is: how will the Government assess when this is the case so that the ban can be safely implemented once the legislation has gone through?

There is one large group that is particularly at risk in these situations: young people who have recently left care, many of whom develop mental health issues soon after having to live independently. Many of these young people do not have a responsible adult to turn to and do not access services early, and far too many of them suffer a crisis and harm themselves or even commit suicide.

There is evidence that the problems overall may be understated by the official figures. Although only 53 under-15s and 312 16 to 17 year-olds were admitted to adult mental health wards in 2013-14, people were counted only once no matter how many times they were admitted in the year. These figures come from an Answer to a Written Question from Luciana Berger.

Another problem is poor anticipation of a future crisis and poor communication between services. The report we are discussing found that the rate of people admitted to acute hospital via A&E for a mental health condition varied across the country. In 2012-13, more than 4,000 people had attended A&E multiple times—on average, at least once a month—in the five years before being admitted. This is likely to be a sign that local services are not working well together and that people are not getting the specialist help they need. Should there not be guidelines that a red flag is raised when these multiple attendances occur?

Given that the pathways into help in a crisis are several, can the Minister reassure us that local concordat teams are covering all the bases, ensuring good communication and providing services at the right time? Will he emphasise that patients need to know who to call to get help? One of the worst findings in the report was the large number of patients at risk of a crisis who said that they did not know who to call in an emergency—no wonder they land up in A&E.

I realise that the task for local commissioners is a difficult one. They need to predict what crisis services will be needed and at what times, and make those services available. This requires a deep knowledge of the status of patients in their area and a commitment to providing therapies which will prevent problems reaching crisis point. So my final question is: how are the Government assessing how well this is being done?

14:24

[Baroness Massey of Darwen (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Thornton for introducing this debate. She has highlighted many of the problems facing young people that are set out in the Care Quality Commission report, as has the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley. Both have said that young people are particularly vulnerable and badly served.

As we can see from the excellent Library briefing, there have been numerous deliberations about young people’s mental health from a variety of sources. Importantly, the then Minister, Norman Lamb, said earlier this year that these set out a compelling economic case for change, and change is what we have to focus on. The All-Party Group for Children, which I chair, has conducted an inquiry into the development of good mental health and emotional well-being for young people in the face of life’s challenges. I shall say a little bit about that but will first ask the Minister: what is happening to all the initiatives for young people and reports that have come out in recent years?

I want to mention briefly the report published by the Association for Young People’s Health, based on key data on adolescence. The report points out that half of all cases of psychiatric disorder start by the age of 14, and three-quarters by 24. Around 13% of boys and 10% of girls have mental health problems. The most common issue for boys is conduct; for girls it is emotional difficulties. Mental health issues include eating disorders, attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder, behavioural problems, self-harm and, in extremis, suicide. Mental ill-health is on a spectrum from low-level to severe. It is not necessarily an extreme psychiatric disorder. Good mental health can be encouraged, and I shall say something about this in a moment.

As I turn to the findings of the all-party group inquiry on children’s mental health, I thank yet again the National Children’s Bureau for its wonderful support, not only in organising the evidence sessions but in recording the findings, and for supporting children in general. The inquiry on mental health was a joint one, involving other all-party groups: those on child protection, penal affairs, and looked-after children and care leavers. We looked at three key challenges: relationships, service provision and transitions. We took evidence from young people, doctors, charities, schools and researchers.

One thing which became very clear at the beginning was that emotional exploitation online has a devastating effect on children. There is good evidence on this from ChildLine. Parents are often baffled by the online world and need advice and help. There is the need for better and more easily accessible support for young people, including online services such as cybermentors and online counselling. Is the law keeping up with technology? Will the Government encourage such services and the provision of extra information for parents?

The manager of a secure children’s home told the inquiry that there need to be expert child-centred holistic services to meet the complex needs of young people, including appropriate assessment of health, substance misuse and offending behaviour. Interventions need to include therapy and counselling, such as art therapy. Also important for young people is access to employment and accommodation.

I now want to look at what might be done to help prevent distress in children in the first place. A supportive family is all-important. Sadly some children do not have this and, even when they do, things can go wrong. Early spotting of learning problems such as dyslexia, and of behavioural problems such as bullying or self-harm, is essential. This may happen through a number of agencies, including parents, the voluntary sector, schools, children’s services, or the police. The old issue of services being co-ordinated and accessible is important, and we sometimes miss out on problems and the potential for early intervention. Others have asked this question, which I will repeat: how can we improve cross-agency working?

I will say a word about schools. The all-party group heard from pupils, teachers and researchers about how school can be distressing for some children. Focusing on performance and academic success can be unproductive if emotional needs are not met. It was said that student well-being is as important as academic achievement and must be integrated into every part of school life and learning. Children can develop self-esteem and resilience through a school’s approach. I have long supported, as has the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, the inclusion of statutory personal, social and health education in and outside the school curriculum. I am aware that the Government are considering the call of the Select Committee on PSHE to make it statutory in schools. I hope that the Government will take a positive approach to that.

An earlier inquiry by the All-Party Group for Children calls for action to implement the recommendation of the Children and Young People’s Health Outcomes Forum. It states that the Government should make it a legal obligation for public bodies to have due regard for children’s rights and that schools should ensure they develop a full programme for personal development, as well as academic skills, and link to support services. A cross-government youth strategy should be established, building on the report Positive for Youth. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure the House that proactive measures, such as those I have mentioned briefly today, will be made concrete so that we can support children and families in preventing mental health problems and offering support and services if they arise.

14:31

[Lord Graham of Edmonton (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure and a privilege to take part in any debate in this House but I am very grateful to have put my name down to make a small contribution in this Short Debate. The House demonstrates the quality of its service to the nation when people are able to stand up from their own experiences and ideas to stimulate the Government and others into thinking again about how things are done. I begin, as I have many times before, by thanking the staff of the Library for producing such an excellent document to give us a guide. It is not the first time and they never let us down, so I am very grateful. The trouble is that it is like going into a self-service just for a snack. By the time you have decided to be serious, you have read all the briefing—and I did read it all—so you realise that you rely upon other people to give you a nudge and a guide.

It is at least 80 years since I could say that I was a young person of the kind we are talking about. I was 90 about a month ago, so I can reflect on the nature of childhood as it was when I was a child and childhood now. Of course, there is no comparison for the bleakness of the ability of your mum and dad to provide you with toys, outings, books or encouragement, as my dad was on the dole for 10 years from 1930 to 1940. I passed my 11-plus but could not go because of my circumstances. Eventually, I got a degree from the Open University—a BA. I got an honorary MA afterwards and then became a member of the Privy Council. We need to recognise that the challenges before young people and their parents in the present years are completely different from the challenges when I was a boy in the 1920s and 1930s.

I congratulate my noble friend Lady Thornton on the comprehensive way in which she introduced the subject. She has a point of view and she has answers to the questions. I do not have many questions and I have no answers to any of them. The Minister will realise, as I do and the House does, that the money available in the budget plays a major part. The problems can be exposed, as they are in this debate. Every person who has spoken has a contribution to make. The idea that there is a solution to every problem is not new. There is a solution but it is a question of priorities with the money available. One thing that strikes me about where we are falling down is that there is a lack of co-ordination among the various services. In other words, this is not a political issue—except on the budget, which we could say something about if it was necessary. It is about co-ordination between the services.

One gets terrible news almost every week of a problem among the police, the press or media, or the schools. In the phrase that came before, what has happened to all the reports? What we are debating is not brand new. There is very little in it that we have not had warning about in the past. We have to try to recognise that, while the heart is in the right place, it is sometimes difficult to exercise what one knows to be needed because there are priorities. I would be happy to speak about my own list of priorities but that is not the point here. The problem that the Minister and his colleagues have is: what can we do with the limited resources that we have? It ever was that the amount of money available at any time is insufficient to do everything that one needs.

I have been very impressed by what I have heard this afternoon. What we need is a Minister who will go away and look at the manner in which people slip between the various services. With all the various agencies that there are, it ought not to be possible to slip between. Yet whenever there is a scandal of some kind, it is revealed that the evidence which could have been acted upon was available but not conveyed to the proper people. One thing that the Minister should take away, in a busy life and with limited capacity as far as money is concerned, is to ask his colleagues to come up with ways in which they can collectively make sure that they look at the needs of young people now. More than ever before, they are at risk.

14:39

[Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, on securing this important debate. Failures in crisis care for children and young people often make for attention-grabbing headlines. We have all heard the stories of children being admitted to hospitals hundreds of miles away from their families, and of children held in police cells. The Care Quality Commission’s Right Here, Right Now report and other findings tell us that these dreadful situations are not isolated incidents but reflect a larger failure to provide sufficient crisis care for children and young people.

The adoption of the mental health crisis concordat last year was an enormous step forward for the provision of crisis care, pioneered by my right honourable friend Norman Lamb when a Minister. Central and local government and leaders of key services agreed to work towards making sure that compassionate and understanding crisis care would be available 24/7; that a mental health crisis would be treated with the same urgency as a physical health crisis; that people should be treated with dignity and respect in an environment that is conducive to their needs; and that appropriate follow-up services would be provided. That sounds great, but delivering the promises of the concordat will require more than generalised statements of support, very welcome as they are. We need to ensure that promises made in local area action plans are delivered. It will mean tackling long-standing failures in commissioning, which in turn will require strong and sustained local leadership and, crucially, the necessary resources. As we have already heard today, children and young people tend to receive a lower quality of crisis care. I thought it was shocking that the CAMHS 2013 benchmarking report noted that only 40% of CAMHS had crisis care pathways, as they are called.

What happens to those young people who cannot find the care they so desperately need—the other 60%? It is not a particularly encouraging picture. The CQC report found clear differences in the quality of care for children turning up at A&E in crisis compared to the quality of care for adults. In accordance with the rapid assessment and intervention model, adults are generally seen promptly and directed to community services, while 16 and 17 year-olds are assessed with support from CAMHS and those under 16 are referred directly to CAMHS. Your Lordships might say that sounds absolutely right but, as we have already heard today, the reality is that CAMHS are often not offered out of hours and if a CAMHS referral is made after midday, the child will often not be seen until the following day or even until after the weekend.

On the plus side, I was pleased to note that the Department of Health and NHS England have committed in their publication Achieving Better Access to Mental Health Services by 2020 to develop a national all-age liaison psychiatric service in A&E departments. This is both welcome and timely. Such a service should help ensure that children in crisis receive at least some support immediately. However, it is surely unacceptable that access to referral services should be so delayed. Could the Minister say what plans the Government have to establish an out-of-hours mental health service for children, as the recent Children and Young People’s Mental Health and Wellbeing Taskforce report, Future in Mind, recommended?

What happens if a young person experiencing a mental health crisis needs to be admitted to hospital? The reality is that in hospitals where in-patient treatment is provided, there are simply not sufficient places for children and young people. Although the prevalence of mental health problems has been increasing, there was a 39% drop between 1998 and 2012 in the number of mental health beds available in England, and this shortage has particularly impacted on children. In a recent survey by the Royal College of Psychiatrists of its trainees, 83% said they had difficulty finding an appropriate bed for children and young people, compared to 70% who had difficulty finding an appropriate bed for an adult. As a consequence, many children end up being admitted to wards for adults or to hospitals far from home. Of those surveyed, 22% reported having to place a child 200 miles away from home—a fact I find truly shocking. What chance does a young person have to recover without the care and support of their family nearby? Could the Minister say what assessment the Government have made of whether there are sufficient beds to ensure that children with severe mental health needs are able to access appropriate in-patient care in their area?

The availability of effective home treatment teams for children and young people can reduce the number of people who end up at A&E or who have to be admitted to hospital, which of course must be desirable. It is encouraging that the task force’s report referred to earlier, Future in Mind, found some good examples around the country of dedicated home treatment teams for children and young people. Could the Minister say what steps are being taken to develop improved information about the provision of these services and, indeed, to expand their provision?

Since the concordat, there has been widespread agreement about the need to stop the practice of holding children and young people in police cells as a so-called place of safety. I was pleased to see a specific commitment in the gracious Speech to legislate to ban this practice. This approach is already starting to make a difference, with numbers starting to fall. However, it remains the case that one-third of children and young people detained under Section 136 are held in police custody. Political commitment and the proposed change in the law, although very welcome, will not be enough. The truth is that the excessive use of police cells as places of safety is largely the consequence of operational and commissioning failures—a key theme running through my remarks today.

Too often, police stations are used as places of safety because health-based places of safety do not accept children. The CQC report found that 35% of the health- based places of safety surveyed do not accept under-16s. Similarly, research from the Howard League estimated that 74% of mental health trusts do not provide a specialised place of safety for children. I warmly welcome the Government’s announcement that they will commit £15 million to deliver health-based places of safety. What steps will be taken to ensure that clinical commissioning groups prioritise investment in this crisis care provision, particularly for children and young people?

To conclude, when people experiencing mental health crises do not have access to the sort of timely, effective and compassionate care that people with physical health problems do, it is not just unfortunate, it is simply unfair. It is even more unfair when children and young people experiencing a crisis relating to mental health problems do not even have access to the level of care that adults do. We can and must do better.

14:46

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I very much welcome the debate and very much support the speech made by my noble friend Lady Thornton. I also welcome the work done by the CQC, which identified some good practice but also raised some very serious failings in services. My noble friends Lady Massey, Lord Graham and Lady Thornton have rightly focused on CAMH services and the failures that have been very well documented. We know that the budget for CAMH services has been cut in real terms from £766 million in 2009-10 to £717 million in 2012-13. As we have heard, NHS England’s own 2014 tier 4 CAMHS report confirmed that 16% of patients travelled more then 100 miles to receive treatment, with many going more than 200 miles. It is clear that access for these young people to 24/7 services has worsened, with A&E or a police station often the only place to go.

I have no doubt that the Minister will put his trust in the crisis care concordat. I acknowledge the excellent work that has been done, and the concordat is clear: people experiencing a mental health crisis should have access to the help and support that they need 24 hours a day, seven days a week. But what is the status of the concordat? Is it being performance managed? Who, ultimately, is accountable for its implementation?

The CQC recommends that representatives of local crisis care concordat groups ensure: first, that all ways into crisis care are focused on providing accessible and available support; secondly, that commissioners are to be held to account; and thirdly, that they should engage with partners to encourage innovation. The question is how. If, for instance, their action plans are insufficient, what is going to happen and who is going to make them turn them into effective action plans? The concordat does not specify which organisation should lead this work locally. Why on earth not? The care concordat approach is an excellent one, but it lacks bite because no one is being held accountable for its implementation. Can the Minister sort this out and make sure that someone is truly held accountable?

I read a letter sent very recently by the Minister’s right honourable friend Mr Alistair Burt to the mental health crisis care concordat national signatory organisations. It is a remarkable letter of four pages, reading as eloquently as I would expect because DH officials drafted it. I have told the Minister before that DH officials are very good at writing letters and reports. However, it is all words. There is absolutely nothing in it. It has nothing to say about forcing the pace locally on implementing the concordat.

Of course, the Government have form here. I will not cross swords with the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, about credit for the parity of esteem amendment. All I will say is that it might have been her amendment but it was our votes “wot done it”—but we look forward to working together in future. Yet, despite the law, the NHS is determined not to implement it. We start with what can only be described as the outrageous decision of NHS England the year before last to discriminate in mental health funding as opposed to other services.

We have been told that funding for 2014-15 in mental health was planned to rise by £120 million. What was the actual outturn figure? Why do the Government say that more money will go into mental health whereas my understanding is that the forward plans of mental health trusts show that many are planning for a reduction because they have no confidence whatever that clinical commissioning groups will actually do what they were told? NHS England has direct control over CCGs. Why is it not informing CCGs that they must put more money into mental health services?

We now have transformation plans. My understanding is that the Government tasked every CCG with creating transformation plans outlining what they will do to deliver mental health. How will we judge whether those have been successful? We know that mental health data collection is poor. We also understand that the Government are producing guidance for CCGs on how to complete the transformation plans. A key question is: they produce the plan, but then what? Who will actually hold them to account for delivering on it?

That leads me to the better care fund. The Minister knows that this is designed to provide a joint approach to the planning and delivery of health and social care services. Now, given the pressures on A&E, which is really what this is meant to address, and given that we know that because of the cutbacks in mental health services more and more people with mental health issues come to A&E, I would have thought that mental health services would be at the heart of these better care fund plans. However, my understanding from Written Answers to PQs is that of the £5.3 billion of plans submitted in September last year, a mere £370 million was planned for investment in mental health services. That is an extraordinarily low figure. It means that the health service is determined not to implement parity of esteem despite it being a legal requirement. Finally, when will the Government get serious about making the NHS not only respond to guidance or plans but actually act in relation to mental health according to the law of the land?

14:53

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Prior of Brampton) (Con)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, on bringing this really important debate to the House. I also pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Graham, for his very perceptive and important contribution. He put his finger on it when he said that co-ordination of services for patients who often have huge and very complex difficulties lies at the heart of all we must do. He also said that although little is new in life, the environment in which young people grow up today is very different from that in which he grew up. Although in many ways the environment has improved, the pressures on young people growing up today are probably greater now than when the noble Lord was a boy. The noble Baroness, Lady Massey, referred to this and I will bring it up again later in my speech.

On 18 May, the Prime Minister underlined in his first major speech following the election that mental health, including the mental health and well-being of young people, is a key priority for this Government. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, can be assured that the Government will hold CCGs and NHS England strongly to account for delivering the substance of parity of esteem. For too long, parity of esteem has fallen into motherhood and apple pie territory. We need serious resource behind it to ensure that we deliver it on the ground.

Last year, the Department of Health asked the Care Quality Commission to review the experiences of people receiving crisis care. The resulting report, Right Here, Right Now, shows that although there is some excellent practice in areas such as Lambeth there is far too much variation across the country in the quality of crisis care—and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, noted, between services as well as geography.

The report provided powerful insights into the stigma that too many service users face. One patient from the report said:

“A&E was horrible. I felt like I was being judged for inflicting injuries on myself and that certain staff actively didn’t want to treat me”.

As Dr Paul Lelliott, Deputy Chief Inspector of Hospitals at CQC, who led the review, stated, there is a,

“real weakness in mainstream mental health provision as regards 24 hour crisis care. In some cases, the only recourse for people trying to access crisis services is to a phone line telling them to go to their local emergency department”.

As other noble Lords said, going to an A&E department is, for someone suffering a mental health crisis, no solution of any kind.

Another patient said:

“I have a clinical illness. It’s not my fault my brain chemistry fluctuated … To be treated as a drunk, an inconvenience and with visible contempt only makes it worse”.

That points to a need for greater training in some A&E departments and the importance of having a psychiatric liaison nurse in A&E departments. The report also found that in some areas there are still problems with under-18s being detained in police cells under Section 136 of the Mental Health Act. I agree wholeheartedly with the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, and others that this practice is wholly unacceptable. I will say more on that a little later.

Dr Lelliott stated that there are reasons to be confident for the future as well. We are beginning to see a shift in public attitudes to mental health, away from the stigma of the past. As the report states, there has been huge progress in improving crisis care, thanks to the crisis care concordat and successful approaches such as street triage.

The crisis care concordat was launched in February 2014 and signed by more than 20 national organisations. It seeks to improve the experience of those in crisis and in particular to prevent those detained under Section 136 of the Mental Health Act being held in police cells. I spoke not all that long ago to a young woman of no more than 17 who had had a mental health crisis and tried to take her own life. She spent two nights in a police cell. It is hard to imagine a worse place for a young woman to spend time. That was two years ago.

All localities signed up to the principles of the concordat before the end of 2014. Detailed action plans are now in place across England and set out how local partners will work together to improve service responses for people in crisis. I have taken on board the words of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, that we must be able to assure ourselves that effective action is taken on the ground and that there is clear accountability.

Since the launch of the concordat in February 2014, the number of times that people of all ages were detained in police cells under Section 136 has fallen by 55% compared to 2011-12. This marks a considerable achievement in meeting the concordat’s ambition. There was also a very big reduction in the number of under-18s detained in police cells under Section 136 for the first time since figures began to be collected in 2011-12, with 145 cases, an almost 40% fall within the year. But I agree wholeheartedly with the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, that one case is one too many. There is good progress but more work to be done.

In May, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary announced that the Government will reform the law on use of police cells to end this practice altogether for under-18s. I am pleased that the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, supports that move. The Government will also clarify the legislation so that, for people of all ages, police cells are used only in very exceptional circumstances. A number of noble Lords and noble Baronesses have made the point that there is no point in stopping people going into police cells if alternative provision is not made elsewhere. The Government have committed £15 million to improve the provision of health-based places of safety, so that there is better availability of alternatives to police cells.

The insights from the Right Here, Right Now report will also directly improve crisis care, influencing the Care Quality Commission’s regime for future inspections. In addition, the Department of Health, NHS England and Mind are supporting all localities to develop and improve their local concordat action plans in light of the CQC’s review.

The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, gave an example of police being accompanied by a therapist. The CQC report makes reference to street triage. These are schemes whereby a police officer might be accompanied by a nurse, therapist or someone else, when they meet people going through a crisis. Paul Lelliott particularly marked that in his report as being a very good development. The Department of Health has funded pilots using street triage with nine police forces, and I believe that 25 police authorities are now using that triage as a way in which to make a bad situation at least no worse. There have been some very encouraging results, with the use of Section 136 to take people of all ages into police custody almost eradicated in many of the pilot areas.

Liaison and diversion services are also being used to help children, young people and adults in crisis. They identify, assess and refer people with a wide range of mental health, learning disability and substance misuse vulnerabilities when they first come into contact with the youth and adult criminal justice systems. NHS England has now rolled out a national liaison and diversion standard service specification and operating model serving 50% of the English population, and it is anticipated that that will cover the whole population by 2017-18.

It is clear that we need to do more to ensure that, for those in need, help can be found in the right places at the right time. The noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, made the very strong point that it must be unacceptable that some young people have to travel more than 200 miles to find an appropriate bed. The previous Government supported NHS England with £7 million to provide additional mental health beds for children and young people. This increased the number of beds to more than 1,400, the highest this has ever been. But I agree completely with the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, that, while we must ensure that help can be found for those in crisis when it is needed, it is not enough simply to provide more and more beds. Home treatment is also very important.

Three-quarters of mental health problems in adult life begin in childhood. It is therefore essential that we focus on improving the whole care pathway for children and young people’s mental health, preventing issues arising, and taking action before hospital treatment is required. I can confirm there will be an additional £1.25 billion over the next five years to enable transformation across health, social care and education for children’s mental health and well-being. In addition, we are investing £150 million over the next five years in services for young people with eating disorders and those who self-harm. Although this Government can take credit for that, I pay tribute to the Liberal Democrats, and particularly Norman Lamb, for ensuring that mental health was so high up the agenda.

I take the strictures of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, when he says that we must have clear accountability for spending that money. I place considerable hope in the report that has been commissioned by NHS England from Paul Farmer, the chief executive of Mind.

I have been told that I have only one minute left. That is the difficulty with debates in the House of Lords: all the comments are so helpful that it is hard to do them all justice. I conclude by saying that we have all talked about parity of esteem, in this and the other House, for too long. Until now it has been just motherhood and apple pie. I hope that the resources that we are putting into mental health and the accountability that needs to back them up will make a reality of that expression. I pay tribute to Paul Lelliott of the CQC for his very valuable report and thank the noble Baroness once again for bringing the debate to the House.

Affordable Housing

Thursday 25th June 2015 Lords Chamber

Motion to Take Note

15:06

Moved by

[Lord Whitty]

To move that this House takes note of the amount of affordable housing in all forms of tenure and the case for increasing the supply of affordable housing.

[Lord Whitty (Lab)]

My Lords, the stark demographics that lie behind this debate and the general dysfunction in the housing market are clear and well known. For at least the past decade, and likely to continue for the next decade, it is estimated that household formation in the United Kingdom has been running at about 250,000 a year. On the other hand, the rate of new build of new dwellings of all sorts and all tenures has been running at about half that level. The inevitable consequence of this is that prices rise in all forms of tenure, in mortgage conditions, house prices, private and social rents and leaseholds costs, and it hits all parts of the country. However, the reality is that it is particularly harmful to those on average and lower incomes and probably far worse in many of the big cities, particularly to the south of England, although it also applies in many rural areas.

We need a massive increase in the supply of new housing, although I do not see any sign of that coming. Supply and demand are in clear imbalance. In particular, we need affordable housing available to lower-income groups. I should point out that in this debate I am using the word “affordable” in the sense that most people use it—that is, that ordinary people can afford it. I do not use it in the Orwellian newspeak used in social housing these days, whereby affordable rents are deemed to be 80% of private rents and therefore in many parts of the country totally unaffordable to people on middle and lower incomes.

This is a Labour debate and I shall be challenging the Government, but I hope that the Minister does not respond simply by pointing to the Labour record. I am glad to see her either shaking or nodding her head. Noble Lords may experience a bit of déjà vu in my speech, because they may recall that I have been fairly critical of the policies of at least the last three Governments on housing, and I continue to be so. The situation at the end of the last Labour Government was poor, the coalition made it worse and the current Government look to be making it worse still.

Many commentators expected housing to feature large in the recent election campaign. In practice, it did not really do so. All parties made a vague commitment to produce 200,000 houses a year by about 2020, without much indication of how they would do it. The only thing that got any mileage during the election was the Labour Party proposal for some form of rent regulation, which was attacked by the Conservatives as being Venezuelan or Vietnamese socialism when, as no less an organ that the Sun pointed out this week, most other cities in Europe have some form of rent regulation and a much larger private rented sector, and the net result is that rents are about half those in Britain. The Tories’ main commitment was to the right to buy for housing association tenants, which is due to be presented to this House in legislative form shortly. I and other speakers will, no doubt, revert to that.

Neither of these measures that were debated in the election even pretended to tackle the central problem of housing: the need to provide more housing and thereby to bring down the cost and availability. Right to buy is about change of tenure; it does nothing in relation to supply or availability. The coalition Government at times appeared to be taking housing seriously. Indeed, about a year ago I asked the Minister’s predecessor to list all the schemes introduced by the coalition Government. I would read it out, but I have only limited time and there were at least 18 or 19 of them. Some of them had some benefit for a few people and no doubt they had marginal benefits all over the place, but the net result was that they did not change the overall level of supply or bring supply and demand into better balance. Some increased pressure on the demand side, and none tackled the problem of supply. Fundamentally, the situation has not changed.

I shall say a few words about the right to buy for housing association tenants, although I see from the list of speakers that there are speakers who are more qualified and knowledgeable than me to comment on that area. This week, the Times revealed how strongly the Government were advised against going down this road. Indeed, the cost to the Exchequer seems to be £5 billion. In one fell swoop the Government seem set on undermining the finances of housing associations, local government and, eventually, the Exchequer. Almost everyone in the housing world has asked them to think again, and we will debate that in due course. I am not an opponent of right to buy, but this particular measure seems fairly cack-handed and not thought through. My main concern about it in relation to this debate is that it will undermine the finances of housing associations, reduce their ability to borrow and therefore their ability, and local government’s ability, to invest in new housing stock or improve older stock. It will therefore do nothing to alter the balance of supply and demand and will, indeed, make it worse.

The net result of all this reflects the dual problem of high costs for those seeking first-time buys and a lack of availability in many parts of the country for any access to social housing. That means that real strain is put on the private rented sector, which is rather inadequate and unstructured. Families who, two decades ago, would have got social housing are now either paying for themselves in the private sector or are being paid for by the local authority in the private sector. Families who, two decades ago, could easily have afforded a mortgage are, unless they have the bank of mum and dad to turn to, likewise dependent on the private rented sector. The Government are trying to help landlords in this area by giving tax breaks to buy-to-let landlords, but supply is still well behind demand and, moreover, much of the supply is inadequate and in some cases unsafe. Many of those in housing emergency and other crisis situations end up in the private rented sector, even though they may be paid for out of the public purse. Ultimately—this is the biggest problem, politically—the cost of all this falls on housing benefit.

In recent years, the growth of the housing benefit budget has become a serious issue. It has gone up tenfold over that period, but four-fifths of the increase has been due to escalating private sector rents and only one-fifth has been due to an increase in the number of people seeking housing benefit. The pernicious effect of this is that the escalating cost of housing benefit looks scandalous to those who are not receiving it, and the Daily Mail is able to find all sorts of examples where very high housing benefit costs are paid for by the Government and use it as an attack on the welfare system as a whole. It is no coincidence that most of the housing benefit scandals are in areas of high-cost housing, mainly in central London. I say in passing that the real scandal is that housing benefit eventually ends up not in the pockets of small struggling landlords but of large companies, overseas investment trusts and corporations.

We need a root and branch review of housing benefit, but that will involve us in a root and branch assessment of the total intervention of government in housing. Thirty years ago, the expenditure side of government intervention in housing was very heavily geared to the supply side, to council housing, grants for home improvements and so on. Indeed, 80% of government expenditure was on that side. Now, more than 90% of the expenditure is on the demand side—in other words, using housing benefit to meet escalating costs in the social and private rented market.

The social costs of all this are pretty evident. Even people on reasonably high incomes cannot get a mortgage until they are in their late 30s. People are living at home with their parents. There is overcrowding. There is strain on families. There are many people living in bed and breakfast accommodation and in inadequate private rented spare rooms. There is multiple occupation, with several people living in the same room. At the worst end, there are beds in sheds. Indeed, the London Fire Brigade this week issued figures showing that in recent years it has had to deal with more than 400 fires in accommodation that was not appropriate for habitation. Those are the social costs.

The economic costs and the costs to the Exchequer are evident in the housing benefit costs. What is needed is a rethink that will redirect those costs to the housing benefit budget into the provision of new and improved housing. The escalation in housing benefit needs to be seen as a failure of the housing market rather than as a failure of the welfare system. Even at this late stage, I urge the Government to take housing benefit out of the move to universal credit—indeed, that might ease the introduction of universal credit—because it needs to be seen as a whole. Public support for housing and for those seeking housing who are unable to afford it needs to be seen as a whole. I suggest that that needs to be seen as part of a new overall strategy. I want the Government to come up with a clear White Paper proposing a whole new approach. I can make certain suggestions about what should be in that approach, but it is an emergency. It is a serious problem, and it is one that, in their five years in office, the Government will have to tackle or it may well be the failure of this Government.

I suggest that they set a clear target of 250,000 new homes, of which perhaps a quarter should be social housing. There should be an emphasis on local delivery, and we should amend the Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill and the Localism Act so that the new combined authorities and unitary authorities take clearer responsibility for housing and have the means of delivering it. Policy on housing ought to be concentrated in one Whitehall department under one Secretary of State, covering housing benefit and construction as well as the traditional areas of CLG. We need a long-term strategy to switch expenditure on housing benefit into areas to improve housing supply, which will take 20 years. There are some immediate things that we need to do. We can integrate and redirect the Help to Buy schemes into a help to build scheme. We need to end the ability to overturn Section 106 agreements providing for social housing and instead give back to local authorities the ability to negotiate with developers for improvements in affordable housing in their areas. We need a fundamental review of the affordable rents policy. We need to ensure, perhaps most of all, that local authorities are in a position to go to the market to borrow to create housing assets. This should not be regarded as part of the central government borrowing requirement, but as something with which local authorities can build and provide the housing that is needed for their communities.

There are other ways of dealing with this in terms of finances; there are ideas about housing bonds and about corralling the pension funds into providing more private investment in affordable housing. There need to be discussions with the banks and with the construction industry, particularly about bringing some of the smaller builders back into the housebuilding market.

All this will require new legislation. I hope to see in the next Queen’s Speech, if not before, a major Bill from the Government—incorporating many of my ideas, of course, but perhaps a few others, too—that would be indicative of their intention to tackle this problem, which affects millions of our fellow citizens, not just in central London, where at this moment some of them face the demolition of their homes, eviction or the buying off of leaseholders and tenants, but across the country. It will become a political problem for the Government if they do not do something substantial about it. I beg the Minister to talk to her colleagues, including those in the Treasury, to ensure that they do just that.

15:20

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, for the opportunity to debate the supply of affordable housing. However, while trying not to prematurely run the debate on the right to buy that we will have later in the year, it is extremely hard not to consider the impact that this will have on affordable housing. Everyone is entitled to a home. We need mixed communities with rented properties, low-cost buying, shared ownership and market rents.

I will start with land and planning. There is a proven case for affordable housing. Some believe that Section 106 affects developers’ profits. Section 106 is not a gift from a developer; housing associations pay for the housing. In times of austerity, developers build Section 106 houses first. This is often also used to open up new sites; the Docklands development is an excellent example.

Starting developments lifts the local economy. I believe that the Government should encourage local planning authorities to enable rural emphasis in the NPPF, including encouraging the local community land-trust model. In my area two villages, Queen Camel and Norton-sub-Hamdon with Chiselborough, have been exemplars of developing community land trusts, providing an asset lock for the community and the housing associations. The Hastoe and Yarlington housing associations have provided the housing management expertise needed by the communities.

The Government should also encourage villages to take up neighbourhood plans, thus devising the balance of new market to affordable housing for their communities themselves. This process is currently cumbersome and expensive for villages. The Government could assist by reforming the system to make it far more user-friendly. Both these measures would put the community in charge of what is happening in their areas.

What thought have the Government given to tax breaks to rural landowners for providing sites and/or barn conversions for affordable housing? Many philanthropic landowners exist do not need the encouragement of a tax-break system, but others might be tempted by such a system. However, no landowner is going to sell his land at a reduced rate if the houses built on it are then going to be sold on at a discount under right to buy. This will lead only to a drying up of affordable homes, not an increase.

What of the Homes and Communities Agency? Is it not about time that the HCA had a rural quota to achieve, set within the overall programme but outside London, where rural schemes are often of a higher cost pro rata and subject to being outbid by more urban, cheaper schemes? The Government get a good return on their investment through the HCA. There is of course a cross-subsidy to affordable rents, which do not cover the costs, but the strength of housing associations is based on their past performance and individual business plans. Investors will not put money in if the asset is then to be sold off at a discount.

The Government should be encouraged to release more surplus land and buildings specifically for affordable housing. There are some very good examples around the country, such as Borden in Hampshire and redundant MoD land. Although the HCA has been set up as a clearing house for national land, many government departments have been recalcitrant in releasing land for much-needed housing; the Highways Agency springs to mind.

Park homes are another excellent example of low-cost housing that could be promoted on land released from the MoD. In South Somerset, the council leases land from the county council and provides good-quality homes at affordable rates. Are the Government considering promoting such schemes?

The Government have set 10 properties as the national threshold for affordable housing obligations. What was wrong with the localism agenda and allowing the local planning authority to set its own threshold? In a rural environment, this might be set much lower and be based on local evidence. A small infill site in a rural setting could be very lucrative for a developer and yet yield no affordable housing for the community, thanks to the one-size-fits-all approach from the Government.

Currently tenants of existing rural affordable housing become eligible for the spare room subsidy or so-called bedroom tax. Would it not be better to exempt such affordable housing, thus reducing demand from families who are forced to move as a result of the imposition of the tax? This is particularly hard where there is no suitable housing to move to within their community.

It is often said that housing associations have huge balances that are retained for the benefit of their staff. While this is the case for some, it is definitely not the case for all. The majority of housing associations exist to serve the public and those requiring housing. They reinvest their income into the business by providing housing but also by training and educating their tenants and getting them into work. This needs to be recognised, and legislation should not penalise the good because of the poor. We might be in danger of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

I summarise the two biggest factors in the effect on supply and demand as the proposed extension of the right to buy and the imposition of the 10-homes threshold, which fits the urban context but is far more pernicious in rural areas.

15:20

[Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for tabling this debate. My comments today deal with a particular problem that arises with the availability of affordable housing in the Lake District, where a voluntary organisation, the Keswick Community Housing Trust, part of the National Community Land Trust Network, is struggling to deal with a local housing crisis. Trust members and supporters, many of whom are motivated by their Christian beliefs, are truly upset by the prospect of being forced to sell off their cherished housing stock. In that light I asked its chairman, Mr Bill Bewley, a prominent Quaker, to set out in a letter the concerns of the trust, which I now offer to the House as testimony from those on the front line in this debate:

“Dear Dale … First of all a short explanation of how Keswick Community Housing Trust came into existence and my motivation, with others, to forward its aims. KCHT was started by myself and a group of people who had been empowered by a series of meetings organised by Churches Together in Keswick, looking at all aspects of life in Keswick. At all five meetings the problem of a lack of affordable housing in Keswick was raised. Keswick suffers from the double blow of high house prices and low wages. In order to afford an average priced house in Keswick you would need a family income of £70,000. The average wage in Keswick for 2014 was £14,000 for the lowest 25%. So a quarter of the couples in Keswick could not even afford half the cost of an average house. After a public meeting to look at this very point we were strengthened by more … committed people. So in December 2010 we managed to formally establish Keswick Community Housing Trust as an Industrial and Provident Society with Charitable Status. We have a board of 12 active volunteers.

My motivation is based on my deeply held Quaker convictions. If the words of Jesus ‘To love God and your neighbour as yourself” mean anything it means to do whatever you can to make a difference in your community. I feel I can do that as Chair of KCHT. Quakers have always had a concern for ‘proper housing’. The Cadbury’s Bourneville and Rowntree’s New Earswick housing schemes strongly demonstrate this. Present day Quakers are also involved in this area with Quaker Housing Trust, Quaker Social Action and The Joseph Rowntree Trust. Others on my board are motivated by a desire to keep Keswick a vibrant community, which is very close in our view to what David Cameron may have had in mind when he so powerfully spoke of ‘The Big Society’. We are the living and working proof of that, now-a-days, less mentioned initiative. We completed our first project of 11 3-bed houses in November 2013. One was for local occupancy sale, five for shared ownership and five for affordable rent. In order to keep the shared ownership affordable we do not charge rent on our half. Our current rents are below the National Housing Federation’s target of affordability. If we take the previously quoted income figure of £14,000, a couple in the lower quartile could earn £28,000 so rent should be less than £7,000 pa (25% of income). Our rents are currently just over £6,000 pa.

The above financial model is very secure for the moment unless an earthquake in the form of the ‘Right to Buy’ strikes. If this scheme should badly affect Keswick Community Housing Trust, it will make all of our houses unaffordable and destroy all our hard work. We are currently two months away from refurbishing a disused building into 4 x 1-bed units and 18 months from completing a further 22 affordable homes. These projects were financed using our existing houses as assets, and should we lose a significant number we would be unable to finance future developments. This is because our assets would have been jeopardised by loss of collateral. We all feel very proud of the fact that in under seven years we will have delivered 37 affordable properties to help keep Keswick a vibrant community. We would be heartbroken if all the thousands of hours spent on this fantastic community effort, was taken away from us by some ill thought out idea. I have recently visited Bulgaria, where in the last 20 years over half of the villages have become deserted due to rural decline. I do not want this to happen in Keswick or anywhere else. Just a few years ago, David Cameron was happy to take a drink with Rory Stewart and others”—

he is a local MP—

“to celebrate the work of the Lyvennet housing trust. The Trust had delivered a scheme of 16 affordable houses in Crosby Ravensworth, not far from Keswick. Surely this is the height of hypocrisy in the present light. There are hardly any spare sites in that village and certainly not enough to replace all the houses they have already built, should they be forced to sell them. It is absolutely imperative that this impending disaster is NOT allowed to happen.

The special problem in Keswick is that we need to provide truly affordable housing for people who work here on low wages and to RETAIN available affordable housing against a property market which attracts high prices from wealthy purchasers nationwide seeking second homes or to retire here. To grant a ‘Right to Buy’ measure in the proposed form defeats the object of our charitable trust and totally undermines our … efforts. I ask you to do all in your power to prevent the ‘Right to Buy’ being imposed on Community Land Trusts like ourselves. Larger Housing Associations should be adequately compensated for any loss they could incur”.

That is signed by Mr Bill Bewley, a man who, with his colleagues, has made a huge contribution, and it would be absolutely wrong if people like that were stopped in their tracks because of the madness of the policies that the Government are going to pursue.

15:34

[Lord Best (CB)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, for instigating this debate and for his powerful opening speech. I declare my interest as president of the Local Government Association and various housing interests as on the register.

I thank this House for decisively rejecting the proposed extension of the right to buy to housing associations by a huge majority vote—in 1983. That decision, by a largely Conservative House of Lords, has been of enormous importance over the last 32 years. Had the vote gone the other way, something over a third of these affordable homes would have been sold by now, assuming similar figures to those for sales in the council sector.

Over these three decades, literally hundreds of thousands of families have had the benefit of affordable rented homes which they would have been denied. The housing associations have been able to borrow extensively against all their property assets and, with blood, sweat and tears—illustrated by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours—extensively borrow against those assets and develop new homes without the fear that all their hard work could be short lived because their properties must be sold.

Now it seems that this House will be asked again to consider a right to buy for housing association tenants when the housing Bill reaches us. Will we be asked to accept exactly the same proposal as was so heartily rejected last time?

There are some changes today compared with the position in 1983. The terms for the council right to buy have become much more generous, with bigger discounts—up to £104,000 per property in London and up to £77,000 elsewhere—and a shorter period of time to qualify: just three years’ residence. This time, it is suggested that funding to pay for the discounts be raised by compelling local authorities to sell their most valuable council homes when they become vacant; this means selling off still more affordable housing. In addition, today, because of the much larger size of the housing association sector, the cost of the discounts will be massively more than in the 1980s: the National Housing Federation estimates the total at some £11.5 billion over the next few years.

What could be the justification for bringing back this extraordinarily costly mechanism for helping a relatively small number of currently well-housed households to become owner-occupiers? It cannot be to increase the number of home owners, since the same money could assist three times as many aspiring potential first-time buyers in other ways—for example, by building 660,000 new shared-ownership homes for those desperate for a first home.

When the House of Lords debated the rather less damaging proposition in 1983, two issues were stressed. First, housing associations, as charities, as independent bodies, were not creatures of the state which could simply be ordered to sell their assets. Today, the added danger of accepting that housing associations have become de facto public bodies is that their borrowing—with some £60 billion outstanding in private sector loans—and all their future borrowing, increases public sector debt. That undermines hopes of eradicating the deficit and suddenly caps and limits all future borrowing on which their building programmes depend.

The receipt of government subsidies in the past has not changed the status of these independent bodies any more than it does for private landlords. Lump sum grants to housing associations followed by relatively low rents thereafter—in London, for example, they are at about a third of full market rents—cost the Government less over time than covering private sector rents for those on housing benefit. Yet few would argue for private landlords being subject to a right to buy.

The other argument against the extension of right to buy that was advanced back in the 1980s was that the nation needed to keep the hard-won affordable rented homes provided by housing associations and add more, not sell them off. This consideration is so much more pertinent today. Now, there really is a desperate shortage of homes that are affordable for those on average incomes and below.

I am strongly in support of the Government’s manifesto pledge to achieve an additional—note, additional—275,000 affordable homes over the lifetime of this Parliament. This output may not quite keep pace with growing demand but it is a respectable staging post to a more ambitious programme. The trouble is that this important manifesto commitment will be impossible to fulfil if, while the 275,000 homes are being added, a similar or even larger number of affordable homes is being lost for ever under the new RTB proposals and the forced sale by councils of their best homes when they fall vacant—trying to fill the bath with the plug out. One manifesto commitment is being sabotaged by another. We cannot vote for both. One has to go and, to me, the choice is easy: we need to be rid of the extraordinarily extravagant RTB idea. If your Lordships agree then I believe that, in 30 years’ time, our successors will bless us for retaining this precious stock of affordable homes for the next generation.

15:41

[Lord Haskel (Lab)]

My Lords, a common way of measuring our standard of living is to look at household expenditure. When I got married in 1962, the average household spent 24% of its income on food; today, that figure is 9%. We used to spend 11% of our income on clothing; today, it is 6%. On recreation and culture, we used to spend 7% of our income but we now spend 11%. We are better off. We also travel more: we used to spend 9% of our income on travelling; now, it is 14%.

But much of that progress and increased standard of living is thrown away by the fact that in 1962 we spent 13% of our income on housing, whereas today that figure is 26%. This is why the cost of housing is holding down our standard of living. Put in these terms, surely the purpose of our economic policy should be to put this imbalance right, as recommended by my noble friend Lord Whitty, instead of continuously compensating for it.

Noble Lords have mentioned right to buy and help to buy, and these are meant to satisfy our aspiration to be home owners. In fact, generally all they do is transfer public money to the fortunate few, and there is no guarantee that they will be the home owners. This is not responding to the fundamental social need to provide housing, as the noble Lord, Lord Best, explained.

I hesitate to talk economics in the presence of my noble friend Lord Desai, but why do the Government not understand that subsidising something in short supply merely increases the price? If there is a shortage of bread and you give each hungry person £1 to buy it, unless you increase the supply, the price will shoot up. And, yes, economists have worked out that for every pound spent on subsidising housing, the cost goes up by 77p. That is why a house which cost two and a half times the average income in 1963 now costs five times the average income. It is why it makes more sense to use the money to fund social housing. Not only does it cost less but more people will be housed and it will help to overcome the social costs mentioned by my noble friend Lord Whitty in his excellent opening speech.

Some £24 billion is paid in rent subsidies—one-quarter of our budget deficit. As has been pointed out, paying this subsidises landlords and employers, while it does nothing to increase the housing supply. This arrangement also encourages the wrong kind of economic growth: a housing boom. Instead of subsidising low pay with housing benefit, why do the Government not address this by encouraging firms to be more productive so that they can pay a living wage? Surely that makes sense.

Of course, planning policy is central to this, and both Kate Barker and the Lyons commission spoke a great deal of sense about it. As they pointed out, developer incentives keep land prices rising, especially land with planning permission, and this becomes an incentive to hold on to the land as it rises in value, rather than build on it. The sensible suggestion by Labour to do something about this unused building land was to tax it. This was labelled by the Conservatives as Stalinist. How would the Minister describe the proposed expropriation of social housing: as Leninist, Trotskyist, or what?

This crazy mix of competing policies which push up prices has been identified as one of the biggest threats to our economic growth, and not only in London. Wherever the economy improves, house prices go up. It then becomes more difficult to hire skilled staff and that threatens investment. As housing becomes unaffordable, so services suffer and businesses go elsewhere. The position in London is particularly serious. The GLA says that London needs 42,000 new homes a year, but last year only half that number were constructed.

The right to buy has been criticised by many noble Lords because nobody believes that the homes sold will be replaced, and they are right. Since 2008, London has financed 43,220 subsidised homes, but the net increase during this time has been just 13,585.

Another important factor affecting London is the corrupt funds flowing into London property. In spite of government promises about transparency, a whole industry is dedicated to laundering money by anonymously acquiring properties through companies registered in secrecy jurisdictions. According to Transparency International, one-third of all foreign companies holding inner-London property are incorporated in the British Virgin Islands. Much inner-London property is not even offered to UK citizens any more. Not only does this kind of money laundering raise housing costs in London; it is a major contributor to global poverty. Some justify this through the “trickle down” theory, but rising inequality shows that this is just wrong.

I started by speaking about household expenditure in the 1960s. I also remember a political consensus at that time: a consensus to provide decent housing for everybody. Is there no way in which we could come together again and agree that housing is not a traded commodity which is holding back our standard of living but a public good that can raise it?

15:48

[Lord Horam (Con)]

My Lords, I think that we are all extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, for bringing this subject forward today. It is a serious and urgent subject, and I hope that he feels gratified by the quality of the debate which has taken place so far, with so much knowledge and experience readily on show.

The noble Lord said that he was critical of the last three Governments on housing policy; I would take it back 40 or 50 years. I think that the supply of housing has been a disaster for the past 40 or 50 years, and I am afraid that all parties in the UK, perhaps excepting the SNP, are complicit in what has happened. In 1968, we produced 425,000 houses per annum; last year, it was 140,000, when we know that we need roughly 250,000 houses per year to deal with the demand.

The result, as the noble Lord said, is that house prices have rocketed. The average price for a house in London nowadays is about £500,000; rents in London are now double what they are in other European cities; and it adds salt to the wounds when you find that, in 2012, 70% of the houses in central London were sold to foreign buyers—the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, made this point eloquently. John Kay, in an excellent column in the Financial Times the other day, said that all these trends,

“are … entirely explicable by reference to changes in public policy”.

Therefore, it is up to the Government and up to Parliament to rectify this appalling situation.

One proposal that will not improve matters is to extend the right to buy to housing associations, because it will make it more difficult for housing associations to add to the stock of new houses, which is what we need. I can see perfectly well as a politician how the proposal suddenly got into the Conservative manifesto during the heat of a hard-fought general election campaign, but I had hoped that wiser counsels would prevail in the cooler aftermath of victory. So far, that has not happened, but I hope that the wiser heads in government, in the Civil Service, in the wider housing community and in this House will prevail before we go much further—and I note what the noble Lord, Lord Best, said about the fate of a previous attempt to impose this on the country.

That is a bad idea; there are plenty of good ideas around. The Housing Minister has produced some good ideas about how to refurbish estates in London to a much higher density. Ken Shuttleworth, the architect, has produced ideas about densification, which are also very good. The noble Lord, Lord Adonis, who is not in his place today, has produced some excellent proposals for housing. The Government themselves have done a brilliant job in improving and simplifying the planning rules, which are fundamental to all this. So there is a lot of good thinking around, much of it evidenced in the debate today.

However, I sense—with the noble Lord, Lord Whitty—that such thinking needs to be pulled together into a big idea and given much higher priority by the Government. It also needs full-hearted support from the Chancellor of the Exchequer—that is crucial. The important point—here I speak as an economist and, like the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, I invite the noble Lord, Lord Desai, to agree—is that housing is capital expenditure. Capital expenditure has a return over many years; it is not current expenditure. It does not conflict in any way with the Government’s necessary desire to contain current expenditure if we spend the money in capital spending on renewing our housing stock. Nothing less will do.

It is a great pity that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not here today to hear what is being said—I think that he might agree with a lot of it—but I implore him and the Government to take this extremely seriously. Nothing less will do.

15:52

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)]

My Lords, first I must declare my interest as the chairman of the advisory board of the Property Redress Scheme. It is clear that there is a shortage of housing—that has come through in the words of every other Peer who has spoken. The Government’s response is to make mortgages easier to obtain and to propose the sale of housing associations properties to their occupiers. Let it be said clearly that neither of those profound announcements increases housing supply by even one unit.

On mortgages, 20% of first-time buyers will be paying off their mortgage beyond the age of 65, which is a big increase from a few years ago. With all the Government’s boasts about housing, the Office for National Statistics says that home ownership fell for the first time in a century in 2011, while renting and overcrowding increased. The policy of right to buy, particularly of housing association properties, has been mentioned by other noble Lords. But to extend it to 1.3 million housing association homes with discounts, as the noble Lord, Lord Best, said, of up to £104,000 costs at least £5 billion—and not one unit more is made available.

Will the Minister say in detail how the sale of housing association homes for 30% less than their value can conceivably be enough to build a new home? Just selling off a few expensive homes—which again reduces the housing stock—cannot be an answer. Although I thank the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, for introducing this debate, I take issue with him on one point. He said that he had always supported the right to buy. I have always been against the right to buy, not because it gives a bonus to those who live there but because it reduces the housing stock available to the poorer people in society. That is what was and still is wrong with the sale of council stock and is even more wrong—in spades—with the sale of housing association properties.

In housing, one of the buzzwords is “regeneration”. That often means demolition of large tranches of council-owned housing that is replaced with a mixture of private homes and so-called “social housing”, often at high density. A point was mentioned in passing by another noble Lord about properties such as these that are compulsorily acquired for leaseholders and some freeholders. What happens on estates that I know is that when there is regeneration and people are forced to move, they are not given enough in the sale of their properties to buy a property on the same estate and therefore have to take out additional mortgages or move further away. I trust that the Government will look at some way in which people who are forced to move because of regeneration can at least have a property in the same development without having to borrow more.

Another buzzword used in the title of this debate is “affordable” housing, but “affordable” means different things to different people. To me, it has always meant social rented housing, which is the obvious way of providing affordable housing. There is also intermediate housing, affordable housing ownership and all the various different schemes where you buy a small part of the property, sometimes at a discount, with a covenant that you have to sell it at 80% of its value. But this is fiddling at the edges of affordable housing for those who really need it. This Government have a paranoia about private home ownership, which is often the nail in the coffin of affordable housing.

I now move beyond affordable housing to introduce another element into this debate that has not been mentioned so far. How do we extend this figure of 200,000 or 300,000 properties without relying on brownfield sites or the other methods that I and other noble Lords have mentioned? Perhaps the development of garden cities is the way forward to tackle the deficit in the housing stock. Communities need to provide proposals. I hope that the Minister can say what has happened to the proposal of the Liberal Democrats when in coalition to invite bids for £1 billion of investment that was announced in the Autumn Statement 2013 to unlock local housing schemes for, at that stage, more than 1,500 homes. The funding was intended to unlock up to 250,000 new homes between 2015 and 2020 in locally led garden cities. If people locally want the schemes, money should be available. They could be a great boon to the localities of various parts of the country and would provide additional housing in larger amounts than by tinkering with odd bits of brownfield site and increasing housing density, which impinges on the way of life of those who live within them.

15:58

[Lord Kerslake (CB)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as chair of Peabody, chair of the recently formed London Housing Commission and president-elect of the Local Government Association, to follow the noble Lord, Lord Best.

The defining question for this Government on housing is how they can substantially increase the level of supply and, crucially, hold that high level of supply for a sustained period of time. This should be the Government’s overriding priority and they should invest considerable time and effort into meeting housebuilders, local authorities and housing associations to discuss the ways in which it can be achieved. Other noble Lords have spoken about this, but by any reckoning, to meet the country’s need for new housing we should be building well in excess of 200,000 new homes a year.

This agenda is not just about affordable houses for rent and affordable houses for sale, and it is certainly not just about housing for market rent—it is about all of the above. Unless we address housing shortage and lack of supply in every way possible, we are unlikely to move from our current level of building around 140,000 new homes per annum. It ought to be the Government’s most important and defining priority, and I hope very much that we will see proposals that will address the issue on this basis.

The issue is significant across the whole of the country, but it is particularly acute in London, where the price of housing and levels of rent are increasingly moving away from Londoners’ incomes. Indeed, the current calculation is that the average price of a property is now 14 times the average salary. That is an unsustainable position, and that is why I am delighted to be taking on the role of chair of the commission, whose aim is to identify how we might more than double the supply of housing in London over the next five years.

When we look back at what has worked and what has not worked on housing supply, we can see that one of the triumphant successes—I think it can be described as that—has been the model whereby housing associations borrow privately and, with support from government grant, deliver new housing and fund the borrowing through rental streams. This has been an enduring success in the new supply of affordable homes. We have seen the level of government subsidy come down and the level of cross-subsidy from houses for sale under Section 106 agreements go up. We have seen innovative new schemes around shared ownership. It is a model that we know works. After an initial wobble, it is interesting to note that the last Government not only committed to a programme of affordable housing but actually invested in growing the programme by making two crucial decisions which I think will be critical to the future stability of supply.

The first decision was to commit to an increase in rent by CPI plus 1% from 2015-16 for a period of 10 years. This has given housing associations confidence about their rental income streams and enables them to borrow for the long term. The second decision has already been referred to: a commitment to a programme over the whole of the Parliament of capital investment to deliver 275,000 affordable homes. These are two crucial additions to the way in which affordable housing works and I would be grateful if the Minister would confirm that both will remain in place for the duration of this Parliament under the new Government.

The question noble Lords might think was on the minds of delegates at the Chartered Institute of Housing conference that I attended this week was how they could play their role in delivering new supply and how they will respond to the challenge I have just described. Sadly, the debate was entirely dominated by the extension of the right to buy to housing associations and the forced sale of council homes. This risks becoming an overwhelming distraction from the underlying task we face in this country. As time goes on, the contradictions and challenges of this policy will grow. For example, there is a big issue around not just whether the sums add up but whether funding from the sale of council homes will come through in time in order to fund the discounts for housing associations. If those two things do not match, who will pick up the difference? There are major issues around rural housing where land has been set aside to deliver affordable homes in perpetuity. There are also major issues around Section 106 planning agreements, which again identify affordable housing in perpetuity.

As each day passes, we see more issues and more challenges. With those challenges, people are coming forward with ways in which the policy could be addressed and improved. Potential ideas are to replace the cash discount with an equity loan; to exclude certain types of properties, such as those in Peabody, where the funding came from private sources; to exclude rural housing; and, crucially, to decouple the council house sales policy from the policy of funding right to buy in order to develop a more sensible policy on this issue. These are creative solutions to try to improve a policy that, as I have said, is wrong in principle and wrong in practice.

I hope that the Government are open to new ideas and that we do not see what the French describe as the politics of the stiff neck. This House will have a significant role to play when the legislation comes forward.

16:06

[Baroness Wilkins (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Whitty for securing this debate. We hear time and again how this country managed a major housebuilding programme after the war despite our devastated finances. We could do that again now if we were determined to do so.

I grew up with pictures of the devastated City of London on my father’s office walls. He spent his civic life working to rehouse Londoners. In June 1950, as chairman of the City public health committee, he won approval for the Golden Lane Estate, which rehoused everyone on the City of London housing register at affordable rents. Later, as chairman of the Barbican committee, he ensured that thousands more would find a home—these were rental homes—in that war-devastated area. I am proud to say that Eric Wilkins was called the unsung hero of the Barbican in David Heathcote’s book about the scheme.

It was war that devastated London then and made a wasteland of it. Now it is short-sighted, selfish financial greed. As we have heard, house prices are soaring way out of the reach of ordinary Londoners. However, there is one area where London has been leading the country for the good, which is the mandatory requirement on developers to build to Lifetime Homes and wheelchair standards.

This Government are putting all that at risk. It is not only the supply of affordable housing that is important but the quality of it, and I want to focus on that issue. Last year, Leonard Cheshire Disability published No Place Like Home, its research into the state of the country’s housing as it affects disabled people. It found that only 5% of homes in England can be visited by someone in a wheelchair; that one in six disabled adults and half of all disabled children live in housing that is not suitable for their needs; and that 300,000 disabled people are on waiting lists across Great Britain.

The impact that this lack of disabled-friendly housing has on individual lives can be catastrophic: people being unable to reach their bathroom, having to strip wash at the kitchen sink, or no longer having visitors because they have to use a commode in the living room. Making all new homes disability-friendly is an obvious solution, and one that comes at no cost to the Exchequer. Lifetime Homes provides just that. When all developers are required to build to these standards, as has been the case in London, they are all in the same boat. In 2008 the Labour Government committed to building all new homes to Lifetime Homes’ standards by 2013, but now things are going backwards for disabled and older people in this as in so many other areas.

The Government have just introduced a new housing standards policy which has put accessible home building at risk. From 1 October this year, category 2 of the standards, which equates to Lifetime Homes’ standards, and category 3, the wheelchair standard, have been made purely optional. What is more, additional hurdles have been put in the way of councils wanting to build disabled-friendly homes. They will have to prove “clearly evidenced need” for them against a narrow viability test that is weighted in favour of the developer. The Leonard Cheshire research clearly shows that councils do not have that evidence in place. Given their squeezed finances, they are unlikely to have the time or the money to collect it now, so disabled-friendly housing will not get built. This is at a time when we have a rising population of disabled and older people. More than 5 million people in Britain have a mobility problem. Every year, more than 800,000 people become disabled.

Across the UK, disabled people are facing a growing crisis in finding suitable accommodation. This hits them hard, but it also drives up totally unnecessary costs in the NHS and in social care. Together with the lost employment opportunities that they face, it is costing the Exchequer millions of pounds every year. Delayed discharge from hospitals due to inaccessible housing costs the NHS more than £11 million a year. When people are prevented from being independent in their own homes, the costs of social care are driven up, or costly residential care becomes necessary. One week’s residential care for one person equates to the extra cost of building a house to Lifetime Homes’—now category 2—standard.

The Government’s current policy of optional accessibility standards and viability testing is economic folly. If we weaken requirements for accessible homes, disabled and older people will continue to be disadvantaged in the future, as they are now. The Lifetime Homes standards, or their new equivalent, need to be mainstreamed for the good of us all, not treated as a solution for a small section of the population. Someone in each of our families will be immobilised at some point in their lives, but instead the Government have decided to favour the short-term profits of private developers, for which not only our generation but future generations will pay the price.

16:11

[Baroness Humphreys (LD)]

My Lords, I add my thanks to those already expressed to the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, for initiating this interesting debate. I am sure that your Lordships, and, indeed, the Minister, will understand if I restrict my comments to the existing supply of affordable housing in Wales, and in particular the case for increasing it.

I remember, perhaps eight years ago, attending a housing conference in north Wales and castigating the Welsh Labour Government for the fact that there were 80,000 households in Wales on waiting lists for homes. Despite all the words, plans and promises I heard from the Welsh Government Ministers and housing officials that day—and, I will admit, all the hard work in the mean time—the situation overall has not improved. Shelter Cymru—Shelter Wales—estimates that 90,000 households are on waiting lists for homes in Wales, with all the personal anxieties that that entails. It also estimates that we need 5,000 new affordable homes every year. It makes the point that we need not only to make the case for increasing the supply of affordable homes but to find ways to increase the supply. It has been very informative to hear experienced voices here pointing the way forward.

Although there has been some increase in the supply of affordable homes in Wales in recent years, which is to be commended, it does not make up for the lack of building in previous years. It certainly has not met and does not meet demand. As a relatively young borough councillor in the 1980s, I experienced the impact of the right to buy local authority homes scheme and the frustration that my council colleagues felt because we were prevented from using the receipt from the sales to reinvest in new social housing. The housing associations that were formed at that time struggled, and still struggle, to meet demand, and along with others I despair at the impact of the right to buy housing association homes and the loss to the social housing numbers. To add to an already difficult situation, Shelter Cymru also reports that social housing repossessions hit a seven-year high last year in Wales, with nearly 1,000 social tenant households losing their homes, the majority of them having to turn to the private rented sector.

The area I live in is extremely beautiful at this time of year, as are most rural areas. However, the beauty of the area masks the reality of social and affordable housing in our rural communities. Conwy council has seen house prices soar and, like our neighbouring county of Gwynedd, admits that one of its biggest challenges is to provide affordable housing for people who have been priced out of the housing market. Gwynedd and part of Conwy make up the largest part of the Snowdonia National Park: breathtaking scenery, I know, and a wonderful place to live, but the reality of living in a national park can equate to planning restrictions, a lack of development and industry, and living somewhere that is sometimes described as being preserved in aspic.

People living in Gwynedd and Conwy rely on the tourism industry for employment—employment that is often seasonal and part-time. Well over a quarter of all employment in the Conwy county borough area is related to tourism. In fact, many people have two or three part-time jobs to help make ends meet. In our part of the world, we knew all about zero-hours contracts before the term was invented. In Conwy, the proportion of part-time workers is high at 42%, compared with a Great Britain figure of 31%, and wage levels in Conwy county borough are significantly below levels for Great Britain as a whole at only 88% of the average.

During the last few years, both Gwynedd and Conwy have encouraged the development of attractions that are open throughout the year and give employees the opportunity of a year-round wage, using our natural environment to build the local economy. If you care to visit Snowdonia at any time of the year, you can climb trees and use high ropes to move from one treetop to the other, take a trip on the longest zip wire in the northern hemisphere across a slate quarry, bounce to your heart’s content on large trampolines in massive underground slate caverns and, from 1 August, surf on the world’s longest man-made surfing wave, which will create six-foot barrels once a minute—I do not really understand that—in Surf Snowdonia’s new surfing and water sports park. These are ambitious attempts to increase employee incomes but, with many inhabitants in both Gwynedd and Conwy surviving on part-time or low wages, providing affordable and social housing is obviously a challenge and replicates the situation in rural areas throughout the UK.

I can see that my time is up but, as I make my final point, there is one question which the Minister might want to answer, which is the responsibility of the UK Government. Less than 15% of Conwy’s social housing stock is in one-bedroom accommodation, and the council itself admits that this,

“limits the opportunities for tenants to downsize if they are affected by caps on housing benefits due to under occupation in their existing accommodation”.

In circumstances such as these, does the Minister agree that, if residents have made two attempts at downsizing and cannot move because of the lack of alternative properties, they should not be penalised by having to pay the bedroom tax?

16:18

[Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend Lord Whitty for enabling this debate, and for his powerful opening speech. I declare my interest as incoming chair of the National Housing Federation.

The Government are committed to increasing the number of affordable homes so desperately needed in this country. Prior to the election, the Conservative Party said that it would place affordable homes at the heart of its plans for home ownership by building 275,000 of them by the end of this Parliament. As I understand it, these are in addition to the 200,000 starter homes available at a discount for first-time buyers under 40, and I hope that the Minister will confirm that. The Prime Minister seemed to invoke the spirit of Harold Macmillan when he talked about housebuilding on the steps of No. 10 on 8 May. I applaud his aim and look forward, in my role at the National Housing Federation, to supporting it.

Everyone in this debate has stressed the importance of a healthy supply of homes of all types, for people of all incomes to buy and rent, in all the different housing markets. A home is where we feel secure as children, can develop as teenagers and are able to support our own families as adults. It is a foundation for success in life. It must not become the preserve of those and only those who can pay. For many people now, not just those on low incomes, that kind of home is not possible without access to affordable housing. We need 80,000 affordable homes every year in this country; that is 80,000 families who need that security to prosper.

The need for affordable housing in Victorian times led to the creation of housing associations. Today, they still house those on low incomes and they can deliver even more of the homes Britain needs, given the right conditions. Their founding principle is that everyone should have a home that is right for them at a price they can afford. That is why they also build homes for people to buy and rent on the open market and homes for shared ownership: to help those who need a bit of extra support to get on the housing ladder. It is a principle that has provided 2.5 million homes to 5 million people and investment in a diverse range of neighbourhood projects. It is a principle that delivers for tenants and the economy too: housing associations directly support almost 150,000 full-time jobs and add nearly £14 billion to the economy every year.

As I have learnt about the sector, I have been surprised by the different types of homes that housing associations provide and impressed with the sector’s ambitious vision to do so much more. Last year, housing associations built approximately 38,500 affordable homes. By 2033, they want to scale that up to 120,000 of the 245,000 homes the country needs every year. Of these, 80,000 would be available at affordable rates. Associations would be housing one in every five people. This would add £70 billion and 170,000 jobs to the economy, representing incredible value for money.

But housing associations do so much more than this. I have been impressed by the ways in which they help to create strong vibrant communities. A secure, safe and stable home is a starting point, but there are many other factors beyond bricks and mortar that people need to succeed in their lives. They need access to jobs, education and health services, and tenants living in affordable homes provided by a housing association will find an open door to many of these services. For example, housing associations have a strong track record of supporting their tenants into work by offering employment and skills support. They have invested their own resources to provide these, together with programmes to aid money management and digital inclusion. They do this so that their tenants can overcome barriers to finding gainful and fulfilling employment.

We have talked a lot in this House about apprenticeships. Housing associations had a target to hire 10,000 apprentices by 2015. They beat that target, and a year early. The Government plan to create 3 million apprenticeships by 2020 and to extend to more people greater opportunity and the security of a pay packet. We welcome the opportunity to work with the Government as delivery partners in this work.

Housing associations also provide health, care and support services, allowing older people and people with complex needs to live independently. This is excellent news for our NHS, as an integrated approach to health and housing can reduce the number of acute interventions and help to reduce pressure on hospitals. Most importantly, it can help to keep people where they most want to be: at home. The sector attracts £6 more from private sources for every public £1 invested. It would be hard to disagree that this is one of the most successful and consistent public-private sector partnerships in recent history.

The noble Lord, Lord Best, and others raised the issue of right to buy. I hope that the Government will balance what they want to achieve with the right to buy scheme and its proposed welfare cuts, both of which will have a major impact on this sector and the people it serves, against what it will lose in the provision of affordable homes, successful communities and support into work.

The sector is full of passionate, energetic and, yes, commercially astute people who want to build homes and communities. I have no doubt that it will achieve its vision, but if the Government were also able to make the right investments, cut red tape and improve access to land, housing associations would achieve even more. I am an extremely proud advocate for the sector and I would certainly welcome an opportunity to talk in more detail about how the Government could help housing associations to reach their potential to end the housing crisis once and for all.

16:25

[Viscount Hanworth (Lab)]

My Lords, one of the questions that must be raised in connection with the crisis in housing concerns the extent to which it has been the consequence of the misguided policies and oversights of successive Governments.

It is fair to raise this question in view of the success of early post-war Governments in meeting the huge demand for housing that arose from the destruction and neglect of the housing stock during the Second World War and from the need to house demobilised military personnel. We ought to remember the role of Harold Macmillan at the Ministry of Housing and Local Government in Churchill’s Government of 1951. Macmillan was given the task of overseeing the building of 300,000 houses a year. This objective had been adopted by the Conservative Party conference in 1950, and was amply fulfilled.

The policy of housebuilding depended on close co-operation between central and local government. Local government was empowered to finance house- building by issuing bonds, and there were substantial subventions from the Treasury. The percentage of people renting from local authorities rose to over a quarter of the population—from 10% in 1938 to 26% in 1961.

There was a complete reversal of the housing policies of the Conservatives in the era of Margaret Thatcher. The Housing Act 1980 gave a right to buy to council tenants and by 1987 more than 1 million houses had been sold. Thereafter, the building of houses by local authorities virtually ceased, and there have been almost none built since the early 1990s.

Thatcher’s policy of the right to buy envisaged that the market could be relied upon to assume the housebuilding role of local councils. Rules were introduced that prevented councils subsidising their housing from local taxes, and grants for construction of new social housing were to be channelled to housing associations. However, the housing associations were expected increasingly to borrow their funds from banks and building societies, which proved to be less than willing lenders. Within a decade it had become clear that these policies were not providing the needed housing. The problem was belatedly emphasised in a debate in the House of Lords on the eve of the election in 1997.

However, as it transpired, the succeeding Labour Governments failed to meet the challenge. During their periods in office, the ratio of house prices to incomes rose from 3:1 to 5:1, while the levels of housebuilding fell to half of what they had been in the late 1960s. During the Conservatives’ recent period in office, the ratio lurched to something approaching 6:1 before falling back to 5:1 when the trade in properties virtually ceased.

The Conservatives have reprised Margaret Thatcher’s free-market ideology and have sought to stimulate the housing market from the demand side by offering help to buy. In the run-up to the election, as we have heard, they revived the policy of the right to buy by proposing to dispose of the assets of housing associations at heavily discounted prices. The fact that they do not have the rights of ownership of these assets has not deterred them.

In common with so much that the Conservatives have proposed, the policy represents a remarkable triumph of ideology over reason. It is clear that the market cannot be relied upon to satisfy the housing needs of our nation. What is required is a steady supply of new houses at the rate of 240,000 per year. The unaided market appears to be capable of providing, at most, half that figure, and it cannot be relied upon to do so consistently. Its supply of houses is tied to the economic cycle for the reason that the unsupported demand of consumers is likewise tied to that cycle. Moreover, the provision by banks to housebuilders of loans to finance their building projects is also unreliable and tied to the economic cycle.

Housebuilders have been under an injunction to provide a proportion of affordable houses in each new development but have failed to do so. Among the reasons for this failure have been the various exemptions from the requirement that have been offered by the Conservative Government and, notably, by the Conservative Mayor of London. These exemptions were originally proposed for small-scale developments but have been extended to cover developments where there are pre-existing vacant properties. Under present circumstances, housebuilders in London have found it more profitable to provide houses for speculative investors from overseas, who are prepared to leave their properties empty. There needs to be a radical change in policy with a co-ordinated strategy, overseen at the centre by people charged with fulfilling a national housing policy. The houses have to be built where they are needed by working people and, for this purpose, local authorities must be fully involved. We need to embark on something similar to the early post-war housing strategy.

Apart from the question of the availability of houses, there is the matter of their affordability. The persistent rise in house prices must be staunched if it is not to end in the bursting of a bubble. This will be hard to achieve at a time when the banks and the building societies, which are the suppliers of mortgages, have been stuffed full of money by the programme of quantitative easing. They must be compelled to make their loans elsewhere than to the housing market. House prices should also be constrained by taxation. Stamp duty levied on the buyers of properties is an absurdity. It should be abolished and, in its place, a significant sales tax should be levied on the sellers of properties in order to capture a fair proportion of their capital gains. This would make investment in houses less attractive, which should serve to reduce their prices.

We must act now—decisively—to relieve the damage and pain of the housing crisis and put housing on a road to recovery. If we do not do so, the consequences will be dire. I do not have the time to describe these consequences but I trust that others will have done so fully by the conclusion of this debate.

16:32

[Baroness Valentine (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, for his opening remarks. I shall focus my remarks on having the right incentives in place to increase housebuilding. I declare that I am a director of Peabody and London First.

In London, we are building roughly half the houses that we need. Simplistically, if there were a free market, we would be providing everything from cheap and flimsy broom cupboards to penthouse flats. Instead, we have layer upon layer of well-intentioned policy intervention, which has the unintended consequence of building for the very rich and the very poor but not doing much for those in the middle. Those who are the backbone of the London economy—the supermarket checkout people, the waiters, the PAs, the newly graduated, even the professors—are neither rich nor poor enough to be housed. In a recent survey by London First, a lack of reasonably priced housing was ranked as a top three competitiveness risk for the capital.

Our housing crisis is the result of a range of misaligned incentives, from welfare to planning and cumbersome public sector procurement processes. These incentives include: housing benefit underwriting private landlords’ rents or indirectly subsidising employers’ salary costs; muddled incentives for social tenants when they weigh up staying on benefits versus being in work; local authorities being legally required to house people in need, but having no similar requirement to house London’s lower-paid workers; demands for social housing on private developers causing the rest of the housing to be more costly to make the schemes add up; and state bodies that have no incentive to dispose of unused land and property, and instead hoard for the future.

Among the other incentives, a narrow definition of affordable housing for planning purposes makes large-scale provision of private housing for rent less attractive than market sale. Two-thirds of New Yorkers live in rented accommodation. Making a substantial intervention in this space must be part of the answer. The green belt includes more land than is needed to limit urban sprawl. In particular, it includes scrub land near transport nodes which could be used for housing. The planning system continues to bog down development, particularly in negotiations that can last for years around what associated infrastructure will be provided. Resistance to innovation prevents higher-density or new housing products that could serve a market need. For instance, many first-time buyers of studio flats would be happy to start with smaller floor plates than policy typically allows.

There is no silver bullet, but I have three specific requests for the Minister. First, would she consider giving local authorities greater freedom to build homes by granting more borrowing headroom, albeit within existing prudential rules? As alluded to earlier, building at scale was delivered by the public sector until the 1980s, with a substantial and sustained drop in the last 20 years since local authorities were capped. I say in parenthesis that I am yet to be persuaded of the benefit of forcing local authorities to sell property to subsidise housing association right to buy. The long debate that we will no doubt have on that subject in this House is an unwelcome distraction from increasing supply, which the housing associations are well placed to do.

Secondly, although I am enthusiastic about the new London Land Commission, bringing public sector sites to market is easier said than done. Will sufficient resource be given to the commission to get land out into the market and will the Government set a target level of land disposal that will be actively monitored?

Finally, on targets, I want to deal with the rhetoric versus reality of London housing targets. Only this morning, the mayor launched another few housing zones, which are set to deliver 100,000 jobs and 50,000 homes. Every year, the London Plan sets targets for local authorities which add up to the number of houses required in London—roughly 50,000. Every year, we fail by a factor of roughly half, and surely we need a much tougher regime. On the one hand, where a local authority repeatedly fails to meet the targets, the mayor should be given step-in rights to start determining more applications; on the other, local authorities could be given a more generous new homes bonus for exceeding targets. Would not a carrot-and-stick approach to housebuilding better align our incentives to meet housing need?

16:37

[Lord Desai (Lab)]

My Lords, thanks to my noble friend Lord Whitty, we have had an excellent debate. Many noble Lords have spoken, about all aspects of the problem, so as the last Back-Bench speaker I have to do something new. It is quite clear that once upon a time, people wanted a house for living in but that is no longer the need. The first 10 places I lived in were all rented, but when I arrived in London, I was told that it was madness to rent and that I had to own. The incentives of owning were such that it would be mad to rent. Since then, we have gone on adding incentives to buy and therefore anybody who has the money buys houses not just for living in but for capital gain. Affordable housing has become a rather exotic item in the social circles that cannot buy, although with the Government having introduced the right to buy, even that bit has now powered on to home ownership.

Home ownership is very good but it is also a very irrational thing. Our last crisis was caused by home ownership, both in America and here. We should not forget that the idea that homes always go on increasing in price is a delusion. But people have delusions, and in democratic politics you cannot tell people that they have delusions—instead you have to feed them delusions. That being the case, how do we increase supply? As my noble friend Lord Whitty and many other noble Lords have said, it is a problem of supply. I have studied the historical gentrification cycles in London. Two noble Lords declared their connections with Peabody. Of course, we know that the London housing situation was dire, as Booth discovered in the 1870s. It was rich, private, charitable people who built a large amount of London housing in the late 19th century. Peabody is a perfect example.

As other nobles Lords said, in the post-war period public housebuilding took over the task of renewing London’s housing and keeping affordable houses supplied. In the mean time, a lot of small private builders were involved in the gentrification of various areas. We now face the problem that the public sector can no longer be a sufficiently large provider of houses and the small private builders do not have incentives to build affordable houses. That being the case, we ought to find some way to get big money into housebuilding.

People think I am an economist so I get invited to conferences where very rich people ask me how they can invest money. Sovereign wealth funds, pension funds and other such funds sit on a large amount of money globally. These people have really global ideas of where to invest. They are also, unlike many other private investors, long-term orientated and willing to accept a proposition in which the returns will come over 50 years. That is especially true of pension funds and sovereign wealth funds. The Government ought to be able to do something by which they give an incentive to sovereign wealth funds and pension funds, those people who invest on a 50 to 100-year basis, to revamp the housing stock of the country.

My noble friend Lord Adonis suggested something of this sort but we could do it on a much larger scale if we can harness a lot of money. My view is that there is a lot of money out there. Those in charge of that money, especially if it is private equity or sovereign fund equity, do not have to face shareholders. They have no short-term pressures on them to make money all the time. It is a very rare thing: if you have a little money you have short-term pressures but if you have a lot of money you do not. The Government ought to find some sufficiently clear incentive-based mechanism to attract this money into housebuilding. They may be able to do that through some sort of green bank but it would be very good if we could invite back the Peabodys of the 21st century to invest massively in London housing.

No other agency has the money and the Government will hardly try. We will be told by the Treasury sooner or later that we do not have the money. The fact that housing benefit is costly precisely because we have a short-sighted policy on supplying housing does not impress the Treasury. The Treasury is not an economic Ministry—it is made up of bean-counters who care only about the ins and outs of money. They will not care about that argument on the rationality of saving on housing benefit. If we can get a lot of private money into housing by some clever device, and I am sure we can all think of one, that would relieve the constraint on London’s housing supply.

16:43

[Lord Stoneham of Droxford (LD)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as chair of Housing & Care 21. I also join others in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, for initiating this debate. It takes at least five years to have any chance of getting real change in the housing market, so it is good to have this debate right at the beginning of what is, I hope, a five-year parliamentary term.

Affordability of housing is a growing issue. I think we are all aware of that. Politically it is a very potent issue, not only in owner occupation, with young people finding it increasingly difficult to get on to the housing ladder; there is also a problem in building all sorts of housing when the price of land is accelerating.

I thank my noble friend Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville for talking about rural housing, my noble friend Lord Palmer of Childs Hill for his remarks on the right to buy, and my noble friend Lady Humphreys for talking about Welsh housing. I shall talk mainly about the role of housing associations in providing more affordable housing, so I am very much in the same area that the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, and the noble Lords, Lord Best and Lord Kerslake, were talking about.

There is a huge undersupply in all markets, as we know. In the last month of the coalition Government, nearly 65,000 households were in temporary accommodation. As the noble Baroness, Lady Valentine, said, there is a concern about the danger of key skills not being available in our urban centres as housing prices force people to buy outside and move outside our cities. There is the huge growth of housing benefit costs, as private rents rise and living standards stagnate; it is a huge, unsustainable problem in public spending. In all sectors, we simply have to build more. That has been a theme of this debate. The figures are quite clear: we have been building an average of 137,000 homes, and we need at least 100,000 more, per annum.

The coalition had a difficult start on housing. With the public sector restraints, it was difficult to get it to sustain some of the plans which the Labour Government already had for affordable housing growth, but we did, as the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, told us, put in two important reforms: the stability of income growth, and trying to set a plan for five years. We increased the stock of social housing over the period of government for the first time for many generations.

However, I add another problem. It is not simply a problem of shortage of land; there are also significant capacity problems in the construction sector. It has been a very cyclical business, which means that lots of capacity gets lost every time we have a cyclical downturn, not least during the last recession. Small contractors, self-builders, and private developers through consolidation all disappeared in the last recession. There has also been a loss of skills, which is why we had to bring in immigrant skills to help out in the construction sector. Developers are very cautious; they build only when they can sell, and they have an interest in keeping prices moving upwards.

I turn to what housing associations can do. They are an important source of delivery, and we have to look very carefully at what we need to do to encourage them to do more and to meet the affordable market demand. I welcome the increase that the Government have committed themselves to in moving from 175,000 affordable homes built under the coalition Government to 275,000 in the next five years. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, said, we have to sustain this. How can we increase the 55,000 homes per annum increase that is projected and get it nearer to the 80,000 that we need to reach the extra 100,000 houses overall?

There is capacity and potential in housing associations. At the end of the Labour Government there was a significant expansion. Under the last Government, the housing associations, with the guidance of the HCA, delivered on the targets set at the beginning of the Government. They have the ambition and the development teams to expand what they are doing. They also have unused security in their assets to help to fund this, and there is further potential if the Government would look particularly at the values of council-house transfers in their stock.

Housing associations have a track record of partnerships with developers and councils to help to rebuild communities and regenerate housing estates. I particularly value the work that has been done by the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, on the concept of city villages to regenerate some of the many old council estates, a concept that has been supported now by the Minister, as I am very glad to see. I have been involved in one of these projects in Rowner, in Gosport, Hampshire. It takes 20 years to do it, but it is immensely valuable. That community alone has been transformed by the work of a housing association, a council and English Partnerships, now the HCA, in that development, along with the private sector.

Housing associations can use their assets better. They have to be cautious. I am always worried when people say that housing associations can be more profitable. They can certainly be more efficient, but we have seen the dangers of HBOS going into the Halifax and turning the treasury department into a profit centre, and where that leads us. We have to be cautious. Property is a very cyclical market, and cash is important in order to survive. Housing associations can be so flexible that if there is a recession they can transfer houses that they were intending to sell into the rented sector, because there will be an overwhelming demand for them. That can provide stability. It also means that they can borrow money at cheaper rates because of the guarantees and security that their income streams can provide.

As the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, said, we know that housing associations access private finance, which is vital at a time when public spending is under pressure. One of the initiatives not mentioned in this debate is the Government’s guaranteed loan schemes. If housing associations can borrow money at 1% less than they would otherwise be able to, that provides money that is almost as good as a grant. We need to look at this. The Government put forward a £10-billion facility. How much has been used, how much is committed, and are the Government going to pursue this over the next five years? That is important for future expansion.

Housing associations must manage their property portfolios well to develop other sources of funding. I am not one of those who oppose selling off expensive council house properties or, indeed, housing association properties, but only if they are being used to build more, new, affordable homes and regenerate old communities. They should not be used simply to subsidise the right to buy. We have huge concern that under the right to buy, properties will not be replaced, but more importantly that if housing associations’ assets are subject to this policy we will undermine their whole business plans and their financial viability. We know that when the right to buy council housing was imposed, councils simply stopped building, and we do not want that to happen at a time when we need housing associations to build more.

Housing associations build homes for social, affordable and private rents, for right-to-buy sale, and more importantly for shared ownership. It is the Government’s role to galvanise their hidden potential and to increase affordable housing. They have five years to do it with an economy that we hope is improving. They must not miss this opportunity. They will have no excuse if they do.

16:52

[Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Whitty for initiating and leading this debate. His focus on increasing supply and affordable housing is entirely right. The term “affordable housing” has been the subject of comment by a number of noble Lords, but in this debate I understand that it covers a variety of provision, encompassing social rented homes and homes for sale or rent provided at a cost above social rented homes but below market levels, sometimes just below. It encompasses shared ownership, shared equity and homes for intermediate rent. The noble Baroness, Lady Valentine, suggested that that definition is too narrow in planning terms, but I agree with my noble friend Lord Whitty that attaching the term “affordable” to any particular provision does not of itself bring it within the reach of many who are in desperate need of a home.

Today we will doubtless have our ritual exchange of statistics with the Minister using starts or completions and differing times zones, whichever suits, but it is undeniably the case that the Government are simply not causing enough homes to be built to meet the needs of our country. People on low and middle incomes are struggling to get a home to call their own. Home ownership is at its lowest level for 30 years and the number of homes built for social rent has been the lowest for many years.

Despite the rapid growth of private renting, the sector has not changed to meet the needs of those living in it, with short-term tenancies causing insecurity and instability. Rents in many parts of the country increasingly push many to seek the support of housing benefit. Over the five years to 2013-14, the proportion of renters who are in work and claiming housing benefit doubled to 14%. Over that period, average private rents increased by 15%.

The UK has long faced a large and growing shortfall between the number of homes that we need and the number that we are building. Estimates may vary, as they have today, but an additional 250,000 homes per year over the next 10 years seems to be about the consensus. Perhaps the Minister could say what figure the Government are working to. As my noble friend Lord Whitty made clear, we need to build not only more homes, but more affordable homes. The noble Baroness, Lady Wilkins, reminded us that we need to build homes of quality to meet people’s real needs. Homes to buy or rent for those who cannot afford the market rate should be part of that.

Shelter has provided us with an estimate of the range of provision that is needed, suggesting that 50% should be market homes to rent or buy, 30% should be for social rent and 20% for intermediate tenancies, renting or shared ownership. Perhaps the Minister can say whether that breakdown of the total is something that the Government would recognise and support.

Of course we know that one of the first acts of the coalition Government was to change the funding model for affordable housing. They cut capital grant subsidies and enabled intermediate rent tenure of rents up to 80% of market rent levels, switching the funding burden in part on to the housing benefit bill but also taking more from tenants. This is part of the reason why we have a burgeoning housing benefit bill. The Government are now encouraging more conversions of social rented homes to affordable rents.

There have been a plethora of other initiatives by the coalition Government, which are documented in the helpful briefing provided by the Library. We have had the affordable homes guarantee programme, affordable rent to buy, the new homes bonus, the growing places fund, the Get Britain Building fund, the builders finance fund, the estate regeneration fund and the single local growth fund, while home ownership initiatives have variously included FirstBuy, Help to Buy and the NewBuy guarantee. We accept that these were all with good intent and with some advances, perhaps of marginal benefit, but what has it all amounted to? The number of affordable homes provided in the last year of the coalition Government fell by 26% from 2009-10 levels, while the number of homes built for social rent fell by a staggering 75% from 2009-10 levels.

Statistics reported today in the Guardian quoting DCLG data reveal that there are nearly 50,000 families living in temporary accommodation, a rise of 25% in five years, and a quarter of those are couples with dependent children. There has been a rise of 300% since 2010 in the number of families living in bed and breakfast accommodation and, last year, 111,000 people in England made an application to their council as homeless. Over 1.3 million households are on social housing waiting lists. Rough sleeping in England has increased by 55% over four years—you can see evidence of that outside the very doors of this place.

This is, sadly, not a success story. We should not deny that there have been heroic efforts by many to try to make advances, particularly those associated with the housing association movement. We will doubtless hear today that local authorities are building more council homes than at any time under the last Labour Government, and that is fine; certainly the reforms to the housing revenue account that we devised have helped local authorities to get back into business, but of course it is Labour councils that are leading the way.

The Government’s current commitment to build 55,000 affordable homes for each year of this Parliament should be welcome—my noble friend Lady Warwick welcomed it in particular. It is suggested that that would account for at least a third of new housing supply in England over the next five years, so it is a very important component. However, because, as I understand it, that is for intermediate let, can the Minister say where the investment into homes for social rent will come from?

Faced with those huge challenges, what have the Government alighted on as a key policy? The extension of the right to buy to housing association tenants, which most noble Lords have commented on today, is a policy that was highlighted in the general election campaign, no doubt in an attempt to recapture the political benefits of the 1979 announcements. Frankly, it is a cynical way to develop policy in such a crucial area. It drew questions from a number of noble Lords today: my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours, who described the crucial issues in Keswick; the noble Lords, Lord Horam and Lord Palmer of Childs Hill; the noble Lord, Lord Best, who took us back to the debate in 1983; and my noble friend Lord Hanworth.

Many unanswered questions surrounding the issue have been raised, both today and before. Foremost among those are the concerns that it could lead to fewer affordable homes, not more, and could impair the ability of housing associations to build. The funding that is supposed to come from the sale of the most expensive council houses is supposed to stretch to compensate housing associations for the discount, to enable replacement of the housing association and council houses sold and to contribute to the brownfield fund. How on earth is that all going to fit together?

Have the Government come to a conclusion on the matter of how the most expensive one-third of council houses are to be identified? Will there be separate calculations for properties of different sizes? Will the most expensive properties be identified on a national, regional or some other basis? What assurances will be given that smaller properties needed for those wishing to downsize to escape the bedroom tax will not be forcibly sold, or properties in rural areas? Just what is the legal position of the Government in imposing these sales on independent charities?

Are we not possessed of enough information and advice to deal with this housing crisis? The point made by my noble friend Lord Haskel and other noble Lords about a long-term consensus must be right. As Sir Michael Lyons put it, this needs long-term leadership, which can be achieved by making housing a national priority. We should give powers to local authorities to assemble land and commission development, as well as powers of “use it or lose it” over developers that hoard land. We are certainly for garden cities and engaging the energy and vision of housing associations, but we need to address capacity constraints in the building sector and sort out funding—how we can redirect the enormous funds spent on housing benefit.

Why does all this matter? Because substandard, inadequate and insufficient housing inevitably sits at the centre of deprivation, disadvantage and disillusion. We know that the major influences on a child’s life—family income, effective parenting and a secure environment—are all directly or indirectly influenced by a family’s housing conditions. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, that everyone should have a decent home.

17:03

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate and thank the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, for introducing it.

I will start by casting noble Lords’ minds back to 2010, to a situation in which the banks were not lending, the builders were not building—as the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, said, and of course that led to a loss of skills in that sector—and working people were denied the opportunity of home ownership. At that time there was a top-down planning system with regional spatial strategies which produced not houses but the lowest peacetime rates of housebuilding since the 1920s. The regional strategies and the guidance that accompanied them ran to thousands of pages. However, apart from breaking the bookshelves of planning officials across the country, they were notable for building resentment rather than homes for working people. Crucially, the stock of social rented homes had fallen by 420,000 since 1997, with 1.4 million families languishing on social housing waiting lists. Now, we are meeting people’s aspirations to own their own home by expanding on improvements in housebuilding and providing support for those who aspire to own their own home.

The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, and many other noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, said that we are not building enough homes. It is clear that if we do not supply the homes, there will be a problem. More than 260,000 affordable homes have been delivered in England since April 2010. The Government’s 2011 to 2015 affordable homes programme has exceeded expectations by delivering nearly 186,000 affordable homes since April 2011—16,000 more than originally planned. In all, 570,000 new homes have been built since April 2010, and there are now nearly 800,000 more homes than in 2009. The starts on new homes in the year to March 2015 totalled 140,500—the highest level since 2007. Homelessness is now at less than half of its peak level under the Labour Government in 2003.

We have wasted no time unveiling an important set of measures, including a new housing Bill announced in the Queen’s Speech which will increase housing supply, support home ownership and give housing association tenants the chance to own their own home.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

On that point, I wonder whether the noble Baroness will answer my question. Why should Quaker Housing Trust—another interdenominational- sponsored housing trust—be forced to sell off its assets when it is run by volunteers and linked to all the churches?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I say at this point that we intend not to seize anyone’s assets but to enable people who aspire to own their own home to do so. I will come later to the noble Lord’s specific point concerning Keswick, if that is okay.

The housing Bill will help more tenants of housing associations to buy a home of their own. It will increase the supply of starter homes, help those wishing to build their own home and ensure more control over planning. I can confirm to the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, that we will deliver 275,000 affordable homes with £38 billion of public and private investment, achieving the fastest build rate for 20 years. I can also confirm to the noble Lord that the Minister in the other place, Brandon Lewis, is already engaging across the sector, because, as he has said, that is very important. On the 10-year rent policy settlement, the Budget will be on 8 July. As the noble Lord will know, the settlement will then follow, so I cannot give any commitments at this stage.

The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, talked about the lack of affordability for first-time buyers. I can confirm to both him and the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick of Undercliffe, that, in addition, during this Parliament we will be committing to build 200,000 starter homes, to be exclusively offered to first-time buyers under the age of 40 at a 20% discount on the open market value. The starter homes will also help those in their 20s and 30s to have the opportunity to gain the benefits of home ownership which their parents’ generation enjoyed. We have introduced a new planning policy to encourage developers to build starter homes, and we will shortly set out a further package of reforms to support the delivery of these 200,000 starter homes.

The noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, passed me a note saying that she omitted to ask whether she could have a meeting with me. I assume that it would be to discuss housing. I shall be very happy to meet her, although I should add “in due course”, as at the moment I am quite busy.

The noble Lord, Lord Haskel, referred to supply constraints. Many noble Lords talked about lack of supply driving up house prices. As I have started to outline, we are increasing supply. We have granted planning permission for 261,000 new homes in the past year. House prices are affected by the economic cycle and we have a strong economy.

The noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, referred to the lack of discussion on Help to Buy. Forty-nine thousand people have been helped to buy, and more than 225,000 households have been helped to buy a home of their own by government schemes such as Help to Buy. Our manifesto committed us to extend the Help to Buy equity loan until 2020. We will introduce a Help to Buy ISA in the autumn to help aspiring home owners save for a deposit on their first home with contributions from government. For every £200 that someone saves through the scheme, the Government will contribute £50.

The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, and the noble Baroness, Lady Valentine, talked about borrowing without caps. The Government have no plans to remove the borrowing caps. They are necessary while we tackle the national deficit inherited from the previous Labour Administration. Local authorities have £3.13 billion of borrowing already.

The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, spoke of the need for a White Paper on a whole new approach to housing and suggested a target of 250,000 new homes—of which a proportion should be social housing—with clearer local responsibilities. As I have said, housing starts are at their highest annual level since 2007. Under Labour, despite the targets, housebuilding fell to its lowest peacetime rate since the 1920s. We are focusing on building more homes.

The noble Lord talked also about the cost of housing benefit rising in the private rented sector. Housing benefit cost rose by 50% in real terms in the 10 years to 2010. In 2013-14, welfare spending fell for the first time in 16 years. Some £470 million in discretionary housing payments has been made available for the period 2013-16 to help vulnerable households during welfare reform transition.

I think that it was the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, who talked about the right to build and neighbourhood planning. Councils will identify and provide land and a right to build for people who want to build or commission their own home. Already, 1,500 communities have started the process of neighbourhood planning, with more than 11% of the population of England living in one or more of the 1,300 designated neighbourhood areas. We will further simplify neighbourhood planning to make it even easier for communities to have more control over housing. The number of homes planned for locally has risen substantially and we saw planning permissions granted to 253,000 homes last year.

Many noble Lords talked about right to buy. As I outlined earlier, we believe in helping people in their aspiration to buy their own home. We will offer more than 1 million housing associations tenants the option to buy their own home in the same way as generations of local authority tenants. Until now, 1.3 million tenants in housing association properties have received little or no assistance in this area, which is clearly unfair. Aspiration should not be determined by the organisation that manages your home nor be limited by it, especially if it is funded ultimately by the taxpayer. That is why we will ensure that housing association tenants have the same opportunities for the right to buy a home at a higher discount level as council tenants. Revenue from sales will be invested in more affordable housing, and for every home sold a new home will be built, which relates to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, about addressing the lack of supply. Through the right to buy refresh scheme, 33,000 homes have been built, with 40,000 since 2010.

The noble Lord, Lord Best, talked about affordable homes being lost for ever because of the extended right to buy. We have been very clear that every home sold will be replaced by another one.

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill]

Will the Minister say how the Government will replace them with 30% of the proceeds?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, that is a policy announcement to be made later. Given the amount of time left, I am happy to write to the noble Lord in due course, but I am aware that the clock is ticking and I still have a pile of questions to get through.

Pension funds were mentioned by one noble Lord, which brought to mind what is happening in Manchester. Greater Manchester, which has a healthy pension fund, and the city council have signed up to a £30 million joint venture that will see new homes for rent managed by Places for People.

The noble Lord, Lord Haskel, and my noble friend Lord Horam talked about foreign investors in London. The former Government also took action to tackle tax avoidance and to ensure that those individuals who envelope UK residential properties by owning or purchasing them through corporate structures without a commercial purpose pay a fair share of tax. We are also levelling the playing field by introducing capital gains tax on future gains made by non-residents disposing of UK residential property.

The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, also asked why thresholds for exemptions on Section 106 were set at 10 houses and asked why local authorities could not set their own thresholds. Ten homes represents a major development in planning terms and this is accepted across the country. The thresholds policy states that affordable housing contributions should not be sought from sites of 10 units or fewer and 1,000 square metres or less, and a lower threshold of five units applies in national parks, areas of outstanding national beauty and designated rural areas as a direct result of concerns raised. New developments tend to be predominately smaller scale in rural areas.

The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, also said that there should be more targeted funding for rural affordable housing through the HCA. The HCA looks at a range of factors, including local circumstances, when allocating funding. There is no set amount of grant funding. Higher costs that can occur in rural areas are taken into account.

The noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, talked about the impact on community housing trusts of the extension of right to buy. To some extent, I have already started to address that point. The development of that policy is ongoing and we are engaging with that sector.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

Is there any chance that this particular group will be exempted from legislation?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I hope that the noble Lord will forgive me if I do not give a response at this point.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

Will the Minister write to me?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I will certainly write to the noble Lord, but I am not in a position to make policy announcements at the Dispatch Box.

The noble Lord alluded to Keswick, so I will outline how we are supporting housing in Allerdale council. There have been 460 affordable homes delivered in the Allerdale local authority area between 2010 and 2015. In terms of help to buy, there have been 80 equity loan sales to March 2015, 58 mortgage guarantee loans, 158 homes supported by 20 new-buy mortgage loans and, up to 2014, the new homes bonus for Allerdale has been £791,455.

The noble Lord, Lord Best, said that the current right to buy has become more generous with increased discounts and shorter qualifying periods. The qualifying period was reduced from five years to three years under the Deregulation Act 2015, returning to the original qualifying period set in the 1980s, and the right to buy discount has increased to realistic levels after years of stagnation when the discounts became irrelevant.

A question was raised about making land available. We want to make brownfield land available because people want new homes to be built near existing residences while the green belt and the local countryside are protected. They might even want to build their own home. We will ensure that brownfield land is used as much as possible for new development. We will require local authorities to keep a register of what is available and ensure that 90% of suitable brownfield sites have planning permission for housing. I mentioned in this House the other day that we will create a brownfield fund to unlock land. There will also be a new London land commission to identify and release all surplus brownfield land owned by the public sector and fund housing zones to transform brownfield sites into new housing, creating 95,000 new homes.

The noble Lord, Lord Haskel, made the point that no one believes that one-for-one replacement will work, especially in London. There is inevitably a lag between sale and replacement in order to assemble land, get planning permission and so on. That is why in 2012 councils asked for three years to deliver the one-for-one figures that we have published today. They show that 3,053 additional homes were sold in 2012-13, and 3,337 have been started or acquired. The numbers have doubled in the last year, so councils are delivering the one-for-one replacement to date. However, we cannot expect to see the figures on that replacement immediately.

Two noble Lords talked about the definition of affordable housing. It is set out in the National Planning Policy Framework and in the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008. The definitions are as follows. The National Planning Policy Framework defines it as:

“Social rented, affordable rented and intermediate housing, provided to eligible households whose needs are not met by the market. Eligibility is determined with regard to local incomes and local house prices”.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

I hope that the noble Baroness will forgive me for interrupting, but using those definitions, on the affordable programme that the noble Baroness has talked about today, of the 55,000 houses each year, how many of those are social rented homes and how many are intermediate homes?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

Perhaps I may get back to the noble Lord on that particular figure. He always asks specific and detailed questions, so I shall get back to him on that.

I shall carry on with the definition:

“Affordable housing should include provisions to remain at an affordable price for future eligible households or for the subsidy to be recycled for alternative affordable housing provision”.

The Housing and Regeneration Act 2008 defines social housing as,

“low cost rental accommodation and low cost home ownership accommodation”.

“Low cost rent” is simply defined in the Act as “below the market rate”, while “low cost home ownership” is defined by its availability for occupation on a shared ownership or equity percentage basis.

I note that time has run out and there is a host of questions that I have not managed to get through. I will write to noble Lords whose questions I have not addressed, and I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate.

17:24

[Lord Whitty]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that comprehensive reply. Although comprehensive, it was not entirely comprehensible because when I add up all the figures and work it out, I am not sure what the degree of ambition of the Conservative Government now is in terms of overall delivery. The means of that delivery, despite all the various schemes to which the Minister referred, do not add up to the step change in the delivery of housing supply that we clearly need.

When the Minister looks back she is right to say that the council waiting list was 1.4 million when the coalition Government came to power, but of course, the figure is exactly the same now. All the interventions during that period, which the noble Baroness was praising, made no difference: at the end of the line, there were still a huge number of families who were entitled to affordable housing but did not get it, and far more still never got on the housing list in the first place.

The debate has been characterised by a lot of knowledgeable contributions from people such as the noble Lords, Lord Best and Lord Kerslake, and my noble friend Lady Warwick, who know about housing associations. Housing associations will be required to deliver a large part of whatever targets the Government eventually come up with. It is therefore particularly unfortunate that they are being hobbled by what I referred to earlier as a cack-handed intervention, in terms of the right to buy, in their finances, borrowing credibility and business plans, a point that has been underlined by many speakers.

We have had a good lesson in economics from my noble friends Lord Desai and Lord Haskel. The economics of housing are distorted by two things: first, by the fact that, as my noble friend Lord Desai said, housing is not just a home but an investment. That is a distortion of the British economy to a degree that does not apply everywhere else in the world, and it is probably something we ought to be able to get over, but probably not in the next five years. That benefits home owners—a decreasing proportion of the population. The next generation will not have it as easy as my generation and the previous generation in getting on to the housing ladder.

I thank all noble Lords who took part in the debate. Rural housing and the housing situation in London are important matters for the Government to take on board. The right-to-buy initiative in housing associations is a difficult issue, to which we will return. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, that my support for the principle of the right to buy is based on the fact that a lot of people have benefited who would otherwise not have been able to get on the housing ladder. However, he is absolutely right that the basic flaw in successive right-to-buy policies has been that we have not replaced the housing stock that they displaced. I do not believe that there are the means of doing so in this policy, either. One-for-one replacement has been impossible in the previous phase of selling council properties, and it will be equally difficult to make the economics and finances work out for housing associations. That is therefore a major hole in the Government’s policy.

I was also surprised, given her background, that the noble Baroness did not emphasise more the role of local authorities. The reality is that if we look back over the period to which my noble friends Lord Hamworth and Lady Wilkins referred—after the war—it was largely the local authorities, with government backing, that delivered. I do not believe that we can get back to that level of housebuilding without the major involvement of the larger local authorities. I hope, therefore, that the Government’s plans for devolution and the enhancement of the role of London will play a central role in dealing with the housing gap that we need to address.

I thank all my noble friends on this side of the House. I notice that the noble Baroness did not have huge numbers on the Conservative Benches showing an interest, which is a problem for the Government. I am very glad that the noble Lord, Lord Horam, is here, and I agree with much if not all of what he said. It almost reminded me that he was not always a Tory.

This has been a good and very important debate, to which we will undoubtedly return on many occasions when considering the relevant legislation, and I thank everybody who has participated in it. If the Government fall short, millions and millions of our fellow citizens will suffer.

Motion agreed.

Housing: Leaseholders

Thursday 25th June 2015 Lords Chamber

Question for Short Debate

17:29

Asked by

[Baroness Gardner of Parkes]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to review the procedures by which resident leaseholders in blocks of flats agree to a Right to Manage or a change to commonhold tenure.

[Baroness Gardner of Parkes (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as recorded in the register, and as a leaseholder for many years. My continuing interest in this subject will not surprise Members, as I have been concerned about progress in these leasehold matters for a long time and have taken an active part in most new property legislation since I took my seat in the House years ago.

Some of the key issues are simplification of the law, regulation of managing bodies, transparency in the complaint processes, closing loopholes, protecting leaseholders’ rights, standards of service and value for money. I raised these same issues in a debate in March 2012—three years ago. Progress has been made only on regulation of managing bodies—managing agents must now be members of the Association of Residential Managing Agents—and in the complaint process; there is now access to a redress scheme. While I regret the loss of the process whereby ordinary individuals had access to less expensive means of raising issues through the leasehold valuation tribunals, brought in under the Housing Act 1980 and price pegged in the later 1985 Act, in which I was involved, their replacement by the First-tier Tribunal Property Chamber from 1 July 2013 is a change consistent with consolidation, which is my aim. The substantive law should now follow to create an efficient and coherent system.

It is estimated by the Federation of Private Residents’ Associations—the FRPA—that there are more than 4 million leaseholders in private blocks, retirement homes and local authority and housing association properties. I commend their latest leaflet, Empowering Leaseholders, to all, as it sets out the problems and needs very clearly.

I am delighted that the Minister is speaking on this subject today as he is a Scottish law officer. I look forward to hearing my noble and learned friend Lord Keen’s maiden speech, which I can add my appreciation for only now because I am not allowed to say anything after he has made it. Property law is, in my opinion, much better in Scotland than in England. People seem to have a better understanding of their property positions and rights, and conveyancers honour the long-established system of letters of obligation. The Abolition of Feudal Tenure etc. (Scotland) Act 2000 abolished the feudalism feu whereby blocks had a head lessee owner—would that we could produce a similar situation in England.

For years I have been trying to get answers from the Ministry of Justice on property law. Whenever I have tabled a Question—even when a former Lord Chancellor advised me on the wording to attract a reply from the Ministry of Justice—the replies have always been from the Minister for Housing, whose view on these matters seems to overlook, or fail to appreciate, the unsatisfactory legal situation in which many leaseholders find themselves caught.

Property law has been covered piecemeal for years and I have participated in the work done on Act after Act, each one amending a previous Act, so that any solicitor working in this field now has to refer to many Acts. This is a time-consuming and costly process and we need a consolidation Act to make it simpler for people to understand and to avoid many hours of expensive legal work. I quote the FRPA reference to the,

“glaring need to consolidate all … landlord & tenant legislation”.

In reply to an earlier discussion of this point, the then Minister replying agreed that laws should be able to be understood by ordinary people, rather than only the professionally qualified, who will of course always be needed for their expertise on complicated points.

The 2002 commonhold Act allows leaseholders to agree to convert their blocks to this tenure, but only if there is 100% agreement. In reply to my many questions on this point in your Lordships’ House, it has been admitted repeatedly that 100% is impossible to achieve. The same applies in too many cases where 50% of leaseholders in a block must agree if they want right to manage. This should not be impossible to achieve but it is still very difficult, particularly in London, as there is such a high proportion of foreign owners who simply do not reply to any correspondence on these matters. They expect the standards of the blocks to be maintained but are either unwilling or unable to play any part in ensuring that a block is efficiently managed and money wisely spent.

Not long before the general election, I was present in the other place at a very well-attended meeting chaired by Sir Peter Bottomley. The difficulty of getting any response from some of the leaseholders in a block was raised. A verbal reply from a civil servant present was to the effect that they were considering whether it would be appropriate to treat the non-replies as having been “deemed” to support the majority view. This seems to be an idea that could provide the solution that would benefit those who are presently so frustrated when all attempts fail to get any response.

Dr Lu Xu, senior lecturer in property law at Lancaster University, in a report due to be published shortly on a study funded by the British Academy, has been in contact with more than half of the existing 16 commonhold schemes. That is all there are—16 of these schemes. There are up to 100,000 new leaseholds being created every year. There is little appreciation or understanding of the commonhold system. His findings are that commonhold has never had any support from government. The lack of willingness on the part of mortgage lenders is also a very serious problem at present, particularly for those who already own commonhold property.

The Title Conditions (Scotland) Act 2003 introduced to the statute book the system of real burdens, a more practical system developed by the court and conveyancers in Scotland so that the owner of a flat could be legally obliged to pay for the repairs and maintenance of parts such as the roof of the building. English law apparently does not allow such onerous obligation on property ownership unless there is legislative intervention. Scotland has been very effective in introducing important property law statutes in the 21st century. In 1994, Lord Templeman observed in this House that nothing had been done to legislate on the recommendation of Lord Wilberforce’s committee, which reported on this issue in 1965. I am not good at maths but even I can work out that that is 50 years ago.

In 2011, the Law Commission produced another recommendation and draft Bill for land obligations. The government response in 2012-13 was that they intended to respond in 2014. However, despite

“good progress … in analysing the recommendations”,

they never had time to respond in the last parliamentary Session. We now have a new Parliament and so the time for the overdue consolidation of housing and property law should come.

Commonhold took more than 20 years of consultation and deliberation to reach the statute book. This Parliament can address any flaws in the present legislation so that it can reach its potential as part of the consolidation process. As I said, land obligation has been a legislative proposal for 50 years, in spite of being promoted by successive Law Commission reports. This Parliament should carefully consider its merits and make something happen. We need a consolidation Act for property in England and Wales.

17:39

[Lord Trefgarne (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Gardner for introducing this debate. It provides an opportunity for two things: first, to listen to the important points she has made and on which, I confess, I am no expert; and secondly, for my noble and learned friend Lord Keen to make his maiden speech, to which I look forward.

My noble and learned friend comes to your Lordships’ House following a distinguished career at the Scottish Bar. He also comes with form. In 1999, the House of Lords Bill was going through this House. My friend Lord Gray introduced the proposition to the Committee for Privileges that the Bill contravened the provisions of the Union with Scotland Act 1706, which provided for a number of Scottish Peers, elected from among their own number, to come to this House on a regular basis. The proposition was that the House of Lords Bill contravened that provision and that it should be amended accordingly. My noble and learned friend Lord Keen represented that proposition to the Committee for Privileges. I am sorry to say he did not persuade it. No doubt he will do better this evening.

We put another proposition to the Committee for Privileges at that time: that a Writ of Summons could not be cancelled in the middle of a Parliament. I am afraid that proposition failed as well—that is that but I am very sorry about it. In the midst of all these proceedings the Bill was amended to allow for 92 of our hereditary colleagues to remain and I have the privilege to be one of them. I look forward very much to the maiden speech of my noble and learned friend Lord Keen and I thank my noble friend Lady Gardner for making that possible.

17:39

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, for putting down this Question for Short Debate. As usual, she raises an important issue, which the Government should look at and take action on. The noble Baroness has an impressive record in raising these matters and the Government would be wise to listen to her.

I warmly welcome the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, to the House. I look forward to his maiden speech, responding for the Government. I looked at the noble and learned Lord’s biography and it makes impressive reading indeed. As the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, said, he is a lawyer with a distinguished legal career, a Queen’s Counsel and a member of the Bar both in Scotland and in England and Wales. He joined Her Majesty’s Government as the Advocate-General for Scotland immediately after the general election last month. He is a law officer of the Crown and advises the Government on Scottish law. He derives considerable power from the Scotland Act and one of his roles is to consider all Scottish Parliament Bills as they progress, in consultation with interested UK departments, to assess their legislative competence. I, together with all Members of this House, wish him well in his new responsibilities at the start of this Parliament.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, pointed out, the law in respect of leaseholders, commonholders and other aspects of living in a property which is leasehold rather than freehold is complex and not easily understood by people. That is not a good place to be in. The law should always aim to be clear, simple and understandable for ordinary people, particularly when it affects where they live. This must surely be an aim of the Government. It would be useful if in his response the noble and learned Lord could address what plans the Government have to ask the Law Commission to look at these matters, with a view to producing a Bill that consolidates all the various property Acts, as the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, referred to. I think it is long overdue and will be warmly welcomed.

I have never lived in a leasehold property, having grown up with my parents, brother and sister in a council property; each property I have bought and sold as I have moved around the UK has always been freehold. But I have a number of friends who live in flats that are leasehold and I have seen some of the quite unsatisfactory arrangements and conditions they live under. It is not something that I would find acceptable in all cases and the Government really should seek to act on it.

I am also aware of the considerable number of new flats being built in the London Borough of Southwark, where I grew up, and the London Borough of Lewisham, where I live, and other parts of London, which will have these similar leasehold arrangements. The system of leasehold tenure that we have in England and Wales is fairly unique. The lease can be as long as 999 years and ensures that the leaseholders of a property with communal areas are equally responsible for its maintenance. There are significant problems with this type of tenure and the managing agents, who have no responsibility to the leaseholders; the leaseholder is in effect frozen out of any involvement in the effective management of a property they own, which may be their home.

We should all expect good service and value for money but living in a leasehold property with a managing agent, where there is little competition, can be something of a lottery. It is very difficult to change your managing agent or to challenge a service charge. The leaseholders can find it extremely difficult, having to go to the leasehold valuation tribunal to receive a satisfactory remedy. There are further problems with connected companies where a freeholder also owns the management company. Of course, leaseholders have sometimes been successful at the leasehold valuation tribunal and been awarded sums of money, having suffered unacceptably high service charges.

This is a huge issue. We have up to 5 million people living in 2.5 million leasehold properties spending as much as £2.5 billion in service charges per annum. I would like to see the introduction in this sector of an independent regulator which would be able to ensure that agents act in a professional manner and adhere to minimum standards of competence. I would like to see all managing agents subscribing to an ombudsman service guaranteeing leaseholders free and accessible arbitration. I would also like to see reform of the leasehold valuation tribunal, and the order that prevents freeholders reclaiming their tribunal costs retrospectively through service charges should be automatic unless the freeholder can prove that they should be able to reclaim charges and that the threat of forfeiture of properties for failure to pay charges is disproportionate.

The Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 created commonhold tenure, designed to be used in both new and existing tenure. Similar forms of tenure are used across the world, which offer perpetual ownership of blocks of flats alongside a share of a company responsible for common-area management. The commonhold community association is owned by the unit-holders and they decide who manages the property. The major barrier, which the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, referred to, is the 100% requirement for converting existing leasehold properties. This should be relaxed because we are giving one leaseholder a complete veto on transferring to commonhold. That is one of the key points the noble Baroness made in her contribution.

That 100% requirement should be reduced to a figure in the region of 75%, which still means that you need three-quarters of the leaseholders to agree, but no one individual has a veto on making this change. I will be very interested in the response to this point from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen. Will the noble and learned Lord also tell the House what plans the Government have to promote commonhold and whether they are considering incentives to sell new blocks of flats as commonhold?

The Government should also do more to promote the right to manage, which allows leaseholders to assume control over management of their properties without having to pay to own the freehold where they get 50% qualifying support to do so, although the freeholder should be required to assist the leaseholders in making contact with each other as they may not be in residence at any particular point in time. Again, the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, referred to this. This is an important policy matter that affects many people and the time has come for the Government to take positive action to help leaseholders and create more flats in commonhold. I particularly like the idea of non-responders being regarded as having accepted. That may be one way of injecting some life into this policy.

In conclusion, I again thank the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, for raising this important issue in your Lordships’ House, and hope that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen—in what I am sure will be a very eloquent contribution—will be able to set out some hope for the future.

17:49

[The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Keen of Elie) (Con) (Maiden Speech)]

My Lords, it was a singular honour to be introduced to your Lordships’ House. I am obliged for the consideration and courtesy extended to me by Members and staff, and more immediately by my noble friend Lord Trefgarne and the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark. My first week in this House was one of lost and found: I got lost and was found by the doorkeepers. Matters deteriorated slightly when I attempted my first Division on Wednesday of this week. I moved with alacrity to the not-content corridor. I passed through that corridor, turned right and right again. I became slightly confused but joined a group of Members standing in the vicinity of the Chamber. After a minute or so chatting away, I noticed that we were shuffling in a particular direction. It occurred to me that I was re-entering the not-content corridor. I rather thought at this moment that not even the Chief Whip would welcome my attempts to vote twice in a single Division, and I slipped away quietly to reconsider the geography of your Lordships’ House.

I thank my noble friend Lady Gardner for raising this Question and for the contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy. Two particular issues are touched upon: commonhold and the right to manage. Although they appear to converge and to be related, they are of course materially very different. They are quite distinct concepts. The right to manage is, as it says, about the right of leaseholders to take over the management of a multi-unit block. Commonhold, on the other hand, is a matter concerned with the law of property—a more fundamental issue of rights and obligations.

The Government welcome suggestions to improve the working of the law of property for property owners who live in multi-occupation buildings and will of course consider all proposals carefully. However, the Government are also mindful of the need to strike a balance between the interests of all those who would be affected by any change, whether as freeholders, leaseholders or commonholders. We are also mindful of the need to avoid putting unnecessary regulatory burdens on property owners, whether they are freeholders or leaseholders.

On the matter of right to manage, that specific statutory right was conferred on long residential leaseholders in 2003. The right to manage can be assumed by an administrative process. There is no legal process required and in that way expense is kept to a minimum. It can be achieved effectively by a majority of the leaseholders in a multi-unit building. It has clearly been, in relative terms, a success. We know that because we have seen the registration of at least 4,000 right-to-manage companies at Companies House. The process is straightforward and fair. It does not involve the long leaseholders in the expense of having to acquire by enfranchisement the freeholder interest in any property.

However, one has to remember that the right to manage brings with it very material obligations and, in that context, it is important that there should so far as possible be a consensus between leaseholders as to whether they wish to assume those rights and obligations. There can be difficulties in tracing some leaseholders, but there are means by which this can be achieved if a right-to-manage company is incorporated with the intention of taking over the management of a block.

Pursuant to Section 93 of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002, the RTM can require the landlord to provide information with regard to the whereabouts of leaseholders. There are similar rights under Section 82 of the same Act. Our perception at this time is that the right to manage is a welcome addition to the armoury of leaseholder rights and is proving effective in the protection of those rights.

I turn now to the matter of commonhold. My noble friend Lady Gardner observed that we could trace matters back to the Wilberforce committee of 1965—that is true. The coining of the term “commonhold” dates back to 1984 and a report from the Law Commission. Thereafter, I think it would have to be accepted that matters moved slowly until we had the 2002 Act, which came into force in 2004. Part of the difficulty, which I intend to address in a moment, can be discerned from the title of that Act—the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002. Hand in hand with the introduction of commonhold came very material improvements in leasehold. In a sense, that carried the seeds of the difficulty encountered by commonhold as a form of land or property holding.

It was anticipated by the then Lord Chancellor in 2004 that some 6,500 commonholds would be created in each year after the Act came into force. In the event, there were not 6,500 a year; there were not 650 a year; there were not 65 a year; and there were not six a year. There have in fact been a total of 17 commonholds created since 2004. A great deal of effort, intelligence, research and work went into the creation of commonhold. It sailed under the fair wind of good intentions into a legislative Bermuda Triangle and nothing—nothing—came out.

Why should that have been? As I say, at the same time as commonhold was created, leasehold reform appeared. With those improvements, it became apparent that market forces would move in favour of continued use of leasehold rather than the adoption of commonhold. That carried with it a multitude of potential difficulties, we see now with the benefit of hindsight, including: the need to incorporate a company limited by guarantee; the need for there to be directors of that company; and the need for the directors of that company to accept the obligations of directors, including their fiduciary duties and the obligations now contained within Section 174 of the Companies Act. So we had a concept unfamiliar to property lawyers involving a further concept—corporations subject to guarantee—that was not particularly familiar to company lawyers. In these circumstances, the market has simply moved away from the idea of adopting commonhold. That is something we have to accept.

Reference was made by my noble friend Lady Gardner and the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, to the employment of something other than the 100% rule for commonhold. But that is not an answer to the problem; that is a means of creating a further layer of complexity and difficulty. I say that in this context: if you were to allow commonhold by virtue of the votes of a majority of those in a unit, would you, first of all, be excluding the rights of the freeholder, whose rights would be extinguished? If so, that is a deprivation of property, contrary to Article 1 of the first protocol of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Secondly, will you deprive those non-consenting leaseholders of their rights as leaseholders, which are substantial because of the statutory protections now available to them? If so, that is a potential deprivation of property contrary to Article 1 of the first protocol.

Alternatively, will you allow those non-consenting leaseholders to remain as leaseholders of the commonhold, in which case you create not the intended community that commonhold was intended to bring about but something quite different: a division or pepperpot. There will be on the one hand commonholders of units and on the other long leaseholders who wish to remain long leaseholders within the same unit. Yet the commonholders may find that they then have a responsibility to the leaseholders because the leaseholders continue to have statutory rights about the level of service charge quite different from those of commonholders.

The commonholders’ rights and obligations in respect of the service charge are determined by contract and agreement. They do not have to be reasonable; they simply have to be agreed. However, the leaseholders who remain are entitled to the statutory protections already conferred on them. You could have a situation in which the commonholders decide on a service charge at one level—let us say, £10,000—and the consequence is that the leaseholders then have theirs reduced to £5,000. Who will pay the difference? As I say, introducing the idea of commonhold is an attractive way forward for property law—but only up to a point.

I am reminded that I have only one minute and have traversed but little territory. I apologise, but let me say this: despite being a Scot I cannot embrace the idea that Scotland has a better system. It has a different system, which traces its roots to the introduction of the feudal system by David I in the 14th century. There were proposals to abolish the feudal system in the 16th century but it took a further 500 years of consideration before that came about. However, the distinction is that real burdens could always be carried by property in Scotland—that is, perishable property title—because of the superiority. Even when that was abolished in 2003, real burdens could continue. It is not easy to compare the two systems because of the fundamental differences in property law and property title, so we can gain only little assistance from what happened there.

On consolidation, while the law is still in a state of flux, consolidation is not the way forward and therefore there are no proposals for it at present. On a review of the right to management, there seems no pressing reason for review. On commonholding, it is a voluntary scheme. It is open for the market to embrace it and perhaps there are steps that can be taken to encourage the market to do so. But as we have seen, the market finds it an unattractive offering despite all the efforts that were made to bring it to the market. It remains and will remain a voluntary scheme for those undertaking multi-unit development but we can see that it has not taken off at present. I apologise if I have overstayed my welcome and thank noble Lords for their attention.

House adjourned at 6.03 pm.