Westminster Hall

Tuesday 15th September 2015 Westminster Hall

Tuesday 15 September 2015

[Sir Edward Leigh in the Chair]

London Black Cabs

Tuesday 15th September 2015 Westminster Hall

09:30

[Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the future of black cabs in London.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. We have an hour and a half for the debate and I know that a number of people want to speak, so I will keep my remarks quite short and to the point.

Black cabs are an iconic part of London and are famous around the world. The first horse-drawn hackney coaches appeared in London during the reign of Queen Elizabeth I, and the first taxi rank was installed in the Strand just over 400 years ago. The famous knowledge was started in 1884. Today there are 25,000 black cabs in London. They remain a vital part of the capital’s transport system and play a key role in keeping London moving.

For me, black cabs are one of the things that make London stand out. Their value is not necessarily quantifiable but is huge and real, all the same. I am reassured, for example, by the fact that taxi drivers have had rigorous background checks. I like the fact that they know every nook and cranny of our capital. For many people visiting our country, our unique taxis are the first thing they see and their drivers are the first people they meet and talk to. I would think nothing, personally, of depositing any one of my children in a black cab at any time, as I would know absolutely that they would be safe. It is hard to put a number on all that, but it is worth something.

The tragedy is that black cabs’ days could soon be numbered. If trends continue, I do not think that there is any doubt that they will be extinct in a matter of years. I will briefly explain why. Transport for London’s rules enforce a two-tier system for taxis in London. London’s black cabs can ply for hire and wait at ranks. Their fares are set by TfL, as are their stringent service standards. The reason they are licensed to pick up anyone from the street is that TfL has confidence that the drivers and vehicles are safe and the price is fair. Private hire vehicles, on the other hand, have to be pre-booked, so cannot legally ply for hire. Their fares are not set by TfL and their drivers do not pass the knowledge or do advanced driver courses. PHVs have less regulation because customers book them in advance and so know what deal they are getting and what service they can expect.

That system largely worked fine until recently, but the emergence of Uber has turned it on its head. The speed of the Uber app means that its cars are effectively hailed by users, and no one can reasonably argue that they do not also ply for hire, picking up people straight from the street. The one key advantage enjoyed by black cabs has simply evaporated.

I have been told recently by people who think of themselves as free marketeers that we should not intervene—we should let progress have its way and let the market decide. But that is not an honest position to take, for the simple reason that the black cab trade in London is not a free market and never has been. Costs are piled on to the black cab by regulation. They are the most regulated taxis in the world by far. Black cab drivers’ fares are set for them by TfL and they are told which vehicles they are allowed to drive. Their vehicles must have a turning circle of 8.535 metres, a partition separating passenger from driver, an overall length of no more than 5 metres, a flat door in the passenger compartment with a minimum height limit and an approved taxi meter, and must be able to accommodate a person in a wheelchair.

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

Although I have a lot of sympathy with what my hon. Friend is saying, equally, we do have technological change, and Uber is part of that. Given that Uber is now in this highly regulated black cab market, is there not a perfectly good Conservative argument that suggests that the amount of regulations for our black cabs should be reduced to make them more competitive?

[Zac Goldsmith]

I agree with my right hon. Friend up to a point; I will come to that shortly, but I do not think it will be enough. Deregulating the black cabs to put them on a genuinely level playing field with Uber and the like would logically mean the end of the black cab. That is the decision we need to make, but it is not one I would be happy with.

[Sadiq Khan (Tooting) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate; if the polls are right, I suspect this will be the first of many debates he and I will be having between now and May. The right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field) referred to technological innovation with regard to Uber. Rather than deregulating the black cab in a race to the bottom, should there not be innovation in regulation for private hire vehicles, and Uber in particular, to make sure that there is a level playing field?

[Zac Goldsmith]

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman, and I will come on to the steps we need to take as a minimum to maintain the two-tier system and encourage innovation.

I will finish my point about the lack of free market for black cabs. I mentioned some of the specifications and the hoops the black cab drivers have to jump through, but that is not the only factor. We all know about the knowledge, a gruelling exercise that takes on average 50 months—between two and five years—to study. It has a failure rate of 80% and is done entirely at the driver’s expense. Black cabs also have to be wheelchair accessible. London is the only major city in the world that requires that. Given that around 1.2 million Londoners have some form of disability, that requirement is a good thing, but it adds enormously to costs.

Some have suggested that we simply remove the regulations and let the drivers fight it out, but on the whole the regulations have worked for London, and removing them effectively means losing the black cab altogether. There was a very good debate on the Floor of the House not long ago on this very issue. In what I thought was a magnificent speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) said:

“London cannot have it both ways. It can try, but it will end in tears.”—[Official Report, 15 July 2015; Vol. 598, c. 1054.]

He is right. My starting point is that London would be poorer without black cabs and we should ensure that they have a future.

The question is how we do that. Partly it is a question of helping black cabs to compete, which means looking at unnecessary regulations: turning circle technology, for example, is probably not necessary and adds an enormous cost to the car. I know that TfL is keen to build more taxi ranks. I believe that a third of all taxi journeys in London start at the taxi rank and there is a strong case to be made for rolling ranks out all over London, not least to help deal with congestion. We should also help black cabs to switch to contactless payment systems. That is what consumers expect—83% of passengers polled recently want to be able to pay by card—but only half of London’s cabs currently take card payments. There is a case for subsidising that process. If we measure the cost of that subsidy against the costs imposed on black cabs through regulation, it would be a fairly small piece of the equation.

[Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate on an issue that I know he cares about passionately. Many black cab drivers live in my constituency of Dartford. If London were to lose its black cabs, that would be a tragedy that had an impact way beyond the capital, into the home counties, where so many black cab drivers live. They tell me that they want equality of arms, so that the right and necessary checks carried out on them are also carried on other drivers.

[Zac Goldsmith]

I agree with my hon. Friend, and will be coming to that point.

Before I move on to the steps we need to take on regulation, we should acknowledge that black cabs are already adapting and changing fast. From 2018, all new black cabs will be zero-emission capable, helped by £8,000 grants from the Mayor. The cost to drivers will be no greater than that of buying conventional cars, but the cost of managing the cars will be much lower because they will be independent of fuel and will be able to fuel their cars electrically. That change has been very much welcomed by the drivers I have spoken to. Incidentally, the first motor cabs, which arrived in 1897, were electric, so we are seeing a neat ecological full circle—we are experiencing the circle of life right here in London with our black cabs. Many drivers are also using new booking apps, some of which are very innovative. For example, some help passengers to share journeys; others enable serious discounts over longer distances.

I do not believe that on their own those changes will be enough, however. We need to find a way to maintain the two-tier system distinguishing between cabs and taxis that has worked well in London for over 50 years.

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

I apologise for arriving late and congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this important debate. I was listening carefully to what he said about improvements to air quality. Does he acknowledge that the huge influx of minicab drivers and Uber drivers has had a really negative effect not just on air quality but on congestion in central London?

[Zac Goldsmith]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman and will be making a similar point shortly. We need to look at that issue.

The bottom line is that we need to find a way of maintaining the two-tier system. I know that some within the black cab trade are calling for a mandatory five-minute period between booking and pick up to try to maintain the divide. I understand why that would work, and there is a strong case for it, but I worry that it would alienate—even infuriate—customers, who would not understand why it was happening. I understand that a similar mechanism has been brought in in New York, and there has been a considerable customer backlash there, which has been felt by the Mayor, who introduced the scheme, and whose popularity has been collapsing as a consequence.

[Mark Field]

I want to touch on the issue of choice, which my hon. Friend has raised. One of my concerns about the black cab’s protected position is that we hear voices saying that we should outlaw Uber and ban pedicabs. Could my hon. Friend give some indication of where he stands on both those issues? Would such an approach be detrimental to consumer choice, or would it be the right way to protect the market?

[Zac Goldsmith]

I absolutely do not want to deny people the choice they clearly want and need in London. There is therefore no question of banning Uber, but there is a need for more clarity in the regulatory system. That is the point I will be making shortly, and I hope my right hon. Friend will intervene as I continue.

I am sceptical of the five-minute rule proposal, but I hope the Government will commit to working with TfL to urgently define what “ply for hire” actually means. For the black cabs, their customers and London generally, that cannot remain the grey area it is today.

More broadly, the Government need to address the issue of the sheer number of cabs in London, which the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) mentioned. In August, there were a staggering 86,500 minicab drivers in London—a 46% increase in just five years. That number grows by more than 1,000 every month, with obvious congestion and air quality implications. That needs to be addressed, and we need to take a view on the private hire vehicle trade’s carrying capacity in London.

While few people want to see the end of Uber—I absolutely do not want to, because Uber does innovate and provide choice—there is no doubt that standards need to be raised. That view was shared by the overwhelming majority of respondents to a YouGov poll the other day, 62% of whom said they would like a higher standard applied to private hire vehicles and to Uber in particular.

For instance, the Government should, in my view, require all minicab companies to take out fleet-wide insurance policies to guarantee consumer safety. That does not seem an unreasonable request, and TfL has confirmed to me that it regularly repeat-catches uninsured drivers. Drivers should have a basic geographical knowledge—not the knowledge, because that would be unrealistic, but a basic grasp of London. They should also be required to have at least a basic command of the English language. TfL is looking closely at that, too, and we will hear in the next few weeks where it has got with that.

Uber fares are generally low, but in times of need—as we saw during the recent tube strikes—those prices escalate out of all proportion. In some cases, there was a 300% increase. What, if anything, do the Government believe should be put in place to protect consumers against such price surging?

There are also concerns about Uber’s corporate behaviour. For instance, Uber enjoys a significant price advantage by not paying UK corporation tax, because jobs are booked through the Netherlands. Despite Uber being a $50 billion company, its drivers earn far less than the London living wage; in some cases, they earn a lot less than the minimum wage. Drivers are self-employed, as with most minicab services, but the risk is that Uber’s model is depressing fares to unsustainable levels, and that also needs to be looked at.

[Sadiq Khan]

I particularly welcome the hon. Gentleman’s last comment. Does he support the case brought by the GMB against Uber to protect drivers the company had exploited?

[Zac Goldsmith]

That is the case I was referring to. As I understand it, a member of the GMB was found to have been paid about £1.50 below the minimum wage, which is clearly not acceptable. However, I would like to redirect the right hon. Gentleman’s question to the Minister, who is better placed than I am to understand the legalities.

I ask the Minister—this is perhaps the most important issue—to provide an undertaking to work with the Competition and Markets Authority to look at the London taxi market as a whole. In particular, will he consider whether the low prices offered by some apps are kept artificially low to drive out competition—a form of predatory pricing? I am not clear how much evidence exists on that, but there is a strong suspicion, which I think I share, that it is happening.

[Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)]

On that point, the hon. Gentleman will understand that companies such as Uber do not pay tax in this country, so they can, of course, keep prices low. We really need the Treasury to tighten up on that.

[Zac Goldsmith]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman—I almost said my right hon. Friend—for his intervention. That is actually a point I made earlier. He is exactly right: that does give the company an unfair advantage, and the issue needs to be looked at.

I do not want to remove choice in the market, and nor does any taxi driver I spoke to in the run-up to the debate, but it is an unarguable fact that, without efforts to level the playing field, we will lose the black cab in London, and London will be a lot poorer for it.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

Order. Several people wish to take part in the debate, so I am sure hon. Members will keep an eye on the clock. I know that the next speaker’s speech will be a masterclass in making concise and powerful points.

09:45

[Sadiq Khan (Tooting) (Lab)]

Thank you, Sir Edward. You have clearly heard me speak before.

I echo the comments of the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith), who said how well known and iconic the black cab is around the world. Famously, at the closing ceremony of the Olympics, there was much comment about George Michael’s bad choice of song, but Ray Davies of The Kinks made the right choice when he entered the stadium in a black cab. Ray Davies got it right, and George Michael got it wrong.

The hon. Gentleman was right to comment on the positive things about black cabs. They are fully accessible to wheelchair users, providing a service to disabled passengers who may have few other ways of getting about. As the father of two daughters, I also fully understand his comment about how safe we feel putting our children in a black cab, knowing the checks that take place before someone is allowed to drive one.

It is worth reminding ourselves of why black cab drivers—particularly the London ones—are considered some of the most qualified in the world. They undergo extensive criminal checks, including by the Disclosure and Barring Service. Medical checks are also undertaken. People have to pass a Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency assessment. They also have to receive a licence from both TfL, which is run by the Mayor of London, and the Metropolitan Police Service. In addition, as the hon. Gentleman mentioned, they have to pass the knowledge. Hon. Members may not fully appreciate this, but the test requires drivers to learn more than 300 basic routes, more than 25,000 streets, and approximately 20,000 landmarks and places of public interest. The other requirement is that black cab drivers must have a high-standard vehicle.

It is also worth reminding ourselves of what has happened as a consequence of the failure to regulate the change that is taking place because of innovation and of the failure to adapt. We do not have a level playing field, and the Minister will need to tell us why, over the past five years—indeed, the past seven years—TfL and the Government have failed to enforce existing legislation, or to provide new regulations, to ensure that new entrants to the market operate fairly.

What is the consequence of the failure of TfL and the Government to act? The number of drivers licensed by TfL fell by more than 500 in the last year alone, to about 25,000. Worse, the number of people applying to be taxi drivers and to undertake the knowledge is the lowest in more than 20 years. When we speak to black cab drivers, they confirm that their income has dropped by about 20% during the day and by about 35% during the night shift.

At the same time, the number of private hire vehicles licensed by TfL has grown at the rate of 600 a week. As the hon. Gentleman said, there are now 86,500. He also mentioned that there has been a 46.1% increase since 2010. At those levels, the number of private hire vehicles in London will reach more than 105,000 over the next two years. As my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) said, that not only leads to problems with congestion, pollution and illegal parking, but will lead to the death of the black cab as we know it.

[Mark Field]

The right hon. Gentleman presents a slightly bleak picture of the prospects and concerns of black cab drivers. Can he suggest how consumers feel? It strikes me that many Londoners and many tourists coming to London feel that there is now a vast array of options at relatively cost-effective prices. Does he feel that that is important, and how will he try to marry the two interests, in his mayoralty campaign?

[Sadiq Khan]

Consumers may think it is great to get cheap meat, until they realise it is horse meat; they may think it is great to get a cheap builder, until the house falls down; they may think private hire vehicles are cheap but, as the hon. Member for Richmond Park said, they want to feel safe. We need to make sure that drivers speak basic English, have basic geographical knowledge and are properly insured. Choice is important, but the job of parliamentarians, and of those who aspire to be the Mayor of London, is to make sure that there is proper regulation of those who run public transport—and I consider black cabs and private hire vehicles a form of public transport.

The key answers that we need are not platitudes; we need to know what Government and those who run TfL can do. I have several questions for the Minister.

[Grahame M. Morris]

My right hon. Friend is making important points. We accept that there is a need to balance the interests of consumers with the Rolls-Royce service that we enjoy through the black cab industry, but does he agree on the fundamental need for a legal definition of private hire, to distinguish between that and hackney carriages? There may well be a role for Parliament in that, and it is another example of deregulation being a good thing. We can still innovate—and black cab drivers are indeed doing that in zones 1 and 2, through the introduction of the new app—without the need for the five-minute gap that was tried in New York. There is a balance to be struck, and I wonder if my right hon. Friend agrees.

[Sadiq Khan]

My hon. Friend is right. I made that point earlier in an intervention. We have had innovation in technology, but what my hon. Friend has described requires innovation in regulation. I do not mean a race to the bottom; I think that a levelling up rather than levelling down is required.

Does the Minister agree with criticisms of TfL that it failed to carry out proper licensing and enforcement functions in relation to the hire market? Does he agree with the hon. Member for Richmond Park and me that the Government should introduce legislation containing a clear definition to protect the distinction between taxis and private hire vehicles? Is he aware of the concerns raised by the Licensed Taxi Drivers Association that TfL may wrongly have licensed Uber in 2012, not fully understanding its methods of operation, and that it now has concerns about revocation, for fear of paying compensation? If the Minister thinks new legislation is required, will he consider whether it should include limits on the number of private hire vehicles in London, for the reasons that the hon. Member for Richmond Park and I have given, to do with congestion, pollution and illegal parking? Does he agree that any legislation should, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) mentioned, require any licensed operators to have a UK tax liability? Also—and this is probably the most important issue for black cab drivers—would the new legislation define plying for hire?

What reforms is the Department for Transport considering to secure a fairer system for London’s cabbies and a better service for passengers—an important consideration at the core of this issue? Would that include a clear distinction between the working practices for black cabs and private hire vehicles? Finally, we understand the temptation for Ministers to meet celebrities and for the Mayor of London to meet Joanna Lumley; but roughly how many times have the Minister, other Transport Ministers or the Mayor had meetings with the Licensed Taxi Drivers Association or black cab drivers’ representatives such as Unite, GMB and the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers?

The hon. Member for Richmond Park deserves our thanks for bringing this debate to Westminster Hall. He has raised important issues, as I hope I have, and it is important that the Minister and the current Mayor respond. If they do not, the next Mayor will.

09:54

[Victoria Borwick (Kensington) (Con)]

I have a long-standing family interest in the subject of the debate. My father ran Carbodies, which some right hon. and hon. Members may know about, from the time when taxis were made in this country. My husband Jamie took over after my father’s death and ran the company for a short while. He led the changeover to the taxis with full disability access that we have today.

As has been said, the black London taxi is as iconic to London as red buses and red post boxes. As we have heard from both sides of the House today, black cabs of London are renowned the world over for their high standards and because of the knowledge—and of course for their full disability access. Londoners can be proud of leading the world in that. Licensed black taxis can take wheelchairs, prams, trolleys and heavy suitcases, and get the passenger safely to their destination using the fastest route. The drivers do not need to check the sat-nav to know the back streets, and if there is a disruption or change in the traffic, as happens frequently in London, they have alternative routes in their head. They do not have to rely on intermittent technology. As we have heard, those taxi drivers are fully vetted, insured, and licensed, and regularly checked; and that applies not just to the drivers, but the vehicles as well.

Licensed taxi drivers have invested heavily in their profession. Very few industries require two to four years’ unpaid training, followed by the purchase or lease of a vehicle. Our black cab drivers are very committed to their trade. However, we have to appreciate that technology has begun to catch up, and TfL, the regulator, has seen an enormous increase in requests for private hire licences, as we have heard; but who are all the applicants, and why are there so many requests for minicab licences? There are now almost 90,000 minicab drivers in London, and only 25,000 licensed black cab drivers. The imbalance can be seen immediately; what is the reason for it? I believe that if we want our gold standard licensed taxi drivers, we need a level playing field. The regulations cannot be all on one side. We make the drivers and the vehicles go through hoops, as my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) said, and meet very high standards; and those standards must apply across the board, to other vehicles and to their drivers. Why are minicab drivers signing up at such a rate?

[Mark Field]

Arguably the opposite case could be made, which is that there have traditionally been huge barriers to entry for black cabs, and that now we are in a modern world, where more and more people want to become taxi drivers and where there is the incentive of Uber technology, so that a high level of regulation is against consumers’ interests and will make it much more expensive to get into London cabs. That is not my personal view, but it is an argument that could readily be made. I have a sense that satisfaction levels among those who use cabs in the capital city—black cabs or others—is pretty high.

[Victoria Borwick]

I welcome that point. It is right: people want to use a safe vehicle that has been properly assessed, as everyone has said. Technology has moved on, so we must support the gold standard of our taxi drivers. Becoming a licensed taxi driver does not have such an appeal any more. Is that because of the barriers or because the investment and time is entirely on one side? TfL should look at its regulations and how it promotes the licensed taxi trade. It allows the competitors to charge what they want, and use any booking and charging methods they want; but over the years restrictions have been put on our taxi drivers, and they should be reviewed.

London has the advantage of being a friendly city. We have built on the Olympics, and have proved it time and again; we are working together for full disability access for the whole of London, in new homes and transport infrastructure such as Crossrail. It all has full disability access. Every new bus, every new train and every carriage is disabled accessible. All vehicles licensed by TfL for the public should be disabled accessible, take credit cards and alternative methods of payment, and be tracked and trackable to continue to provide the level of safety, as has been mentioned here today, that is unique to our taxi trade and our traditional taxi drivers. In the longer term, when we have proven technology, we should support the trade to move to more environmentally friendly vehicles.

I ask the Minister to re-examine the governance and regulations of the taxi trade and minicab vehicles, so that we can provide our excellent licensed taxis and ensure that this remains a worthwhile profession for those wishing to sign on to the high standards that have been spoken about this morning.

10:00

[Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) on securing the debate and on his contribution, and I congratulate and commend my right hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan) on his speech. He articulated in great detail the issues and substance of what is now required.

I want to say a couple of things that have occurred to me over the last little while. First, I want to thank a knowledge school called the Knowledge 4 You academy, which sits in Bethnal Green. I paid a visit to that school, which is run by a wonderful chap called Courtney, who is a Barbadian Rastafarian. Every evening in a little portakabin behind Bethnal Green station, about 40 Londoners gather to go through the knowledge. I met those 40 people. They are men and women, from all the ethnic backgrounds that we see reflected in the city. It might be said that they are overwhelmingly from a working-class background. One was a firefighter and another was a paramedic. Some were working in retail, and actually, I met a student there. It was a real reflection of London, going there every evening and studying for up to three years to get that knowledge, all coveting the yellow badge that gives them the entitlement to drive a black cab around London.

I came from the kind of background in the ’70s and ’80s where, if I had come into the centre of town, say, as a 19 or 20-year-old, and then got home and told my mother that I had got into a black cab, I would have got a clip around the ear. “Where the hell did you get that kind of money?” she would have said. However, later, as I became a barrister and had a little bit more money, it was quite nice to get into a black cab in the centre of town. It was quite nice to have the odd date and take one’s girlfriend home in a black cab, and it was comforting to be able to put one’s partner into a black cab and send them home in safety. It is great to be able to get into a vehicle where the driver knows where he is going. I have to say that all these years later, having seen the dedication of those who work hard to get that badge, it is something we should preserve. It is an institution.

All of us in this room will have travelled to cities all over the world, and we will have seen in those cities how people prize this institution, which is the first face that someone sees of the city when they arrive at Heathrow or Gatwick. That should be preserved and the business of plying for trade, which we established, is now something that, as my right hon. Friend said, should be in statute. This House could sort that out pretty rapidly and it would give that institution the reassurance it needs, not just in this city, but in other cities in the country. That is really the centrality of what the Minister has to come to.

I am absolutely clear that the Government’s slightly relaxed attitude to international companies that do not pay tax in this country must stop. Of course such a company can undercut established institutions. It is well known across the world that people can arrive in London, get a second-hand vehicle, jump through very few hoops—the bar is so low—go to the Uber office, get the technology, and for very little training, they, too, can be part of the explosion that we are seeing across the city which is now polluting our young people’s lungs. Of course the city is congested; it is all the private hire vehicles that people are picking up. In this economy, where one in four young people in London is still unemployed, we are seeing many young students doing this as well. Is that right? Is that good? It cannot be.

I wrote to the Home Secretary not so long ago to raise the issues of homophobia, assault and rape—really concerning activity on the part of some of these unregulated drivers. That is the price of entire deregulation, which is effectively what we are seeing through the back door. My view is that despite Transport for London being a great institution, in this area, it has failed miserably. Many black cab drivers expected the Mayor to intervene and to understand fully the difference between a metred cab plying for trade and actually ringing up a company, but that did not happen in a sufficient way. Will the Minister look again at this and at how this was allowed to happen? Unlike in a city such as Paris, where licensed drivers and new technology are able to exist alongside the long-standing institution of drivers in that capital city, how in London have we got it so badly wrong? The black cab is looked at across the world. It is more iconic than the New York yellow cab, and we are prepared to see it dwindle away on the back of deregulation.

There is the issue of who these drivers are. What is their qualification? What is their background? Why are we hearing of so many incidents of really poor, antisocial, dangerous and sometimes criminal behaviour? Who are they and what is the regulation relating to that?

Why are we so relaxed about a company that is not paying tax? Why are we supporting them? Who are the friends that we are hanging out with? There have been lots of suggestions and there has been lots of contact at different places between the Mayor’s office, the Government and some of these new companies that are entering the market. Are we going to make this a statutory base—plying for trade, the hackney carriage—and move it forward into the 21st century so we protect that institution?

Finally, if someone lives in London locally, they want to be able to ring up a minicab office, where there are local drivers who know their local area. That is usually to do regular routes. Lots of old people make short visits to hospitals, GP surgeries and that sort of thing. It is really worrying to see the collapse of minicab offices in London because of the failure to regulate appropriately in this area.

[Sadiq Khan]

My right hon. Friend has touched a nerve with me and with regard to what my constituents have been saying to me, which is that some private hire vehicles are being driven out of the market by the pricing model of Uber. It is trying to gain a huge share of the private hire vehicle market and the worry is what will happen tomorrow when all these private vehicles that he knows about—the minicabs in Tooting and Tottenham—are run out of business.

[Mr Lammy]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. Basically, do we want the high street to have a place not only for the supermarket somewhere, but for small independent shops? Very soon in London, those small independent minicab offices will all be gone. There will be no sense of locality. It will all be one big M25 fudge called Uber. That is what we must stand up to. There is room for everyone, but unfairness must be grappled with over the coming weeks and months.

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

As a London MP myself, I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on everything that he is saying. He is speaking the utmost sense and I support everything that he has said.

[Mr Lammy]

But!

[Andrew Rosindell]

No, not at all. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the real issue is that we need a level playing field? We need equal access to the market for everyone in this trade, but those in the black cab industry have had to go through many hoops to get where they are and it is absolutely wrong that a company can just undercut people who have worked all their lives to establish their trade. I therefore commend the right hon. Gentleman for everything that he is saying. I hope that this can be an issue of cross-party consensus in order to take action to resolve this very serious problem, which could destroy our black cab industry in London.

[Mr Lammy]

The hon. Gentleman has put his points very well and I entirely agree with him. I think that there is consensus in the Chamber today, but there is also concern about those who have the power. The Mayor, the Minister and the Government have the power and, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Tooting says, this issue requires action, not just platitudes. I know that he is forensic in his quest for action and will be over the coming weeks and months—I have felt that myself. The point is absolutely right that a level playing field is what is required. There must be fairness to those who put the effort in—those who do the knowledge and go through those hoops. There must be regulation, not a completely deregulated market. That does not work and cannot work in this sector, particularly in relation to safety. And we do need to get a grip on companies that are not paying their tax properly in this country.

10:11

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. Some hon. Members may be questioning the relevance of the London black taxi service to my constituents in Glasgow South. However, it is clear to me from the debate so far that there are lessons that we can learn in Scotland so that we do not end up in the position that people in London find themselves in today. I therefore congratulate the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) on initiating this important debate on one of London’s and, indeed, Britain’s most iconic symbols—the black taxi.

It has also been a pleasure to sit through—I had not expected this—what may be the first London mayoral hustings, here in Westminster Hall this morning. If the hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan) can have debates that are this consensual, they have a good election ahead of them.

The Uber phenomenon has yet to hit Glasgow and, indeed, Scotland, but I do not doubt that it may well do so in the future, so I genuinely approach this debate in the spirit of trying to learn something. I hope that we can use it to inform ourselves in Scotland, as we have entirely separate licensing of taxis and minicabs that in many ways is not dissimilar to the licensing here in England and Wales.

Taxis are a vital part of our city infrastructure and national life. The hon. Member for Kensington (Victoria Borwick) gave the example of the London Olympics, when black taxis came into their own. We had the same experience during the Commonwealth games in Glasgow. Along with our public transport services, black taxis and their drivers were there not just to ship people around, but to welcome people to the great city of Glasgow.

If I may, I will make one comment on taxi drivers in my home city. Glasgow taxi drivers are the most knowledgeable and most friendly people—aside from one or two Members of Parliament perhaps—who visitors to the city of Glasgow can meet. They have great humour and great local knowledge. Based on the colour of the football top that someone is wearing when they enter the taxi, they will even know which routes to avoid when they are there. I have always found that taxi drivers are great for providing that wonderful thing that the metropolitan media and the pollsters always get wrong—political analysis. Speak to any taxi driver, whether in Glasgow or London, and believe me, they will give their views on Scottish independence and, indeed, any other political matter of the day. These people have put their entire working life into being not just a car service, but a welcoming service to whoever comes through those doors. I think that Parliament owes it to taxi drivers not just here in London but across the UK to get this right.

The right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field), who unfortunately has left the Chamber, suggested that less regulation of black taxis could be an option. My experience suggests that that is not what black taxi drivers themselves want. Indeed, they enjoy the gold standard that comes with being a black taxi driver. The right hon. Member for Tooting mentioned the importance of someone knowing that they can safely put their daughter into one of these vehicles. Indeed, my own mother would never travel in any kind of vehicle other than a black taxi, although she usually prefers it if her son is picking up the bill!

The right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster talked about choice; indeed, consumer choice was mentioned by a few speakers. Choice cannot come at the expense of knowledge, safety, proper insurance and proper training. In fact, there is a whole argument to consider in terms of the investment put into Uber’s drivers. What it should have is a well regulated and unionised workforce. The answer, of course, is not to ban Uber, or any other private hire vehicle service, but to bring it in line with what the public expect from any other transport provider, whether that is black taxis, the underground or buses.

The right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) mentioned recent allegations of homophobic or racist abuse in Uber cars. We would not expect that or put up with that if it happened on a bus, on the London underground or, indeed, in any other public service, and these minicab companies cannot expect to operate outside that expectation.

[Victoria Borwick]

Another important thing to talk about when we are considering the difference between the two kinds of vehicle is that there have also been incidences of guide dogs not being taken in minicabs. For the record, I think it is important that we ensure that any taxi driver of any taxi that we license should take such assistance dogs.

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald]

The hon. Lady’s point is absolutely correct and I thank her for making it.

To return to my point on what we do about Uber, which appears to be the bogeyman in this debate, we need to look at ensuring that the wages of its drivers are properly regulated and properly enforced and that the training on health and safety and local knowledge is there. It is obvious that Uber is not going to go away, so this could be a turning point for transport in London depending on how we respond to it.

We must create a proper choice to ensure that there is not a cowboy operator not just operating in London but, potentially, coming to my home city. The technological challenge that is presented to us with the rise of minicab apps is something that Parliament and Government, local authorities and devolved Administrations must get right and must catch up with. The risk of not doing so is great and there for all to see. As I mentioned earlier, the ancient tradition of black taxi driving and all the service that those drivers provide us with means that we owe it to them to get this right; and we in Scotland look forward to learning something from London’s experience.

10:18

[Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)]

It is, as always, a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) on securing the debate and on the contributions that he and many other hon. Members, on both sides of the Chamber, have made. I mention in particular my right hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan). Like him, I suspect that this is the first of many debates that he will have with the hon. Member for Richmond Park. They were in agreement on the matter, and the consensus across the Chamber has been remarkable. I hope that the Minister bears that in mind when he replies to the debate.

Today’s debate concerns something fundamental for London, as many hon. Members have said, namely the future of black cabs in the capital. It is clear that existing regulation is insufficient to deal with the changes. That point has been made by the hon. Member for Kensington (Victoria Borwick) and my right hon. Friends the Members for Tooting and for Tottenham (Mr Lammy)—he made an excellent speech—and it has been recognised north of the border by the hon. Member for Glasgow South (Stewart Malcolm McDonald). Although black cabs are regarded as having some of the highest safety and accessibility standards for taxis anywhere in the world, the phenomenon of ride-sharing schemes and taxi apps has made it clear that regulation has simply not kept pace with the changes. That gives us a choice about how we cope with those changes and regulatory challenges.

[Grahame M. Morris]

Although I acknowledge that the subject of the debate is black cabs in London, I attended, along with other hon. Members, a national lobby of Parliament expressing the concerns about the matter across the midlands and in a number of the great cities in the north. This is a problem that we will all face, even if we do not face it immediately. Is it not a good time, as a Parliament, to look at the legal definition of plying for hire and to resolve the matter not only in London, but across the whole United Kingdom?

[Richard Burden]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and without wanting to stray from the focus of the debate, I hope to say one or two words about that in a while. He was also right in his earlier intervention about the need for consistency in regulation across the piece, which has to be founded on principles.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Tooting made the point, quite correctly, that we have a choice. We can look towards a future based on a race to the bottom, with all that that implies, or we can look to generalise the best standards for drivers and for passengers. I have referred to black cabs, but rising to the challenge of dealing with these changes is also important for the private hire industry. Properly regulated private hire has a role in the capital and elsewhere in getting people to the airport early in the morning, for example, and getting them home from nightclubs late at night or perhaps very early in the morning. Whether they use private hire or black cabs, passengers—across the country, not simply in London—need to know that services will be reliable and that they will be safe.

In London, about 3.5 billion passenger journeys a year are being recorded on the underground and the bus network combined, and London’s population is set to grow from 8.6 million today to around 10 million by 2030. As companies such as Uber recognise, that will have a profound effect on the nature of our transport system. With their emergence and success, Uber and other apps have made important headway in London, notably in the late-night market and the recreational market. They have been particularly successful in London’s suburbs, where the black cab network is sometimes at its thinnest. The promotions and public relations of such companies are something of a masterclass, it has to be said. Despite serious reservations about Uber, which I will say something about in a minute, it is not surprising that a recent YouGov poll found that a majority of Londoners thought that Uber was a good thing.

I want to recognise a good thing that Uber has done. It recently launched the UberGiving campaign to help to raise money for the global refugee crisis, in partnership with Save the Children. That is an innovative and worthy fundraising campaign. I suppose that the company would say that that is part of social responsibility, and I welcome that. Social responsibility goes beyond that, however, as my right hon. Friends the Members for Tottenham and for Tooting have said. If the company wants to be part of the fabric of the public transport system in its widest sense in London—I consider taxis and private hire vehicles to be part of that—and in the rest of the country, responsibilities must go with rights. Surely, an absolutely fundamental responsibility for a company is to pay its dues in taxes, which provide services in the country in which it operates.

Some of Uber’s actions give cause for genuine concern. There are regulatory disparities and issues about the use of taximeters. It is also important to ensure that the welfare of passengers is made paramount. Passengers have a right to know that when they book a journey through any operator, the service will be reliable, traceable and fairly priced. They should also know who is driving and be able to trace the vehicle’s registration and licensing details quickly and easily.

Such strengthening of safety regulation must extend to drivers as well. There are real concerns about the kind of culture encouraged by Uber and, I have to say, some private hire operators. To recruit new drivers, Uber’s website states:

“Make money on your own terms. Full-time and part-time driving opportunities for independent contractors in London give you the flexibility to access the platform as much or as little as you want. You can focus on driving your car when it works for you.”

That all sounds fine, in one way, but is it encouraging a culture—particularly as we have already heard from right hon. and hon. Members about the pay rates that Uber drivers often end up earning—of long hours, with drivers working 50 to 70 hours a week without any checks? The impact of tiredness on drivers and their passengers can be quite simply deadly. What assessment has the Minister made of the long hours that are being encouraged by not only Uber but the private hire industry more generally?

Beyond passenger and driver welfare, Labour recognises the genuine concerns of unions and private hire trade associations that Uber’s growth may be benefiting from a loose interpretation of the regulation on taximeters that I have mentioned. That is why I welcomed Transport for London’s decision to seek a High Court ruling on taximeters in May 2014. Apps such as Uber that involve a contract for vehicle hire must conform to the same standards of safety, licensing and insurance as the rest of the industry. They are neither black cab nor minicab, so it is vital that we understand and get a ruling on where they fit in the regulatory framework.

The delay in obtaining that ruling has gone on for some time, so the discrepancies persist. Does the Minister have any information about when that is likely to be resolved? Although it is clearly not for anybody here to speculate on the outcome, can the Minister confirm whether his Department has consulted with TfL to draw up contingency plans for all the possible scenarios that may result, and will he confirm what those plans are? Many hon. Members agree that any High Court ruling will address only one regulatory issue, but the kinds of problems that we are experiencing in London are being experienced not only in other parts of the country but internationally. They have come up in other European cities, in north America and even, in quite serious ways, in Mexico City.

TfL’s involvement and its announcement over the summer of a consultation on regulations have been timely. I will not go into too much detail about that at the moment, other than to ask the Minister to comment on two relevant matters: capping and off-duty driving. On capping, the transport network has to respond to the challenge of population growth, but there is real concern about where the unprecedented rise in the number of minicabs, which many hon. Members have mentioned today, is heading.

In an Adjournment debate before the summer recess, the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) asked the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr Goodwill), to say whether the Government will consider a cap on numbers and what their view is on such a cap. That Minister would not be drawn, but I hope the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Andrew Jones), will tell us today whether a cap on numbers could be appropriate.

My other question on the TfL review is about the rules on who can drive off-duty taxis and private hire vehicles and when they can be driven. The Minister will recall that, when the coalition Government tried to introduce such a measure in the Deregulation Act 2015, they were forced to withdraw part of that proposal in the House of Lords simply because too many people noticed that it opened up the possibility of illegal pick-ups and malpractice, and made things such as sexual assault far more, not less, likely. Although I recognise that the review is primarily TfL’s responsibility, will the Government say anything in response to that review given the response when the Deregulation Act was debated in the previous Parliament?

That draws me to my final point, which picks up on the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris). A long time ago, the Law Commission was charged with looking in detail at regulatory disparities. It was recognised a long time ago that proper consideration is needed, and we have all known for years that a proper, thorough review of taxi and private hire regulations is needed to ensure safety and consistency and to recognise changing customer demands and expectations. That is why the Government asked the Law Commission to consider such matters but, after delay after delay and coyness from the Government about when anything would happen, Ministers jumped the gun just before the Law Commission published its findings and made last-minute additions to the Deregulation Act on PHV and taxi licensing outside London that, to put it charitably, were half-baked and ill thought out.

The Government got themselves into a mess on that, as we know, so where will they go from here? Will they respond to the points that have been consistently raised in this debate on the need to have proper consolidated legislation, a Bill, that can sort out the matter, that can update centuries-old regulations, that can address the challenges facing black cabs in London and that can incorporate long-overlooked taxis of sorts, rickshaws and ride sharing, and other such things? When will they set out their response to the Law Commission’s proposals and recommendations in general? If the Minister is not able to give that response now, will he let us know when he feels he might be able to do so? How does he expect that to fit with the likely timetable for High Court rulings on Uber and TfL’s regulatory review for London?

London’s black cabs are revered as having the highest safety and accessibility standards in the world. Last month, the Local Government Association called for its taxi operators to be put in line with the high standards enforced in London. Can we have a proper Bill to regulate taxis and private hire vehicles? Will the Government take the initiative, and when will they introduce such a Bill?

My final, final point is on emissions. A number of hon. Members, particularly my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham, have spoken about pollution. If black cabs and the private hire industry are to help address the challenge of air quality in the capital, they need to be future-proofed. The Government’s commitment of £25 million through the Office for Low Emission Vehicles to help drivers upgrade to greener vehicles is a good step, but the Government are sending mixed messages. The Chancellor has tagged increased vehicle excise duty rates on all vehicles, including low emission vehicles. Outside of transport, we have seen the mothballing of a number of green policies since the election. May we see a bit more consistency? On taxis and private hire vehicles specifically, has the Minister received any representations from the taxi trade on the phasing in of emissions requirements? What is he doing to alleviate such concerns? Will he listen not only to the consensus in this debate on the future of taxis and private hire vehicles in the capital but to the people at the sharp end—the drivers, the trade associations and so on—who are telling him what is coming down the tracks? Something needs to be done. As well as answering the specific questions asked by hon. Members, will he confirm that he agrees that the time has come for comprehensive, thought-through legislation to get a proper taxi and private hire Bill on the statute book?

10:35

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Andrew Jones)]

It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) on securing this debate on London’s famous and wonderful black cabs. This topic has been the subject of a previous debate secured by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker), so I praise my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park for continuing to highlight the contribution of London taxis to the economy and transport network of this great city and the issues that the industry faces.

As my hon. Friend will appreciate, although the Government are responsible for creating the legislative framework within which local licensing authorities license taxis and private hire vehicles, responsibility for licensing in London rests with TfL. It is TfL’s responsibility to decide who is a suitable person to hold a taxi or private hire vehicle driver’s licence, or a private hire operator’s licence, and for ensuring that all its licensees comply with the rules and regulations that govern the industry. I understand his desire to raise his concerns in the House but, as licensing is TfL’s responsibility, some of the points raised today are TfL’s responsibility, so I might not be able to address all those points.

[Grahame M. Morris]

Will the Minister acknowledge the contributions made by Members on both sides of the Chamber? We have highlighted problems that are likely to manifest in other parts of the country and, in fact, are already manifesting in the midlands and in some northern cities. Similar problems are likely to arise in Scotland. Do the Government not have a responsibility to legislate in anticipation of those problems to introduce appropriate redress?

[Andrew Jones]

I recognise the excellent contributions made by Members on both sides of the Chamber. Some of those points will apply across our country, but this debate is about the future of London’s black cabs. The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point, and I will address the Law Commission later in my speech.

[Zac Goldsmith]

I thank the Minister for his remarks. I have one question on the Government’s role. My understanding is that if TfL was minded to cap the number of new licences at some 2,000 a month, it would require legislative support from the Government. Will he clarify whether that is the case?

[Andrew Jones]

Indeed, I can. A few Members have mentioned the number of licences, and there is currently no legislation in London, or anywhere else in England and Wales, to allow the number of private hire vehicles to be limited. Equally, officials are working closely with TfL on whether legislation needs to change—we need to consider that issue and develop the required evidence. The situation is changing rapidly due to the numbers, as Members have highlighted today, and I will return to that later. As things stand, there is no legislation in place.

The traditional London taxi or black cab is, as hon. Members have said, an icon of this city. For many years the taxi industry has played a key role in keeping London moving, and the industry has a history and reputation of which drivers are rightly proud. The black cab is the gold standard across the world, and its quality is internationally recognised. All the vehicles are of a high standard, fully wheelchair-accessible and driven by skilled and knowledgeable drivers. I admire the time and dedication that prospective drivers put into learning the world-famous knowledge of London. It is an enormous commitment, involving up to four years of work on top of a day-to-day job. The drop-out rate is high, between 70% and 80%, meaning that those who complete training in the knowledge are the most committed. From a customer’s perspective, their knowledge brings a sense of utter reliability and security. As a visitor to London—my home is 200-plus miles away—I rely on it. Learning the knowledge rewards taxi drivers with the unique right to ply for hire on the streets of our capital.

In the 1960s, minicabs began to appear in London, and the private hire vehicle industry, as it came to be known, was finally regulated following the introduction of legislation in 1998. Licensing and regulation have ensured that the public have the same assurance of safety as when using a taxi and have raised standards throughout the private hire sector. Transport for London now licenses more than 22,000 taxis and 69,000 private hire vehicles. Between them, those vehicles make 300,000 trips every day, making a vital contribution to London’s economy and helping to keep the city moving 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

The availability of both taxis and private hire vehicles offers the travelling public choice. They can instantly hire a taxi in the street or at a taxi rank; alternatively, they can pre-book a taxi or a private hire vehicle. When pre-booking, passengers can make an informed choice based on factors such as price, availability and quality. The combination of taxi and private hire ensures that the needs of as many Londoners as possible can be met.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park recognises and as Members from different parties have highlighted, the market is changing. New technology is providing new ways of engaging taxis and private hire vehicles. Smartphone booking apps are now available for both taxis and private hire vehicles, offering passengers easy access to services, more choices, faster pick-ups and options for sharing that can reduce the cost for travellers.

It is encouraging that the London taxi trade has been at the forefront of those technological changes. There are now numerous apps through which one can book a taxi, and more and more drivers are embracing cashless payment options, a customer benefit highlighted earlier in this debate. However, such new technology is challenging traditional operating boundaries between the taxi and private hire trades. I understand that it is straining the relationship between Transport for London and the industry, but I hope that by working in partnership, they can deliver a modern industry that continues to provide both choice and high standards.

The evolution of the private hire sector has helped to ensure that that form of transport is available to all in a cost-effective manner, particularly supporting those who cannot rely on other public transport services. The importance of local minicab firms, often small local businesses, was well outlined by the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy). Such companies are often established in their communities and have served them well for many years, providing a valuable service that needs to be maintained. That point was clear.

Uber and other new entrants to the market present major challenges to established business models, and I can understand the concern of London’s taxi drivers. Uber London Ltd has been licensed by TFL as a private hire vehicle operator in London since 2012. The company has now applied for and been granted licences in 25 other licensing authority areas in England. In order to be granted a licence, Uber must meet the same standards as any other private hire vehicle operator in the local authority area. Therefore, 26 different authorities have decided that Uber is a fit and proper company, that its operating model meets the requirements of private hire legislation and that it keeps such records as the law requires.

[Mr Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)]

I apologise to colleagues for being late to this debate. There is something slightly sinister about Uber’s business practices. My hon. Friend might be aware that in America, the board of Uber met to discuss how to discredit and destroy the career of an IT journalist concerned about its business practices. I hope that he is aware of such conduct by Uber and will take it into consideration when developing his thoughts on the company.

[Andrew Jones]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I have absolutely no sympathy for any company that behaves in such a way as to discredit others. Other colleagues in the House have highlighted poor practice, such as on taxes. I have no sympathy for any company that dodges its responsibilities, including on taxes.

[Mr Walker]

Basically, the company bullies local authorities and national Governments. It will not and should not be allowed to bully the Government of the United Kingdom.

[Andrew Jones]

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend’s point. This Government will not be bullied by any individual company. We must keep in mind the qualities of the taxi and private hire sectors and what they have delivered over many years—in some cases, over centuries—for our city. Both are strong, important players and need a protected future.

I know that the London taxi trade fundamentally disagrees with TfL’s views on how Uber calculates a fare. Many members of the taxi trade consider Uber’s smartphone app to be essentially a taximeter. Taximeters are, of course, forbidden in London’s private hire vehicles. Transport for London has recognised that the law in respect of the issue is unclear and has applied to the High Court for a declaration. Members have asked when that case will be determined. It is due to be heard in the High Court next month, so we should let the court make its decision.

Transport for London’s vision and strategy for the taxi industry is designed to maintain and enhance the high standard of service on which customers have come to rely. It will include development of the next generation of taxis, which will be environmentally clean and modern and suitable for passenger needs, particularly those of disabled people, a point consistently made by Members in this debate. The taxis will retain or enhance accessibility features to ensure a safe, smooth and comfortable ride.

The Mayor of London has announced plans to improve air quality in London, including by increasing the number of ultra-low-emission taxis. In April this year, the Office for Low Emission Vehicles announced the launch of a £45 million fund to support the roll-out of ultra-low-emission taxis across the United Kingdom. It includes £25 million set aside specifically for the Greater London area to help taxi drivers cover the costs of upgrading to a greener vehicle. The Mayor of London has pledged an additional £40 million, creating a £65 million fund to encourage the cleanest and greenest taxi fleet in the world.

At the same time, Geely, which owns the iconic London Taxi Company, announced plans for a new £250 million state-of-the-art facility to produce the next generation of low-emission London taxis in Ansty, near Coventry. Geely was awarded £17 million from the Government’s regional growth fund to build the facility, which will create 1,000 new jobs and ensure that the London taxi continues to be designed, developed and made in the United Kingdom. This shows the Government’s support for the taxi trade throughout the country and will mean that the London taxi trade will play a leading role in improving the capital’s air quality and meeting our climate change obligations.

Hon. Members may be aware that last year, the London Assembly’s transport committee began an investigation into taxi and private hire services in London. As a result of that scrutiny, the committee made a number of recommendations to the Mayor and Transport for London on steps that they could take to improve taxi and private hire services in the city. In some cases, the committee was critical of the role of the taxi and private hire section of TfL, and I understand that members of both London’s taxi and private hire vehicle trades gave evidence to the committee as to their dissatisfaction with TfL’s actions as the licensing authority. The committee is responsible for questioning and scrutinising the actions of the Mayor, so it is not for the Government to comment on local licensing matters or the committee’s actions.

My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park will be aware that the Department for Transport asked the Law Commission in 2012 to conduct a review of taxi and private hire vehicle legislation throughout England and Wales, including London. That was against the backdrop of the Government’s red tape challenge and legislation that dates back to the first half of the 19th century and the age of the horse-drawn hackney carriage. Despite more recent legislation to allow for the regulation of private hire vehicles, the recent innovations that I and colleagues have described this morning have demonstrated that the legislation used to regulate both the taxi and private hire trades is becoming increasingly outdated. Licensing authorities throughout England and Wales are now faced with the challenge of accommodating 21st century technology in 19th century legislation.

The Law Commission undertook a comprehensive review, its final report containing recommendations for a modern and simplified structure. The report not only provided crucial analysis of the problems posed by the current law, but provided solutions designed to make a difference to both the travelling public and people in the industry. Updated and simplified legislation will provide a modern and simple framework, ensuring public safety and providing the trade with certainty, making growth and competition easier. I cannot yet give the House a date for the Government response to the review, but the Law Commission’s work has been powerful and important.

[Richard Burden]

It is good news that the Government are looking at the legislation, but it is not enough for the Minister to say that he does not know when the Government will respond. TfL is doing a review, the London Assembly is considering such matters, and Uber is growing. If the Law Commission has been meeting since 2012, when on earth will the Government make a decision about whether they are going to do something?

[Andrew Jones]

I completely recognise the importance of this case. We are seeing technological changes that require a legislative change, but getting this right is critical. The Government are still considering the matter, and I cannot give the hon. Gentleman any more detail at this moment.

[Sadiq Khan]

I thank the Minister for giving way again. I have been listening patiently to his speech, in which he has run through a range of issues. He has heard from the hon. Members for Romford (Andrew Rosindell), for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) and for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith), and from my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris), the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman and me. He has heard that black cab drivers are going out of business every week. He has heard that private hire minicabs in areas such as Tottenham, Poplar and Canning Town, and Tooting are going out of business every week. He has confirmed that the legislation and regulations are “outdated”—made in the 19th century and not fit for purpose in the 21st century. Yet there is no sense of urgency from the Government. It beggars belief that the Minister can come to the second debate on this issue in the space of a number of months, and speak for 18 minutes without telling us what action the Government will take.

[Andrew Jones]

That smacks of a mayoral hustings debate rather than a Westminster Hall debate. The legislative framework is complicated and technology is changing. The Government took action by commissioning this complicated work from the Law Commission. That work is currently being digested and the Government will respond shortly. I cannot provide a date for the response, but the work is important and will provide security and clarity not only for TfL, but right across the country. That has been understood, and voices from across the House have made that clear this morning.

My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park may be aware that TfL recently completed its own consultation on the regulations that govern private hire vehicles in the capital. That came in response to developments in the industry that I have described, including advances in technology and changes in how people engage and use private hire services. The proposed revisions to the regulations will be known later this year, and some of TfL’s proposals may address concerns raised this morning.

I was asked several specific questions, which I will try to address now, although I have already answered some of them. On whether plying for hire has been defined, the Law Commission addressed creating such a statutory definition, but it came to the view, after careful consideration, that a statutory definition would not be a practical improvement on the current position. As for Ministers meeting celebrities, the Minister responsible for transport in London is in a Delegated Legislation Committee this morning, which is why I am covering this debate—

[Grahame M. Morris]

Will the Minister take a brief intervention on his previous point?

[Andrew Jones]

I am slightly running out of time, but I will give way.

[Grahame M. Morris]

Regarding the Minister’s remark about the Law Commission and the statutory definition of plying for hire, given rapid technological advancements such as the Uber app and the complications that they are causing, does he recognise that the Law Commission advice is perhaps out of date? Is it not worth the Government considering the matter again?

[Andrew Jones]

There may be ways of addressing some of those issues, such as providing a definition of a lawful pre-booking, which will perhaps achieve the same objective. The Government’s response to the Law Commission is still a work in progress. We recognise its importance, and I am happy to commit to maintaining the Department’s energy in delivering it.

I cannot comment on Ministers meeting celebrities— I have not met any—so I cannot really add to that. Do I agree with the comments about TfL’s actions as a licensing authority? That is up to TfL and the scrutiny of Assembly Members. My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park mentioned price surging, and I will certainly write to TfL to highlight that point and to ask it to investigate. The same applies to the points made about predatory pricing. The key thing will be to start collecting evidence—if, indeed, this practice is taking place—so that we can make insightful comments. I have already commented on capping numbers.

On the regulation of fares, TfL is the licensing authority and has the power to set fares for London taxis. That regulation is an important element of consumer protection in the hail-and-rank market. TfL has no power to set private hire fares, which are set by the licensed operators. When booking a private hire vehicle, customers can shop around in advance and obtain a quote or estimate for a journey, which is why the regulatory authority sets no price constraint.

In conclusion, the Government are fully aware of the changes and challenges affecting the taxi and private hire vehicle industry in London and elsewhere in the country. The challenges include not only new technology and increased competition, but the need to ensure that vehicles play their part in improving air quality. The London taxi trade has rightly recognised such challenges, and I have recently been advised of a new campaign launched by trade bodies to promote London’s taxis. I believe the reputation of the London taxi trade and its high-quality service mean that it is well placed to continue to compete in this changing market and have a strong and healthy future. That is what I want, and that is clearly the view of the House this morning.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the future of black cabs in London.

FOI Requests: Scotland Office

Tuesday 15th September 2015 Westminster Hall

10:59

[Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

Order. We now come to an Adjournment debate, to be moved by Mr Peter Grant, on the Scotland Office response to freedom of information requests.

To set the guidelines for this debate, I will just make a short opening statement, which is being made after consultation with the Clerks of the House of Commons. I should advise Mr Grant that he should not make direct reference to the proceedings of the case before the Election Court concerning Alistair Carmichael, nor should Mr Grant state what he thinks the judgment should be—[Interruption.] Could hon. Members and members of the public leaving Westminster Hall do so quietly, please? Mr Goldsmith, I am reading out a very important statement concerning the sub judice rules. Nor should Mr Grant state what he thinks the judgment should be in a case before the Election Court. He should focus his remarks on the Scotland Office’s failure to comply with FOI requests and not upon current legal proceedings.

As it is a matter of public record that before 22 May Mr Carmichael denied all knowledge of the leak and after 22 May admitted full responsibility for it, it is hard to insist that references to this fact should not be referred to in debate, as they are not a matter of legal argument. However, what is a matter of legal argument is whether Mr Carmichael’s character and conduct in this matter fall under the Representation of the People Act 1983 and should result in his election being declared null and void. Also, Mr Grant should of course not use the occasion of the debate to impugn the character of Mr Carmichael.

I call Mr Grant to speak.

11:00

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the matter of FOI Requests: Scotland Office.

Thanks very much, Sir Edward, for putting on the public record the advice that I have had previously when I have discussed my request for this debate with the Table Office, and of course I will comply entirely with that advice, as was always my intention.

I am grateful for the opportunity to have this debate this morning, but I suspect that, as with most people who secure debates in Westminster Hall, I really rather wish that it had not been necessary to do so, because I wish that not only the Scotland Office but other Ministers up to and including the Prime Minister had been a bit more open about what Ministers knew and when they knew it.

My intention in securing this debate and in raising matters related to this issue in the House on numerous occasions has nothing whatsoever to do with the former Secretary of State and the continuing right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael). My intention is to find out what else has been going on that was completely beyond the remit of either of the two inquiries that have been set up, because I understand that a standards inquiry may still be conducted into the matter.

To put things into a bit of context, I have always had a very keen interest in freedom of information legislation. As a serving councillor in the 1990s, I was on the record as saying that a proper Freedom of Information Act and proper proportional representation would make between them the single biggest improving difference to the way that local government operates, and the experience in Scotland to date certainly suggests that that is the case.

I have previous experience of working in the NHS, in the days when Michael Forsyth was Secretary of State for everything, including health, and I saw at first hand the catastrophic impact that secrecy in the NHS in Scotland had, because major financial difficulties were covered up time and time and time again, until eventually the health board in the area that I lived in and that I had previously worked for nearly went bust, as did several other health boards in Scotland.

Freedom of information has been described as a snooper’s charter, but it is not; it is a way of giving the public a chance to hold all of us properly to account. My view on FOI has always been that if someone does not want to be held to account, they should not be here. The single golden rule about freedom of information is not the Sir Humphrey Appleby line, “You never try to conceal from the public that which they would be able to find out in any case”; the rule about freedom of information should always be, “If it would damage your career for the public to find out what you were doing, then you shouldn’t have done it in the first place”. That is the acid test that should always be applied.

I found it interesting that shortly before the summer recess the Government announced that responsibility for freedom of information legislation was moving from the Ministry of Justice to the Cabinet Office. When I saw a statement a few days ago that the Information Commissioner has put the Ministry of Justice on special measures because the Ministry is so bad at answering its own FOI requests, I wondered whether that had something to do with this change, because the MOJ is managing to respond to only 75% of FOI requests within the statutory time. Then I realised that the Cabinet Office is also achieving exactly 75%.

However, I will concentrate on the Scotland Office. Between 2012 and 2014, it received 280 resolvable FOI requests; in other words, requests about information that it actually held and that it was capable of responding to. Only 25 of those FOI requests were fully withheld, which is less than 10% of the total number received; in only 11 cases during that period did the Scotland Office claim any form of exemption from responses; and in only one case out of the 280 requests over a three-year period did the Scotland Office ever claim that somebody’s physical or mental health or safety would be endangered if information was released.

However, when somebody asked for a copy of a memo that had already been released to the press, the Scotland Office response was, first of all, to withhold that information fully, which immediately makes it an unusual response. The Scotland Office claimed that that request was exempt, but in 2014 it never claimed that anything was exempt, so again that shows that its response to that request was somewhat unusual.

Initially, when the Scotland Office responded to that request it claimed that releasing the memo might damage our relations with the French Government. That is an exemption that may well have merit; I would not like to comment on that in full. I could understand that there might be concerns that disclosing the contents of the memo might harm diplomatic relations with the French Government, but it is a pity that nobody thought about that when the memo was put in The Daily Telegraph in the first place. It is also a pity that the senior civil servant who phoned the French embassy to ask about a private conversation between French diplomats and the elected Head of the Scottish Government did not stop to wonder whether that was being disrespectful to the Scottish Government.

So, one of the things that I would like to have answered today, and one of the reasons why I am continuing to push this matter, is this question: is it common practice for Whitehall civil servants to go behind the back of Scottish Government Ministers and to follow up every private meeting those Ministers have with overseas diplomats in order to find out what was said? I would suggest to civil servants in the Scotland Office or in any other office of Government that if they want to find out what the First Minister of Scotland has said to foreign diplomats they should ask the First Minister of Scotland. Apart from anything else, that way there is less danger of things getting “lost in translation”, which I believe is the quote being used now.

I go back to the original FOI request. Following its being refused on the grounds that it might damage relations with the French and then on the grounds that it contained personal information, the question is this: whose personal details were in the memo? If there were the names of senior civil servants, and certainly if there were the names of Government Ministers, it cannot possibly be claimed that that is exempt information. The Data Protection Act is not there to protect Ministers from being held accountable for what they did, or even for what they knew.

The applicant asked for an internal review, which is supposed to be a chance for the answering Department to get the matter right second time around. However, rather than accepting that some of the exemptions no longer applied, the Department discovered that releasing the memo would in fact cause a danger to somebody’s physical or mental health and safety. The Department, having explicitly said in a letter of 15 June that it had considered that exemption and found that it did not apply, then discovered by 28 July that releasing the memo would put somebody’s health or safety in danger. I do not know what had happened in the meantime; I do not know whether one of these children from Syria who are actually Daesh operatives in disguise and who we keep hearing about had somehow got in under the radar.

The Information Commissioner is very clear about what the health and safety exemption means. It does not mean that it might be upsetting or stressful for somebody if a document is released. The Information Commissioner cited examples. For instance, disclosing information about a highly contentious research facility—one that is, for example, conducting research on animals—could threaten the safety of those working there and their families. So, that is a valid ground for withholding information. Equally, if someone is asking for information about a murder investigation, it might be that releasing that information would be extremely stressful or distressing for the family of the murder victim. Again, that is a legitimate case for using the health and safety exemption. But for the life of me, I cannot imagine what could have been in that memo that could possibly endanger anyone’s physical or mental health or safety if it had been disclosed. I look forward to the Information Commissioner’s response on that point, because I understand that in the particular case that we are discussing today the applicant has referred it to the commissioner for a ruling.

In that regard, it is perhaps worth noting that although most of these FOI requests were made a few years ago, the Scotland Office has an 80% failure rate on appeals that are referred to the Information Commissioner. In 80% of those cases, the commissioner said that the Scotland Office got matters either completely wrong or partly wrong. As I say, some of those FOI requests were from a few years back, when everybody was learning the ropes, but the Scotland Office’s record is still not a particularly clever one that it should try to defend.

It is not only in response to FOI requests that we are seeing this refusal to co-operate. I have put any number of questions to Government Ministers, up to and including the Prime Minister himself. Interestingly, when I asked the Prime Minister directly which Ministers knew the memo existed, which of them had seen it or had had access to it before the unauthorised leak—not who had leaked it—he did not answer on behalf of all the other Ministers; he declined to answer, on their behalf. All he did was refer me to the press release that the Scotland Office and the Cabinet Office had issued on 22 May, with the results of their inquiry, which does not say anything about who else had access to the memo. It refers to those who did have access but does not identify which Ministers may or may not have had that access. That, therefore, is another question I would like to have answered just now: which other Ministers and senior civil servants had access to the memo before the unauthorised disclosure?

That question is important because it starts to get to the nub of why the memo was written. We know it was written by a senior civil servant in the Scotland Office but, interestingly, we do not know who it was written for, who instructed the civil servant to go behind the back of our First Minister and ask the French embassy for its account of a private conversation involving the First Minister.

I would like to know—well, first I would like to know where the Secretary of State for Scotland is, but we might get an answer to that later—whether it is common practice for UK Government Departments to follow up private meetings between Scottish Government Ministers, or indeed Ministers from the Welsh or Northern Ireland Assemblies, and overseas diplomats, and for Whitehall to go behind Ministers’ backs and ask overseas Governments for their account of those meetings without bothering to check it for accuracy, in this case with the First Minister of Scotland. If they had bothered to do that before the memo was written it would have become clear that a lot had indeed been lost in translation.

The most important question I want answered—and I will continue until I get answers—is: which Ministers were aware of the memo? Which Ministers were sent copies of it before it was leaked? I do not know why the Government are so determined to withhold that information from us, but I am an awkward person—that goes with the badge—and the more a public body tries to deny me access to information that my people want the more convinced I become that there might be something in it that it really does not want us to see and the more determined I become, therefore, to find it.

[Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (SNP)]

Does my hon. Friend feel that the Government are reneging on the Freedom of Information Act? The Government explained in a 1997 White Paper that their aim was to be more open, to be a Government based on mutual trust:

“Openness is fundamental to the political health of a modern state. This White Paper marks a watershed in the relationship between the government and people of the United Kingdom. At last there is a government ready to trust the people with a legal right to information.”

Is that information being withheld?

[Peter Grant]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her question. It is not for me to say whether in this instance the Scotland Office complied with the Act; that question is now with the Information Commissioner. From my experience, primarily of the equivalent legislation in Scotland and my couple of significant successes against big public bodies—I have taken appeals to the commissioner and won—I cannot see how the physical or mental health or safety exemption can apply to a piece of paper. Similarly, I cannot see how the same exemption can apply to the Cabinet Office telling us when the inquiry was finished. Lord Chilcot was able to tell us that he had finished taking evidence in an inquiry about an illegal war in the middle east. No one would have been endangered because of that, yet it endangers someone’s health or safety if the Cabinet Office tells us the day on which the Cabinet Secretary finished speaking to witnesses about the inquiry. There is a clear question in people’s minds about why the results were not announced until after the general election, and there may well be legitimate reasons for that, but until the Cabinet Office is prepared to come clean on that particular aspect people will always wonder what is happening.

My concern is that something does not smell right. If there is absolutely nothing to hide, why are the Government going to such extraordinary lengths to keep it hidden? Can we be told today, on the record, which Ministers were aware of the contents of the memo before it was leaked? Why was the memo written and was it part of a routine process of going behind the backs of Ministers of the devolved Governments to find out what has happened in their private and confidential conversations with friendly Governments?

11:14

[The Minister for Civil Society (Mr Rob Wilson)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant) on securing the debate. I am aware that the Scotland Office received a number of freedom of information requests about the leak of a memorandum produced within the Department, and also about the investigation into the leak conducted by the Cabinet Office. I am also aware of the hon. Gentleman’s efforts in Parliament to obtain information about the matter. I hope it will help him, and others here today, if I respond to the points made by first saying—as he did—something about the Government’s general approach to freedom of information and the Freedom of Information Act and, secondly, about the operation of leak inquiries, and of this case in particular.

It is important to state clearly that the Government are committed to openness, and recognise the contribution that the Freedom of Information Act has made to greater transparency. But for any freedom of information regime to operate effectively, it is also important that it provides appropriate safeguards against the disclosure of sensitive information. The Freedom of Information Act contains a range of exemptions designed to protect sensitive material from inappropriate disclosure. Some, such as those relating to personal data and court records, are absolute, but others, such as those relating to investigation and health and safety, are qualified. Before such qualified exemptions can be applied, it is necessary to consider the public interest for and against disclosure, and only when the balance of the public interest favours withholding information can an exemption be applied.

The Scotland Office has a strong record on answering freedom of information requests. In 2014, the Department received 154 requests, 92% of which were answered within 20 working days—the equivalent figure for the Scottish Government was 77%. Of those 154 requests, 69 were granted in full and nine were declined in their entirety. In other words, the Department granted 85% of the requests received in 2014 and entirely declined just 11%. Figures for 2015 have so far been published for only the first quarter, but they are broadly consistent with those for 2014. From January to March this year, 90% of Scotland Office requests were answered within 20 working days and 82% resulted in full disclosure. That record demonstrates the seriousness with which the Scotland Office, like the rest of the Government, takes its obligations under the Freedom of Information Act, and clearly shows that when it is in the public interest to release information, that material is provided.

The hon. Member for Glenrothes raised concerns about the handling of specific cases. He is doubtless aware of the appeals route that exists under the Freedom of Information Act but it might, none-the-less, help if I said something about it now. An applicant who is dissatisfied with the response he or she receives to a freedom of information request has the right of appeal, and I understand that a number of applicants have chosen to exercise that right in relation to requests about this particular matter. An applicant may first ask the public authority to conduct an internal review of its original decision to decline a request. Should the applicant remain dissatisfied, he or she may submit a complaint to the Information Commissioner under section 50 of the Freedom of Information Act. The Information Commissioner's Office, which is independent of Government, has the power to issue a binding decision notice ordering disclosure if it concludes that information has been wrongly withheld. It is then possible for applicants and public authorities to appeal further to the first tier tribunal and, on a point of law, beyond that to the upper tribunal or courts. Freedom of information requests received about the leak and resultant investigation were answered based on an assessment of the requested information’s sensitivity. I recommend those dissatisfied with the responses they have received to appeal those decisions through the channels I have described.

I conclude my comments on freedom of information by re-emphasising that for the Freedom of Information Act to function effectively, it is important that it strikes an appropriate balance between transparency and the protection of sensitive information.

[Peter Grant]

Given that the Minister has indicated that he is coming to the end of his comments, does he intend to answer any of the questions that I asked? Are the Government prepared to answer them at any time? If not, perhaps the Minister can just say that they are not going to answer them.

[Mr Wilson]

I intend to answer all the questions that the hon. Gentleman raised. We have 10 minutes more to debate this matter, and if he gives me the time and has some patience, I will be perfectly happy to deal with the questions he asked.

The Freedom of Information Act has now been in operation for more than 10 years, and it is therefore right that we review its operation. That is why we have recently established an independent commission on freedom of information, which is looking at the protection the Act provides for sensitive information and its costs to public authorities. The commission will report by the end of November.

Against the backdrop I have described, I will address the particular concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Glenrothes on the leak of the Scotland Office memorandum. It is important to underline that the Cabinet Office completed a full and detailed inquiry into the leak, and we have been transparent about the purpose and findings of the inquiry at every stage. In response to concerns expressed by the First Minister, on 4 April 2015 the Cabinet Secretary instigated a Cabinet Office-led leak inquiry to establish how extracts from the document may have got into the public domain. The leak inquiry followed thorough and well-established procedures for dealing with such matters. In investigating the source of the leak, the investigation team searched all relevant official phone records, emails and print logs. Those who had access to the memo were asked to complete a questionnaire on what they did with the memo when they received it. They were then interviewed about that.

The Cabinet Office issued a statement on 22 May 2015 confirming the conclusions of the investigation. That statement is available on Gov.uk. It is a well-established convention that the Government do not comment on the process or conclusions of leak inquiries. However, in recognition of the particular sensitivities of this matter, the Cabinet Secretary felt it was necessary and appropriate to set out details of the approach taken during the investigation and the conclusions reached. In that respect, we have gone further than ever before in providing information on the investigation.

Members will recognise that an important balance has to be struck in handling such inquiries. It is essential that we ensure that the public have full confidence and trust in the operation of leak inquiries and are assured that appropriate action is taken where conclusions are reached. Alongside that, however, is a wider public interest in ensuring that leak inquiries take place in an environment where individuals feel able to contribute fully and frankly and have complete confidence that any evidence provided will be handled with confidentiality. Maintaining the confidentiality of the detailed operation of such inquiries is critical in ensuring that future inquiries and broader whistleblowing processes are trusted and effective, receiving the full co-operation of all.

Alongside that, the Government do not release investigation reports, which may reveal techniques used by Departments and insight into how to avoid detection. The Cabinet Office and the Scotland Office received a number of FOI requests relating to this matter. They were handled in the usual way, with full consideration given to the weight of public interest in each case. Any decisions to withhold information reflected the important need to maintain a safe space around the operation of leak inquiries and were balanced against the unprecedented amount of information already in the public domain. As I have already set out, clear routes of redress are open to any individual who feels their particular request has not been handled fairly or appropriately, either through an internal review or referral to the Information Commissioner’s Office. We will continue to handle any such cases on their individual merits.

The hon. Member for Glenrothes asked specific questions about why the Government have not released the memo in question. As the Leader of the House made clear in response to the hon. Gentleman’s questions, it is important that the Government can operate in the interests of the country, and by that I mean the UK. In considering the hon. Gentleman’s specific request for sight of the memo, the Scotland Office concluded that releasing the memo would be detrimental to international relations. Anything that would hinder the United Kingdom’s ability to work with its international partners would damage the United Kingdom’s ability to protect and promote its interests abroad, which would not be in the public interest.

As the Cabinet Office statement of 22 May made clear, the investigation team interviewed the civil servant in the Scotland Office who produced the memorandum. He confirmed under questioning that he believed that the memo was an accurate record of the conversation that took place between him and the French consul general. He highlighted that the memo had stated that part of the conversation between the French ambassador and the First Minister might well have been “lost in translation”. Senior officials who have worked with the individual say that he is reliable and has no history of inaccurate reporting, impropriety or security lapses. The Cabinet Secretary concluded that there is no reason to doubt that he recorded accurately what he thought he had heard and that there was no evidence of any political motivation or dirty tricks.

I want to see whether I can deal specifically with some of the hon. Gentleman’s questions. He asked who saw the memorandum. The Cabinet Office statement on the leak inquiry made it clear that the former special adviser, Mr Roddin, and the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), who gave his assent, were responsible for the leak, and that no one else had any involvement in leaking the memo. The Scotland Office operates within the civil service code, and the inquiry did not find any issues of propriety with Scotland Office officials. We would not normally comment on internal communications.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the common practice for civil servants to go “behind the back” of Ministers—I think that was his phrase—and speak to foreign diplomats. It is common practice for UK Government Departments to engage with diplomatic and consular corps across the United Kingdom and to share factual information about our respective activities on a wide range of issues, including Scotland. The UK Government and the Scottish Government regularly share information on engagement in international activities in a manner that is consistent with a memorandum of understanding and supplementary agreements between the UK Government, Scottish Ministers, Welsh Ministers and the Northern Ireland Executive. Officials at the Scotland Office work within the guidelines set out in the civil service code and the inquiry did not find any issues of propriety with Scotland Office officials.

The hon. Gentleman asked why the Cabinet Office has taken FOI policy from the Ministry of Justice. That is presumably because it is logical for FOI policy to sit within the Cabinet Office, given that it is the lead in transparency policy in general across Government. He also asked why the Scotland Office used an exemption relating to physical and mental health. The Scotland Office applies freedom of information exemptions to requests on a case-by-case basis. If an individual is unhappy with the handling of a case, they can go to the Information Commission or tribunal.

I think that directly handles the questions that the hon. Gentleman asked me. As I have previously set out, it was a thorough investigation and I am clear that the statement issued by the Cabinet Office in May deals robustly with the concerns that he and others have expressed.

Question put and agreed to.

11:29

Sitting suspended.

Child Poverty

Tuesday 15th September 2015 Westminster Hall

[Mr Gerald Howarth in the Chair]

14:30

[Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered child poverty.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth. I am delighted to have secured a debate on this vital topic. Child poverty unfortunately blights the lives of so many children throughout the UK, and should surely be a concern of absolute priority for the Government. I note, however, that in July’s Budget the Chancellor of the Exchequer launched the Tory Government’s latest plans to attack the poor, the vulnerable and the helpless in society.

The most recent target of the Government’s austerity crusade is our children. I have to wonder what that says about their priorities. They have often been heard to give much less than reassuring explanations for their dismantling of the welfare system, saying they are building a better, fairer society, where work pays. How do the proposals in the Welfare Reform and Work Bill truly build a better, fairer society? It is my contention that the Government are simply not concerned about fairness. In fact, it could be considered spineless to attack the people in our communities who most need our assistance: the working poor, the ill and the unemployed. Ultimately, the weakening of the welfare system has and will continue to hit low-income families and children the worst. Is that really the way forward?

Currently, 3.7 million children in the UK are living in relative poverty—that in itself is just not good enough. Shockingly, however, rather than actively stepping up to address the challenges facing children today, the Tory Government have hit out with further assaults on the poorest in the UK. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has predicted that, as a result of the Government’s most recent policies, child poverty could increase by more than a million from 2010, reaching highs of 4.7 million by 2020-21. Those are astonishing figures. It is frankly deplorable that, in a region as rich as the UK, such shameful, regressive and unacceptable policies should be even considered by the Government, never mind being pushed through this House.

Today, in another Chamber, right as we speak, the Government will move to reduce the amount people can earn—from £6,420 to £3,850—before tax credits begin to be withdrawn. The same measures seek to reduce the threshold from £16,105 to £12,125, as well as to increase the taper rate, which will mean that families reliant on those benefits lose out faster. That is simply illogical. It is incomprehensible and immoral to focus cost-cutting exercises on children.

Tax credits were introduced in 1998 in response to rising child poverty. Since their introduction, the number of children living in poverty in the UK has fallen from 26% to 17%. Surely the policy was working. Although we know that more needs to be done to lift all children fully out of poverty, at least tax credits have been keeping food on the table for children, and their parents’ heads above water. Today, the Tory Government move to take us backwards, to intensify the difficulties facing the working poor and our children.

In Scotland, 346,000 children will be affected by the tax credit changes—that is more than 197,000 families. In my own constituency of East Renfrewshire, nearly 15% of children are living in poverty, after housing costs. That is of great concern. The Child Poverty Action Group has estimated that the overall child poverty rate in Scotland could increase by a colossal 100,000 by 2020. Surely it is not good enough for us simply to vote against these measures; surely we have also to question the Government’s motivation. What sense is there in their actions, taking food from children’s mouths? I find it difficult to see how members of the Conservative party are not deeply concerned about the measures and proposals on child poverty, which is why I have brought this issue to the House today. I would like to force the Government to re-examine their proposals before it is too late.

As an elected representative, it is sickening to me to think of even one child in poverty, never mind such incredible numbers. I despair for the children in my area who will be affected by the Government’s actions. I despair for children around the world, so I urge the Government to do what they can in the UK and to heed the warnings given by the charity and voluntary sector, which has said that the proposed policies will plunge more children into poverty rather than pulling them out.

The Government have given us no plausible evidence base to demonstrate how cutting tax credits will incentivise work; I challenge Government Members present to address that point. Before they do, I remind them that the Government’s own evidence review of drivers of child poverty last year noted that the most important barriers to children exiting poverty were those arising from a lack of sufficient income from parental employment, not just worklessness.

It has been confirmed by the House of Commons Library that 99,600 out-of-work families in Scotland are receiving tax credits, compared with 250,300 families who are in work and receiving tax credits. The Government therefore contradicted their own testimony that cuts to the welfare system will make work pay: it is clear that working families and their children will suffer most from the tax credit changes.

It is clear that the UK Government were planning to give with one hand and take with the other when the Chancellor announced his golden ticket increase of the minimum wage. As ever, the devil is in the detail. The Office for Budget Responsibility estimates that the higher minimum wage rate will increase earnings by £4 billion in total by 2020; however, there will be welfare cuts of £12 billion. That simply does not add up. In any case, the policies target different groups, with those hit by cuts to tax credit unlikely to benefit from the minimum wage rise.

It is extremely worrying that the Tory Government have gone one step further in the Welfare Reform and Work Bill by enforcing a two-child cap on families who will be eligible for receiving child tax credit from 2017. Currently, 872,000 families in the UK—548,000 of whom are in work—receive an average of £3,670 a year for supporting a third child or subsequent children. The policy is deeply unfair, and threatens to undermine the financial stability of thousands of families who are at a higher risk of poverty.

The Government’s own national poverty strategy recognises that the risk of child poverty is already significantly higher among larger families. In fact, a third of children living in poverty are in families with three or more children. The Government’s rationale is still unclear. There is no evidence base to show how the measures would somehow bring about some kind of behavioural change, should that be their plan. To deny assistance to families—most of them working—who fall on hard times or into a low income but have three or more children, is completely condemnable. The policy seems to be based on the assumption that a third child is now a luxury commodity, reserved for the most affluent, but the right to a family life should surely be protected and encouraged by the Government.

The Government’s welfare reform measures have already hit some of those most at risk of poverty, and the new proposals will undoubtedly thrust more children into poverty, but one of the Government’s most troubling moves is to remove the requirement in the Child Poverty Act 2010 to report on income targets. They have renamed the Child Poverty Commission the Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission, which represents a stark shift in focus from tackling poverty to promoting social mobility and equality of opportunity rather than of outcome.

The removal of income targets means the fundamental driver of poverty is de-prioritised. Do the Government no longer care how much money people have in their pockets to feed their families? Instead, by focusing on targets that are not necessarily related to poverty, the Government are taking worrying steps towards characterising poverty as a lifestyle choice, rather than addressing the social and economic drivers that cause people to fall into poverty. I wonder whether there is a link between their attacks on the welfare system and their rationale for watering down commitments to protecting children.

It is worth noting the Scottish Government’s approach to tackling child poverty. Under the Scottish National party, the Scottish Government will look at a Scottish approach that builds on the innovative child poverty measurement framework, with a view to introducing a new approach to reporting on measures to tackle poverty. Scotland has shown its commitment to tackling inequalities and lifting children out of poverty, and I am pleased to note that the Scottish Government’s Social Justice Secretary, Alex Neil, has requested that the UK Government repeal all parts of the Child Poverty Act relevant to Scotland and confirmed that the Scottish Government will remove themselves from the new social mobility commission. Instead, they will develop a distinct Scottish approach that does not ignore the increasing problems of in-work poverty.

Coupled with the squeezing of the benefit cap and work-related conditions imposed on families with younger children, the UK Government’s austerity campaign is on course not only to hit hard-working and low-income families, but to sink more children further into poverty. It is beyond reason and moral thinking for the Government to identify the poorest children in the UK as the target for shouldering the bulk of their cuts. To protect children, to ensure that they have full access to a real childhood and opportunities to grow and flourish in education, as well as socially, the Government must withdraw the measures in the Welfare Reform and Work Bill, halt the changes to tax credits and continue to build on the good work of the child poverty commission, rather than getting rid of it.

[Mr George Howarth (in the Chair)]

Order. I do not propose to impose a time limit at the moment, but seven Members have indicated that they want to speak, excluding the SNP and Opposition spokespeople and the Minister. If those who are called can emulate the great self-discipline exercised by the mover of the motion and keep to a time limit of seven minutes, we should be able to get everybody in.

14:41

[Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP)]

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to today’s debate under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth, and to raise the concerns of many of my constituents.

Let me say first that this Government’s approach to child poverty goes against everything for which I stand. Plans to repeal the majority of the provisions of the Child Poverty Act 2010 demonstrates a blatant lack of understanding of what it actually means to be in poverty and highlights the ever-growing gulf in politics across these islands. The SNP were sent here in such substantial numbers to ensure that Scotland’s voice is heard and to provide a real opposition to the most right-wing Government since Thatcher’s. Make no mistake: this Government do not have the mandate to inflict such brutal measures on my constituents and others in Scotland.

According to the Child Poverty Action Group, 21% of children in my constituency grow up in poverty. That may just sound like a number, but it represents the lives of the children whom I represent. The figure is echoed across, but not limited to, Scotland, with more than one in five of our nation’s children living in poverty—210,000 children. The same statistics exist across the UK and are being disregarded by the Government’s welfare reform programme and ignored by the Government, who have chosen to overlook the importance of the future lives of children across these islands. These children need support, not savage cuts to their security and that of their families.

We came to the House to use what power we have to help lift people out of poverty and to help those we represent out of deprivation, not to kick them while they are down. We have to consider the bigger, long-term picture of what austerity means for our young people. One million additional children across the UK are expected to grow up in poverty by 2020, meaning 5 million children in poverty in one of the world’s richest nations. In Scotland, that would mean an additional 100,000 children growing up in poverty. The Institute for Fiscal Studies estimates that the benefit cuts already made at Westminster have saved the public purse a mere £2.5 billion. Yet, the cuts have cost society more than £20 billion. How can the Government justify and balance those figures? If the obsession with austerity failed in the last Parliament, why will it work now?

Growing up in an area of multiple deprivation, I know only too well the negative impact that that can have on a child’s health, life expectancy, academic outcomes and future success in the workplace. I witnessed young people’s life chances diminish. I witnessed my peers not go on to achieve their full potential simply because they grew up in poverty.

[Douglas Chapman (Dunfermline and West Fife) (SNP)]

Tax credits were mentioned earlier. They were introduced in 1998 as a response to rising child poverty, and that met with some success. Does my hon. Friend agree that any negative changes to the tax credit regime will lead to increasing child poverty in future?

[Angela Crawley]

Cuts to tax credits for families with more than two children will make some of the poorest families even poorer. Some 21% of UK families in receipt of tax credits have three or more children. Who are this Government to tell any family how many children it can have and say what price should be put on a child’s head? Furthermore, the proposal to eliminate the term “child poverty” is semantics over substance. Instead of tackling the real issues, this Government focus on playing politics with people’s lives.

The proposals in the Welfare Reform and Work Bill would see the removal of targets on absolute, relative and persistent poverty, as set out in the Child Poverty Act 2010. There has also been an increase in the proportion of children in poverty living in working families: now a staggering 63%. The impact of limiting child tax credits to the first two children will mean a huge negative impact on a minority of families. This Government cannot possibly justify such arbitrary and incomprehensible measures. We are talking about the poorest people in our society, the most vulnerable and the people who need our help the most. If this Government will not represent them, I certainly will. I am concerned that pushing the poorest into even deeper poverty will lead to statistics plummeting dangerously—statistics that are thrown around like weapons that do not relate to the lives of individuals.

We must ensure that the cuts are not allowed to go ahead, because the results will be disastrous, with no benefit whatsoever to working families across the country. The Welfare Reform and Work Bill fails to take into account the lasting damage to future generations of young people. I urge the Minister to rethink these arbitrary measures and consider the role that poverty plays in our society.

14:47

[Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire (Kirsten Oswald) on securing such a vital debate. My constituency is perhaps not the first to come to mind when thinking of areas where poverty strikes, but our enduring challenge is the low-wage economy. Unemployment is low in comparison with many other areas, but low wages are the biggest threat to children growing up there. Indeed, low wages, coupled with the increased cost of living, have certainly played a part in 210,000 children in Scotland living in relative poverty, many of whom come from families in which at least one parent is working. That should quite simply be considered an outrage.

We often hear the UK Government talk of making work pay, yet policy decisions achieve quite the opposite. In my constituency, that means one in five children growing up in poverty, with the figure as high as one in three in some parts. Changes to the tax credit regime will, without question, further worsen the living conditions of over 7,000 children in Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey, as up to £1,000 a year is taken out of family budgets. The measures announced in the Budget are regressive, and it is children in families with the lowest incomes who continue to be hit hardest. It should be borne in mind that the proposals will affect life chances in areas of high deprivation, and families who are on the radar of financial distress. They will also be part of daily life for those who are afraid to admit to their situation, through fear of unwanted service disruption or sheer embarrassment at the stripping away of layers of personal pride that the removal of support leads to.

I want to share how, in the highlands, in-work families will lose out as a result of the tax credit regime changes. Limiting tax credits to two children results in the removal of £7.2 million from welfare payments in Highland—simply put, that is £7.2 million from low-wage, low-income families. Removing the family element of tax credits takes £4.02 million from welfare payments in Highland, which is £4.02 million from low-wage families. Increasing the tax credit taper from 41% to 48% means the removal of £7.77 million from welfare payments in Highland. The reduction in income thresholds in tax credits equates to a removal of £33.33 million from welfare payments in Highland, which is a further £33.33 million from low-wage families. I will stop with the numbers, but everyone in the Chamber knows that they go on and on.

I want to ask the Government this: in our low-wage but low-unemployment economy, how do such cuts ever help make work pay? They do not. Families are already struggling with housing costs, heating bills and food prices, and parents face a harrowing choice between heating their home or putting food on the table, with some even wondering if they will still qualify for the food banks because of the number of their visits. In a growing number of cases, due to the oppressive sanctioning regime faced by my constituents and many others, there is the phenomenon of no-income poverty.

Thank goodness the Scottish Government have, by paying, done what they can across the piece to mitigate the outrageous bedroom tax imposed on Scotland. In the highlands there are virtually no one or two-bedroom social housing units, which has been a real problem. Through no fault of their own, people have been scared and intimidated. Again, they have had to be compensated by the Scottish Government.

Poverty robs children of their childhood. Children and young people growing up in poverty face limited life chances. We surely should not accept any child growing up without a fair start in life. The charity Barnardo’s Scotland says that its caseworkers have recorded numerous cases of having visited homes where there was literally no food in the cupboards. The UK Government need to take action to reverse, not increase, child poverty. As others have said, these children are more likely to live in poor housing, to suffer chronic illness in childhood, and to die at birth or in infancy.

14:52

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Kirsten Oswald) on bringing the subject to Westminster Hall for consideration. It is a pleasure to speak and to add my thoughts from a Northern Ireland perspective. I am happy to be involved. I will outline the case in Northern Ireland and how we are being affected. I will probably reflect the point of view of the two others who have spoken, the hon. Members for Lanark and Hamilton East (Angela Crawley) and for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry).

The issue is clearly important. When we hear about poverty, as we do every day, and in particular child poverty, our minds instinctively conjure up images of children living in parts of Africa, or in war-torn countries such as Syria. Given the media attention and the charities involved in trying to end poverty throughout the world, that is unsurprising. In no way do I intend to lessen the horrendous difficulties to which children living in those countries are subject. Unimaginably, they have no clean water, little food and little clothing; unfortunately that is the reality for many.

Poverty, however, means more than that. It is perhaps shocking to learn that here in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland poverty is a reality for many families. The most recent projections from the Institute for Fiscal Studies, produced before the 2015 summer Budget, suggested that by 2021, in the United Kingdom, 3 million children would be in relative poverty, not taking account of housing costs, and some 4.3 million taking account of housing costs.

Low income affects direct measures of children’s wellbeing and development, including cognitive ability, achievement and engagement in school, anxiety levels and behaviour. Life is difficult enough, but as the years go on, I become more convinced that, certainly in some ways, times are getting harder for our children—clearly, they are. It seems commonplace to see pressures thrust on children and young people from a young age. Getting good results, going to university and getting the best jobs are admirable objectives, but they are much harder for children to achieve when they face increased anxiety and feel less engaged with school.

The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey mentioned low income, and I will, too. This debate is timely, particularly because the tax credit changes are being discussed today—we will shortly have a chance to vote on them. My party will certainly oppose the changes. The cuts will have a substantial impact on child poverty. The IFS examined the impact of different cuts to benefits in its February 2015 “Green Budget” and estimated that the £5.1 billion of proposed cuts to child tax credit would increase child poverty by 300,000. My goodness! If we are not shocked by those figures, we should be—and embarrassed. The Treasury estimates the impact to be even greater. As well as increasing child poverty, the changes will significantly weaken incentives to work, because the impact of the cuts will fall disproportionately on low-income working families. That is obviously the reverse effect from the one that we want. Our aim in government is, or should be, to assist more people into work—it must be more financially beneficial to go to work than to remain on benefits. There is also pride in having a job and going to work every day, and it brings someone a routine.

We must ensure that wages reflect the cost of living, which is the problem in Northern Ireland. It is estimated that back home in Northern Ireland one in four children will be living in poverty by 2020, and more than half of children growing up in poverty live in working households. That is the main problem in Northern Ireland, much as the hon. Gentleman said it was in his constituency. We are not alone in that, as the issues stretch right across the whole United Kingdom. The Government’s January 2014 “Evidence review of the drivers of child poverty” found that the most important factors standing in the way of children exiting poverty were those contributing to a lack of sufficient income from parental employment—not only worklessness, but low income from work. That is what the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey said—I had to write down his constituency name beforehand, which makes for a long sentence—and I thank him for his contribution, because he made exactly the point that I wanted to hit on.

A Save the Children report published last May claimed that youngsters had paid the highest price in the recession. Their plight is exacerbated in Northern Ireland because wages lag behind the rest of the United Kingdom, while the cost of necessities, such as food, fuel and childcare, is higher than in other regions. I am sure I am not alone among Members in saying that the increase in families coming to my constituency office to ask for food bank vouchers is truly heartbreaking. I am a big supporter of the food banks; I recognise their good work and that they have a part to play in our society.

Many families tell me that several nights each week they have to decide whether to feed their family or heat their home. The reality, however, is that people make the decision to feed their family, because they have to fill their children’s stomachs, even though they have to be sent to bed with an extra jumper or coat on and do not get into their jammies. That is what happens. If a decision is to be made between feeding and heating, feeding always wins, and heating falls by the wayside.

In Northern Ireland 110,000 children are affected by poverty, going without essentials or living in homes that are cold or damp. Save the Children’s report claims that the 2014 so-called “poverty premium”, which represents how much more low-income families pay for goods and services than middle-income families, now stands at £1,639 per year in Northern Ireland. That poverty premium includes, for example, the extra money needed to pay for items, such as a cooker or house insurance, in instalments rather than all at once. All that comes at a high cost to the children involved. They are always the ones at the end of the line who seems to suffer. Poverty robs children of the childhood that they deserve. They often miss out on events that most of us took for granted when we were children and at school, such as going on school trips or going out with friends.

What I am saying only scrapes the surface of the issues. Children in poverty are more likely to live in bad housing, more likely to die at birth or in infancy, and more likely to suffer chronic illness in childhood, or to have a disability. Those are the facts, the statistics. Poverty damages children’s life chances. Children from poor backgrounds lag behind at all stages of education. By the age of three, poorer children are estimated to be, on average, nine months behind children from more wealthy backgrounds. That is a terrible statistic that we need to address. By the end of primary school, pupils receiving free school meals are estimated to be almost three terms behind their more affluent peers—a gap that grows to over five terms by the age of 14 and leads them to achieve the equivalent of 1.7 grades lower on average at GCSE. The figures show a real trend; children from low-income families are really affected.

In addition, families on low incomes are less likely to be able to afford organic and free-range foods, or even fresh foods. Often their only choice is to buy convenience foods, which often have a high fat and salt content. We cannot ignore that. During the previous Parliament, the Minister was very interested in sport and often talked about diet and sport. I hope that today he will make similar comments. Unsurprisingly, in 2011, the poorest households had more than twice as many obese children as those from wealthier backgrounds.

I am conscious of the time, and will bring my remarks to an end. The statistics are startling and worrying. The sad reality is that hundreds of families live below the poverty line in the United Kingdom. It is vital that we raise awareness of that. The rise in the use of food banks across the UK is a stark indicator of the problem. According to the Trussell Trust, almost 500,000 people were given three days’ worth of food in the first six months of the 2014-2015 financial year, an increase of 38% on the same period in the previous year. Just as Save the Children and End Child Poverty have firmly pointed the finger at low incomes and changes to welfare, so too has the Trussell Trust. All that being the case, more must be done to eradicate child poverty.

15:01

[Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire (Kirsten Oswald) on securing this debate. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who made a measured, reasoned and impressive contribution.

At the outset I must declare an interest. It is not financial and therefore does not appear in my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, but it is certainly relevant to the debate and without doubt influences what I have to say. My constituency of Airdrie and Shotts has a child poverty rate of 27% after housing costs have been considered; in some wards, one third of children are living in poverty. That is truly depressing and heartbreaking. I will briefly point out how that figure compares with that for the constituencies of other Members. Witney has a child poverty rate of 13%; in Witham, the rate is 17% and in Tatton it is 16%. Those rates are all far too high and require much work; nevertheless, they are among the lowest in the UK.

The causes of child poverty are without doubt complex. However, the Institute for Fiscal Studies, which has been much quoted in this debate, has made it clear that the projected rise in the rate of child poverty is largely down to UK welfare cuts. Indeed, the conclusion to a 2014 IFS report states:

“Real cuts to working-age benefits are a key reason behind rising child poverty.”

Little wonder that the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions is so determined to withdraw the criteria for measuring child poverty. His Government’s welfare cuts will plunge countless more families and children into poverty. A very large chunk of those who will find themselves desperately struggling to make ends meet—and who will be forced to choose between heating and eating, as the hon. Member for Strangford said—will be households where at least one adult is in work.

[Douglas Chapman]

My hon. Friend will perhaps be aware of the report by the Educational Institute of Scotland called “Face up to Child Poverty”, the stand-out quote from which was:

“Not only is the incidence of poverty increasing, the nature of poverty is changing. Low wages mean that more than half (59%) of children living in poverty are within families in which at least one adult is employed…Scotland has seen a 400% increase in the use of food-banks…and organisers report that a significant proportion of their clients are in work”.

Will he comment on that view of how the nature of child poverty is changing? What should the UK Government do to change that situation?

[Neil Gray]

I thank my hon. Friend for pointing out that important report. It is a very sad state of affairs when our teachers have to deal with children who are hungry when they come to school. That is shocking and depressing.

Wholescale cuts to tax credits will reduce the allowance before tax credits start to be withdrawn from £6,420 to £3,850 and increase the taper rate at which tax credits are withdrawn from 41% to 48%. Those cuts will slash household incomes for 197,200 families in Scotland with nearly 350,000 children. Nearly 250,000 families in Scotland will be worse off by an average of £1,000 per year as a result of changes to tax credits alone. As they qualify for tax credits, those families by definition have the lowest incomes in the country. They are least able to deal with those cuts to their income and, as they are in low-income work, will have little opportunity to increase their wages to a degree that would make up the shortfall. They are also far more likely to live week to week and simply cannot cut their cloth to suit.

All that completely flies in the face of Government rhetoric about making work pay. Indeed, when the Budget measures are taken in the round, the IFS has said that people in the four lowest income deciles will see their net income cut by between £600 and £1,300; compare that with people in the ninth decile—the second richest decile in society—who are to receive a net income rise. Levels of income without question have an absolute bearing on levels of poverty, yet as a result of scrapping the Child Poverty Act 2010, this Government will no longer have to account for income levels in the UK.

Poverty robs children of their childhood. Children living in poverty are more likely to live in poor housing, and to have poorer education outcomes and greater health issues. Poverty is the greatest barrier to children achieving better life outcomes—the aim at the heart of the UN convention on the rights of the child. Given that it has been demonstrated that their measures will push more children into poverty, it is time for this Government to think again and take a different path.

For their part, with their limited influence over these matters, the Scottish Government are providing over £300 million between last year and next to help mitigate the worst of the Westminster welfare cuts for families in Scotland. That means the people of Scotland are paying twice for the Tory cuts—the Scottish Government have their budget slashed and they have to set aside extra cash to ease the burden for hard-pressed families.

In conclusion, for all the reasons I have mentioned, I say, in accordance with the traditions and procedures of this place, that yes, this House has considered child poverty in this debate, but in reality, its current Tory majority is certainly not considering child poverty, and it is about time that it did.

15:07

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth. I congratulate the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Kirsten Oswald) on securing this timely debate. I enjoyed listening to the contributions of the hon. Members for Lanark and Hamilton East (Angela Crawley), for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry), for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for Airdrie and Shotts (Neil Gray). The passion that has been shown on this subject shows that Scotland and Northern Ireland are well served by those Members. I feel sorry for the Minister, as he is surrounded by the Celtic fringe, somewhat.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Disabled People (Justin Tomlinson)]

What about Manchester?

[Chris Evans]

We will let you get away with that.

Child poverty is an age-old problem. Writers such as Charles Dickens, in the 19th century, J.B. Priestley, whose “An Inspector Calls” was recently adapted by the BBC, and the great socialist George Orwell have all chronicled poverty and its effects throughout the years. Yet however much great literary works and great authors have covered the scourge of poverty in all its forms, the problem has still not been solved.

Poverty at its extreme affects the two most vulnerable groups of people in society, the very old, who often have to make the choice between heating and eating, and the very young. We have heard many statistics, but for so many people across the country, in constituencies we have already heard from, in Scotland, in the north—including Manchester—and in Wales, poverty is a way of life. Extreme poverty means young people go to school hungry, not having been able to eat breakfast that morning. They do not have the equipment they need to gain the skills to succeed. Very often, they will return to substandard accommodation that is damp, and they will become ill. They have failed before they have even begun.

The sad fact is that, despite all the campaigns throughout the 19th and 20th centuries, poverty still comes down to one thing: someone born into poverty will probably die in poverty. As in the time of the great writers I mentioned, the challenge for society is to end poverty in all its forms.

I do not believe that people become politicians—come to the House of Commons or, indeed, go into Government—to oversee an increase in poverty, but that is what we have seen from this Government. If we look at the figures after housing costs have been taken into account, over 27% of children in my south Wales constituency are living in poverty. Across Wales, one fifth of all children grow up poor. In the UK—the fifth richest country in the world—more than 4 million children are living in poverty. None of their parents wants things to stay the same; they want to provide more for their families. Not one of them does not want to escape the tiring, punishing reality of being poor.

It is no good, however, simply setting out the challenge we face, which other Members have eloquently described. Anyone who cares about our country’s future and our constituents’ lives must now seek solutions, because it falls to this generation to eliminate poverty in all its forms.

The problem cannot be solved by simply throwing more money at it. That has been tried, and we still see poverty on a scale we cannot imagine. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation report “What will it take to end child poverty?” stated:

“Ending child poverty is only partly about transferring money to poor households. A long-term solution must involve much more, tackling the root causes of poverty and in particular giving families opportunities that help them gain greater control of their own lives.”

We can do that only if people work. We can have all the Government schemes we want, but the best way to end poverty is to have working households. While people are stuck—dependent on the welfare system—they will never have control over their own destiny or the ability to break their family out of poverty. They will suffer poverty of money and, yes, poverty of ambition.

The Joseph Rowntree Foundation states that truly tackling child poverty will require us to provide considerable personal support to people who are likely to face a combination of disadvantages in terms of entering the labour market. We can overcome those disadvantages, but only with targeted, personalised and localised support. That cannot be done just through existing public sector structures. Instead, there needs to be a partnership between public bodies, private bodies and, above all, local communities. We must harness the financial power of the Government, the innovation of the private sector and people’s knowledge of their own lives and communities—the people who know what is best for communities are those who live in them. We must put in place strategies that reach the poorest, the hardest to help and the most disadvantaged.

The last Labour Government made great strides with a public sector approach, but the world has moved on. The challenges in 2015 are not the same as they were in 1997.

[Drew Hendry]

Notwithstanding the hon. Gentleman’s wise words about tackling the issue on a longer-term basis using a real plan, which I absolutely subscribe to, does he agree that the actions taken by this Government in the short term do nothing to help those who are already working, but who are below the poverty threshold, and nothing to achieve the long-term ambitions we should all share?

[Chris Evans]

I agree. The hon. Gentleman used the phrase “short term”, and the problem with this Government’s approach from the beginning is that there has been too much short-term thinking. The problem in politics may be that we think from one election to the next and do not plan for the long term. I believe that poverty is at its highest level at the moment because people are too fixated on the stereotypes perpetuated by the press—the idea that someone finds themselves on benefits not because they have fallen on hard times, but because they are some sort of scrounger. We must end that stereotype if we are to move on. That is where the long term comes in.

Child poverty will be solved only by a Government who are firmly focused on the issue in the long term. The distinction between the public, private and third sectors must be broken down. In the pursuit of a country where no child is born poor, there can be no qualms about harnessing the best of private enterprise and the best of social action. In practice, that will mean contracting diverse providers from charities to recruitment companies and agencies to deliver employment support. It will mean private companies showing the social responsibility we have always talked about and working with people who face severe disadvantages in terms of entering the labour market to put in place individual strategies to overcome those problems. It will mean families who are stuck in poverty receiving one-on-one support that is tailored to their needs from any willing provider who can provide the best support.

The one-size-fits-all model of Jobcentre Plus and the welfare system has comprehensively failed, to the extent that Ofsted found that Jobcentre schemes have a success rate of less than 1%. Rather than pursue that model, the Government should work with any company or organisation that can help. No stone should be left unturned. This is not about taking an ideological approach and saying the public sector is always right or the private sector is always better. This is not about left or right, or about Welsh, English Scottish or Irish; this is about doing what works to end child poverty.

The people trapped in the punishing reality of being poor will not care where the support comes from, as long as it works. However, it must be part of a new contract with them. The Government will work with anyone who can provide support, but individuals must take responsibility; they must accept that if the country is there for their family, they must be as well. It must be Britain’s moral mission to end child poverty, but all the support we can provide will not be enough if people do not take responsibility. They cannot be allowed to see welfare as a way of life, to be the worst possible example to their children and to sustain the culture we see in far too many communities where joblessness is the norm. The deal must be: “We will help you, and you will get the support you need, but, in return, you have to work, to provide for your family and to be responsible for your spending.” That is how we end child poverty and lock in a country where no child is born poor. Without ensuring personal responsibility, any action we take to help the poorest children will be reversed, and we will never break the poverty of ambition that traps poor children into a life of poverty.

15:16

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth. I am reminded of my maiden speech, when you were in the Chair as Deputy Speaker, although I hope I will not have as short a time to speak as I did then.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire (Kirsten Oswald) on securing this important debate. I also congratulate other Members, who have made valuable contributions. I want briefly to reflect on some of the global dimensions of child poverty, which the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) touched on.

As is clear from all the speeches that have been made, poverty is a scandal wherever it exists. Too many children, in the UK and elsewhere, are born into, and grow up in, poverty. We have heard the statistics from other hon. Members. In my constituency, 25% of children live in poverty. My hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Neil Gray) compared constituencies, and Glasgow North is ranked 110 out of 650 constituencies for child poverty. That means that there are 109 other seats in this country where more than 25% of the child population lives in poverty. That is a complete scandal, but, sadly, that scandal is only exacerbated around the world.

UNICEF estimates that, by 2030, 119 million children will still be chronically undernourished. Even today, entirely preventable diseases such as pneumonia, diarrhoea and malaria are leading causes of child deaths, with more than 5,000 children dying from them each day. Despite all the progress that has been made in the lowest-income countries since 1990, the proportion of children under five living in poverty rose from 13% in 1990 to 19% in 2014.

The saddest and perhaps most frustrating thing about all this is that none of it is necessary, because structures exist to prevent it from happening in the first place. The rights of children are protected by the UN convention on the rights of the child, which has been ratified by 194 states, including—more than 25 years ago, in 1989—by the United Kingdom. UNICEF described the convention as

“the first international instrument to articulate the entire complement of rights relevant to children—economic, social, cultural, civil and political. It is also the first international instrument to explicitly recognise children as active holders of their own rights.”

Living in poverty is perhaps the greatest denial of those human rights. Article 6 of the convention provides:

“States Parties shall ensure to the maximum extent possible the survival and development of the child”.

The “maximum extent possible”—that is the responsibility of the Government. Yet we have repeatedly heard from Members that the Government want to roll back their responsibilities to tackle child poverty, and the relevant measurements. However, the global frameworks exist to tackle poverty here and around the world.

Last Thursday there was a debate in the Chamber on the sustainable development goals, a new global framework aimed at eradicating poverty in all its forms, everywhere. That means at home as well as elsewhere in the world. In Scotland there was a working group drawn from civil society, the Government and the academic and business world—I declare an interest as I was a member of it—on the sustainable development goals. It was innovative not only for the way such different organisations worked together towards ending poverty overseas, but for what we could do domestically. There is an interesting and continuing collaboration between global and domestic anti-poverty organisations, and it would be interesting to know from the Minister whether he is prepared to work with his colleagues in the Department for International Development, and across the Government, to consider how the new global goals aimed at ending all forms of poverty, including child poverty, everywhere, might be applied in the United Kingdom.

As so often with such issues, we are the generation with the knowledge, means and resources to end poverty, and all that seems to be lacking is the political will.

15:21

[Natalie McGarry (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire (Kirsten Oswald) on securing the debate, which has been enlightening. It is good to see cross-party participation among Opposition parties. I am disappointed that Conservative Members have not come to defend policies that they will vote for in the Chamber. [Interruption.] I thank the Minister for being here, but it would have been appropriate, given the gravity of the circumstances relating to child poverty, had more Conservative Members been present to defend the levels of child poverty and what the Government are doing.

My hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire said that it is immoral to force tax cuts on children. It is clear that the target of austerity is children. It is a hugely important debate and should transcend party politics, because child poverty should be the concern of us all. Unfortunately the Government’s policies are forcing more children into poverty. It should concern us all that 3.7 million children in the UK live in relative poverty, and it should alarm, astound and worry us that the number in child poverty is projected to rise to 4.7 million by 2020 under current policies. The obsession of the Tory Government is that people at all levels of society must firefight cuts. For their part, the Scottish Government are providing more than £300 million between 2013-14 and 2015-16 to mitigate the effect of Westminster welfare changes for families in Scotland.

My hon. Friend the Member for Lanark and Hamilton East (Angela Crawley) said—and I agree—that there is no mandate for imposing the cuts in Scotland. The Tory party received its lowest support in 165 years in Scotland at the general election; it fell to just over 10% of the vote. My hon. Friend spoke about semantics over substance, and the change in Tory rhetoric and attitude with the renaming of the poverty statistics. The simple fact is that austerity has not worked. It is astonishing that, despite the evidence of the harm from what they are doing, the UK Government continue to attack low-paid families. That makes a mockery of the Conservatives’ claim to be the party of working people. For example, cutting tax credits, which are a lifeline for low-income families and a crucial tool in lifting people out of poverty, will only exacerbate the already dismal projections of rising child poverty. In Scotland alone, 346,000 children will be affected by the changes, and we are in danger of pushing them into poverty and causing lasting damage to their life chances.

We know the harm that austerity is doing to thousands of children across the country. It simply cannot be acceptable to ignore the severe and particular impact on children of the Government’s policies. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said that poverty robs children of their childhood and the life chances that they deserve, and I agree. By changing the definition of poverty and removing the requirement to report on income targets, the Government are doing just that. In renaming the commission set up under the Child Poverty Act 2010 the Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission, the Tories are trying to airbrush child poverty out of our political debate.

We must of course look at the wider picture of young people’s life chances, rather than focusing simply on one set of statistics or another, but the Government’s changes to the Child Poverty Act will be deeply damaging, for three main reasons. First, the removal of the requirement to report on income targets means that a fundamental driver of poverty—how much a person has in their pocket —is essentially being deprioritised. My hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry) said that that low wages and increased inflation are key drivers of poverty. Secondly, the Government’s plans to focus purely on worklessness ignore the 67% of UK children who live in a household with one or more working adult. In-work poverty, which will undoubtedly be exacerbated by the changes to tax credits and other Budget measures, is a key challenge that the Tories seem content to ignore. Thirdly, the additional targets that are proposed are not necessarily related to poverty. Family break-up and drug and alcohol dependency affect families in all income deciles, and problem debt is generally a consequence rather than a cause of poverty. The proposals are a step towards characterising poverty as a lifestyle choice, rather than addressing the social and economic drivers that cause people to fall into poverty. That is a mistake that we cannot afford to make.

The hon. Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans)—I hope he will forgive my pronunciation—is correct: we must seek solutions. It is up to this generation. Poverty should not exist in a country as rich as ours and no child should have to experience it. As long as the Government pursue a damaging austerity strategy and attempt to sweep child poverty under the carpet, it will persist and be pervasive. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) said that poverty is a scandal wherever it exists, and spoke of his constituency where the rate of child poverty is 25%, the 110th highest in the UK. In 2012, my constituency’s child poverty rate was 32.6%, which was the 26th highest in the UK. Twenty-five constituencies had child poverty rates higher than almost a third of children. In some parts of my constituency child poverty is almost at 50%.

The Government’s Dickensian policies belong in the House of Commons Library, not in the Chamber or the statute book of any country that has the resources that the UK has. When there is a clear and demonstrable link between Tory policies and low wages it becomes clear that increasing levels of poverty and child poverty are political choices; we have the power to tackle the situation, but we worsen it instead. The Government must halt the changes to tax credits, withdraw the measures in the Welfare Reform and Work Bill and continue to build on the good work of the child poverty commission, rather than eradicating it from political discourse. I urge the Minister to consider what has been said in the debate, from across the parties.

[Mr George Howarth (in the Chair)]

Order. We have just over 30 minutes—32 to be precise—for the two Front Benchers to wind up. I ask them to bear in mind that, because of the self-discipline that hon. Members have shown, there is plenty of time, and to recognise that the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire, who moved the motion, would like to make a few observations by way of winding up.

15:29

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

It is a great pleasure, Mr Howarth, to respond to this debate and to serve under your chairmanship. I congratulate the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Kirsten Oswald) on introducing it this afternoon.

As the debate has proceeded, we have understood the complexity and multi-layering that is intrinsic in child poverty, but we should also recognise that we know what works to tackle it. Looking at the track record and progress that was made under Labour Governments between 1997 and 2010, I am proud that we saw huge progress with more than 1 million children in the UK lifted out of poverty.

We know what led to that massive reduction in child poverty. As the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire acknowledged, it was in no small measure due to the effectiveness of tax credits, and to the rise in employment, particularly the employment of lone parents, which increased from 44% in the mid-1990s to approaching 60% when we entered this decade.

None the less and despite that progress, today, as we have heard, 3.7 million children in this country live in relative poverty. Perhaps even more depressing, since 2011-12, progress to reduce that number further has stalled. There was no progress whatever under the coalition Government after 2011-12, and the prediction is that under this Parliament, we will start to see a substantial rise in child poverty. None of us can be satisfied or complacent about that.

We have, rightly, heard a lot about the importance of measuring child poverty and having meaningful targets for tracking and tackling progress. At one time, there was cross-party consensus on the importance of measuring relative income poverty and targets for its reduction, but that consensus has broken down between the parties. It seems to have broken down in the Prime Minister’s mind—we have heard him say that he is in favour of targets and measuring and addressing relative poverty, and that he is not and believes that that is irrelevant. We have heard that the Government intend in the Welfare Reform and Work Bill, which is now being debated in Committee, to remove the targets altogether and no longer to set that hard ambition for us to improve our performance. I cannot help feeling—the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Neil Gray) hinted at this—that that is motivated by fear that the targets will not be met, fear that the position will worsen and fear that the Government will be held to account, as they should be.

We know the importance of having targets and an agreed definition of poverty. Targets drive action. They drive progress and they allow for comparisons that show the direction of travel and the trends, and enable us to compare ourselves with our international peers. No one would pretend that child poverty in this country is like child poverty in some of the poorest economies of the world, but the measures in the Child Poverty Act 2010 have presented a very useful picture that has enabled us to compare performance here with the best performing countries in Europe. Indeed, that was the ambition. It was not to eliminate child poverty to zero, because we all recognise the existence of frictional poverty, but to be at the level of the best in Europe. Until the arrival of the coalition Government, we were on track to achieve that.

It may be that recognition of the importance of targets is why in 2013, when the Government consulted on changing or abolishing the targets, 97% of those who responded said there was no need for any change, so it is highly regrettable that there are proposals from Ministers today to do something that has been roundly rubbished by all the respondents to that consultation. I am shocked by the lack of notice that the Government have taken.

We also heard today, rightly, about the importance and centrality of income in defining, measuring and tackling child poverty. Indeed, Kitty Stewart of the London School of Economics has shown that income is the single most significant factor and indicator of poor outcomes for children across a whole range of measures, including educational attainment and poor health. We also know that poverty has a cost to society as a whole. Estimates by the Child Poverty Action Group suggest that the cost to society of failing to tackle child poverty is £29 billion a year.

In recognition of the intrinsic link between low income and poor outcomes for children, the Child Poverty Act 2010, which received cross-party consensus, covered not just income poverty and did not require measures only on income poverty, but also required strategies on, for example, education, health, parental employment, debt and parenting. All those are associated with high levels of child poverty, but they are not the same as child poverty and it is important not to confuse the two.

None the less, one of my regrets about the abolition of much of the 2010 Act is that we will lose the requirement to produce those strategies. This morning, we heard in the Standing Committee considering the Welfare Reform and Work Bill—the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire may have repeated this this afternoon—that the intention in Scotland is to continue to produce that strategy and I understand from this morning’s evidence session with witnesses that that is also the case in Wales. However, there is no expectation that that will happen in England. Ministers will not expect local authorities to produce comprehensive strategies to address child poverty. If I am wrong about that, I shall be very pleased to hear it and I hope that the Minister will be able to contradict my assertion this afternoon.

We know that the Government know that income is important. Their own evidence review in 2014 showed that it was the most important factor, and not just, as we have heard today, that low income arises because families are out of work, but when there is insufficient income from earnings. It was right for hon. Members to point out this afternoon the absolute inadequacy and insufficiency of measuring only worklessness when two thirds of children in poverty are growing up in working households. We know the reasons for that. They are not laziness on the part of those parents, but poorly paid jobs, lack of access to flexible jobs that can be combined with family responsibilities, high child care costs, high housing costs and ill health. The need to care for a family member suffering ill health or their own ill health curtails employment chances.

[Jim Shannon]

I mentioned during my contribution the effect on those on low incomes of buying cheaply because it is better financially for their pocket, but that affects their diet and health. Does the hon. Lady believe that we should also address that issue?

[Kate Green]

The hon. Gentleman made a useful contribution on the poverty premium: that the poor pay more for the basics. He now adds another important dimension: that lack of income means that the poorest in our society are unable to afford to have the quality of life that protects health, wellbeing and social participation.

The critique of measures on which the Government are relying to underpin their rejection of the Child Poverty Act 2010 is simply wrong. Let us remember that it is not that the income measure in the Act does not capture the full picture of poverty. There is not one income poverty measure, but four to give us a rounded view. It is important to continue to measure relative income poverty, which we expect to rise. None the less, Ministers should be grateful for the four measures in the 2010 Act because it is possible that at the same time as seeing a rise in relative income poverty, we may see a fall in absolute poverty in the next few years. If median wages rise, but benefits are frozen or rise only with prices, we will see a rise in relative poverty. Conversely, absolute poverty could fall if benefits rise in line with the consumer prices index. It is important for Ministers to recognise that we have a good mix of measures in the 2010 Act, which would enable them to point to the complexity of the picture, rather than rejecting the Act on the misleading grounds that it measures relative poverty alone.

We have no analysis yet of the impact on child poverty of the measures in either the Welfare Reform and Work Bill or the others announced in the summer Budget, some of which we are debating this afternoon. However, we know that the impact of those measures will not be felt in the same way across all family types and structures. Lone parents, couples with several children and those with high housing costs will be hit particularly hard.

As we have heard this afternoon, it is important also to understand that the effect of the so-called national living wage will not wholly compensate for the cuts that are being made. Indeed, the cuts are particularly perverse when we consider that many of them are to in-work benefits, increasing, not reducing work disincentives. I am quite at a loss to understand why Ministers think that is a sensible way to proceed.

There is also a massive amount of ignorance about the purpose of different policy instruments to tackle poverty. Everybody welcomes higher minimum pay. Of course it is right that people should be paid properly for the work that they do, and of course it is right that the taxpayer should not subsidise low-pay economies, although we should recognise that achieving a minimum income standard for some families from earnings alone would simply drive businesses out of business. We have heard the projections that even a national living wage may lead to the loss of some tens of thousands of jobs. That is why, in addition to measures to tackle low pay, it is important to invest in tax credits, because many low-paid people who will benefit from the increase in the national living wage may not live in poor households. Conversely, many of those who are going to receive the national living wage will not be lifted out of poverty by that alone, because of their family and household structure and size. Therefore, it is important that we proceed on both fronts, and we cannot expect, at the lower end of the labour market, for wages alone to lift all families out of poverty.

Income poverty is crucial, and the Government’s analysis of the limitations of the Child Poverty Act and the limited approach that they will take to address rising family poverty, frankly, are simply wrong. It is regrettable that, with so much evidence before us and such a long history of having seen what works and what does not, Ministers are so uninterested in looking at the facts and the evidence, and instead insist on pursuing an ideology that will cause hardship for many, and, for the most vulnerable, destitution, the likes of which we have not seen for two decades.

15:41

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Disabled People (Justin Tomlinson)]

I congratulate the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green), on her promotion. She is widely respected and it is well deserved; I wish her the best of luck in her new role.

I congratulate the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Kirsten Oswald) on securing this important debate. There have been several excellent speeches from right across the Chamber, and I will do my best to cover as many of the points made as I can. I am also grateful that I have slightly longer than four minutes to speak—which was how long I had to respond to the last debate I had here in Westminster Hall.

There is clearly a lot of passion and real determination among hon. Members. We disagree on how the aim should be achieved, but I think there is a shared consensus that more needs to be done and that this issue is incredibly important. I speak as an individual who went to a school at the bottom of the league tables, back in my home town. My father passed away at an early age. I absolutely understand the importance of this issue, and I stress that I think we all share that determination, even if we perhaps see different ways to achieve that aim.

Before I focus on the UK, I will pick up on the point made by the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady). I was very proud to serve as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on global education for all. I was the warm-up act before the former Prime Minister stepped in and significantly increased the group’s profile, but I did that role for about 18 months, and I was very proud to do so.

I also congratulate the hon. Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans) on his speech. I have contributed in a number of debates in which he has spoken, and I am always impressed with his pragmatic, proactive approach. I absolutely echo his points about needing to look at local, individual solutions. That does him real credit; he is easily one of the most articulate speakers, and I was pleased that he was able to sneak in with his speech.

Our Government are committed to working to eliminate child poverty and improving children’s life chances. Our new approach is focused on transforming lives through tackling the root causes of child poverty, rather than through just focusing on the symptoms. Our new life chances measures will drive real action on work and education which will make the biggest difference to disadvantaged children now and in the future. That is crucial. The point was raised that too often, all Governments in the past have looked at short-term solutions, and the reality is that to break the cycle, there have to be long-term, sustainable solutions. We are taking action and looking at family breakdown, problem debt, addiction and ways to transform lives to ensure that all children get the best start in life, regardless of the circumstances that they find themselves in.

On work and poverty, the Government believe that work is the best route out of poverty. Children in workless families are around three times as likely to be in poverty as those in which at least one parent works. The “Child poverty transitions” report published in June found that nearly three quarters of poor workless families who found full-time employment escaped poverty. The report also found that the highest poverty exit rate—75%—was for children living in families who went from part-time to full-time employment. By 2010, after over a decade of welfare spending increases, one in five households had nobody in work. Frankly, that was shameful.

[Chris Evans]

Last July, I had a Westminster Hall debate in which I talked about what I felt was the ineffectiveness of Jobcentre Plus. Will the Minister accept that there is a serious problem with Jobcentre Plus actually getting long-term unemployed people back into work? What usually happens is that people find jobs through it, and within eight months, they are back on welfare benefits and out of work. What does the Minister believe is the cure for that problem?

[Justin Tomlinson]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. That is a fair point. At the moment, we are seeing about 1% a month coming off the ESA benefit. It is a poor success rate and we would expect far better. In his speech, the hon. Gentleman was bang on, in that we need to have localised individual responses. We need better support and to have more businesses signing up to provide those opportunities. We are looking to reform that and are in consultation. I spent much of the summer with my Minister for Disabled People hat on, doing visits and looking at the best ways that that can be done in the changes. Given the record of 1% a month coming off that benefit, and with people often then slipping back in, it is incredibly important to address that looping effect.

The wider issue is a tragedy for each and every family, because families in which no one works lose their sense of self-worth.

[Drew Hendry]

From the Minister’s words, I am sure that he, personally, very much wants to see a long-term solution to the problem, but he mentioned a long-term ambition. Does he not accept that by not having a short and medium-term option for people in work at the moment, they will be punished and pushed further into poverty by the removal of those working tax credits, particularly in constituencies such as mine, where there is relatively low unemployment but very low wages?

[Justin Tomlinson]

I will address that later, so please be patient for a little bit longer.

Children grow up without the aspiration to achieve. They become almost certain to repeat the difficult lives of their parents, following a path from dependency to despondency, rather than to independence. At the beginning of my remarks, I talked about my background. That is what drove me into politics. We all have our calling, our passions and our priorities. That very much was what drove me into politics. As I said, I think we all share the same end goal; there is just disagreement on how we would look to achieve it.

On our record on worklessness and poverty, I highlight that many hon. Members have referred to the IFS statistics throughout the debate. I sound a strong note of caution on that. The statistics have been wrong every single year since 2011, and in the summer, they were half a million out, so I attach a big note of caution to the predictions and doom-mongering.

[Kate Green]

The Minister will know that one of the reasons why there may have been a discrepancy between the IFS prediction and the out-turn is to do with the use of survey data and different datasets. Does he agree that there is no doubt at all that the accumulation of measures announced in the summer Budget will increase child poverty, perhaps by many hundreds of thousands of pounds? They cannot fail to, because they will make working families worse off.

[Justin Tomlinson]

I thank the shadow Minister, but I am afraid we disagree on that, and I am setting out why I think that is not going to be the case.

Despite a huge increase in spending, by 2010, the number of households where no member ever worked nearly doubled, in-work poverty rose and the Labour Government missed their own 2010 child poverty target by 600,000 children. Compare that with our record. During the previous Parliament, we turned around Labour’s legacy of worklessness. There are now 2 million more people in work. To put that in context, it is more than the figure for the whole of Europe put together. We have the fastest growing major economy.

[Jim Shannon]

I have to follow on from what the shadow Minister said. The changes in tax credits will, according to Barnardo’s and other charities, push another 180,000 children into poverty in Northern Ireland alone. Those facts are coming from charities as well.

[Justin Tomlinson]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but again I plead with hon. Members to be patient; I am coming to those points.

There are now 800,000 fewer people in relative poverty, including 300,000 children. Compared with the second quarter of 2014, there are 50,000 fewer households where no one has ever worked. And importantly, the number of children living in workless households has fallen by 390,000 since 2010 and is now at a record low.

On the specific point about in-work poverty—that theme was followed in the majority of speeches and is important—the figure for relative low income in work is now 200,000 lower than the peak in 2008-09. However, we all recognise that more needs to be done. Wages are rising faster than inflation. That is on the back of having a strong economy. Everything that we do must be underlined by a strong economy. We talk about austerity, but without taking the difficult decisions, we would not now have a strong economy. We have only to look at our neighbours in Europe to see the consequences of not having a strong economy.

We have increased income tax thresholds year on year. We have now taken the lowest 3.8 million earners out of paying any income tax at all. We have set a commitment to raise the allowance to £12,500, and once we reach that point, we will link that to wages going forward, so the lowest earners will never be dragged back into paying income tax. We have set out our ambitious plans for the national living wage. That will make a huge difference. People are forgetting that the impact will not be just on those who get an immediate pay rise, which I think is about 2.6 million people. There will be a ripple effect that could impact on more than 6 million, according to some predictions. Also, the introduction of universal credit will remove the barriers preventing people from increasing their hours. As I mentioned, the biggest improvement is for those people who go from part time to full time. The benefits system was putting in artificial barriers, preventing people from increasing their hours. Universal credit will give people the flexibility steadily to increase their hours where they wish to do so.

We want to build on that progress, which is why we are bringing forward our new life chance measures. The Welfare Reform and Work Bill introduces a new duty to report annually on worklessness and educational attainment in England. We have chosen those measures because the evidence tells us that those factors have the biggest impact on child poverty and children’s life chances, and that is what matters. We want legislation to drive action that makes the biggest difference in the lives of our children. The worklessness measures will identify the proportion of children living in workless households and of children in long-term workless households. The educational attainment measures will focus on GCSE attainment for all pupils and for disadvantaged pupils. We will develop a range of other measures and indicators of root causes of child poverty, including family breakdown, problem debt and addiction, and set those out in our life chances strategy. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made clear, we will continue to publish low-income statistics annually, as part of the “Households Below Average Income” publication.

We should be focused on those pathways to poverty, not moving people around an arbitrary income line. As the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field) put it,

“raising everybody above a set percentage of median income is rather like asking a cat to catch its own tail.”

Focusing on work and education will drive real action, which will make the biggest difference to children’s lives now and in the future.

Education is key to transforming children’s futures. Good English and maths skills are key to improving children’s future life chances. Nearly two thirds of men and three quarters of women with low literacy never receive promotion and are locked into their starting income.

[Neil Gray]

I would appreciate it if the Minister could advise how children attending school hungry are expected to achieve good educational standards.

[Justin Tomlinson]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that point. Again, I will cover it as I progress.

Part of our commitment to social justice is the determination to ensure that every child is given an education that allows them to realise their potential. That is why we are raising standards with a vigorous new curriculum, world-class exams and a new accountability system that rewards those schools that help every child to achieve their best. Crucially, we introduced the pupil premium in the previous Parliament—it is worth £2.5 billion in 2015-16—to improve the life chances of disadvantaged pupils, and we have invested £50 million in the early years pupil premium to support disadvantaged three and four-year-olds.

Let me address issues such as children coming to school hungry when their parents have not been able to provide food—are not in a position to do so. I look at a lot of innovative schools that have provided food across the board. The school that was initially the worst-rated school in my constituency is now the highest rated. It used the pupil premium innovatively to provide food across the board, for all pupils. It recognised that that was a particular challenge and that if it did not solve that problem, what hope was there that pupils could concentrate and progress in the work environment?

[Neil Gray]

Will the Minister give way again?

[Justin Tomlinson]

This will have to be the last intervention because we are getting tight on time.

[Neil Gray]

Are we not taking this in a back-to-front way? Why should the schools be expected to provide that food when the parents themselves are unable to do so? Surely we need to address the income levels of the parents to ensure that they can provide for their children.

[Justin Tomlinson]

That is where we agree. We disagree just on how to get to that point. Government Members believe that work and educational attainment are the best way to provide the opportunity to break that cycle.

There are the wider education reforms, about which I have been very passionate. In the previous Parliament, we saw 2 million new apprenticeships. That figure is rising to 3 million new apprenticeships. We have had the introduction of university technical colleges, giving young people the real, workplace-based skills that will provide the best opportunity to get into work. We have also had the introduction of the national citizen scheme. I have seen year after year the increasing number of young people who are being transformed and who are then in a strong position to step into good careers.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) talked about sport. I have long said that our schools, between 4 and 6 o’clock, should be opening up to provide free use of their facilities to community groups to provide sporting opportunities. Sport helped me not to follow the path of two of my colleagues at school, who went to serve at Her Majesty’s pleasure, although when I told my school that I had got elected to Parliament, the head did say that he was not sure which was worse!

I will turn to Scotland, because I recognise that most of today’s speakers were from Scotland. The Scottish Government have the power to address child poverty through action in areas such as health, education, housing, employability and childcare. Following our proposals in the Welfare Reform and Work Bill, they also have the freedom to choose what approach to take and how to act on, measure and report on life chances and child poverty, in line with the substantial areas of policy devolved to them. The UK Government are already giving Scotland through the Scotland Bill significant new taxation and welfare powers, including £2.5 billion-worth of new welfare powers and responsibility for raising more than 50% of what it spends. We will work closely with the devolved Administrations as the Welfare Reform and Work Bill proceeds and are open to reflecting their preferences regarding their jurisdictions in the legislation. We will take a keen interest in how that develops. In England, local authorities are being encouraged to come to the Government with their own innovative proposals, and we will always consider opportunities for further devolution.

In conclusion, our approach will ensure that tackling the root causes of child poverty and improving future life chances become central parts of our business as a one-nation Government. We will focus on transforming children’s lives by extending opportunity for all, so that both they and their children in turn can escape from the cycle of poverty and improve their life chances. Our new approach will drive real action, which will make the biggest difference to children now and in the future.

15:58

[Kirsten Oswald]

I thank you, Mr Howarth, the Minister and all those who have made such valuable contributions. We have been discussing a very important subject and have heard many mind-boggling statistics, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Lanark and Hamilton East (Angela Crawley) said, this is not about statistics; it is about children. On that basis, I must ask the Government to consider their approach to child poverty, to think very carefully about all the important things that have been said today and to think again about how they take this forward.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered child poverty.

Shoreham Air Show Crash

Tuesday 15th September 2015 Westminster Hall

[Mr Graham Brady in the Chair]

15:59

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

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the Shoreham air show crash and its implications.

On 22 August, a vintage Hawker Hunter jet plane crashed at the Shoreham air show in my constituency. Eleven men tragically lost their lives, and many stories of the personal tragedies that accompanied that loss touched a chord across the nation. It represented the largest civilian loss of life in the United Kingdom since 7/7, and the first fatalities on the ground at any UK air show since 1952.

Those statistics will give little comfort to the victims’ families, and I am sure that I echo the feelings of the whole House when I say that our thoughts and prayers go out to them, and that the first priority remains to give them the support that they will need in these difficult times. Neither should we forget the pilot, who continues to recover from his horrific injuries. I am grateful to hon. Members who have passed on their good wishes and condolences to the families through me.

I am delighted to see the Minister here today to respond to this debate, which is born out of such tragedy. The accident is, quite properly, the subject of investigation by the air accidents investigation branch, and it is certainly not my intention to pre-empt the findings of those investigations. My constituents and others have been at pains not to rush to judgment about exactly what went wrong, or the implications for Shoreham air show—and, indeed, all the other air shows that draw large crowds across the country—until we know the facts of the case. There are some 300 civil flying displays in the country every year, which attract in excess of 2 million spectators. That does not include military displays. The results of the investigation will affect an awful lot of events and displays around the country.

I want to pay tribute to the emergency services, particularly to the first responders who had to deal with the most harrowing scenes, and to those involved in the investigation and clean-up operation in the aftermath of the accident. I want to highlight the fantastic way in which the local community rallied around in light of the tragedy. I want to touch on the implications for dealing with such major incidents in the future, and I want to raise various safety questions that will need to be answered in the fullness of time.

It is worth pointing out that this was an accident—a fortunately rare, but most tragic, accident. The Shoreham air show has been run by the Royal Air Forces Association for the past 26 years, raising more than £2 million for its excellent charity. It is appropriate to mention that today as we celebrate the 75th anniversary of the battle of Britain, where many of the planes that we see and their forebears played a vital role. Today, if the weather has improved, some 40 Spitfires and Hurricanes will be flying over the south of England to mark that anniversary, based at the Goodwood aerodrome near my constituency.

The Shoreham air show has been run for 26 years with an excellent record, and the honorary organiser, Derek Harber from RAFA, has put a huge amount of effort and dedication into the show with his team. I know from meeting RAFA representatives that the safety of the performers, the safety of the spectators and the safety of the local community are always paramount considerations when organising the show, as I am sure they are for all other similar events. The air show is part of the local scene and part of the Shoreham calendar. This year, when the tragic accident happened, more than 20,000 people had come to see the displays. There were 50 planes, including the Vulcan in its farewell and the RAF Falcons parachute display team. The air show has won awards for the best family event in Sussex and the best family air show in the United Kingdom. People come for a fun, thrilling day out. It is also worth pointing out that the air show is held at Britain’s oldest commercial airport in Shoreham, which has had planes flying into and out of it since 1911. A lot of thought and planning goes into the event.

[Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, and I am sorry that I missed his initial observations. He referred to the importance of flying displays, the tradition at Shoreham and the fact that flying displays are hugely popular across the country. They are the second most popular outdoor spectator activity. In my capacity as the president of the British Air Display Association, I can assure him that every air show is policed by a flying control committee and a display director. A huge amount of effort goes into ensuring that such displays are very carefully managed for the protection and enjoyment of the public.

[Tim Loughton]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. I am grateful to him for the helpful advice that he gave me in the aftermath of the accident, as somebody who knows great deal more about such matters than I do. Air shows are important events, and safety is paramount. The people who oversaw the Shoreham air show were of the highest calibre, integrity and experience. This is not some amateur operation; it is run in a hugely professional way, and quite rightly so. It was a tragic and, as I say, fortunately rare accident, but clearly changes will need to be made to the way in which this and other air shows are run in the future if they are to continue.

The Civil Aviation Authority was right swiftly to take a precautionary approach and to suspend performances by vintage jets until we know more from the investigations. That has affected many air shows already, and it is important to establish exactly what is likely to happen, with some timescales, as soon as possible, because organisers want to start the preparations for next year’s air shows. It is very important for a whole host of reasons that we find out what went wrong and what needs to be changed in the future.

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

My hon. Friend said that displays by vintage jets have been suspended. In fact, it is the high-energy manoeuvres that have been suspended, not the aircraft. The Vulcan continues to perform until 18 October.

[Tim Loughton]

My hon. Friend expertly corrects me with that detail, for which I am grateful.

If a crumb of comfort has come out of this horrible tragedy, it is the absolutely incredible performance by the emergency services and the first responders. Police officers from the whole of Sussex and firefighters from West Sussex, east Sussex, Hampshire and further afield helped out on the day and in the immediate aftermath. The south-east coast ambulance service was on the scene very swiftly, and Worthing hospital took on casualties. Organisations such as the Red Cross, and many volunteers, performed incredibly.

The scene was one of devastation: there were badly damaged bodies and incinerated cars. Fortunately, the impact zone was relatively well contained. I drove along the A27 one minute before the accident, and I was completely oblivious to what had happened behind me until I got home and saw the news. When I drove by, there were 60 or 70 spectators on the verge of the A27, watching the air show from outside the confines of the airport, and traffic was tailing back about 200 yards along the road waiting to get into the air show. Fortunately, I gather, the traffic lights had just cleared green, otherwise there could have been three lanes of stationary traffic at the plane’s point of impact. There were assorted stewards and other volunteers in the area.

Given all that, it is amazing that only 11 people lost their lives. It could have been much, much worse. Just a few hundred yards away there was a big factory, Ricardo, and there were 20,000 spectators enjoying the air display. I am sure that the reactions of the first responders went a long way to avoiding further suffering and injury. The way in which they contained the situation and dealt with 20,000 people in a confined space was absolutely extraordinary. We cannot underestimate the contribution that the emergency services made.

I visited the scene on the following Monday in the aftermath of the crash with the chief constable and police commissioner, and I saw the painstaking work of the investigators. They made the whole area into a grid and carried out a fingertip search for any evidence—and of course, I fear, the remains of the victims—which is why it took some time to establish that the total number of victims was 11. The plane was lifted on the day I visited, and fortunately there were no further casualties underneath it. More than 200 professionals were on site, in appalling weather conditions. The coroner’s office and all her professionals did an outstanding job. It is difficult to fault what went on. A 3D film of the site was taken so that the investigators have a full record of what they have to look at.

The operation was really impressive. All the agencies worked together seamlessly and professionally. Adur District Council and West Sussex County Council both did their bit. All the agencies had prepared, which is important. This was not just a knee-jerk reaction to a disaster; it was a second-worst-case scenario for which the police, ambulances and firefighters had planned. Their plan went into operation, and it worked.

I have met police officers, fire officers and others who dropped everything—some came back from holiday, and others returned to duty—to appear at their desks and do their job without complaint. That is real professionalism. I saw the family support officers working sensitively with the families, many of whom were waiting for news because it took many days before they knew whether their loved ones were among the victims. I saw the Red Cross canteen, with free food donated by Tesco to provide sustenance to all the professionals on the site.

Brighton and Hove Albion football club lent its training centre just down the road, which became the police control centre that fed and watered all the officers. Lancing College provided accommodation and catering just next door. Marks & Spencer sent a consignment of fresh socks down to the site because all the police were getting terribly wet feet in the appalling conditions. Local people baked 500 cakes, which were delivered to the civic centre, many with messages and well wishes to be passed on to police officers, firefighters and others working at the site.

I am proud of that effort, which shows the importance of training and preparation. I hope the Minister will acknowledge that importance. Such training and preparation may be below the radar, and it may be unseen, but it is so important in such rare cases where it needs to kick into action. I hope we will preserve the importance and funding for such preparation.

I am also really proud of my community. There were numerous one-minute silences and one-minute applauses across the area. The old toll bridge just down from the accident site became a focus of everyone’s grief—it became the bridge of flowers, and the air was heavy with the scent. A constant queue of people have brought flowers, tributes, poems and football shirts, which continues today. I noticed a half-bottle of pink champagne, which is of significance to one of the victims. Tributes were paid at the Brighton and Hove football match I attended last Saturday and at Worthing United football club, for which two of the victims used to play. More than 7,000 people came along to the bridge in Shoreham to light candles, with people queuing in the rain for more than an hour.

The local road network was in complete chaos for several weeks after the crash and, indeed, is not back to normal, but the Highways Agency reported that it received the grand sum of eight complaints in the first week, such was the patience of local people who realised the magnitude of what happened. So far, more than £50,000 has been raised by the Sussex Community Foundation appeal. I am helping to organise a memorial service at Lancing College chapel in a few weeks’ time. People and the families can come along to pay their respects and show their appreciation for the efforts of the emergency services.

The first question asked by everyone in Lancing, Shoreham and the wider area was, “What more can we do?” If there is such a thing as a textbook response to such an enormous tragedy, this was it: by our emergency services and the importance of emergency planning, and by the way the local community rallied round, which showed how we all care. I am proud to be their MP.

There had previously been a crash at the Shoreham air show in 2007. Alas, a pilot lost his life, but there were no other casualties, when a Hawker Hurricane ploughed into the downs. Changes were made to the timing of the air show and the flightpath into the air show following that crash, but there are still questions. Should such high-powered jet planes be flying further away from the crowd? The trouble with the air show is that the spectators are not only at the airfield site; they are on the roads and in pubs and houses on the downs for far around to get a good vantage point. Many of the victims, of course, were not actually at, or intending to go to, the air show; they were travelling past on the A27.

With such demanding manoeuvres, are we expecting too much of very old aircraft? This plane was built in 1951, although it had been well maintained, and the pilots who flew it, including the one flying on the day, were highly skilled and highly experienced. I said at the beginning that it is important not to rush to judgment until we have all the facts, but can we make these events safer without losing their appeal? Can we find a practical solution? What is the next step? What is the timetable? I would be grateful if the Minister could comment on that. What lessons can we learn from the emergency services’ operation, and how could those lessons apply to other serious incidents that we need to prepare for across the country? It is important that we do not cut back on training and emergency planning, however invisible it might be most of the year.

I pay tribute to the families of the victims who lost their lives. We must continue to look after them. If there is one crumb of comfort from all this, it is the fantastic performance of our emergency services, who did an amazing job. It is a very demanding job that we would not do ourselves, and they performed it hugely professionally. The community rallied round and appreciates their work. It is a horrible tragedy, but we owe it to the families to get to the bottom of exactly what happened, and we must make sure that we go the nth mile to make things as safe as possible so that we do not have a repeat of the horrible event on the day of 22 August in Shoreham.

16:15

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Claire Perry)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) for his deeply moving and very thoughtful speech, and I congratulate him on securing this debate. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth) for contributing his knowledge of this subject, which is clearly profound.

On Saturday 22 August, 11 people were killed when a Hawker Hunter aircraft taking part in the Shoreham air show crashed into the A27. Those people were going about their daily business: one was working as a chauffeur on his way to pick up a bride on her wedding day; another was taking photographs of the air show from the verge; and others were travelling entirely separately from the air show to have fun, to see friends and to play sport. Tragically, none of those people completed their journey. As my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham has said, this awful accident resulted in the first loss of life on the ground at an air show since 1952 and the largest single loss of civilian life since the incidents of 7/7. It is a true tragedy.

This debate allows me to put on record my condolences, and indeed the condolences of the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Transport, to all those affected, especially the families who have lost loved ones. I also offer my profound thanks to the emergency services, which, as we have heard so eloquently described, responded with professionalism and effectiveness in the face of what must have been a harrowing task—the first responders, the police officers and the fire service personnel. We have heard how those people were supported by members of the local community, both on that tragic day and since. I have asked the question and am pleased to know that counselling and support is available for members of the emergency services who need it. Emergency service personnel and West Sussex County Council are working to provide post-traumatic counselling for those affected by the crash.

I express my admiration for my hon. Friend, who worked tirelessly on what must have been an extremely difficult day, and over the difficult weeks since, to help the local community come together, to further the investigation and to ask tough questions to ensure that this does not happen again. I understand that he is involved in discussions with the community about an appropriate service of memorial. This is a deeply personal and local matter, but the Government stand by willing to help and support in any way we can.

It might be helpful if I set out exactly what is happening with the investigation timetable, and hopefully I will answer my hon. Friend’s questions during that process. As he knows, the air accidents investigation branch is in the careful and forensic process of investigating the causes of this accident, and it is working to ensure that such an accident cannot happen again. There has been a preliminary report on the circumstances of the crash, and he will have seen some of that information. The weather was good and the aircraft met its pre-flight checks. The aircraft was conducting a high-energy manoeuvre with both a vertical and a rolling component and, following the subsequent descent, it did not achieve level flight before striking the westbound carriageway of the A27, with tragic consequences. It was truly chilling to hear how it could have been so much worse if the timings had been different by even a split second.

I cannot speculate on the causes of the crash beyond what was stated in the preliminary report, and I do not want to pre-judge the outcome of the AAIB’s investigation, but I reassure hon. Members that action is already being taken to ensure that we learn from this tragedy and prevent it from being repeated. Three things are happening.

First, the Civil Aviation Authority, which is responsible for regulating the safety of air displays, has acted promptly. It grounded all Hawker Hunter aircraft immediately and indefinitely on Saturday 22 August and has limited flying displays over land by vintage jet aircraft to fly-pasts. High-energy aerobatics, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot said, have been banned.

Secondly, following the accident, the CAA is conducting additional risk assessments of all future air displays and has already introduced additional precautionary measures at some locations, resulting in changes to the displays flown. Given that this weekend is the 70th anniversary of the battle of Britain, a number of shows are being planned. Duxford air base, which many hon. Members will know, has already made changes to its display to offer more protection for the surrounding infrastructure and area.

I am sure that my hon. Friend will join me in welcoming such a thorough and comprehensive immediate response to the incident. It is clearly appropriate. As he said, it is not the time for knee-jerk reactions. As he also said, air shows are a proud tradition in the UK, with many local events providing a centre point for the community. What made the Shoreham accident all the more tragic and poignant is that so many local families were involved, attending what had become a much-loved local event. It illustrates the need to ensure that we mitigate any future safety risks proportionately. We do not want to be heavy-handed, potentially ending the much-loved tradition of local air shows, which support local economies and charities, and more significant national displays that support our proud national aviation industry.

As my hon. Friend knows, to ensure the most appropriate long-term safety solution, the CAA has commenced a full review of civil air display safety standards. Although this is not an exhaustive list, it will consider: the range of permitted manoeuvres for aircraft, particularly high-performance or vintage jet aircraft; the content of the air display; the location and characteristics of the air display venue, taking particular account of the surrounding land and infrastructure. The review will conclude by the beginning of next year, but an interim report will be produced next month. The CAA has appointed an external challenge panel to test the report’s findings. The panel will be led by Geoffrey Podger, a gentleman with extensive experience of internal and external communication and risk-based regulation policy and enforcement.

The CAA has also committed to acting immediately as necessary on any new information that emerges from the current AAIB investigation. The safety of the public is of paramount concern, and of course the Government support the independent investigation and review in order to ensure that they happen in an appropriate and timely manner. On conclusion of the processes, we will give further consideration to any additional legislation that may be required to ensure that safety is maintained.

In my view, the CAA’s response to this terrible tragedy is sensible and proportionate. My hon. Friend asked me to put on record the result of careful contingency planning for emergencies, and I am happy to acknowledge its importance and the need for continued training in emergency preparedness. I am happy to provide him with that reassurance.

Of course, none of this can bring back the people who so tragically lost their lives. Again, I put on record my condolences and those of the whole Government to the families of the victims and those who had to deal as part of their professional or voluntary jobs with the horrific consequences of the incident. It has been a truly testing time for the local community, and it was heart-warming to hear from my hon. Friend how the communities pulled together with clean socks, cups of tea, cakes and flowers, and have come together to acknowledge the scale of the tragedy and memorialise the work and lives of those who so tragically lost their lives.

[Tim Loughton]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her comments. She has made a point that I neglected to make and want to reinforce about the importance of providing support for the emergency services. Those first responders and those involved in the clean-up operation afterwards saw some extraordinarily harrowing scenes. Many of them suffered as a result, and they may not realise it until some time later. Does she agree that while it is obviously important to provide support to the families of the victims, we should not neglect to ensure that full psychological and other services are available for those on whom we depend to be professional, who are human just like us?

[Claire Perry]

My hon. Friend makes that point well. We are asking people, in the course of their daily work and lives, things that are beyond the imagination of anyone in this room. I was delighted to ask specifically that facilities were in place to ensure that members of the emergency services receive all the counselling and support necessary.

It is a tribute to my hon. Friend’s energy and commitment that he has secured this debate. It was a tragedy of immense proportions. The immediate response has been proportionate and sensible, and a forensic review is going on to determine what more is required to ensure that we have safe air shows in future. I thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate.

Tamils Rights: Sri Lanka

Tuesday 15th September 2015 Westminster Hall

[Mr Graham Brady in the Chair]

16:30

[James Berry (Kingston and Surbiton) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Tamil people’s rights in Sri Lanka.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Brady. I am particularly grateful that we have the opportunity to debate human rights in Sri Lanka in the same week that the UN Human Rights Council begins considering the same subject in its 30th session in Geneva. In the closing stages of the Sri Lankan civil war, 400,000 Tamil civilians were on the run as Government forces advanced and overrun the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam: the LTTE, or Tamil Tiger forces.

On 21 January 2009, the Sri Lankan Government announced the creation of a so-called no-fire zone: an area of 35 square kilometres where the fleeing civilians could take refuge. Many civilians fled to the no-fire zone expecting safety. Instead, that no-fire zone was heavily and systematically shelled by the Government. It is beyond sensible dispute that thousands of civilians were killed in that no-fire zone.

The UN was also operating in the no-fire zone. UN field workers ran a food distribution hub there. When an area nearby came under shelling from heavy ordnance, the UN field workers provided their GPS co-ordinates to the Government to ensure that ordnance was redirected. Three to four hours later, they came under a barrage of heavy mortar attack at those co-ordinates. There is clear evidence for this. The evidence is not from the Tamil Tigers, nor even from Tamil civilians, but from United Nations field workers. They themselves were there in the no-fire zone.

By early February 2009, the Government had overrun the first no-fire zone and created a second one on a beach in the east of the island. This no-fire zone was also heavily and systematically shelled by Government forces. In the second no-fire zone, which contained hundreds of thousands of Tamil civilians living in makeshift tents, there were just six doctors. Those doctors were working in the most horrific, dangerous and squalid conditions, yet they were denied basic supplies such as antibiotics and blood by the Government. It is estimated that the locations in which the doctors operated from, which included an abandoned school, were shelled some 65 times. Indeed, the attacks were so consistent that the doctors asked the International Committee of the Red Cross not to provide their GPS co-ordinates to the Government: something that is standard practice to avoid medical facilities being bombed in times of war. I have heard direct evidence about this from one of the doctors who was working bravely in that makeshift medical centre.

I should add that the Sri Lankan Government forces by no means had the monopoly on human rights abuses at the end of the war in Sri Lanka. Tamil civilians were also subjected to a variety of horrors at the hands of the LTTE, including being used as human shields. However, it is important that the two are not conflated. The all-party group for Tamils, which I chair and of which various Members from different parties are here today, is concerned with Tamil civilians in Sri Lanka and in the non-resident community, which includes many of our constituents, many of whom suffered terribly. We have no truck with the LTTE, which is a terrorist organisation that I condemn absolutely. Equally, we have no truck with those who label the people who stand up for Tamil rights in Sri Lanka as LTTE sympathisers.

With that caveat, I should add that there is compelling evidence that the laws of war and international human rights laws were breached with respect to LTTE—or suspected LTTE—captives after their surrender. There is evidence that LTTE members holding white flags of surrender were none the less shot by Government forces. There is clear evidence that female Tamil captives were sexually abused before being shot, and there is clear evidence in the form of sickening video footage of Government soldiers shooting Tamils—presumably LTTE fighters—in the head while they were on their knees, blindfolded, with their hands tied behind their backs. The comparison with the gruesome footage of executions released by the barbaric Daesh in Syria is obvious.

The UN has estimated that in the closing stages of the civil war between January and May 2009, some 40,000 civilians died. Most of those were Tamil. Although that period was not the beginning nor the end of the human rights abuses suffered by people from all sides of the conflict in Sri Lanka, it is justice for the human rights abuses in that period that we are primarily concerned with today.

In response to the Sri Lankan Government’s abject failure to secure accountability for the deaths, on 22 June 2010, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon appointed a UN panel of experts to consider alleged violations of international humanitarian and human rights law during the final stages of the armed conflict in Sri Lanka. The panel reported on 31 March 2011. In its excoriating report, which I will quote from briefly, it lay blame on both sides. Its executive summary stated:

“The Panel’s determination of credible allegations reveals a very different version of the final stages of the war than that maintained to this day by the Government...The Government says it pursued a ‘humanitarian rescue operation’ with...‘zero civilian casualties.’ In stark contrast, the Panel found credible allegations, which if proven, indicate that a wide range of serious violations of international humanitarian law and international human rights law was committed both by the Government of Sri Lanka and the LTTE, some of which would amount to war crimes and crimes against humanity. Indeed, the conduct of the war represented a grave assault on the entire regime of international law designed to protect individual dignity during both war and peace."

Instead of engaging with the UN report in a meaningful or sensible way, the Sri Lankan Government arrogantly rejected it, describing it as “fundamentally flawed” and “patently biased”. Sri Lanka did nothing to address the alleged human rights abuses at the end of the war. Not a single prosecution was instigated. It is reasonable to surmise that the Sri Lankan Government hoped that the international community would turn the other way.

But the United Kingdom did not look the other way. In November 2013, the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting convened in Sri Lanka. Some of the heads of state who were invited, such as Canada’s Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, chose to boycott the meeting in protest at the Sri Lankan Government’s record on human rights. Our Prime Minister, who was urged not to attend, did attend to encourage progress on human rights. Away from the Government’s stage-managed photo opportunities, our Prime Minister bravely used the opportunity to visit the north and to hear at first hand the harrowing accounts from Tamil civilians.

Plainly moved by those accounts, and Sri Lanka’s ongoing and abject failure to investigate human rights abuses, the Prime Minister used the March 2014 session of the UN Human Rights Council to call for a full and independent investigation into human rights abuses in Sri Lanka. I am proud that Britain led the calls for an independent investigation. I am proud that David Cameron and his allies at the UNHRC delivered a resolution requiring an independent investigation. It should not be forgotten that this was not an easy sell on the council. In fact, of the 47 members, only 23 countries voted positively for the resolution; 12 abstained and 12 voted against.

Welcoming the resolution, our Prime Minister said:

“This is a victory for the people of Sri Lanka who need to know the truth about what happened during those terrible years of the civil war so that they can move forward. Today’s outcome has been triggered by the failure of the Sri Lankan government to stand by its promises to credibly and independently investigate alleged violations on both sides during the war."

On Monday, the UNHRC met for its 30th session in Geneva. At the end of the session on 30 September, the council will consider the UN’s report, which is expected to be published tomorrow, and what the next steps should be with respect to Sri Lanka. I believe my right hon. Friend the Minister returned from Geneva yesterday. In this debate, I would like to ask the Government to consider two things: first, the grave doubts of many Tamil people about the fairness of any domestic justice mechanism, and secondly, whether the UN Human Rights Council can be used as an opportunity for pressure to be put on the Sri Lankan Government to take action in a wider respect in the north and the east.

As for the accountability mechanism, the Sri Lankan Government have in the past and continue to this day to reject absolutely an international mechanism for determining human rights abuses of the form that we saw in Yugoslavia, Rwanda and Cambodia post-conflict. When there are serious allegations on both sides of a conflict of an international human rights nature, the Government’s reasons for rejecting an international mechanism should be scrutinised most closely.

To be clear, many Tamils reject a domestic mechanism. That is the point of view of the Tamil National Alliance, which has just won 16 parliamentary seats in the August elections; it is the view of the Chief Minister of the Northern Province, which is predominantly Tamil; and it is the view of the British Tamils Forum and of the Global Tamil Forum, which the BTF is part of. Put simply, they do not see any difference between the conditions in 2014, which led to the UNHRC’s resolution for an international investigation over a domestic one, and those that exist today.

There are three principal objections to a domestic tribunal. First, how can the victims of alleged horrendous human rights abuses have any confidence in the fairness or the impartiality of a tribunal convened by a Government comprised of a number of the people accused of those very abuses?

The easy answer to that question would be that in January 2015 a new President— President Sirisena—was elected, which heralds a new era. But as human rights groups have pointed out, President Sirisena is the same man who was the acting Defence Minister in the final days of the civil war, when most civilian casualties occurred. And many people in top-ranking Government, military and other state positions remain the same. General Fonseka, the Commander of Armed Forces at the end of the civil war, was recently promoted to the rank of field marshal. Major General Jagath Dias, commander of the 57th division, whose units stand accused of committing some of the worst human rights abuses at the end of the civil war, was promoted to Army Chief of Staff just this May.

[Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this most timely and extremely relevant debate. Bearing in mind the rather unfortunate history of other countries intervening in Sri Lanka, be they Scandinavian countries or India, who does he suggest should be the agency behind the independent commission to examine what is undoubtedly a series of incidents that could be described by any impartial person as war crimes?

[James Berry]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. The form of the mechanism will obviously be debated at the UNHRC and in my view it will be led by the United Nations, and will be under their guidance.

[Stephen Pound]

Under the United Nations?

[James Berry]

Yes.

For the reasons I just mentioned, it is small wonder that many Tamil people have little faith in the Government to convene a fair and impartial justice mechanism.

The second objection to a domestic inquiry is that Sri Lanka is not a signatory to the Rome statute; its domestic laws do not cover a number of the international laws that were breached by both sides, credible evidence of which is found in the 2011 UN report. So, as a bare minimum for a domestic mechanism, Sri Lanka’s domestic laws must cover each and every law that was breached; again, the UN has found credible evidence for those breaches in its new report, which is due to be issued tomorrow.

The third objection to a domestic inquiry is the lack of confidence of witnesses to come forward. A number of the witnesses who the UN spoke to, both when it prepared its new report and when it prepared its report in 2011, only spoke to it on condition of strict anonymity. Many Tamil victims of and witnesses to human rights abuses have fled the country and been granted asylum in countries such as the UK and Canada because of the fate they suffered in Sri Lanka. They would fear returning to Sri Lanka to participate in a tribunal where the prosecutors and indeed the witness protection, if there was any, were to be provided by the Sri Lankan Government.

Moreover, international human rights groups and charities have recently published reports detailing worrying ongoing human rights abuses in Sri Lanka. A number of these groups and charities exist in the UK. Freedom from Torture, a British charity, produced a report in August that cited evidence of human rights abuses since the ceasefire. So, between May 2009 and this year, there is evidence that the Sri Lankan military, police and intelligence services have practised torture, including rape and extensive burning. So, what confidence can witnesses have in coming forward in a perceived climate of fear, especially when it is believed that witnesses who have come forward previously have suffered as a result?

I recognise that there appears to be little appetite among the UNHRC members at its current summit for a fully independent justice mechanism. That is obviously disappointing, but perhaps it is unsurprising given how tight the vote was back in 2014 for an independent investigation. If it really is the case that there is no international appetite for an independent inquiry, it is probably right that there is little to be gained by Britain going out on a limb. Nevertheless, I ask the Minister to do what he can to ensure that the justice mechanism is a robust one, preferably with UN involvement both in the prosecution and the judicial tribunal.

[Mr Ranil Jayawardena (North East Hampshire) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that Britain can add a lot of value to this process, even if it is at arm’s length, because of our experience in Northern Ireland, which is a similar conflict between two sides that hold different views but whose views must be equally and fairly taken on board in any resolution ahead? Such a process should come from within a political process, as has been the case in the past in Northern Ireland and as seems to be happening in Sri Lanka, in terms of a unity Government.

[James Berry]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. During a number of years, there have been repeated failures by the Sri Lankan Government to put in place a credible process. That is why it is important that, whatever comes out of the current UNHRC session, robust procedures are put in place, so that whatever system is arrived at, the UN strictly monitors it and can return to the UNHRC if the stages, expectations and benchmarks are not met. Simply leaving matters to the Sri Lankan Government after this long history of, frankly, their taking no action whatsoever is not an acceptable way forward.

[Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)]

I commend my hon. Friend on securing this very important and timely debate. I share his support for an international process, but does he share my view that, in addition to what the Government can do, we in the British Parliament have a role to play by working with our Sri Lankan counterparts from all political parties, to ensure that they themselves can play an active part in any reconciliation process? Also, will he join me in commending the work of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and of the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, which are trying to establish active schemes in Sri Lanka at this time?

[James Berry]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention and I certainly commend the work that has been done by British parliamentarians to help to support parliamentarians in Sri Lanka; long may that work continue.

Sri Lanka’s track record on accountability is summed up by the fact that not a single prosecution has yet taken place, which I consider an absolute disgrace. Given that, it is my firm submission that whatever mechanism is put in place, it should be very much under the supervision of the UN, so that if the safeguards that the UN puts in place are not met, the matter will come back before the UNHRC.

I turn to the wider issues in the north and east of Sri Lanka. Even if there is not to be an international judicial mechanism, there is much else that Britain can achieve, by leading the international community in ensuring that the Sri Lankan Government deliver. I will focus briefly on four points.

First, there should be demilitarisation of the north and east, which are effectively still under military lockdown. Secondly, there must be swift progress on the disappeared. Many thousands of Tamils remain unaccounted for, including the relatives of a number of my own constituents. Indeed, there are still more people unaccounted for in Sri Lanka than in any other country in the world outside Iraq. Thirdly, there must be swift progress with the resettlement of the tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of Tamil civilians who were displaced by the civil war, many of whom had their lands, and therefore their livelihoods, seized by the military. Fourthly, there must be reconstruction of the north and east.

There are many steps that the Sri Lankan Government could take to improve reconstruction in the north and the east. These include freeing up the way for inward investment directly into the region, rather than processing it through Colombo, which is something the non-resident Tamil community in the UK is keen to do. My own constituency sits in the borough of Kingston, as does that of my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith), and the borough is looking to twin with the city of Jaffna, in order to promote economic, cultural and social advancement, and to assist in that regard.

[Mr Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman on his speech and I very much share his view that there should be an independent UN investigation. He said that he thought there were four specific things that the British Government could do. May I suggest to him that there is a fifth? It is that the British Government, perhaps through some of their funding from the Foreign Office to human rights organisations, could continue to shine a light on the human rights abuses that are still ongoing in the north and east of Sri Lanka. And in that regard, I draw his attention to a report by the Colin Powell School for Civic and Global Leadership in the US on the situation that Tamil women face. There continues to be a huge problem in terms of sexual harassment and, as the hon. Gentleman alluded to, rape, as much now as there has been in the past.

[James Berry]

I mentioned just one of the recent reports—the one from Freedom from Torture—but a number of them show ongoing and serious human rights violations that must be dealt with at the Human Rights Council. A credible system must be in place for investigating this issue. It cannot simply be swept under the carpet because we are considering something that happened at the beginning of 2009. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention.

[Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)]

On that point, the evidence given to the Freedom from Torture report and to the UNHRC—the hon. Gentleman has referred to it—showed 148 post-conflict incidents of torture. A third were from voluntary returners from the UK to Sri Lanka. Worryingly, in 11 of those cases, the Sri Lankan army and police had surveillance information available on their involvement in politics in the UK. Eight of those cases were since January, with one as late as June. The idea that the problem is historical is clearly not the case. I suggest that Home Office policy on asylum for Tamils should take that on board.

[James Berry]

The hon. Lady is noted for her work in this area. I have read the report, and it is worrying. What is most worrying about it is that human rights abuses are continuing, with two as recent as June. The problem has not been solved by the change in presidency in January. I urge the Minister to ensure that that is considered at the Human Rights Council as well.

[Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is being very generous, and he is giving a splendid and powerful speech. He has laid out the arguments extraordinarily well. He has mentioned the progress being made by our borough, the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames, and Jaffna district, which are in the process of organising twinning. In addition to the obvious benefits of commercial co-operation around governance and so on, does he believe that twinning will also provide another layer of protection for the people who live in and residents of Jaffna district, on the basis that it will be more eyes, more scrutiny and more transparency? Is peace part of the value in the twinning process in his view?

[James Berry]

Peace is certainly part of the value in the twinning process that we are planning in Kingston. Whether my hon. Friend is in place in Richmond Park in north Kingston or in the wider London area, I am sure that the scrutiny he will bring to bear on the issue will be of great benefit to those involved in the twinning process.

Other examples of economic progress that could be made to improve the situation in the north and east include: repairing infrastructure damaged by the years of war, including opening Jaffna airport to international flights, and giving the go-ahead to India’s proposal for a bridge over the short gap between India and the island of Sri Lanka, which would boost trade between the two countries.

President Sirisena has spoken warm words on some of these topics, and I do not dispute that some progress has been made, but progress since his election in January has not been quick enough, and some measurable benchmarks need to be put in place. Warm words are not enough.

In conclusion, the international community failed to act in 2009 when 40,000 Sri Lankan citizens, mainly Tamil, were slaughtered. Now is not the time for the world to look away again simply because there are other crises, such as that in Syria, and because the new President of Sri Lanka is making more positive noises about reconciliation.

[Joan Ryan (Enfield North) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman is right that the international community substantially looked the other way, but we were also proud that our Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, was the first Prime Minister to go to the Dispatch Box and call for a ceasefire, and that our Foreign Secretary at the time, David Miliband, visited Sri Lanka. That was a dangerous situation to walk into. Although we did not get a ceasefire from that, it did bear witness and let the world know about the slaughter that was happening.

[James Berry]

I certainly was not trying to make a party political point. My experience of our APG so far is that this is one issue on which our two parties are ad idem, and long may that continue.

The Tamil people in Sri Lanka want reconciliation, but reconciliation cannot take place without proper accountability. I close with a quote from the Prime Minister at the time of the 2014 UNHRC session. He said:

“Ultimately all of this is about reconciliation…It is about bringing justice and closure and healing to this country which now has a chance of a much brighter future. That will only happen by dealing with these issues and not ignoring them.”

I call on our Government once again to lead the world in seeking proper accountability for human rights abuses in Sri Lanka.

[Mr Graham Brady (in the Chair)]

Time is quite short, so I propose moving on to the wind-ups from the three Front-Benchers at 5.10 pm. While there is no formal time limit, in order to try to accommodate the other Members who wish to speak, I suggest they try to keep their comments to closer to three minutes than four, if possible.

16:55

[Joan Ryan (Enfield North) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (James Berry) on calling this timely debate and on his recent appointment as chair of the Tamil all-party group, to which I am pleased to have been appointed vice-chair.

The Tamil cause is important to me. I am proud to have served as the chief executive of and policy adviser to the Global Tamil Forum, an organisation that is passionately committed to human rights, accountability, reconciliation and lasting peace in Sri Lanka. I am also pleased to support the British Tamils Forum. Many members from the Tamil community have made representations to me. They have suffered terrible human rights violations, both during the armed conflict and in its aftermath. I remain deeply concerned about the ongoing treatment of the Tamil people on the island.

I was delighted to see the back of Mahinda Rajapaksa’s regime. His authoritarian Government did so much to undermine the rule of law and repress the rights of Tamils and other communities. It is to President Sirisena’s credit that he has sought to reduce the powers of the presidency, appointed civilian rather than military governors to the Tamil-majority Northern and Eastern provinces and released some Tamil political prisoners and land.

However, as the compelling report by the International Truth and Justice Project Sri Lanka pointed out,

“systematic and widespread crimes against humanity have not ceased with the change of government.”

We have heard that today. Tamil families continue to report being at the mercy of the draconian Prevention of Terrorism Act, which allows for arbitrary arrest and prolonged detention without charge. In the north and east of Sri Lanka, the Tamil National Alliance has expressed particular concern about the return of Tamil internally displaced people and refugees. Gender-based violence continues to be committed by members of the military against Tamil war widows, and the militarisation of Tamil areas over the past six years and the commercial exploitation of Tamil lands by the armed forces are hindering economic recovery and entrenching poverty.

After suffering repression and marginalisation for decades, what confidence can the Tamil people have that genuine change will be effected? Where is the Government’s commitment to a comprehensive political settlement that addresses the issue of Tamil self-determination? Can the Tamil people have any confidence that the human rights violations committed against them during and since the armed conflict will finally be addressed? The answer to that question is of particular importance given the timing of today’s debate—as we have heard, the 30th session of the UN Human Rights Council is under way.

We know from the High Commissioner for Human Rights that the forthcoming report on Sri Lanka will present

“findings of the most serious nature”.

The atrocities committed in the final months of the armed conflict were some of the worst the world has seen. Tens of thousands of Tamils were slaughtered, with many more unaccounted for. The culture of impunity that allowed terrible human rights violations and crimes against humanity to take place still exists in Sri Lanka today.

Only through a credible accountability and justice process will Sri Lanka be set on a path to genuine reconciliation and a sustainable peace. I note the statement made by Sri Lanka’s Foreign Minister yesterday, in which he said that his Government would seek to establish a South African-style truth and reconciliation commission and a new office on missing persons. Those are important developments, but as the Tamil National Alliance MP, Mr Sumanthiran, has said:

“Whatever procedures are instituted…the international community must get the Government of Sri Lanka to agree to full international participation, because the process must have credibility”.

As the democratically elected voice of the Tamil people in Sri Lanka, the TNA must be listened to.

Tamils are right to have serious misgivings about any notion of domestic inquiries: let us not forget that Sri Lanka has an appalling record of either whitewashing or failing to investigate human rights abuses. The state has been complicit in the alleged perpetration of war crimes and crimes against humanity during the conflict. President Sirisena was a Government Minister in the final years of the war and has rejected outright the evidence of serious human rights abuses uncovered by Callum Macrae’s groundbreaking “Sri Lanka’s Killing Fields” documentary. Domestic processes without full international involvement will be neither durable nor credible.

Along with many Tamils in the UK, Sri Lanka and around the world, I want to know what pressure the Government will bring to bear to ensure that any resolution relating to Sri Lanka at the UN Human Rights Council includes cast-iron guarantees of international involvement. As Mr Sumanthiran says, more than anything else, the process must have credibility in the minds of victims. That is the least we can expect after so many promises of an independent international inquiry. The next few weeks will have such an important bearing on the future of Sri Lanka in terms of its past, its future and its current human rights situation, so it is vital that the Minister takes all those points on board when considering the UK’s position. I look forward to hearing his response.

17:01

[Mr Ranil Jayawardena (North East Hampshire) (Con)]

I do not suggest for a minute that it is not right to learn lessons. It is right to learn lessons from anyone’s experience in business, in one’s personal life and, indeed, in government. That is why I referred earlier to the British Government’s experience in Northern Ireland. There are many things that they might have done differently or, in hindsight, might never have done. Importantly, the peace process in Northern Ireland came from within.

[Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Jayawardena]

Let me make a little progress and then I certainly will. It is important that the unity Government has been formed in Sri Lanka, because it allows for a sense of everyone having a seat at the table and the opportunity to have their say. Importantly, it allows everyone to be heard.

I do not believe that anyone present is saying that war is pretty. It certainly was war, and things might well have been done differently on both sides.

I welcome what my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (James Berry) said about the importance of keeping distinct the work that his all-party group is doing to champion the rights of Tamil people and its opposition to the terrorism of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam. Let us not forget that it was the LTTE, which I accept no one here supports, who perfected the suicide belt and were the first to use women as suicide bombers. Those are disgusting acts that no one present would support; indeed, I am sure that everyone would condemn them.

The vast majority of people in Sri Lanka, on both sides, wanted peace. They never wanted the war, so it is important that we move forward and learn the lessons of the past in whatever way we can. It is important to be fair to both sides.

[Wes Streeting]

I have family who suffered at the hands of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and through the misconducts and misdeeds of the British Government over many years, but is the hon. Gentleman seriously comparing the British Government’s involvement in Northern Ireland with the appalling acts of brutality and war crimes committed by the Sri Lankan Government? I find that unbelievable.

[Mr Jayawardena]

I am making the point that it is possible to learn lessons. It is possible for the British Government to have learned lessons, and it is right that the Sri Lankan Government learn lessons about their past. The hon. Gentleman is right to make that point, but I am not suggesting that the two are one and the same. Nevertheless, the point about learning lessons is important.

In the interests of time, I will say very briefly that it is important that any future work is fair to both sides, and that there is not a witch hunt on either side. People in Northern Ireland have entered into the democratic process, which is absolutely right; that is the direction in which I believe Sri Lanka needs to go.

There is a part to play for the Foreign Office in ensuring more trade and investment between our country and Sri Lanka, because as the latter becomes a more prosperous nation, it is possible—indeed, it becomes easier—for everyone to work together and share in prosperity. That is the way to make sure that Sri Lanka goes from strength to strength while ensuring that lessons are learned from the years that have passed.

17:05

[Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)]

I want very briefly to make some constructive suggestions on how the international component of any mechanism looking into what went on in Sri Lanka could work. It is crucial that tomorrow’s report represents the beginning of international action on behalf of Sri Lanka’s victims, not the conclusion of the issue. If the international community, including the UK, fails to fulfil its role in providing international oversight, perpetrators of war crimes and continued human rights abuses will never be brought to justice.

Such international pressure could include the following recommendations, all made by the International Truth and Justice Project Sri Lanka. First, a special envoy for human rights in Sri Lanka should be appointed to go beyond the offering of technical assistance alone. Secondly, the protection of witnesses must be ensured to internationally accepted standards. Thirdly, the forthcoming Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights report should be referred to the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court for further action. Fourthly, the Secretary-General’s special representative on sexual violence in conflict and the special rapporteur on torture should be pushed to visit Sri Lanka and initiate a special inquiry into rape and sexual violence. Finally, Sri Lankan police and military involvement in UN peacekeeping missions should be suspended.

We cannot let limited national mechanisms fail to provide the victims of inhumanity with the fairness and justice that they truly deserve. As a silent war against historical and ongoing human rights abuses continues, the international community can and must do more.

[Wes Streeting]

rose—

[Mr Graham Brady (in the Chair)]

Order. I remind you, Mr Streeting, that I am hoping to move on to the wind-ups at 10 past.

17:07

[Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Brady. I will keep my eye on the clock and, with the limited time I have, build on the points made by others, rather than repeating them.

I thank the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (James Berry) for securing this debate and for the energetic way he has taken up his role as chair of the all-party group on Tamils. I am proud to be one of his vice-chairs. In the detailed speech he gave to introduce the debate, we heard an indication of the crimes that were committed during the civil war. When it is published tomorrow, I hope that the report begins to build even greater international attention and focus not only on what took place but on what continues to happen in Sri Lanka, and the effect on its population, particularly the Tamil community who still reside in the north of the country, as well as the Tamils around the world, including in our constituencies, who feel that they cannot return home for fear of further persecution.

I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) that tomorrow really must be the start and not the conclusion. The level of independent international accountability—accountability that many have campaigned for—does not go far enough. The Sri Lankan Government have obfuscated and stalled every step of the way. I welcome the work done by Gordon Brown’s Government, and successive Governments since, to put the issue on the agenda. There can be no justice without accountability. We cannot trust the domestic structures in Sri Lanka to ensure genuine accountability for the crimes that took place, which is why independent international mechanisms will be so important.

In the limited time remaining, I want to add to the Minister’s list of things to respond to by asking about how the Home Office responds to asylum applications. To give a recent example, a constituent of mine, a victim of torture in Sri Lanka, who has been here for years and has demonstrable evidence of torture—not just mental torture, but the physical scars of torture—has seen his case continually delayed. After the suffering that he has experienced, he should not have to experience further suffering at the hands of our broken immigration system. I hope that those in the Foreign Office can relay that to their colleagues in the Home Office. On that point, Mr Brady, not wanting to draw your ire, I will take my seat.

[Mr Graham Brady (in the Chair)]

We have up to 20 minutes for three Front-Bench wind-ups. I suspect that all Members present want the Minister to be able to respond to the points.

17:10

[Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (James Berry) on securing this debate. I am glad to have the opportunity to discuss something that is close to my heart and about which I feel passionately: the rights and experiences of Tamils in Sri Lanka.

I lived and worked in Sri Lanka for a few months in 2008, and I have been back several times since. I left many friends behind: Singhalese and Tamil, as well as Scottish and English, all of whom I have kept in touch with. As a Member of the Scottish Parliament for two years from 2009, I represented much of the Tamil diaspora in Glasgow in the aftermath of the civil war. Indeed, I met former President Rajapaksa in 2009, who was charm personified until I mentioned my constituents, at which point I became invisible. I do not think for a second that I am an expert on Sri Lanka as a result, but I hope that my personal experience will allow me to make a useful contribution to the debate.

I share the scepticism of the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton about new President Sirisena. He appears to take seriously his commitment to unify Sri Lanka, but we should never forget, as many have said, that he was in government when entire Tamil areas were bombed and thousands of people who posed no threat to anyone were killed. Progress has been made, however. In January, for example, the new Government said that the ban on the Tamil diaspora would continue, but by June they spoke of a diaspora festival. In the President’s inaugural address on 1 September, he called on the diaspora to

“use your expertise and skills to develop the motherland in this consensual political environment.”

I am deeply suspicious of politicians who make changes not because it is the right thing to do, but in order to win a power battle, so I remain cautious but optimistic. I will remain cautious about someone who has just increased their Cabinet from 30 to 48 Cabinet Secretaries, but optimistic about someone who has just returned presidential powers to the Parliament. While life remains hard for Tamils, both here and in Sri Lanka, we must keep the issue alive. Land has been returned to Tamils this year, but only after all the buildings had been destroyed. While people are still living in internally displaced person camps in Jaffna, we must keep a watching brief.

Finally, I want to draw attention to the fact that psychosocial therapy to help people deal with trauma was banned in Sri Lanka. That ban has now been lifted, but it comes too late for some who have fallen into alcoholism, drug addiction and sexual abuse. The world must keep an eye on Sri Lanka. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman again on bringing this fantastic, important debate to the House. The British Government often talk of their influence on the world stage. They must use it, and I look forward to hearing to how they plan to do so.

17:13

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure, as ever, to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Brady. I congratulate the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (James Berry) on securing this afternoon’s debate. As he says, there has been cross-party work on the issue, and I hope that it continues. I will try to keep my remarks brief, because while it is always important to hear what the Minister has to say, I understand that he has just returned from Geneva, so he may have some particularly useful information for us.

Despite encouraging signs since the defeat of President Rajapaksa in last month’s parliamentary elections—President Sirisena naming an ethnic Tamil Leader of the Opposition and asking the new Parliament to draft reforms to promote ethnic reconciliation; the appointment of a Tamil chief justice; and some of the military administrations in the north being replaced with civilian ones—it would be wrong to suggest that it is possible to draw a line under what has happened in Sri Lanka’s recent history, which the hon. Gentleman eloquently outlined.

Some people will argue that it is time to move on, and that a new dawn is on the horizon, but that would not give justice to the Tamil community, which has endured terrible human rights abuses. That legacy must be addressed by President Sirisena with the support of the international community and with an independent international mechanism. The abuses include the many thousands of enforced disappearances. Too many families are still waiting for answers, and I hope that the Minister regularly discusses that with the Sri Lankan Government. Freedom from Torture’s “Tainted Peace” report on torture in Sri Lanka since the end of the civil war states that last year, for the third consecutive year, Sri Lanka accounted for the most cases referred to its clinical services, including cases that have happened since the election of President Sirisena. That underlines that we cannot be complacent about the direction or pace of reform in Sri Lanka.

As has been mentioned, there is also the question of what happens when we send back to Sri Lanka people who have had applications for asylum here rejected. Freedom from Torture reports that more than a third of cases reviewed for the study involved people who were detained after returning from the UK. The previous Foreign Secretary, William Hague, undertook last year to investigate reports that Tamil asylum seekers deported by the Home Office had been subjected to sexual violence on their return to Sri Lanka. Like previous speakers, I ask the Minister to update us on the outcome of those investigations, and on the conversations he is having with the Home Office.

Previously, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office was unable to tell the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs whether the human rights defenders, journalists and others who met the Prime Minister during the 2013 Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting had been subjected to any intimidation or harassment as a result. A report by the International Truth and Justice Project Sri Lanka has alleged that Tamils organising demonstrations for the Prime Minister’s CHOGM visit were threatened by the security and intelligence services, and that some were subsequently tortured. I hope that the Minister agrees that we have a special responsibility to look into the situation and the safety of those human rights defenders who met our Prime Minister, and that he can update us on that.

As we have heard, the United Nations Human Rights Council inquiry’s report and the recommendations of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights will be published tomorrow. The high commissioner has already warned that the

“findings are of the most serious nature”

and rightly concluded that the UNHRC

“owes it to Sri Lankans—and to its own credibility—to ensure an accountability process that produces results, decisively moves beyond the failures of the past, and brings the deep institutional changes needed to guarantee non-recurrence”.

President Rajapaksa notoriously refused to co-operate with the inquiry. The Sri Lankan Foreign Minister’s address to the UNHRC this week recognised the need for change and accountability, and committed to repealing the Prevention of Terrorism Act. Sri Lanka intends to establish a commission for truth, justice, reconciliation and non-recurrence, in consultation with South Africa. I hope that the Minister can update us on his discussions on that with his Sri Lankan counterparts, and on how the Sri Lankan Government can guarantee that the commission is credible, effective and unquestionably independent. We had a long wait for the for the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission’s report, which, as everyone will agree, did not resolve any issues. We need an inquiry that commands the confidence of the Tamil community, which has been let down so much in the past. It remains imperative that Sri Lanka work with the UN to deliver accountability and justice, and to secure Sri Lanka on the path to peace and reconciliation.

I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say. I think that we are all united in urging the Sri Lankan Government to engage constructively with the high commissioner’s recommendations. I hope that the UK can play a constructive role in ensuring that they do so.

17:18

[The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr Hugo Swire)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (James Berry) on securing this debate and commend the valuable work that he has already done in the short time that he has been chairman of the all-party parliamentary group for Tamils. He continues to raise the important issue of Tamil rights. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), with whom I have jousted across this room and the Chamber for some years now, on her promotion to shadow Secretary of State in the new Labour shadow Front-Bench team.

As several Members have said, the debate comes at a crucial juncture for all Sri Lankans, not only those from the Tamil community. Parliamentary elections last month were the freest, fairest and least violent in living memory. We were pleased to have played a role through support to the European Union and Commonwealth observer missions and by funding domestic election observers. The elections resulted in the formation of a new Government of national unity committed to reconciliation and peace building, so some of the criticisms and observations by both Government and Opposition Members in the debate might have been better directed at the former Government, that of Mahinda Rajapaksa, rather than at the new Administration.

[Andrew Stephenson]

I welcome the Minister’s comments. I draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Does the Minister agree that President Sirisena’s first few months in office have opened up an important political space, with robust debate and important governance changes, such as the 19th amendment to the constitution? There is clearly a lot more to do, but progress is heading in the right direction.

[Mr Swire]

I utterly concur with my hon. Friend. For example, there is now a Tamil leader of the opposition for the first time in more than 30 years. We have a real window of opportunity for all Sri Lankans to work together to secure a stable, secure and prosperous future.

Tomorrow the report of the international investigation by the office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights will be published. I am proud, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton is, of the leading role that the British Government played in calling for that investigation. The report and its recommendations will make a significant contribution to Sri Lanka’s efforts to establish truth and deliver justice, as the country seeks to address the legacy of the civil war, which continues to have a profound impact on many Sri Lankans.

The debate is also particularly timely because I attended the opening session of the Human Rights Council in Geneva yesterday. I thanked the High Commissioner for Human Rights for the work of his office in producing the report. I agreed with him that the process had been not only invaluable, but I am sure difficult for the many brave witnesses who came forward to give evidence.

As I discussed yesterday with High Commissioner Zeid, and separately with the Sri Lankan Foreign Minister Mangala Samaraweera and with Tamil National Alliance spokesperson Sumanthiran, our expectation is that Sri Lanka will now take forward the report’s recommendations and deliver the required processes and mechanisms to implement them. I also made those points when I addressed the Human Rights Council. I recognise that much remains to be done, but in stark contrast to previous years, I was delighted that I could speak positively about the steps that Sri Lanka’s new leadership has taken to begin to address post-conflict accountability and reconciliation.

The report has a vital role to play in understanding the events that took place during and after the conflict, but it is not an end in itself. I agree with hon. Members who said that this is the start of the process and in no way the end. I am sure that all in this House who have followed developments in Sri Lanka closely now want, as I do, to see Sri Lanka move towards meaningful reconciliation, long-term stability and prosperity for all parties.

[Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

The Minister makes an encouraging case. Will he say something about the consequences for the Administration were there not meaningful progress?

[Mr Swire]

I tend to look at things more positively. If I may continue, my hon. Friend will hear some of my points in support of what the Government in Sri Lanka are seeking to do. They have our full confidence.

[Mr Jayawardena]

I thank the Minister for what he has said. I, too, should draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. On trade and investment, to which my right hon. Friend referred, does he agree that prosperity will bring the country together as one? We should ensure that everyone has opportunity in Sri Lanka.

[Mr Swire]

My hon. Friend is entirely right. I very much welcome the plans to twin with Jaffna and so forth. When I was up there, it was clear that, rather than the diaspora returning funds to the Northern Province, Jaffna or the Tamil areas, they should make micro-investments and create businesses. Tamils are fantastic businessmen. The diaspora should invest back into their own country, in the safe knowledge that they will be secure to grow businesses there. There need not be dependence on remittances, but on the micro-economy, growth and jobs. That is what we want.

A vital part of the reconciliation process must be credible proposals that meet international standards to address the four key principles of transitional justice, namely, truth, justice, reparations, and guarantees of non-recurrence. I was therefore pleased that Foreign Minister Mangala’s address to the Human Rights Council included such plans. We now need to work with the Sri Lankan Government and our partners in the Human Rights Council to understand Sri Lanka’s plans in more detail and to agree a consensual resolution that sets out a clear framework for delivery. That will of course include plans for delivering justice and accountability.

I appreciate why many in the Tamil community have called for a purely international accountability mechanism, but we have been clear for a long time that a credible domestic mechanism that meets international standards is the best way to build a stronger, more inclusive and prosperous society. In practice, that means: an appropriate legislative and judicial framework for prosecutions to take place; an international element that enables it to meet international standards; guarantees of effective protection of witnesses; and an agreed follow-up mechanism to monitor progress. That is the only way in which any process will gain credibility, critically with all Sri Lankan people and with the international community.

My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton referred to allegations against senior public figures in Sri Lanka. As I have stated previously, we should not pre-judge the conclusions of the UN report. Once the report is published, however, it will be important that its findings are acted on in full, in a credible manner and in line with international standards.

My hon. Friend also referred to recent allegations of human rights violations. We take such allegations extremely seriously. We have repeatedly lobbied the Sri Lankan Government about human rights violations in the past and continue to do so. I discussed the issue of disappearances with Foreign Minister Mangala and with the head of the International Committee of the Red Cross, Peter Maurer, in Geneva yesterday. I am pleased that they have agreed to work together to establish an office on missing persons, in line with internationally accepted standards. I am also pleased that the Foreign Minister committed to begin issuing certificates of absence to the families of those who have disappeared, which is an important first step towards dealing with the terrible situation of the missing, which my hon. Friend described.

As regards asylum and human rights applications from Sri Lankan nationals, together with my colleagues at the Home Office, we keep our asylum policy for all countries under regular review, taking into account all available evidence. Applications are carefully considered on their individual merits in accordance with our international obligations. Individuals who can demonstrate that they face a genuine risk of persecution or ill-treatment in Sri Lanka are granted protection. In an individual case, when people raise material issues about the safety of their return, the Home Office will review it.

[Anne McLaughlin]

What about cases in which people cannot prove that they would be in imminent danger, but are so terrified by their experiences in Sri Lanka over many years that they cannot bear to go back? I have constituents in such circumstances. Would the Home Office consider granting them asylum even though they might not face danger, but perceive that they do?

[Mr Swire]

If the Home Office gave asylum to everyone who perceived danger, the asylum policy would be in a mess, as the hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting) said it was—which it is not. We have to make judgments case by case. We have been reviewed regularly and withstood such reviews, so our policy is robust. Incidentally, as I discussed again in Geneva yesterday, there are of course still problems in the police and the armed forces, and the new Government need to come to terms with that, but I genuinely believe that they will stamp out any human rights abuses. We need to understand that there has been a sea change in Sri Lanka. We need to get behind the new Administration.

[Siobhain McDonagh]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Swire]

No, I will continue, if I may, for the last minute or so.

My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton correctly pointed out the significant social and economic challenges in Sri Lanka. I saw those at first hand when I visited in January. I reiterated to the Government of Sri Lanka our commitment to help in tackling those challenges.

Fundamental to helping ordinary people get back to normal lives are demilitarisation and the return of military-occupied land in the north and east, which I discussed with Minister for Resettlement Swaminathan and President Sirisena during my visit to Sri Lanka in January; with the Chief Minister of the Northern Province, Justice Wigneswaran, most recently during his visit to London in July, when I met him for the second time; and with Governor Fernando of the Eastern Province yesterday in Geneva.

Given the importance of those issues, I was encouraged by the replacement of military governors in the north and east with civilians, by the return of land to a number of war-displaced Tamil families, including by President Sirisena last month, which—

17:30

Motion lapsed, and sitting adjourned without Question put (Standing Order No. 10(14)).