House of Commons
(9 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(9 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(9 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)
1. What steps his Department is taking to improve care and support for people with learning disabilities and autism.
The Minister for Community and Social Care (Alistair Burt)
We are determined to ensure that people with learning disabilities live independent lives, with better care and improved outcomes. Taken together, the Government’s recent response to the “No Voice Unheard, No Right Ignored” consultation and the newly published “Transforming care” consultation set out the steps we will take to protect rights, strengthen choice, meet physical and mental health needs and end institutional care by default.
Jack Lopresti
I thank my right hon. Friend for his answer. South Gloucestershire and Stroud college, based in my constituency, is making an application to open a free school for autistic children. How does he feel that such schools can improve the support and education for children with autism?
Alistair Burt
I thank my hon. Friend for the question. Autism is certainly a growing area of identified special educational need across the country that requires an increasing range of provision to meet the diverse needs of the population. Although it would be inappropriate for me to comment on a particular free school application, where it is needed, a special free school can add to the local continuum of provision, by providing specialist places and specialist expertise that can be shared more widely.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
The all-party group on foetal alcohol spectrum disorders took evidence last week about the link between alcohol consumed by mothers during pregnancy and the growing incidence of learning disability and autism. In Canada, this has been widely known for many years, and the Canadian Government at national and federal levels have invested heavily in raising awareness. When can we expect the same in this country?
Alistair Burt
The syndrome to which the hon. Gentleman rightly draws attention is well known here as well. I understand from the public health Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Jane Ellison), that a consultation in relation to this will be announced shortly, and of course there will be new guidelines in response. The all-party group is right to draw attention to this, and anything that can protect women during pregnancy and, of course, their children is of benefit to all.
Mr Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley) (Con)
In one family in my constituency, three of the four youngsters have autism. Will the Minister look at the work of local authorities? In this specific case, Lancashire is clearly not working closely enough with the mother, who has one idea about how she wants her youngsters to be educated. The local authority, for cost reasons alone, is simply not working with the parents. It would prefer to see her prosecuted, rather than working with her.
Alistair Burt
I fairly regularly meet families and others who have had young people and older people in the system and where there is a difference of opinion about what might be done. Some of the stories are very distressing. Families will sometimes feel that people have not listened to them. There can be quite difficult clashes of opinion on occasion. Of course, any case that my hon. Friend wants to bring me I would be happy to see, but this is a perpetual issue. The important thing is always to listen to those who are closest to a problem. That is likely to be the best way forward. Even if there is a difference of opinion, if people feel that they have been listened to, there is a proper opportunity to explore what can be done.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The autism numbers in Northern Ireland are growing. I understand that it is a devolved matter, but it is clear to me that three Departments have a responsibility: Health, No. 1; Education, No. 2; and Employment, No. 3. We need to ensure that the health of autistic children is looked after and that they have an education that prepares them for employment. Does the Minister have a strategy that takes all three Departments on board, and if so, is it shared among all the regions of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?
Alistair Burt
Yes. I could not have put it better myself. We have an autism programme board, on which sit representatives of the families of those with autism, which provides an opportunity to look overall at the Government strategy. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that it contains many different elements. For example, in relation to work, we have set out a challenge to halve the disability employment gap, because more people with disabilities want to take the chance of working. That must be done in the right way; we are working closely with the Department for Work and Pensions in relation to that, but things such as the autism programme board give a chance for families to be involved right across the areas where they might expect help and assistance.
Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)
2. What steps he plans to take to ensure that full services in hospitals are available seven days a week by 2020.
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Jeremy Hunt)
By 2020, all patients admitted to hospital in an emergency will have access to the same level of consultant assessment and diagnostic tests, whichever day of the week they are admitted.
Michael Tomlinson
With mortality rates at weekends suggesting that there is an increased risk of dying, does the Secretary of State recognise the importance for Dorset of getting right the proposal for a new emergency hospital in the Poole and Bournemouth area and ensuring that there are specialist consultants 24/7?
Mr Hunt
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that issue, which is incredibly important for his constituents and for Dorset as a whole. I know that the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Ben Gummer), who has responsibility for hospitals, will be going there very soon. The clinical standard says that anyone admitted to hospital in an emergency should be assessed by a consultant within 14 hours. Across every day of the week and all specialties, that happens in only one in eight of our hospitals. That is why it is so important to get this right.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Bootham Park mental health hospital and York’s place of safety shut with four working days’ notice, so York no longer has a seven-day service, nor even a one-day service in our hospital. That would have been totally avoidable if one NHS body had overarching responsibility for patient safety. Will the Secretary of State agree to meet me and to have an independent inquiry so that mental health patients are not put at serious risk again and we can have a full seven-day service before 2020?
Mr Hunt
Obviously, I am very concerned to hear what the hon. Lady says. I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State has been looking at this issue and is very willing to talk to her about it. Alternative provision has been made, but she is right to make sure that her constituents have access to urgent and emergency care seven days a week.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that full hospital services does not mean full services in every hospital, and that if we are to achieve our ambition of driving down excess weekend deaths, we will have to look again at concentrating services in regional and sub-regional centres, and, in addition, make sure that we network properly among smaller hospitals, where they exist?
Mr Hunt
My hon. Friend speaks very wisely on this issue. Yes, this is not about making sure that every hospital is providing every service seven days a week. It is about making sure that in an urgent or emergency situation, people can access the care they need and that, for example, high dependency patients are reviewed twice a day, even at the weekends, by consultants. That happens across all specialties in one in 20 of our hospitals, which is why it is so important to get this right.
Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP)
What assessment has the Department made of the impact of reduced accident and emergency hours, and what effect will that have on the implementation of a seven-day work plan?
Mr Hunt
I am not quite sure I understand what the hon. Lady is referring to. We are not reducing A and E hours; we are investing. We have nearly 2,000 more consultants in our A and E departments than five years ago and we need to support strong A and E departments as much as possible.
Andrea Jenkyns (Morley and Outwood) (Con)
Over the weekend we learned of the close links between the leadership of the British Medical Association and the Labour party. It seems that the BMA is more interested in pushing its own political agenda than in securing the best deal for its members. Can my right hon. Friend assure me that he will hold his nerve and deliver the seven-day NHS that will make the NHS safer for our patients?
Mr Hunt
I can absolutely give my hon. Friend that assurance. This is essential for the constituents of all hon. Members, whichever side of the House they sit on, and this Government will always stand on the side of patients. The weekend mortality rates are not acceptable. That is why we are doing something about them.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
Given the acute pressures on the national health service, we are a long way from the vision that the Secretary of State wants to achieve. I met the Indian Workers Association this morning. Thousands and thousands of care workers of Indian origin are trained nurses and could be in our NHS, but the bar for the language test has been set so high that they are excluded. Will the Secretary of State look again at the test?
Mr Hunt
I commend the extraordinary contribution made by NHS front-line workers of Indian origin. I have met the Indian doctors association, the British Association of Physicians of Indian Origin, and have had many discussions on that front. It is very important, however, that people speak good English if they are providing care in the NHS. There are real issues for clinical safety when the standard of English is not high enough. We have a lot of fantastic support from immigrants who do a great job on the NHS frontline, but good English is an absolute pre-requisite.
Maggie Throup (Erewash) (Con)
3. What steps the Government are taking to improve diagnostic testing in primary care.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Life Sciences (George Freeman)
The Government are determined to improve and invest in diagnostic testing in primary care. Diagnostics and breakthroughs in innovative diagnostics are key to a 21st-century NHS. That is why we have set up the medical technology strategy group, which I chair, to look at accelerating diagnostics into the system; the cancer strategy taskforce; the Prime Minister’s GP access fund; the new models of care programme; and the accelerated access review, which is looking to accelerate those diagnostics with particular value to patients and the system. We have also introduced the new guidelines for the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, and, through the genomics programme, we are investing in 21st-century molecular diagnostics, which will come to shape the future.
Maggie Throup
C-reactive protein point-of-care testing could reduce the number of prescriptions for antibiotics, contribute to the UK’s anti-microbial resistance strategy, and save the NHS millions of pounds each year. Ahead of my Adjournment debate on this issue next Monday, will the Minister agree to look at this type of testing as a way of saving the NHS money and providing appropriate patient treatments?
George Freeman
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. We are completely committed to tackling anti-microbial resistance, and reducing the volume of antibiotics prescribing is vital to that. We are a world leader in this field in tackling AMR. We have an expert group looking at how to improve diagnostic services in relation to AMR, and it has already identified what diagnostics are currently in use and what new technologies are on the horizon, including C-reactive protein point-of-care testing. The group is currently formulating conclusions. The public health Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Jane Ellison), is looking forward to responding to my hon. Friend’s debate on Monday to set out more of the detail.
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
The Government have done a very good job in getting one-year cancer survival rates into the DNA of the NHS as a means of encouraging clinical commissioning groups to promote earlier diagnosis—cancer’s magic key. Does the Minister agree that we all need to ensure that we keep the CCGs’ feet close to the fire as regards these one-year figures so that we do not just improve diagnostic testing in primary care, but improve screening rates, GP referral rates and awareness campaigns as a means of ensuring that we save the thousands of lives that are needlessly lost through late diagnosis?
George Freeman
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I pay tribute to his work on this through the independent cancer taskforce. The aim is to save 30,000 more lives a year by 2020. We are working with Harpal Kumar and Cancer Research UK on implementing its recommendations. NICE has set out new guidelines on clear ambitions and standards on how quickly patients should be referred for diagnostics. There is good news in that in 2014-15, compared with 2009-10, over 4.3 million more imaging and endoscopy tests were commonly used to diagnose cancers, but I agree that we have much more still to do.
Simon Danczuk (Rochdale) (Lab)
4. What steps he is taking to reduce suicide rates.
The Minister for Community and Social Care (Alistair Burt)
Every person lost to suicide is a tragedy. We continue to deliver the national suicide prevention strategy to reduce suicide rates by working across Government and with the NHS, community, voluntary and charitable sectors. But above all, we must challenge the inevitability of suicide, and I want us to be more ambitious about suicide prevention.
Simon Danczuk
In Rochdale, suicides have gone up by 25% since 2010. The rate is 11.8% against an average of 8.9% in England. We have a much higher rate of male suicide. If the Government continue to get their approach to this wrong, there will be more and more needless deaths. Are they going to fund mental health services properly?
Alistair Burt
Looking at mental health services is just part of what we intend to do, and more money is going into mental health. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about male suicide. Men are three times more likely to commit suicide than women. It is also a particular cause for concern among young men. Overall, our national suicide rates remain relatively low in comparison with others, but they have been rising, and I am worried. I am interested in the theory of zero suicide, with more work to try to ensure that suicide is not seen as inevitable and more work in detail with particularly affected communities. The work that we are doing with people at a younger age, using child and adolescent mental health services more effectively to deal with depression and similar issues before suicide becomes a greater risk, will also be important. I am really interested in this area, and I think we are going to have a debate on it later this week.
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
As my right hon. Friend says, we will indeed be having a debate on this matter later this week, on Thursday in Westminster Hall. It will be the first time that we have been able to mark international men’s day and consider the whole issue of male suicide in more detail, and it will give us the opportunity to look at why the proportion of male deaths to female deaths has increased steadily since 1981.
Alistair Burt
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the subject and for mentioning the forthcoming debate. The subject deserves to be looked at extremely carefully. As I have said, there should be neither complacency nor a sense of inevitability about suicide, and I am very interested in what more can be done. I have met one or two of the families who have experienced these tragedies and I am deeply impressed with their commitment to doing something for those age groups particularly affected. This afternoon I will meet a gentleman who is well known for having been involved in a suicide prevention incident. We are doing work to reduce stigma and to find places for people to talk about their concerns, and the more people are prepared to talk about things that might cause suicide, the better. This is an issue that we can give a higher profile to and do more work on, because every time there is a suicide it leaves a trail of damage for families and friends that is truly distressing to behold.
Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)
Last week, yet another report—this one from the King’s Fund—warned of a mental health system that is under huge pressure. On this Government’s watch, just 14% of patients feel that they have received appropriate care in a crisis. The number of mental health nurses has dropped, and increasing numbers of people are having to travel hundreds of miles for a bed. What action will the Minister take to turn his rhetoric into reality?
Alistair Burt
This is a cross-party matter and it is very important. We believe we have made strides during both the previous and this Government. We are investing more money in mental health services—it was increased to £11.7 billion last year—and this was the first Government to introduce standards for access and waiting times with regard to mental health, to try to put it on a par with other conditions. That was not how it was done before. We will now try to ensure that the money that goes in nationally is used to provide assistance locally, and that the money that is put in for local use is used locally.
There are areas to celebrate. We are world leaders with the improving access to psychological therapies service, which has treated 3 million people since 2009. We want to build on that. We know that the service has lagged behind others in the past, which is why we are determined to do much more about it. I think it is the view of the whole House that we should do more about it, and we will.
Luciana Berger
I listened very carefully to the Minister’s response, but I reinforce the point that the suicide rate in this country is going up, not down. It is a national scandal that we need to address.
The Minister mentioned prevention. The Government have confirmed that they will make an in-year £200 million cut to local public health grants. That is a political decision. It is not going to save money and, apart from the devastating human price, it is going to cost our NHS and our local authorities more as they deal with both physical and mental ill health that could have been prevented. How can the Minister justify that?
Alistair Burt
First, £1.25 billion is going into creating new services for children and young people’s mental health services during the course of this Parliament. The hon. Lady’s party did not make that commitment before the general election. More work is being done in schools to provide a better base for mental health. We have, for the first time, appointed in the Department for Education a Minister with responsibility for mental health in schools.
The pressures on public health budgets are the same as those on every other budget. Those pressures on the national health service were met by my colleagues during the general election, with a commitment to provide an extra £8 billion—the figure is now £10 billion—by the end of this Parliament. That commitment was not made by the hon. Lady or her party. She asks for more money to be spent, but we have committed to do that and we are finding it. It is very important that we take the position that we have to do as much as we can with what we have got. Mental health services are moving forward and we should take the opportunity to say that and welcome what has been done. We have provided the resources in a way that I am afraid the hon. Lady’s party did not.
Jo Cox (Batley and Spen) (Lab)
5. If he will take steps to assist hospital trusts to mitigate the cost of car parking on NHS sites for out-patients and visitors.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ben Gummer)
It is for NHS organisations locally to set the cost of car parking, but they should be informed by the principles and guidance set by the Department of Health.
Jo Cox
My local trust of Mid Yorks has just increased parking charges at Dewsbury and district hospital and has introduced charges for drivers with disabilities. The trust is clear that that is due to the financial settlement from Government. Does the Minister think it is acceptable that people who are ill or in need of medical attention, and their loved ones, are being penalised in this way?
Ben Gummer
The financial settlement from the Government is more generous than the one promised by the hon. Lady’s party at the last election. We are committing £10 billion over the next few years. I would ask her trust to look at the savings suggested by Lord Carter, who has identified considerable savings that can be made within hospitals. If it feels that it needs to increase car parking charges, it should refer to the Department of Health guidance, which makes it clear that there should be concessions for blue badge holders.
Ben Howlett (Bath) (Con)
Hospital car parking charges are clearly too high in the UK. I am sure that my hon. Friend agrees that the Minister without Portfolio, my right hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon), led an amazing campaign during the previous Parliament to reduce the charges. Will my hon. Friend confirm that he is pursuing his commitment to reduce hospital car parking charges and explain how that will help patients and visitors to the Royal United hospital in my constituency?
Ben Gummer
The principles that the Department publishes are clear that charges, if they are set, should be proportionate and fair and should be set at a level that assures people of a car parking space. One of the problems of free car parking is that it often means there are no spaces for carers and for the sick when they turn up. Clearly, hospitals should exercise judgment in making sure that carers and people making frequent visits get a heavily discounted rate so that such charges do not become an impediment to free access to healthcare.
Paula Sherriff (Dewsbury) (Lab)
Mid Yorkshire Hospitals NHS Trust has recent imposed charges for blue badge holders. Many constituents have told me that, as a result, they will struggle to attend their appointments. The trust admitted to me that it had not considered the impact on the DNA—did not attend—rate. Does the Minister agree that not only does this place an extra financial burden on the vulnerable, but could lead to their being denied access to the healthcare that they desperately need?
Ben Gummer
The hon. Lady raises the surprising point that the hospitals did not consider the impact on their operations, which they should have done. The principles make it quite clear that disabled drivers should get concessionary rates, although charges sometimes need to be applied so that there are spaces for disabled drivers. The hospitals should have thought that through, and should look for savings elsewhere in their operations before they look at car parking charges.
Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)
6. What steps his Department is taking to improve clinical outcomes for people treated by the NHS.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ben Gummer)
On a number of fronts, the Department is looking at how it can improve clinical outcomes. Indeed, that is the entire focus of the Department. With reference to hospitals, we can improve clinical outcomes across the service through introducing a seven-day NHS, by increasing transparency and by looking at the cover provided by consultants and doctors.
Helen Whately
I welcome the Government’s commitments to improving outcomes for patients admitted at weekends, but seven-day services are needed not just in hospitals but in primary care, community care, social care and mental health services. What steps are the Government taking to make sure that seven-day services are available in all settings where patients need care urgently?
Ben Gummer
My hon. Friend makes her point extremely well. A seven-day NHS will operate only if it works across all areas of care. That is why the local integration of care and health services is part of our wider vision for the NHS. I urge her to look, when it is published, at Professor Sir Bruce Keogh’s report on urgent and emergency care, which envisages precisely the sort of joined-up care that will ensure people receive the correct attention at the correct level and do not therefore go to hospital when they can be dealt with in primary care settings.
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)
On the Friday before last, a Minister stood at the Dispatch Box and talked out my private Member’s Bill, the Off-patent Drugs Bill, which would have provided a mechanism for improved clinical outcomes by making repurposed drugs more consistently available across the country. The Minister for Community and Social Care said that the Government would consider an alternative pathway. What is that pathway and when will it be implemented?
Ben Gummer
As I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Life Sciences is fully committed to the ambition expressed in the hon. Gentleman’s Bill. My hon. Friend feels that the mechanisms do not work, but has set up a working party to ensure that that ambition can be taken forward. I know that he would welcome full engagement with the hon. Gentleman to make sure that that happens.
David Tredinnick (Bosworth) (Con)
If we are to improve patients’ clinical outcomes, surely we need to look more at patient experiences. According to The BMJ, only 11% of the 3,000 treatments looked at in clinical trials proved to be beneficial, with 50% being of unknown effectiveness. Now that the Society of Homeopaths is regulated by the Professional Standards Authority, should we not spend more than a paltry £100,000 a year on homeopathic medicine in the health service?
Ben Gummer
The Department’s position, despite repeated questioning from my hon. Friend, is consistent on this matter and remains the same.
Mr Speaker
As I have often had cause to observe, repetition is not a novel phenomenon in the House of Commons.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
In Northamptonshire, 80% of end-of-life patients die in hospital, whereas 80% of end-of-life patients want to die at home, assisted by the hospice movement. I have discovered that GPs are ticking the end-of-life box on the quality outcomes framework form, but that that information is not being passed automatically to local hospices. What can the Department do about that?
Ben Gummer
My hon. Friend raises a terribly important matter. Clinical outcomes can be assessed in a complete sense only if they include end-of-life care for those for whom there is no clinical outcome in the commonly received understanding of the term. If that is what is happening in his clinical commissioning group area, it is unacceptable. I point him to the work that the Government are doing on a paperless NHS to ensure that the kind of bureaucratic muddle he has identified no longer occurs.
Jo Churchill (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)
7. What progress has been made by Genomics England in making the UK the world leader in genomic medicine.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Life Sciences (George Freeman)
The Genomics England project, which was launched by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, has electrified the global life and health science community. We are the first nation on earth to commit to sequencing 100,000 entire genomes of NHS patients, which will be combined with patient records to unlock NHS and UK leadership in the fast-emerging field of genomic medicine, focusing initially on rare diseases and cancer. I am delighted to report that we have the genomes of 5,000 patients fully sequenced and that 11 genomic medicine centres have been set up. We have identified first diagnostics and treatments for some rare diseases; 2,500 researchers are involved in the project; the cost of sequencing a genome has fallen from £5,000 to £1,000; and, importantly, NHS England is setting the international standard on ethics and patient consent in genomic medicine.
Jo Churchill
Does the Minister agree that the world-leading Genomics England will deliver a personalised and patient-centred revolution in modern healthcare by combining the talent of global companies such as AstraZeneca with that of UK-based companies such as Congenica in my region, to the benefit of patients with cancer and other rare diseases, the vitality of our NHS and, through jobs and innovation, the strength of our economy?
George Freeman
My hon. Friend makes a great point. I pay tribute to Congenica, a small company in Cambridge that is doing extraordinary work. I recently went to open Illumina’s global research and development headquarters, which is a £160-million commitment. As well as the significant investment in technology and research in the UK, NHS England is leading genomic medicine across the UK, not just in the Oxford-Cambridge-London triangle, but through 11 genomic medicine centres across the country, which are bringing genomic diagnostics to the benefit of us all.
John Pugh (Southport) (LD)
The Minister will know of the case of one-year-old Layla Richards, who was saved from leukaemia by genome editing at Great Ormond Street hospital. What specific help does he give for such hands-on pioneering work?
George Freeman
The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point. Genome editing is the latest in a suite of technologies that is rapidly emerging in genomics. Through the Genomics England programme, we are actively supporting those tools and intermediate technologies, and through the accelerated access review that I have launched, we are looking to harness those breakthroughs to support new treatments and new flexibilities for the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence and NHS England on targeted treatments.
Oliver Colvile (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Con)
8. What progress he has made on implementing a new contract for junior doctors; and if he will make a statement.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
9. What plans he has to introduce a new contract for junior doctors.
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Jeremy Hunt)
Junior doctors are the backbone of the NHS. It is highly regrettable that their union has let them down by refusing to negotiate a new contract that will be fairer for doctors and safer for patients, and deliver the truly seven-day services we all want.
Oliver Colvile
I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer, but has he had an opportunity to speak to medical schools about the new contract for junior doctors, especially the Peninsula medical school in my Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport constituency?
Mr Hunt
NHS Employers has regular discussions with the Medical Schools Council, which represents the Peninsula medical school. Although the training of doctors is not the specific contractual dispute that is in the headlines, it is something on which we could make significant improvements. We want to use this opportunity to work with medical schools and the royal colleges to see whether we can bring back some of the continuity of training that used to be such an important feature of junior doctors’ training.
Caroline Lucas
The person who has let down junior doctors is none other than the Secretary of State. Does he recognise how insulting it is to those doctors to imply that they are not already working seven days? Crucially, will he listen to the professionals—junior doctors and their senior counterparts who support them—and drop his threat to impose the contract so that meaningful talks can take place?
Mr Hunt
What exactly would the hon. Lady say to her constituents who are not receiving the standard of care that they need seven days a week, and will she stand side-by-side with them, or with a union that has misrepresented the Government’s position? We have been clear that there are no preconditions to any talks, except that if we fail to make progress on the crucial issue of seven-day reform, we of course reserve the right to implement a manifesto commitment. That must be the way forward, and I urge the British Medical Association to come and negotiate rather than grandstand, so that we get the right answer for everyone.
Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)
I am deeply concerned about the impact on patient care caused by the proposed three days of industrial action, including two days of a full walk-out. Will the Secretary of State say what advance preparations are taking place to ensure patient safety? Will he reassure the House that there are no preconditions that will act as barriers and to which the BMA has to agree before negotiations can take place?
Mr Hunt
I absolutely give my hon. Friend that reassurance. There are no preconditions, and this morning I wrote again to the BMA to reiterate that point. Of course, if we fail to make progress we have to implement our manifesto commitments, but we are willing to talk about absolutely everything. I agree strongly with my hon. Friend that it will be difficult to avoid harm to patients during those three days of industrial action. Delaying a cancer clinic might mean that someone gets a later diagnosis than they should get, and a hip operation might be delayed when someone is in a great deal of pain. It will be hard to avoid such things impacting on patients, and I urge the BMA to listen to the royal colleges—and many others—and call off the strike.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
It is 40 years since the last junior doctor strike—before I even started medical school. Given the ballot tomorrow, does the Secretary of State regret the antagonistic approach that he took before the summer towards senior and junior doctors? Should he instead have worked with them and not threatened to impose a contract so as to reach a stronger emergency seven-day service?
Mr Hunt
I do not know what the hon. Lady thinks is antagonistic about holding reasonable discussions with doctors for three years to try to solve the problem of seven-day care. Those discussions ended with the BMA, after two and a half years, walking away from negotiations last October. We made a manifesto commitment to have a seven-day NHS and to do the right thing for patients, and we simply asked the BMA to sit round the table and talk to us about it. I am confident that we can find a solution.
Dr Whitford
Claiming in July that senior doctors do not work outside 9 to 5 was perhaps felt to be antagonistic. Contrary to the figures quoted by the hon. Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin) last Monday, A&E figures for NHS England are 5% below those in Scotland. With such disappointing figures before we even get into winter or face a work-to-rule, and in the presence of eye-watering deficits, how does the Secretary of State plan to support hospital trusts through the winter?
Mr Hunt
I urge the hon. Lady to correct for the record her wholly untrue statement that I ever said that doctors do not work outside 9 to 5. That is exactly the kind of inflammatory comment that makes the current situation a whole lot worse than it needs to be. I have always recognised the work that doctors do at weekends, but I also recognise that we have three times less medical cover at weekends, which means that mortality rates are higher than they should be. On A&E performance, we are taking extensive measures to ensure that the NHS is prepared for winter. It will be a tough winter, but unnecessary and wholly avoidable industrial action by the BMA will make it worse.
Sir Simon Burns (Chelmsford) (Con)
17. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the failed attempt by the BMA to get an injunction against the General Medical Council to stop it issuing guidance on how doctors should behave responsibly towards patients if there were to be a strike undermines the BMA’s claim that it is putting patient safety first? Will he assure the House that the BMA will have no veto on a seven-day NHS? That was a Conservative party manifesto commitment and it is what the vast majority of people in this country want.
Mr Hunt
My right hon. Friend championed the cause of patients when he was a Health Minister, and we must continue to do the right thing for patients, which is also the right thing for doctors. It is wholly inexplicable that the BMA should try to gag the GMC and stop it issuing guidance to doctors about their professional responsibilities. Whatever the disagreements over the contract, the most important thing is to keep patients safe.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
I am sure that both sides of the House genuinely appreciate the excellent work done by all staff in our NHS, which at a time of unprecedented strain relies more than ever on the goodwill of its employees to keep going. We have to support and value our staff, not criticise them and provoke them when there is disagreement. Calling junior doctors militant is not the way to end a dispute, and we have heard more of the same rhetoric this morning. Industrial action is always a last resort when negotiations have failed. Does the Secretary of State accept any responsibility for that failure?
Mr Hunt
I accept total responsibility for doing the right thing to save patients’ lives. I have to say that I think that any holder of this office would be doing wholly the wrong thing if they were to try to brush under the carpet six academic studies that we have had in the last five years that say we have higher mortality rates at weekends than we should expect. This Government are on the side of patients and we will do something about that.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
10. If he will take steps to reduce the number of children born with genetic problems due to marriages between first cousins.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Jane Ellison)
I am aware that there is an increased risk of recessive genetic conditions in births that occur as a result of first cousin marriages. It is a complex issue, and other factors are also significant, but experienced health professionals use some well-established tools and materials. Specialist clinicians in my hon. Friend’s area are looking at this important issue.
Philip Davies
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply, but given the severe medical conditions that are caused by first cousin marriages, is it not time that the Government considered the only proper solution—outlawing first cousin marriages in this country?
Jane Ellison
Such a change in the law would not be for the Department of Health. Let me respond to my hon. Friend’s specific point about the particular localised challenges. He might be interested to know that in May 2012 a major conference was held at Leeds town hall, with groups drawn from across the area he represents and from the wider West Yorkshire area to look at these issues. As he knows, I have already written to the public health director in Bradford asking what is being done locally to address this issue, and I suggest that it would be useful if my hon. Friend followed up on that. I would be happy to hear how that conversation goes.
William Wragg (Hazel Grove) (Con)
11. What steps his Department is taking to ensure that the NHS recruits, trains and retains adequate numbers of therapists, clinicians and other staff to improve access to psychological therapies.
The Minister for Community and Social Care (Alistair Burt)
Health Education England, working with NHS England, is charged with ensuring that there are sufficient staff with the right skill mix to support the delivery of the improving access to psychological therapies programme, and that is monitored by an annual workforce census. For example, HEE’s plans for 2015-16 are to train 946 additional individuals—a 25% increase on last year.
William Wragg
As well as providing adequate numbers of high quality specialised staff, given the prevalence of mental health issues in our society, is it not also important that general awareness is raised of mental health issues and the available treatments among all medical professionals, especially GPs? What future steps can the Government take to improve that training?
Alistair Burt
There are two particular ways to do that. The first is to enhance GP training, and work is already going on to do that. The second is through continuing professional development, and the Royal College of General Practitioners and HEE are combining to ensure that a good range of materials is available for clinicians and others to improve their skills in that area. My hon. Friend is right to raise the issue.
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)
12. What assessment he has made of the effect of poverty on the incidence of health problems.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
16. What assessment he has made of the effect of poverty on the incidence of health problems.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Jane Ellison)
Across Government we are working to improve the life chances of children, and that is at the heart of our efforts to tackle the real causes of child poverty and improve the prospects for the next generation. That involves taking a broad approach to improving poor health and tackling health inequalities which the last Government embedded in the law. The wider causes of ill health, such as worklessness and unhealthy lifestyles, are all being addressed at the moment. I welcome the fact that we have record numbers of people in work and a dramatic drop in the number of children living in workless households. That goes to the heart of some of the broader drivers of ill health and poverty.
Tommy Sheppard
I am pleased that the Government accept that there is a causal link between poverty and poor health outcomes. They will also know of the widespread concern that the proposed changes to the tax credits regime will result in greater poverty, which will in itself cause poorer health outcomes and may put great pressure on the NHS. Will the Department consider putting in place mechanisms to monitor the effect of the tax credit changes on demands on the national health service?
Jane Ellison
We do far more than monitor health inequalities; we are taking action to deal with them. The heart of my portfolio is comprised entirely of tackling health inequalities in our nation. Let me give just a couple of examples: the expanded troubled families programme, on which the Department of Health is working closely with other Departments; and the family nurse partnership, where we support some of the most vulnerable young parents in the earliest years of their children’s lives. Those programmes have the greatest impact on our most disadvantaged communities. The matters that the hon. Gentleman raises are for other Departments, but I assure the House that improving the life chances of all our children is core business for the Government.
Peter Grant
Interesting answer, but unfortunately it was not the answer to the question that was asked. No doubt my hon. Friend will follow that up later. Is the Minister aware of work produced by, for example, Sir Harry Burns, the former chief medical officer of Scotland, which clearly indicates that although there is a very strong link between poverty and poor health, that link is not inevitable and should not be allowed to become inevitable? What are the Government doing to change policy, so that that link can be broken?
Jane Ellison
I have already given some examples of the work the Government are doing to tackle health inequalities in our nation. Let me give the hon. Gentleman another practical example. The burden of disease that tobacco brings falls disproportionately on poor communities. As well as the action that we have taken on standardised packaging and on smoking in cars with children, we are committed to a new tobacco strategy. I have said publicly that at the heart of the strategy there must be effective action to look at the areas in which the effect of tobacco falls most heavily—disadvantaged communities. We are taking practical action to close gaps in health outcomes in a range of ways.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
13. If he will discuss with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions provision of winter fuel payments to people infected with hepatitis C by NHS blood transfusions.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Jane Ellison)
Those affected by the contaminated blood tragedy are entitled to receive Department for Work and Pensions winter fuel payments if they meet its eligibility criteria. For the benefit of the House, if not the hon. Gentleman, it is worth explaining that there are separate programmes of support. The bodies that put support in place for affected individuals also provide some winter payments. If somebody is eligible for both, receiving something from one body does not preclude them receiving a DWP winter fuel payment if they meet the criteria, but they are two different schemes.
Drew Hendry
With the UK Government dragging their feet on the £25 million transitional compensation payments for those in receipt of infected blood products, will they now make a firm commitment to supporting patients through this winter, and then get on with the business of getting a just and lasting settlement?
Jane Ellison
I have had conversations with my opposite numbers in Scotland about this issue and, as the hon. Gentleman knows, Shona Robison wrote to me about it. We are looking at her proposals in the context of wider scheme reform. I have also ensured that my officials are talking to the other devolved Administrations as we move forward to a better solution to this tragedy.
Dame Angela Watkinson (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)
14. What progress has been made on integrating and improving care provided outside of hospitals.
The Minister for Community and Social Care (Alistair Burt)
The Government are committed to transforming out-of-hospital care for everyone, in every community, by 2020. We have seen excellent progress in areas led by integration pioneers, such as South Devon and Torbay. My hon. Friend’s own area also has in place a number of initiatives, such as the community treatment team and intensive rehabilitation service, which is rated very highly in her local community.
Dame Angela Watkinson
My right hon. Friend will be aware that elderly people deteriorate rapidly and lose their independence skills when they are admitted to hospital. What discussions have been held with local authorities to ensure that there is an adequate supply of carers to enable older people to remain in their homes whenever possible?
Alistair Burt
I meet regularly, as does the Department, with our partners in the provision of social care. A new recruitment and retention strategy has been launched by the Department of Health and Skills for Care on how to ensure more care is provided by more skilled and more valued workers in the home environment. My hon. Friend is right to raise this issue.
Mr Speaker
Equally briefly, the last question and answer. I call Barbara Keeley.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
The ResPublica report, “The Care Collapse”, states that our residential care sector is in crisis. It says:
“Providers are being faced with an unsustainable combination of declining real terms funding, rising demand for their services, and increasing financial liabilities.”
It also states that a £1 billion funding gap in older people’s residential care would result in the loss of 37,000 care beds, which is more than in the Southern Cross collapse. No private sector provider has the capacity to take in residents and cover the lost beds, so those older people will most likely end up in hospital. What is the Minister doing to protect the care sector from catastrophic collapse?
Alistair Burt
As the House is aware, social care is a matter of great importance as we head towards the spending review round. We are aware of pressures in the system, and there is always contingency planning to identify particular problems. We are working hard with the National Care Association to improve the quality of care provided by the sector, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has commissioned Paul Johnson, of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, to look at pressures in the care home sector and how to ensure that we can meet the challenges. If challenges require more money, which they always seem to do according to the hon. Lady, she needs to come up with ideas for how to provide that money, but she never does. It is the Government’s responsibility to meet those challenges within the context of the overall economic position.
Kate Hollern (Blackburn) (Lab)
T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Jeremy Hunt)
On Friday, I announced an ambitious plan to halve the rates of maternal deaths, neonatal harm and injury and still births by 2030 by learning from best practice in this and other countries. Following the tragic events in Paris, I know the House would also like my reassurance that we regularly review and stress test the NHS’s preparedness for responding rapidly to terrorist attacks. I have written to Madame Marisol Touraine, my French counterpart, to offer our solidarity and support. Vive la France!
Kate Hollern
Just after the election, the Health Secretary called childhood obesity a national scandal and made tackling health inequalities one of his key priorities. How will a flat-rate cut in the public health grant across all authorities, regardless of specific health challenges, as well as a further projected cut, under the reformulation, of £3 million in my constituency, help him to achieve his mission?
Mr Hunt
I gently say to the hon. Lady that we have to find efficiencies in every part of the NHS, and we are asking the public health world to find the same efficiencies as hospitals, GP surgeries and other parts of the NHS, but that should not be at the expense of services. I completely agree with her about childhood obesity, on which we will announce some important plans shortly.
Mr Speaker
Forgive me colleagues, but what we need at Topical Questions is short inquiries, without preamble, if we are to make progress. Let us be led in this exercise by Fiona Bruce.
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
T3. This is alcohol awareness week. In Scotland, the number of drink-driving offences dropped by 17% in the first three months after the introduction of a lower drink-driving limit. In the light of this encouraging evidence, is the Minister’s Department looking at the public health implications of reviewing the drink-driving limit in England and Wales as part of its alcohol review?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Jane Ellison)
Obviously, tackling drink-driving remains a priority for the Government. We will be interested to see a robust and comprehensive evaluation of the change to the Scottish drink-driving limit, and I can confirm that Public Health England’s review of the public health impacts of alcohol will include drink-driving. Obviously, some of the issues my hon. Friend raises are for the Department for Transport, but I can confirm that we will be looking at this issue, and I will be interested to see the evidence.
Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East) (Lab)
On Sunday, independent experts, the King’s Fund, the Nuffield Trust and the Health Foundation, had this to say about the coming winter:
“Expect the inevitable: more people dying on lengthening waiting lists; more older people living unwell, unsupported and in misery; and a crisis in Accident and Emergency.”
Are they all wrong?
Mr Hunt
They are right about the pressures on the NHS, which is why we are investing £5.5 billion more into it than Labour promised. Those pressures will be made a lot worse by the forthcoming strike, so will the hon. Lady clear something up once and for all: does she condemn the strike—yes or no?
Heidi Alexander
Let us be clear: if junior doctors vote for industrial action, one person will be to blame, and that person is the Health Secretary.
The Health Secretary does not want to admit that NHS funding is not keeping pace with demand and that over the last five years, his Government’s deep cuts to social care have left the NHS bleeding. Will he guarantee that every penny of the money his Department had set aside for implementing the now-postponed cap on care costs will go directly into funding social care?
Seema Kennedy (South Ribble) (Con)
T6. St Catherine’s hospice provides outstanding end-of-life care, but receives only 26% funding compared with 34% nationally. Will the Minister confirm whether he has any plans to encourage clinical commissioning groups to pay their fair share for hospice care?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ben Gummer)
I thank my hon. Friend, who is right to raise the issue of end-of-life care, which is central to our plans to provide better care across the NHS. Indeed, it was a manifesto commitment of ours at the general election. NHS England is looking at a more transparent, fairer and clearer funding advice formulae for CCGs. I encourage her CCG to look very carefully at that and to copy the example of some CCGs such as Airedale, which have put this at the centre of the work they do looking after local patients.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
T2. I strongly associate myself and my colleagues with the remarks of the Secretary of State about the atrocities in France this weekend. What assessment has the right hon. Gentleman made of the impact of housing problems on the difficult task of recruiting and retaining clinical staff, particularly nurses in London and London’s NHS?
Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)
T8. Can the Secretary of State assure me that the NHS funding review that is currently under way will deliver a fairer formula for my constituents and many others across York and North Yorkshire by putting age and rurality—some of the biggest drivers of health costs—at the heart of this long overdue review?
The Minister for Community and Social Care (Alistair Burt)
Clinical commissioning group formulae are based on advice provided by the Advisory Committee on Resource Allocation. I can assure my hon. Friend that an adjustment per head is made for morbidity over and above age and gender, but as to whether or not one area is fairer than another, I am afraid that that is always a matter for local decision and discretion.
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)
T4. Can the Health Secretary explain how cutting £200 million from public health budgets is consistent with the emphasis on prevention and public health as set out in the five-year forward view?
Mr Hunt
I have already explained that, but I hope the hon. Lady will understand that we also need the Labour party to explain why it is committed to £5.5 billion less for the NHS over this Parliament than this Conservative Government, on the back of a strong economy that her party has never been able to deliver.
Mrs Flick Drummond (Portsmouth South) (Con)
T9. Some of our GP surgeries are finding it difficult to attract new GPs. What plans do the Government have to train new GPs and encourage them to work in areas where it is difficult to recruit?
Alistair Burt
We are very conscious of the pressure on general practice and of the pressure of ensuring that enough GPs are available. The Government’s plans are for 5,000 more doctors to be working in primary care by 2020, and that is supported by our recruitment, retention and returning campaign, as well as by efforts to ensure that medical schools do everything they can to ensure that general practice is made more attractive. This work will continue right through this Parliament.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
T5. According to Public Health England, life expectancy in the most deprived areas of Bradford is 9.6 years lower for men and eight years lower for women, demonstrating that there are clear health inequalities in urban areas in Bradford. The Government’s attack on the poor makes this issue worse, so will the Minister tell me what they are doing to tackle these inequalities and give people in Bradford the quality of life that they deserve?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Jane Ellison)
The hon. Gentleman will be aware of my earlier answers to other questions. A wide range of aspects of the public health work that this Government are taking forward attack that very issue—the inequality of outcomes for some communities. I gave examples earlier, including the family nurse partnership and the troubled families programme, which has a health aspect to it. More widely, the universal health visiting programme, which has just moved into commissioning by local government, contains significant elements that were designed exactly to support poorer families and disadvantaged communities.
Heidi Allen (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)
For the avoidance of doubt, will the Secretary of State please repeat again that he will enter into completely open-minded, non-preconditional negotiations with the British Medical Association? The public need to see that we are approaching this matter with an open mind.
Mr Hunt
I am happy to confirm that we are willing to talk about absolutely anything with the BMA to avoid a dispute that would be very damaging to patients. We do, of course, reserve the right to implement our manifesto commitment to seven-day reforms if we fail to make progress in the negotiations, but at this time, in the interests of patients, the right thing to do is sit round the table and talk rather than refusing to negotiate and going ahead with the strikes.
Simon Danczuk (Rochdale) (Lab)
T7. Rochdale infirmary now has fantastic dementia provision which really meets the needs of local people. Will the Secretary of State observe the good practice there, and look into how it could be shared more widely?
Mr Hunt
I shall be happy to do that. We have made great progress in tackling dementia, and there are some very good examples all over the country, but we can still do a lot better. We now need to concentrate not just on dementia diagnosis, but on the quality of the care that we give people when they have been given such a diagnosis.
Chloe Smith (Norwich North) (Con)
What support will be available to hospitals over the winter? Norfolk and Norwich University hospital declared a black alert last week.
Ben Gummer
We are preparing for the winter on an unprecedented scale, having learnt from the experience of last winter. Specific support has already been provided for Norfolk and Norwich University hospital, and support will be provided consistently throughout the winter to enable us to deal with the additional challenges that are, I am afraid, being thrown in the way of hospitals throughout the country by the junior doctors and their industrial action.
Norman Lamb (North Norfolk) (LD)
Is the Secretary of State doing everything he can to ensure that we secure extra dedicated investment in mental health in the spending review? He will know that introducing the access rights that everyone else already enjoys requires hard cash. I am sure he will agree that we must end the outrageous discrimination against those who suffer from mental ill health.
Mr Hunt
I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his timing, given that the Prime Minister is now present. I assure him that we are committed to putting extra resources into the NHS, and to ensuring that we increase the proportion of those resources that go into mental health. I also congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the mental health award that he received last week, which was extremely well deserved.
G20 and Paris Attacks
(9 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a statement on the terrorist attacks in Paris and the G20 summit that took place in Turkey over the weekend.
On Paris, the Home Secretary gave the House the chilling statistics yesterday. We now know that among the victims was a 36-year-old Briton, Nick Alexander, who was killed at the Bataclan. I know that the thoughts and prayers of the whole House will be with the families and friends of all those affected.
On Saturday, I spoke to President Hollande to express the condolences of the British people and our commitment to helping in whatever way we can. After our horror and our anger must come our resolve and our determination to rid our world of this evil, so let me set out the steps that we are taking to deal with this terrorist threat.
The more we learn about what happened in Paris, the more it justifies the full-spectrum approach that we have discussed before in the House. When we are dealing with radicalised European Muslims, linked to ISIL in Syria and inspired by a poisonous narrative of extremism, we need an approach that covers the full range: military power, counter-terrorism expertise, and defeating the poisonous narrative that is the root cause of this evil. Let me take each in turn.
First, we should be clear that this murderous violence requires a strong security response. That means continuing our efforts to degrade and destroy ISIL in Syria and Iraq, and, where necessary, working with our allies to strike against those who pose a direct threat to the safety of British people around the world. Together, coalition forces have now damaged over 13,500 targets. We have helped local forces to regain 30% of ISIL territory in Iraq and we have helped to retake Kobane and push ISIL back towards Raqqa. On Friday, Kurdish forces retook Sinjar. The United Kingdom is playing its part, training local forces, striking targets in Iraq and providing vital intelligence support. Last Thursday the United States carried out an air strike in Raqqa, Syria, targeting Mohammed Emwazi, the ISIL executioner known as Jihadi John. That was a result of months of painstaking work in which America and Britain worked hand in glove to stop this vicious murderer.
It is important for the whole House to understand the reality of the situation that we are in. There is no Government in Syria with whom we can work, particularly in that part of Syria. There are no rigorous police investigations or independent courts upholding justice in Raqqa. We have no military on the ground to detain those preparing plots against our people. In this situation, we do not protect the British people by sitting back and wishing things were different. We have to act to keep our people safe, and that is what this Government will always do.
Secondly, on counter-terrorism here in the UK, over the past year alone our outstanding police and security services have already foiled no fewer than seven terrorist plots right here in Britain. The people in our security services work incredibly hard. They are a credit to our nation and we should pay tribute to them again in our House today. But now we must do more to help them in their vital work. So in next week’s strategic defence and security review, we will make a major additional investment in our world-class intelligence agencies. This will include over 1,900 additional security and intelligence staff and more money to increase our network of counter-terrorism experts in the middle east, north Africa, south Asia and sub-Saharan Africa.
At the G20 summit in Turkey this weekend, we agreed additional steps to better protect ourselves from the threat of foreign fighters by sharing intelligence and stopping them travelling. We also agreed for the first time to work together to strengthen global aviation security. We need robust and consistent standards of aviation security in every airport in the world and the UK will at least double its spending in this area.
Thirdly, to defeat this terrorist threat in the long run we must also understand and address its root cause. That means confronting the poisonous ideology of Islamist extremism itself. As I have argued before, that means going after both violent and non-violent extremists—those who sow the poison but stop short of actually promoting violence; they are part of the problem. We will improve integration, not least by inspecting and shutting down any educational institutions that are teaching intolerance, and we will actively encourage reforming and moderate Muslim voices to speak up and challenge the extremists, as so many do.
It cannot be said enough that the extremist ideology is not true Islam, but it does not work to deny any connection between the religion of Islam and the extremists, not least because the extremists themselves self-identify as Muslims. There is no point denying that; what we need to do instead is take apart their arguments and demonstrate how wrong they are, and in doing so we need the continued help of Muslim communities and Muslim scholars. They are playing a powerful role and I commend them on their absolutely essential work.
We cannot stand neutral in this battle of ideas. We have to back those who share our values with practical help, funding, campaigns, protection and political representation. This is a fundamental part of how we can defeat this terrorism both at home and abroad.
Turning to the G20 summit, there were also important discussions on Syria and on dealing with other long-term threats to our security, such as climate change. Let me briefly address those.
On Syria, we discussed how we do more to help all those in desperate humanitarian need and how to find a political solution to the conflict. Britain, as has often been said, is already providing £1.1 billion in vital life-saving assistance—that makes us the second largest bilateral donor in the world—and last week we committed a further £275 million to be spent in Turkey, a country hosting over 2 million refugees. In February, the United Kingdom will seek to raise further significant new funding by co-hosting a donors conference in London together with Germany, Norway, Kuwait and the United Nations.
But none of this is a substitute for the most urgent need of all: to find a political solution that brings peace to Syria and enables millions of refugees to return home. Yesterday I held talks with President Putin. We reviewed the progress made by our Foreign Ministers in Vienna to deliver a transition in Syria. We still have disagreements—there are still big gaps between us—but there is progress.
I also met with President Obama and European leaders at the G20, and we agreed some important concrete steps forward, including basing some British aircraft alongside other NATO allies at the airbase at Incirlik if that is the decision of the North Atlantic Council, which meets shortly. These would be in an air defence role to support Turkey at this difficult time. We also agreed on the importance of stepping up our joint effort to deal with ISIL in Iraq and Syria—indeed, wherever it manifests itself.
This raises important questions for our country. We must ask ourselves whether we are really doing all we can be doing—all we should be doing—to deal with the threat that ISIL poses to us directly, not just through the measures we are taking at home, but by dealing with ISIL on the ground in the territory that it controls. We are taking part in air strikes over Iraq and have struck over 350 targets. Significant action has been taken in recent hours. ISIL is not just present in Iraq; it also operates across the border in Syria, although that border is meaningless to it—as far as ISIL is concerned, it is all one space. It is in Syria, in Raqqa, that ISIL has its headquarters, and it is from Raqqa that some of the main threats against this country are planned and orchestrated. Raqqa is, if you like, the head of the snake.
Over Syria we are supporting our allies—the US, France, Jordan and the Gulf countries—with intelligence, surveillance and refuelling. But I believe, as I have said many times before, that we should be doing more. We face a direct and growing threat to our country, and we need to deal with it not just in Iraq but in Syria too. I have always said that there is a strong case for our doing this: our allies are asking us to do it, and the case for doing it has only grown stronger after the Paris attacks. We cannot and should not expect others to carry the burdens, and the risks, of protecting our country.
I recognise that there are concerns in this House. What difference would action by the UK really make? Could it make the situation worse? How does the recent Russian action affect the situation? Above all, how would a decision by Britain to join in strikes against ISIL in Syria fit into a comprehensive strategy for dealing with ISIL and a diplomatic strategy to bring the war in Syria to an end? I understand those concerns, and I know that they must be answered. I believe that they can be answered. Many of them were expressed in the recent report by the Foreign Affairs Committee.
My firm conviction is that we need to act against ISIL in Syria. There is a compelling case for doing so. It is for the Government, I accept, to make that case to this House and to the country. I can therefore announce that as a first important step towards doing so, I will respond personally to the report of the Foreign Affairs Committee. I will set out our comprehensive strategy for dealing with ISIL and our vision for a more stable and peaceful middle east. This strategy should, in my view, include taking the action in Syria that I have spoken about. I hope that, in setting out the arguments in this way, I can help to build support right across the House for the action that I believe it is necessary to take. That is what I am going to be putting in place over the coming days, and I hope that colleagues from across the House will engage with that and make their views clear, so that we can have a strong vote in the House of Commons and do the right thing for our country.
Finally, the G20 also addressed other longer-term threats to global security. In just two weeks’ time, we will gather in Paris to agree a global climate change deal. This time, unlike in Kyoto, it will include the USA and China. Here at this summit, I urged leaders to keep the ambition of limiting global warming by 2050 to less than 2° above pre-industrial levels. Every country needs to put forward its programme for reducing carbon emissions. And, as G20 countries, we also need to do more to provide the financing that is needed to help poorer countries around the world to switch to greener forms of energy and adapt to the effects of climate change.
We also agreed that we should do more to wipe out the corruption that chokes off development, and to deal with antimicrobial resistance. Corruption is the cancer at the heart of so many of the problems we face in the world today, from migrants fleeing corrupt African states to corrupt Governments undermining our efforts on global poverty by preventing people from getting the revenues and services that are rightfully theirs. And if antibiotics stop working properly—the antimicrobial resistance issue—millions of people in the world will die unnecessarily. So these are both vital issues on which the United Kingdom is taking a real lead.
Let me conclude by returning to the terrorist threat. Here in the UK, the threat level is already severe, which means that an attack is highly likely, and it will remain so. That is why we continue to encourage the public to remain vigilant. We will do all we can to support our police and intelligence agencies as they work around the clock. The terrorist aim is clear: it is to divide us and to destroy our way of life. So now more than ever we must come together and stand united, carrying on with the way of life that we know and love. Tonight, England will play France at Wembley. The match is going ahead. Our people stand together as they have done so many times throughout history when faced with evil. And once again, together, we will prevail. I commend this statement to the House.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
First, I thank the Prime Minister for his statement, a copy of which he kindly sent me earlier. May I also thank him for the measured and careful tone of his public statements since the dreadful events of last Friday in Paris? In the face of such tragic events, and the horror, anxiety and sorrow that have caused the British public to stand up in solidarity with the people of France, it is right that we take an approach of solidarity with them.
The Prime Minister and the Home Secretary have talked of the importance of achieving consensus in our response to the attacks and a common objective in trying to defeat ISIL. I agree with him, and the Opposition stand ready to work with him and the Government towards that end. May I also thank him for arranging for the National Security Adviser to brief my Opposition Front-Bench colleagues last weekend? Will he assure me that the Opposition and other parties will continue to be briefed about developments as they emerge?
On behalf of Labour Members, I want to express my condolences to and solidarity with the people of Paris in the wake of the horrific and unjustified attacks on the people who suffered in that city last Friday night. That solidarity extends to all victims of terrorism and conflict, whether they be in Paris, Beirut, Ankara or Syria itself. Absolutely nothing can justify the deliberate targeting of civilians by anyone, anywhere, ever. These contemptible attacks were an attempt to divide Muslims, Christians, Jews, Hindus and peoples of all faiths and none, as was tried in London some years ago. They will fail.
Secondly, I wish to take a moment to praise the efforts and work of emergency service workers, in Paris and elsewhere, who spring into action in these dreadful and very difficult situations, and help to save life. It is easy to forget the extraordinary heroism of those involved in simply going to work, not knowing what will happen. It is not easy to drive an ambulance not knowing what you are going to find when you arrive at the scene.
In my letter to François Hollande this weekend, I said that we stand united with his country in expressing our unequivocal condemnation of those involved in planning and carrying out these atrocities. The shocking events in Paris were a reminder to all of the ever-present threat of terrorism and indiscriminate violence. In this House, we also have a primary and particular duty to protect the people of this country and keep them safe. Yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) pledged our support for the Government in their efforts to do that, and that we reiterate again. We welcome the sensible measures to make more funding available for our security services, so that they can gather intelligence and expose and prevent plots, but can the Prime Minister confirm that those will be balanced with the need to protect our civil liberties, which were so hard won in this country and are so stoutly defended by many of us? They are part of what distinguishes us from many other regimes around the world—indeed, regimes from which people are fleeing.
My right hon. Friend said yesterday that in the forthcoming spending review there should be protection of the policing budget and policing services, which clearly will be playing a vital role on the ground in ensuring that our communities are safe. Will the Prime Minister now confirm that he is willing to work with us to prevent cuts to our police force and ensure that they are able to continue with the protective work they have to do? Does he agree with the former Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Lord Blair, that it would be “a disaster” to axe police community support officers, as they bring in vital intelligence from communities to help prevent attacks? As a Member of Parliament for an inner-city community, I fully understand and appreciate the great work that safer neighbourhood teams and community policing teams do.
As for community cohesion, we in Britain are proud to live in a diverse and multi-faith society, and we stand for the unity of all communities. There are more than 2 million Muslims living in Britain, and they are as utterly appalled by the violence in Paris as anybody else. We have seen after previous atrocities such as this that there can be a backlash against the Muslim and other communities. Anti-Semitism, Islamophobia and far-right racism have no place whatsoever in our society or our thinking, and I hope there will be no increase in any of that degree of intolerance as a result of what has happened in Paris.
Will the Prime Minister set out in more detail the steps his Government are taking to work with representative organisations of all our faith communities to ensure that we achieve and strengthen community cohesion during these very difficult times? We must also ensure that those entering our country, whether they be refugees or visitors, are appropriately screened. Will he confirm that the Home Office will provide the border staff necessary to do that?
It is also important in these circumstances to maintain our humanitarian duty towards refugees. The Syrian refugees are fleeing the daily brutality of ISIL and Assad and it is our duty—indeed it is our legal obligation—to protect them under the 1951 Geneva convention. I hope the Prime Minister will confirm that our obligation to maintain support for that convention and the rights of refugees will be undiminished by the events of the past few days.
At a time of such tragedy and outrage, it is vital that we are not drawn into responses that feed a cycle of violence and hatred. President Obama has said that ISIS grew out of our invasion of Iraq, and that it is one of its unintended consequences. Will the Prime Minister consider that as one of the very careful responses that President Obama has made recently on this matter? It is essential that any military response that might be considered has not only consent, but support of the international community and, crucially, legality from the United Nations. I welcome the Prime Minister’s comments at the G20 yesterday when he said:
“I think people want to know there is a whole plan for the future of Syria, for the future of the region. It is perfectly right to say a few extra bombs and missiles won’t transform the situation.”
I welcome the Prime Minister’s commitment to respond personally to the Foreign Affairs Committee report, which has been so carefully presented to the House and the country. Will he confirm that, before bringing any motion to the House, he will provide answers, as he has indicated that he will, to the seven questions raised by the Select Committee report? Will he also say more about the particular contribution that Britain has made to the Vienna talks on the future of Syria? The talks possibly provide a basis for some cautious optimism that there could indeed be a political future in Syria that involves a ceasefire and the ability of people eventually to be able to return home.
Finally on this matter, will the Prime Minister also say what more can be done to cut off supplies of weapons and external markets to ISIL? Weapons are being supplied to some of the most repressive regimes in the region. What is being done to ensure that they do not end up in even worse hands, including those of ISIL and some of the extremist jihadist groups in Syria? What more can be done to bring to account those Governments, organisations or banks that have funded these extremists, or turned a blind eye to them? We need to know the financial trail by which ISIL gets its funding and indeed sells its oil.
Turning quickly now to other G20 issues, did the Prime Minister have a chance to congratulate the new Canadian Prime Minister? He did not mention it, but I am sure that he has. Is he also aware that the current slowdown in the global economy is causing concern? What discussions has he had with his Chancellor about the dangers of more demand being sucked out of the economy at this time?
In conclusion, the Prime Minister mentioned the climate change talks that will be going on in Paris over the next few weeks. They are very, very important indeed. I welcome the commitment he made in relation to the problems created by epidemics and antibiotic resistance. I ask him also to consider this: the cuts that have been made to renewable energy in this country run directly counter to everything he and his Government have said they want to achieve at the climate change talks. We must combat climate change globally, internationally, and here in Britain.
The Prime Minister
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his remarks and for the tone that he is taking in trying to aim for greater consensus. Let me try to answer each question in turn.
Briefing on national security issues is available to all Privy Counsellors. If it is not offered, then Members should ask. The National Security Secretariat is there to help, and its role is particularly important during these times of heightened alert.
The right hon. Gentleman was right to praise the emergency services in France, as they did an amazing job. It is important to reiterate—and the Home Secretary did this yesterday—that ever since the Mumbai attacks and following the intelligence we had about the potential for marauding firearms attacks some years ago, a lot of work has been done in Britain to try to ensure that we would be ready for any such attack. I thank him for his support of the security services. He was right to mention the vital importance of our civil liberties. Indeed, they are part of what we are fighting to defend.
On policing, we protected counter-terrorism policing budgets throughout the last Parliament, and we will continue to do so throughout this Parliament, which is vital. Members will see the uplift that we are giving to our intelligence and security services. We will do what is necessary to ensure that we keep our country safe.
The right hon. Gentleman is right to condemn anti-Semitism, Islamophobia and right-wing extremism. All those issues are addressed in our counter-extremism paper. We shall be working with local communities, as he suggests, to ensure that they often lead in these debates. Some of the things that have been said by Muslim clerics and Muslim leaders have made a huge difference in recent weeks.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about borders. We do have the opportunity to carry out screening and checks at our borders, because we did not join, and we are not going to join, the Schengen no-border system. Once again, we can see the importance of having those border controls and using them to the best of our ability.
On the Syrian migrant programme, it is worth reminding the House that we are taking 20,000 Syrian refugees from the camps rather than from among those who have already arrived in Europe. That enables us to screen very carefully the people whom we take. There are two levels of screening, the first of which is carried out by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, and the second by the Home Office, to ensure that we are getting people who are genuinely fleeing persecution and who would not pose a risk to our country.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about the genesis of ISIL. The so-called Islamic State is one of the branches of this violent Islamist extremism that we have seen in our world for more than 20 years—I am talking about Boko Haram, al-Qaeda and al-Shabaab. It is worth making the point that the first manifestations of this violent Islamist extremism, not least the twin towers attack, happened before the invasion of Iraq. It is important that we do not try to seek excuses for what is a death cult, which has been killing British citizens for many, many years. He rightly asks about the process in Vienna. We are a key part of that, with our Foreign Secretary playing a very strong role. Indeed his work was commended by Secretary of State John Kerry yesterday.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned what I said yesterday about additional bombs and missiles only being able to go so far in Syria. Yes, that is right, Britain can do more, and because of our expertise and targeting, we could cut the number of civilian casualties when that action is taken. It would make a difference, but, alongside that, we also need a process that delivers a Government in Syria who can represent all of the Syrian people. We cannot defeat ISIL purely by a campaign from the air; we need to have Governments in Iraq and in Syria who can be our partners in delivering good government to those countries and in obliterating the death cult that threatens both us and them. Those things go together.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about cutting the supply of weapons and money. We are a key part of the international committee that is working on that. A large amount of ISIL’s money comes from the oil that it sells, not least to the Syrian regime. That is another thing that we would be able to address more directly if we were taking part in the action in Syria.
Finally, the right hon. Gentleman asked me whether I had met Justin Trudeau, the new Canadian Prime Minister. I did and I congratulated him on his victory. He is coming to London very shortly to see the Queen. I hope to have a meeting with him, as the Canadians will be very good partners on lots of issues where we work together.
On the economic slowdown, the right hon. Gentleman is right that the forecasts for global growth are lower than they were. Britain and America stand out in the advanced world for having more rapid economic growth, and we encourage others to take some of the steps that we have taken to deliver that growth.
Finally, the right hon. Gentleman asked about renewables and climate change. I have to say that the summit on climate change was disappointing. There is still quite a lot of opposition from some countries on putting in place the things that are needed for a good deal in Paris. Britain has played an important role in getting a good European deal. As for renewable energy, if Members look at what has happened over the past five years, they will see that there has been nothing short of a renewable energy revolution in Britain.
Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con)
The continued reach and activity of ISIS represents a monumental international security challenge. The aim was to degrade and contain ISIS, but it is not contained, so I thank my right hon. Friend for what he said yesterday about the need to cut off the financial supplies to ISIS and to deal with the narrative over values, and for what he has said today about the need to join our allies in taking action over Syria, as well as Iraq. He is absolutely correct when he says that no military campaign of this nature has ever been won from the air alone, so we may yet require an international coalition on the ground of the sort that we required to remove Saddam from Kuwait. May I ask my right hon. Friend simply to rule nothing out and give no comfort to ISIS, because these people hate us not because of what we do but because of who we are?
The Prime Minister
I thank my right hon. Friend for his support. Obviously, we should be in the business of working out what we can do and what would make a difference, rather than what we cannot do; but it is my contention that, in the end, the best partner we can have for defeating ISIL in Iraq is the Iraqi Government, and that the best partner we can have in Syria is a reformed Government in Syria, without Assad at their head, who could credibly represent all the Syrian people and be a partner for getting rid of this death cult, which threatens the Syrian people, as well as the rest of us.
Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP)
I thank the Prime Minister for advance sight of his statement. We would very much welcome a commitment by the Government to brief all parties in the House on major developments.
May I associate the Scottish National party with the expressions of shock and sadness for the people of France and all the families and friends of those who were killed and injured in the Paris attacks.
Will the Prime Minister confirm that all assistance, including intelligence information, is being shared with our allies in France? In the UK, we are hugely indebted to all those in our police and security services who work to keep us safe. We welcome the commitment by the Prime Minister to provide necessary funding and personnel to allow them to do this vital work.
Given the scale of the disaster in Syria, we welcome the progress made at the talks in Vienna and at the G20 in Turkey. For the first time, momentum appears to be building to secure a ceasefire, to work through the United Nations and to combat the terrorism of Daesh. Can the Prime Minister update the House on the next diplomatic steps towards a potential ceasefire and political transition in Syria?
In recent weeks and months, there have been large-scale bombing operations in Syria. There has been bombing by the United States of America, by Russia, by France and by many other countries. There have been bombs dropped by drones, bombs dropped from fast jets and missiles fired from naval vessels. President Obama has reiterated his opposition to providing boots on the ground. Given these facts, does the Prime Minister agree that the long-term solution for Syria is an end to the civil war and to provide support for forces such as the Kurds who are fighting Daesh on the ground?
Today, we have seen the arrival of refugees from Syria in Glasgow. These are people who have been fleeing terrorism at home. Does the Prime Minister agree that the welcome we give to those refugees is the true mark of humanity, decency and compassion—in short, the complete opposite of what was visited on Paris by terrorists last Friday?
The Prime Minister
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his remarks and questions. First, on briefings, he is now a Privy Counsellor and a member of the Intelligence and Security Committee. If he feels that he is not getting enough briefings, he should please ask my team, and I will make sure that he gets them. He asks about intelligence sharing. We have very strong intelligence sharing with the French Government and, indeed, with others in Europe. There is more we can do. I spoke to the Belgian Prime Minister yesterday to talk about increasing the extent of our intelligence sharing, which is a vital agenda for us to move on.
On Vienna, as the right hon. Gentleman says, there is momentum behind the talks. The Foreign Ministers will meet again in the coming weeks, but right now the role is falling to Staffan de Mistura, the UN special envoy, to bring the different parties together. It is a very complex piece of work. It is absolutely vital that some of the Syrian opposition groups are involved in this dialogue. We want a future Syria where Sunni, Shi’a, Kurd and Christian are all represented, so the Russians should stop bombing the Free Syrian Army and recognise that it should be part of Syria’s future.
The right hon. Gentleman makes a point about how much can be done from the air. Of course what we need is an end to the civil war, but he goes on to say that we need to support the Kurds. Yes, we do, and some of that support can be delivered from the air. They need our help to bring this conflict to an end.
On the right hon. Gentleman’s remarks about Syrian refugees, let me commend what Glasgow is doing in taking Syrian refugees. I am confident that we will have 1,000 here by Christmas, and I know that they will be well looked after.
Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)
I thank the Prime Minister for his commitment to a personal reply to the Foreign Affairs Committee report and for his acknowledgement that the defeat of ISIL requires a transition from the Syrian civil war. The progress made at Vienna is therefore beginning to clear the path towards an international plan that would enable the full conventional military defeat of so-called Islamic State in both Syria and Iraq. Will he continue to put our full diplomatic effort into making that plan sufficiently clear politically, militarily and legally, so that he can come to the House to seek an endorsement of a role for our armed forces that will lead to the defeat of ISIL in both Syria and Iraq sooner rather than later?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for his support and for what he is saying. I very much welcome what he has said today. Yes, I can confirm our full diplomatic effort is towards bringing everyone together. Sitting around the table in Vienna are Saudi Arabia, Iran, Britain, France, America, Turkey and Russia. All the key players are there. On the legal basis for any action that we might take, I believe that we can answer that question comprehensively, as we have on other issues, and I am very happy to put that in front of the House, as part of my response to the Foreign Affairs Committee.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
The Prime Minister will know that ISIL wants to exploit the refugee crisis and to poison Europe’s attitude towards those who are fleeing the very same barbarism that we saw, so tragically, on the streets of Paris. He has told me before that Britain is supporting proper registration in Greece. I am concerned that that is not happening. Will he look again urgently at what more Britain and Europe can do to support proper registration and border checks, not just in Greece but at internal borders throughout Europe, so that we can ensure that we provide the security and humanitarian aid that is desperately needed, and Britain and Europe can support both our security and our solidarity with desperate refugees?
The Prime Minister
I thank the right hon. Lady for what she says. She is right that, as the external border of Europe, Greece plays an absolutely vital role and that it is vital that the registration of migrants as they arrive takes place properly. My understanding is that we have given more, I think, than any other country in Europe to the European Asylum Support Office, EASO, so we are certainly putting in the resources, even though, effectively for us, Greece is not our external border; our external border is the border controls at Calais, because we are not part of Schengen. So we are doing what we can; we will continue to see whether more can be done, but she is right that making sure that people can be properly documented as they arrive will be a vital part of our security.
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
The planned carnage in Paris shows the danger of allowing declared jihadists to return to their country of origin. Will my right hon. Friend be good enough to review the counter-terrorism legislation to prevent declared UK jihadists from returning to the United Kingdom, whatever human rights or the charter of fundamental rights may say? We must put the lives of the people of this country before human rights.
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for his point, and I have a huge amount of sympathy with it, and that is why in the counter-terrorism legislation that we passed we took further steps to confiscate people’s passports. If someone is a dual national, we can strip them of their UK citizenship if we think that they no longer merit citizenship of this country. We now have the power—it was controversial but the Home Secretary and I pushed it forward—to exclude temporarily even British nationals from returning to the UK. I am all for looking at options for going further to make sure that we keep ourselves safe, but it was very contentious at the time. This situation is demonstrating that we were right to stick to our guns.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
I thank the Prime Minister for advance sight of his statement. I join him and colleagues on both sides of the House here today in expressing solidarity, compassion and sympathy to the people of Paris and Beirut, especially the injured and families of those who have lost their lives, and in condemning the terrorists who seek to attack us. They detest our diversity, our freedom and our generosity of spirit, and we let them win if we compromise on any of those things. It is critical that any UK military involvement in Syria should focus on civilian protection and political transition, alongside crushing ISIL; otherwise we will repeat the mistakes of the illegal and counterproductive Iraq war. So does the Prime Minister agree that long-term stability in Syria must be part of the strategy against ISIL, and will he confirm that any plan brought to Parliament by the Government to use our armed forces there will specifically address that?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman is right to mention the bombing in Beirut. Some people posit this as a clash of civilisations—the Islamic world against the rest. The Beirut bomb, as with so many other bombs before it, proved that these people—in this case, ISIL—are killing Muslims in their hundreds and thousands. It is very important to demonstrate to Muslim communities in our own countries that we take this violence as seriously as violence committed in Paris or elsewhere.
The hon. Gentleman asks whether what we would do in Syria would be about civilian protection. My argument is, yes, it would be about civilian protection in the obvious way—that if we can take out the murderers of ISIL, we are helping to protect the Syrian people whom they are threatening—but, because Britain has precision munitions such as the Brimstone missile, which are in many ways more effective even than some of the things the Americans have, our intervention and our assistance would mean better targeting of the people who should be targeted and fewer civilian casualties.
Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
In his very welcome statement today, my right hon. Friend is clearly right to focus on the political track in the Syrian negotiations, building in part on the Kofi Annan proposals from some time ago, and on the significant progress that appears to have been made in Vienna last week. If those negotiations are successful, that will of itself remove a huge barrier to the widespread military coalition that all of us want to see, in which Britain, as my right hon. Friend said today, would have the ability, as well as a number of unique assets, to play a very significant part. If the negotiations in Vienna are successful, I have no doubt that the Prime Minister, coming back to this House, will get a huge majority of Members from both sides supporting Britain’s full participation in it.
The Prime Minister
My right hon. Friend, who follows these things closely, makes some very good points. Of course, as I have said, to defeat ISIL in Syria two things are required. First, we need to make sure that the international community—Arab states and others—are taking the military action to degrade and defeat ISIL. Secondly, we need a political settlement that gives us an effective ally in Syria to defeat ISIL in a way that can unite the country. Those two things go together, but if my right hon. Friend is arguing that military action should follow only after some political agreement has been nailed down, we might wait a very long time for that to happen. I caution against that approach.
I want to be clear about what I am proposing here. I am saying that the Government will bring together all our arguments about how we succeed in Iraq, how we succeed in Syria, what a political process should achieve, how we degrade and defeat ISIL, the role that Britain should play, and my argument that we should be going further in Syria as well as in Iraq. We will put all those arguments together in response to the Foreign Affairs Committee. Then it will be for Members of this House to see whether they want to assent to that idea. If that happens, we shall have the vote and take the action so that we play a part with others in defence of our own national security.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. May I gently say to the House that I am conscious that there are many colleagues here who cannot be accused of underestimating their own expertise in these important matters, but nearly 60 Members still wish to contribute? If I am to have any chance of accommodating them all, they will all need to follow the rubric of brevity, now to be demonstrated to perfection by Gisela Stuart.
Ms Gisela Stuart (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I welcome the Prime Minister’s commitment to a wider narrative explaining how he thinks Daesh can be defeated, and his insistence that that has to be done with our allies. Press reports this morning suggest that France has invoked the mutual defence clause in the Lisbon treaty for the first time. Will the Prime Minister explain what practical implications that may have for the United Kingdom and our co-operation?
The Prime Minister
I am grateful for the fact that the hon. Lady raises this. It is not a clause that has been invoked before, as I understand it, so we are looking very carefully at exactly what it would involve. Standing back from the legalities, it is very clear: the French are our friends, our allies, our brothers and sisters and we should be with them. If there are things we can do to help them, I say we should.
Dame Angela Watkinson (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)
In the extreme circumstances of a Paris-type attack in London, does my right hon. Friend think that depriving the police of the right to shoot to kill would make the public safer?
The Prime Minister
No, I absolutely do not. I hope the Leader of the Opposition will review his remarks. What happened in Paris was an attack. It was not a siege, hostages were not taken and demands were not set out. It was an attempt to kill as many people as possible, and when the police are confronted with that, they must be clear that if they have to take out a terrorist to save lives, they should go right ahead and do so.
Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)
Is the Prime Minister aware that those of us who are not persuaded, at least at this stage, that air strikes should be extended to Syria have no less hatred for the mass murderers who have carried out so many atrocities, the latest in Paris? We are not persuaded, not because we are pacifists or semi-pacifists—I am certainly not so and never likely to be—nor because of the internal politics of the Labour party, but because, as the Foreign Affairs Committee concluded, there does not seem to be a strong case for extending air strikes, and it will achieve little or nothing and simply make us feel good that we are doing something as a result of the atrocities.
The Prime Minister
I do not agree with that view. I respect the fact that it is for the Government to bring forward the argument, to make the case and to seek to persuade as many Members of this House as possible that it is the right thing to do. People who oppose that have to answer the question why it is right to take out ISIL in Iraq, but wrong to take out ISIL in Syria, particularly as the headquarters of ISIL are in Syria and it is from Syria that the attacks on this country have been planned and, for all we know, continue to be planned. That is the question that colleagues will have to answer after reading my response to the Foreign Affairs Committee. If we can get to the situation where it looks like Britain can come together as one and say, “It is right for us to take this action”, I am not asking for an overwhelming majority; just a majority would be good enough.
Mr Keith Simpson (Broadland) (Con)
The Prime Minister is only too well aware of the danger posed to our society by those returning from serving with ISIL in Syria. What measures are the Government taking to persuade those who can to speak out against what has happened? They are more likely to influence young Muslims than any of us.
The Prime Minister
My right hon. Friend is right. Huge numbers in Britain’s Muslim communities have made it clear that what is being done by ISIL is not in their name and that those are not representatives of Islam, but a perversion of Islam. That is incredibly powerful, and I encourage all those people who have already made such an effort to go on doing that, please. My right hon. Friend is right. Those people who have been to Syria, perhaps as part of an aid convoy, who have seen what has happened and have come back, rightly disillusioned by the butchery of those people—their hatred of people with different ways of life and the appalling way they treat women as sex slaves and throw gay people off the top of buildings—can be some of the most powerful voices saying, “Those are not people we can deal with. Those are people we have to finish.”
Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)
May I, on behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends, who have experienced over many, many years the ravages of terrorism personally and at close quarters, express our full support for the Prime Minister and his words and actions in recent days in relation to the terrible events in Paris and elsewhere, and express our profound sympathies with the people affected? In relation to counter-terrorism, does the Prime Minister agree that the security services need the resources—I very much welcome what has been said in recent days—and they need the powers? We look forward to working with the Government to introduce more powers with proper ministerial oversight, but the security services also need public support and the support of politicians. When they need to shoot to kill, they need our support. I welcome what the Prime Minister has said about the shameful trait expressed, sadly, by some even in this House, of seeking to blame the terrorists’ victims for contributing to their own murders, by saying that the foreign policy of this country is wrong. That is a shameful approach. Terrorism has no excuses. It never had any excuses and the people who express such sentiments should be ashamed of themselves.
The Prime Minister
As has often been the case in recent days and recent weeks, the right hon. Gentleman speaks with great power and great force, and I agree with what he says.
Nusrat Ghani (Wealden) (Con)
As well as action from our armed forces, security forces and police, we need to tackle the ideology that lies behind the threat that we face. Does the Prime Minister agree that as part of that we need to support those who challenge the extremists, expose Daesh as a death cult, support the communities who feel vulnerable to the spread of Wahhabism within the UK, and help to stop more people sliding into extremism?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. For too long in some European countries, Governments have felt that the way to handle community relations is to leave people in different silos and listen to self-appointed community leaders rather than engage directly with people. When it comes to this battle against extremism, we should not be neutral. We should be very clear about the groups we will engage with because they back the values we share, and those that we do not agree with and frankly think might be part of the problem. Greater clarity on this is probably not just necessary in Britain; I expect it is going to be necessary in other parts of Europe too.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
Last Friday evening at Wembley stadium, when the Prime Minister shared a platform with Prime Minister Modi, he made a speech about being proud to be the leader of the most multi-cultural country in the world. Does he agree that in order to protect and preserve that, we need to be very aggressive in our counter-narrative, and that that means the internet companies doing much more than they are currently to take away the most important method of recruitment, while internationally it means working with Europol and Interpol and giving them the support they need, as this is an international issue?
The Prime Minister
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the support that he gave to the Indian Prime Minister’s visit to our country last week. What I said standing alongside Prime Minister Modi is that while of course we still have to fight discrimination and racism in our country, I think we can lay some claim to being one of the most successful, multi-racial, multi-faith, multi-ethnic democracies in our world. India aspires to do that as well, and it should link us. The right hon. Gentleman is right about working with internet companies. Just as we have worked with them to try to take paedophilia and child pornography off the internet, so there is more we can do to get this extremism off the internet as well.
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
The Prime Minister is right to focus on the importance of a multi-faceted approach, but may I suggest to him that when it comes to military intervention in Syria, we must learn from previous errors and try to ensure that we put together a proper strategy involving regional powers and allies, including Iran and Russia, which might have to recognise that ISIL is a greater danger than President Assad, because we need to accept that air strikes alone will not defeat this evil regime?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is right that bringing together an international coalition for political change in Syria is the right thing to do, and that is exactly what we are doing. Iran, Saudi Arabia, Russia, America, Britain, France, Turkey and others are all in the room together negotiating this, and that is the way it should be. But we also have to have regard to our own national security, and every day that ISIL is active in Iraq and Syria is a day that we are in some danger in our own country.
Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)
The Prime Minister is right that the police and the security services need our full support at this time. Should it not be immediately obvious to everyone—to everyone—that the police need the full and necessary powers, including the proportionate use of lethal force if needs be, to keep our communities safe?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I think we can have huge regard for our police in this country. The old saying that the public are the police and the police are the public rings true, because they come from our communities—they are not seen as some occupying force. It is absolutely right that when they are confronting murderers and people with weapons they have to be able, on occasion, to take lethal action. I hope that the Leader of the Opposition will think very carefully about what he has said, because it is very important that we all support the police in the work they do rather than undermine it.
Seema Kennedy (South Ribble) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend set out what plans the Government are taking forward to make airport security safer given the belief that the Russian airliner was brought down by a bomb?
The Prime Minister
This morning we have seen some reports that the Russian security services are now making it clear that they believe that it was a bomb that brought down that aircraft, tragically, after it left Sharm el-Sheikh. I discussed this issue with President Putin yesterday. We need to work with others to look at the most vulnerable locations around the world and work out how we can make them safer. There is no 100% security you can deliver, even in the most advanced airport, but there are some basic things about scanners, about the way luggage is handled, about the way passengers interact with their luggage, and about what happens at the gate—best practice that can be introduced right across the world. That is what we are going to work on.
Alex Salmond (Gordon) (SNP)
If a broad international coalition is not just possible but necessary on Syria, what is the obstacle to a Security Council resolution? On the subject of financial flows, will the Prime Minister answer this question directly: what are the obstacles to disrupting and degrading the financial flows and the financial institutions without which Daesh could not function?
The Prime Minister
The obstacle so far to a Security Council resolution has been the fact that one of the permanent members, Russia, has threatened to veto meaningful Security Council resolutions that would perhaps provide the overarching permission for the action that we believe is necessary in Syria. I will answer the question very directly in my response to the Foreign Affairs Committee in saying that the action I believe we should take is legal under international law. I know that should be spelled out clearly, and of course I will spell it out clearly.
In terms of disrupting Daesh’s financial flows, we are part of the committee that is looking at all the action that can be taken, including against financial institutions. As I said, one of the most important things we can do is to stop its funding through the oil trade, some of which it is selling directly to Assad.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
Earlier this year the Kingdom of Morocco signed an agreement with France to train imams and preachers, including women, in the moderate mainstream tradition to which my right hon. Friend referred. Will he congratulate Morocco on the exceptional leadership it has displayed in tackling extremism and commend its further efforts, whereby perhaps the UK can learn some of the lessons that France is currently undergoing?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We can learn the lesson from Morocco. There is also work that the German Government have been doing with Turkish imams and work that we have been doing with training imams coming into this country. One of the remarkable things about the G20 was the conversation about fighting radicalisation and extremism. The proposals made by, for instance, the Indonesian President and the Malaysian Prime Minister—both countries pride themselves on being part of the moderate Muslim world—were particularly powerful to listen to.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
While we differ on the details of how to ensure that citizens are kept safe, I certainly agree that it is the overwhelming priority of the Government to make sure that they are. In that vein, will the Prime Minister assure us that as well as giving extra money to the security services, he will make a significant investment in our diplomatic services, which are world class and are needed more than ever right now? They should not be hollowed out by cuts.
The Prime Minister
Our diplomatic posts play an absolutely vital role in Britain’s soft power. We were ranked the other day as No. 1 in the world for soft power. We have been opening embassies around the world rather than closing them. This is a good opportunity to thank all our hard-working staff from this Dispatch Box.
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)
To counter the appalling slaughter that was faced by all those in Paris, we will need armed police on the spot within minutes. Will my right hon. Friend reassure the House that we have sufficient armed police in all our cities to do just that?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise this. Following the Mumbai attacks and the intelligence we had after that about potential attacks in this country, a lot of work was done to make sure that our armed response vehicles have a sufficient number of people to meet the challenge in any of our major urban areas. We keep this under review. We are studying what happened in Paris. We are looking at the numbers that we need. I do not think the idea of routinely arming all the police in our country is the right approach, but certainly increasing the number of armed police that are available is something that we are looking at very carefully and something that, if necessary, we will do. While we do not talk about the role of our special forces, they are also available to help in these circumstances. We will do everything we can to make sure that they can be brought to bear at the right moment and can help with our overall effort in dealing with what are extremely challenging problems thrown up by what happened in Paris.
Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
Does the Prime Minister agree that full responsibility for the attacks in Paris lies solely with the terrorists and that any attempt by any organisation to somehow blame the west or France’s military intervention in Syria is not only wrong and disgraceful, but should be condemned?
The Prime Minister
The response right across the House shows how right the hon. Lady is. Those who think that this is somehow all caused by Iraq should remember that France did not take part in the Iraq war. Indeed, it condemned it. The fact about these ISIL terrorists is that they hate our way of life. They want to kill and maim as many people as possible. They also do that to Muslims with whom they disagree. That is why we have to confront and defeat them, not compromise with or excuse in any way this vile organisation.
James Morris (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con)
I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement, particularly his commitment to come to the House with an argument for extending British military action to Syria. However, does he agree that the current threat from ISIL to our national security is such that he may have to take action as Prime Minister without coming back to this House, in order to protect our national security?
The Prime Minister
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this question. I have always said very clearly at this Dispatch Box that, in the case of premeditated action—for instance, against ISIL in Syria—it is right that we have a debate and a vote, and I am happy to repeat that. However, when action in the national interest needs to be taken very quickly and rapidly, and when confidentiality is needed before taking it, I reserve the right to do so and am prepared to act. That is what I did in the case of Hussain and Khan with the UK drone strike and, obviously, in the case of Emwazi, where we worked hand in glove with the Americans. I think it was right to take that action and to explain afterwards, but I will try to stick to that clear demarcation. I think that is the right approach for our country.
Mr Douglas Carswell (Clacton) (UKIP)
I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement and I am sure that sensible people on both sides of the House will support sensible measures in the days and weeks ahead. Have the Government given any consideration to the way in which the Government of Saudi Arabia perhaps export, fund and encourage radicalism, and is that something we should address, with a view to making sure that they do not radicalise young people in the UK?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. I met the King of Saudi Arabia at the G20 and we discussed the situation in Syria. It is fair to say that Saudi Arabia has quite a strong de-radicalisation programme for its own citizens who have become extremists, and that has been successful. As I have said, we need to ask more broadly how we stop people setting off down the path to extremism in the first place. That is important in terms of what is taught, and how it is taught, in schools and how we make sure that, in all our educational practices right across the world—whether we are Christians, Jews, Muslims or Hindus—we are teaching tolerance and understanding right from the very start.
Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
Although I suspect that many, both in this House and beyond, will find it unpalatable that we are talking to President Putin at this time, I wholeheartedly support the Prime Minister having those discussions. Picking up on the point made by the right hon. Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond), is it the case that the Government are still trying to work towards getting a UN Security Council resolution on these matters, hand in glove with the other strategy to which the Prime Minister has referred?
The Prime Minister
We keep talking with Security Council partners about potential resolutions that we could put forward on any number of issues to do with this overall problem of ISIL, Iraq and Syria. However, something to back the sort of military action we have spoken about in this House has not been possible up to now, because of the potential Russian veto. It is important for us to understand that it is possible to act within, and with the full backing of, international law without a Security Council resolution. Obviously, it is better in many ways to have a Security Council resolution as well, but we cannot outsource our national security to a Russian veto or, indeed, a veto by anybody else.
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)
May I ask the Prime Minister to reject the view that sees terrorist acts as always being a response or a reaction to what we in the west do? Does he agree that such an approach risks infantilising the terrorists and treating them like children, when the truth is that they are adults who are entirely responsible for what they do? No one forces them to kill innocent people in Paris or Beirut. Unless we are clear about that, we will fail even to understand the threat we face, let alone confront it and ultimately overcome it.
The Prime Minister
It is that sort of moral and intellectual clarity that is necessary in dealing with terrorists. I know there is something deep in all of us that wants to try to find an excuse, an explanation or an understanding, but sometimes the answer is staring us in the face. With ISIL, that is absolutely the case.
Will Quince (Colchester) (Con)
The people of Colchester and north Essex mourn the loss of Nick Alexander. Nick died doing the job he loved, giving pleasure to others through music. Will my right hon. Friend join me in paying tribute to Nick and also reaffirm our resolve that we will not allow these murderous cowards to destroy our way of life?
The Prime Minister
I certainly join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to Nick. Our thoughts are with his family and friends. ISIL was trying to destroy our way of life, our value systems and the things that people like to do in their spare time. One of the most important things we can do, alongside all the security responses, is to go on living our lives.
Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP)
I thank the Prime Minister for his statement. On behalf of myself and my two colleagues from the Social Democratic and Labour party, I would like to convey our sympathy to those affected and our outright opposition to terrorism. Coming from Northern Ireland, we all know what it was like for so many years. We note that the Prime Minister will come back to the House with a full, comprehensive strategy. Will he define what he means by action that would be legal under international law?
The Prime Minister
What I have said is that, as part of the strategy that I will lay out in response to the Foreign Affairs Committee report, I will set out why I think we should take action not just in Iraq, but in Syria, too. In doing so, we will set out the legal advice. It is very important that the House sees that. The action we are taking in Iraq is being taken at the request of the legitimate Iraqi Government, and the action we took against Mohammed Emwazi and against Khan and Hussain was also taken on the basis of the self-defence of the United Kingdom. I can lay out very clearly the arguments about why we should be doing it, how we should help keep ourselves safe and why it is in the interests of our national security, but I will make sure that the paper addresses the legal arguments as well.
Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con)
Following a second massacre in Paris last weekend, our own citizens being murdered in Tunisia and a plethora of Daesh-led massacres over the past year, may I say that now is the time not for knee-jerk reactions, but to reflect and plan effectively? Will my right hon. Friend do everything in his power to stop and destroy the murderous regime that is Daesh, for the sake of our own national security? I support him 100% in that, as no doubt do many Members in this House.
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for his support. I do not believe in knee-jerk reactions. When events such as those in Paris happen, though, it is worth asking every single question about our state of preparedness, how we would respond and our intelligence co-operation. That is exactly what we are doing and it is right that we do that.
Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)
The content and tone of the Prime Minister’s statement spoke not just for the Government, but for the country. He referred to Mount Sinjar and the retaking of Sinjar by Kurdish forces supported by the international coalition. The all-party group on the Kurdistan region in Iraq visited the region and on Saturday I was with the Kurds on the frontline south of Kirkuk. Those Kurdish forces are brave and are putting their lives on the line every day; they did so at Sinjar, along with the Syrian Kurds. Can we do more to provide material support for the peshmerga of Iraqi Kurdistan and, pending a decision on whether we go into Syria, give more support from the air to the Kurds in Iraq?
The Prime Minister
I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he has said. The answer to his questions is yes. As he knows, we are already providing training and support to the Kurdish peshmerga forces. They are incredibly brave and incredibly dedicated, and they have done a brilliant job in liberating people from ISIL dominance. We discussed yesterday, with President Obama and the French, German and Italian leaders, what more we could do. Germany is already doing a lot in that area. We are doing a lot, and there is certainly more that we can do.
Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s commitment to defeating ISIL in Syria as well as in Iraq, and his commitment to continuing to make the case to this House and to the electorate, but may I ask him to do so as part of a long-term vision for stability in the region?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. People want to know that our response is not driven by anger, but is driven by resolve and is thoughtful and thought through, and that it will make us safer and the region more stable. I am convinced we can answer all those questions in the document I will put before the House.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
May I associate myself with the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) in welcoming the refugees arriving in Glasgow today? With regard to the Paris climate change talks, may I ask the Prime Minister what further discussions were held on that at the G20 and whether he plans to attend the talks in Paris as an act of leadership and solidarity?
The Prime Minister
Yes, I will certainly be there at the start of the talks on Monday. The discussions at the G20 were positive in that everyone again committed to the aim of a below 2° C rise in global temperatures. My concern is that there is still some opposition from some countries to some of the things necessary to make this agreement really meaningful, such as five-year reviews and the rest of it, and we still have not had every country’s independent proposal for how they will reduce their own carbon emissions. There is important work to be done, and we can use the Commonwealth conference for part of that. Britain is playing its part. There will be an agreement—I am confident of that—and it will involve Russia and China, but we are now battling for a good agreement, rather than just a mediocre one.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that our overriding priority must be the security of our country and its people, and that we must recognise that the threat we face from terrorists today is not just about bullets and bombs, but about cyber-attacks? Will he ensure that we have the right funding and organisations to deal with this threat?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We face cyber-attacks not just from states, but from radical groups and individuals. We have made a lot of progress in recent years in funding our cyber-defences, but I think that should be a major feature of the strategic defence review we will discuss next week.
Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
The first duty of the Government is to protect their citizens. The Prime Minister has set out with absolute clarity the steps required to do that, for which his statement is welcome. Will he, however, say more about what steps he will take to secure action against those who are buying contraband goods from ISIL—not just the Syrian Government, but individuals and companies?
The Prime Minister
I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his remarks. There are of course sales of antiquities, to which he may be referring, as well as of oil. We are trying to crack down on all those things, and we are looking at what more we might have to do in this country to assent to some of the conventions in that area.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. I think it is reasonable to move on at 2 o’clock, not beyond, so I appeal for brevity. If colleagues help each other, that would be really useful.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
Along with the hon. Members for Ilford South (Mike Gapes), for South Antrim (Danny Kinahan) and for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock), I was on the frontline against ISIL/Daesh south of Kirkuk in Iraqi Kurdistan last weekend. Indeed, we saw the amazing work that the peshmerga are doing in taking back territory and communities from that evil existence. We also visited some refugee and displaced persons camps, and saw the families affected. Does my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister agree that we need to ensure that we are protecting those minorities in the middle east?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Making sure that both Iraq and Syria are countries with Governments who represent all their peoples—Sunni, Shi’a and Kurd—is absolutely vital.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab)
I agree with all the comments about the Government’s No. 1 priority being to safeguard the national security of those we represent, but that actually extends to every Member of the House. With regard to the use of lethal force by intelligence and police forces abroad and at home, it is of course important that they have the powers necessary to act, but it is also important that they act within a clear legal framework. I welcome the Prime Minister’s agreement to publish the advice on which he intends to act in Syria. Will he also ensure that the basis on which the police act on our streets is published and made known to those we represent?
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. Let me clarify something, because I do not want to mislead the House. I am not saying that I will publish the legal advice, because Governments have never done that. What I did as Prime Minister in the last Government and will do again in this is to provide a proper and full description of what that legal advice says. I know that that sounds like splitting hairs, but it is important. That is what I will do. As for the issue that the hon. Gentleman raises about the police, perhaps I will ask the Home Secretary to write to him directly about that.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. After his uninterrupted 28 years’ service in the House, I feel sure that the hon. Member for Bosworth (David Tredinnick) can put a question briefly and, very likely, in a single sentence. I call Mr Tredinnick.
David Tredinnick (Bosworth) (Con)
Has my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister heard anything about the possibility of partition as a settlement, along the lines of Cyprus, leaving an Alawite, five-tribal area in the south and a free Syria in the north?
The Prime Minister
I have seen ideas put forward for these sorts of things, but I do not think it is the right idea. The idea of trying to carve up these countries into a sort of “Sunnistan” and a “Shi’astan” would be a great mistake. What we need to do is to build a Syria that can have a Government who represent all of their people as Syrians.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
I have met a number of Syrians during the past couple of weeks, including a very brave citizen journalist, who is about to return to Syria. They are unanimous in calling for a no-bombing zone in Syria to stop civilians being killed by Assad’s barrel bombs. Will the Prime Minister reassure us that he will ensure that the views of Syrian civilians are taken into account in relation to any UK military action?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. If we were to take action, it would be to save the lives of Syrian civilians. Of course, we all support no-bombing zones in terms of Assad stopping the practice of raining down barrel bombs, sometimes with chemical weapons, on his own people. That is why, while we should be very focused on ISIL, we cannot forget that President Assad has been one of the recruiting sergeants for ISIL and that his brutality keeps providing fresh recruits. The idea that you can just take sides and team up with Assad against ISIL is an entirely false prospectus.
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
May I thank the Prime Minister for his statement? In the light of the terrorist attacks in Paris, I believe our police and security services urgently need the new powers set out in the draft Investigatory Powers Bill now. May I therefore urge him to consider speeding up the pre-legislative scrutiny procedure and bring forward the date when this vital Bill will reach the statute book?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. We are looking at this issue, but I would reassure him that most of what the IP Bill does is to put on to an even clearer statutory footing practices currently carried out by our security and intelligence services. There is one particularly important element that is new, relating to internet connection records, which is probably the most controversial part of the Bill, and I do not want to jeopardise the Bill by rushing it. I hope he is reassured that we will look at the timing, but most of the Bill is about putting powers on a clearer legal basis.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)
Arguably the more successful forces against Daesh on the ground in Iraq and Syria have been the peshmerga. What diplomatic pressure can the UK Government put on certain allies who are undermining their capabilities?
The Prime Minister
We are doing everything we can to help their capabilities—training, ammunition and logistical support are coming from us, from the Germans and from the Americans. Obviously, we need to work very hard with all the countries in the region to recognise that the Kurds are our allies in this fight, not least because they are taking it directly to ISIL and saving civilian lives.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
As chairman of the all-party group on Kurdistan, I join the Prime Minister in praising the peshmerga forces for retaking Sinjar, with support from US-led air strikes. Does he agree that the Kurdish forces now need their fair share of oil revenues—promised from Baghdad—for them to be able to continue this fight on the ground against the evil ISIL/Daesh?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend has a lot of experience of working with and helping the Kurds, not least from taking part in delivering an earlier no-fly zone. There is an agreement in Iraq about the sharing of oil revenues, but it needs to be honoured. The Iraqi Government need always to make it clear that they are there not just for the Shi’a, but for the Sunnis and Kurds as well.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
Will the Prime Minister share his views and those of the G20 on the creation of a safe zone for civilians in Syria?
The Prime Minister
As I have said before at this Dispatch Box, we are always happy to look at such suggestions, but we have to remember that we cannot declare safe zones without making them fully safe. To do that, we might have to take severe military action against Syrian air defences, aircraft, command and control systems, and all the rest of it. We might also need troops to make the zone safe. There are therefore real problems with these suggestions. I look at them and have discussed them with the Turks a huge amount. There is another danger that it is worth thinking about. There are 2 million Syrian refugees in Turkey. If they felt that a safe zone was being created to push them out of Turkey and into Syria, it might hasten their move into Europe. All those things have to be considered. At the end of the day, safe zones are only proxies for what really needs to happen, which is the destruction of ISIL and the political transition in Syria.
Andrew Bingham (High Peak) (Con)
There is an assertion that at least one of the perpetrators of the Paris atrocity came into Europe in the guise of a refugee. Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that as we welcome—I emphasise the word “welcome”—genuine refugees into our country, proper security checks will be carried out to ensure that ISIL supporters do not get in under the radar in a similar way?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend makes a good point and puts it in the right way. We must not confuse migration and terrorism, but we need to be clear that proper border controls and checks are necessary to make sure that the people who come to our country do not threaten us. That is one reason why we have never joined Schengen: we want to keep our own border controls. Taking Syrian refugees from the camps enables us to carry out the checks before they take off.
Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)
The Prime Minister is right that greater powers are necessary to thwart terrorist plots on the internet. He is also right to make available additional resources for our security services and special forces. However, does he not agree that this would be the worst possible time to proceed with the biggest cuts to a police service anywhere in Europe, which would have a serious impact on the neighbourhood policing that is vital to intelligence gathering, as it is the eyes and ears of counter-terrorism in local communities?
The Prime Minister
As I have said, we protected counter-terrorism policing budgets in the last Parliament and will do the same in this Parliament. The police have shown in the past five years how well they can find efficiencies and increase the number of neighbourhood police officers on our streets.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
Terrorists and their weapons can enter the UK through any point of entry. Ports that mainly handle freight, such as the Humber port, are particularly vulnerable. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that the staff levels at Border Force will be maintained and, if necessary, enhanced to combat this threat?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is right to raise this issue. We are very focused on preventing firearms from entering our country. That is one of the best ways to defend ourselves from these sorts of appalling attacks. We have an intelligence-led model, whereby we use intelligence to ensure that our border security is delivered in the right way at the right time. All the time, we are asking Border Force whether it has what it needs. I discussed that with the head of Border Force when he attended the Cobra meeting on Saturday morning.
Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab)
I agree with everything the Prime Minister said about Syria and terrorism. Does he agree with me that those who say that Paris is reaping the whirlwind of western policy or that Britain’s foreign policy has increased, not diminished, the threats to our national security not only absolve the terrorists of responsibility, but risk fuelling the sense of grievance and resentment that can develop into extremism and terrorism?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman kindly said that he agreed with me and I absolutely agree with him. We have to be very clear to people who are at risk of being radicalised that this sort of excuse culture is wrong. Not only is it wrong for anyone to argue that the Paris attacks were brought about by western policy; it is very damaging for young Muslims growing up in Britain to think that any reasonable person could have that view. I agree with the hon. Gentleman 100%.
Mr Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley) (Con)
Does the Prime Minister believe that any individuals living in the United Kingdom who have information about any of the activities of those who have been radicalised or become terrorists are silent accomplices to any carnage that might take place in this country and that they have a duty to pass on that information immediately to save the lives of many innocent people?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend makes an important point that speaks to the civil liberties that we have in our country. People who suspect that a friend, relative or someone they know has become radicalised or that their mind has been poisoned should come forward, secure in the knowledge that everything that we do in this country happens under the rule of law. We cannot send out that message clearly enough.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
In this age of terrorism, will the Prime Minister indicate to us how safe are the British people?
The Prime Minister
I do not set the alert levels; they are rightly set independently by a group of experts. The level is currently “severe”, which means that they believe an attack to be highly likely. The next step is “critical”, which would mean that a threat was imminent. That would not normally happen until there was intelligence that a threat was in some way imminent. I say to the British people that we should go about our lives and that we should be vigilant and work with the police and intelligence services where we can. We must never give in to the threat that the terrorists pose, because they want us to change our way of life and to live in fear—that is what “terrorism” means.
Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that for terrorists to pursue their evil trade as effectively as possible they require training, and that training requires territory? Action to reduce ISIL’s territory, whether it be in Iraq, Syria or anywhere else, is therefore a vital component to ridding the world of these evil people.
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right and what he says relates to the point that the hon. Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin) made. Much of our policy over recent years has been about closing down the ungoverned spaces where terrorists are able to stay and train. That is why we cannot sit back from all these things. It is why we are engaged in trying to make Somalia into a proper, functioning country. It is why we took action in Afghanistan to try to stop that country being a haven for terror. It is why we cannot stand by while there fails to be a Libyan Government. We have to work harder to bring about some rule of law and order in that country. We do not do this because we believe in military adventurism; we do it because we want to keep people safe in our own country. That is what it is about.
Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)
May I join the Prime Minister in expressing cautious optimism that the Vienna process could advance the prospects for a sustainable peace in Syria? That is important not only because of the huge numbers who have died there and the millions who have been displaced; the horrors of Paris and Beirut remind us of its importance in defeating Daesh. May I emphasise the importance of there being a strategy when he comes back to the House with his response to the Foreign Affairs Committee report? I understand that he will want to advance the case for military action, but a lot of us will be looking at how that fits into an overall strategy, including the involvement of regional powers.
The Prime Minister
I hope that I am able to reassure the hon. Gentleman. There is a strategy, which we need to lay out more clearly, of combining the political settlement with the military action that I think is important and the involvement of neighbouring countries. In the end, we have to decide whether to take such action as part of a strategy. That is my aim in the document that I will produce.
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
I fully welcome the Prime Minister’s statement. President Hollande has used the exact words that France is “at war” with Daesh. In Vienna, John Kerry said that we have to “defeat Daesh”. This evil organisation wants us to call it Islamic State or ISIL to give it the legitimacy and appeal that it wants. Can we join our counterparts and use the word “Daesh” to ensure that we use the right terminology?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is slowly winning that battle. The use of the word “Daesh” is increasing with every issue of Hansard that is published. He is right about the evil we face. This group carried out the attack in Paris and they would be equally content to carry out an attack in Belgium, Sweden, Denmark or here in Britain. They do not not do it because they feel that we are somehow different; they just have not managed it yet and we have to stop it.
Ann Coffey (Stockport) (Lab)
I thank the Prime Minister for his statement, which I fully support. Does he agree that the multiculturalism of our country is more likely to be destroyed if we do not take every possible action to defeat these murderous terrorists?
The Prime Minister
I absolutely agree with the hon. Lady, and as we do that, we need to take everyone in our country with us.
Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)
May I direct the Prime Minister back to the alarming reports that 450 violent jihadists returning from the middle east have been readmitted to the United Kingdom? Will he give a firm undertaking to the House that he will not rule out any action against those individuals, however robust, tough or draconian, including revoking their passports in order to protect the British public?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is right to make that point. We have a system for trying to examine everybody who returns in such a way. As I said, some people will come home completely disillusioned with what they have seen, because it is an appalling regime with appalling practices, but there are people who we will have to keep a very close eye on, and use all the powers at our discretion.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the Prime Minister on his courage and leadership at this time. There is a clear need for a new strategy, and that must come from within this House. Is it time that right hon. and hon. Members took the decision to step out in support of the new strategy, and to protect all the people of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?
The Prime Minister
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he has said. I hope that the response to the Foreign Affairs Committee will be something around which Members of the House can rally, so that we can move forward in a way that supports our allies and keeps our country safe.
Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con)
My right hon. Friend is aware that Lancashire constabulary is one of the UK’s leading forces in fighting radicalisation and terrorism. Will he update the House on what further steps we can take to ensure that our security services and police forces co-operate fully with each other?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend makes a good point. We have announced additional funding for our security forces, and I have said what I said about counter-terrorism policing. We must continue to work on the Prevent programme, and I am sure that that will be addressed by the Home Office in its spending review.
John Nicolson (East Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
May I raise with the Prime Minister disturbing reports of the firebomb attack that took place in the early hours of this morning against the Al Sarouk cultural centre in Bishopbriggs, which is used by my Muslim constituents? May I also alert him to the grotesque racist attack faced by my colleague, Humza Yousaf MSP, on social media? Will he join me in condemning some of the inflammatory statements in the press that attempt to link innocent Muslims with extremism?
The Prime Minister
I certainly join the hon. Gentleman in condemning those attacks. We should be equally clear that just as anti-Semitism and Islamophobia are wrong, right-wing extremism and attacking people for their religions is also completely wrong. It is vital that we are equally vehement about all those things.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. I am sorry to disappoint remaining colleagues, but the statement has lasted for an hour and a half. I thank the Prime Minister for his brevity, and I say gently to colleagues who did not get called that if their colleagues who did get in had been a bit briefer, they would have been called. We must help each other.
Points of Order
(9 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek your guidance. This morning eminent academics published research in a peer-reviewed journal that estimated the mental health effects of the Government’s new work capability assessment process between 2010 and 2013. The research is the first population-level study that looked at more than 1 million work capability reassessments in 149 local authorities in England, and at trends in suicide, self-reported mental health problems, and rates of antidepressant prescription. The report found that there is independent association of an additional 590 suicides, 280,000 cases of self-reported mental health conditions, and 725,000 antidepressant prescriptions. Concerns about the work capability assessment process and other aspects of the Government’s welfare policy have repeatedly been made in this House. In view of the gravity, and the scale and range of impacts of Government policy on the health of its citizens, I seek your advice, Mr Speaker, on how best to get the Secretary of State to make an early statement on how he intends to address those appalling effects.
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her attempted point of order. I know that she follows this issue extremely closely and carefully, but I am afraid that it is not a point of order for the Chair. I do not want to dilate on matters that take place outside the Chamber, but—forgive me for saying this, but it must be said—we cannot have a situation in which an attempt to raise a matter through an urgent question, for example, which is not granted, is then substituted by an attempt to deal with the matter via a point of order. If every Member did that, we could spend long periods each day with people who tried to get an urgent question but did not succeed thinking, “I’ll deal with this through a point of order instead.”
The hon. Lady asked me honestly for my advice, but I am afraid my advice is for her to table written questions through the Order Paper. If she remains unhappy with the answers—or, as she sees it, the lack of answers—she can try again to deploy the mechanism of an urgent question. It is for her to demonstrate why the matter is urgent for that day, rather than simply a matter of great importance and relative topicality. If she wants to apply for an Adjournment debate she can of course do so.
I think I have shown considerable readiness to grant UQs and hear points of order, and I do not intend any discourtesy to the hon. Lady. She is extremely assiduous in the execution of her duties, but I do not think that I can say more than that today if I am to be fair about it—well, I am being fair about it—[Interruption.] Well I think I’m being fair anyway—[Hon. Members: “Hear hear”] It is quite useful to hear the odd “Hear hear”. If there are other points of order we had better hear them.
Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Last year Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs outsourced some of its functions relating to tax credits to a US-based company, Concentrix. Many constituents have contacted me in desperation because mistakes made by that company have led to arbitrary cancellations of their much-needed tax credits. Timely correction of those mistakes is next to impossible, as there is no way for my constituents to contact Concentrix. The HMRC has a hotline for members, but its staff have told me that they cannot provide an update on the status of a case because they cannot speak for or to Concentrix. A cursory glance at Hansard has shown that Members have been unable to get answers about that company from Ministers. Can you give me any guidance, Mr Speaker, about how we can best represent our constituents, given the obvious failings of a Government agency and its contractor in this matter?
Mr Speaker
First, it is an expectation that Ministers will provide answers that are both timely and substantive on matters that fall within their competence—I use that term in the technical sense. If that has not been the case, or if the hon. Lady judges it not to be the case, that is disappointing and I urge her to persist. I gently remind those on the Treasury Bench that answers to legitimate questions should be provided, and that those should not be alternatives to answers—they should be answers.
Secondly, it is sometimes necessary and to be expected that the Government will make certain urgent announcements when the House is not sitting—indeed, if they did not they would probably be criticised, and it is perfectly legitimate for them to do so. Having studied this matter in concert with advisers, I confess that I am sympathetic to the view that has been expressed—not least by the hon. Lady—that the announcement about HMRC closures is of a kind that might reasonably be expected to be made to the House. It is fair to say that over the last couple of days exceptionally important matters have naturally dominated, but I hope that those on the Treasury Bench will have noted what has been said. It is open to Ministers to come forward sooner rather than later with announcements to the House if they are so minded. If they are not, even though I have known the hon. Lady for only six months, I rather suspect that she will pursue the matter with the terrier- like intensity that she has thus far demonstrated to colleagues.
If there are no further points of order perhaps we can move to the 10-minute rule Bill that the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) has been waiting for with stoicism and fortitude.
House of Lords (Parliamentary Standards Etc) Bill
(9 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009 to make provision for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority to be responsible for determining, paying, maintaining oversight of, and adjudicating complaints relating to, the allowances, expenses and financial interests of members of the House of Lords; to amend the House of Lords Reform Act 2014 to provide for the compulsory retirement of members of the House of Lords under certain conditions; to make provision for the reduction of the number of members of the House of Lords; and for connected purposes.
The other place is too large, too political, too comfortable and too prone to political patronage. It is time to reform it. The Bill is sponsored by Members from several political parties, and it assumes that, for the time being, the House of Lords remains appointed. On behalf of at least one of the Bill’s supporters, who is in his place, I am not saying whether the House of Lords should be elected or appointed: we have had that debate for 100 years and opinion is divided. We are where we are. For the present and for the foreseeable future, the House of Lords is appointed and it needs reform.
My personal view is that an elected Chamber would cause all sorts of problems that would have to be resolved. I do not see any point in the other place replicating this place. It should not be a place for ambitious 30 and 40-somethings who want to climb the greasy pole and become Ministers. There is no harm in ambition, but there is no point in having just another whole set of politicians in the other place. Arguments will rage back and forth on that point, but I do not want to get involved in that debate today. My Bill looks at the House of Lords as it is—an appointed body.
If the other place is not elected, it cannot replicate this House in terms of political dispute. It has to be a place of experts, distinguished men and women from all walks of life and all parts of the country, and mature people who do not want to get involved in politics any more. They may have been politicians, but they should now want to use the other place to improve legislation. There is no doubt that much of the legislation that leaves this place is hurried, has not been thought through and needs improving. There is a place for a revising Chamber, and I would like the Bill to achieve an agreement by convention that the House of Lords is not there to overturn manifesto commitments, or to get involved in taxation. The House of Commons was created all those centuries ago to ensure that the king could not tax the people without the consent of the people, and therefore taxation resides with this place. I would like to see the House of Lords established as a sensible, revising Chamber.
I return to my original point. The Lords is too large, too political, too comfortable and too prone to political patronage. I must make it clear that this is not a declaratory Bill. I wish to lay down some guidelines—and Lord Strathclyde is working on these matters now—but it is for the other place to decide how it meets those guidelines. My own view is that the House of Lords is too large: it does not need to be larger than the House of Commons. I would use the size of the Commons as a guide. We have 650 Members—perhaps after the next election it will be 600. How would we reduce a House of Lords of 850 Members to 600 or 650? I would leave it to the House of Lords to determine how to do it, but my own view is that we need some mechanism to ensure that the size of the political parties in the other place reflects the size of the political parties in this place after a general election. That is for the Lords to decide—they may have another point of view or they may wish to reflect voting strengths. They would also need room for Cross Benchers, so that no one party had a majority. That is important. Just because one party gets an overall majority in this place, it should not have one in the other place.
The House of Lords is overcrowded at the moment and we should reduce its size. We should also stop the absurd race, every time we have a general election with a change of party control, whereby the incoming Prime Minister feels that he has to create another 10, 20, 30 or 40 Members of the other place to try to increase his strength. We keep getting a larger and larger body. When I started in politics, it was hard to get into the House of Lords—usually new peers were of former Cabinet rank. It is becoming too easy to get in, and that gives the Prime Minister too much power. I do not really approve of the system under which the Prime Minister can just send up loads of people from this place: we need a limit on size.
Not everyone will agree, but perhaps we will have to reduce the number of bishops. There were 12 apostles, so perhaps 12 bishops would be enough, and there are also people of other faiths. Again, that is for the House of Lords to decide.
I do not think the House of Lords should have a set retirement age, because there are people aged 90 who are making a tremendously good contribution. If they are elected by their fellows in their political party or among the Cross Benchers to go on sitting there, let them do it. But one way of solving the problem would be to say that no one over the age of 80 should draw expenses or allowances, or be allowed to vote. That system works well in the Vatican. Cardinals can join discussions with their colleagues, but over the age of 80 they cannot vote. What is good enough for cardinals should be good enough for the other place. Again, that is for the House of Lords to decide, but to force people over 80 to be on the Whip, to come in and to vote late at night is rather demeaning for them and unnecessary. If they were not receiving expenses, it would get rid of any other inducements.
Let me deal briefly with expenses. Unfortunately, the House of Lords has increasingly been liable to criticism and scandal. We have to find a way forward. I think that Members of the House of Lords should be able to choose whether to be on an expenses regime and subject to the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority—allowed to claim for a hotel and travel if their main home is outside London—or to receive a modest, flat-rate, taxable allowance. That would get rid of all the scandals that we read about in the newspaper of people coming in for just half an hour or an hour to claim their £300 a day tax-free allowance. We should have the same system here, by the way, with a choice between going on the IPSA regime, with all its complications, and getting a modest, taxable allowance.
If we want to recreate the conventions about making the Lords a revising Chamber, to have a modern expenses regime and to get really distinguished people in the other place who want to make a contribution—not necessarily all the time, but coming in a few times a year because they have a particular expertise—my Bill would fit the bill. It would be a modern, revising Chamber; after all, we are all modernisers now. It would also avoid scandals and create a House of Lords of a good size. It would make the other place fit for purpose for the 21st century, and I commend it to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Sir Edward Leigh, Robert Flello, Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, Mike Kane, Mr Andrew Turner, Philip Davies, Martin Vickers, Mark Menzies, Michael Fabricant, Daniel Kawczynski, Robert Neill and Norman Lamb present the Bill.
Sir Edward Leigh accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 4 December, and to be printed (Bill 95).
Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill [Lords]
(9 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
16:01 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 188 / Noes: 283 - Sarah Newton
18:12 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 186 / Noes: 282 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Temporary Chair (Mr David Crausby)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause 21 stand part.
New clauses 3 and 9.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (James Wharton)
I look forward to an interesting discussion this afternoon. I hope it will be similar in tone to the discussion we had on the previous day in Committee and that we are able to explore issues of concern to hon. Members. I hope that in the bulk of cases we find consensus, areas on which the House agrees, on the devolution agenda that I think many of us believe to be in the interests not just of this place but of our constituents—the people we represent who send us here to do the work we do.
I wish to oppose clause 20 and I shall also speak to clause 21 and new clauses 3 and 9. Clause 20 was inserted against the Government’s wishes following a lively debate in the other place. It amends section 2 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 by lowering the minimum voting age from 18 to 16 for the local government franchise in England and Wales. That means that 16 to 18-year-olds could vote in all elections based on this local government franchise. In England and Wales, those would include local government elections, police and crime commissioner elections, elections for the Greater London Authority and Mayor, and elections to the National Assembly for Wales. The amendment would also mean that 16 to 18-year-olds could vote in local neighbourhood planning referendums, council tax referendums and referendums on local authority governance arrangements.
I have considered carefully the arguments that have been set out in earlier considerations of the Bill, both here on Second Reading and in the other place. I am of course also aware of very similar arguments that have been made in relation to the franchise in Parliament’s consideration of the European Union Referendum Bill— a Bill that I follow closely for reasons of personal interest.
Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
I agree with the Government’s view—I do not think the voting age should be lowered at all—but will the Minister give at least some consideration to the idea that there is a distinction between a normal election and a referendum, given the permanence or longer period for which a referendum would hold sway? Again, it is not a view I entirely agree with, but I think there are some colleagues even on this side of the House who would make a distinction between the two. Perhaps he could go into some detail on why the Government feel that that distinction should not be made.
James Wharton
My hon. Friend tempts me to go off topic. The European Union Referendum Bill has had a debate on this matter and has come to a conclusion to express the will of this place on the age of the franchise. I know this issue is of interest to a number of Members. Referendums are different from elections of other sorts, but I do not think that the difference is such that the concession should be made, certainly not through the vehicle of this particular Bill.
Norman Lamb (North Norfolk) (LD)
The Secretary of State has at least indicated that there is a debate to be had about lowering the voting age and I wonder whether, secretly, he might actually agree with the proposition. Will the Minister explain what the dangers are of reducing the voting age to 16? The world did not cave in when people were given the vote at 16 in the Scottish referendum.
James Wharton
The right hon. Gentleman can speculate on whether the Secretary of State might agree or not. I can tell him that I certainly do not, but I recognise there is a time and a place for such matters as this to be debated. I will set out some of my thoughts on the appropriateness of the Bill or otherwise for that debate today in the comments I will now come to, although I feel that this is not necessarily that time and place, as I will explain.
Mr Graham Allen (Nottingham North) (Lab)
Does the Minister understand that there is a lot of desire to see an extension of participation in our processes? My Select Committee produced a very fulsome report in the previous Parliament, which outlined proposals such as electronic voting and votes for 16 to 18-year olds. The Minister’s position is very clear: he does not want to do this at the moment. However, will he consider the possibility, as we devolve power to local government, that, in certain discrete pilot areas that request it, there could be experiments with the 16 to 18-year-old franchise?
James Wharton
I admire the creativity of hon. Members who wish to find ways to pursue this matter. I do not feel that it is appropriate to do so in this the Bill, for reasons I will go on to explain, but I recognise what the hon. Gentleman says. It is undeniable that there is a debate to be had on the issue. There are views on both sides of the argument. It is, I think, the view of nearly all right hon. and hon. Members that we would like greater participation and involvement in our democratic processes. Whether lowering the franchise is the right way of going about it is rather less clearly agreed across the House. Indeed, it is an area about which I have significant reservations. I have, however, considered carefully the arguments set out with regard to the Bill.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
Will the Minister confirm that we did not place in our manifesto any wish to change the voting age, so we have no manifesto mandate, and that when Labour was in office for 13 years with big majorities it never thought it a good idea to change the voting age?
James Wharton
My right hon. Friend makes a very important point. Conservative Members did not stand on that proposal in the manifesto. Opposition Members from a variety of parties did so. It may be argued, therefore, that this issue has been decided by democratic processes already. However, I recognise, as I have said, there is a debate to be had. We may come to different conclusions, but my contention today is that, valid though that debate may be, the Bill is not the vehicle through which such a change should be delivered.
Several hon. Members rose—
James Wharton
I would like to make a little progress and then I will give way to more hon. Members who want to have their say on this issue.
Lowering the voting age to 16 for local elections in England and Wales would be a major change to the fundamental building blocks of our democracy. The right starting point for making such change would be that those democratically elected to represent the people of this country should consider all the issues involved. Before such a step, we shall seek the views of those we represent. We should seek to recognise where public opinion stands on the issue, and how to maintain and strengthen confidence in ensuring that elections are free and fair. We should carefully discuss the issues and, having weighed the arguments and recognised where consensus and opinion lies across the country, only then would we decide whether or not to make such a change.
John Stevenson (Carlisle) (Con)
Does the Minister agree that if we were to go down the route of 16 to 17-year-olds having the vote, logic would dictate that they should also be able to stand for Parliament, stand as a councillor or stand as an elected mayor? Is that something he would support?
James Wharton
My hon. Friend makes a very important point. There is a need for a joined-up approach in such matters. There is a need to ensure that any change is fully considered in the context of all the other things we place age restrictions on—all the other things that we do or do not allow people to do at different ages, often for very good reasons. Whether that is buying cigarettes or alcohol, using a sunbed, voting, standing for Parliament or driving a car, we have different ages for different things for long-established reasons. Those ages are not set in stone, but they are in place for a very good reason in principle. There is a debate to be had, but the conclusion of that debate is not foregone.
Mark Field
I very much agree with what the Minister says, particularly the way in which he has enunciated it. Particularly in the past 10 to 15 years, in many areas—smoking, using sunbeds, drinking—the age limit has been raised rather than lowered. Insofar as we can try to have a sense of working together and agreeing a single age, if anything we are moving in an upward rather than a downward direction. This leads to the question—I say this only because my late mother’s first vote was in an East Germany election in the 1950s and the electoral age in that part of Europe at that time was 14—why not 14, 12 or 10, rather than 16, as is being proposed?
James Wharton
My hon. Friend tempts me to go further down the path of debating the specifics of different ages, but he makes a fundamental and important point: we have different ages for different things. These matters need to be considered fully and in the round. Change should not be brought piecemeal or as an adjunct to a Bill. It would have to be done in a carefully considered way after proper and thorough debate.
James Wharton
I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman, but then I really must move on.
Norman Lamb
How does the Minister, who accepts that there is a debate to be had, intend to facilitate that debate so that we can have it perhaps during this Parliament?
James Wharton
I recognise what the right hon. Gentleman says, but this debate has been ongoing for some time in our democratic process. I said earlier that at least two Opposition parties stood with it in their manifesto, but they were not successful at that last election. I am talking today about the progress I want this Bill to make. His point is well made, but it is not going to tempt me to go further today.
A broader issue underlies the clause: the transition from childhood to adulthood; the interplay between the different limits, age ranges and restrictions, which we have discussed already; and the desire to further the cause of democratic engagement and how to do it. This complex issue deserves the most serious attention, but it should not be an adjunct to this Bill on devolution, the purpose of which is to meet our manifesto commitment and deliver for areas affected. For those reasons, we do not support the clause. It is not the right place to insert such a significant legislative and constitutional change.
After careful consideration, we have concluded that clause 21 should stand part of the Bill. It was also inserted in the other place, against the then wishes of the Government, and removes section 9NA of the Local Government Act 2000, which currently provides that, where a council has been required to hold a mayoral referendum under an order made by the Secretary of State, and where that referendum has been successful and a mayor has been duly elected, the mayoral model of governance cannot subsequently be changed except by a further Act of Parliament. This provision currently applies solely to Bristol.
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
On behalf of all parties in Bristol, I am grateful for the recommendation to retain clause 21, which, as I said the last time we discussed this in Committee, enshrines a fundamental democratic principle by giving the people of Bristol continued control over the system for determining their elected representatives.
James Wharton
Absolutely. That reflects the consensus we are trying to build around the Bill. Ours are the very actions of a listening Government working on a cross-party basis to deliver in everyone’s interests. Bristol was the only city to vote for a mayor in the mayoral referendums held in May 2012. We have considered the argument made, among others, by the hon. Lady—that the people of Bristol should have the same opportunity as those in other areas to petition for a change in governance arrangements. Clause 21 effectively places the people of Bristol in the same position they would be in had the mayoral referendum in 2012 been triggered by a resolution of the council or the receipt of a valid petition. Having carefully considered these arguments, we are prepared to see the people of Bristol in this position, and hence we support clause 21.
Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)
The Minister has spoken about consensus. Of course, one issue, connected with the Bill, on which there is great consensus is the Government’s proposals to amend the Sunday trading laws—the great consensus being that we should not do it. Will he confirm that those proposals are not coming back, either in this Bill or in any other way?
James Wharton
I hear the hon. Lady’s comments, although I am not sure to which clause we are here to debate she refers. More generally, we always talk to hon. Members across the House and listen to the views of the public at large to determine the best course of action, but the issue she raises is not before the Committee this afternoon. As to what will happen in the future, she tempts me to go further than I can.
New clause 3, tabled by the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), would amend section 36 of the Representation of People Act 1983 to allow local areas to alter their systems for the election of councillors. His enthusiasm to push the boundaries of devolution, throughout our consideration of the Bill and more generally, has not gone unnoticed by Ministers or, I am sure, Opposition Members. When we last met in Committee, he flagged up the proposition that councils should be free to decide their own electoral arrangements in conjunction with their people. He suggested they should be able to have a debate and come to a decision.
I understand the hon. Gentleman’s interest in voter engagement, which, as I have said, we all share, and I note the devolutionary nature of his proposals, under which a council could decide its own electoral system. That said, he will be unsurprised to learn that I have some concerns about how such complex proposals would work in practice and whether there is an appetite for them. Local councillors are currently elected under the first-past-the-post system, which is a well-recognised and straightforward system, as we saw in the outcome of the referendum to change to the alternative vote system in 2011. I accept that that was in relation to UK parliamentary elections, but two thirds of voters chose first past the post over the alternative vote, suggesting there is no public consensus for change.
I have concerns about the potential confusion caused by the possibility of voting systems changing from one poll to the next. We can imagine the pressures that councils and councillors could come under in considering the systems they might wish to employ. There would be a natural desire to consider, or attempt to second-guess, whether there might be some political advantage in adopting a different set of arrangements or sticking with the existing tried and tested ones. Even if appropriate safeguards could be introduced, which themselves would add to the complexity of the arrangements, the practical processes of switching voting systems would still be complex and costly. For example, a change to the single transferrable vote could, in many cases, require a major re-warding of an entire local authority area.
These concerns might not be insurmountable, but the proposal represents a fundamental change to the building blocks of our democratic processes and would require significant consideration, development and consensus, and I am clear that the Bill, although both devolutionary and enabling, is not the right vehicle for such a change. On raising the proposal last time, the hon. Gentleman suspected that the idea might need to brew a little. He will sense from my comments that I believe it has brewed nowhere near enough. I therefore ask that he does not push it to a Division.
Finally, I turn to new clause 9, which would introduce a requirement through regulations for local government electors in an area to approve certain boundary and structural changes via a referendum. The boundary and structural changes involved relate to the establishment of new unitary local authorities, the merger of authorities or movement from one authority area to another. Clause 16 already gives the Secretary of State wide regulation-making powers regarding structures and boundaries. The regulations will allow modification of the existing processes, as provided for in the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007, for making changes such as merging councils or moving to more unitary structures. These regulations can be made only where all the affected councils agree. I doubt it would be right to include a requirement for a referendum, and nor do I believe referendums to be sound practically in this context.
Our democracy is founded on the traditions and principles of representative democracy, which have served us well and stood the test of time. In general, we believe that decisions on public matters are made most effectively by those democratically elected to represent the area affected. All past experience suggests that this is the case with changes to local authority boundaries and structures. The democratically elected local representatives are best placed to take local decisions on these issues. Of course, they will want to take account of the views of the electorate—of those who live and work there, of businesses, of those who contribute to the life of local communities. However, how they seek these views—the kind of consultation exercises they undertake—is a matter for them. It is not for the Government to tell elected representatives how to undertake their roles.
Hence, it would not be right to require referendums—to require a particular way of ascertaining the views of local people—or for the result of such an exercise to determine the decision on proposed boundary or structural change. The referendums envisaged by the new clause would not be sound in practice. First, it would only require a referendum in a part of the area—the part becoming unitary, for example—yet such a change would have implications for the surrounding areas, so I am not clear that this approach would be right in any event. Secondly, such boundary and structural changes are almost invariably part of some wider reform. To present the question as simply one about some council structure or boundary risks being misleading and oversimplifying complex arguments. With those explanations, I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr Turner), after what I am sure will be an interesting discussion, will not press his new clause.
In conclusion, I have explained that the Government cannot support new clauses 3 and 9. We are content for clause 21 to stand part of the Bill, but we are opposed to clause 20.
Liz McInnes (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab)
I am glad to hear that the Government are in listening mode. I am pleased about clause 21, but I hope that the Government will now listen to the arguments in favour of clause 20 and reducing the voting age to 16 in local government elections.
More than 1.5 million 16 and 17-year-olds in the UK are denied any part in our democratic process. In recent years, pressure has developed to reduce the voting age from 18 to 16. The Electoral Reform Society has argued for it, and in 2006 the Power commission was funded by the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust to find out what was happening to British democracy and why people were disengaged from politics.
The commission drew up a set of proposals and recommendations to increase political participation and it presented them in a final report, “Power to the People”. One recommendation was to lower the voting and candidacy age to 16, with the exception of candidacy for the House of Lords. The Power commission explained its recommendation thus:
“Our own experience and evidence suggests that just as with the wider population, when young people are faced with a genuine opportunity to involve themselves in a meaningful process that offers them a real chance of influence, they do so with enthusiasm and with responsibility. We recognise that few people take an interest in a sphere of life or an area from which they have been deliberately excluded.”
John Redwood
Will the hon. Lady remind us why during 13 years in office up to 2010, Labour, which had big majorities, never wanted to do this?
Liz McInnes
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question. Sometimes pressure needs to build up before change is made. It is correct to say that the Labour party did not make this change in 13 years in office, but I am going to talk about the build-up of pressure and the involvement of various organisations. We saw in the Scottish referendum that there is a real feeling that our young people are affected by the democratic process. To take the right hon. Gentleman’s arguments to their conclusion, we would never make any changes whatever, simply because we did not do so in a previous term of office.
I was quoting the Power commission on young people feeling excluded and therefore not being interested in politics. The commission proposed that reducing the voting age to 16 would be an obvious way of reducing the extent of such exclusion for many thousands of young people. It would increase the likelihood of their taking an interest and participating in political and democratic debates if they actually felt that they could influence such debates.
John Stevenson
Logically, if 16-year-olds have the vote, they should clearly be entitled to stand as candidates as well. Is the hon. Lady comfortable with the idea of a 16-year-old being able to get elected to a position that has executive authority?
Liz McInnes
The Power commission did not recommend that 16-year-olds should become candidates, but rather that they should have the vote to raise their awareness of the democratic process so that when they reach an age when they are eligible to become a candidate, they will have played some part in the democratic process.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
During my election campaign, I spoke to hundreds of young people who were not only enthused by the political process, but actively wanted to engage in it. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is an absolute myth that young people are somehow not interested in politics, not capable of holding public office and not capable of voting? Does she further agree that the right thing to do is to give them that right to vote, so that we can bring about more engagement by young people, which is more actively needed than ever before at this time in politics?
Liz McInnes
I think my hon. Friend is absolutely right. The 16-year-olds I know and speak to are very keen on the idea of greater political involvement. We keep going back to the Scottish referendum, but it was amazing to see so many young people participating in that very important debate. It was a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for them on an issue that was going to affect them. I feel that we have some 16-year-olds who are engaged in the political process, yet we deliberately exclude them from it.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr Marcus Jones)
Not without mum and dad.
Liz McInnes
I accept that young people cannot do all those things at 16 without the consent of their parents, but the fact is that they can still do them.
Contrary to popular myth, young people are interested in political issues—from climate change to racism, and from education to crime. I meet young people in my constituency, as I am sure do many of my hon. Friends, who are studying politics at A-level and are completely engaged with the political process, yet this country still denies them a vote.
In a democracy, voting is the fundamental way for our young people to express their opinions. As the Power commission report put it,
“it is worth remembering that we enlist 16-year olds into the armed forces and expect them to pay taxes if they are earning so they should be able to participate in the selection of those who govern them. We believe that any reform to encourage young people to engage politically will be very severely limited in its effectiveness while the current constitutional, party and electoral arrangements remain in force.”
Given that Government decisions will naturally affect the future, it is arguable that the young are more likely to be affected than older people by some political decisions.
Preventing 16 and 17-year-olds from voting sends a signal to them and to society that their views are not valid or important. The next generation of voters are the first to have received citizenship education in schools, yet they are being denied their full rights as citizens. This seems particularly unfair and unjust. At a time when some people feel that politics is not relevant to them, young people need to be encouraged to take part in democracy, not kept out of it. The Scottish independence referendum showed once and for all that 16 and 17-year-olds are more than capable of taking important political decisions. If young people are registered early and get into the habit of voting, we will see lasting improvements in turnout.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) secured a Westminster Hall debate on this very subject last year. She argued that the time was right
“to open the democratic system even further and to include 16 and 17-year olds among the people who are able to vote.”
She continued:
“We cannot expect 16 and 17-year-olds to contribute to our society through various means—economically, physically, intellectually or socially—in a capacity where we recognise them as an adult, but then give them the democratic rights of a child… We trust our young people to contribute to society in many ways, so we should start to give them their democratic rights.”—[Official Report, 6 May 2014; Vol. 580, c. 7WH.]
I fully support that. I urge all Members to support the retention of clause 20, and to welcome our 16 and 17-year-olds to the democratic process.
Let me now say a few words about clause 21. I am very pleased that, on this issue at least, the Government are listening. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol South (Karin Smyth), who is present, and who has done a great deal of work in connection with the issue of the Bristol mayor. As I am sure everyone knows, Bristol was the only city to vote “yes” in the mayoral referendum of May 2012. I think it fair to say that the current mayor has proved to be a somewhat controversial figure, but my hon. Friend has rightly said:
“This isn’t about whether you support the current mayor or would prefer a different person in that office, it’s about whether citizens of Bristol should be allowed a voice about the post itself.
It’s about democracy, and the right of Bristol people to decide how they are governed seems to be a fundamental aspect of democracy.”
She has also said that
“citizens of Bristol deserve the right to reverse that decision at any point”,
and that the Lords amendments
“offering Bristolians that opportunity are to be welcomed”.—[Official Report, 14 October 2015; Vol. 600, c. 372.]
I bow to my hon. Friend’s superior knowledge of the issue of the Bristol mayor, but I am very pleased that all Members seem to support clause 21, and I look forward to our giving Bristolians the same democratic rights as those enjoyed by the rest of the country.
Norman Lamb
I strongly support the amendment that was passed in the House of Lords, and I am very disappointed that the Government are proposing to remove it from the Bill. The Minister’s argument seemed to be “It is all horribly complicated, and this is not the right place to discuss it”, but I could not identify any particularly strong argument for why it is the wrong thing to do, and why 16 and 17-year-olds should not be given the right to exercise the vote like the rest of us.
I was interested by the intervention from the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field). Indeed, I was encouraged by it, because the right hon. Gentleman appeared to recognise that there was some argument for 16-year-olds to have a say on some issues. However, he drew a distinction between referendums and voting in elections on a continuing basis. I think that he should go with his logic. If there is a case for young people to have a say in the future of their country, or on other big issues that are put before the country in referendums, surely there is a case for them to have the right to a say on who is elected as their local councillor. How on earth can the right hon. Gentleman sustain the logic of allowing a vote on a big national issue of enormous import while denying a vote on representation in a local community?
Mark Field
In fairness, I think that I should clarify my position. I am against the idea of reducing the voting age, period, but I also think there is some logic that suggests that a referendum is a somewhat different sort of plebiscite from a routine election. It may happen only every 40 years, as in the case of the European referendum, and, although I suspect that we shall not have to wait quite so long for the next referendum in Scotland, there was at least the prospect of our waiting for a generation or more in connection with a referendum-related issue.
A broader point, however—and I thought the Minister had made it fairly clear—is that this would be a pretty important change in our franchising arrangements. It is not a measure that should be sneaked through as an additional clause in a Bill emanating from the House of Lords, or, indeed, from the House of Commons. It requires a broader analysis. I accept the right hon. Gentleman’s view—and I hope that we shall engage in some fertile discussion during the course of this Parliament —but the notion that a major change can be brought about simply by an amendment during the consideration of a Bill does not strike me as the right way to deal with the entirety of our franchising system.
Norman Lamb
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that this is an important issue, but I hope he will understand that those of us who are convinced of the case for change should take every opportunity to argue that case, and this is one such opportunity. Because we recognise that the world will not cave in, and that many positive consequences will flow from the measure, we see no difficulty in including it in the Bill.
The hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton (Liz McInnes) referred to the Scottish referendum, which engendered an extraordinary level of engagement among young people. I do not think that any Conservative Member suggested that the young people who voted in that referendum did not know what they were talking about, or that they ought not to have the right to a say. If Conservative Members believe, on reflection—given what happened in the Scottish referendum—that it was right for those young people to have a say, they should stick with the logic of that, and accept the case for including the measure in the Bill.
It is interesting to note that the turnout among people between the ages of 16 and 18 was very high in Scotland. I understand that, according to an Electoral Commission report that was published in December 2014, the turnout among 16 and 17-year-olds was 75%, as opposed to 54% among 18 to 24-year-olds. Given the opportunity, they engaged in the democratic process very readily, and I think we should all welcome that.
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)
The right hon. Gentleman has made some fair points about the analysis of participation in the Scottish referendum, but does he not agree that that referendum was an almost unique event in terms of the enthusiasm that it engendered among all age groups throughout Scotland’s population, and that there is no immediate read-across from it to other elections and referendums?
Norman Lamb
I accept that it was a highly unusual event in terms of the degree of excitement and enthusiasm that it engendered across the population. I am simply making the point that the world did not cave in because 16 and 17-year-olds had had a vote in that referendum, and I do not think it would cave in if we gave people in the same age group the right to a say in who becomes their local representative on their local authority.
Mark Field
Perhaps we are more sanguine about the events of 18 September 2014 with hindsight. It might have been very different had the result been a close-run thing, and had there been any suggestion that a change in the franchise of this magnitude might have been decisive in the overall result. That clearly was not the case: lest we forget, I remind the House that the referendum was lost by 10.6 percentage points, although the SNP does not remind us of that very regularly. As the right hon. Gentleman says, the world has not fallen in, but I think that the referendum would have been a lot more controversial had the result been a very close-run thing, and had there been any suggestion that that franchise change might have had a distinct impact on the result.
Norman Lamb
I was on the same side as the right hon. Gentleman in the referendum. I am half Scottish, and I passionately wanted Scotland to remain part of the United Kingdom. However, I am also a democrat. I accept the will of the people following a vote in a referendum of that sort, and I accept the right of 16 and 17-year-olds to be part of the decision-making process.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is precisely because 16 and 17-year-olds had the biggest stake in the future of the country that it was important for them to have a vote in the referendum?
Norman Lamb
I think that is absolutely right, and indeed that is why I also think they should have a vote in the European referendum, because it is their continent as well as ours. They have a larger stake than we do in terms of the number of years they have on this planet so I accept the case the hon. Lady makes.
I have long held the view that this is right in principle. If someone can marry, join the armed forces and, perhaps most importantly, be obliged to pay taxes, if working, at the age of 16, then surely they have a right to a say about the level of that taxation and how it is applied by Government. It is surely actually a democratic outrage that people can be expected in our country to pay taxes but not have the right to any say over the application of them.
Guto Bebb (Aberconwy) (Con)
Surely that argument makes little sense? My daughter, for example, is currently saving up to buy a laptop computer. She will have to pay VAT. She is 13; she will have no votes. Does the right hon. Gentleman propose a 13-year-old should have a vote on the VAT issue?
Norman Lamb
No, I am referring of course to the application of income tax to people’s employment rights. To take that argument to its logical conclusion, it would of course be ridiculous to suggest that a four-year-old should have the right to vote. I also made the point that someone who can join Her Majesty’s armed forces and defend this country has no right to vote on the critical decisions this country makes. The case is clearly very powerful.
This change would also have a beneficial impact. The shadow Minister talked about the extent of young people’s engagement in politics. I would draw a distinction. All my experiences show that young people are very interested in political issues, but they are totally disillusioned with, and disengaged from, the political process, and this would be one way of addressing that.
The problem goes further. David Willetts, a highly respected former Conservative Cabinet Minister, has made a powerful case about the broken generational contract. He talks about generational unfairness. As all of us in this House know, whether or not we are prepared to admit it, that older people tend to vote in greater numbers and that drives the manifestos of political parties, which in turn drives the deal that different members of our society get from the Governments of this country. I am pleased to see the hon. Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith) agreeing with that point. That problem becomes worse if young people aged 16 and 17 are denied a say and political parties are not forced to listen and think about the interests of young people when shaping their manifestos. Their manifestos will consequently address the needs of older people, which, of course, have to be met, but we also have to ensure that there is, as David Willetts says, generational fairness. That is denied by not giving the vote to 16 and 17-year-olds.
Mark Field
I entirely agree that inter-generational unfairness is a major issue that all of us in the political class will have to face before too long, but is not the real problem one that would not be solved by clause 20 or reducing the voting age: the real trouble is that very few people under the age of 35 bother to vote? The turnout level, even in the Scottish referendum, for 18 to 35-year-olds is much lower than for others. The truth for any political party is that there are twice as many voters over the age of 55 than under the age of 35 and they are twice as likely to vote, so there is four times the bang for the buck, as some would say.
Norman Lamb
I think there is a progressive struggling to get out. I can tell that the right hon. Gentleman wants to support this. He sees the argument in favour and he rightly points to the low engagement of people under the age of 25, but we have to ask ourselves why. During their teenage years young people are denied any involvement in our political process. Perhaps, as happened in Scotland with the referendum, if we give them the opportunity to have their say at an earlier age and if we start to teach more about the political process in our schools, they might understand that by participating they get a greater say in society and their interests may be better met.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
I am sure that, like me, the right hon. Gentleman meets many sixth-formers when he visits schools and finds that they are often extremely well-informed. It is the older generation’s attitude to the younger generation that sometimes leads to young people becoming disillusioned. When knocking on doors during canvassing I often find that young people are very progressive-minded, certainly on matters such as climate change, the poor and poverty in the world.
Norman Lamb
I agree, and I think it is condescending in the extreme to suggest that someone aged 17 is not capable of making a decision about, for example—in the context of this Bill—who their local councillor should be, for goodness’ sake. Ultimately, that is what the Conservative party is saying—that they cannot be trusted to vote to elect their local councillor.
Mark Field
Perhaps this would-be progressive could have a stab at answering that point. I do not think that anyone denies that there will be a minimum voting age and therefore an arbitrary cut-off, and I guess all the Government are saying is that, all things considered, including issues such as the drinking of alcohol, driving and smoking, 18 seems a pretty sensible cut-off date, rather than 16. I fundamentally believe that, as well as having a right to vote, there is a responsibility to be engaged in politics. I suspect that, again, 18 is a slightly better arbitrary cut-off point than 16—or any other number we might wish to pluck from the sky.
Norman Lamb
I accept that where we draw the line is arbitrary to a degree, but I would tempt the right hon. Gentleman to be a rebel on this, because I think that deep down his instincts are with giving people aged 16 and 17 a vote. Where his party is choosing to place that arbitrary line will deny 16 and 17-year-olds the right to elect their local councillor in their communities. If the right hon. Gentleman thinks about that for more than a moment, surely he will agree that that is ridiculous.
I have gone on for too long, and I apologise for that. I urge the great right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster to have the courage of his convictions and I urge all Members to join those of us who will vote to retain clause 20 in the Bill.
Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con)
I am very glad to have the opportunity to raise the rights of local residents where there is some pressure for powers to be devolved. The kind of pressure I mean is where, for instance, a rural area finds itself under the control of an urban council, or an urban area is under a rural council. I am not going to raise the issue of the Isle of Wight as there is very little pressure now for a change—in fact, that change took place as long ago as 1996—but let us look at somewhere I am not so familiar with. Let us look at Lancashire-Yorkshire and where the county boundary was. Some areas have been part of Lancashire, but only since 1973. Before that, it was clear that the ancient boundaries were of Yorkshire.
Another example is Bradford and its environs. In Bradford there is quite a difference between those areas which are rural and those which are urban. Many would like to see changes to their own council, rather than the metropolitan council which is now in charge, and many others would not. It seems to me there would be almost no problem in allowing the more rural areas to have more responsibility for their own local affairs, for instance in planning, libraries and housing. They could take over all responsibilities for their area, but it seems to me more likely that they would want to take on the district responsibilities, leaving others, such as education, with their metropolitan brothers.
It used to be the case that it was necessary for effective metropolitan districts to have all their responsibilities over a reasonably large area to enable them to cut costs. Now, however, things have changed. It is possible now for a district council or a unitary authority to share offices so that, for instance, a chief executive could be the chief executive of two, or even three, councils. That is perfectly normal in rural areas, and I propose that the possibility could be made available in urban areas. So it would not be unduly difficult to introduce those benefits. It should be made possible to do so, but there should be no compulsion. To allow such a responsibility to be devolved, I suggest that a referendum should be held. If a majority of people in an area vote yes, the change should take place, giving them direct control over their local area. That would make it easy for local people to express their preference, and I am very much in favour of that.
Alison Thewliss
I rise to speak in support of the comments made on this side of the House about votes for those aged 16 and 17. It is odd that the House of Lords, the unelected Chamber at the other end, should have become the defender of the right of young people to vote in this country. Its wise intervention should be maintained, however, because our experience in Scotland of having 16 and 17-year-olds voting has been very positive.
It is interesting that, since my election to this House in May, every opportunity to discuss the matter has been met with the comment that it is neither the time nor the place to debate it. I should like to ask the Minister when the right time and place would be, because we should seize every opportunity to have these discussions. There is always a good time to get people involved in politics and in voting. Starting at local level, where local services are delivered to young people, is a good way of getting them involved because their schools, youth services and other local services are relevant to them at first hand. They can see what local government does and get directly involved in it.
It is interesting that lots of Members have mentioned the referendum. In my experience, speaking to young people during the two years that we spent debating the referendum was incredibly positive for their engagement. Anyone who saw the debate that filled the Glasgow Hydro arena with young people will remember that it was one of the best in the whole referendum campaign, with incredibly engaged young people making incredibly valuable contributions.
The leader of the Scottish Conservatives, Ruth Davidson, has become converted to this argument. She has said:
“I’m happy to hold my hands up and say I changed my mind. I’m a fully paid-up member of the ‘votes at 16’ club now, for every election. I thought 16 and 17-year-olds were fantastic during the referendum campaign. I can’t tell you the number of hustings and public meetings I did, and some of the younger members of the audience were the most informed.”
That tells us everything we need to know about how young people ought to be engaged in politics and why they need to be.
John Stevenson
I am looking for a bit of consistency in the argument for reducing the voting age for 16 and 17-year-olds. Would the hon. Lady suggest that, if they had the right to vote and the right to stand for election, we should also consider reducing the age limit for alcohol consumption and for driving?
Alison Thewliss
There would be public health concerns relating to the alcohol question, and those are entirely different from democratic concerns. The right hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) talked about party manifestos. If 16 and 17-year-olds were able to vote, perhaps they would campaign on issues such as those, but we do not know whether that is the case because they do not have the right to vote in elections to this place or to local authorities, which have licensing powers.
The Minister mentioned that parties that included votes at 16 in their manifesto had not been particularly successful. I have to correct him on that. The Scottish National party had that proposal in its manifesto and we were very successful. I know that 16 and 17-year-olds welcome and respect the rights and responsibilities that we have placed on them. If they are going to be subject to taxation, it is perfectly reasonable that they should have the right to vote.
Turning to some of the other matters under discussion, I am a huge supporter of the single transferrable vote, the system under which I was elected as a councillor. The introduction of that system made a huge difference to the local authority of which I was a member. Before the introduction of STV in Glasgow, only four of the 79 councillors represented the SNP; when the STV election was held, we fielded 22 candidates and we got 22 candidates elected.
The result of these changes can be seen in the Electoral Reform Society’s report of 2010, entitled “Working with STV”. It used Glasgow as a case study and interviewed officers from that council, one of whom stated that Glasgow “has a council again”. There is proper debate and scrutiny. More recent work by the Electoral Reform Society on the need for electoral reform has found that councils that do not have a system such as STV can become one-party states with uncontested seats and, in the worst cases, there is a risk of corruption due to the lack of scrutiny of council decisions.
Mr Andrew Turner
May I ask what would happen in single wards? All but one of the wards in my constituency are single wards.
Alison Thewliss
I appreciate that English local government is complex and has lots of different examples. In Scotland, we had a boundary review which looked at ward sizes and shapes. My experience, having been elected under that system in 2007 and re-elected under it in 2012, is that it works very well for our constituents, because they always have three or four representatives to take their issues to. At the very best, they have a good team of people standing up for their local area. At worst, if they have a councillor who is not doing what is needed, people have an option to go to two or three others who can represent them. That is good for our constituents, and they see the value in that arrangement. A process whereby local councils could decide on this issue by themselves might need further thought, but it is an interesting idea. If the House is not going to take any action to introduce STV, we should certainly allow local government to do it if it wishes to. There would be great value in that.
I also want to talk about local referendums. They are a good thing for local democracy and responsiveness to issues involving a local demand. People should be able to have a say on the matters that affect them, and that could also include the question of revising the way in which local government is set up in their area. The local government arrangements might not be working well, for example, or there might be no clear lines of accountability. There has been a great deal of debate on those issues in relation to elected mayors and to how the rest of the process below them would need to change.
John Stevenson
On that point about elected mayors, does the hon. Lady believe that the great cities of Scotland should have the opportunity to hold referendums to decide whether to have an elected mayor?
Alison Thewliss
People are not generally calling for that in Scotland. There has not been that tradition there.
Alison Thewliss
If people wanted to hold such referendums, that would be absolutely fine. Lots of councils in Scotland have petitions processes whereby people can submit arguments to the council for consideration, and if they wanted an elected mayor, that could be achieved through that process. The Scottish Parliament also has a petitions process that would allow areas that wanted an elected mayor to take a petition to the Scottish Government. So there are processes in place that would allow for that to happen, if there were a demand for it. However, there is no tradition of elected mayors in Scotland. In Glasgow and other local authorities, we have a political head in the leader of the council and a strong civic head in the Lord Provost or the local provost.
The hon. Member for Carlisle (John Stevenson) asked me the question about elected mayors in Scotland, but his own Conservative Government have acknowledged that we have no such tradition, because there was no suggestion of a mayor being imposed as part of the Glasgow and Clyde Valley city deal, as is happening in other parts of the UK. His own party does not seem to think that there is any rationale for elected mayors in Scotland. The Bill provides a good opportunity to try out a number of different measures that could improve local government and make it more democratic and accountable, and I support the principles behind these amendments.
Chloe Smith (Norwich North) (Con)
I shall make a few brief points about this part of the Bill. I spoke in an earlier debate, in which I trailed what I am about to say now. I am one of those who believes that we should allow voting at 16, but I do not think that this Bill is the correct vehicle for achieving that.
This is perhaps a case of having the courage of my convictions. The right hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) also mentioned that. I have to tell him that people often confuse the names of our constituencies; I am often called the “Member for Norfolk North”, and I am sure the same thing happens the other way round. We are close geographically, and we also share a lot on the substance and the values in today’s debate, except that I see the courage of my convictions on engaging young people in politics as residing in doing the job properly, instead of doing it piecemeal. I shall therefore be speaking against clause 20.
As the Minister said, something coming merely by way of an amendment is not the way to do the job well. As other Conservative Members have said, omitting that much larger debate about the various ages of majority in this country does not do the job well either—and nor does failing to speak to young people as we take on this debate. After all, if it is about anything, it should be about them.
James Wharton
Although we do not necessarily agree on where this issue should go, I sense that we agree that if this step were to be taken—I do not necessarily support it—it should be after a proper process, in a way that will last the test of time and have real support across the House and from those affected by it. It should not be done via an amendment to a Bill that is about something altogether different.
Chloe Smith
I agree with the Minister, but perhaps I may put the question back to him, as the right hon. Member for North Norfolk did, by saying that perhaps we could discuss when we ought to have that debate. A natural follow-on from the various contributions that have been made today is moving on to have that debate properly. As I suspect the Minister will tell me, that is for another Minister to answer, but no doubt he will pass the message on.
The hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) cited comments by Ruth Davidson, the leader of the Conservatives in Scotland. I am a big fan of hers, as many people are, even if the hon. Lady is not among them. As she said, Ruth Davidson has changed her view on votes at 16. Like me, Ruth Davidson also comes to the conclusion that this ought to be done for all elections. It does a disservice to this important reform to do it piecemeal and not to give it the respect of a full debate.
Alison Thewliss
Does the hon. Lady accept that in the absence of any other Bill, strategy or proposals for bringing about votes at 16 and 17, this measure is the best we can do in the meantime and that we should support every step to move the issue forward?
Chloe Smith
I am interested in that argument. Although it is for the Minister to give the real answer on that, rather than for me to attempt to give it, I think we run a risk of creating a patchwork. I do not feel comfortable with 16-year-olds in one part of the country being able to do something that their counterparts in another part of the country cannot. I am not hugely comfortable with the inconsistency, and I would far prefer us to debate this in the round properly.
John Stevenson
I agree with my hon. Friend that this is not the right forum for the discussion on reducing the voting age to include 16 and 17-year-olds. Does she agree that if that other debate ever were to come forward, it would have to include things such as the alcohol age and whether 16 and 17-year-olds should be able to have executive power, so that there is consistency?
Chloe Smith
I agree entirely. In fact, the next section of my notes tells me to acknowledge the points made by my hon. Friend about executive power and standing for office. We should also go through all the points relating to marriage, joining the armed forces, taxation, the use of substances, criminal responsibility and the age of consent for sex. They are all items in that much longer list. Before the Minister looks at me with absolute horror for moving his Bill on to something that is not included here today, I should say that I merely make those points to make the broader debate a real one. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field) said when he was in his place earlier, we need to have that debate, and we might hope to do so in the next couple of years, because the topic is important.
Norman Lamb
The hon. Lady cautioned against creating a patchwork of rights, yet of course the process the Government are undergoing with devolution is creating precisely that across our country, with different deals in every part of it. What is the danger in her having the courage of her convictions and voting with us to retain clause 20, in order to enable 16 and 17-year-olds just to vote for their local councillor? That is all we are asking for. What danger is involved in that?
Chloe Smith
The right hon. Gentleman tempts me to join him in the Lobby, but I would only further trash his reputation in Norfolk if I did. Joking aside, there is a distinction to be drawn between rights that people might have in different parts of the country and public services that people might have in different parts of the country. I would describe the latter as the substance of the devolution Bill—it is about how public services can be better delivered.
I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman would permit me to extend this point to something the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) proposes in new clause 3, which could be argued also to create something of a patchwork. I make the distinction between rights and public services, but new clause 3 brings in another category: methods of voting. I have concern about having a patchwork in that area, too. We would want consistency there, just as we would on rights, but I can see value in having innovation in public services more locally, which is why I support the Bill overall.
Mr Steve Reed (Croydon North) (Lab)
Does the hon. Lady recognise that it is in the nature of British constitutional reform that it tends to be pragmatic and incremental and that this opportunity in the Bill is at least a foot in the door towards what she is telling the House she believes in? Does she also recognise that this has already been done piecemeal—16-year-olds had the vote in the Scottish referendum, so she would not even be innovating with this measure?
Chloe Smith
Having been a Minister with responsibility for constitutional reform, I know well that it is often done in a pragmatic way. What I regard as pragmatic in this instance is to have this debate properly and thus respect the young people whom we seek to serve by looking properly at their rights and opportunities. That is the main thrust of my comments today.
I do not want to be seen as the champion in this House for votes at 16; I want to be seen as the champion for young voters. The technicality of the voting age is a very important signal, which we ought to be able to send to young people to say that they are valued in politics. That is the way I do politics and I am sure it is the way the hon. Gentleman does them; I would like to think it is how everybody else in this Chamber also approaches this crucial matter of democratic engagement. This important topic crucially affects a generation of people, who would indeed like to be involved in politics. It is not good enough to deal with it piecemeal and not to consider the full implications of what we are talking about.
I have a few brief points to make about what this younger generation is asking of us in politics. Political engagement has indeed changed. Demos carried out research for the National Citizens Service in which it says that we should roll up our sleeves, power up our laptops and get things done, rather than rely on the state to do things for us. My colleagues on the Conservative Benches will say, “Hear, hear to that”, because that is what we believe in. We are a centre-right party that believes in getting things done. We believe in local innovation, in individuals being self-reliant, and in helping people to take the opportunities that exist. I support this Bill in its entirety, because it promotes devolution for local areas.
What we can see in Demos’ research is a certain scepticism of the state. The state comes a fairly long way down the list—after individuals, charities and businesses—when it comes to getting things done. Young people do not look to the state alone to get things done. That can be seen in the Ipsos MORI research, “Generation Strains”, which demonstrates the scepticism with which today’s youngest generation views the welfare state, compared with older generations.
What we are seeing is an opportunity for us to embrace a whole new generation of voters; dare I say it, it is the generation to which the Minister and I belong. It is that generation that we need to be welcoming in to politics. What I am saying is that we should have the opportunity to do that properly; to change our campaigning styles to meet that challenge; and to embrace those values here in this House. We also have that opportunity in this devolution Bill, but let us respect our young people by treating their democratic rights properly in a debate that looks at the matter fully rather than off the back of a single amendment that has come from the other place without the chance to look at the issue in the round.
Mr Graham Allen
I am surprised, but delighted, to follow the hon. Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith). She is a very important performer in the democratic constellation, having been a Minister and given evidence to my Select Committee, the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, which could have been the perfect vehicle for bringing forward such proposals had the Government not abolished it—that probably tells us all we need to know.
I must say that the speed of reaction by Government to proposals from the Commons has not noticeably been a problem in my 20-odd years in the House. Some might feel that there has been a constant blur of democratic innovation in the House, but that has so far escaped me. Perhaps that happens when I am not in the Chamber. I might just be very unlucky.
I say to Members: when in doubt always read the title of the Bill. This one is Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill. It says “devolution” and not decentralisation. We are not saying, “Here is Whitehall handing out a bit of power, but it is on a string and we can pull it back when we like.” Nor are we saying, “Power should lie at the centre, but let us try a little experiment on a very strong piece of elastic should the simpletons who are out in the sticks be unable to administer their own affairs.”
Devolution is entirely a different concept. It is about giving power away to a more appropriate level. Therefore, devolving power is, by definition, going to create difference and best practice. Lots of people will experiment, or innovate, on how they do things to suit themselves better in areas in which it is appropriate for people in localities to do those things. A patchwork, or a differentiation, or lots of different levels of change, is at the heart of devolution in a way that decentralisation never can be. Let us read the title of the Bill and let us try to make the Bill do what it says on the tin, which is to devolve power down to the localities rather than to have the localities as a means of administration of what the centre wants. That is a very, very clear distinction, which all of us who want to talk about devolution should understand.
In essence, new clause 3 applies that principle to a number of fields, but most obviously to the electoral systems in this country. There is no longer one electoral system that applies everywhere in the United Kingdom. There is a massive diversity and plurality of electoral systems and we have decided that this is about horses for courses—I am talking about a typical British constitutional evolution. The last major one was around the way in which we elect people to the European Parliament. Then there has been change in our devolved Assemblies and Parliaments, and people are finding their way in different areas. They should be allowed to continue to change if that is what they wish to do in those areas, regions or nations. It should be a process of constant exploration. So why on earth can we not do that in the localities? With the consent of people in the localities, why cannot we try, if they so wish, to go for votes for 16 to 17-year-olds?
Given the immense power vested in the Secretary of State under the Bill—he could not be a better person to trust to use these powers, I am sure—he could use his discretion to try a pilot and see what happens and what the turnout is likely to be. Let us do a proper evidence-based analysis in a number of areas to see whether young people are interested in participating in that way. Trying to do that seems to be one of the benefits of devolution. Other places might be happy with first past the post and such a change might never occur there, but pressure might be brought to bear.
Some people say that it is wrong that there are one-party states in local government. I do not happen to be one of those people, but if we get enough momentum in a locality to say that the system should change and people say, “You know what? It might refresh us. We might do better if we had more challenge,” or whatever the logic of the argument and political debate taking place, they should try something else. Let them try an alternative vote. Let them try, if they wish, the single transferable vote. Let them be the arbiters and judges and jury about the electoral system that they want in their area.
Similarly on governance, if people wish to have a form of governance that includes a leader concept, a committee structure or a mayor, they should be allowed to try it. The imposition element—if people want to run their own affairs, they must do it in the way that the Government say and have a mayor—is one of the fundamental weaknesses of the Government’s proposal, and I do not list many. The Government say, “If you don’t want the mayor, you’re not going to get the powers.” That is unfortunate. It is counterintuitive to those of us, even the Secretary of State, who believe in devolution, and it has not done the cause any good.
If we genuinely, perhaps after one or two more Bills before 2020, get to a position where we trust local people to have the wit and creativity to devise their means of governance, they should decide whether or not they want mayoralty. The reason why only one city went for the mayoralty in the last round and the rest rejected it was partly that it was felt to be an imposition. It came close on the back of a number of elections where people had expressed a political view about who should run their locality. It was done in a clunky, clumsy way, and we can see the fingerprints from that exercise on the one that has been transposed into the Bill. That is unfortunate. Let us allow people to find a mayoralty if they feel that it is appropriate for their area. Let us allow them to test that or to experiment with it if they wish, rather than saying yet again, “You’re getting devolution, but only in the way that we in Whitehall say is appropriate.”
If, like me, hon. Members have had the opportunity to study a document about devolution, they will see that the Government are not doing any of us who care about devolution any favour at all in the way that these things are written. It is like a gathering of local officials and centralised, Whitehall officials with a very large lashing of LSD, and it is difficult for ordinary people, let alone politicians, some of whom are intellectually challenged, to understand what is meant by much of the documentation. That may be based on my errors, but I suspect, given the size of the smile on the Minister’s face, that he, too, realises that to an extent officials at local and national level have depoliticised the very thing that he and the Secretary of State have done so well in bringing the Bill to the House.
John Stevenson
I hope Members on the Government Benches are not intellectually challenged. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that when we look back at Governments of his party and of mine, we see that the present Government have done an awful lot to further the cause of devolution, and should be given credit for that effort?
Mr Allen
I know that the hon. Gentleman is an assiduous reader of my speeches, even more so than I am, and he will see that on Second Reading and a number of occasions subsequently I paid tribute to the Secretary of State for his determination to bring devolution to its present state. It is an extremely good foundation for my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon North (Mr Reed) on the Front Bench to build on in 2020.
I am surprised that we have got to this point in the debate today without anyone mentioning that devolution deals have been announced. I am surprised that the Minister has not mentioned that. I do hope word does not get back to the Chancellor about his omitting to mention the deals in Liverpool and the west midlands, in addition to the deals in Sheffield, the north-east and the Tees valley. I hope deals are rapidly on the way in my area—Nottingham/Nottinghamshire and Derby/Derbyshire. I believe there are 38 potential deals, covering up to 80% of the population.
It may seem odd for someone on the Opposition Benches—I hope I am regarded as all-party on this issue—to point out that there are large areas, Conservative areas, rural areas, county areas, that have been left out of the party. If this is to be a genuinely democratic change of the order of developing national Parliaments and assemblies—a change that will lead to a federal United Kingdom, as my hon. Friends on the Front Bench said in The Huffington Post this morning—we cannot leave our friends in the rural areas, whether they are Conservative or not, out of the equation.
James Wharton
It is important to find areas of agreement. Although on the issue of devolution the hon. Gentleman tempts me to go further than I am currently predisposed to go, and he would no doubt go much further than I might want to, it is important to put on record that he is right about rural areas. We have the deal with Cornwall and we are working with many other areas to reach deals which will include many rural areas in county deals. This is a process of making bespoke deals for individual areas. That means that they will be different and it will take time, but we are determined to deliver them.
Mr Allen
I genuinely wish the Minister well in that. I am sure he has followed the debates in the Conservative councillors network over the past 36 hours as closely as I have. It is important that everyone shares in the benefits of devolution and is enabled to make the sort of decisions that they feel are appropriate, rather than those that Whitehall considers appropriate.
The Minister tells me that I am pushing the process a little too fast and a little too hard. We have had such debates since the 1830s, and people have argued that we should not rush things. Fancy giving working men the vote! Fancy giving women the vote! For heaven’s sake, if that ever happens to our democracy, what next? Now, my goodness, there is the brand new issue, which nobody has ever thought of before, of giving 16 and 17-year-olds the vote. We should revel in the fact that there are people in our country still desperate to use the franchise. It should be extended to them and that should be done sensibly.
I refer the Minister to the report of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee. I see a number of distinguished former members of the Committee, even sitting close behind the Minister. The report came up with an array of possibilities for extending participation and extending our franchise, such as online voting and 16 and 17-year-old voters. There were many other proposals, but Mr Crausby would rule me out of order, were I to venture into them. Sometimes in a political career there are moments of opportunity and they are very rare. The Minister is a young man starting out on his political career. He may not be the Minister on the next devolution Bill, which is sure to happen before 2020. I hope he is, because he will have gained massive experience from taking the Bill through on this occasion, but he should seize the opportunity to push it a little further than the officials might like. That is a political lesson that we could all share.
James Wharton
It is always a pleasure to listen to the hon. Gentleman’s wise and considered words on devolution issues, even if we do not always reach the same conclusions. I am particularly interested in what might be a glimmer of agreement between us on the issue of voting age. We may not agree on what the voting age should be, but he said that any change should be carried out in a sensible way. Does he think, therefore, that a proper process should be used rather than an amendment to a Bill such as this—in other words, that there would have to be full and detailed consideration, with proper consultation taking into account many of the issues that hon. Members have raised, so that any such fundamental change, were it to be made, would be long-lasting?
Mr Allen
I am always searching for consensus. In an ideal world, we should do this thoroughly and properly, but we are not in an ideal world, unfortunately. Parliament is the creature of Executive power, and so occasionally, when an opportunity arises, parliamentarians of any political party should always seize the moment.
This may not be the moment, but perhaps the Minister should be thinking—as we all should, particularly Labour Members—of the opportunities coming up. Next time there will be further increments of devolution. We will write devolution packages that ordinary human beings and Members of Parliament can understand. We will want to share them. We will want to enjoy, across the whole democratic family, the fruits of devolution, which, as Lord O’Neill, the Minister in the other place, said on the radio this morning, give us not only democratic change but the most fantastic economic opportunities, which Manchester has so successfully led the way on, to build economic growth for our local communities in a way that only they can take forward.
I will not press my new clause to a vote, but I hope that, above all, the Minister and my Front-Bench colleagues will start to think about what should be in the next devolution Bill.
Graham Stringer
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), who makes the sensible but profound point that if services and economic development are devolved, we will not have consistency across the country. When, over the past 50, 60 or 70 years, people have argued for complete consistency in service delivery or in other parts of local democracy, it has been a cover argument for centralism, because a devolved system cannot be consistent across the ground without centralism. Consistency is never achieved because of the nature of different areas where services are delivered in different ways. Having said that, if my hon. Friend had intended to press new clause 3 to the vote, I probably would not have voted for it. I rarely disagree with him, but I will try to explain why.
I want to make two points on what has come up in the debate and two points on clause 20 and new clause 3. I cannot let it go that my hon. Friend and those on both Front Benches have said that only one city voted for an elected mayor in 2012. In fact, one of the two cities that I represent—the city of Salford—voted for an elected mayor, but the referendum on an elected mayor in Salford was not one of the 11 that were forced on people. There is a lesson there. The reason devolution to Greater Manchester is popular—an opinion poll came out this week showing 75% support—is that it is a negotiated agreement, not something that has been forced on the area. One of the reasons people in Salford voted for an elected mayor was that they had asked for the referendum by petition; it was not forced on them. It is not surprising that the other 10 cities that had referendums forced on them voted no. No constituency argued the case for elected mayors and, unlike under this Bill, they would not have been offered different resources and powers if they had agreed to an elected mayor.
The hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss), who represents the SNP, said there is no desire for devolution in Scotland.
Graham Stringer
I am sorry. I will be precise: the hon. Lady said there is no desire for elected mayors in the cities of Scotland. In the context of this devolution Bill, I think that means the same thing. Obviously, I did not mean devolution to the Scottish Parliament. I suggest to the SNP that it should try it. In England, the Government have been proactive by asking the cities and, as we have heard, they have grabbed the opportunity because they have been offered more powers and resources. In essence, the hon. Lady’s argument is that of democratic centralism, which, sadly, is what is happening in Scotland.
Alison Thewliss
The hon. Gentleman may not be aware that the Scottish islands requested more powers from the Scottish Government, who are now considering how to facilitate devolving more powers to them. The issue relates to the Crown Estate, over which we have no powers, although we would like to have them.
Graham Stringer
I was making the opposite argument to the one made earlier by the hon. Lady. If Glasgow, Aberdeen or Dundee were offered more powers and resources, they would grab the opportunity, as the cities of England have done. That was the point I was making.
On clause 20, I have been agnostic on the voting age. Arbitrary lines have to be drawn somewhere and I have never been completely taken by the argument that 16 is so much better than 17 or that 17 is so much better than 18. The Labour party’s manifesto said that we would reduce the voting age, so had we won the election I would have voted for it, but not particularly enthusiastically, because there are a lot of rather complicated arguments associated with it. It seems to sit oddly with the Labour party’s commitment to a constitutional convention on major changes to the constitution, and I am wary—not just with regard to this Bill, but in relation to the European Union Referendum Bill—that people are making arguments in favour of lowering the voting age in order to alter results, not because they want comprehensively to win the argument. I will therefore abstain on clause 20 when it is put to the vote.
Another reason I am agnostic on the issue of the voting age is that the argument that there is a direct relationship between people’s age and whether they get involved in elections does not seem to be based on evidence. People vote for a whole series of different reasons, including financial issues, self-interest and principled arguments over how they view the future of society, and the older they get, the more they feel that they have an interest in society. I think that the Scottish referendum was a hugely different experience because it was the future of Scotland that was being considered, so people of different ages turned out in greater numbers than they had done in elections to the Scottish Parliament and to this place and in local elections. I once massively increased the voter turnout in Manchester, not by changing the voting age, but by putting up the rates by twice the level of inflation. Believe me, that created a great deal of enthusiasm for voting, much more so than any change in the voting age.
Although such arguments are appealing, it does not seem to me that the argument about paying tax is completely convincing. The hon. Member for Carlisle (John Stevenson) made the case that very young people pay tax by paying VAT, while many 16 and 17-year-olds do not pay income tax because they are at college or not earning money. Is the voting qualification just for people paying tax? Similarly, the functional argument for voting is that people can be in the armed forces, but most people do not join the armed forces. Does that mean they should not be allowed to vote? All I am saying is that there are big questions about arguments for lowering the voting age that appear immediately appealing. We need a discussion about when to enfranchise people, but that should not be done in a Bill to devolve power and resources to parts of this country; it should not be done in a Bill to determine this country’s relationship with the European Union either.
My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North is an extraordinarily powerful advocate for devolving powers and resources. His new clause 3 makes the case for devolving to local government the power to decide on the voting system. I am very wary about that as a devolved function. Although the argument is sometimes made that with a proportional representation system—the single transferable vote or another proportional system—turnout will increase with people being more enthused by the different voting system, it seems to me that European elections give that the lie: the previous Labour Government had to put European elections with local government elections because the turnout was so embarrassingly low, and those are the only national elections held on a proportional system.
The real argument about whether we have PR—the alternative vote, additional Members or whatever system we want—is nearly always one of party political advantage for the party proposing a different voting system. When it started, the Labour party was in favour of PR; as soon as it got a significant number of MPs, it dropped the idea. The Liberals, who are back down to their normative level of eight Members of Parliament, are very strongly in favour of PR, as is UKIP.
Alison Thewliss
Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the exception to that argument? The Labour party in Scotland, as part of its coalition with the Liberal Democrats, brought in STV for local government.
Graham Stringer
I am sure the hon. Lady would agree that the Labour party brought in that system so that the SNP could never be completely in control of the Scottish Parliament, and it failed.
Graham Stringer
I am sorry. Yes, that is the one exception to my argument. In terms of local government in Scotland, however, it is fair to say that the Labour Government at the time were distrustful of the Labour party running some Scottish cities and thought that it would be healthier if its very large majorities in such cities were broken up. As it happens, I think that was a mistake.
Mr Graham Allen
Of course, the point about party political advantage is very strong in respect of the SNP, which no longer talks about proportional representation for representatives in this place because half the Scottish population is represented by three Members of Parliament and the other half is represented by 56. It has suddenly gone quiet on that point.
My hon. Friend said that the electoral systems will be decided by local councils under my new clause. I hope he will forgive me for pointing out that electoral systems may change only with the full consent of local people, rather than through a deal by the political parties.
Graham Stringer
I accept that that is what my hon. Friend’s new clause says, but it would provide an opportunity for political parties. For example, if the Liberals unexpectedly gained control of a council they had not led before, they could immediately move to hold a referendum to try to change the system. It would be a mistake to allow that. I think that the electoral system for local government is better determined here. It is genuinely a central function. On that basis, if it were put to the vote, I would not vote for new clause 3.
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Andrew Jones)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Temporary Chair (Mr David Crausby)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendments 62 to 66
Andrew Jones
In the summer 2015 Budget, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor reaffirmed the Government’s commitment to the development of a northern powerhouse, a key part of our plan to deliver sustainable economic growth throughout the country. The new clause and amendments, on sub-national transport bodies, or STBs, will strengthen the development of the northern powerhouse and, potentially, the midlands engine and other areas of our country too. In this House and in the other place, we are transforming northern growth and rebalancing our country’s economy. That is not to the detriment of London; it will complement its economic might and build stronger links between cities, so that hardworking people and businesses can access markets and make the most of their skills and dynamism wherever they are.
John Redwood
It is excellent news that there will be more road and rail capacity between the northern cities, as it is much needed. Can the rail capacity be provided on existing track? Is it a question of more efficient signalling and better trains?
Andrew Jones
We can boost rail capacity through a mixture of new lines and work to the existing network, alongside the electrification and signalling. The combination of all those things, in conjunction with new rolling stock, will deliver the step-change we need. Our rail industry is a huge success. It has gone from carrying 750 million passenger journeys per year only 20 years ago to 1.65 billion now. The issue our industry is facing is success and how to deliver that success with its capacity. A combination of things are required to deliver the boost in capacity my right hon. Friend talks about.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
Like the Minister, I welcome the unpausing of the electrification of the trans-Pennine route, which my constituents will really appreciate. Will he confirm that when the new northern and trans-Pennine franchises are announced next month it will mean the end to the dreaded Pacer trains across the north?
Andrew Jones
My hon. Friend is a vigorous campaigner for rail in the north of England, especially in his constituency, and I am happy to confirm that the Pacers will disappear under the new franchises, which we expect to announce before Christmas.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
The Minister talks about the importance of trans-Pennine links, which currently are pretty awful. David Higgins described the links between Sheffield and Manchester as a matter of national concern. This is an important new clause—there are 12 pages of it, so it must be important. Just how will it help us to co-ordinate the delivery of HS3 with that of HS2—I have not found anyone in Government making that link—and how will it deliver a tunnel under the Pennines to replace the ridiculously slow Snake and Woodhead passes, which at present pass for road links between Sheffield and Manchester?
Andrew Jones
I caution the hon. Gentleman: the length of new clauses and amendments is not necessarily related to their importance. A sub-national transport body would provide a link between central and local government to ensure a united voice representing an area’s transport requirements and, as a result, to make more likely solutions that are tailored to local need. I agree with his basic point, however, that connections across the Pennines, especially between Sheffield and Manchester, are not good enough.
Mr Betts
Will the Minister explain again? What role will the body play in looking at a road tunnel under the Pennines? Would it carry out the review of whether one is necessary? Would it commission the work? Or would it simply be advisory? How would it relate to HS2, given that that will need other transport links? What will its role be in that connection?
Andrew Jones
I am coming to that later, so perhaps I will address the hon. Gentleman’s points then.
Mr Andrew Turner
My right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) talked about trains and railways. Will these provisions also include ferries?
Andrew Jones
I am not the maritime Minister, so I am not in the best position to comment, but we are seeing huge growth in all our transport modes, and the capacity being injected into our ports is extremely welcome. As to what is happening to our ferries, however, I am afraid I will have to check and get back to my hon. Friend.
Our commitment to improving the road network includes upgrading motorways in the north of England to smart motorway standards; increasing capacity; improving sections of the A19 in the north-east to expressway standard; and improving access to many of our ports, including Hull and the port of Liverpool. I see the difference that projects such as the £690 million improvements to the A1—the biggest upgrade in the country—can make. It is delivering a motorway running to Newcastle for the first time in our country’s history. All over the north, there are schemes totalling £3 billion in the pipeline.
We are already working with Transport for the North on plans for east-west road and rail links to better connect the region so that northern towns and cities can pool their strengths and create a single economy. This includes work to identify the next generation of strategic road investments, building on the transformative schemes in the first road investment strategy. These could include a new road tunnel under the Peak district and major upgrades to other key east-west routes. TfN is also working closely with Highways England as it starts to develop its next programme of route strategies to inform investment decisions for the road period starting in 2020.
TfN is also exploring options to transform services between Sheffield and Manchester, to move towards a 30-minute journey time between Manchester and Leeds, to provide significant speed and capacity improvements between Liverpool and Manchester and between Leeds, Hull and Newcastle, and to bring forward integrated smart ticketing through a new Oyster card-like system of smartcards across the region, across multiple operators and across modes.
These are just a few examples of the good work being undertaken with the first body we expect to become a sub-national transport body. By working with properly established STBs across the country, we will ensure that money is spent on projects that will support growth in each area’s economy and, through that, the country as a whole. A joint interim report providing an update on progress since the first northern transport strategy will be published in the coming weeks.
David Brown, formerly the chief executive officer of Merseytravel, has been appointed the CEO at TfN; and we expect to announce the new chair of TfN before the end of the year. While this work is progressing, the north needs a body with permanence and solidity rather than the current voluntary arrangements for TfN. That is why my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced plans to establish TfN as a statutory body with statutory duties.
Putting TfN, and potentially others, on a statutory footing is a crucial symbol of our commitment to rebalancing the economy because it gives a clear leading role to planning and developing a programme for the north. It will provide TfN with the authority to enter into contracts and enable it to recruit staff to drive forward activity and give stakeholders and staff confidence in TfN as an organisation. Making it a statutory body, to which the Government are committed, shows long-term thinking and sends a clear message about this Government’s determination to join up transport planning to help drive economic growth.
Creating TfN as a statutory body, and others like it, means legislation is vital if we want to promote thinking about how to use transport to grow economies—not just now, but for 40 to 50 years into the future. This statutory status gives STBs the permanence and stability they need to do this crucial work. It means they will not be unduly constrained by political cycles or administrative boundaries. That is why the Government have moved quickly to develop legislation and allow TfN the certainty it needs about its future to deliver an ambitious programme. To ensure TfN is ready to look at improvements, not just now, but in the next Parliament and beyond, we are aiming to introduce the secondary legislation at the earliest opportunity, so that it will be established on a statutory footing no later than 2017.
The new clauses and amendments under discussion will not just fulfil our commitment, but help to deliver the programme to build a northern powerhouse that will be a step change for how decisions on transport policy are made across England. It will formalise local input into strategic investment so that TfN can advise on a transport strategy to boost growth and development to its areas. It will allow TfN and similar bodies to evolve with the potential to assume more strategic responsibilities over time.
This clause thus goes further than the northern powerhouse alone. It provides a way to create organisations similar to TfN across the whole of England, except London, at the request of local areas. For example, the newly strengthened Midlands Connect partnership brings together 26 local authorities and 11 local enterprise partnerships, working with national agencies and Government to drive forward improved transport links across the midlands to power the midlands engine. Midlands Connect tells us that improved transport links in the region could boost the economy by more than £1 billion a year, create 300,000 jobs and save businesses nearly £0.5 billion every year. This Government have provided £5 million to Midlands Connect to develop a transport strategy for the midlands, to set out credible long-term transport investment priorities for the region that will help build the midlands engine for growth this country needs.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
What my hon. Friend is saying makes sense, with transport being used as an economic growth driver. Can he confirm that the announcement he is making today in respect of this new clause will in no way either delay or undermine previous announcements about the A303, which brushes the north of my constituency? Is he able to update us on what progress is being made on the dualling of the A303—a vital artery to the south-west?
The Temporary Chair (Mrs Anne Main)
It would be useful if the Minister could veer off the A303, which I am not aware is part of this Bill.
Andrew Jones
The A303 is not part of the Bill, but the A303, the A30 and the A358 are critical schemes in the Government’s first road investment strategy, which is being implemented between now and 2020-21. I can tell my hon. Friend that it is on track, and that we want to create much more resilient road access into the south-west.
Once this legislation is passed, the Midlands Connect partnership would be able to move forward in the process to become an STB alongside TfN, should that be the route its members wish to take. STBs will give localities a greater say in strategic transport planning for their region, because local people better know their economies and their development needs, and how growth can be maximised in their area.
Let me outline the detail of our proposal for the creation of these sub-national transport bodies. The new clause sets out the basic powers and responsibilities of all STBs. It will be for local areas to come to the Secretary of State with a proposal to form an STB. The Secretary of State’s role will be to consider and approve the proposal once consent from the authorities and a period of public consultation have been completed.
Graham Stringer
The section of the new clause that is headed “102M General powers” is drawn incredibly widely. Can the Minister tell us, in plain English, exactly what an STB can and cannot do? There is a generalised limitation in the next section, but given the width of the definition, it is not clear to me whether one of these bodies could turn itself into a housing or education authority.
Andrew Jones
The new bodies are intended to create a link between Whitehall and Westminster and the constituent members of combined authorities. They will be able to develop transport plans for their areas, and come together to tackle issues that are currently decided here or in Whitehall rather than by local councils, relating to, for instance, longer-distance road or rail networks or systems that cross geographical areas, such as a smart ticketing system extending across the north. This is not about broadening their responsibilities to take powers away from other areas; it is about taking powers from Whitehall, increasing accountability, and ensuring that decisions are made locally.
John Redwood
Will the Minister give us a little more detail about how the powers of the Secretary of State for Transport to improve and look after the national road network will be affected by the new powers providing for regional policies on roads? Presumably the Secretary of State will still be in charge of the national network.
Andrew Jones
The Secretary of State will still be in charge of the national network. He will still be the final decision-maker in relation to the overall national transport strategy, and the way in which money is allocated to different schemes and areas. At first, STBs will advise him on strategic transport priorities for their areas to help promote economic development, but over time they will be able to advise him on how they can develop their roles and take on more responsibilities for improving transport planning, or provide for other enhancements to economic development in their areas. The Secretary of State will not be made redundant by these developments.
Mr Betts
I am still not sure what role an STB will play. Will it be just an advisory body? Will it be just a planning body? Will it just help the Secretary of State to make decisions? How, in particular, will it relate to HS2 and HS3? Will it try to link those two bodies? Will it have any oversight of those developments?
Andrew Jones
STBs’ responsibilities will start with the development of plans for their areas, as the hon. Gentleman will know from the Transport for the North plan, which was published last year. As the STBs develop, I shall expect them to work with other bodies. A memorandum of understanding has already been signed by Transport for the North and Highways England so that they can inform each other’s plans. That is how we expect the arrangement to work. Decisions will be taken away from here and made on a more local basis, and the bodies will then collaborate in order to produce the right plans for their areas.
Subject to the Secretary of State’s agreement, affirmative secondary legislation will designate an area as an STB area. Consistent with enabling legislation, there will be no “one size fits all” approach. The governance for STBs will not be standardised across all of them, and the detail relating to each one will be set out in secondary legislation. Combined authorities and local transport authorities will make up the membership of each body. To ensure that STBs are accountable to the people whom they represent, each one will be overseen by a political-level board consisting of either metro mayors—where they have been established as part of the Government’s devolution programme—or the political leaders of the relevant constituent authorities. The Bill also specifies that the STBs will have a chair, and will enable, but not mandate, the Secretary of State to make regulations for their constitutional arrangements.
To ensure that each STB is established in a way that is right for the area for which it is working, the exact detail—such as the make-up of the board, quorums, the presence of any non-executives, and the appointment of a chair—will be left to individual pieces of secondary legislation, reflecting local plans and local need. The board will then be able to co-opt other members, such as representatives of local enterprise partnerships, to give local businesses a voice, or representatives of neighbouring authorities, to cover cross-border interests.
Initially each STB will advise the Secretary of State for Transport on strategic transport schemes and investment priorities for its own area. STBs will develop a long-term transport strategy which will set out with one voice the area’s view on transport’s role in its economic development. Within the lifetime of this strategy, the STB will then need to create shorter-term transport plans that will prioritise transport interventions to be delivered in given time periods, likely to be mapped on to road and rail investment cycles. This process is already under way within Transport for the North.
Over time, the Secretary of State may grant individual STBs additional responsibilities, through further secondary legislation, around the decision-making and delivery of transport schemes and significant cross-regional schemes, such as smart ticketing. The Secretary of State, and other public authorities including local and combined authorities, will not be able to overlook an STB’s transport strategy when developing their own transport strategies and plans. In return, this legislation requires STBs to consult with local government bodies, the Secretary of State for Transport and other interested parties within or without the STB, thereby ensuring it meets the expectations of all parties.
STBs will take a strategic-level view across an area to improve transport infrastructure and services, and address how that can support the economy. This involves assessing which transport schemes deliver most benefit from their investment, and how best to improve regional connectivity.
In creating STBs, the Government are demonstrating their commitment to work together with local areas to tackle those transport issues that cut across administrative boundaries, such as longer-distance road and rail, and find joint solutions that benefit people travelling across the region, such as smart ticketing. It is important to stress that this legislation gives all areas the opportunity to benefit from the establishment of STBs so their economies can grow. This is a key part of the work to help rebalance the economy outside London. Accordingly, I believe it is necessary for TfN, Midlands Connect and all future STBs to be enshrined as statutory bodies with appropriate statutory powers, and I commend this new clause to the House.
Mr Steve Reed
It is welcome to hear the consensus for devolution from all parts of the House this afternoon, and welcome, too, to hear the Minister tell us he is in listening mode. I hope so, because there is an awful lot still to work out across the Bill, including in the new clauses before us now. It will be important if we can build consensus around them so we have a solid foundation on which to build in the Bills that I am sure will follow this devolution Bill.
Labour wants to see the devolution of control over local transport so that trains, buses, trams and cycling can be properly integrated. I welcome the Government new clause. It is undoubtedly a step forward, but, like other parts of the Bill, it is limited by three factors: first, it does not go far enough; secondly, the funding and resourcing are not clear; and thirdly, it still keeps too much control in Whitehall. We would welcome further Government thinking on all those areas before we come to a final decision on the Bill.
Mr Andrew Turner
The hon. Gentleman listed three or four ways of getting around, but did not mention ferries. Where do they fit?
Graham Stringer
No. My hon. Friend mentioned buses. Does he share my surprise that we are discussing this Bill when the Government have still not produced the Bill that will allow these devolved authorities to reregulate the buses?
Mr Reed
I thank my hon. Friend for making that point. I hope that the Government will hear it while they are in listening mode, and that they will make the appropriate changes so that we can get maximum devolution and give local authorities back maximum control over their bus services.
New clause 34 will allow other regions to set up their own Transport for London-style models. TfL was an excellent Labour initiative but it was delivered 15 years ago. Helping other regions to catch up with London is the right thing to do, but it is a missed opportunity not to go significantly beyond that.
John Redwood
If the STB in a given area were to promote a road improvement that covered two different council areas, does the hon. Gentleman think that the STB should have the power to make one of the councils co-operate in the scheme if it did not wish to do so?
Mr Reed
That is a matter for the Government, but my view is that this should all be done through co-operation and negotiation, not through imposition. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman would not advocate any such imposition; I suspect that he would not.
The London Assembly has made the case that cities such as London need further devolved powers to integrate rail services with their surrounding commuter regions. That will apply to other regions across the country as well. It is not quite clear, however, what will be in scope in that regard. Perhaps this relates to the right hon. Gentleman’s question. It would be helpful to have clarification on that point, as we do not have long to go before the Bill reaches its Report stage. It would be helpful to have clarity before we reach the final vote on the Bill.
There is also the question of how new transport initiatives will be funded. Since 2010, local authorities have had their funding for bus services cut by 70%. The Department for Transport has recently signed up to a further 32% cut, which is likely to affect sustainable transport programmes for cycling and buses, once we see the full detail. All of this undermines the upgrades necessary to deliver effective transport integration, which is critical to making the system work efficiently and effectively for local people. Those decisions should not be taken centrally without involving the areas affected by them, and I hope that the Government will come forward with proposals to ensure that resourcing is also part of the negotiations with localities, along with the additional powers that they may or may not be able to acquire.
Significant control over STBs is to be retained, in some cases quite unnecessarily. The new clause mentions the Secretary of State 39 times, but it mentions mayors just twice. Will mayors have a significant role within these organisations or not? We would welcome further clarification from the Government on what the precise role of the mayors will be. The Government are forcing mayors on to localities whether they want them or not, as a condition of devolution deals in the metropolitan areas, but they also seem to be denying the mayors certain powers. Either they are a central point of local accountability or they are not. We would like to see their powers over transport matters extended.
Under the provisions, authorities will still have to have their proposals approved by the Secretary of State, from whom they will also still get their funding. The Secretary of State will also be able to make provisions about how an STB is to carry out various functions. That does not seem radically different from where the ultimate authority lies now. We have seen what happens when this Government try to deliver transport projects with too much centralised control. We have seen the pausing, and the un-pausing, of the electrification of the TransPennine route, and we have seen airport expansion kicked into the long grass for decades. The Great Western main line electrification announced by Labour has also been delayed by the Tories, with its costs spiralling from under £550 million in 2011 to £2.8 billion today.
Despite the Minister’s fine words and the undoubted good intentions of the Secretary of State, it appears that the Government are still too timid to really let go. I hope that the listening mode they have declared they are in today means they will think about how they can go further with these proposals by the time we reach Report.
Mr Graham Allen
Mrs Main, I understand that it is in order to talk about the other clauses remaining to the House to discuss, including new clause 29, at this point, but I am happy to stand corrected.
The Temporary Chair (Mrs Anne Main)
I am reliably informed that new clause 29 is in the next group.
Andrew Jones
indicated dissent.
Question put and agreed to.
New clause 34 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
The Temporary Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 29—The Local Government Independence Code—
‘(1) There shall be a Code, to be known as “the Local Government Independence Code”, the principal purpose of which shall be to define and regulate the relationship between central and local government.
(2) A court or tribunal determining a question which has arisen in connection with the functions of a local authority, or of the Secretary of State or other public authority in relation to any local authority, must take into account the provisions of the Code.
(3) Schedule (The Local Government Independence Code) which—
(a) sets out the terms of the Code,
(b) makes provision about the application of the Code, and requires public authorities, including central and local government, to comply with the Code,
(c) makes provision for amending the Code,
(d) requires that, where it is possible to do so, primary legislation and subordinate legislation must be read and given effect in a way which ensures compliance with the Code, and makes provision for the amending of legislation where it is found not to be compatible with the Code,
(e) makes provision about remedial orders to amend legislation,
(f) makes provision for Ministers to make, or refuse to make, a statement that a Bill is compatible with the Code,
(g) amends the Parliament Act 1911 so as to exclude any Bill seeking to amend this Act from the provisions of the Parliament Act 1911,
(h) provides for amendments which are consequential on the making of the Code to certain enactments relating to local authorities, and
(i) requires the Secretary of State to provide for the review of provisions in pre-commencement legislation to assess their compatibility with the provisions of the Code,
has effect.”
The intention of this new Clause is to define the independence of local government and to regulate the relationship between local and central government in England by means of a statutory Code.
New clause 30—Reduction in petition threshold—
‘(1) The Local Government Act 2000 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 34(4) (minimum number of local government electors for a local authority’s area who must support any petition presented to the authority), for “5 per cent” substitute “1 per cent”.’
This amendment would reduce the minimum number of local government electors for a local authority’s area who must support any petition presented to the authority from 5 per cent to 1 per cent.
New clause 31—Mayors of combined authorities: Further functions—
‘(1) After section 107E of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 (inserted by section 6 above) insert—
“107F Functions of mayors: alcohol pricing
(1) The Secretary of State may by order make provision for a mayor of a mayoral combined authority to have the power to set a minimum unit price for alcohol that is sold within that combined authority area.
(2) An order made under subsection (1) above must include a provision that such a power may be exercised by a mayor only following a consultation which includes local residents on the proposed level of the minimum unit price for alcohol.”’
New clause 32—Devolution to combined authorities: the family test—
‘(1) As soon as practicable after 31 March each year a mayoral combined authority in England shall produce and publish a report setting out its performance in applying the family test headings set out in subsection (3) over the most recent year to 31 March.
(2) In applying the family test, the mayoral combined authority must consider the impact of its policies and performance under each of the family test headings set out in subsection (3) and consider any guidance issued by the Secretary of State.
(3) The family test headings are—
(a) family formation;
(b) families going through key transitions such as becoming parents, getting married, fostering or adopting, bereavement, redundancy, new caring responsibilities or the onset of a long-term health condition;
(c) all family members’ ability to play a full role in family life, including with respect to parenting and other caring responsibilities;
(d) families before, during and after couple separation; and
(e) those families most at risk of deterioration of relationship quality and breakdown.
(4) An overview and scrutiny committee of the mayoral combined authority shall review the report within four months of its publication.
(5) The Secretary of State may issue guidance to mayoral combined authorities on applying the family test and on reporting on the test.”
This new Clause would require mayoral combined authorities in England to report annually on their performance in relation to the DWP’s Family Test (October 2014) and for an overview and scrutiny committee to examine the contents of the report.
New clause 33—Parish Councils: Power of parish council to sell electricity—
‘In Section 44 (1)(b) of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 insert “11” between “1” and “16”.’
This amendment will allow parish councils to be able to sell electricity that it generates.
New clause 36—Regard to neighbouring authorities—
‘In exercising a devolved function, combined authorities must have regard to any significant direct impact on the population of neighbouring authorities.’
This clause raises the concerns of some authorities which neighbour devolved authorities and ensures that combined authorities which have devolved functions give regard to the possible impact on neighbouring populations, particularly over issues such as transport and health.
New clause 37—Disqualification for election and holding office as a Member of a local authority—
‘In section 80 (1)(d) of the Local Government Act 1972, omit “for a period of not less than three months without the option of a fine”.’
This New Clause would extend the current disqualification regime to councillors sentenced to any custodial sentence (including a suspended sentence), instead of applying only to councillors sentenced to a term of imprisonment of at least three months.
New clause 38—Enabling devolution to joint committees in London—
‘(1) Following a written request from either—
(a) a voluntary joint committee of London councils, or
(b) a voluntary joint committee of London councils and the Mayor of London,
the Secretary of State may by order make arrangements for a function of a Minister of the Crown or a Government Department to be delegated to that joint committee, formed under Section 101 of the 1972 Local Government Act.
(2) The voluntary joint committee may make such provision as is necessary in relation to—
(a) voting powers required to protect minority interests;
(b) the membership and process for individual authorities to enter or leave;
(c) the executive arrangements of the joint committee;
(d) arrangements for the administration and transfer of property and other liabilities.
(3) A request made under subsection (1) above must have the agreement of all constituent members of the joint committee.
(4) In this section—
“London councils” means
(a) London borough councils, and
(b) the Common Council of the City of London;
“joint committee” has the same meaning as in the Local Government Act 1972;
“Minister of the Crown” has the same meaning as in the Ministers of the Crown Act 1975.
(5) A function is eligible for the purposes of subsection (1) above if—
(a) it does not consist of a power to make regulations or other instruments of a legislative character or a power to fix fees or charges, and
(b) the Secretary of State considers that it can be appropriately exercised by the joint committee.
(6) No delegation under subsection (1) above, and no variation of a delegation under subsection (1) above can be made without the agreement of all constituent members of the relevant voluntary joint committee.
(7) Before making or varying a delegation under subsection (1) above, the Secretary of State must consult—
(a) London borough councils;
(b) The Common Council of the City of London;
(c) The Mayor of London (in the case of a joint committee of London councils and the Mayor of London).
(8) The Secretary of State may make arrangements for the transfer from the Crown to the relevant joint committee of such property, rights or liabilities as the Secretary of State considers appropriate to the discharge of the function delegated under subsection (1).
(9) If an order made under this section would be treated for the purposes of the standing orders of either House of Parliament as a hybrid instrument, it is to proceed in that House as if it were not a hybrid instrument.’
This clause would support further devolution of Ministerial functions to London by providing for decision-making arrangements to enable operational delegation to groups of London local authorities and for the strategic governance of devolved responsibilities to be shared between London councils and the Mayor through an appropriately constituted joint committee.
New clause 39—Environmental consideration—
‘No later than three months after the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State shall prepare guidance on effective strategic planning for combined authorities including in the areas of—
(a) mitigation of and adaptation to impacts of climate change;
(b) natural resource use including water management;
(c) delivery of low-carbon energy sources and infrastructure;
(d) landscape-scale conservation, including green infrastructure.’
This new clause places a duty on the Secretary of State to set out guidance on how co-operation between combined authorities can be strengthened to mitigate environmental problems and develop green infrastructure.
New schedule 2—The Local Government Independence Code—
‘1 Chapter 4ZA and Chapter 4A of Part 1 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 are repealed.
2 (1) This Code—
(a) defines the relationship between central government and local authorities; and
(b) makes provision about the financial independence and conduct of local authorities.
(2) For the avoidance of doubt, nothing in this Code shall affect the rights of individuals; and individuals may continue to seek judicial review of any action by a public authority which they regard as unjust or as infringing their rights.
Local Autonomy and Local Self-Government
3 (1) Local authorities’ accountability is to their electorates.
(2) Local authorities are autonomous, democratically-elected bodies which independently decide upon, administer and regulate public affairs and deal with all matters of concern within their boundaries to the extent that such matters are not the statutory responsibility of another body.
(3) Local authorities shall continue to operate within the rule of law.
(4) Local authorities shall continue to operate with full legal personality and under a general power of competence. Subject to sub-paragraph (4), local authorities may pass measures on matters affecting the affairs and interests of their area.
Scope of Local Government
4 (1) The powers and responsibilities of local authorities will continue to be prescribed by statute.
(2) Local authorities shall have power to exercise their initiative with regard to any matter which is not statutorily excluded from their competence or assigned to another body.
(3) Central government may not propose actions which are intended to, or may reasonably be regarded as being likely to, infringe the independence of local government, as defined in this Code, or affect local government generally or any local authority, unless local government generally, or the local authority concerned, consents.
Inter-Governmental Activities
5 Central government and local authorities shall establish joint inspection regimes to set and monitor the standards of services supplied or secured by them.
Territorial Autonomy
6 The geographical boundary of a local authority can be altered only by a proposal from the local authority itself or from its electorate. Local authorities must make arrangements for their electorates to put forward such proposals for consideration. Any such locally-inspired proposal for boundary changes, whether initiated directly by the authority or by the electorate of the authority, must be developed with the involvement of the Local Government Boundary Commission for England and shall be subject to approval of the electorate of the area concerned, under arrangements made by the local authority concerned and approved by the Electoral Commission.
Council Governmental Systems
7 (1) The electorate of each local authority, through methods agreed by the local authority concerned, shall have the power to choose that authority‘s internal political decision-making systems. The systems concerned shall include a directly elected mayor and cabinet, a cabinet and leader, a committee system, or any other political decision-making arrangement which the electorate may decide is appropriate.
(2) The electorate of each local authority, through methods agreed by their local authorities, may, after a process of consultation carried out by the local authority concerned, agree to and adopt any electoral system for use in elections to that authority.
Local Government Financial Integrity
8 (1) Local authorities shall be financially independent of central government, save as otherwise provided for in this Code.
(2) Central government may not place any restriction on decisions by local authorities about the exercise of their financial powers.
(3) The distribution of central government funds between local authorities shall continue on the basis of existing equalisation arrangements. Distribution will continue to be based on the principle of ensuring fairness and balance between local authorities. The basis on which this distribution is carried out must continue to be made public.
(4) Each local authority shall receive from central government a guaranteed share of the annual yield of income tax, as follows. Central government must in each financial year assign to the Secretary of State responsible for the distribution of central government funds between local authorities an amount of money equivalent to the yield from ten pence in the pound of income tax. The Secretary of State must make arrangements to inform each taxpayer in England of the amount of their income tax which makes up the central government funding distributed to English local authorities as a whole.
(5) The amount of the income tax yield referred to in paragraph 8(4) shall be re-negotiated between central and local government whenever service provision responsibilities are transferred between central government and local authorities.
(6) Local authorities may raise additional sources of income in their areas in any way they wish, and with the consent of their electorates as expressed through arrangements to be determined and put in place by the local authority concerned.
(7) Local authorities shall be able to raise any loans, bonds or other financial instruments which their credit rating allows and as independent entities will be exclusively responsible for their repayment. All local authorities shall operate “a balanced budget” so that in any one financial year all outgoings, including interest repayments on borrowings, shall not exceed income.
(8) Central government may not cap, or in any other way limit, local authorities’ taxation powers.
(9) The financial transparency standards that apply to central government shall apply to local authorities.
(10) Central government and local authorities may contract with each other in order to pursue their own policy objectives.
Local Authorities’ right to co-operate and associate
9 (1) Local authorities are entitled, in pursuit of any undertaking, to co-operate in any way with any other persons, including local authorities, public and private bodies, voluntary, charity or third-sector organisations, and financial, commercial or private enterprises.
(2) Where more than one local authority is responsible for services in a geographic area, those local authorities shall co-operate so as to maximise the well-being of those living or working in that area.
(3) Local authorities may join any association for the protection and promotion of their common interests and may belong to an international association of any sort.
Decision-making
10 The administration of any local referendum or other vote on proposals put forward by the electorate of any local authority, or other local decision-making processes involving a public vote, shall adhere to standards set by the Electoral Commission; and those responsible for the conduct of any such decision-making processes shall be accountable to the Electoral Commission for their performance against those standards.
Legal Protection of Local Government
11 Local authorities may seek a judicial remedy in order to secure the free exercise of their powers, and any other principles of local self-government or individual rights contained within this Code or otherwise enshrined in law.
Application of and Compliance with the Code: acts of public authorities
12 It is unlawful for a public authority to act in a way which is not in compliance with the Code.
13 Paragraph 12 does not apply to an act of a local authority if—
(a) as the result of one or more provisions of primary legislation, the authority could not have acted differently; or
(b) in the case of one or more provisions of, or made under, primary legislation which cannot be read or given effect in a way which is compatible with the Code, the authority was acting so as to give effect to or enforce those provisions.
14 In this Schedule “public authority” includes central government, local authorities and any other person certain of whose functions are functions of a public nature, but does not include either House of Parliament or persons exercising functions in connection with proceedings in Parliament; and “an act” includes a failure to act.
Proceedings
15 (1) A person who claims that a public authority has acted (or proposes to act) in a way which is made unlawful by paragraph 12 may—
(a) bring proceedings against the authority under this Act in the appropriate court or tribunal, or
(b) rely on the Code in any legal proceedings.
(2) In sub-paragraph (1)(a) “appropriate court or tribunal” means such court or tribunal as may be determined in accordance with rules; and proceedings against an authority include a counterclaim or similar proceeding.
(3) If the proceedings are brought on an application for judicial review, the applicant must have a sufficient interest in relation to the act.
(4) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1)(a) must be brought before the end of—
(a) the period of one year beginning with the date on which the act complained of took place; or
(b) such longer period as the court or tribunal considers equitable having regard to all the circumstances, but that is subject to any rule imposing a stricter time limit in relation to the procedure in question.
(5) In sub-paragraph (1)(b) “legal proceedings” includes—
(a) proceedings brought by or at the instigation of a public authority; and
(b) an appeal against the decision of a court or tribunal.
(6) Nothing in this Act creates a criminal offence.
(7) In this paragraph “person” includes a local authority.
Judicial remedies
16 (1) In relation to any act (or proposed act) of a public authority which the court finds is (or would be) unlawful, it may grant such relief or remedy, or make such order, within its powers as it considers just and appropriate.
(2) But damages may be awarded only by a court which has power to award damages, or to order the payment of compensation, in civil proceedings.
(3) No award of damages is to be made unless, taking account of all the circumstances of the case, including—
(a) any other relief or remedy granted, or order made, in relation to the act in question (by that or any other court), and
(b) the consequences of any decision (of that or any other court) in respect of that act, the court is satisfied that the award is necessary to afford just satisfaction to the person in whose favour it is made.
(4) In this paragraph—
“court” includes a tribunal;
“damages” means damages for an unlawful act of a public authority; and
“unlawful” means unlawful under paragraph 15.
Amendment of the Code
17 (1) The Secretary of State may by order make such amendments to the Code as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
(2) Before making an order under sub-paragraph (1), the Secretary of State must consult—
(a) such local authorities,
(b) such representatives of local government, and
(c) such other persons (if any), as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
(3) Any orders for amendments made by the Secretary of State are subject to the procedures set out in paragraphs 17 to 19 of this Schedule.
Limits on power of Secretary of State to amend the Code
18 (1) The Secretary of State may not make provision under paragraph 16(1) unless the Secretary of State considers that the conditions in sub-paragraph (2) are satisfied in relation to that provision.
(2) Those conditions are that—
(a) the provision does not reduce the powers or discretion of local authorities unless the Secretary of State objectively considers that the effect of the provision is proportionate to the policy objective intended to be secured by the provision;
(b) the provision does not remove any necessary protection for local government or breach the obligations arising under the European Charter of Local Self-Government; and
(c) an order under paragraph 16(1) may not make provision to abolish or vary any tax.
Procedure for orders under paragraph 1
19 (1) If, as a result of any consultation required by paragraph 16(2), it appears to the Secretary of State that it is appropriate to change all or any part of the Secretary of State‘s proposals, the Secretary of State must undertake such further consultation with respect to the changes as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
(2) If, after the conclusion of the consultation required by paragraph 16(2), the Secretary of State considers it appropriate to proceed with the making of an order under paragraph 16(1), the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament—
(a) a draft of the order, and
(b) an explanatory document explaining the proposals and giving details of—
(i) the Secretary of State‘s reasons for considering that the conditions in paragraph 17(2) are satisfied in relation to the proposals,
(ii) any consultation undertaken under paragraph 16(2),
(iii) any representations received as a result of the consultation, and
(iv) any changes made as a result of those representations.
Super-affirmative resolution procedure
20 (1) A super-affirmative resolution procedure shall apply in relation to the making of an order pursuant to a draft order, as follows.
(2) The Minister must have regard to—
(a) any representations,
(b) any resolution of either House of Parliament, and
(c) any recommendations of a committee of either House of Parliament charged with reporting on the draft order, made during the 60-day period with regard to the draft order.
(3) If, after the expiry of the 60-day period, the Minister wishes to make an order in the terms of the draft, he must lay before Parliament a statement—
(a) stating whether any representations were made under sub-paragraph (2)(a), and
(b) if any representations were so made, giving details of them.
(4) The Minister may, after the laying of such a statement, make an order in the terms of the draft if it is approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
(5) However, a committee of either House charged with reporting on the draft order may, at any time after the laying of a statement under sub-paragraph (3) and before the draft order is approved by that House under sub-paragraph (4), recommend under this subsection that no further proceedings be taken in relation to the draft order.
(6) Where a recommendation is made by a committee of either House under sub-paragraph (5) in relation to a draft order, no proceedings may be taken in relation to the draft order in that House under sub-paragraph (4) unless the recommendation is, in the same Session, rejected by resolution of that House.
(7) If, after the expiry of the 60-day period, the Minister wishes to make an order consisting of a revised version of the draft order, the Minister must lay before Parliament—
(a) a revised draft order; and
(b) a statement giving details of—
(i) any representations made under sub-paragraph (2)(a); and
(ii) the revisions proposed.
(8) The Minister may, after laying a revised draft order and statement under sub-paragraph (7), make an order in the terms of the revised draft if it is approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
(9) However, a committee of either House charged with reporting on the revised draft order may, at any time after the revised draft order is laid under sub-paragraph (7) and before it is approved by that House under sub-paragraph (8), recommend under this subsection that no further proceedings be taken in relation to the revised draft order.
(10) Where a recommendation is made by a committee of either House under sub-paragraph (9) in relation to a revised draft order, no proceedings may, be taken in relation to the revised draft order in that House under sub-paragraph (8) unless the recommendation is, in the same Session, rejected by resolution of that House.
(11) For the purposes of sub-paragraphs (4) and (8) an order is made in the terms of a draft order if it contains no material changes to the provisions of the draft order.
(12) In this schedule the “60-day period” means the period of 60 days beginning with the day on which the draft order was laid before Parliament under sub-paragraph(4).
(13) In calculating any period of days for the purposes of this section, no account shall be taken of any time during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued or during which either House is adjourned for more than four days.
21 A resolution of either House is valid for the purposes of this schedule if, and only if, the motion for the resolution—
(a) is agreed without a division; or
(b) is passed on a division in which the number of members who vote in favour of the motion is a number equal to or greater than two-thirds of the number of seats in the House (including vacant seats).
Interpretation of Legislation
22 (1) So far as it is possible to do so, primary legislation and subordinate legislation must be read and given effect in a way which is compatible with the Code.
(2) This paragraph—
(a) applies to primary legislation and subordinate legislation whenever enacted;
(b) does not affect the validity, continuing operation or enforcement of any incompatible primary legislation; and
(c) does not affect the validity, continuing operation or enforcement of any incompatible subordinate legislation if (disregarding any possibility of revocation) primary legislation prevents removal of the incompatibility.
Declaration of Incompatibility
23 (1) Sub-paragraph (2) applies in any proceedings in which a court determines whether a provision of primary legislation is compatible with the Code.
(2) If the court is satisfied that the provision is incompatible with the Code, it may make a declaration of that incompatibility.
(3) Sub-paragraph (4) applies in any proceedings in which a court determines whether a provision of subordinate legislation, made in the exercise of a power conferred by primary legislation, is compatible with a provision of the Code.
(4) If the court is satisfied—
(a) that the provision is incompatible with the Code, and
(b) that (disregarding any possibility of revocation) the primary legislation concerned prevents removal of the incompatibility, it may make a declaration of that incompatibility.
(5) In this paragraph “court” means the Supreme Court; the Court of Appeal; and the High Court.
(6) A declaration under this paragraph (“a declaration of incompatibility”)—
(a) does not affect the validity, continuing operation or enforcement of the provision in respect of which it is given; and
(b) is not binding on the parties to the proceedings in which it is made.
Power to take remedial action
24 (1) This paragraph applies if—
(a) a provision of legislation has been declared under paragraph 22 to be incompatible with the Code and, if an appeal lies—
(i) all persons who may appeal have stated in writing that they do not intend to do so;
(ii) the time for bringing an appeal has expired and no appeal has been brought within that time; or
(iii) an appeal brought within that time has been determined or abandoned; or
(b) it appears to the Secretary of State that, having regard to any finding of his under section 5(1) of the Localism Act 2011, a provision of legislation is incompatible with the Code.
(2) If a Minister of the Crown considers that there are compelling reasons for proceeding under this section, he may by order make such amendments to the legislation as he considers necessary to remove the incompatibility.
(3) If, in the case of subordinate legislation, a Minister of the Crown considers that—
(a) it is necessary to amend the primary legislation under which the subordinate legislation in question was made, in order to enable the incompatibility to be removed, and
(b) there are compelling reasons for proceeding under this paragraph, he may by means of a remedial order make such amendments to the primary legislation as he considers necessary.
(4) This paragraph also applies where the provision in question is in subordinate legislation and has been quashed, or declared invalid, by reason of incompatibility with the Code and the Minister proposes to proceed under paragraph 25(b).
(5) If the legislation is an Order in Council, the power conferred by sub-paragraph (2) or (3) is exercisable by Her Majesty in Council.
Remedial Orders
25 (1) A remedial order may—
(a) contain such incidental, supplemental, consequential or transitional provision as the person making it considers appropriate;
(b) be made so as to have effect from a date earlier than that on which it is made;
(c) make provision for the delegation of specific functions;
(d) make different provision for different cases.
(2) The power conferred by sub-paragraph (1)(a) includes—
(a) power to amend primary legislation (including primary legislation other than that which contains the incompatible provision); and
(b) power to amend or revoke subordinate legislation (including subordinate legislation other than that which contains the incompatible provision).
(3) A remedial order may be made so as to have the same extent as the legislation which it affects.
(4) No person is to be guilty of an offence solely as a result of the retrospective effect of a remedial order.
Procedure
26 No remedial order may be made unless—
(a) a draft of the order has been approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament made after the end of the period of 60 days beginning with the day on which the draft was laid; or
(b) it is declared in the order that it appears to the person making it that, because of the urgency of the matter, it is necessary to make the order without a draft being so approved.
Orders laid in draft
27 (1) No draft may be laid under paragraph 25(a) unless—
(a) the person proposing to make the order has laid before Parliament a document which contains a draft of the proposed order and the required information; and
(b) the period of 60 days, beginning with the day on which the document required by this sub-paragraph was laid, has ended.
(2) If representations have been made during that period, the draft laid under paragraph 25(a) must be accompanied by a statement containing—
(a) a summary of the representations; and
(b) if, as a result of the representations, the proposed order has been changed, details of the changes.
Urgent cases
28 (1) If a remedial order (“the original order“) is made without being approved in draft, the person making it must lay it before Parliament, accompanied by the required information, after it is made.
(2) If representations have been made during the period of 60 days beginning with the day on which the original order was made, the person making it must (after the end of that period) lay before Parliament a statement containing—
(a) a summary of the representations; and
(b) if, as a result of the representations, he considers it appropriate to make changes to the original order, details of the changes.
(3) If sub-paragraph (2)(b) applies, the person making the statement must—
(a) make a further remedial order replacing the original order; and
(b) lay the replacement order before Parliament.
(4) If, at the end of the period of 120 days beginning with the day on which the original order was made, a resolution has not been passed by each House approving the original or replacement order, the order ceases to have effect (but without that affecting anything previously done under either order or the power to make a fresh remedial order).
Definitions
29 In this Schedule—
“representations” means representations about a remedial order (or proposed remedial order) made to the person making (or proposing to make) it and includes any relevant Parliamentary report or resolution; and
“required information” means—
(a) an explanation of the incompatibility which the order (or proposed order) seeks to remove, including particulars of the relevant declaration, finding or order; and
(b) a statement of the reasons for proceeding under paragraph (23) and for making an order in those terms.
Calculating periods
30 In calculating any period for the purposes of this Schedule, no account is to be taken of any time during which—
(a) Parliament is dissolved or prorogued; or
(b) both Houses are adjourned for more than four days.
Statements of Compatibility
31 (1) A Minister of the Crown in charge of a Bill in either House of Parliament must, before Second Reading of the Bill—
(a) make a statement to the effect that in his view the provisions of the Bill are compatible with the provisions of the Code (“a statement of compatibility”); or
(b) make a statement to the effect that although he is unable to make a statement of compatibility the government nevertheless wishes the House to proceed with the Bill.
(2) The statement must be in writing and be published in such manner as the Minister making it considers appropriate.
Amendment to the Parliament Act 1911
32 In section 2(1) of the Parliament Act 1911 the words “or a Bill seeking to amend the Local Government Independence Code Act” shall be inserted after the words “maximum duration of Parliament beyond five years”.
Amendments to other Enactments
33 (6A) The general power of competence includes the power to raise revenue through any method including although not limited to local taxation, levies and duties.”
34 Schedule 6 of the Localism Act 2011 is repealed.
Duty to review provisions in primary and subordinate legislation
35 (1) The Secretary of State shall, within six months of the passing of this Act, make provision by Order to provide for the review of all provisions in pre-commencement primary and subordinate legislation to assess their compatibility with the provisions of the Code.
(2) The order must include—
(a) provision requiring the review of the compatibility of pre- commencement legislation to be completed within a five year period, commencing with the date of passing of this Act;
(b) provision for incompatible pre-commencement legislation to cease to have effect no later than the end of a seven year period, commencing with the date of passing of this Act.
(3) The provision that may be made by virtue of subsection (2)(a) includes provision requiring the person to consider whether the objectives which it was the purpose of the legislation to achieve remain appropriate and, if so, whether they could be achieved in another way.
36 (1) In this schedule, “pre-commencement legislation” means a provision that—
(a) is contained in any other Act passed no later than the end of the Session in which this Act is passed, or
(b) is contained in an instrument made under any other Act and comes into force before the commencement of section 1 of this Act.
(2) Subordinate legislation under paragraph (35)1 may make transitional, consequential, incidental or supplementary provision or savings in connection with such provision.’
This new Schedule provides details relating to implementation of the new Clause on the Local Government Independence Code.
Mr Reed
I understand that it is appropriate briefly to mention the issue of Sunday trading when talking about this group. Last month, the Prime Minister declared at the Dispatch Box:
“we will be putting”—
it—
“in front of the House, in the Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill”—[Official Report, 21 October 2015; Vol. 600, c. 947.]
That was despite the fact that in April he wrote that he had no plans to change the Sunday trading laws and that
“the current system provides a reasonable balance.”
That measure is not before us today; the Government clearly could not get the support that they need. Could we hear from the Minister whether the Government are now ruling it out in this Bill entirely?
The Temporary Chair
I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that the provision is not there and that we cannot debate what is not before the Committee.
Mr Reed
Absolutely, Mrs Main, although the Minister was courteous enough to respond to a point on this issue earlier in the debate and it would be helpful to know that the Government are not proposing to bring it back on Report next week.
New clause 24 stands in my name and those of my hon. Friends. Devolution without fiscal powers is not ambitious enough. As Labour said on day one of this Committee, allowing councils greater fiscal powers would allow them to build greater stability into the system. The Government should commit to providing devolved regions with the resources they need, so that they are not being set up to fail. The Bill cannot just be a means of devolving the blame for cuts made in No. 11 Downing Street; devolution is a much bigger agenda than that, and we have heard support for that view from Members in all parts of the House during this afternoon’s debate and during the passage of this Bill. There are problems with the funding of regional economic growth: local enterprise partnerships can be inefficient; and local areas need long-term commitment and resources from the Government. Regional development agencies, which LEPs replaced, were able to make single three-year funding agreements.
James Wharton
I am responsible for LEPs, and I recognise that there are some great LEPs and others that can be improved. The hon. Gentleman says that they can be inefficient, but will he say which ones he is talking about, because I will then have a look?
Mr Reed
I am not going to name individual LEPs at this stage in the debate. If the Minister talks to LEPs, he will find that they agree with my view. I used to sit on the board of a LEP until three years ago. They have access to much smaller budgets than RDAs could have and to far too many small funding pots. The model is too fragmented and too short term. I suggest that he speaks to some of the LEPs if he does not think that there is room for improvement along those lines, because I think he will hear from them what he has been hearing from me this afternoon. What the LEPs are looking for and what they need is longer-term horizons if they are to act more strategically. The Government need to understand the need for more local decision making and fewer centrally imposed constraints, and making these changes to LEPs would be a step forward in allowing that to happen.
England’s local government finance settlement is one of the most centralised anywhere in the world. Councils lack the freedom they need to innovate to the maximum and to spend as much as they would like on local priorities. Even London, which is currently more devolved than anywhere else in the country, is reliant on central Government for three quarters of its funding. That compares with figures of just 30% in New York and 25% in Berlin. London is a world city and it is competing with other world cities that have much more control over their own destinies. London does not need to be kept on such a tight leash, and nor do the other cities and regions across the United Kingdom that also hope to grow their roles in the future.
The Communities and Local Government Committee concluded that local authorities in England have limited control over local taxation and, as a consequence, rely by comparison disproportionately on central Government funding. New clause 24 does not prescribe a particular settlement, but calls on the Secretary of State to publish a framework for further devolution of fiscal powers that is in keeping with the approach that the Government have taken throughout this Bill including, but not limited to, setting and re-evaluating local tax rates banding and discounts. We would like the Government at least to consider allowing councils to add additional council tax bands at the top and the bottom of the scale. That would allow for very large properties to be charged more and for smaller properties to be charged less, which is a move towards a more progressive model of taxation.
I have some experience in this area. Before I came to this House, I was leader of Lambeth council. We froze council tax for six years after taking over from a Tory-Liberal Democrat administration that had pushed up council tax by 24% in a single year. The Government need not worry about profligate Tory or Lib Dem councils behaving in that way, because they are accountable to their local electorate. However, that should not be used as an excuse to prevent more localisation together with a fair equalisation mechanism operating across the country. I hope that we will hear more about that during the autumn statement in just a few weeks’ time. The Bill strikes me as another appropriate place to be putting in some of those measures to drive forward the devolution agenda and the ability of local councils to ensure that they have the resources that they need to exercise fully the powers that they will increasingly be acquiring.
The Government can and should go further. They are devolving some of the powers, but little of the money. Devolution without the resources to make it work is not ambitious devolution; it is devolution where the Secretary of State remains the puppet master pulling all the strings, too often afraid to let go.
On new clause 34, we welcome the fact that new sub-national transport bodies must consult adjoining authorities before making a proposal. On transport, the Government have recognised that the devolution of powers to combined authorities concerns neighbouring authorities that are not part of those combined authorities, but are affected by their decisions. I am thinking about areas such as Plymouth in relation to Cornwall, Chesterfield in relation to Sheffield, and Warrington in relation to Greater Manchester. This is an important principle, but it extends to other areas beyond transport.
Decisions made over health, for example, could have an impact on neighbouring populations. I am thinking about proposals for hospital closures, new hospitals, and reconfiguration of regional or strategic health services. Decisions over Sunday trading could also have an effect should those plans go ahead—of course I hope that they will not.
New clause 36 would ensure that regard is given to neighbouring authorities affected by devolution deals. It would be on the same principle as the Government’s new clause 34, so I cannot imagine what objection the Government might have to it. If we want to build support for devolution and not to fuel resentment, this clause needs to be included, and we intend to test the will of the Committee on it by pressing it to a vote.
Finally, let me turn to new clause 39 on environmental considerations. This new clause places a duty on the Secretary of State to set out guidance on how co-operation between combined authorities can be strengthened to mitigate environmental problems and develop green infrastructure. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds has carried out an assessment of the current devolution proposals and found that there is an appetite among local councils for greater co-operation on environmental priorities.
The duty to co-operate is not currently strong enough, and local planning can fail to take into consideration the ability of the community to build a positive vision for the local environment. Such changes would strengthen and improve this Bill. I am interested to hear the Government’s position on them when the Minister has an opportunity to respond.
Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
I commend the hon. Member for Croydon North (Mr Reed) on the sentiments of his speech, if not entirely on the detail, because many of us have some sympathy for the need for further fiscal devolution and will be interested to see what form that can eventually take. With no disrespect to those broader issues, I shall refer to new clause 38, which stands in my name and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (Mr Hurd) and the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) and which relates specifically to enabling devolution to joint committees in London. That might sound technical, but it is actually important. I stress that new clause 38 is signed by the three of us on a cross-party basis. In fact, it is supported by the all-party parliamentary group for London, by London Councils on a cross-party basis and by the Mayor of London. So this is a London ask to the Government.
New clause 38 essentially relates to the fact that, as certainly I and a number of right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House said on Second Reading, it is sometimes thought that devolution in London is a job done. Well, it is not; more remains to be done on devolution in London. The Government recognise that fact—potential means of devolution to the Mayor and to London boroughs have already been discussed—but the purpose of new clause 38 is to probe the Government’s thinking a little, and I shall be interested to hear the Minister’s response on precisely what legislative framework is required to achieve devolution to the Mayor and to London boroughs, either for all of London in some cases or specifically, as would be allowed under these proposals, to parts of London.
We have been talking about the various devolution deals. I was delighted to hear two of them announced today. Of course, they are important and they rightly vary from place to place. Well, the same applies to London. By its very nature and size, London is infinitely bigger than any other city and any other potential devolution deal. For that reason and because of its nature and complexity—although with the directly elected Mayor and the Greater London Authority, it was the first to have a form of devolution of the kind that the Government envisage, which we welcome being rolled out elsewhere—it has different governance arrangements. In particular, we must recognise the role of the 32 London boroughs—far more than in any other proposed combined mayoral authority—as well as that of the London Assembly.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
My hon. Friend is talking specifically about London, but as the devolution deal goes through, will it not also need to be reflected in the broader picture—for example, if there were a mayor for Oxfordshire and a number of combined authorities?
Robert Neill
My hon. Friend makes an entirely fair point, and I recognise his long experience in local government and his interest in the matter throughout his time in the House. It is perfectly true that we must look at the situation in the shire counties, particularly where two-tier arrangements apply. I very much hope that we will see county devolution deals as well, because the strategic counties of England are potentially just as much economic drivers as our great cities, but we will need tailored governance arrangements to recognise the two-tier nature, which differs in its competence from that within the London boroughs or the metropolitan authorities.
Mr Steve Reed
May I associate myself with the very welcome proposals being made by my fellow co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group for London? Given the complexity of London’s governance, it will be difficult for further devolution to happen if such proposals are not accepted by the Government. I endorse the view that is being expressed, and I hope that the Government will listen to it as a means to promote further sensible devolution in London.
Robert Neill
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support for the new clause. It is not intended to be the definitive text, but I hope the Minister will take heart from the fact that any text brought forward by the Government is likely to enjoy cross-party support and is unlikely to impede the progress of the Bill, but will enhance the opportunity for devolution deals within London as a whole.
Mr Graham Allen
I want to talk about the very broad amendments that I have tabled. New clause 29 and new schedule 2 get to the heart of the debate—that is, we can have all the powers we like, but if we do not have the financial capability to use them effectively, they are an empty charade. We are accompanied in this Chamber by people of great expertise, with at least three former leaders of councils and other colleagues who have great experience on local authorities. The hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill)—my hon. Friend, if I may call him that—has great experience that he put to the service of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee in the previous Parliament. He enhanced our reports particularly where they touched on local government. There is great expertise in the Chamber, and I defy anyone to counter the truism that without finance powers are useless.
That is why I return again to the question of what happens next on devolution. This Bill is absolutely essential. The Minister has heard me say on many occasions that it is a good Bill that makes good progress, but he has also heard me ask on many occasions, “What comes next? Once the foundations are in, what do we do to build a more secure construction on them?”
If the Minister does not intend to accept my new clauses, I ask him to look to the future and to consider how we can expand the financial capability of local government. We can do that in a number of areas. Indeed, my Select Committee in the last Parliament inspired me to draft the Local Government (Independence) Bill, which is available from all good Vote Offices or even from me, should anyone who is viewing the debate care to read it. It laid out a number of areas where we could use existing precedent to free local government in England and enable proper devolution.
One of the key precedents was and is Scotland. The efforts of Donald Dewar, the Scottish citizens convention, the coalition’s Scotland Act 2012 and the cross-party consensus among those of us who do not wish to split up the Union and who support the current Scotland Bill, which delivers on the promise that was made before the Scottish referendum, have all contributed to enhancing the capability of the Scottish Parliament to raise and retain its own income.
What is good enough for Scotland is good enough for England. England would need a different mechanism to deliver the heart of the deal, which is income tax assignment, but it is not beyond the wit of mankind to create that capability. Drawing on the lessons of the Scottish experience, we could soon get to a position where income tax assignment, channelled through the Department for Communities and Local Government, filtered down into a clear, honest and accountable amount of income tax without having to make any changes to the rates, the method of collection or equalisation. That would provide local people with transparency and clarity with regard to where and when their income tax is spent, via central Government, by local councils and local authorities. That would be a significant step forward, just as the Scotland Act 2012 was for the Scottish people.
On equalisation, many people get anxious about income tax assignment and say, “That means you’re retaining the income tax raised in your locality,” but that is not what it means. As happens now, income tax would go to the centre and it would be reallocated through the existing formula or a slightly changed formula, depending on the consensus at the time. Equalisation would stay exactly the same as it is now, unless all players—including, above all, local government, perhaps represented by the Local Government Association—consented to any change.
The Local Government (Independence) Bill was the product of a lot of thinking involving academics, Queen’s counsel, the Public Bill Office and this House, to try to make sure that everything was defined as accurately as possible so that it could be legislated on. It outlines ways in which local government could raise additional income, but with the very strong caveat that it could not use any additional sources of income unless it involved local people in the decision and they agreed to them. The issue has been discussed before on the Floor of the House, and we raised the obvious example of charging a hotel tax—or bed tax, as it is sometimes called—if local people consent to it. The heart of devolution is represented not by the Government saying, “Everybody should do this”, but by the freedom of local areas to try, if they wish, to get the consent of people in their locality.
Members have touched repeatedly on the idea that that approach will be so much stronger if it is done voluntarily. Rather than looking for ways to get out of a straitjacket, people will be seeking means to join the club of local authorities that can raise money in particular ways. They would learn from each other, from the experience of colleagues down the road or from further afield and perhaps, as I have suggested in new clauses, from a best practice centre of some description—owned by local authorities, contributed to by central Government —to take devolution to the next step. Let us look at some of the good things that have happened, although not everywhere, and offer them to other authorities so that they can, if they wish, move forward.
John Stevenson
I will say a few words about new clause 30. The Bill includes plenty of references to elected mayors and their powers. Indeed, much of our debate has centred on elected mayors. I have long supported the idea of elected mayors and very much welcome their introduction into legislation. However, the Bill deals with larger areas such as combined authorities, large cities and the larger counties. It does not address the possibility of elected mayors in smaller councils and communities.
I acknowledge that the Government want this change to come from the bottom up, with local authorities coming together to put forward ideas and proposals, hence all the deals that we have heard about up and down the country in recent days—I am sure that there are many more to come. I understand that process, although I do not wholly agree with it at all times. I sometimes think that there needs to be greater direction from the centre. Nevertheless, the Government are moving in the right direction.
New clause 30, which my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) and I tabled, is a small change that would allow smaller council areas and communities, which are unaffected by this legislation in many respects, to consider having an elected mayor in a simpler way and give their populaces the opportunity to vote on the prospect of an elected mayor. For example, there is an elected Mayor of London, but of the 32 boroughs underneath that, only about two have elected mayors.
I would like other boroughs to have an easier opportunity at least to consider the prospect of an elected mayor, and to extend that provision to other parts of the country. It is my view, and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers), that the hurdles that prevent such an opportunity from being made as easy as possible for local communities are currently too high. Requiring 5% of the local electorate to sign a petition to bring about a referendum is a high figure. One or two places up and down the country have achieved 5%—indeed, Copeland District Council in Cumbria managed to achieve that figure, and people subsequently voted in a referendum for an elected mayor.
New clause 30 is a small change that would enable local people—with the support of a reasonable but realistic number of members of the public—to bring about a referendum, and I suggest that the Government change the requirement in the Bill to 1%. That does not necessarily mean that there will be an elected mayor; it means that that community will get the opportunity to vote in a referendum on whether they would like one. I accept that some places will reject that opportunity, but if more such opportunities exist we will start to see more elected mayors in different parts of the country and it will become an established form of local government. I firmly believe that that is far more transparent and accountable, and it will provide real leadership in different parts of the country.
I look forward to the Minister’s response, and would be delighted if he accepts the new clause so that it can be incorporated into the Bill and mean that referendums can be held across the country over the next few years on a regular basis. I appreciate that he will probably want to consider the matter, and I will not be pressing the new clause to a vote. I ask him to consider the issue seriously, however, and to see whether he can reduce the 5% to a percentage that is more realistic and will enable local communities across the country to petition for a referendum and decide whether they wish to have an elected mayor.
Mr Betts
I wish to raise two issues that the Government and the Committee will have to deal with at some point. When I spoke on Second Reading, I indicated that I was generally supportive of the Bill. I have reservations about some aspects and details of it, but the direction of travel is essentially right, as is the idea that devolution will happen and is on the agenda, and there is a good deal of cross-party support for it. That is an important step change from how things were when I first came to the House in 1992, or in many subsequent years. We are seeing progress. Members of the House are standing up and talking positively about devolution, and no one is saying “Local councils can’t do that—they can’t be trusted”, which was very much the attitude a few years ago.
I am comfortable and supportive of that idea, but we need a dialogue and debate about two important issues. The first has been raised continually by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), who chaired the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee in the previous Parliament. He was a strong advocate for trying to codify or set in a more formal arrangement the powers of local government and its relationship with the centre. That is important because there is a danger that some powers and aspects of policy will be devolved to local councils, but that other powers—without talking about centralisation or taking anything back to the centre—will be removed from local councils, and more controls introduced in their place.
There are currently two Bills before the House, and I expect the Minister is considering them both fairly widely. The Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill is about devolution. That is welcome, and we can discuss how devolution should take place. We also have the Housing and Planning Bill, and the Royal Town Planning Institute said that it was astonished at the amount of planning centralisation in that Bill. With starter homes, measures in the Bill are attempting to decide on the nature of section 106 agreements, which are essentially agreements about a particular site between a local authority and a developer. That is a particularly wide issue.
Mr Steve Reed
As I understand it, the Local Government Association estimates that the Housing and Planning Bill includes some 30 new centralising measures. Given that that Bill is being sponsored by the same Secretary of State as the devolution Bill, does that not cast doubt on his commitment to devolution?
The Temporary Chairman (Mrs Anne Main)
Order. I think the hon. Gentleman was trying to make a fair point about devolution and taking back powers, but the shadow Minister is straying down a path that will not be fruitful.
Mr Betts
I will try to get back on to the straight and narrow, Mrs Main.
My point is that we need a time of reflection, with a discussion between Government, local government and this House about the framework for the constitutional relationships between the centre and local authorities of whatever kind, including combined authorities, so that we can look at the balance of powers and perhaps put down some markers or mechanisms for ensuring that the devolution we all support today is not taken back tomorrow. We need something of that kind. A constitutional convention has been mentioned—the Government may not like those words, but we need some mechanism to enable that to happen.
My second point is about fiscal devolution. My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon North (Mr Reed) quoted the report from the Select Committee in the last Parliament, and the hon. Member for Carlisle (John Stevenson) was a member of the Committee. We produced the report on an all-party basis. We followed the London Finance Commission, which was promoted by the Mayor of London and supported by the London boroughs. By and large, we agreed the report, albeit with some embellishments, with the London Finance Commission, and we had support from the core cities, but it was almost dismissed by the Government as an irrelevancy—something that they did not want to pursue.
I am pleased that the Government are looking at the total localisation of business rates. How they do that will be critical, including dealing with the issue of rewarding councils that get more development in their areas and at the same time protecting those areas where development is not as easy to achieve. Achieving some element of redistribution in the mechanism will be key. Nevertheless, the Government have accepted the need for some more fiscal devolution in principle. They now need to consider how it can be right that any increase in the one tax over which local government has total control—the council tax—is restricted by the need for a referendum. No other tax raised by central Government requires a referendum on any increase. I did not agree with the previous Government’s policy on council tax capping—I refused to vote for that on several occasions, as it is a very centralist policy.
The tax also has not been revalued for 25 years. That is nonsense. The council tax is the one tax over which local government has some degree of control, but it does not control the bands. There must be some flexibility there to recognise the extraordinary difference between amount of tax paid and the value of houses in the top and bottom bands. The difference in the values of the houses is much wider than the amount of council tax paid. Local councils need more flexibility and the ability to control that. As the London Finance Commission said, and the Select Committee agreed, let us also look at stamp duty and other property taxes. Let us consider giving local councils freedom to set business rates. I know that the Government want to bring in some freedoms, but they could go wider. Could local government have a right to be allocated a certain percentage of income tax?
Those are all ideas. All I am saying to the Government is that once this wave of devolution is going through, with cross-party support and local councils entering into it and putting in bids, can we at least have some indication that they will step back at some point and have a serious look at wider fiscal devolution? Ultimately, simply giving to local councils the power to spend money that has been handed out from the centre is not real devolution at all. It is power to spend the money the Chancellor gives out. What councils need for real devolution is the greater power to raise that money in the first place.
Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)
New clause 31 stands in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston). It concerns the Government’s intent to devolve more powers to local representatives, but proposes pushing the boat out a little further into terrain that, nationally, we have been a little bit tentative about. Devolved powers are allowed to make a decision on Sunday trading. Whether local areas should be able to decide on Sunday trading, and other such issues, is a debate for another day—or, hopefully, not at all.
New clause 31 concerns the minimum unit pricing of alcohol. At one point, the Government and the Prime Minister took the view that the case had been made back in 2008 by the Department of Health. Such pricing would assist directly in tackling health harms relating to the excessive use of alcohol. At that time, the Government were consulting not on whether, but how much. However, the ups and downs of coalition government and other concerns, not least from those on the Government Benches, led to the measure not seeing the light of day. This is an excellent opportunity to bring it back to the light. We can allow local authorities to have the power to set a minimum unit price for alcohol sold within their areas.
As has been said, local authorities already have some degree of power to set a price under the licensing regime. I understand that in Newcastle two bars have become the first in the United Kingdom to be licensed to sell alcohol at a minimum price in excess of £1 a unit. I am not sure how popular those bars will be, not least because I am now publicising them, but that is part of the licensing regime in Newcastle. The bars have been licensed subject to a condition that alcohol is sold at set prices that equate to a minimum price of £1.25 per unit of alcohol—nearly three times the 45p per unit price that was subject to the Government consultation.
My understanding is that that price was agreed to keep the street as the city’s premier street. This initiative by the city council, with the full co-operation of the applicants, is designed to maintain the quality of the city centre, control crime and disorder, and improve health. It seeks to end the availability of irresponsibly priced alcohol by controlling multi-buy promotions that lead to irresponsible drinking. That is the approach being followed, in a somewhat limited way, by Newcastle. I understand that Ipswich also had a licensing and prices regime to tackle the impact of excessive alcohol, in particular in relation to super-strength ciders and lagers.
The Bill seeks to reduce the bureaucracy that gets in the way of empowering local areas to do what should be reasonable: to help to have a significant impact on the health harms affecting their local area.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
I am interested to hear my hon. Friend’s speech. One of the main problems in my constituency is people preloading with alcohol: buying from a supermarket, drinking it at home and then going out for an evening. He talks about premium prices applying to bars. How would his suggestion work if I could drive literally just a couple of miles down the road to a supermarket, buy my alcohol, come back and drink it at home?
Mr Burrowes
My hon. Friend makes a good point, and I hope he will support me in calling on the Government to set a national minimum unit price to avoid that precise problem.
The argument has been made, in respect of Sunday trading and other issues, that if we let local areas decide, we might get a domino effect, but I would welcome it if areas without minimum unit pricing, for example, quickly realised that they needed to deal with the problem. These sorts of powers inevitably have a domino effect. It must be the intent of devolution to spread these powers around. The Government say they are keen to devolve such powers in a wide variety of areas. Given that there is real evidence—much more evidence, frankly, than on Sunday trading—of health benefits from minimum unit pricing, why not give local areas the power to decide for themselves?
Kevin Foster
Might not one slight problem be the potential incentive to do it the other way around, meaning that the one place without a minimum alcohol price ends up with lots of supermarkets looking to locate within it?
Mr Burrowes
My hon. Friend makes a good point, but the sad reality is that in all our communities we have an increasing problem with excessive alcohol consumption, and it is affecting all our local accident and emergency departments and health services. Evidence shows that minimum unit pricing tackles the problem drinkers on our streets who do not travel far to areas with cheaper alcohol. It has a particular impact on problem drinkers. It is not the only way of dealing with excessive alcohol drinking, but it is a particularly good one.
My proposal would tackle the problem of bureaucracy and red tape facing local areas going through the licensing regime and applying for permission from the Secretary of State to set a minimum alcohol price. This is unnecessary and unwelcome. The Government have said they want to remove red tape and regulation. Why not do so when it comes to setting minimum unit prices? I might be pre-empting the Minister, but he might say, “Sorry, we can’t do this because it’s not lawful. Scotland, which has devolved responsibility in this area, has tried minimum pricing, and it is being challenged in the courts.” I can assure him, however, that we need not worry about the legal issues in Scotland, because, as Aidan Robertson, a leading Queen’s counsel, said in response to the legal challenge, there
“are no valid grounds in EU law for resisting Minimum Unit Pricing”.
He continued:
“It is a matter of considerable regret”—
I agree—
“that implementation of the Scottish legislation has been held up by legal challenges from the drinks industry… The questions referred to the Court of Justice European Union do not…disclose any ground under EU law on which the validity of the legislation may be impugned. Minimum unit pricing for alcohol ought to be permitted as an innovative attempt to tackle a serious health and social problem facing Scotland.”
Scotland should not be alone in benefiting from this; minimum unit pricing is something for England, Wales and other devolved areas. Areas with elected Mayors should also have the power to introduce minimum unit pricing. I would be interested to hear whether the Opposition support the new clause, given that, as I understand it, minimum unit pricing was in their manifesto.
There is evidence, not least from Sheffield University, that setting the minimum price at 50p per unit could save up to 50,000 people from illness in a decade. We cannot ignore the evidence: we are all aware from our constituencies of the impact on individuals of excessive alcohol consumption. This issue is not going away. I implore the Government to seize this matter, to reconsider a national minimum unit price and to reactivate the consultation, which has been kicked into the long grass. In the meantime, perhaps they can look at what happens in local areas and establish a testing ground in areas under the governance of elected Mayors, instead of just relying on Scotland. That makes sense and the time has come. If the Government cannot see that the time has come, let local authorities be set free to get on with it.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
Those of us with long local government experience never expected any Government to deliver devolution to this extent. I welcome what the present Government are doing, and I know that it is welcomed in local government throughout the country. For many years Governments of both colours drew more and more powers to the centre, and it is extremely pleasing to see that being reversed.
I have been a supporter of elected mayors for many years. In my own authority, I tried to secure a petition with the required 5% support 12 or 13 years ago. The problem is that that percentage is very difficult to achieve if a small number of people are involved, and particularly difficult to achieve within the 12-month period that is specified in the current legislation.
Elected mayors are often very unpopular with sitting councillors, who see them as a threat to their cosy arrangements whereby the roundabout turns and either the Tories or Labour take over. I think that where that resistance still exists, we need to allow residents—the general public—to initiate a petition with the modest threshold of 1% that is proposed in new clause 30, which stands in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (John Stevenson). I think that that would encourage local people to support an elected mayor, or at least to kick-start the journey towards securing one by initiating the referendum process when resistance is high in the local authority.
We may be seeing proof of the rule that if Back Benchers remain consistent, some Government at some time or other will eventually agree with them. Over the last 15 years or so we have seen both sides of the House run hot and cold on the issue of elected mayors, but those of us—such as my hon. Friend and me—who remain consistent can now put up the flags and welcome the fact that the Government are moving towards the idea of not just elected mayors, but elected mayors with even more power than we anticipated. I hope that the Government will at least give a clear indication that they will look favourably on our proposal to reduce the threshold and give power to local residents.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
That is all very well, but in the case of a large rural county such as Lincolnshire, it would be quite wrong for the Government to say, “If you want devo-max, you must have a mayor.” It makes sense to have a mayor of London, Birmingham or Manchester, but it does not make sense to have a mayor of a large rural county.
Martin Vickers
I see the logic of that, but my hon. Friend will know that in greater Lincolnshire the authorities have already come together and put a proposal forward, although they have not gone for the full package. I hope they eventually will, just as I hope that eventually the combined authorities emerging from this process will evolve into a super-unitary authority headed by an elected mayor. My hon. Friend would make an admirable mayor of Lincolnshire—governor of Lincolnshire, even.
Martin Vickers
Yes, high commissioner for Lincolnshire.
When I was reading the amendments, I was struck by new clause 32(3)(c) which talks about
“all family members’ ability to play a full role in family life”.
I shall therefore conclude by praising the Government for withdrawing their proposal to devolve powers on Sunday trading to local authorities or elected mayors. It would have been a retrograde step that would have hit many hard-working families that run the corner shop, the newsagents and so on—just the sort of people the Government should be looking after. I welcome that and praise the Government—and praising the Government is a good point to conclude on.
James Wharton
We have had an interesting and wide-ranging discussion on this group of amendments. I have listened to the debate and, while I understand a number of the points raised, I am afraid I cannot support any of the new clauses, as I will endeavour to explain.
I will begin with new clause 24, which would require the Secretary of State to set out a framework for further devolution of fiscal powers. By the end of this Parliament the local government sector will retain 100% of local taxes to spend on local government services. For the first time in decades, local areas will see the full direct benefit of business rate growth in their area. We wish to end the merry-go-round of clawing back local taxes to Whitehall and handing them out again in the form of grants. We will, of course, however, maintain redistribution between councils so that local authorities do not lose out.
We will be working with local authorities over the coming days and weeks on this ambitious agenda. It is our intention to devolve far-reaching powers within a framework of strong, accountable, transparent governance, and strong delivery capability. We will be setting out our detailed proposals in due course and, in light of this, I hope all parts of the House would agree that this new clause, which would require the Secretary of State to set out a framework for further devolution of fiscal powers, is unnecessary. I recognise the comments of the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) on this new clause, and his desire to see at the end of this process a period of reflection and consideration. I think there is merit in what he says. We will see how things progress, but certainly we will need to look at the totality of what has been done before deciding what next steps may ultimately then follow.
New clause 29 and accompanying new schedule 2 would provide for a local government independence code, defining the relationship between central Government and local authorities, and would make provision about their financial independence and conduct. Such codification is somewhat contrary to our constitutional traditions, and I do not think we need to go down the route set out by this new clause. We always want clarity in the deals we do—we always want to have discussions with local government about the future they see for themselves—but we see no need for what would be a very restraining and unnecessarily legalistic approach to the relationship between central and local government. We will, of course, look to the future, as the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) asked. He is an ambitious advocate of devolution in all its guises and where it can go, and I look forward to having, I am sure, many more debates in future about this topic with him.
New clause 30 seeks to reduce the minimum percentage of local government electors in a local authority area required for a petition to trigger a referendum on its governance model. My hon. Friends the Members for Carlisle (John Stevenson) and for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) have spoken eloquently on this issue. It is an issue that I know they care about. The hon. Member for Cleethorpes, famed for his consistency, is of course someone who stands by his beliefs and is, I think, in line and in tune with the sentiment of what the Government are doing in this area on this occasion. However, I cannot suggest we should support his new clause because the Local Government Act 2000 gives both the Secretary of State, and Welsh Ministers where relevant in Wales, a power to make regulations concerning public petitions in relation to whether a local authority should hold a referendum about changing its governance arrangements, for example to adopt a directly elected mayor. The regulations can already specify the minimum number of electors who must sign a petition for it to be valid, and the default position if the regulations do not specify any such threshold is 5%, which is also the current threshold for England. I have listened to hon. Members’ arguments, and I am happy to have further discussions about the actions the Government should take in the exercise of those powers, but I do not think it necessary to make this amendment to the Bill at this time.
New clause 31 would allow the Secretary of State, by order, to give power to the mayor of a combined authority to set a minimum unit price for alcohol sold in the combined authority area, with the mayor’s power being exercisable only following consultation on the proposed level of that price. The Government have recently undertaken a nationwide consultation on the introduction of a minimum price for alcohol, which raised a number of issues, including the potential economic impact of minimum unit pricing and the possibility of unintended impacts on businesses. The new clause’s proposed piecemeal, localised minimum alcohol pricing would risk consumers simply travelling outside the area of the authority to purchase cheaper alcohol in a neighbouring area.
I understand that in Scotland the policy of minimum unit pricing for alcohol has been legally challenged, and that the European Court of Justice has yet to express a final view. The introduction of a minimum unit price therefore remains under consideration. My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) has made clear his desire to see the policy pursued, but for the reasons I have outlined we have no plans to devolve the matter at this time. We will therefore oppose the new clause.
New clause 32 seeks to introduce a requirement for mayoral combined authorities to publish annual reports about their performance in applying elements of the family test. The family test applies to the development of central Government policy. It recognises the fundamental impacts that central Government decisions can have on families and introduces an explicit family perspective into the policy-making process. However, it would not be devolutionary to start prescribing in detail how mayors or combined authorities should go about exercising their functions. We therefore have no plans to require mayoral combined authorities to apply a family test—a test that was in fact designed to be applied to policy decisions with national impact.
Turning to new clause 33, I want to start by saying that we value the important role of parish councils and that we support local government in innovating and achieving value for money, especially when such money is reinvested into communities. The hon. Member for Nottingham North asked some specific questions, which I shall now answer, on the powers of parishes to sell electricity that they generate. A specific example would involve electricity generated from renewable sources.
There is no need to amend the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 to enable the sale of electricity generated by parish councils. Through the general power of competence in section 1 of the Localism Act 2011 and through section 111 of the Local Government Act 1972, it is already possible for parish councils to sell the electricity they generate, depending on the circumstances. I suspect that the new clause was tabled to seek clarity, and should my comments not provide sufficient clarity I shall of course be happy to speak to interested Members after the debate to ensure that any concerns are properly addressed.
I turn now to new clause 36, tabled by Labour Members, which would require a combined authority with devolved functions to consider the impact on neighbouring local authority areas. I do not believe that this amendment is necessary or appropriate. The statute provides that combined authorities must exercise their functions in relation to their area. That area, of course, is the area that Parliament has approved when establishing the combined authority. It is an area that equally has enabled the combined authority to satisfy the statutory tests—that is, it is an area in which, if functions are exercised, that exercise of functions will result in an improvement compared with what would otherwise be the case. Indeed, the Bill provides that functions cannot be devolved to a combined authority if the Secretary of State does not consider that that would lead to an improvement in the exercise of statutory functions in the combined authority’s area.
The new clause seeks to provide some further requirement about how, once established, a combined authority should go about the exercise of the functions devolved to it. As with local authorities, combined authorities must take their decisions having regard to all relevant considerations. Just as local authorities cannot be blind to the impact of their decisions beyond their boundaries, nor can combined authorities; and just as local authorities are able to form joint committees with neighbouring authorities to manage activities that could have an impact beyond their areas, so can combined authorities. Hence, as I have said, the proposed new clause is neither necessary nor appropriate for inclusion in the Bill.
My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate has also tabled new clause 37, which would amend section 80 of the Local Government Act 1972 so that a councillor who received any sentence of imprisonment, including a suspended one, would be disqualified. At present, a councillor is disqualified only if they have received a sentence of imprisonment, suspended or not, of not less than three months without the option of a fine.
Previous Governments have recognised that section 80 needs to be updated, not least to take account of modern sentencing guidelines, and we agree that change is necessary. Many things have changed since 1972, and this section is in need of amendment. At the beginning of this year, the Electoral Commission’s report “Standing for election in the UK” recommended that the Government clarify and update the law relating to the qualifications for local government elections. Our strong preference is to consult on change, and to work with colleagues in the local government sector and the Electoral Commission in considering the scope of section 80, rather than make piecemeal amendments through this Bill. This work will include not only reviewing and possibly amending the rules of disqualification relating to sentencing, but reviewing other rules about the qualification for standing for election, including rules about employees standing for election and about residence. I would like to thank my hon. Friend for bringing this proposal to the attention of the Committee. I know that he has a pressing constituency issue, which he explored in his comments and which highlights the need to make progress. I hope, however, that he will recognise that it is important that that is done in a considered and sensible way, as well as in a timely way, and that an amendment to this Bill is not the appropriate way to do that at this time.
New clause 38 was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) and it relates to London. I recognise the work that has gone into it. It is an interesting clause that clearly seeks to raise an important point that matters not only to him but to Members from across the House who take an interest in devolution and such matters in London. If accepted, the clause would enable ministerial functions to be devolved to voluntary joint committees of London councils and to such committees acting jointly with the Mayor of London. I understand from his explanatory statement that the purpose of the amendment is to provide
“for decision-making arrangements to enable operational delegation to groups of London local authorities and for the strategic governance of devolved responsibilities to be shared between London authorities and the Mayor through an appropriately constituted joint committee.”
We have always made it clear that for functions to be devolved to local authorities arrangements ensuring strong and clear accountability must be put in place. The new clause appears to be an attempt to formalise joint committee arrangements, while making it clear that London authorities will have the freedom to enter into their own constitutional arrangements for joint committees, including arrangements involving the Mayor of London. We do not believe that the informal nature of the proposed arrangements provides the strong and clear accountability that would support the devolution of the functions of either a Minister or a Department to a joint committee. However, I do recognise that giving more substance to multi-borough partnerships, which are already delivering innovative pilots in the areas of health, employment and skills, could help provide clearer lines of accountability and enable them to take on more ambitious programmes in the future. I am happy, therefore, for departmental officials to work with London further to explore options and I am of course happy to discuss the matter further with my hon. Friend after the progress that we hope this Bill will have made today.
Finally, new clause 39 seeks to place in the Bill a specific requirement for the Secretary of State to prepare guidance for combined authorities on effective strategic planning for environmental problems and green infrastructure no later than three months after the passing of this Act. As with some of the other amendments we have discussed today, providing for central prescription in this way goes against what this Bill is about; we are engaged in the business of reversing many years of centralisation.
With that, and the explanations I have given on the other provisions in this group, I hope that hon. Members will not push their amendments to a vote. The Government intend to resist them. We have had another interesting, useful and productive discussion on a wide range of issues in this group. It has informed the debate about devolution more generally in a helpful and productive way. On that basis, I hope we can continue to build consensus, can deliver this Bill and can deliver on our commitments.
Mr Steve Reed
I agree with the Minister that this has been a good, interesting and productive debate. He says he is in listening mode. I am not sure he is hearing quite as much as we might have hoped, but I recognise his intention to build consensus, which is necessary for the important, incremental, constitutional change we have before us this afternoon.
The hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) put forward some proposals that have cross-party support and that would enable further and faster devolution for London. I hear what the Minister says, and I welcome his intention to work with London government and London councils to find a way to make these proposals work, because otherwise the complexity of London government will pull London back from the forefront of progress towards devolution across the country. We cannot consider London as a job done just because London was out there first.
My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) made some very important points about fiscal devolution, which must be a central part of any devolution package; otherwise, what we are doing is merely a charade. Even if the Minister is not able or willing to bring forward proposals in this Bill, we hope that the matter forms part of future legislation as we move towards a more devolved settlement across the country.
I regret the Minister’s comments on new clause 36. Our proposals aim to help devolution to work better. Areas on the periphery of combined authorities should not be excluded from decisions that directly affect them. Our proposal merely creates the right to be consulted, which the Government have conceded when it comes to transport. They should consider it for matters of equal importance such as health. We will seek to push that new clause to the vote, but not new clause 39.
I note that the Minister did not respond to the issue of whether he would rule out Sunday trading from any future stages of this Bill. His silence will lead Members to draw their own conclusions about what is coming.
Having reflected on all the comments in the debate, I beg to ask leave to withdraw new clause 24.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 36
Regard to Neighbouring Authorities
In exercising a devolved function, combined authorities must have regard to any significant direct impact on the population of neighbouring authorities.” .—(Mr Steve Reed.)
This clause raises the concerns of some authorities which neighbour devolved authorities and ensures that combined authorities which have devolved functions give regard to the possible impact on neighbouring populations, particularly over issues such as transport and health.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
James Wharton
I beg to move amendment 16, page 19, line 8, after “of” insert “, or made under,”
This amendment provides that the power to make regulations under clause 22 of the Bill includes a power to make provision that is consequential on instruments made under the Bill.
The Temporary Chair (Mrs Anne Main)
With this it will be convenient to discuss clause 22 stand part.
Schedule 4 stand part.
Clause 23 stand part.
Clause 24 stand part.
Government amendment 17.
Clause 25 stand part.
James Wharton
Knowing as I do that hon. Members are familiar with the content and scope of the amendments and that there is, I believe, broad agreement across the Committee, I have no desire to speak at length unless Members wish me to do so. I hope that the amendments will secure the approval of the Committee.
Amendment 16 agreed to.
Clause 22, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 4
Minor and consequential amendments
Amendments made: 26, page 34, line 22, at end insert—
“Local Government Act 1972
A1 The Local Government Act 1972 is amended as follows.
A2 In section 100E (application of Part 5A to committees and sub-committees), in subsection (3) after paragraph (b) insert—
“(bba) a committee in place by virtue of section 107D(3)(c)(ii) of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009;
(bbb) a joint committee in place by virtue of section 107DA of that Act;”.”
A3 In section 101 (arrangements for discharge of functions by local authorities)—
(a) after subsection (1C) insert—
“(1D) A combined authority may not arrange for the discharge of any functions under subsection (1) if, or to the extent that, the function is a mayoral function of a mayor for the area of the authority.
(1E) “Mayoral function” has the meaning given by section 107F(7) of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009.”;
(b) after subsection (5B) insert—
“(5C) Arrangements under subsection (5) by two or more local authorities with respect to the discharge of any of their functions cease to have effect with respect to that function if, or to the extent that, the function becomes a general function of a mayor for the area of a combined authority.
(5D) Subsection (5C) does not prevent arrangements under subsection (5) being entered into in respect of that function by virtue of section 107DA of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 (joint exercise of general functions).
(5E) In subsection (5C), “general functions” has the meaning given in section 107D(2) of that Act.”
This amendment provides for the cessation of existing joint committee arrangements where a combined authority function becomes a mayoral function in the combined authority, and for a committee established by section 107D(3)(c)(ii) or 107DA of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 to be treated as a committee of a principal council for the purposes of Part 5A of the Local Government Act 1972.
Amendment 62, page 34, line 22, at end insert—
“Local Government Act 1972
A1 The Local Government Act 1972 is amended as follows.
A2 In section 100J (application of Part 5A to new authorities etc)—
(a) in subsection (1) after paragraph (be) insert—
“(bf) a sub-national transport body;”;
(b) in subsection (3), after “(be),” insert “(bf),”;
(c) in subsection (4), in paragraph (a) after “joint authority,” insert “a sub-national transport body,”.
A3 In section 101 (arrangements for discharge of functions by local authorities), in subsection (13) after “combined authority,” insert “a sub-national transport body,”.
A4 In section 270 (general provisions as to interpretation), in subsection (1) after the definition of “specified papers” insert—
““sub-national transport body” means a sub-national transport body established under section 102E of the Local Transport Act 2008;”.
Local Government Act 1985
A5 The Local Government Act 1985 is amended as follows.
A6 In section 72 (accounts and audit), for subsection (5) substitute—
“(5) Any reference in this section to a new authority includes a reference to—
(a) the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority;
(b) a sub-national transport body established under section 102E of the Local Transport Act 2008;
(c) a combined authority established under section 103 of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009.”
A7 In section 73 (financial administration), in subsection (2) after “reference to” insert “—
(a) a sub-national transport body established under section 102E of the Local Transport Act 2008;
(b) ”.”
This amendment makes consequential amendments regarding Sub-national Transport Bodies to make provision about the admission to the meetings of these bodies; to allow them to make arrangements for the discharge of their functions; and to impose a requirement to keep a general fund and to appoint a chief finance officer.
Amendment 63, page 34, line 31, at end insert—
“Local Government and Housing Act 1989
1A (1) The Local Government and Housing Act 1989 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 4 (designation and reports of head of paid service), in subsection (6)(a) for “, (ja) and (jb)” substitute “and (ja) to (jc)”.
(3) In section 13 (voting rights of members of certain committees: England and Wales), in the definition of “relevant authority” in subsection (9), for “(jb)” substitute “(jc)”.
(4) In section 20 (duty to adopt certain procedural standing orders), in subsection (4)(a) for “(jb)” substitute “(jc)”.
(5) In section 21 (interpretation of Part 1 of Act), in subsection (1) after paragraph (jb) insert—
“(jc) a sub-national transport body established under section 102E of the Local Transport Act 2008;”.
Railways Act 1993
1B (1) Section 24A of the Railways Act 1993 (Secretary of State franchise exemptions: operator agreements) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (4)—
(a) in paragraph (a), after sub-paragraph (i) insert—
(ia) an STB,”;
(b) in paragraph (b), after “Executive” insert “, an STB”;
(c) in paragraph (c)(i), after “Executive” insert “, STB”;
(d) in paragraph (c)(ii), after “Executive” insert “, STB”.
(3) In subsection (5)—
(a) in paragraph (a) of the definition of “relevant company”, after “Executive” insert “, an STB”;
(b) in paragraph (b) of that definition, after “Executive” insert “, an STB”;
(c) after that definition insert—
““STB” means a sub-national transport body established under section 102E of the Local Transport Act 2008.”
Local Government Act 1999
1C In section 1 of the Local Government Act 1999 (best value authorities), in subsection (1) after paragraph (hb) insert—
“(hc) a sub-national transport body established under section 102E of the Local Transport Act 2008;”.
Freedom of Information Act 2000
1D In Schedule 1 to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (public authorities), in Part 2 (local government: England and Wales), after paragraph 28 insert—
28A A sub-national transport body established under section 102E of the Local Transport Act 2008.””
This amendment makes consequential amendments regarding Sub-national Transport Bodies so that the requirement to designate a head of paid service and a monitoring officer, and in relation to political balance of committees, will apply to these bodies; to make provision in connection with railway asset protection etc; and to provide for these bodies to be best value authorities and to be subject to the FOI regime.
Amendment 30, page 34, line 35, leave out “In section 91 (exercise of local authority functions),” and insert “(1) Section 91 (exercise of local authority functions) is amended as follows.
‘(2) ”
This makes a technical drafting amendment to the provision in paragraph 3 of Schedule 4 to the Bill which amends section 91 of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009.
Amendment 31, page 34, line 36, at end insert—
‘( ) In subsection (4)—
(a) omit “or” at the end of paragraph (a);
(b) after paragraph (b) insert—
“(c) for the function to be exercisable by the EPB and the local authority jointly, or
(d) for the function to be exercisable by the EPB jointly with the local authority but also continue to be exercisable by the local authority alone.”
This amends paragraph 3 of Schedule 4 to the Bill to add new provision in subsection (4) of section 91 of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009. The amendments enable an order under Part 6 of the 2009 Act conferring local authority functions on a combined authority to require that both authorities exercise the functions concerned jointly.
Amendment 27, page 35, line 43, at end insert—
‘( ) After subsection (1) insert—
(1A) In relation to an order under Schedule 5B, subsection (1) has effect as if the reference to the Secretary of State were a reference to the Secretary of State or the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.”
This amendment provides for an order made by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster under Schedule 5B to the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 to be able to make incidental, consequential, transitional or supplementary provision in support of such an order.
Amendment 28, page 36, line 2, at end insert—
10A In section 116 (consequential amendments), after subsection (1) insert—
(1A) In relation to an order under Schedule 5B, subsection (1) has effect as if the references to the Secretary of State were references to the Secretary of State or the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.”
This amendment provides that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster can, in consequence of an order made under Schedule 5B to the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009, make provision in consequence of any provision made.
Amendment 64, page 36, line 27, at end insert—
“Equality Act 2010
12A In Schedule 19 to the Equality Act 2010 (public authorities), in Part 1 (general), after the entry “A joint authority established under Part 4 of that Act for an area in England (including, by virtue of section 77(9) of the Local Transport Act 2008, an Integrated Transport Authority established under Part 5 of that Act of 2008)” insert—
“A sub-national transport body established under section 102E of the Local Transport Act 2008.””
This amendment makes a consequential amendment regarding Sub-national Transport Bodies so that these bodies will be subject to the public sector equality duty.
Amendment 65, page 37, line 8, at end insert—
“Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014
18 (1) The Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 40 (access to local government meetings and documents), in subsection (6) after paragraph (j) insert—
“(ja) a sub-national transport body,”.
(3) In section 44 (interpretation of Act), in subsection (1) after the definition of “special trustees for a hospital” insert—
““sub-national transport body” means a sub-national transport body established under section 102E of the Local Transport Act 2008.”.
(4) In Schedule 2 (relevant authorities), after paragraph 28 insert—
28A A sub-national transport body.”” —(James Wharton.)
This amendment makes a consequential amendment regarding Sub-national Transport Bodies so that the transparency requirements for accounting and auditing and access to meetings and documents will be applied to these bodies.
Schedule 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 23 and 24 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 25
Short title
Amendment made: 17, page 20, line 3, leave out subsection (2)—(James Wharton.)
This amendment removes the privilege amendment inserted by the Lords.
Clause 25, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Title
Amendment made: 66, line 5, after “functions;” insert
“to confer power to establish, and to make provision about, sub-national transport bodies;”—(James Wharton.)
This amendment makes consequential amendments to the long title of the Bill to incorporate a reference to establish and make provision regarding Sub-national Transport Bodies.
The occupant of the Chair left the Chair (Programme Order, 14 October).
The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair.
Bill, as amended, reported; Bill, as amended, to be considered tomorrow.
Business without Debate
(9 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Michelin Factory: Ballymena
(9 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak in this important debate about jobs in my constituency of North Antrim.
Tuesday 3 November was a sad day that will be remembered by up to 1,000 people in the Ballymena area. The Michelin factory, which is one of the few public limited companies in Northern Ireland, has produced tyres in my constituency since 1969, and the news that it was to close broke on 3 November. The 860 directly employed workers—dedicated manufacturing staff—learned of their fate that day. More than 500 other people who are indirectly associated with the factory are also affected by that apocalyptic news.
I want to put the issue in context. If my constituency happened to be called Northampton rather than North Antrim, or if Ballymena were called Birmingham, we would be talking about the loss of 30,000 jobs. That is the job loss equivalent. It is important to put the announcement in its national context. That is why I welcome the fact that it is the Minister for Small Business, Industry and Enterprise, not a Northern Ireland Office Minister, who will respond to the debate. I would, of course, have welcomed a Northern Ireland Minister to the Dispatch Box, but it is important to view the job losses in their national context.
A few weeks ago I expressed concern that Northern Ireland was in danger of being viewed by this House as a place apart. Our Province’s peculiar employment issues are sometimes regarded as unrelated to the national picture and national politics.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
Does my hon. Friend agree that Northern Ireland is not that different, and that what is happening in Northern Ireland—whether it relates to Michelin in his constituency or to Caterpillar in my constituency—is no different from what is happening in other parts of the United Kingdom? Energy intensive industries are being hit by an energy policy that is making energy much more expensive for them than it is for our competitors, and that is putting us at a competitive disadvantage.
Ian Paisley
Many of the employees of the Michelin plant in Ballymena hail from East Antrim. My hon. Friend has put his finger on one of the key issues, which I hope to return to in a little more detail during the course of my speech. He has identified one of the key reasons why this issue is of national importance and has to be addressed nationally. It would be very easy to say that it is a matter for the devolved Administration and that they should sort it out, but this matter is beyond their reach. It would be a mistake to think that our employment policies are a place apart. They are of national importance.
A year ago, the loss of 1,000 jobs in another factory in my constituency was announced. In the wake of the two announcements—and, indeed, of the Caterpillar announcement in my hon. Friend’s constituency—several hundred jobs are being lost year in, year out in the manufacturing sector. That is why I described the announcement by Michelin on 3 November as apocalyptic not just for my constituency, but for the Northern Ireland manufacturing sector.
Before the closures, my constituency boasted of plus 20% of Northern Ireland’s total manufacturing jobs, but come 2018, when the factories close, it will be sub 20%. That will have a devastating impact on local employment, local confidence, local spend, local schools, local businesses all around the district. By 2018, more than £100 million of wages will have been taken out of my local economy, meaning that £100 million will no longer be spent in local shops and the local community. The local economy is renowned for its thriftiness and the local community is renowned for being very proud of its work ethic, but those huge pillars of employment have been slowly but surely knocked down. That will have an impact on confidence, and the Minister does not require me to spell out the effect of that on a community or the impact of such a loss.
Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind)
The hon. Gentleman will be well aware, as will other hon. Members, that we have just had the final Committee stage of the new Trade Union Bill. Will he give us an insight into how helpful—not otherwise, I hope—trade unions have been in the Michelin factory and how positive they have been in looking after their workforce?
Ian Paisley
That gives me the opportunity, on the back of the intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson), to pay tribute to Unite the union for the great work it has done in my constituency. I have had regular meetings with Unite over the years since I became a Member of Parliament, and I have a very good working relationship with it. It is dedicated to ensuring that manufacturing is maintained there, which is why it has been incredibly flexible about the workforce agreeing to reduced hours over the years. It has been very helpful about working conditions that people would not normally tolerate: it has been prepared to work with companies and help them to bring working conditions up to a standard in their own time through investment on their own terms. It has been incredibly helpful, so this gives me the opportunity to pay tribute to the unions with which I have worked both on this factory closure and on other serious issues. In fact, what has been very helpful has been the sense of warmth—it is hard to find another word for it—felt by some of the employees from their union actually standing up for them, and coming out and saying, “Look, how can we help? How can we embrace this situation and try to address some of the key issues?”
Another organisation that also stands out for praise, particularly with Michelin, is the Prince’s Trust. It has already made itself available to all the employees in the factory concerned. It has identified 80 people between the ages of 18 and 30 who were probably looking forward to a lifetime career of making tyres in the factory for the next 40 years, as their fathers did before them, but are now expecting not to have a manufacturing job. The Prince’s Trust, along with the unions, has been very useful in trying to say: “Let’s see if we can find a way of helping these young people become entrepreneurs and to find new jobs in the years ahead.”
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on bringing this matter before the House for consideration, and I commend him for the hard work that he does on behalf of all his constituents all the time, but especially on this occasion. One of the things that concerns me is the redundancy packages. Will he confirm that the redundancy packages offered will be such as, first, to allow people to retrain, but secondly, to be equally as helpful for those on the factory floor as for those at managerial level? I am a wee bit concerned that management sometimes get better redundancy packages than workers.
Ian Paisley
That is a very helpful intervention because it allows me to put on the record that the first thing I raised with the employer when the announcement was brought to my attention was, “How are you going to look after the workers that have made you billions of pounds as an international company over the years?” I am pleased that Michelin put into its statement on 3 November a commitment that the support from the factory will include enhanced redundancy payments and a retraining package, as well as the deployment of what is called the Michelin development community fund. I have managed to help to secure an additional £5 million for my constituency, which will allow for the retraining of people and will help them to set up local businesses. That fund has been used over the years to create an additional 400 jobs that are not associated directly with Michelin. I hope that the deployment of that fund over the next 10 years will see job opportunities slowly created for these people, who would otherwise be told that they do not have a job.
It must be stressed that Michelin will make job offers to those who feel able to travel to Dundee or Stoke on the mainland, although those jobs will not be in the manufacturing of large truck tyres, which is what we have done in Ballymena. I imagine that very few people will do that, but at least those job offers will be made.
Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. If this was happening in any constituency on the mainland, it would be a huge story. Can he explain very simply why Michelin has decided to close the factory and move to two other parts of the United Kingdom, rather than to move out of the United Kingdom?
Ian Paisley
I thank my hon. Friend, who shares my passion for the North Antrim constituency, given her roots in County Antrim. She will have been contacted by friends and family who have been affected by the closure. I appreciate the support and encouragement she regularly gives me to continue to fight for the interests of my constituents.
Michelin has identified three key reasons why it has to close the factory, and they are sad reasons. As I have said, I am glad that the Minister for Small Business, Industry and Enterprise is here and that the Government see that there is something that they can do for us nationally. The Michelin statement put three key reasons into the public domain.
The first reason was as follows:
“The proposal to run down the truck tyre factory in Ballymena has been made in the light of the significant downturn in demand for truck tyres in Europe since the financial crisis of 2007”.
That is beyond the control of anyone on these Benches. It is a fact of life that there has been an economic downturn. For 20 years, the factory in Ballymena made truck tyres for the north American market. That market was taken from it through an internal decision by Michelin and those truck tyres have since been made elsewhere in the Michelin portfolio. After losing that market, Ballymena was solely making truck tyres for Europe. The downturn then hit us with a vengeance and we are reaping the consequences. The demand for truck tyres has decreased by more than 5 million tyres a year. That has had a catastrophic effect on the business.
The second reason Michelin put into the public domain was
“the huge influx of tyres made in Asia, which have doubled in the last few years, and increased competition.”
Most of those have been made in Korea. The workers in my constituency never feared competition or the need to be competitive. They believed in the quality of their product, which was of award standard. However, when a cheap tyre comes in during an economic downturn, it has a devastating effect on business.
The third reason was that the tyre building machines at Ballymena were not capable of making the new standard of tyres. An investment of at least £50 million was needed to reappoint the factory. The company had to decide whether to make that investment or cut off the Northern Ireland arm and move everything to the mainland. That goes to the heart of the point that my hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim made. Energy costs are so astoundingly high in Northern Ireland that they forced the hand of the company when making that decision. I will come on to energy costs in a moment.
The Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) said that if this had happened in any other part of the United Kingdom, there would be huge interest. I welcome the fact that there are 16 Members in the Chamber for this debate. I salute every one of them for being interested enough to turn up. Usually when we come to the Adjournment debate, apart from my hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), no other MP makes a contribution. I know that, at times, the Minister feels as if she is being stalked by the hon. Gentleman. I pay tribute to the fact that there is wide interest in this debate, and I am delighted that the hon. Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound), who has visited my constituency, is also here.
Danny Kinahan (South Antrim) (UUP)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. Did we get any early indication that this cut was going to happen? Had the company spoken about the workings behind this move? Did the Minister in Northern Ireland know that it was happening, and was he able to offer any support? What was going on between the Minister and the company that allowed this to happen without any of us knowing? The hon. Gentleman has already indicated that there are many good reasons for why it was happening, but we did not seem to know when or exactly why at the time.
Ian Paisley
I want to be gentle in the way I respond to that. It would be easy to stand here and blame people. I could blame the local Minister, Invest Northern Ireland and everyone else but ourselves, but that is the coward’s way out, and we must make that clear. That is not the response that employees in Ballymena, North Antrim, South Antrim and East Antrim need. My constituents will not be bought off with the cheap excuse that this is someone else’s fault. They are intelligent people who understand the word “market”.
In the last year, my constituents have witnessed a Goodyear tyre factory close on mainland Britain, and they know the pressure that the industry was under. At one point they were reduced almost to a three-day week. This was not a shock; what was shocking was the fact that eventually the decision was made on the day it was made, but there was a lot leading up to that decision. What people want now is a comprehensive strategic response to get things moving again, and it is important that we hear that from the Minister.
The hon. Member for South Antrim (Danny Kinahan) made a number of points that it is important to address. The key issue behind why this factory has been under so much pressure is electricity prices in Northern Ireland—the underlying issue is energy costs. To give one stark statistic, it is 15% more costly to manufacture in Northern Ireland because our electricity costs are 15% higher. That point has been made to me over and over again, and it has driven the issue home.
The hon. Gentleman asks why this closure was such a shock and whether discussions were going on. I have an email that was sent to me in 2013 from the then Ballymena plant manager, Wilton Crawford. I raised this issue with him, and he said that the
“No.1 cost threat to our long-term sustainability”
for manufacturing in Ballymena was electricity prices. That issue must be urgently addressed.
Sammy Wilson
Energy prices and energy policy are national issues that must be addressed by the Government centrally. Does my hon. Friend accept that the Northern Ireland Executive were looking for what they could do locally? Indeed, today’s deal, which will result in corporation tax being reduced to 12.5% by April 2018, is one way in which the Executive are seeking to help industry in Northern Ireland. However, there must be a national response to our current mad energy policy that forces firms to use expensive renewables.
Ian Paisley
In 2013, with that point in mind, I wrote to the First Minister and Deputy First Minister about this issue. I said that I feared not only for the future of this company in my constituency but for other large energy users if we cannot get a national policy to resolve the problem. This issue has been identified time and again—including in 2013, half way through the last Parliament.
The cost differentials are staggering. In 2013, I wrote to the then Minister in the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment, my colleague Arlene Foster, and I said that the changes that Michelin was being asked for would increase its electricity costs by 44%—that is a 44% increase due to the new charges mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim.
The Minister was brilliant in her response. By that point, Michelin was already paying £1.2 million a year to its electricity provider. The climate change levy would have seen an increase of £350,000 on top of that, but the Northern Ireland Government were able to hold off those charges between 2001 and 2007. I went back to them in 2007 and said that the increase still needed to be held off. The additional charges on the use of electricity—the distribution use of system and transmission use of system charges, or DUOS and TUOS—would have hiked the cost to the factory by 46%. The Minister went back again in 2007 and made sure that those charges were held off. That saved the company an additional payment of £212,000 for the next four years.
Unfortunately, in 2013 the bullet had to be bitten. The Minister wrote to me to say:
“Article 5 of Directive 2003/96/EC (‘Restructuring the Community framework on the taxation of energy products and electricity’) dictates that the lower rate of CCL for supplies of natural gas in Northern Ireland must end at 31 October 2013.”
As a result, the company saw its electricity prices go from £1.2 million to more than £2 million a year.
No company can sustain that level of increase. That was not the fault of the Northern Ireland Government or the lobbying by local politicians who were working with the companies. It was not the fault of Invest Northern Ireland, which was campaigning hard behind the scenes for a change in policy. It is a national issue that must be addressed.
Jim Shannon
I understand that it was announced this week that Shorts Bombardier will build a new energy-efficient plant in Northern Ireland that will reduce its costs dramatically. It is one of the biggest employers in Northern Ireland, with 5,500 employees, and the Department for Enterprise, Trade and Industry helped to make that happen. The example of Shorts Bombardier —at least in the building of the plant—could be followed across Northern Ireland.
Ian Paisley
Shorts Bombardier is a case apart because of its scale and the amount of money it has to invest. Michelin, a plc, invested in two huge wind turbines to reduce its energy costs, but although they saved the company between £100,000 and £150,000, that was nowhere near sufficient to cut its electricity costs.
Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP)
I congratulate the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) on obtaining this debate on an important subject for his constituency. Can he confirm the nature of the meetings and lobbying that took place between Ministers in the Northern Ireland Executive and the then Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills and his Ministers on this subject?
Ian Paisley
The hon. Lady has read my mind. On 25 November 2013, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mrs Villiers) visited the plant at my invitation. She met the plant owners and recognised the huge issue of electricity costs. The suggestion made at that meeting was that because Michelin has plants in Scotland and England, as well as Northern Ireland, a united front was needed from the Scottish Secretary, the Northern Ireland Secretary and the Business Secretary to ensure that some special pricing code was put in place to assist the company. I put that point in writing to the company, saying that
“we should make a very direct approach at Cabinet level with the help of the Secretary of State and our own Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment along with other Michelin Plants in the United Kingdom for a special case for a high energy user like Michelin to have some sort of special status when it comes to the cost of energy use.”
I am glad to say there was a response from central Government: the Energy Intensive Industries initiative, which the Prime Minister introduced a short while ago. In an answer to a question put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) in Prime Minister’s Question Time just last week, the Prime Minister indicated that EII is something companies such as Michelin should look at. I seized on EII some time ago. I wish the Prime Minister had not used that argument, because Michelin, by its structure, is actually excluded from benefiting from EII. EII is framed so narrowly that one of the single largest energy users is actually excluded from using it.
Michelin has explained to me in some detail that it would have to go away and re-establish itself as a company, and go through a lot of red tape, to have a chance of qualifying for EII. That would be quite difficult. I think the Minister would accept that the legal due diligence alone for a plc would be costly and put it out of remit.
Danny Kinahan
Should we not also be concentrating on the supply of electricity to Northern Ireland? The Moyle interconnector is not working well at the moment. The underground cabling we were hoping to get for the new interconnector is not coming in due to differences of political opinion. Does the hon. Gentleman not realise that, on a bigger scale, we need to try to find ways to get these problems sorted out, and that we need the help of Westminster to do so?
Ian Paisley
I agree wholeheartedly and that is why I wanted this debate. I am delighted the Minister is here, because this is not just a matter for Northern Ireland but a matter for us all. The issue also faces our colleagues in England. It is why Tata Steel and SSI are closing and why there is such anger from Members, who are seeing the livelihoods of many people go.
Remember, the tough decisions have to be taken by us. This is what the tough decision is going to look like: ultimately, we will have to vote on whether we want jobs or cheap electricity prices for consumers. If we want to have jobs and cheaper electricity for the employer, consumer prices have to go up. That is a tough decision. Some of us are prepared to take it. Some of us have argued that if we want to keep jobs in Northern Ireland prices will have to go up for ordinary consumers. It is not a popular thing to say, but we have to face the reality.
Ian Paisley
I will give way very briefly, because I know the Minister will, at some point, want to speak to me.
Sammy Wilson
Does my hon. Friend not accept that there is another way, which is to rely less on costly energy from windmills and solar power, as it is about three times dearer than energy produced by coal?
Ian Paisley
I wish I had another half an hour to agree in detail with my hon. Friend. I absolutely accept that there is a madness behind the policy that forces electricity generators to pay more for electricity generated by windmills and then sell it on to consumers. That is absolutely wrong.
I want to salute the efforts of Invest Northern Ireland and its chief executive, as that organisation always gets it in the neck. On this occasion, it has got it in the neck from the usual suspects and critics in Northern Ireland who claim it is not doing enough. I know that behind the scenes the company, and the chief executive in particular, have worked their socks off to try to get investment in County Antrim. It is incredibly helpful. It is, effectively, trying to roll a massive boulder up a hill, fighting for jobs in a crowded space and against the many unfair competitive advantages of others.
If devolution is to be sustainable, it must be given the tools to fight and to see its energy costs reduced for its employers. That can happen only if a decision is taken here to help us. We in Northern Ireland require a national response to these national issues. This is on a par with the 15,000 job losses at Tata and SSI in the north of England. For the devolved Government to begin to compete and to replace this number of manufacturing jobs, we need support from the Prime Minister, UKTI and the Business Secretary. We need them to pull with us, batting for Ulster and batting for jobs for us around the world, so that whenever UKTI or the embassies are open for trade missions in the east, the far east or the United States, they are not just thinking of mainland Britain but Ulster too, and asking how a particular proposal could fit in with the Northern Ireland region. We want to see more of that and hear more about it, because Northern Ireland is crying out for that assistance.
I call on the Government to step up to the plate and tell us what they can do. We have a stable regime and a highly educated young workforce with advanced skills, and we are a cheaper region to invest in.
Ian Paisley
In 2018—it should have been sooner—our corporation tax rate will reduce to 12.5%. We need to offer hope to employees facing redundancy. The company is starting its official consultation with employees next week, on 23 November, and I have already mentioned that the Prince’s Trust has been incredibly helpful in offering support to the younger employees in particular.
The unions, too, have been very helpful. There have also been helpful comments in our local media, including from Wrightbus, a large employer just down the road, whose managing director, Mark Nodder, has said he is optimistic about the manufacturing sector, despite the job losses. He should know, because he employs people in County Antrim. He also referred to the University of Ulster’s economic policy centre, which predicted last week in a report that manufacturing employment in Northern Ireland was likely to grow over the next decade. It has suggested a figure of between 8,000 and 14,000 jobs. These things offer hope in a picture that otherwise would be entirely gloomy. I hope the Minister can encourage us tonight and respond to some of these key points.
The Minister for Small Business, Industry and Enterprise (Anna Soubry)
I begin by paying tribute to those who work at the Michelin factory in Ballymena and their families during this extremely difficult time. The loss of 860 jobs in a small community is a serious and significant blow, and one that is certainly not lost on me or the Secretary of State. I congratulate the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) on securing the debate. Frankly, I was surprised he did not get the urgent question. That is not a criticism of the Speaker—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. I know it was not intentional, but we cannot go into that or mention the urgent question.
Anna Soubry
I was trying to say that the hon. Gentleman and others made an excellent point about how, had these job losses happened on the mainland, there might have been a bit more noise in this place—although not from him, I hasten to add, because, as ever, he does a fine job fighting for his constituents. I also pay tribute to all the interventions from the hon. Members for North Down (Lady Hermon), for Strangford (Jim Shannon)—as ever—for South Antrim (Danny Kinahan), for South Down (Ms Ritchie) and for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson). I will come on to the specific point about energy prices later.
The loss of 860 jobs was indeed a serious blow. By pure chance, the hon. Member for North Antrim and I were sharing a taxi on the night of this dreadful news, and we did at least begin the conversation. I know he has also spoken to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre and Preston North (Mr Wallace), about the situation. They share the great concern about this blow to a small community and its onward effect through the supply chain. It comes, of course, at the same time as the Gallaher factory in Ballymena is set to close—in 2017—with the loss of many jobs.
I normally try not to read from a prepared speech, because I do not think it is right, but I will in part tonight, because there are lots of facts and figures that it would be helpful to mention. I want to deal specifically with the question of energy prices. It is sad and unfortunate that we are where we are, having this debate about energy prices at this point, with Michelin having decided to go. I am aware of the statements it made, and the hon. Gentleman has already identified the reasons it gave. The cost of energy has been a difficulty for some time. As it happens, the manufacturing of tyres does not fall into the category of electricity or energy intensive industries. We could have a discussion about why. It is unfortunate that it does not do so, because we know that some form of compensation is available. Most importantly, we still seek to persuade the European Union to sign off the full compensation package, so that we can make sure that industries that use huge amounts of electricity—not just the steel industry, but a large part of our manufacturing sector uses extraordinary amounts of energy—receive compensation.
My view—and these concerns are certainly shared by the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills—is as follows. What industry wants is a level playing field—that applies to the steel industry, to ceramics, to cement or whatever. When, frankly, we are in tough times, competing not only in what we call the global race but within the EU, all people ask when margins are so tight is that we all operate on a level playing field. It has been a feature and it is a fact that a number of our businesses bear an onerous burden of what we can call carbon taxes in their various forms.
What I can say to the hon. Member for North Antrim is that this is not lost on the Government, me or the Secretary of State. We make the case for British industry—and when I say British industry, I mean all industry across our United Kingdom, obviously including Ulster—that there should be a fairness, a level playing field. If I had my way, I would go so far as saying that energy intensive industries should not have to bear any burdens excessively, although I appreciate that would not include Michelin. If we are to make the changes that we all want—I very much hope we are—the burden would therefore have to fall right the way across, including on consumers and perhaps other businesses. I agree with the hon. Member for North Antrim that people would pay that price.
There has been support for employees. The immediate focus in this situation is, of course, on the workers themselves. I join in paying tribute to the Unite union. It is astonishing—no, it is not astonishing for any of us who know trade unions; I am a former trade union official—that yet again we see trade unions and their leaders really stepping up to the mark, acting in a responsible and sensible manner and with great realism. Sometimes people think that workforces and their leaders are somehow stupid, but they are not. As the hon. Gentleman identified, they knew what was going on and they feared the worst. Unfortunately, their fears were confirmed.
I understand that Northern Ireland Executive Ministers at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment, together with Invest Northern Ireland, the Department for Employment and Learning and the wider Northern Ireland Executive have said that they will do all that is possible to limit the impact of the announcement. The Department for Employment and Learning will be engaging with the company management to offer redundancy clinics to employees. Northern Ireland’s Redundancy Advice Service works in partnership with a range of bodies, including the further education colleges and HMRC to provide advice on alternative job opportunities, access to training courses and a range of other issues.
I would like to take this opportunity to welcome the £5 million development fund package launched by the company to support the retraining and redevelopment of the staff to find new work. Those are the actions of a company that understands its responsibilities towards its employees. We can be confident that it will do the right thing by all of that.
If I may say so, the hon. Member for North Antrim makes a very important point about the huge skills and abilities of the Northern Ireland workforce. It matters not that I have been over to Northern Ireland only once, because one picks up a lot, and in any event the fine reputation has been earned by all the workforce. They are extremely able, highly skilled, well-educated and, most importantly, extremely well motivated. Those are important features.
The hon. Gentleman and his colleagues made a crucial point about UKTI. I take away with me from this debate an absolute promise to him that I will speak to Lord Maude, and through him to UKTI, to make sure that UKTI does everything it can to promote Northern Ireland in all the work we do in promoting Great Britain. The hon. Gentleman made a very good point that there is always a danger that in some way Northern Ireland might be forgotten. It may seem impossible to believe that, given the abilities and strengths of all the Members who represent it, but the hon. Gentleman made a very good point none the less.
Let me emphasise that there are opportunities in Northern Ireland. As many Members will know, the picture is not all bleak. A medical firm, Randox, has said that it will create 500 jobs in County Antrim over four years; in July, Texas-based OneSource said that it would create 289 jobs in Londonderry; and, as recently as September, Intelling Ltd announced plans to establish a contact centre in Belfast, creating 250 new jobs. So there is some good news, although, as I said at the beginning, the effect on a community of the loss of so many jobs is not lost on me.
There is more of my speech, but I am not going to read it all, because I believe—and I hope they will agree—that I have addressed the points made by the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues. As I have said, the scale of this is not lost on me. I will think further about the important points that have been raised, and I should be more than happy to meet the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues to discuss what more can be done. The main point is, however, that given the effect of high energy prices, the need to ensure that we have a good supply of cheap energy has never been more critical. We know what the consequences may be if we do not address that need, which is not lost on anyone in Government.
As I have said before, in my experience—such as it is, at present—all that people ask for is a level playing field. That strikes me as a very fair ask, and it is something that this Government are determined to achieve.
Question put and agreed to.
Petition
Muslim burial services in Birmingham
Immigration Bill (Fifteenth sitting)
(9 years, 1 month ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 8 / Noes: 6 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 8 / Noes: 6 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee having divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Minister for Immigration (James Brokenshire)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss Government new schedule 3—Availability of local authority support.
James Brokenshire
I welcome you back to the Chair, Mr Bone, for our final day of deliberations on the Bill.
The new clause and new schedule 3 make changes to the availability of local authority support in England for certain categories of migrants. The new schedule is in part a companion to schedule 6, which reforms arrangements for the provision by the Home Office of support to failed asylum seekers and other illegal migrants, which the Committee has already considered. As I said during our debates, we continue to consult with local authority colleagues, in particular on the detail of the new support arrangements and how they will sit alongside other provisions. We are clear that we want to encourage and enable more migrants without any lawful basis to remain in the United Kingdom to leave in circumstances when they can do so.
In particular, we have been discussing with local government colleagues whether changes to schedule 3 to the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, which controls access to local authority social care for migrants without immigration status, would be helpful. Our public consultation on asylum support highlighted concerns that the framework provided by schedule 3 to the 2002 Act and associated case law was complex and burdensome for local authorities to administer and involved complicated assessments and continued litigation to establish what support should be provided in what circumstances. The Committee heard similar concerns from local authority colleagues in their oral evidence to us on 22 October.
We have listened carefully to what local authority colleagues in England told us about the scope for simplifying and strengthening some of those provisions. Our response is the amendments made by the new schedule to schedule 3 to the 2002 Act, making two key changes. First, new schedule 3 simplifies the way in which local authorities in England assess and provide accommodation and subsistence for destitute families without immigration status. It enables local authorities to continue to provide under section 17 of the Children Act 1989 for any other needs of a child or their family to safeguard and promote the child’s welfare. Secondly, the new schedule prevents adult migrant care leavers who have exhausted their appeal rights and have established no lawful basis to remain here from accessing local authority support under the 1989 Act. It makes alternative provision for their accommodation, subsistence and other support before they leave the UK.
Immigration is a reserved matter and, as we have debated previously, immigration legislation—through schedule 3 to the 2002 Act—already provides a UK-wide framework for migrants’ access to local authority services. We therefore have it in mind to seek to amend the Bill at a later stage to extend those provisions to the rest of the UK once we have had further dialogue, which is in hand, with the devolved Administrations.
Turning to the main provisions of the new schedule, paragraph 7 of new schedule 3 inserts a new paragraph 7B in schedule 3 to the 2002 Act. It provides a new simplified definition of a person without immigration status who will generally be ineligible for the forms of local authority support listed in paragraph 1(1) of schedule 3 to the Act. It replaces the convoluted immigration status definitions in paragraphs 6 to 7A of schedule 3 to the Act.
Paragraph 8 inserts a new paragraph 10A in schedule 3 to the 2002 Act, under which regulations will be made by the Secretary of State, subject to parliamentary approval, to enable local authorities to provide for the accommodation and subsistence needs of destitute families without immigration status in circumstances in which case law and human rights considerations may well mean that the local authority should provide support.
Such circumstances include where, first, the family has an outstanding specified immigration application or appeal—in a non-asylum case for which Home Office support is not provided. Secondly, the family might have exhausted appeal rights and not failed to co-operate with arrangements to leave the UK. They must also not qualify for the support available from the Home Office under proposed new section 95A of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, to be inserted by schedule 6 to the Bill, for failed asylum seekers with a genuine obstacle to departure at the point their appeal rights are exhausted. Thirdly, the provision of accommodation and subsistence support must be necessary to safeguard and promote the welfare of a dependent child. That will enable local authorities to take any action they consider necessary to prevent destitution pending the resolution of the family’s immigration status or their departure from the UK.
Paragraph 4 will insert a new schedule 3A to the 2002 Act, which will mean that accommodation and subsistence support will be provided to a destitute family under the regulations made under new paragraph 10A of schedule 3 rather than under section 17 of the Children Act 1989. As we discussed in respect of schedule 6, there is no general obligation on local authorities to accommodate illegal migrants who intentionally make themselves destitute by refusing to leave the UK when it is clear that they can do so. Schedule 3 to the 2002 Act already provides that a range of local authority social care is unavailable to failed asylum seekers and others who remain in the UK unlawfully except when, following what can be a complex and burdensome assessment process, the local authority decides that the provision of such support is necessary to avoid a breach of human rights or on the basis of other exceptions for which schedule 3 provides.
The new schedule will simplify the complex human rights assessment process, much of which is concerned, in line with case law, with immigration matters that are for the Home Office and the courts to determine, which the local authority has to undertake before it can assess and provide for the family’s social care needs. The provisions embody a sense of simplification.
The main social care needs of families without immigration status who seek local authority support are for accommodation and subsistence to prevent destitution. A June 2015 study by the Centre on Migration, Policy and Society at Oxford University on local authority support for such families—I referred the Committee to this in my letter that notified colleagues of the amendments—found that the welfare needs of the children at the point of referral to the local authority were overwhelmingly for accommodation and subsistence.
The new schedule will also ensure that section 17 of the 1989 Act will remain available to the local authority, together with its other powers and duties under that Act to deal with any other needs of the child or their family that the local authority considers must be met to safeguard and promote the child’s welfare while the family’s immigration status is resolved or, where it is established that they have no lawful basis to remain here, before they leave the UK. The local authority’s duty to provide for the child’s schooling and to address any specific educational needs will also be maintained.
The reforms to schedule 3 to the 2002 Act will simplify the basis on which local authorities deal with destitute families without immigration status and maintain essential safeguards. We are satisfied that they are compatible with our obligations under the UN convention on the rights of the child and article 3 in particular, which requires that children’s best interests are a “primary consideration” in all decisions affecting them. We are also satisfied that they are compatible with section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009 under which the Secretary of State must have regard to
“the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children who are in the United Kingdom”
when carrying out immigration functions.
Paragraph 2 of the new schedule amends paragraph 1(1) of schedule 3 to the 2002 Act so that adult migrant care leavers who have exhausted their appeal rights and who have established no lawful basis to remain here are prevented from accessing local authority support for care leavers under the 1989 Act. Nearly all of those adult migrants are former asylum-seeking children whose asylum and any other human rights claims have failed. The provisions in the 1989 Act are geared to support the needs and onward development of young adults leaving local authority care whose long-term future is in the UK. Those provisions are not appropriate to the support needs, pending their departure from the UK, of adult migrants who the courts have agreed have no right to remain here.
Paragraph 8 will insert a new paragraph 10B in schedule 3 to the 2002 Act under which regulations will be made by the Secretary of State, subject to parliamentary approval, to enable local authorities to provide for the support of adult migrant care leavers who have exhausted their appeal rights in respect of their asylum claim but have an outstanding specified immigration application or appeal and are destitute; or who have exhausted their appeal rights and do not qualify for Home Office support under the new section 95A of the 1999 Act because there is no genuine obstacle to their departure from the UK, but to whom the local authority is satisfied that support needs to be provided. That will enable the local authority to ensure that support does not end abruptly and that there can be a managed process of encouraging and enabling their departure from the UK.
Paragraph 4 inserts new paragraphs 3B and 3C in schedule 3 to the 2002 Act, which means that support will be provided to the adult migrant care leaver under the regulations made under new paragraph 10B of schedule 3, or under new section 95A of the 1999 Act, rather than under the Children Act 1989. By virtue of paragraph 11 of schedule 3, the new regulations will enable local authorities to provide such other social care support, beyond accommodation and subsistence, as they consider necessary in individual circumstances.
We are confident that the reforms to schedule 3 to the 2002 Act will simplify how local authorities deal with destitute families without immigration status, will make more appropriate provision for support to adult migrant care leavers who have not established a lawful basis to remain in the UK and will maintain essential safeguards. The provisions in the new schedule will, like those in schedule 6 to the Bill, be subject to the new burdens assessment of the final package of changes to which we have committed.
We will continue to work closely with local authority colleagues to look at other ways in which we can improve the framework within which they work with migrants without immigration status. All are clear that we want to work together to encourage and enable more migrants who have no right to remain here and who face no barrier to their departure to leave the UK. The new provisions will help ensure that we have the right platform in place for that work.
Chloe Smith (Norwich North) (Con)
Obviously, since the Committee last met we have seen the appalling attacks in Paris. It will not have escaped the Minister’s attention that it is considered possible that one of the attackers entered Europe as a putative refugee. Does the Minister agree with me and many of my constituents that the work we are doing with the new clause and the new schedule, and other parts of the Bill, will simplify, strengthen and prioritise the support we can give to those refugees who need it, rather than those who may be seeking to abuse the system? He surely would agree that that is important work in light of those attacks.
James Brokenshire
I note my hon. Friend’s comments. She will obviously have heard the Home Secretary’s statement yesterday, and the Prime Minister will make a further statement to the House today. It is important that we do not speculate on what may or may not have happened in the appalling events that we have all seen in the past few days. We stand in solidarity with the French people at this extraordinarily difficult time. We stand against those who would seek to divide us and destroy our very way of life. We all have a common cause in standing with the French people and all those who are against Daesh and those extremist organisations that seek to threaten our very way of life.
In general terms, my hon. Friend has highlighted the issue of any threat that may exist with those seeking to come to Europe through an asylum-based route. We need to analyse the facts carefully as to what has or has not happened, but it is equally important to underline the stringent checks that we carry out in this country on those who are claiming asylum and how we believe it is essential to strengthen the screening and identification of those arriving on the shores of Europe. That is why we support the work of Frontex, the EU external border agency, in its work on debriefing those who are picked up. We also support such things as the Hotspots initiative in Italy, Greece and other countries, which ensures that those who are arriving are processed speedily and effectively.
No doubt my hon. Friend will have heard the Home Secretary’s comments yesterday on the work that is undertaken to ensure that we are appropriately screening those arriving in this country through our vulnerable persons relocation scheme. All the steps we are taking are part of our focus on the security of this country, but equally they are about ensuring that those coming to this country who are fleeing persecution and in need of support are welcomed by us and given the support that they require. We believe that that approach is entirely consistent with the proposals in the Bill and is reflected in the new clause and new schedule.
Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
May I first echo the Minister’s comments by joining him and everybody in the House in abhorring the attacks that took place this weekend in Paris, as well as all the other attacks that have taken place elsewhere. They are attacks on our values, and we must stand together in our response. Those responsible seek to divide us; we must not be divided. As was said in the House yesterday, they are attacks on our values, our principles and our approach to issues such as refugees. It is important, if we mean what we say about our values and about standing together, that we do not diminish our stand on refugees, human rights and the sort of democratic accountability that this Committee brings to how we pass laws in this country.
Those are important principles, and it is right that this Bill should go through such a process to ensure that there is no diminution of protection for asylum seekers and refugees or of human rights for anybody who finds themselves in this jurisdiction, whether they be an adult, a child, a refugee or anybody else. As human beings, they have human rights, and it is our business to ensure that those rights are fully upheld. I make those comments in response to the comments just made, but nothing that happened this weekend should lead any of us to think that weakening in any way our resolve to deal properly with refugees and human rights issues should be any part of the answer to the atrocities, which we are all united in abhorring.
I will take the new clause and schedule in the order that the Minister did. Paragraph 7 of new schedule 3 is intended to provide a new, simplified definition of a person without immigration status who will generally be ineligible for local authority support. Can he assure us that only those currently excluded from support will continue to be excluded—in other words, that this is a simplification of the process, and that paragraph 7 does not broaden the category of individuals ineligible for support listed in schedule 3(1) of the 2002 Act?
Paragraph 8 of new schedule 3 will provide for the accommodation and subsistence needs of destitute families without immigration status in certain circumstances. Our concern about the provision involves those who are seeking judicial review or have judicial review proceedings pending. Again, can the Minister set out the position on such individuals? It will be a change from the current position, and it excludes that group of individuals from protection. If that is not the case, an assurance to that effect would be helpful, and would go on the record.
Paragraph 4 inserts a new paragraph 3A into schedule 3 of the 2002 Act and relates to how we deal with destitute families. Again, there are two issues for the Minister. First, without knowing the meaning of a “genuine obstacle” to return, how can the Committee assess the impact of the provision? We are considering it against a definition that is not before the Committee. Secondly—he might have dealt with this, but perhaps he can assure me if he did not—can he confirm that the needs provided for under the section appear to be narrower than those provided for under the Children Act 1989? In other words, they appear to omit disability or education needs. Given what he just said, I might be wrong about that, and a simple assurance might deal with that point.
James Brokenshire
If I may intervene to save time, I explained that the provision applies to housing and what are effectively direct support needs, but that the provisions of section 17 of the Children Act 1989, which relate to other needs such as medical or care needs, will still remain in force.
[Albert Owen in the Chair]
Keir Starmer
I am grateful. I did think that that was what the Minister had said, and I just wanted that assurance.
Turning in a little more detail to the provisions in paragraph 2 dealing with those leaving care, former looked-after children who require leave to enter or remain when they turn 18, but do not have it or are not asylum seekers, will be excluded from receiving accommodation, financial support, a personal adviser, a pathway plan, funds for education or training and any other assistance under various provisions of the Children Act 1989 and from staying put with foster carers or maintaining contact. The Minister says that that is because the needs of those who have no right to be here are different from those of people who have their future in this country. Such individuals are former looked-after children who have just turned 18, and care leavers in such circumstances include those with no immigration status, those who arrived as children and sought asylum and were granted UASC leave, and those who came to the UK at a young age but were never helped to regularise their status.
Such people can only claim access to accommodation and other assistance in limited circumstances. The first is if they are destitute, have been refused asylum and are eligible for support and there is a genuine obstacle to them leaving the UK. The second is if they are destitute and have a pending non-asylum immigration application or appeal. The third is if their rights are exhausted, and regulations will set out the limited circumstances in which they can receive support.
The concern here is that specific provision was made in the Children Act for all children leaving care in recognition of their additional vulnerabilities and the need for additional support in order for them to have the same chances as other young people entering adulthood. The new clause and new schedule fundamentally change that position. There is a real concern that someone who has just turned 18 and who, as a matter of fact and possibly because of vulnerabilities, has simply not regularised their immigration status will be denied support under this provision, which cuts across the thrust of the 1989 Act.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
I want to speak against new clause 17 and new schedule 3. I want to start by asking the Minister whether he has the approval of the Minister for Children and Families, because the provisions seem to challenge much of the core principles for which he has been arguing. The changes have far-reaching impacts on the core definitions and duties of the Children Act, and it is strange that such dramatic changes are being housed within an immigration Bill.
Section 23(4)(c) of the Children Act places a duty on local authorities to give care leavers assistance to the extent that their welfare requires it. While the young person was a looked-after child, the local authority was their corporate parent. That duty recognises the legacy of the parental role and allows the local authority to step in and protect a care leaver in crisis. The Government’s Staying Put initiative explicitly recognises the need for care leavers to have “stable and secure homes” and to
“be given sufficient time to prepare for life after care.”
The Department for Education care leavers’ charter outlines key principles that will
“remain constant through any changes in Legislation, Regulation and Guidance”,
including the provision of advice and practical, financial and emotional support. Such initiatives are entirely undermined by the proposals.
Migrant children in care often face additional difficulties to British children. They are particularly likely to have faced trauma. They may experience language and cultural barriers. They are less likely to have any contact with biological family members. Care leavers often need their personal adviser or advocate to help to identify and even instruct an immigration lawyer. Barnardo’s conducted a child advocacy pilot for the Home Office that by all accounts seemed to be very beneficial. It helped the young person enormously to make informed choices and it helped the state to provide the level of support that was needed, so it seems odd that the new clause will undermine the Government’s pilot.
Not only is it discriminatory to remove support from young people leaving care on the basis of their immigration status, but in order for migrant care leavers to enter adulthood successfully it is vital that they can access a care plan under the 1989 Act. They are very young adults who often have no one else to turn to. The Government’s changes will remove all possible support usually provided to care leavers—including a personal adviser, a pathway plan and funding for education or training—other than, as the Minister confirmed, basic accommodation and financial assistance for certain groups.
It is not clear from the new clause whether it is envisaged that local authorities or the Home Office will be responsible for providing the support set out in proposed new paragraph 10B. Although I oppose the changes as a whole, at the very least local authorities should be responsible for providing support if the Government are not, and that should be stated in the Bill.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
We have spoken at length about the complexities of immigration law. In introducing yet another Immigration Bill, the Government had the opportunity to simplify some areas of the law. In areas such as appeals, the Government have, to their shame, done so by removing the right of appeal from the majority and proposing that the few who retain it might have to exercise it from outwith the country.
Some of the strongest arguments in the whole debate have been about the support we give to migrants and refused asylum seekers, particularly the children involved in such situations. The Government’s proposals on support for 18-year-old care leavers and destitute families with children in new clause 17 and new schedule 3 are nothing short of a dog’s breakfast, and are potentially dangerous. Either by accident or design, we could very well see support removed from the most vulnerable groups.
Under the existing system, Home Office support is provided under two relatively—I stress: relatively—broad provisions, namely sections 4 and 95. We will now have heavily caveated and more complicated support available across four provisions, including new paragraphs 10A and 10B of new schedule 3. The new clause and new schedule will sow confusion at a local authority level, and dangerous gaps in support can and will occur.
The changes relating to section 17 of the Children Act 1989 will prevent local authorities from providing accommodation and support where there are
“reasonable grounds for believing that support will be provided”.
That will prevent local authorities from supporting families on the basis that they might receive support in future, even though they are not currently receiving any support. It could prevent a local authority from providing emergency support if a family are destitute and have been unable to access immediate support from the Home Office. It will also prevent local authorities from providing support to families who in principle would be entitled to support under new paragraph 10A but are not receiving it in practice.
I am sure the Minister is well aware of the case of child EG, a one-year-old who died in 2012, followed two days later by his mother, when they were left in limbo between two different types of support. It is people like that who might be affected by the Government’s proposals. On the topic of vulnerability, there cannot be many more vulnerable people than young adults who have just turned 18 and have spent long periods of their childhood in care. Indeed, as has been alluded to, the Minister for Children and Families described them as “highly vulnerable” when calling for more support as part of a leaving care strategy as recently as July this year. It seems that our commitment to providing more care for this vulnerable group depends on where they were born or have come from.
The Minister for Children and Families is not alone. The Joint Committee on Human Rights also stated that unaccompanied migrant children must be properly supported in the transition to adulthood and receive bespoke and comprehensive plans that focus on educational goals, reintegration and rehabilitation. That includes planning for possible return to their country of origin and the provision of support to young people leaving care whose appeal rights are exhausted. The Joint Committee also stated that it would be difficult to reconcile the removal of support from young people leaving care on the basis of their immigration status, rather than on assessment of need, with the non-discrimination provisions of the UN convention on the rights of the child. Article 2 of the convention requires that states respect and ensure the rights of each child in their jurisdiction without discrimination of any kind.
During the evidence sessions, we heard time and again from expert witnesses that the proposals in the Bill run counter to the provisions and principles in the Children Act 1989 and the Children (Scotland) Act 1995. The hon. Member for North Dorset mused that it might be easier just to amend the 1989 Act, much to the dismay of myself and my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North-east. The Government may not have gone that far, but they are trying to make changes to the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 that will have a similar effect. Be in no doubt: the Scottish National party will be voting against these retrograde proposals.
James Brokenshire
I shall respond to the points that have been flagged in the order in which they were made. The hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras asked a number of questions. I underline that paragraph 7B is principally a matter of clarification. Those failed asylum seekers who claim asylum at port rather than in country are covered by the definition in paragraph 7B; we argue that that provides greater clarity. He made a point about judicial review cases. If someone has been granted permission to seek judicial review in respect of an asylum or article 3 European convention on human rights claim they will now be eligible for section 95 support under schedule 6 to the Bill.
The hon. and learned Gentleman also asked what was meant by a “genuine obstacle to return”. We debated that previously in this Committee and as I previously stated, the principal reasons will be a lack of documentation, including travel documentation, to facilitate return, or medical issues. He commented on the needs of children leaving care—a point further developed by the hon. Member for Rotherham and the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North. It is important to underline that the provisions relate to adults rather than children. That is important in the context of the UN convention on the rights of the child, as it defines a child as under the age of 18. Obviously, we are talking about adults who do not have that right to remain in the UK.
It may also be worth highlighting some context here. For example, in 2014 63% of asylum claims made by unaccompanied children were made by young people who arrived aged 16 or 17; therefore they had spent most of their lives outside the UK. When their claims fail and their appeal rights are exhausted, adult migrants are expected to leave this country. Any accommodation, subsistence or other support they require prior to their departure is, in our judgment, better provided under provisions intended for that purpose, not under the Children Act care leaver provisions intended to support the development of young people whose long-term future is in the UK. That is the distinction we draw.
Keir Starmer
What does the Minister say to the concern that those coming out of care may very well be vulnerable and traumatised, whatever age they went into care? They might not have regularised their status and will need access, for example, to an adviser even to get as far as an immigration lawyer to start the process. I appreciate what he says about age, but these are children who have just turned 18. What does he say to that group?
James Brokenshire
Obviously, if someone comes to this country as an unaccompanied asylum-seeking child, their case will be considered in that context and whether they become appeal rights exhausted up to the point at which they turn 18. It is not simply about how we approach this when someone gets to 18; for example, when they are 17 and a half they are reminded that they do not have status and that they should be regularising their position if they have not already done so. At that stage, obviously, the provisions that would continue to exist for a child, with the potential for a local authority to provide a personal adviser, will have been put in place.
Keir Starmer
That answer is inadequate. The Minister makes a distinction between those who are 18 and under 18. What he is saying is that we tell children that they must undertake whatever proceedings they need to regularise their status, and if they do not do so, when they get to 18, when they may still be very vulnerable and in need, they have missed the opportunity, perhaps because, as children, they did not understand what they were supposed to do. How is this supposed to work in practice for that vulnerable group?
James Brokenshire
As the hon. and learned Gentleman has already highlighted, support is provided to a child within the meaning of the Children Act. The point we are making is that when someone becomes an adult who is appeal rights exhausted, it is appropriate for the state to seek the removal of that adult from the UK in those circumstances. We are making an in-principle point about facilitating the removal of those with no rights to be here. The hon. and learned Gentleman seems to be suggesting that because someone came to this country as an unaccompanied asylum-seeking child, they have an enhanced right to remain in this country. We are saying that that is not correct. We should of course work with the Home Office to see that someone returns in those circumstances and that they are assisted to do so. Fundamentally, the provisions in the Children Act are designed for those who are likely to stay in the UK. Therefore it is our judgment that they should not apply and that is why we are bringing forward these provisions.
To the hon. Member for Rotherham I would add that we have consulted the Department for Education closely in the preparation of these provisions. The schedule therefore reflects a whole of Government view, rather than just a Home Office view.
Sarah Champion
May I have a brief clarification from the Minister? My understanding is that, if the child or young person is in a care home, the Minister is absolutely right—the age of 18 is the cut-off. If a child or young person is in foster care, I thought we had changed it so that the age at which they stop receiving support is now 21. Would that apply to an unaccompanied asylum seeker, or will they be discriminated against?
James Brokenshire
The point is that there is no discrimination. As I have already indicated, we are talking about children and the support provided under the Children Act. When someone turns 18, they are an adult and therefore we judge it is appropriate that the new provisions should apply. I think that the hon. Lady was highlighting the staying put duty in respect of foster parents. We are saying that, at the point at which someone becomes an adult, they should be leaving the UK and not staying put within the UK. Obviously, we have a strong desire to work with local authorities and with the young people themselves to support them in their departure from the UK.
I want to address the point about gaps made by the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North, which was also made in the briefing from the Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association that I am sure hon. Members have received. We do not agree with the analysis that is given. Indeed, we think that the provisions in the new schedule will assist, because we can see that support is being provided. We are simplifying the basis on which the principal need of families without immigration status can be met by local authorities. That need is for accommodation and subsistence support to prevent destitution, as is clearly shown by the study I have highlighted and previously referred to. In respect of family groups, we are clear that section 17 of the Children Act will remain the basis on which local authorities will meet any other social care needs beyond destitution—that is, what they consider to be necessary to safeguard or promote the welfare of a child pending resolution of a family’s immigration status or their departure from the UK. I intervened on the hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras on that point.
The individual case that the hon. and learned Gentleman highlighted involved moving to DWP benefits rather than asylum support. As has been flagged previously, there have been delays in respect of some of the provisions. The Immigration Act and schedule 3 provisions we are discussing are about simplifying the process, so that there are not those laborious human rights assessments that replicate a number of other assessments in the system. The intention is to close some of the gaps, rather than extend them. That is why we take a different view from the analysis articulated by the hon. and learned Gentleman and set out in the ILPA briefing notes. We can see a difference of principle in the Committee this morning on the appropriateness of continuing Children Act provisions beyond the age of 18. Our judgment is that at that stage people should be leaving the UK rather than staying, and therefore we are talking about two distinct mechanisms and two distinct means. I hope that the Committee will be minded to incorporate the new clause into the Bill.
Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time.
Keir Starmer
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Gangmasters Licensing Authority—GLA—is the foremost labour inspection agency in the UK and it works to protect workers within the sectors it oversees, namely agriculture, forestry, horticulture, shellfish gathering, and food processing and packaging. It was set up in the aftermath of the 2004 Morecambe bay cockling disaster, in which 23 Chinese cockle pickers drowned when trapped by sweeping tides. In the past two years, the authority has prevented the exploitation of probably more than 5,000 workers.
During debates on the Modern Slavery Act 2015, a number of colleagues called for the Gangmasters Licensing Authority’s remit to be extended to cover sectors beyond those it currently regulates to include other sectors known to be high risk, among them construction, hospitality and social care. We then have the provisions in the Bill, which are not an extension of the GLA’s powers but the creation of a different body—the director of labour market enforcement. We welcome and support that, but there are two major implications. First, by increasing the focus on criminal investigations by the GLA, the provisions extend investigations within the existing remit but not the remit itself. The first issue that raises is one of resources, which has already been touched on in previous discussions in the Committee. Without the resources to go with the additional number of criminal investigations there is, in fact, a thinning down of the GLA’s ability to carry out its important work, rather than a reinforcing of it.
At this stage in particular, I draw to the Committee’s attention the fact that the GLA already sustained 20% savings—or cuts—in the previous spending review. There is a new spending review pending, and I ask the Minister: what further cuts are expected to the GLA in that review?
Secondly, on a separate point, the consultation exercise that accompanies the Bill seems to suggest going down the route of voluntary rather than statutory licensing. It would be helpful for the Committee if the Minister clarified whether this is the intended direction of travel for the GLA, particularly since, in our opinion, the statutory licencing approach has worked very well in the past.
James Brokenshire
I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for proposing the new clause, which seeks to introduce a power to extend the licensing regime contained in the Gangmasters Licensing Act 2004 to new sectors of the economy. It rightly facilitates a debate and I join him in underlining the important work that the GLA has undertaken and how it remains an important agency in seeking to respond to labour market abuses.
The hon. and learned Gentleman will recollect our debates on the director of labour market enforcement and the new strategy that we intend to adopt. He will also remember that I made it clear that it would be for the director of labour market enforcement effectively to make recommendations as to how resources should be applied within the overall spending envelope.
The hon. and learned Gentleman asked about the spending review. Sadly, that is a matter for others, and he will have to wait for the Chancellor’s statement next week. I am not going to tread on the Chancellor’s toes. I think that is the right and proper way. However, I want to touch on the current consultation on the role and remit of the Gangmasters Licensing Authority. Hon. Members have already voiced opinions of the work undertaken by the GLA and I hope they will welcome the consultation and the questions it asks about the GLA’s role in tackling labour market exploitation.
As demonstrated by the amendments to the Modern Slavery Act 2015, which require a review of the role of the GLA, we have taken very seriously the issues raised during debates during the passage of that Act about whether the GLA should have a wider role. Section 55 of the Modern Slavery Act already requires the Government to publish a paper on the role of the GLA and to consult on it. Our current consultation on the GLA and wider labour market exploitation fulfils that requirement.
We are unclear what the new clause seeks to achieve, given that we are in the midst of consulting on the GLA’s remit and role. In fact, our consultation goes further than the new clause proposes. We are seeking views on extending the role of the GLA beyond its current role in licensing gangmasters in certain sectors. The new clause appears to restrict the GLA’s role solely to licensing. We have a broader ambition for the GLA’s contribution to tackling exploitation, which is why we are proposing a new, wider remit for the GLA with new investigatory and enforcement powers to tackle serious cases of labour market exploitation, wherever they occur in the economy. We also want to ensure that the licensing regime can be adapted to fit the latest intelligence and the changing threat of worker exploitation in different sectors. We have set out several proposals in our consultation that we believe would achieve that.
We are looking to the role of the director of labour market enforcement to recommend any changes to the current statutory licensing regime and also to work closely with businesses to identify areas of possible self-regulation. It is the director’s role in considering the use of licensing to tackle labour market exploitation. The consultation proposes that the director should recommend extensions or reductions to the licensing remit. That may identify new sectors beyond those in the remit of the licensing regime where licensing can play a part in tackling worker exploitation.
At paragraph 137 of the consultation document, we suggest:
“a flexible and evidence-based approach to using licensing as a tool to prevent exploitation in the very highest risk sectors. Any changes to the licensed sectors would be agreed by Parliament, after Ministers had considered an evidence based proposal from the Director. This would be based on a risk based intelligence analysis of labour sectors.”
So we are envisaging a regulation-making power that would allow Ministers to change the licensing regime or the sectors covered by licensing through regulations that would be agreed by Parliament, after Ministers had considered the director’s evidence-based proposal. We believe that that would give an appropriate level of scrutiny to the evidence presented for any changes to the licensing regime.
We are consulting on the changes because we recognise the broad support to build on the effectiveness and good work of the GLA by providing the authority with further powers to increase its already strong performance. Once the consultation has closed, we will consider our response, including the funding necessary for the GLA to operate effectively in the context of the spending review, the results of which will be announced shortly. We fully expect that process to conclude during the passage of the Bill.
In the light of the proposals made in the consultation, which would extend the GLA’s enforcement function across the economy and set the framework for evidence-based decisions on licensing, we believe that the new clause is unnecessary, but we look forward to the results of the consultation and a clear, evidence-based analysis, which I hope will strengthen the GLA and our response to illegal working and to those who are abusing the vulnerable. We are adding to the GLA’s functions and to the progress in enhancing our response to bad, inappropriate and at times illegal practices in the labour market. The new enforcement measures contemplated in the Bill will strengthen the GLA.
Keir Starmer
The Minister resists the temptation to anticipate the Chancellor, but I wager that the resources for the GLA will go down, not up. All that will be discussed between now and what will be announced is by how much the resources will go down. I hope I am wrong, but I doubt it.
I fear what the Minister and other Ministers have said about savings and cuts. Of course I accept that efficiencies can always be made, but I have deep concerns that, in the area we are discussing, as well as in others, we will look back on the spending review and recognise that we did long-standing damage to the ability of our various agencies and authorities to carry out their necessary work, in particular with those who are most exploited in our society. However, we can return to the subject after the Chancellor’s announcement and see what the position is.
The Minister asked what the purpose of the new clause was. It was to build in a review. I listened carefully to what he said about the consultation and what might follow, and I welcome that. Given what he said about the exercise to be followed, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 6
Additional measures in relation to victims of domestic violence or human trafficking
‘(1) The Immigration Act 2014 is amended in accordance with subsection (2).
(2) In Section 21 after sub-section (4) insert—
“(4A) P is to be treated as having a right to rent in relation to premises (in spite of subsection (2)) if they are in the process of applying for leave to remain under Paragraph 289 of the Immigration Rules as a victim of domestic violence.
(4B) P is to be treated as having a right to rent in relation to premises (in spite of subsection (2)) if they have received a reasonable grounds decision from UK Visas and Immigration that they are a victim of human trafficking.”’—(Keir Starmer.)
This new clause would enable suspected victims of human trafficking or domestic violence, who do not have a final visa giving them leave to remain, the right to enter into a tenancy.
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 10—Persons disqualified by immigration status or with limited right to rent—
‘(1) The Immigration Act 2014 is amended in accordance with subsections (2) to (3).
(2) Omit section 21(3) and insert—
“(3) But P is to be treated as having a right to rent in relation to premises (in spite of subsection (2)) if:
(a) the Secretary of State has granted P permission for the purposes of this Chapter to occupy premises under a residential tenancy agreement; or
(b) P has been granted immigration bail; or
(c) P is to be treated as having been granted immigration bail.”’
To ensure that persons seeking asylum who can afford to rent privately, persons with outstanding applications and persons with outstanding appeals or judicial reviews are able to rent.
Keir Starmer
I will do my best to be as persuasive as my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham had she spoken on the proposed provisions. It is convenient to take the two new clauses together.
New clause 6 is in essence an attempt to carve out an exemption to the restrictions on right to rent in relation to two particularly vulnerable groups—suspected victims of domestic violence or human trafficking—and gives them the right to enter into a tenancy. Our concern is the unintended consequence of those two groups not being able to be properly accommodated.
New clause 10 is different. It is intended to provide a right to rent to anyone known to and in touch with the authorities, whom the authorities have chosen not to detain, where they are in a financial position to rent privately. If they are not in a position to rent privately, they would be catered for differently through support, so this is a sub-group within the group that is known to be in touch with the authorities, but not detained. It has been suggested that the Secretary of State will exercise discretionary power in relation to that group. The new clause is intended to put that on a proper statutory basis so that that group is properly protected.
James Brokenshire
The Government completely agree that victims of domestic violence and human trafficking should not be disadvantaged as a result of this legislation or the previous Immigration Act. We accept that individuals in such a vulnerable position should have access to the private rented sector. The aims and objectives in new clause 6 are laudable, but we do not believe they are necessary.
When the 2014 Act was before Parliament, we were concerned that the Secretary of State should have sufficient latitude to be able to exempt specific persons from the disqualification on renting premises if need be. Subsection (3) of section 21 of that Act provides that a person is to be treated as having a right to rent if the Secretary of State has granted that person permission to occupy premises under a residential tenancy agreement. That can be exercised on behalf of vulnerable people. In addition, the Act provides exemptions whereby the provisions do not apply to certain excluded tenancy agreements. Schedule 3 specifically excludes hostels and refuges. Paragraph 6(5) to schedule 3 defines refuges as accommodation used for persons who have been subject to violence, threats and other coercive and abusive behaviour, so persons in refuges will not be disadvantaged.
Where a potential victim of human trafficking has received a positive reasonable grounds decision through the national referral mechanism, the Government fund specialist accommodation and support, as do the devolved Administrations, which is provided until a conclusive grounds decision is reached on their status as a victim and on any discretionary leave resulting from that status.
New clause 10 is also unnecessary. Persons seeking asylum who can afford to rent privately, and persons who have a genuine barrier preventing their departure from the UK, can already obtain permission to rent from the Home Office. That permission to rent mechanism already exists in section 21(3) of the Immigration Act 2014. Landlords of prospective migrant tenants who believe that they may qualify for permission to rent can contact the Home Office to conduct a right to rent check.
There is also no need for a statutory provision for permission to rent for persons granted immigration bail. Such persons are always given permission, and Home Office presenting officers have been instructed to assure immigration judges that, should they choose to release an immigrant on bail, the Home Office will provide permission to rent. That is our very clear policy. The tribunal has found this approach acceptable. It is also the case that there may be other instances where permission to rent is appropriate, such as where an illegal immigrant faces a recognised barrier to returning home.
Keir Starmer
I am grateful to the Minister for his comments. I think we share concerns about the particular groups that are dealt with under the new clauses. The gap between us is between a statutory scheme under the new clause and a discretionary scheme exercised by the Secretary of State. The Minister has, however, set out in some detail what the policy approach is and has given a clear steer as to how measures are being and will be operated. In those circumstances, the gap is in fact smaller than it might otherwise have been and I will not press the new clause. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 7
Residential tenancies: repeal of provisions of the Immigration Act 2014
‘(1) The Immigration Act 2014 is amended as follows.
(2) Omit sections 20-37, 74(2)(a) and Schedule 3.—(Keir Starmer.)
Together with amendment 84, this amendment removes the residential tenancies provisions from both the Immigration Act 2014 and the current Bill.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Keir Starmer
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I can deal with new clause 7 very briefly because, as hon. Members will see, it is associated with, and is I think the flipside of, amendment 84, which we discussed the week before last. It aims to remove the residential tenancies right to move provisions from the Immigration Act, but the Committee has already had a substantive debate on this, including discussion of the west midlands pilot, and we voted on amendment 84. In those circumstances, whatever our respective views on these provisions, I am not sure they will become any more influential or powerful by being repeated at length. I therefore do not propose to press new clause 7.
James Brokenshire
The hon. and learned Gentleman has clearly reaffirmed the Opposition’s position and I do not think, in the interests of time, that there is any merit in my going over some of the detailed debates that we have already had on amendment 84. We have had extensive debate on the right to rent and I know that there is a difference of opinion across the Committee. Equally I know that the hon. and learned Gentleman recognises that a vote has already been taken and that this new clause repeats some of that ground. I welcome his comment that he does not intend to push new clause 7 to a vote.
Keir Starmer
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 8
Persons with a right to rent
‘(1) The Immigration Act 2014 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 21(2)(a) after “have it,” insert “subject to subsection (2A)”.
(3) After section 21(2) insert—
“(2A) P retains a right to rent under this section:
(a) for 90 days after P’s leave to enter or remain comes to an end; or
(b) until the end of the one year beginning with the date on which P’s landlord last complied with the prescribed requirements in respect of P, whichever is longer.”
(4) After section 21(4) (b) insert—
“(c) a person who has retained a right to rent under subsection (2A).”—(Keir Starmer.)
To amend the Immigration Act 2014 to provide protection for landlords and landladies from prosecution when their tenant’s leave comes to an end.
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 9—Immigration Act 2014: Premises shared with the landlord or a member of his family—
‘(1) The Immigration Act 2014 is amended in accordance with subsection (2).
(2) In Clause 20 (Residential tenancy agreement), omit the “and” at the end of subparagraph (b), and insert—
“(ba) is not an agreement granting a right of occupation of premises shared with the landlord, licensor or a member of his family, and””
To exclude from the definition of a residential tenancy agreement those agreements relating to accommodation shared with a landlord or a member of his family, so that individuals who rent out rooms or take lodgers into their homes, as opposed to renting out a whole flat or house, are not part of the right to rent provisions.
Keir Starmer
I intend to take a similar approach to new clause 8 as I took to new clause 7. It goes, again, to an issue that we have already discussed: the element of protection given to landlords who find themselves in a situation where they are immediately criminalised under the new provisions, about which we expressed considerable concern in the debate that we had the week before last. This provision deals with what we see as the injustice of that situation by providing for a 90-day grace period to protect landlords. It is, in essence, a version of the argument, or the submission, that we made two weeks ago, which was dealt with by a vote on protection for landlords. Again, I doubt that in the intervening two weeks the arguments on either side have either changed or strengthened, so I will not press the new clause.
New clause 9 has one foot in the camp of having already been discussed and one foot in the camp of being new. The last time we touched on similar provisions was in relation to a concern about those in a household who may find themselves advertising for co-tenants. The example discussed in Committee was that of students in a flat who might advertise when one of their number leaves. The Minister gave various assurances and made it clear that in those circumstances they would not come within the definition of an agent and therefore there was no need for concern. I accept that and, from memory, we withdrew the amendment on that basis.
New clause 9 is concerned with a not dissimilar situation, of a landlord renting accommodation that is shared by the landlord or a member of his or her family. It draws a distinction between, on the one hand, professional landlords, and on the other, those who simply let out a room in their house or flat. There is no real evidence on the likely impact of the new provisions on that group, but they will be impactful. New clause 9 drives at that group of individuals.
James Brokenshire
As the Government have explained, the new offences relating to landlords and agents will be targeted at cases where there has been repeated or particularly serious behaviour as regards renting to illegal migrants or failing to evict them. As I made clear and as we have debated previously, it is not intended to target landlords who are unaware that someone is disqualified from renting, nor will such landlords meet the
“knows or has reasonable cause to believe”
threshold required for commission of the offence. It is not intended to take steps to prosecute landlords who are taking reasonable steps to remove someone they know to be disqualified from their property. I recognise that, in part, new clause 8 goes over ground that we have debated at length in Committee, therefore I do not see a need to rerehearse some of the issues debated previously.
New clause 9 touches on some different points and seeks to place lodgers and instances where a person is renting to a family member outside the scope of the right to rent scheme. That was debated at some length at the time of the Immigration Act 2014 and was considered by the House in the context of its application to lodgers. There is already guidance about the position of those renting to close family. For example, undertaking a right to rent check provides a landlord with an excuse as regards the civil penalty. Where someone is confident that their family member is lawfully in the UK, there will be no need for them to undertake the checks to establish that excuse.
Our concern is that taking lodgers out of the scheme will mean that a significant number of illegal migrants and those who exploit them are left untouched, in essence creating a gap in the legislation. That would provide an easy means by which rogue landlords could avoid any sanctions, for instance by arguing that the property was their family home or by arranging for one tenant to take in another occupant as a lodger. Sadly, we know that there is exploitation, there are rogue landlords and that that is a risk. We believe that the checks are straightforward and should be no more difficult for someone letting out a spare room than for any other person who might be within the ambit of the Bill, for example through a formal tenancy. Anyone who accepts remuneration for renting property should accept the responsibilities involved in doing so, such as carrying out the basic checks previously debated and discussed in Committee. The concern about the gap that would be created and the risk that it might lead to further exploitation, with people being taken advantage of, means that we judge that this provision is not appropriate.
Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP)
The Minister might remember that in a Committee sitting a couple of weeks ago I asked whether people who let out or gave a room via a charity, for no money or a token sum to cover their rising costs, were already exempt. I did not get an answer at the time, and I do not know whether that was because the Minister forgot, or did not want, to answer. Might this be an appropriate time to ask the question again? There are charities that fix destitute people up with others who have a spare room, and with some of the charities the person gets no recompense and with others they get a tiny amount to cover the increased fuel and other costs. Were such people already exempt, or will they be covered by the provisions?
James Brokenshire
I am sorry if I did not respond previously and I can assure the hon. Lady that it would certainly not have been from not wanting to answer. As she knows, a number of points are made during a debate and sometimes one might inadvertently pass over one of them. In respect of the right to rent scheme, and therefore the statutory excuse, which is what we are talking about, if no money changes hands the arrangement is exempt. I do not know if that helps her. There has to be what would be described in legal terms as some sort of payment or consideration for someone to be captured.
Anne McLaughlin
I am pleased to hear that, but some charities give a tiny, token amount for a donated room. It obviously costs more to have somebody living in a spare room, so the amount is not a profit or a commercial arrangement—it is just a token amount to cover the additional costs. Would that circumstance be exempt or would we have to introduce a provision at a later stage to exempt it?
James Brokenshire
It is obviously difficult, nor would it be right, for me to comment on specific arrangements. I have already talked about refuges and the separate exemptions that apply regarding the support provided for victims of trafficking, and in other circumstances within the definitions that were set out. I have spoken about the issue of nothing of monetary value changing hands, but ultimately we are looking at those with no right to be in the country. That is, I suppose, the basis of the question, and therefore some charitable support might be provided in other circumstances. That is why I must be careful in understanding the specifics, but I think that existing exemptions apply, and these were considered in detail when the right to rent scheme was original considered by the House. There are specific exemptions that we judge to be appropriate, and which cover, in particular, issues of vulnerability and abuse. Refuges play an incredible and essential role in providing appropriate support, and they are normally run by charities and other non-governmental organisations. It was right to put in those exemptions and we judge that they remain appropriate.
Keir Starmer
I am grateful for the Minister’s comments, in particular on new clause 8. I think he said that it was not the intention to prosecute landlords who took reasonable steps to take adequate action. As he well knows, in the end that is a matter for those who prosecute, but what he has said will now be on the record. It gives some assurance, certainly to Labour members of the Committee and also to landlords who have raised the issue with us, as well as with other members of the Committee, on a number of occasions. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 11
Eligibility for housing and homelessness assistance
“The Secretary of State shall make provision by regulations to ensure that a person granted leave to enter or remain under section 3 of the Immigration Act 1971, whether under rules made under that section or otherwise, who is eligible for public funds shall also be eligible for housing and homelessness services.”—(Keir Starmer.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Keir Starmer
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
This is my final appearance on an amendment or new clause, and it is fitting that the new clause is a probing one. Concerns have been raised about eligibility for housing and homelessness assistance. As a result of changes to immigration law and practice, some young people in households with children given leave to remain in the UK that allows them to claim all relevant benefits have un- intentionally been made ineligible for local authority housing and homelessness services, leaving them disadvantaged and creating a problem for social services, which must house them in emergencies if housing departments cannot do so.
The intention behind the new clause is to avoid what is hopefully an unintended consequence. If a level of assurance can be given that that will not be a consequence, the new clause has no purpose.
James Brokenshire
Migrants granted leave to enter or remain in the UK are generally expected to be able to maintain and accommodate themselves without recourse to public funds in the form of mainstream welfare benefits or local authority housing support. There is legislation in place to ensure that the majority of migrants cannot access those public funds. The Government are aware that in some cases a person granted immigration leave with no bar to accessing public funds might require local authority housing or homelessness support but would currently be ineligible as they are not settled here.
The Home Office is working with other Departments—the Department for Communities and Local Government in particular—to remedy the situation as swiftly as possible. It does not follow, however, that everyone who has been granted leave should have an immediate and enforceable claim to access local authority support and services, even where there is no bar to them accessing other public funds.
The No Recourse to Public Funds Network has highlighted the issue of the Allocation of Housing and Homelessness (Eligibility) (England) Regulations 2006, which control access to homelessness assistance and still refer to the discretionary leave category. That is quite a technical but important point. I assure the Committee that we are working closely with the Department for Communities and Local Government to examine amendments to the 2006 regulations, which is the relevant point.
There is an issue here, but I hope, with that assurance, the hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras will be minded to withdraw the new clause, while noting that this is something we are aware of and will take steps to remedy.
Keir Starmer
The purpose of a probing amendment is to identify a particular concern and seek assurance on it. The Minister gave that assurance and says all are working on a remedy. In those circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Schedule 1
Private hire vehicles etc
Metropolitan Public Carriage Act 1869 (c. 115)
1 The Metropolitan Public Carriage Act 1869 is amended as follows.
2 In section 8(7) (driver’s licence to be in force for three years unless suspended or revoked) for “A” substitute “Subject to section 8A, a”.
3 After section 8 insert—
“8A Drivers’ licences for persons subject to immigration control
(1) Subsection (2) applies if—
(a) a licence under section 8 is to be granted to a person who has been granted leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom for a limited period (“the leave period”),
(b) the person’s leave has not been extended by virtue of section 3C of the Immigration Act 1971 (continuation of leave pending variation decision), and
(c) apart from subsection (2), the period for which the licence would have been in force would have ended after the end of the leave period.
(2) Transport for London must grant the licence for a period which ends at or before the end of the leave period.
(3) Subsection (4) applies if—
(a) a licence under section 8 is to be granted to a person who has been granted leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom for a limited period, and
(b) the person’s leave has been extended by virtue of section 3C of the Immigration Act 1971 (continuation of leave pending variation decision).
(4) Transport for London must grant the licence for a period that does not exceed six months.
(5) A licence under section 8 ceases to be in force if the person to whom it was granted becomes disqualified by reason of the person’s immigration status from driving a hackney carriage.
(6) If subsection (5) applies to a licence, the person to whom it was granted must, within the period of 7 days beginning with the day after the day on which the person first became disqualified, return to Transport for London—
(a) the licence,
(b) the person’s copy of the licence (if any), and
(c) the person’s driver’s badge.
(7) A person who, without reasonable excuse, contravenes subsection (6) is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction—
(a) to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale, and
(b) in the case of a continuing offence, to a fine not exceeding ten pounds for each day during which an offence continues after conviction.
(8) For the purposes of this section a person is disqualified by reason of the person’s immigration status from driving a hackney carriage if the person is subject to immigration control and —
(a) the person has not been granted leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom, or
(b) the person’s leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom—
(i) is invalid,
(ii) has ceased to have effect (whether by reason of curtailment, revocation, cancellation, passage of time or otherwise), or
(iii) is subject to a condition preventing the individual from driving a hackney carriage.
(9) Where a person is on immigration bail within the meaning of Part 1 of Schedule 5 to the Immigration Act 2016—
(a) the person is to be treated for the purposes of this section as if the person had been granted leave to enter the United Kingdom, but
(b) any condition as to the person’s work in the United Kingdom to which the person’s immigration bail is subject is to be treated for those purposes as a condition of leave.
(10) For the purposes of this section a person is subject to immigration control if under the Immigration Act 1971 the person requires leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom.”
Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 (c. 57)
4 The Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 is amended as follows.
5 (1) Section 51 (licensing of drivers of private hire vehicles) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1)—
(a) in paragraph (a) after “satisfied” insert “—(i)”, and
(b) for the “or” at the end of paragraph (a) substitute “and
(ii) that the applicant is not disqualified by reason of the applicant’s immigration status from driving a private hire vehicle; or”.
(3) After subsection (1) insert—
“(1ZA) In determining for the purposes of subsection (1) whether an applicant is disqualified by reason of the applicant’s immigration status from driving a private hire vehicle, a district council must have regard to any guidance issued by the Secretary of State.”
6 In section 53(1) (drivers’ licences for hackney carriages and private hire vehicles)—
(a) in paragraph (a) for “Every” substitute “Subject to section 53A, every”, and
(b) in paragraph (b) after “1889,” insert “but subject to section 53A,”.
7 After section 53 insert—
“53A Drivers’ licences for persons subject to immigration control
(1) Subsection (2) applies if—
(a) a licence within section 53(1)(a) or (b) is to be granted to a person who has been granted leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom for a limited period (“the leave period”);
(b) the person’s leave has not been extended by virtue of section 3C of the Immigration Act 1971 (continuation of leave pending variation decision); and
(c) apart from subsection (2), the period for which the licence would have been in force would have ended after the end of the leave period.
(2) The district council which grants the licence must specify a period in the licence as the period for which it remains in force; and that period must end at or before the end of the leave period.
(3) Subsection (4) applies if—
(a) a licence within section 53(1)(a) or (b) is to be granted to a person who has been granted leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom for a limited period; and
(b) the person’s leave has been extended by virtue of section 3C of the Immigration Act 1971 (continuation of leave pending variation decision).
(4) The district council which grants the licence must specify a period in the licence as the period for which it remains in force; and that period must not exceed six months.
(5) A licence within section 53(1)(a) ceases to be in force if the person to whom it was granted becomes disqualified by reason of the person’s immigration status from driving a private hire vehicle.
(6) A licence within section 53(1)(b) ceases to be in force if the person to whom it was granted becomes disqualified by reason of the person’s immigration status from driving a hackney carriage.
(7) If subsection (5) or (6) applies to a licence, the person to whom it was granted must, within the period of 7 days beginning with the day after the day on which the person first became disqualified, return the licence and the person’s driver’s badge to the district council which granted the licence.
(8) A person who, without reasonable excuse, contravenes subsection (7) is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction—
(a) to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale; and
(b) in the case of a continuing offence, to a fine not exceeding ten pounds for each day during which an offence continues after conviction.”
8 (1) Section 55 (licensing of operators of private hire vehicles) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1)—
(a) after “satisfied” insert “—(a)”, and
(b) at the end of paragraph (a) insert “; and
(b) if the applicant is an individual, that the applicant is not disqualified by reason of the applicant’s immigration status from operating a private hire vehicle.”
(3) After subsection (1) insert—
“(1A) In determining for the purposes of subsection (1) whether an applicant is disqualified by reason of the applicant’s immigration status from operating a private hire vehicle, a district council must have regard to any guidance issued by the Secretary of State.”
(4) In subsection (2) for “Every” substitute “Subject to section 55ZA, every”.
9 After section 55 insert—
“55ZA Operators’ licences for persons subject to immigration control
(1) Subsection (2) applies if—
(a) a licence under section 55 is to be granted to a person who has been granted leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom for a limited period (“the leave period”);
(b) the person’s leave has not been extended by virtue of section 3C of the Immigration Act 1971 (continuation of leave pending variation decision); and
(c) apart from subsection (2), the period for which the licence would have been in force would have ended after the end of the leave period.
(2) The district council which grants the licence must specify a period in the licence as the period for which it remains in force; and that period must end at or before the end of the leave period.
(3) Subsection (4) applies if—
(a) a licence under section 55 is to be granted to a person who has been granted leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom for a limited period; and
(b) the person’s leave has been extended by virtue of section 3C of the Immigration Act 1971 (continuation of leave pending variation decision).
(4) The district council which grants the licence must specify a period in the licence as the period for which it remains in force; and that period must not exceed six months.
(5) A licence under section 55 ceases to be in force if the person to whom it was granted becomes disqualified by reason of the person’s immigration status from operating a private hire vehicle.
(6) If subsection (5) applies to a licence, the person to whom it was granted must, within the period of 7 days beginning with the day after the day on which the person first became disqualified, return it to the district council which granted the licence.
(7) A person who, without reasonable excuse, contravenes subsection (6) is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction—
(a) to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale; and
(b) in the case of a continuing offence, to a fine not exceeding ten pounds for each day during which an offence continues after conviction.”
10 (1) Section 59 (qualification for drivers of hackney carriages) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1)—
(a) in paragraph (a) after “satisfied” insert “—(i)”, and
(b) for the “or” at the end of paragraph (a) substitute “and
(ii) that the applicant is not disqualified by reason of the applicant’s immigration status from driving a hackney carriage; or”.
(3) After subsection (1) insert—
“(1ZA) In determining for the purposes of subsection (1) whether an applicant is disqualified by reason of the applicant’s immigration status from driving a hackney carriage, a district council must have regard to any guidance issued by the Secretary of State.”
11 In section 61(1) (suspension and revocation of drivers’ licences) before the “or” at the end of paragraph (a) insert—
“(aa) that he has since the grant of the licence been convicted of an immigration offence or required to pay an immigration penalty;”.
12 In section 62(1) (suspension and revocation of operators’ licences) before the “or” at the end of paragraph (c) insert—
“(ca) that the operator has since the grant of the licence been convicted of an immigration offence or required to pay an immigration penalty;”.
13 In section 77 (appeals) after subsection (3) insert—
“(4) On an appeal under this Part of this Act or an appeal under section 302 of the Act of 1936 as applied by this section, the court is not entitled to entertain any question as to whether—
(a) a person should be, or should have been, granted leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom; or
(b) a person has, after the date of the decision being appealed against, been granted leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom.”
14 After section 79 insert—
“79A Persons disqualified by reason of immigration status
(1) For the purposes of this Part of this Act a person is disqualified by reason of the person’s immigration status from carrying on a licensable activity if the person is subject to immigration control and —
(a) the person has not been granted leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom; or
(b) the person’s leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom—
(i) is invalid;
(ii) has ceased to have effect (whether by reason of curtailment, revocation, cancellation, passage of time or otherwise); or
(iii) is subject to a condition preventing the individual from carrying on the licensable activity.
(2) Where a person is on immigration bail within the meaning of Part 1 of Schedule 5 to the Immigration Act 2016—
(a) the person is to be treated for the purposes of this Part of this Act as if the person had been granted leave to enter the United Kingdom; but
(b) any condition as to the person’s work in the United Kingdom to which the person’s immigration bail is subject is to be treated for those purposes as a condition of leave.
(3) For the purposes of this section a person is subject to immigration control if under the Immigration Act 1971 the person requires leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom.
(4) For the purposes of this section a person carries on a licensable activity if the person—
(a) drives a private hire vehicle;
(b) operates a private hire vehicle; or
(c) drives a hackney carriage.
79B Immigration offences and immigration penalties
(1) In this Part of this Act “immigration offence” means—
(a) an offence under any of the Immigration Acts;
(b) an offence under section 1 of the Criminal Attempts Act 1981 of attempting to commit an offence within paragraph (a); or
(c) an offence under section 1 of the Criminal Law Act 1977 of conspiracy to commit an offence within paragraph (a).
(2) In this Part of this Act “immigration penalty” means a penalty under—
(a) section 15 of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 (“the 2006 Act”); or
(b) section 23 of the Immigration Act 2014 (“the 2014 Act”).
(3) For the purposes of this Part of this Act a person to whom a penalty notice under section 15 of the 2006 Act has been given is not to be treated as having been required to pay an immigration penalty if—
(a) the person is excused payment by virtue of section 15(3) of that Act; or
(b) the penalty is cancelled by virtue of section 16 or 17 of that Act.
(4) For the purposes of this Part of this Act a person to whom a penalty notice under section 15 of the 2006 Act has been given is not to be treated as having been required to pay an immigration penalty until such time as—
(a) the period for giving a notice of objection under section 16 of that Act has expired and the Secretary of State has considered any notice given within that period; and
(b) if a notice of objection was given within that period, the period for appealing under section 17 of that Act has expired and any appeal brought within that period has been finally determined, abandoned or withdrawn.
(5) For the purposes of this Part of this Act a person to whom a penalty notice under section 23 of the 2014 Act has been given is not to be treated as having been required to pay an immigration penalty if—
(a) the person is excused payment by virtue of section 24 of that Act; or
(b) the penalty is cancelled by virtue of section 29 or 30 of that Act.
(6) For the purposes of this Part of this Act a person to whom a penalty notice under section 23 of the 2014 Act has been given is not to be treated as having been required to pay an immigration penalty until such time as—
(a) the period for giving a notice of objection under section 29 of that Act has expired and the Secretary of State has considered any notice given within that period; and
(b) if a notice of objection was given within that period, the period for appealing under section 30 of that Act has expired and any appeal brought within that period has been finally determined, abandoned or withdrawn.”
Private Hire Vehicles (London) Act 1998 (c. 34)
15 The Private Hire Vehicles (London) Act 1998 is amended as follows.
16 In section 1(1) (meaning of “private hire vehicle” etc)—
(a) omit the “and” at the end of paragraph (a), and
(b) at the end of paragraph (b) insert “; and
(c) “operate”, in relation to a private hire vehicle, means to make provision for the invitation or acceptance of, or to accept, private hire bookings in relation to the vehicle.”
17 (1) Section 3 (London operator’s licences) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (3) for the “and” at the end of paragraph (a) substitute—
“(aa) if the applicant is an individual, the applicant is not disqualified by reason of the applicant’s immigration status from operating a private hire vehicle; and”
(3) After subsection (3) insert—
“(3A) In determining for the purposes of subsection (3) whether an applicant is disqualified by reason of the applicant’s immigration status from operating a private hire vehicle, the licensing authority must have regard to any guidance issued by the Secretary of State.”
(4) In subsection (5) for “A” substitute “Subject to section 3A, a”.
18 After section 3 insert—
“3A London PHV operator’s licences for persons subject to immigration control
(1) Subsection (2) applies if—
(a) a London PHV operator’s licence is to be granted to a person who has been granted leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom for a limited period (“the leave period”);
(b) the person’s leave has not been extended by virtue of section 3C of the Immigration Act 1971 (continuation of leave pending variation decision); and
(c) apart from subsection (2), the period for which the licence would have been granted would have ended after the end of the leave period.
(2) The licence must be granted for a period which ends at or before the end of the leave period.
(3) Subsection (4) applies if—
(a) a London PHV operator’s licence is to be granted to a person who has been granted leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom for a limited period; and
(b) the person’s leave has been extended by virtue of section 3C of the Immigration Act 1971 (continuation of leave pending variation decision).
(4) The licence must be granted for a period which does not exceed six months.
(5) A London PHV operator’s licence ceases to be in force if the person to whom it was granted becomes disqualified by reason of the person’s immigration status from operating a private hire vehicle.
(6) If subsection (5) applies to a licence, the person to whom it was granted must, within the period of 7 days beginning with the day after the day on which the person first became disqualified, return it the licensing authority.
(7) A person who, without reasonable excuse, contravenes subsection (6) is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction—
(a) to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale; and
(b) in the case of a continuing offence, to a fine not exceeding ten pounds for each day during which an offence continues after conviction.”
19 (1) Section 13 (London PHV driver’s licences) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (2) for the “and” at the end of paragraph (a) substitute—
“(aa) the applicant is not disqualified by reason of the applicant’s immigration status from driving a private hire vehicle; and”
(3) After subsection (2) insert—
“(2A) In determining for the purposes of subsection (2) whether an applicant is disqualified by reason of the applicant’s immigration status from driving a private hire vehicle, the licensing authority must have regard to any guidance issued by the Secretary of State.”
(4) In subsection (5) at the beginning of paragraph (c) insert “subject to section 13A,”.
20 After section 13 insert—
“13A London PHV driver’s licences for persons subject to immigration control
(1) Subsection (2) applies if—
(a) a London PHV driver’s licence is to be granted to a person who has been granted leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom for a limited period (“the leave period”);
(b) the person’s leave has not been extended by virtue of section 3C of the Immigration Act 1971 (continuation of leave pending variation decision); and
(c) apart from subsection (2), the period for which the licence would have been granted would have ended after the end of the leave period.
(2) The licence must be granted for a period which ends at or before the end of the leave period.
(3) Subsection (4) applies if—
(a) a London PHV driver’s licence is to be granted to a person who has been granted leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom for a limited period; and
(b) the person’s leave has been extended by virtue of section 3C of the Immigration Act 1971 (continuation of leave pending variation decision).
(4) The licence must be granted for a period which does not exceed six months.
(5) A London PHV driver’s licence ceases to be in force if the person to whom it was granted becomes disqualified by reason of the person’s immigration status from driving a private hire vehicle.
(6) If subsection (5) applies to a licence, the person to whom it was granted must, within the period of 7 days beginning with the day after the day on which the person first became disqualified, return the licence and the person’s driver’s badge to the licensing authority.
(7) A person who, without reasonable excuse, contravenes subsection (6) is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction—
(a) to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale; and
(b) in the case of a continuing offence, to a fine not exceeding ten pounds for each day during which an offence continues after conviction.”
21 (1) Section 16 (power to suspend or revoke licences) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (2) before the “or” at the end of paragraph (a) insert—
“(aa) the licence holder has, since the grant of the licence, been convicted of an immigration offence or required to pay an immigration penalty;”.
(3) In subsection (4) at the end of paragraph (a) insert—
“(aa) the licence holder has, since the grant of the licence, been convicted of an immigration offence or required to pay an immigration penalty;”.
22 In section 25 (appeals) after subsection (7) insert—
“(8) On an appeal under this Act to the magistrates’ court or the Crown Court, the court is not entitled to entertain any question as to whether—
(a) a person should be, or should have been, granted leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom; or
(b) a person has, after the date of the decision being appealed against, been granted leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom.”
23 After section 35 insert—
“35A Persons disqualified by reason of immigration status
(1) For the purposes of this Act a person is disqualified by reason of the person’s immigration status from carrying on a licensable activity if the person is subject to immigration control and —
(a) the person has not been granted leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom; or
(b) the person’s leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom—
(i) is invalid;
(ii) has ceased to have effect (whether by reason of curtailment, revocation, cancellation, passage of time or otherwise); or
(iii) is subject to a condition preventing the individual from carrying on the licensable activity.
(2) Where a person is on immigration bail within the meaning of Part 1 of Schedule 5 to the Immigration Act 2016—
(a) the person is to be treated for the purposes of this Part as if the person had been granted leave to enter the United Kingdom; but
(b) any condition as to the person’s work in the United Kingdom to which the person’s immigration bail is subject is to be treated for those purposes as a condition of leave.
(3) For the purposes of this section a person is subject to immigration control if under the Immigration Act 1971 the person requires leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom.
(4) For the purposes of this section a person carries on a licensable activity if the person—
(a) operates a private hire vehicle; or
(b) drives a private hire vehicle.
35B Immigration offences and immigration penalties
(1) In this Act “immigration offence” means—
(a) an offence under any of the Immigration Acts;
(b) an offence under section 1 of the Criminal Attempts Act 1981 of attempting to commit an offence within paragraph (a); or
(c) an offence under section 1 of the Criminal Law Act 1977 of conspiracy to commit an offence within paragraph (a).
(2) In this Act “immigration penalty” means a penalty under—
(a) section 15 of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 (“the 2006 Act”), or
(b) section 23 of the Immigration Act 2014 (“the 2014 Act”).
(3) For the purposes of this Act a person to whom a penalty notice under section 15 of the 2006 Act has been given is not to be treated as having been required to pay an immigration penalty if—
(a) the person is excused payment by virtue of section 15(3) of that Act; or
(b) the penalty is cancelled by virtue of section 16 or 17 of that Act.
(4) For the purposes of this Act a person to whom a penalty notice under section 15 of the 2006 Act has been given is not to be treated as having been required to pay an immigration penalty until such time as—
(a) the period for giving a notice of objection under section 16 of that Act has expired and the Secretary of State has considered any notice given within that period; and
(b) if a notice of objection was given within that period, the period for appealing under section 17 of that Act has expired and any appeal brought within that period has been finally determined, abandoned or withdrawn.
(5) For the purposes of this Act a person to whom a penalty notice under section 23 of the 2014 Act has been given is not to be treated as having been required to pay an immigration penalty if—
(a) the person is excused payment by virtue of section 24 of that Act; or
(b) the penalty is cancelled by virtue of section 29 or 30 of that Act.
(6) For the purposes of this Act a person to whom a penalty notice under section 23 of the 2014 Act has been given is not to be treated as having been required to pay an immigration penalty until such time as—
(a) the period for giving a notice of objection under section 29 of that Act has expired and the Secretary of State has considered any notice given within that period; and
(b) if a notice of objection was given within that period, the period for appealing under section 30 of that Act has expired and any appeal brought within that period has been finally determined, abandoned or withdrawn.”
24 In section 36 (interpretation) at the appropriate place insert—
““operate” has the meaning given in section 1(1);”.” —(James Brokenshire.)
This amendment amends the licensing regimes for taxis and private hire vehicles in England and Wales to prevent illegal working in these sectors. It includes the addition of requirements for licence grant to be conditional on leave and for licence length to be limited by a person’s leave duration.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Schedule 2
Duty to supply nationality documents to Secretary of State: persons to whom duty applies Persons to whom section 20A applies
1 This is the new Schedule A1 to the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 referred to in section (Supply of information to Secretary of State)—
“Schedule A1
Persons to whom section 20A applies
Law enforcement
1 The chief officer of police for a police area in England and Wales.
2 The chief constable of the Police Service of Scotland.
3 The Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland.
4 The Chief Constable of the British Transport Police Force.
5 A Port Police Force established under an order made under section 14 of the Harbours Act 1964.
6 The Port Police Force established under Part 10 of the Port of London Act 1968.
7 A Port Police Force established under section 79 of the Harbours, Docks and Piers Clauses Act 1847.
8 The National Crime Agency.
Local government
9 A county council or district council in England.
10 A London borough council.
11 The Greater London Authority.
12 The Common Council of the City of London in its capacity as a local authority.
13 The Council of the Isles of Scilly.
14 A county council or a county borough council in Wales.
15 A council constituted under section 2 of the Local Government etc (Scotland) Act 1994.
16 A district council in Northern Ireland.
Regulatory bodies
17 The Gangmasters Licensing Authority.
18 The Security Industry Authority.
Health bodies
19 An NHS trust established under section 25 of the National Health Service Act 2006 or under section 18 of the National Health Service (Wales) Act 2006.
20 An NHS foundation trust within the meaning given by section 30 of the National Health Service Act 2006.
21 A Local Health Board established under section 11 of the National Health Service (Wales) Act 2006.
22 A National Health Service Trust established under section 12A of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978.
23 A Health and Social Care trust established under Article 10 of the Health and Personal Social Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1991 (SI 1991/194 (NI 1)).
Registration officials
24 The Registrar General for England and Wales.
25 A superintendent registrar of births, deaths and marriages.
26 A registrar of births, deaths and marriages.
27 A civil partnership registrar within the meaning of Chapter 1 of Part 2 of the Civil Partnership Act 2004 (see section 29 of that Act).
28 The Registrar General for Scotland.
29 A district registrar within the meaning of section 7 of the Registration of Births, Deaths and Marriages (Scotland) Act 1965.
30 A senior registrar within the meaning of that section.
31 An assistant registrar within the meaning of that section.
32 The Registrar General for Northern Ireland.
33 A person appointed under Article 31(1) or (3) of the Marriage (Northern Ireland) Order 2003 (SI 2003/413 (NI 3)).
34 A person appointed under section 152(1) or (3) of the Civil Partnership Act 2004.
Other bodies: Northern Ireland
35 The Northern Ireland Housing Executive.” —(James Brokenshire.)
This amendment inserts a new Schedule A1 into the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 listing the bodies which are subject to the duty to provide nationality documents to the Secretary of State under the new section 20A for that Act (see NC15).
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Schedule 3
Availability of local authority support
1 Schedule 3 to the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (withholding and withdrawal of support) is amended as follows.
2 (1) Paragraph 1 (ineligibility for support) is amended as follows.
(2) In sub-paragraph (1) (excluded support or assistance) after paragraph (g) insert—
(ga) in relation only to a person to whom this paragraph applies by virtue of paragraph 7B—
(i) section 23CZA of that Act (arrangements for certain former relevant children to continue to live with former foster parents), or
(ii) regulations under section 23D of that Act (personal advisers),”.
(3) After sub-paragraph (2) insert—
“(2A) In the case of the provisions referred to in sub-paragraph (1)(ga), sub-paragraph (2) applies only in relation to a person to whom this paragraph applies by virtue of paragraph 7B.”
3 (1) Paragraph 2(1) (exceptions) is amended as follows.
(2) In paragraph (c) for “or 10” substitute “, 10, 10A or 10B”.
(3) After the “or” at the end of paragraph (c) insert—
(ca) under section 95A or 98A of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (support for failed asylum seekers etc), or”.
4 After paragraph 3 insert—
3A Notwithstanding paragraph 3, paragraph 1(1)(g) prevents a local authority in England from providing support or assistance under section 17 of the Children Act 1989 to a person in respect of a child if —
(a) the support or assistance is of a type that could be provided to the person by virtue of paragraph 10A (see paragraph 10A(7)), and
(b) support is being provided to the person by virtue of paragraph 10A or there are reasonable grounds for believing that support will be provided to the person by virtue of that paragraph.
3B Notwithstanding paragraph 3, paragraph 1(1)(g) prevents a local authority in England from providing support or assistance under section 23C, 23CA, 24A or 24B of the Children Act 1989 to a person if—
(a) support is being provided to the person by virtue of paragraph 10B or section 95A of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, or
(b) there are reasonable grounds for believing that support will be provided to the person by virtue of that paragraph or section.
3C Notwithstanding paragraph 3, paragraph 1(1)(ga) prevents a local authority in England from providing support or assistance under a provision mentioned in paragraph (ga) to a person if—
(a) support is being provided to the person by virtue of paragraph 10B or section 95A of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, or
(b) there are reasonable grounds for believing that support will be provided to the person by virtue of that paragraph or section.”
5 In paragraph 6 (third class of ineligible person: failed asylum-seeker), in sub-paragraph (1), in the words before sub-paragraph (a), after “person” insert “in Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland”.
6 In paragraph 7 (fourth class of ineligible person: person unlawfully in United Kingdom), in the words before sub-paragraph (a), after “person” insert “in Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland”.
7 Before paragraph 8 insert—
“Sixth class of ineligible person: person in England without leave to enter or remain
7B (1) Paragraph 1 applies to a person in England if—
(a) under the Immigration Act 1971, he requires leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom but does not have it, and
(b) he is not an asylum-seeker.
(2) Paragraph 1 also applies to a dependant of a person to whom that paragraph applies by virtue of sub-paragraph (1).”
8 After paragraph 10 insert—
“Accommodation and subsistence etc: England
10A (1) The Secretary of State may make regulations providing for arrangements to be made for support to be provided to a person to whom paragraph 1 applies by virtue of paragraph 7B(1) and—
(a) who is destitute,
(b) who has with him a dependent child,
(c) to whom section 95A of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 does not apply, and
(d) in relation to whom condition A, B, C or D is satisfied.
(2) Condition A is that—
(a) the person has made an application for leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom and has not withdrawn the application,
(b) where regulations under this paragraph require that the application must be of a kind specified in the regulations for this condition to be satisfied, the application is of that kind, and
(c) the application has not been determined.
(3) Condition B is that—
(a) the person has appealed under section 82(1), and
(b) the appeal is pending within the meaning of section 104.
(4) Condition C is that—
(a) the person’s appeal rights are exhausted, and
(b) he has not failed to cooperate with arrangements that would enable him to leave the United Kingdom.
(5) Condition D is that the provision of support is necessary to safeguard and promote the welfare of a dependent child.
(6) Arrangements for a person by virtue of this paragraph may include arrangements for a dependant.
(7) The support that may be provided under arrangements by virtue of this paragraph may take the form of —
(a) accommodation;
(b) subsistence in kind, or cash or vouchers to pay for subsistence.
(8) Subsections (3) to (8) of section 95 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (meaning of “destitute”) apply for the purposes of this paragraph as they apply for the purposes of that section.
(9) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) regulations under this paragraph may provide for circumstances in which—
(a) a person is to be treated as having made an application for leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom (despite not having made one);
(b) a person is to be treated as not having made such an application where the Secretary of State is satisfied that the application made is vexatious or wholly without merit.
(10) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (4) a person’s appeal rights are exhausted at the time when—
(a) he could not bring an appeal under section 82 (ignoring any possibility of an appeal out of time with permission), and
(b) no appeal brought by him is pending within the meaning of section 104.
10B (1) The Secretary of State may make regulations providing for arrangements to be made for support to be provided to a person to whom paragraph 1 applies by virtue of paragraph 7B(1) and—
(a) who is a former relevant child within the meaning of section 23C of the Children Act 1989,
(b) to whom section 95A of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 does not apply, and
(c) in relation to whom condition A, B or C is satisfied.
(2) Condition A is that—
(a) the person is destitute,
(b) the person has made an application for leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom and has not withdrawn the application,
(c) where regulations under this paragraph require that the application must be of a kind specified in the regulations for this condition to be satisfied, the application is of that kind, and
(d) the application has not been determined.
(3) Condition B is that—
(a) the person is destitute,
(b) the person has appealed under section 82(1), and
(c) the appeal is pending within the meaning of section 104.
(4) Condition C is that—
(a) the person’s appeal rights are exhausted, and
(b) a person specified in regulations under this paragraph is satisfied that support needs to be provided to the person.
(5) The support that may be provided under arrangements by virtue of this paragraph may, in particular, take the form of —
(a) accommodation;
(b) subsistence in kind, or cash or vouchers to pay for subsistence.
(6) Subsections (3) to (8) of section 95 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (meaning of “destitute”) apply for the purposes of this paragraph as they apply for the purposes of that section.
(7) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (3) regulations under this paragraph may provide for circumstances in which—
(a) a person is to be treated as having made an application for leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom (despite not having made one);
(b) a person is to be treated as not having made such an application where the Secretary of State is satisfied that the application made is vexatious or wholly without merit.
(8) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (5) a person’s appeal rights are exhausted at the time when—
(a) he could not bring an appeal under section 82 (ignoring any possibility of an appeal out of time with permission), and
(b) no appeal brought by him is pending within the meaning of section 104.”
9 In paragraph 11 (assistance and accommodation: general), in the words before sub-paragraph (a), for “or 10” substitute “, 10, 10A or 10B”.
10 In paragraph 13 (offences), in sub-paragraphs (1)(b) and (2)(a), for “or 10” substitute “, 10, 10A or 10B”.
11 In paragraph 14 (information), in sub-paragraphs (1) and (2), for “or 7” (as substituted by paragraph 25(8)(b) of Schedule 6) substitute “, 7 or 7B”.” —(James Brokenshire.)
This new Schedule simplifies the basis on which local authorities in England assess and provide accommodation and subsistence for destitute families without immigration status. It prevents adult migrant care leavers who have exhausted their appeal rights accessing Children Act support and provides for their pre-departure support.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question put, That the schedule be read a Second time.
Sarah Champion
On a point of order, Mr Owen. May I have clarity on when amendment 70 will be considered?
The Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's Treasury (Charlie Elphicke)
Further to that point of order, Mr Owen. I also seek clarification. I understand, though I stand to be corrected, that amendment 70 is on the table. I am not sure, however, about whether amendments 221 and 77 are on the table as well.
The Chair
When we come to clause 54, amendment 221 can be moved formally at that point. That will be followed by amendment 70. Ms Champion, are you happy with that?
Sarah Champion
Happy? I am delighted.
Clause 52 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 53
Regulations
Amendments made: 37, in clause 53, page 44, line 15, after “State” insert
‘or the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster’.
Part 7 of the Bill currently requires the Secretary of State or the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to prepare a code of practice in respect of the English language requirement for public sector workers. The code comes into force in accordance with regulations. This amendment and amendments 38 and 39 ensure that clause 53 applies to regulations made by either the Secretary of State or the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster under Part 7.
Amendment 245, in clause 53, page 44, line 23, at end insert
‘() regulations under section (Private hire vehicles etc)(2),’.
This amendment provides for regulations making provision regarding taxis and private hire vehicles in Scotland and Northern Ireland to be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.
Amendment 38, in clause 53, page 44, line 39, after “State” insert
‘or the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster’.
See the explanatory statement for amendment 37.
Amendment 39, in clause 53, page 44, line 42, after “State” insert
‘or the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster’.—(James Brokenshire.)
See the explanatory statement for amendment 37.
Clause 53, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 54
Commencement
Keir Starmer
To clarify, Mr Owen, I will not move amendments 221 and 77, but I will move amendment 70.
Amendment proposed: 70, in clause 54, page 45, line 11, at end insert
‘(4A) Section 12 shall not come into force before 1 January 2018.’. —(Keir Starmer.)
This amendment would defer the implementation of Clause 12 until January 2018.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The Committee proceeded to a Division.
The Chair
The ayes were six and the noes were eight, so the ayes have it—I beg your pardon, the noes have it.
James Brokenshire
On a point of order, Mr Owen, before we reach the formal conclusion of the Committee with the final motion for our consideration, I very much thank you and your co-Chair, Mr Bone, for the manner in which you have chaired our deliberations. At times you have provided us with sage advice on procedure and the conduct of our consideration of the Bill, so I thank both of you for the exemplary way in which you fulfilled your duties. You will have been ably assisted by the Clerks in so doing, so on behalf of the Committee I underline our thanks to them and all the officials. That support has ensured that our proceedings have always been in order and that we have conducted our business appropriately, so I extend those thanks.
I also extend thanks to the officers of the Official Report. They have ensured that our words have been faithfully replicated. Those who will consider the Bill as it passes to Report and onwards will know that our deliberations and debates have been appropriately and faithfully recorded. I also thank the Doorkeepers and all those who have kept us safe and secure throughout our consideration of the Bill.
On the Government side, I thank my officials and the Bill team for all the support they have provided to me and the Solicitor General during our debates and discussions. I also thank the parliamentary draftsmen for the expert advice that that team has given in the preparation and drafting of the Bill, as well as on some of the more technical amendments that we have laid. I also thank the Solicitor General for the support that he has given, for all his sage interventions and for leading on particular parts of the Bill.
I also thank the Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Dover, for always ensuring that we are conducting our proceedings appropriately and for moving to adjourn at the end of the day. I also thank my Parliamentary Private Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley, for his support, and all Members on the Government side.
Keir Starmer
On a point of order, Mr Owen, I join the Minister in thanking so many members of the teams. In particular, I thank you and Mr Bone, for chairing these proceedings. It has been invaluable to me, in particular, going through such a process for the first time, and has ensured that we have got through quite difficult, technical business in an efficient way which has provided the safeguards that this process is intended to provide. We are all very grateful for that.
I extend my gratitude to the Clerks, who have helped not only in the proceedings themselves but in the preparation as well, and have ensured that we have gone through this process in the best possible way, and to all the support staff, in whatever capacity, both in this Room and sitting behind both teams. The support may be different and perhaps more luxurious on the other side, but that support is vital for both sides, to enable issues to be untangled where they can be untangled quickly and to allow probing, testing and challenge. The process has been useful.
I have had some difficult briefs in my time. In terms of the likelihood of ever winning a single vote, this goes down as one of the most difficult. I thought for one brief moment that we might just have sealed one vote a moment ago, but that was not to be. That is a reflection on the process, but I thank the Minister and the Solicitor General for the way they have dealt with our questions, the information they have provided and the assurances they have given on issues that are of real concern, not only in the Committee but to many people outside who will be affected by the Bill. They have willingly written or put on the record their position where they have agreed to meet our concerns, and we are grateful for that.
Perhaps we should add our thanks to the witnesses who came and gave their time and their evidence to the Committee, both orally and in writing.
Anne McLaughlin
On a point of order, Mr Owen, I am beginning to feel a bit sorry for Mr Bone, because this is twice you have had this. Perhaps you have engineered it this way. I add my thanks, on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North and myself, to everyone involved. This is obviously our first time on a Public Bill Committee. I was a Member of the Scottish Parliament for two years, but I never served on a Bill Committee. I was on the Audit Committee and the Petitions Committee, so this is completely new to me. As well as the Clerks, colleagues in the Labour party have been so helpful and generous. Our own researchers have been really good.
I will always remember my first experience on a Bill Committee as being a little like ceilidh dancing in that you work out exactly what you are doing just as the music stops. I am desperate for my next Bill Committee, because it has all now clicked into place.
It is not often that I have anything positive to say about Members on the Government Benches. [Hon. Members: “Oh!] They bring it on themselves. While the entire Bill is wrong and everything they said is wrong, the way in which it was said was respectful and the responses were comprehensive. While I completely disagree with everything that is being done, I thank Government Members, particularly the two Ministers. It was helpful and useful to have them here, and everything was done respectfully. However, I was worried when the Minister for Immigration said that it had been a measured debate, because I feel like I have not done my job properly.
Finally, I thank all the stakeholders and witnesses, who were incredible. I have read some of the really interesting evidence again, and they advised us and suggested amendments and taught me so much. I am looking forward to my next Bill Committee because of my experience here. I just want to thank everyone again and to thank my mum. I will sit down now.
The Chair
I am grateful. The last three contributions are known as bogus points of order, but they have been accepted and will be recorded because they were so eloquent. I want to echo what has been said and to say that we deal with serious matters in such Committees, but we have done so in a way that is a credit to Parliament. I am grateful to both Front-Bench and Back-Bench Members for their contributions. I also want to single out the Clerks for their excellent preparatory work before our meetings.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill, as amended, accordingly to be reported.
Housing and Planning Bill (Third sitting)
(9 years, 1 month ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Chair
I welcome you all to the third oral evidence session of the Housing and Planning Bill Committee. I am particularly glad to welcome our four witnesses today, from the Chartered Institute of Housing, the Planning Officers Society, the Royal Town Planning Institute and the Town and Country Planning Association. Perhaps you would be kind enough to introduce yourselves for the sake of the record.
Trudi Elliott: I am Trudi Elliott, the chief executive of the Royal Town Planning Institute.
Dr Hugh Ellis: I am Dr Hugh Ellis, head of policy at the Town and Country Planning Association.
Mike Kiely: I am Mike Kiely, chair of the Planning Officers Society.
Terrie Alafat: I am Terrie Alafat, chief executive of the Chartered Institute of Housing.
The Chair
Thank you all for coming. We have until 10.15 am—45 minutes, or thereabouts—to hear your evidence.
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
Q 224224 We know we need to build more homes, and I think that there is a broad consensus that we need to build homes across all tenures to meet the demand. Can you give us your view as to whether the Bill as a whole will increase the supply of housing across all tenures? Specifically on starter homes, what do you think the consequences for affordable housing will be? Do you think there is a risk that starter homes will crowd out other forms of affordable housing?
The Chair
Answer as you will, but all four of you do not have to answer every question.
Trudi Elliott: We commend the Government, and indeed all parties, for their commitment to solving the housing crisis, which is one of our big national challenges. We have not done a detailed analysis of the implications of each of the clauses. We have seen the impact assessment, and certainly the aspiration is that the Bill as a whole will improve supply. Having said that, from our members’ perspective, a lot of the challenges of housing delivery are outside the issues in the Bill, including access to finance and a skills shortage right through the supply chain. We are in a position now where, as a result of previous changes, planning permissions per year are up to 242,000, whereas completions or starts have got up to only between 131,000 and 133,000. So it is the other stuff in the system that will help us to deliver homes that we have to focus on.
I also have to say that there is a massive challenge in local government regarding resourcing in planning. We have recently instructed Arup to undertake a review of all the authorities in the north-west, which is a microcosm of the country. There has been a 37% cut in resource going into planning, particularly development management. Although the officers have managed to keep the statutory targets on target—the granting of permission—there is an impact on both pre-application work and post-planning permission work. Arup summed up the situation to us as being that the system is being kept going on the good will and integrity of planning officers, and that is not sustainable in the future. We have to work collaboratively with local government, Government and the profession to look at how we can address this resource challenge. One of our concerns about the Bill is that we need to ensure that it does not inadvertently increase the burden on local authorities either through complexity or additional demands that are not resourced.
In terms of starter homes, 100 years of planning has demonstrated to us that what successful places need is a range of tenure and homes. We absolutely understand and commend the Government’s concern about home ownership. It is a massive aspiration in this country, and the number of people owning their home has gone down. But from the way the starter home provisions in the Bill look as if they are going to be constructed, they have the potential to squeeze out other forms of affordable housing. If the regulations are too rigid, they could reduce the flexibility of local authorities and reduce finance. So in the implementation of starter home provision, we urge the sort of flexibility that enables local authorities and developers to generate mixed communities and ensure that as many schemes as possible are viable and have, both in the long term and short term, a mix of housing tenure.
Matthew Pennycook
It would be nice to hear from the other witnesses as well, if we have time.
Dr Hugh Ellis: Very quickly, our biggest concern about starter homes is simply the fact that they are not affordable. In many areas, particularly rural areas, the affordability gap between 80% market prices and lowest quartile median income is very stark. We are creating a new powerful legal duty in planning—the first one on housing—that is very much focused on a particular tenure that is not affordable to many people on medium and low incomes. That is a significant issue.
The second issue is more general. Briefly, the Bill is a missed opportunity. This is a nation that pioneered place making for new and renewed communities, at scale, very effectively in the post-war era and has gone on doing that. However, the Bill does not get at the heart of housing delivery. It does not challenge the dominant housing model, which has largely failed, particularly in England. Nor does it deal with things like the objectives for place making or high quality standards, particularly compulsory purchase issues, nor does it create a framework, for example, for garden cities, which this nation pioneered and of which it should be justly proud.
So there is a great sense of a missed opportunity in the Bill. The tools are at our hands, and the evidence, advice and resources are well developed to put forward a programme that could put us into the delivery of the post-war totals—300,000 to 350,000 homes a year. But that can only be done by recognising that planning is a powerful solution to housing and place making, and is not the problem.
Mike Kiely: I agree with what colleagues have said. We have a significant housing crisis, and we need to use all the tools at our disposal. I think a number of elements are missing from the Bill. There are sites out there that are not coming forward, and local authorities need the ability to unlock those sites. The compulsory purchase provisions in the Bill are welcome, but they do not go far enough to enable us to CPO sites that are capable of being developed for housing, but where the landowner is sitting on those sites and speculating on their increasing value.
The other area that is missing, if you look at other more successful cities in Europe and America, is the private rented sector. For some reason that does not fly in this country. The money is out there willing to invest in the private rented sector, but we need to try to unlock it.
My final point is that it is important to assist the bringing forward of affordable housing through varying subsidy means, but subsidising starter homes by 20% for just five years and then allowing that person effectively to get a 25% windfall is very short-sighted. That money will go into the housing system and will inflate housing prices further because it is additional capital that will be at the disposal of people to buy homes, and that will drive up prices. The homes are not affordable to start with, and then they make housing in general less affordable because of the increase in capital going into the system.
Terrie Alafat: We also find that the focus on building new homes is positive, and we support all the measures that try to ensure that the planning system enables more house building. We also support the ambition to improve access to home ownership, but it is fair to say that we are a bit concerned that starter homes may crowd out both more affordable rented accommodation and shared ownership. We think starter homes are positive—it is another product for the housing market. We know that we need a variety of products for people on different incomes and with different aspirations, but we also find that that particular product will only be able to help a certain group in the population.
Savills did some research that showed that a normal couple on a median income would struggle to afford a starter home in 48% of local authority areas, and only about 10% could afford a home in London. So we think this should be an addition to the housing supply, not instead of.
Finally, it is important to look at the affordable rented sector. We support measures to increase the private rented sector, but we have done some analysis to look, within current policies, at the loss of the social rented sector between now and 2020. We looked at existing stock, at existing policies around the shift to affordable rent, at right-to-buy projections—these are all projections—and we could see a loss of about 400,000 units at social rent.
So we would say we are quite supportive. We are looking forward to seeing the detail on section 106 and how that will operate in practice. We suggest there should be as much flexibility as possible at a local level to be able to look at local housing needs, to make certain that they get the right mix of provision on the sites they develop for housing.
Matthew Pennycook
Q 225 We know that effective place making requires decent infrastructure. Do you have concerns, if starter homes are exempt from the community infrastructure levy, that the necessary infrastructure to build sustainable communities will not be there?
Mike Kiely: Almost certainly. It seems an odd public policy to take money away from necessary infrastructure and subsidise a five-year reduction, and then that individual gets the benefit of that public subsidy. When you set your CIL, there is always a huge gap between the moneys that you can bring in through section 106 and CIL and the necessary infrastructure bill. It is always a challenge to provide the infrastructure, and we need to try and get as much money as we can into the public purse to deliver that supportive infrastructure. This will clearly reduce that, and will mean we are less able to provide the schools, highway improvements or whatever that facilitate the functioning of communities. It will be harder for us to do that.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
Q 226 Ms Alafat, you mentioned in your submission the need for local planning and development teams to have more resources. Do you not feel that the changes contained in the Bill on the planning system—to require a local plan by 2017, to make time timely decisions, and on planning in principle—will effectively ensure that local authorities properly provide the resources for their planning departments and prioritise that to ensure economic development?
Terrie Alafat: As Trudi has already mentioned, the reality is that local authority planning departments have been under significant pressure already. It is worth thinking about the implementation of this, given how important planning is, to try to make certain that we have the right resources at local level, but also the right skills. I think that is an important implementation issue. In terms of the Housing and Planning Bill, there are other very good measures being taken—for example, in the private rented sector—that require local authorities to do more on enforcement, but we need to look at the resourcing of that as well.
Kevin Hollinrake
Q 227 You would accept, then, that local authorities will need to look in more detail at this and prioritise resources in planning departments as a result of the changes.
Terrie Alafat: I think that if we are trying to engage local authorities to support house building, we need to give them the tools to do that, but we also need to look at the resourcing issues.
Kevin Hollinrake
Q 228 That is a matter for them to prioritise, isn’t it? Some local authorities have reduced resources within their planning departments back to 50%.
Terrie Alafat: Yes, they have.
Kevin Hollinrake
That cannot be right. The developers we speak to every single day speak of their frustration with planning systems, because those departments are not properly resourced.
Terrie Alafat: Obviously, these are local decisions. Local authorities have to look at their prioritisation across their statutory duties. I am not in a position to decide that for local authorities, but it is fair to say that if housing growth is a priority for the country, we need to look at how to do that with the involvement of local authorities, which have an important role to play. It is interesting that on some of the other proposals in the Bill—pay to stay and the selling off of high-value stock—the funding is going to be taken back by central Government. It is worth asking in the round whether we are giving local authorities the tools and resources to deliver this.
Kevin Hollinrake
Q 229 Dr Ellis, you referred to the changes in the planning processes as radical. Would you expand on that?
Dr Hugh Ellis: The most radical change in the Bill, I guess, is the end of English discretionary planning. The powers in the Bill on permission in principle are extraordinary. They apply to all land and all forms of development contained in the appropriate documents, which is all development plans. There has been a very strong narrative that this will only apply to housing, and only to a small number of houses, but the permission in principle idea, which is as close to zonal planning as we have got in this country, gives the Government the power at any time to introduce it to all forms of development. For example, fracking could easily be a part of it in a minerals plan.
What really puzzles me is, if you want to use this power in a restricted, focused way, why create such an extraordinary level of change in the plan? To give you an idea, the English discretionary planning system was developed in response to zonal planning. It was meant to be more flexible, particularly for the private sector, and more democratic. The zonal planning systems in the US have been extremely problematic. They have been in the Supreme Court 25 times since 1920 because of their explicit use for racist purposes. If you are going to introduce zonal planning, you really have to be careful about how you do it. A White Paper or a Green Paper would have been great.
Discretionary planning and zonal planning are two different cultures and two different systems, and the Bill does not work out how they will mesh together. If you try to drive those two cultures and systems together without an awful lot of forethought, you have a major problem. The balance between permission in principle in the plan and the technical detail later on is important, and the Bill makes it clear that you have to approve the technical detail in accordance. We have created a very, very powerful new mechanism.
The TCPA, looking at 120 years-worth of European and international planning, sees it as a fundamental change. There is nothing wrong with fundamental change, so long as it is carefully worked through so that the issues of local democracy, sustainable development and high-quality outcomes are secured, but we cannot see that any of those critical issues have been fully considered or worked out in this Bill process.
Kevin Hollinrake
Q 230 But local plans and neighbourhood plans have been through a democratic process.
Dr Hugh Ellis: They have been through a democratic process, but at the moment there are two bites of that democracy: there is the democratic process that says that there is a plan allocation, and then there is a second process that says that a planning application comes in on the detail, and you have a right over that as well. That is the two-stage process we have at the moment. If you want to change that, that is fine, but it is a significant democratic change.
The most important issue is a fundamental planning principle that has not been discussed, which is that the detail and the general principle are intimately related. Anyone who does planning will tell you that you cannot make a decision in principle about a site until you know the detail of its flood risk appraisal and the degree of affordable housing you want on the site. To try to split principle and detail as if they are not connected in reality is extremely dangerous. Understanding the principle of a site means you have to understand the detail of its implications.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
Q 231 You have already touched on some of the issues I was going to ask about. I want to come back to the issue of place making. As representatives of the planning profession—I was once a planner myself—you know that planners try to secure the best possible place making outcomes across all types of planning decision making. Can you comment in broad terms, but perhaps with some detailed examples, on the implications of the Bill for the ability of planning to deliver high-quality places? What consequences might we see in future as a result of the Bill?
Trudi Elliott: I suppose one of the challenges with the Bill is the amount of detail that is going to be covered by the regulations. For example, we think that if permission in principle is going to work with a local authority’s place-making and plan-making function, an amendment to clause 102 would probably be the way to go. If you limited the qualifying documents to the development plan and the register, and if you limited that to the brownfield register, you have a fighting chance of making this mini-system within a system work within the overall place-making agenda.
As Hugh has outlined, not all brownfield is the same. Part of the reason why brownfield land has not been developed is the constraints of the site. The Government have been looking at the criteria to address that. We think accessibility needs to be added to the proposed criteria—it is a massive issue for place making.
If we do not link homes to jobs, we really are in a difficult situation. The other challenge we have on place making is linking up homes, jobs and the infrastructure required and when that infrastructure goes in. There are places in the Bill where that challenge is acknowledged. One thing we may need to look at is mechanisms outside the scope of the Bill on getting more resourcing into infrastructure, because the more infrastructure we can have, the more sites we can unlock. We are doing work with a number of organisations from Adam Smith to Shelter on land value capture and how we can generate more resource in the system for the necessary infrastructure that creates great places.
Dr Hugh Ellis: One brief example in the Bill on place making is changes to urban development corporations. The development corporation model is extremely powerful. There are procedural changes to the way in which we designate urban development corporations, but nothing to secure high-quality outcomes on the corporations themselves—no obligations on place making or quality. Starter homes are another clear example.
The interesting thing is that England is falling very badly behind, both on individual building standards and building techniques in terms of innovation and on the wider project of place making. Internationally, many other cities and countries are doing much better. The reason is that they set democratically very high standards for their industry to achieve. Plainly, with the loss of things like zero carbon and other standards, we have set that process in reverse. There is an opportunity in the Bill, a significant one, to make clear that the achievement of housing growth is both about numbers, particularly for those people most in need, and also about inclusive places and strong place-making standards. That is the English tradition—that is how we built garden cities and how we achieve Letchworth. We achieve Letchworth through very strong planning.
Mike Kiely: I want to touch on two things. One is the nationally significant infrastructure projects. The Government are introducing the ability for an element of housing to be provided—we accept that and it is sensible—where it is functionally related to the infrastructure project. The caretaker’s house is the example, although you cannot have one of those now and it is a nonsense. Another example would be Sizewell B, where the workers’ accommodation will be converted to housing later. That is fine, but there is this “next to or close to” test, which suggests that housing—up to 500 units is suggested—completely unrelated to the nationally significant infrastructure project can be given consent just because it is nearby. I heard that they were talking, or thinking, about fairly significant distances, not close proximity. We are not saying no to including housing in NSIPs, but if we are going to include it, let us have a proper debate about it. The measure seems to be a bit of a fudge and that part of the proposal should be reconsidered.
Permission in principle is a potentially good idea that is in danger of going off the rails. It would be wrong if we see it as a move to a sort of zoning principle, for all the reasons that Hugh has given. It is a fundamentally different way of going about things. It has its origins in complaints largely from small house builders that the outline application process has become burdensome. It has become burdensome because of myriad changes to the planning system over many years, many of which come from Europe. That makes the process more complicated. An outline application is complicated because it produces a planning permission that has conditions attached to it. That is the only point in time at which the authority gets to put conditions on that consent, and therefore it has to look into the matters behind those conditions. That is what drives the complexity. The idea of separating the permission from the conditions was the origin of the proposal, but the measures in the Bill on converting allocations and allocations that go down to five units is a massive additional burden on local authorities.
The people who drafted the Bill have misread the national planning policy framework. On when a strategic housing land availability assessment needs to be produced, it talks of looking at sites larger than 0.25 hectares that are capable of taking at least five units. The threshold is a quarter of a hectare, not five units. In London, that will more than double the amount of work that local planning authorities will have to do on their SHLAAs. I urge you to read carefully your own definition in the NPPF, and use that in the Bill rather than what is in there at the moment. Frankly, every site in London is capable of taking five units, and producing the register would be an impossible burden. If the threshold is at 0.25 hectares, that is manageable. We are doing that work already and we can easily convert it.
The Chair
Can I try to hasten us along a little bit? We have taken 25 minutes so far, and we still need to take questions. That is a slow rate of progress. We might try to make questions and answers quicker.
Helen Hayes
Q 232 I have one more quick question. Could you comment on the implications of the Bill for the involvement of local communities in the planning process?
The Chair
Not everyone need answer.
Trudi Elliott: We think that that is a problem with the permission in principle, unless you make the amendment we suggest. Some of the documents referred to currently as potentially in scope do not have the same consultation mechanism. Therefore, either the Bill has to introduce a consultation mechanism, or it needs to limit the qualifying documents to those that have proper public consultation. That is the route we would recommend.
Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)
Q 233 The regulations in the previous Parliament allowing developers to challenge section 106 agreements freed up capacity and new build on dormant sites. Do you not agree that there is a case to be made that starter homes will do the same for marginal, brownfield sites under these proposals?
Trudi Elliott: I think any new model must be helpful in terms of giving greater flexibility and potential. It has the potential. I suppose that what we need to avoid is the unintended consequence when something that is potential to somebody could adversely affect either the flexibility of a local authority or the viability of other sites for other developers. I would urge greater flexibility in the implementation of the starter homes and less prescription about percentages, for example. What we know is that the more prescription there is around some of these things, the less flexibility there is for sensible deals to be done between local authorities, developers and communities to get things delivered.
Mr Jackson
Q 234 It is therefore fair to say that, unless a site that is developed is 100% starter homes, the idea that no infrastructure will be developed is not the case. Another example from recent history is the affordable rent regime, which released extra funding to go back into community facilities infrastructure, along with other tenures. Surely that is the point. There will still be mixed-tenure facilities or developments, but an element of them will consist of starter homes.
Trudi Elliott: Yes, and what we are saying is that we should not prescribe what that element should be. We are saying: give more flexibility to local authorities and developers about what will make a scheme stack up financially and deliver that sort of mixed community. What you do not want is a prescribed percentage of starter homes that can then squeeze out other forms of housing, particularly affordable housing.
Mr Jackson
You said “can” rather than “will”.
Trudi Elliott: Exactly: it can squeeze it out. That is why I am saying that you need flexibility in relation to individual sites and schemes.
Mr Jackson
Q 235 Dr Ellis, first, I have to say that I think it is pretty risible to compare the proposals in this legislation with Supreme Court challenges to US zoning policy based on racism. That is a ridiculous comment to make, frankly. Can I specifically ask you to concede that one reason why this is quite a strong piece of legislation in terms of direct intervention from the Secretary of State is the failure over a long period of local planning authorities to produce development plans in a timely and expeditious manner? You did not mention that at all in your evidence.
Dr Hugh Ellis: You didn’t ask me.
Mr Jackson
You didn’t volunteer it either.
Dr Hugh Ellis: It is certainly not risible. The Minister, in evidence to the Select Committee on 7 September, was asked about the American and US zonal planning system and said it was an interesting example. My point is that the emphasis is entirely on the Government. If you want to make radical changes to the English planning system, that is of course your democratic right, but you have to be clear and transparent and you also have to have done the work to understand the implications.
The point about zonal planning is that it has major implications across the world. There are successful models in the Netherlands and there are deeply unsuccessful models in the United States. The literature is there and the Department should know that stuff. There is very powerful literature about the impact. I would strongly advise the Committee to look at the equalities impact assessment for the Bill and to ask officials how much work they did in comparing other zonal planning systems across the world in relation to those implications. It is important because we are trying to deliver mixed communities that benefit people in the round. That is the key objective of planning. That means that whatever system we introduce, we have to be absolutely clear about what those implications are for social justice.
In relation to your question about the degree to which plans have been delivered across England, yes, the performance has been pretty poor. That is absolutely true. The question is how we can speed that up. When you get down to the root cause of what those problems are, they are very often, for example, issues around the lack of strategic planning such as how we deal most effectively with strategic housing growth in the south-east. That means that England must have effective strategic planning. The one thing that we have done in the last six years is abolish that framework. That was a profound mistake.
Mr Jackson
No, it didn’t work. Regional spatial strategies did not work.
Dr Hugh Ellis: They worked well—
Mr Jackson
They didn’t work.
Dr Hugh Ellis: They worked by understanding that there were multiple housing pressures and by dealing with those pressures strategically, making sure that housing growth was linked to where infrastructure was provided and where environmental constraints, for example, provided opportunities. That framework was very important. As we move forward, we need to think about how we can best deal strategically with housing growth. Otherwise, what happens is that communities get extremely pressured in ways that they cannot deal with. They need that strategic support to make truly sustainable places.
Mr Jackson
Q 236 What I would say, to put it on the record, is that regional spatial strategies delivered the lowest number of homes since 1923 in the last year that they were fully operational before the coalition Government.
I want to move on to the evidence from the Chartered Institute of Housing. Can I ask about this figure of 48%? It is a rather confusing figure. I am always slightly surprised when I see in evidence the phrase “areas north of the midlands”. That doesn’t really specify where that is. What is it 48% of? Is it 48% of population? Have you published the data?
Terrie Alafat: Can I just explain? The data that I referred to are from work that Savills has done. Something came out just this week as well. Savills has been doing an analysis of housing markets across the country—it is not CIH research; it is Savills research. Obviously, I could send the Committee the link to the research. It looks at couples—not individuals—on a median income, so therefore you could have two working people or one working person, and at the 20% discount on house prices in country as a whole. Forty-eight per cent. of local authority areas would struggle. That is not saying “just north of the midlands” or whatever. Savills has produced maps that show that. It is its market analysis. Of course, in London, as we know, house prices are higher. As with a lot of this research, that just gives an indication. One would have to look in detail at any specific area to see how it plays out, but it at least raises the question of starter homes being the answer to home ownership. The only point we are trying to make is that we do not want it to be the only focus in terms of meeting people’s needs. It will mean that some individuals will get access to the housing market through starter homes, and that is a good thing. Indeed, if that means that it frees up more sites and brings more land in for housing, that is all very good because it adds to supply.
The point is that we should recognise that it will not be the only answer. If you start looking at some of the shared ownership products, for example, which have been here for quite a long time—we are hoping there will be more because I think the sector is interested in expanding them—in some parts of the country, they will often be available for high-value property for people on lower income but who still want to get into home ownership. There are always, at any time in any developed nation, a proportion of the population—I have seen different estimates—who cannot afford home ownership at that point. Then you start looking at rented sector and alternatives. That is the only point we are trying to make.
Mr Jackson
Q 237 You are inviting the Committee to conclude that the 20% discount on the market price is affordable on only 52% of transactions and purchases in the country—you are using local authority areas—and that on 48% it is completely unaffordable. I would challenge you on that, because I do not think that is true.
Terrie Alafat: Again, this is looking across the country at couples on median income. It is being used simply to raise the issue of recognising that it is not going to be the answer across the country in all areas to home ownership. That is the point we are making.
Mr Jackson
Q 238 You are not raising the issue. You oppose the policy, effectively, because of the evidence that you pray in aid from Savills.
Terrie Alafat: No, we do not oppose the policy. I have made it clear that we do not oppose the policy.
The Chair
We should probably move on. I should perhaps remind you that the witnesses are here better to inform the Committee, rather than necessarily agree with us. That is an important thing to remember. I call the shadow Minister, Roberta Blackman-Woods.
Dr Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)
Q 239 There seems to be a supposition underpinning some of the clauses in part 6 that the reason we are not building enough homes in this country is that planning departments are too slow. Do you agree with that supposition? What do you think could be done to improve the planning system, without bypassing local communities in that decision-making process, as the Bill suggests?
Trudi Elliott: As I said, we commissioned Arup to look at this issue in the north-west. They looked at all types of authority in the north-west. They concluded that, where there were statutory targets, local authorities’ performance, despite the cuts, had actually improved. We are getting planning permissions through the system quicker and the absolute number of planning permissions has gone up—we are now at 242,000.
What they identified is the crisis in resourcing in planning departments. I acknowledge the comments of one of the Committee Members that this is a matter for local authorities to determine, but the reality is that the crisis in resourcing is impacting on speed in two areas. It is impacting on pre-application discussions, particularly where there is no agreement with an individual developer. They are also impacting on post-grant planning permission matters—the negotiation of section 106 conditions and so on—because there are simply not enough people, and not just in the planning department, because there are associated challenges in legal departments and the need for legal input into some of those issues.
The swiftest way to speed up the system would be for us collectively to ensure that there were sufficient resources in local government planning departments to work the system. What we have got at the moment is a system that requires a level of resourcing in local authorities that they have not got.
They are also having difficulty retaining and recruiting staff. That is something we are trying to address in terms of the overall supply of qualified planners. It is now one of the top five professions for getting a graduate job, so we are doing our bit at that end, but local authorities are having difficulty recruiting and retaining. That is partly because it is less attractive there. It is not just about salaries; it is about whether you pay your professional subscriptions, continuing professional development and all of that. The quickest way to improve the system is to get more resource into local planning authorities. Every one of my members, 50% of whom are in the private sector and are trying to get developments done, will tell you that that is the quickest way to speed up the system.
The Chair
Can I encourage everyone to be as brief as you can? We have 10 minutes left and quite a lot of questions still to go. Can we have brief questions and answers, please?
Mike Kiely: On the resourcing of planning departments, we have been here before. When we came out of the previous recession, we were not in the realms of severe cuts to local government. The planning sector was able to gear up with help from the Government, which had a bursary system to meet that challenge. It is a cyclical industry, and we regularly go through cycles and do not learn the lessons.
There are things that the Government can do to increase resources in planning. The development sector and the British Property Federation are lobbying you to increase fees or give us the ability to increase fees for development management work, and that needs to happen urgently. It varies a lot, but on average the fees cover only between two thirds and three quarters of our costs.
Outside London, some of the local planning authorities are quite small, and I question whether they are viable as local planning departments and whether they are able to do the development planning work. That area also needs to be looked at. Authorities combine, but only at the officer level. There is a limit to their efficiencies if they still have to manage 120 or 180 members because they are not combined at the political level. There are things that can be done to improve the effectiveness and resourcing of planning departments.
Dr Blackman-Woods
Q 240 I have a brief follow-up question. The Government’s preferred development model seems to be urban development corporations. We are being asked to pass legislation that will enable them to come through the Houses on a negative instrument. Do you think that is a good model, and should we be doing more to make UDCs locally controlled?
Dr Hugh Ellis: The development corporation model can be successful, but it is interesting that UDCs, compared with new town development corporations, have much less opportunity for public involvement, particularly on the designation process. New town development corporations were designated only after a local public inquiry, which seems to us to be very important. The UDC model is designed for smaller scale regeneration.
The point we will go on making is that development corporations were the great legacy we gave to the world to deliver new places. They were the positive part of planning in the post-war settlement, and they were really effective. They are a great vehicle, if they are delivered in the right way and to the right standards, for boosting housing supply, but they need other things. You need a national spatial vision for England, and you need to be able to join demographics and housing infrastructure. One of the most extraordinary things about this nation is our complete inability to join major transport infrastructure with demographic change. There is no overview of England in that sense, which leads to much more unsustainable outcomes for people, the environment and, ironically, the economy.
It is a great shame that the most effective tools—this is about the tools in the toolbox—for delivering high-quality new places, particularly in relation to harnessing land tax effectively, were the new town development corporations, which were locally led. Buckinghamshire asked for the designation for Milton Keynes in the 1960s. It was not imposed on them—that was news to me and is fascinating. It was worried about piecemeal, badly serviced development all over the county, so it undertook a study and asked the Government at the time for the designation.
That is the choice that England faces. It either faces 340 small authorities attempting to do this in a fragmented way, or it seeks the support of proper, strategic approaches. It is not an imposition, but a recognition that the geography of England is really—
Seema Kennedy (South Ribble) (Con)
Q 241 Dr Ellis, can I quickly go back to your written evidence? Is all your analysis through the prism of the 1947 Act, the nationalisation of development rights and all those things? Is that the gold standard by which you work?
Dr Hugh Ellis: At the time, it was certainly the best way of settling the key arguments about how to control land in the public interest. We represented them in our evidence only because we are struggling to see what the underlying principles in the Bill are based on for this reform package. We are looking for a standard to which you can go back and say, “That’s the kind of planning system we want.” I do not understand from the Bill what our planning system will look like in 2020, how it will fit together strategically and locally, and what people’s rights will be.
Given that we have not had consolidated planning legislation since 1990, which is a long time ago, our planning legislation is extraordinarily complicated. The TCPA is advocating, yes, by all means, let us have change, but let us base it on clear transparent principles: local democracy, the idea of comprehensive planning and high place-making standards. That 1947 settlement was interesting because it was cross-party, particularly driven by solving the land tax problem. That seems interesting to us.
Seema Kennedy
Q 242 Would you accept, though, that the world has moved on? The nationalisation of planning has not really worked now. Up until 2010 the number of houses it was delivering, in the light of the 1990 Act, was too low and there needed to be radical change.
Dr Hugh Ellis: I do, but that was 1990. The 1947 Act and the New Towns Act 1946 delivered at the peak almost 400,000 units a year. That was delivered through effective planning. All that we are suggesting, given the age of our organisation, is that there are some important lessons that we need to learn from the past. I think the last 20 years of planning reform have all sorts of problems, so you are quite right. We are arguing for a comprehensive reassessment, if that is what we want, of planning. We are arguing against walking blindfolded into a new planning framework where these issues have not properly been discussed.
Teresa Pearce (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)
Q 243 Ms Alafat, reading through your evidence, you do not seem confident that one-for-one replacement of right to buy is likely to happen. What are your views on the fact that replacement, if it does happen, does not need to be in the same area? What effect do you think that would have?
Terrie Alafat: To clarify the position on one-for-one replacement, we did some interim analysis a couple of months ago. That was, of course, based on what we knew in the policy as it was evolving. In particular, the definition of high value and how that will work in practice has an effect in the receipts that would be delivered.
Our early analysis showed that if you looked at a higher-end estimate, the receipts would probably be just enough on the estimates for the right to buy. We were more concerned about the replacement of the local authority housing stock as well. More work needs to be done. We are keen that Government work on the definition and consulting. That is quite positive because that is really important.
The reality is that when you look at the numbers—the receipts that will be generated across the country and where, given the high value, with that definitional issue—there is no doubt that there will be higher receipts in areas such as London and parts of the south-east. The receipts generated in some other parts of the country will probably not be enough to replace in the local area. There will be a whole issue about how the funding is apportioned to deliver the one-for-one replacements. That is still very much up for discussion and there is obviously a lot of work going on around the implementation of the policy.
Teresa Pearce
Q 244 What do you think the consequences will be for the provision of affordable housing?
Terrie Alafat: Again, there is a whole issue about whether the one-for-one is affordable rent or shared ownership, and that is again under discussion. What I pick up from the housing sector is that quite a number of the housing associations are still very interested in providing social rent and affordable rent. We have to see what the mix will be. We will have to see how this actually works in practice. What does it mean to be high-value? What is the level of receipts? What does it mean for one-for-one across housing associations and local authorities? There is a lot more detail that needs to be worked on.
Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con)
Q 245 Dr Ellis, you mentioned that it was a failed model, and I think many of us would agree with that. Do you think there is anything in current law or in the Bill that would prevent a local authority from taking a more strategic role—you mentioned Letchworth—in relation to land assembly and land capture?
Dr Hugh Ellis: There is not anything that prevents it. The key issue is more about whether it has been enabled. The biggest problem with compulsory purchase and land assembly, which clearly relates to compulsory purchase powers as a last resort, is the compensation code. The compensation code changed radically in 1961.
The Chair
Order. Thank you very much, Dr Ellis. Sorry to interrupt you in mid-flow, but under the rules of the House we have to stop at precisely 10.15 am, when Big Ben chimes. I apologise for that. I thank all four of our witnesses for an extremely interesting and lively session, which I am sure has better informed the Committee. Thank you very much to the witnesses for coming, and for their evidence.
Dr Blackman-Woods
On a point of order, Mr Gray. The witnesses are here to give us evidence. It is really important that we are allowed to hear that evidence from the witnesses, and that their evidence is not crowded out by members of the Committee shouting. I do not think that is a sensible way for us to continue.
The Chair
I am most grateful to the hon. Lady for that point of order. Certainly, if any member of the Committee were shouting, I would be the first to call them to order. I tend to agree with the hon. Lady, because quite frankly, once or twice during that evidence session I felt that we were tending to disagree with our witnesses. It does not matter if we disagree with them; we should not say so. I acknowledge the hon. Lady’s point of order, and certainly, if there were to be any such disturbance I would be the first to come down very heavily indeed on it.
Examination of Witnesses
Shaun Spiers, Duncan Wilson and Duncan McCallum gave evidence.
The Chair
I welcome the next panel. We have half an hour to speak to the Campaign to Protect Rural England and to Historic England. Sadly, one of the CPRE witnesses was unable to make it, I think because of ill health. We wish him a speedy recovery. I am sure that Mr Spiers will do a doubly good job. First, I ask the witnesses to introduce themselves for the record.
Shaun Spiers: I am Shaun Speirs, the chief executive of the Campaign to Protect Rural England. I am a generalist, and the person who is missing is the planner.
Duncan Wilson: I am Duncan Wilson, the chief executive of Historic England.
Duncan McCallum: I am Duncan McCallum, policy director at Historic England.
Dr Blackman-Woods
Q 249 The CPRE has expressed concern that the starter home developments contained in the Bill will crowd out other forms of affordable housing. Clearly, the Minister has said that he thinks local authorities will be able to negotiate for other types of development as well. Will the members of the panel say whether or not they are convinced by that?
Shaun Spiers: No, we are not convinced. We think that it will crowd out other forms of development. The local authority will have a duty to provide starter homes. Local authorities find it hard enough to negotiate section 106 agreements, very often from a position of weakness in which they have to meet extremely high—really, implausibly high—housing numbers. If they have to negotiate starter homes as part of their agreement with developers, it is highly unlikely in many cases that they will also be able to negotiate any truly social or affordable housing.
Duncan Wilson: I am not sure that that question is particularly for us, but more generally, anything that increases pressure on local authority resources is going to make life more difficult for us in arguing the case for the historic environment.
Dr Blackman-Woods
Q 250 The CPRE has also expressed concern about the affordability of starter homes. Do you want to say anything more about that? Do you think the discount should be in perpetuity? Also, do you think that it will deliver more homes for rural areas?
Shaun Spiers: Our concern is particularly about rural affordable housing. The deal between the National Housing Federation and the Government to sell off rural affordable homes, which are affordable in perpetuity, will make it extremely hard to replace those rural homes, because it costs more to build a social house in a village. There is less land available, and there are relatively few specialist advisers. So if you sell the social housing in villages—in four fifths of villages there is no opt-out at all, and in one fifth of villages there is an opt-out but not a full exemption, so some of the larger providers who have only a few rural homes will have an incentive to sell them—it will be extremely difficult to replace those homes. Replacing them with starter homes that can be sold on the open market within five years, and which in any case will cost an average of eight and half times median rural wages—that is median rural wages, not lowest quartile wages—is no substitute.
The question for the Government and the Committee is, are we content to see villages become the preserve only of people who can afford to buy a home, or do we hold by the idea we have all had of villages for centuries, that they are genuinely mixed communities?
Kevin Hollinrake
Q 251 Mr Spiers, on that point, you have obviously read the voluntary agreement between the Secretary of State and the National Housing Federation. It details the fact that housing associations would have discretion not to sell, for example where a property was in a rural area and could not be replaced. Does that ease your concern?
Shaun Spiers: It does not ease it at all, I’m afraid, for two reasons. One is that it is a discretion. Some specialist rural providers, such as Hastoe Housing, which gave evidence to the Committee last week—the chief executive of Hastoe and I are meeting the Minister tomorrow to discuss this point—have said that they will not sell. Other, larger providers, who have a few really high-value properties that are harder for them to maintain, because most of their stock is in urban areas—they might have those properties because of transfers or takeovers over the years—will be quite likely to sell them.
The other thing is that in the agreement between the National Housing Federation and the Government, the definition of “rural” is extremely narrow. It excludes about four fifths of what we would regard as rural areas, and it is almost impossible to get a rural area designated as rural by the Secretary of State under the current agreement. So the Rural Coalition, a group which includes the Campaign to Protect Rural England and the Country Land and Business Association, has proposed a much more comprehensive and much clearer definition of “rural” to the Government, but unfortunately the Government have not so far adopted it.
Kevin Hollinrake
Q 252 I accept that you are keen to get a definition, but as to your point about housing associations, Mr Orr said last week in evidence that housing associations
“do not want to move away from the business of providing housing for people who are in the greatest housing need”. ––[Official Report, Housing and Planning Public Bill Committee, 10 November 2015; c. 37, Q89.]
Why would you feel that they are likely to sell off houses when local communities need them?
Shaun Spiers: I think the whole point is that rural areas are different. Even if you think that all housing associations are still thoroughly motivated by social need—there is a question mark over the ethos of some of the larger housing associations, but even if you accepted that they still had a social mission—it would be quite legitimate for a housing association to say, “We will sell this affordable home in a Cotswold village, where it has got high value, and build two homes in a lower-value area, and that fulfils our social mission”; and so it may. The CPRE is about rural England and about keeping a social mix in villages, and once that house has been sold it will be very difficult to replace it.
Kevin Hollinrake
Q 253 Talking about some of the provisions in the Bill, such as the brownfield register, I know the CPRE has been very keen on providing housing on brownfield sites. How do you think that will play out in future housing development?
Shaun Spiers: We were very pleased to see the brownfield register. There is a statement in the impact assessment that says that we have wildly exaggerated the availability of brownfield sites. We did research with the University of the West of England to show that there was enough suitable brownfield land, most of it already in planning, to provide 975,000 homes, and that that stock is constantly replenished. We do not understand why the impact assessment queries that, because we have never seen any analysis from the Government to query it. That aside, the fact of the brownfield register is a positive thing. It will make smaller sites available for small builders, which is a big need—possibly for self-builders. I think that when the brownfield register is completed it will entirely verify our 1 million figure.
Duncan Wilson: If I might comment on the brownfield register from the Historic England perspective, I should start by saying that we are also in favour of brownfield development, but the national planning policy framework contains a number of checks and balances which we are concerned may be lost, perhaps inadvertently, in whatever process emerges from the brownfield register proposals. That is more about the law of unintended consequences than anything deliberate, but it is not entirely clear in the Bill how it will operate. That may be left to statutory instrument or ministerial statement, but we would like to see it explicit at the outset so that we could be confident that the role we have under the present system to make the case for the historic environment is not entirely bypassed by the brownfield register.
The factors that we normally highlight either need to come into play at the inscription of the site on the register or in the technical detail stage. By calling that stage the technical detail stage, there is an implication that nothing very major can be raised. So we do have some concerns. Let’s take the example of a brownfield site in a conservation area. Our concerns relate to the sensitivity of a development in terms of massing materials or the archaeological implications of developing a brownfield site, which could be missed. They might not be known when permission in principle is granted, but might subsequently become clear. The present system allows some due diligence to take place before final permission is granted. We are concerned that the new system may not allow for that stage.
Helen Hayes
Q 254 Taken in the round, the Bill introduces some fairly substantial reforms to the planning system. Could you comment on the extent to which, in your respective areas of expertise, you think that rural and heritage matters will continue to receive appropriate attention at the appropriate stages in the planning process and whether you have any concerns?
Duncan Wilson: I refer to my previous answer. Our main concerns relate to uncertainty around the brownfield register. We do not believe the present process, at least on our part, is unduly cumbersome. Our turnaround time on planning applications and listed building consent is 99.8% within 21 days, with an average turnaround of 12 days. From our perspective, I am not sure the proposals are shooting at the right target. We acknowledge that local authorities are very stretched, and we have been doing our best to make up for those deficiencies with additional training and support for planning departments, but realistically it is a much bigger problem than we can address. There at least needs to be some acknowledgment of that, as well as a streamlined process.
Helen Hayes
Q 255 On the concern about permission in principle and technical details, what would be an appropriate balance of heritage-related inputs at each of the two stages of the proposed new process?
Duncan Wilson: The problem with permission in principle is that the present system allows for reserved matters that can be resolved further down the line. We are not sure that the provisions of the brownfield register would effectively do that. In effect, we are comparing it with outline planning permission and detailed planning permission. It seems from the way in which the brownfield register has been talked about that there is not much you can do once you have given permission on the brownfield register for the site to be developed, in terms of conditional clauses relating to archaeological investigation or perhaps some fairly fundamental design points. It is a question of clarifying where that comes into play and whether it can come into play before inscription on the register.
We would not want whole categories of site not to be inscribed on the register because these factors have not been sufficiently examined. The issue is more about how it will work in practice, which can be sorted out. Our starting point is that brownfield development is a good thing, provided that it is reasonably sensitively designed where that is an important factor.
Duncan McCallum: Some sort of light-touch desk-based assessment to cover that and spot the things you cannot see immediately may be a way around that. It would give some reassurance that any development that takes place on that site is going to be satisfactory and, most importantly, that there are not going to be any unexpected discoveries. Obviously you cannot predict everything that might turn up, but it would give some reassurance that you are unlikely to find anything of great value on the site, so the development can go ahead.
The Chair
The CPRE wants to get a word in edgeways. Mr Spiers, please go ahead.
Shaun Spiers: On permission in principle, we noted in our evidence that we are concerned that it might complicate matters rather than make them more straightforward, but that can be worked through. The overriding view is that the brownfield register is positive and will relieve rural areas from inappropriate development—urban sprawl and so on. Obviously we do not want brownfield land of high heritage or environmental value to be developed, but that should not end up on the register.
I have emphasised my point about the right to buy, but one other point on that is that the Government and the National Housing Federation set a great deal of store by covenants. They say that housing on rural exception sites will not be sold off because it is protected by covenants, but we are concerned that those covenants might not be sufficiently strong and could be subject to challenge. If we do not want housing on rural exception sites to be sold off now or in future, but the Government are not prepared to give a full rural exemption, it would be good to have a total rural exemption for housing built on rural exception sites now or in future, because we know that landowners will not sell housing at a discount or gift housing for affordable homes if they are not affordable in perpetuity.
The last point about the effect of the Bill on rural areas is that we think there is scope to introduce a neighbourhood right of appeal, which would encourage neighbourhoods to engage with the local planning process and to come forward with land in their village, parish, or indeed urban neighbourhood for development. They would want, though, to be protected against appeal or the sort of the decision that was made in Northamptonshire at the end of last month, where, on the day when a neighbourhood plan went to referendum, they were made to accept a development that was not in the development plan because the local authority did not have a five-year housing land supply.
It will be very hard to persuade the many neighbourhoods throughout the country that are not engaging with the neighbourhood planning process to do so unless that process is better protected. A small neighbourhood right of appeal, quite narrowly defined, will help to encourage rural parishes throughout the country to engage with the neighbourhood planning process and volunteer more housing than might be in the local plan.
The Chair
Five colleagues want to ask questions in the 12 minutes remaining, so brevity is of the essence.
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
Q 256 You just raised the issue of local plans, Mr Spiers. Do you welcome the provision in the Bill that effectively requires local authorities to have a local plan in place by 2017, otherwise one will be developed for them? That could avoid exactly the kind of risk you outlined a moment ago.
Shaun Spiers: Yes, we think local authorities should definitely have a local plan. Currently, local authorities are not completing local plans in part because of how the housing numbers are calculated and the fact that local authorities do not feel empowered to resist housing numbers that will have bad environmental consequences. As well as the stick, the Government should provide a carrot by looking again at how housing numbers and objectively assessed need are calculated.
Chris Philp
Q 257 Will both witnesses confirm what I think is their view, namely that the emphasis in the Bill on brownfield development, combined with the maintenance of the sanctity of the green belt, should protect rural England from overdevelopment?
Shaun Spiers: If it was as simple as that, it would. We welcome both the emphasis on brownfield and the sanctity, as it were, of the green belt, but we are extremely concerned about the fact that local authorities will be required to commit to implausibly high housing numbers—sometimes double the average housing output over the past 15 years—which will mean they will have to release sites, sometimes in the green belt and sometimes in areas of outstanding national beauty, which will then be developed by developers and the brownfield sites will go to waste. You cannot crack this problem unless you also look at how the housing numbers are calculated. The report we published yesterday is a cracking read, and I commend it to everyone.
Teresa Pearce
Q 258 Mr Spiers, you said that you do not have any confidence that the voluntary agreement, with the exemption for rural stock, will happen. Do you think that exemption should be in the Bill?
Shaun Spiers: I think that there should be a full exemption for rural areas, properly defined, in the Bill, yes.
Teresa Pearce
Q 259 In your evidence you said, on the agreement between the National Housing Federation and the Government, that you feel the right to buy failed to follow the guidance in the Treasury’s green book. If they had followed the guidance, what would they have had to do?
Shaun Spiers: We have written to the Secretary of State, and we are meeting the Minister for Housing and Planning tomorrow to discuss this issue. As far as we know, there has been no rural briefing. To follow the guidance, the Government would have to think that rural areas are different. It is harder to build a home; the way homes come forward is different; wages are lower; house prices are higher; and 8% of the stock is affordable stock, compared with 20% in urban areas, so there really is a rural difference.
Mr Bacon
Q 260 Mr Spiers, you mentioned self-build. What scope do you think there is, particularly in rural areas that are provided for in chapter 2 of the Bill, to encourage local communities to do more self-build and custom house building? Does the CPRE see that as a problem, or do you welcome it?
Shaun Spiers: We think there are lots of questions about how it will work out in practice. The wording in the Bill is not sufficiently clear, and it is certainly not sufficiently clear to me. This is one of the areas on which I wish Matt Thomson, our head of planning, was with us. It would be useful if local authorities were required when allocating large sites to devote a proportion of the site to self and custom build housing, which would get the small and medium-sized enterprises going and provide better-quality housing.
Mr Bacon
Q 262 You said that landowners are unwilling to gift land or give it at a discount unless they think it is protected in perpetuity. Do you think there is a role for landowners to work more closely with, or even create, mutual housing co-operatives or to work with community land trusts to create the in-perpetuity protection that you are talking about?
Shaun Spiers: Yes, I do. The in-perpetuity affordability is absolutely key. There is no limit to demand for housing in a rich Cotswold village. The difficulty is providing affordable housing.
Mr Jackson
Q 263 On the specific point about starter homes, as you know, Mr Spiers, for the past year or so the policy has been governed by ministerial fiat in respect of rural exception sites, which you mentioned earlier. Given that many people in villages want to try to retain familial links with their sons and daughters who perhaps do not have the wherewithal that they had to buy starter homes in villages, is it not better that you have some new homes within the framework of starter home policies within the village envelope? Most local planning authorities do not allow homes to be built in the open countryside; they allow them to be built only within the village envelope. It would formalise the situation in a more satisfactory way if there were more starter homes for local people in the village. In that respect, notwithstanding what you said about affordability, surely that is cumulatively a positive development.
Shaun Spiers: It may be, but it depends. You need to take it on a village-by-village basis. Villages should grow organically, and in some villages there may be a need for starter homes or even marker homes. We should not confuse starter homes with affordability. If somebody buys a starter home and rents it the next day, makes it into a holiday home or whatever, you are not meeting the crying need—
Mr Jackson
But that is not going to happen.
Shaun Spiers: It could happen. From the CPRE’s point of view, the crying need in rural villages is for socially rented housing that is affordable in perpetuity. That does not come at the exclusion of other things, but I think a starter home that is at 80% cost for five years and then is sold on the open market is meeting not that need, but a different need. It is helping the village to expand for anyone, but it is not meeting the needs of local people.
Mr Jackson
Q 264 In reality, is not the present situation just one extreme—that is, unsatisfactory infill, rural exclusion and probably small-scale? For those local authorities that do not have development plans and five-year supplies, an urban extension is stuck on the end of a village, where 100 homes might be built. The starter homes policy potentially, with the other permissive policies that are outlined in the Bill, actually achieves a medium and delivers more homes for people who cannot buy at the market rate.
Shaun Spiers: It may do—it has to be on a village-by-village basis. There is a danger of over-complicating things. The best thing for villages that want to expand and take on more housing is to engage with a proper neighbourhood planning process and to have their social stock protected. Some villages will benefit from starter homes and some villages will regard them as imposed on them and not benefiting the village in the long run. But a proper neighbourhood planning process can help the village grow organically and control its social mix.
The Chair
We have a few more minutes left. Does anyone have other views on the Bill that have not been winkled out in the course of our conversation so far?
Duncan Wilson: As I said at the outset, we are supportive of the development of brownfield land. We are not quite sure about whether the mechanism is going to work, although we could be convinced about that, and we understand the general objectives. Our general observation is that the national planning policy framework is working well and we do not want to disrupt that, because it allows the case for the historic environment, from our perspective, to be put and assessed by the local planning authority. We do not necessarily disagree with the objectives of the Bill, but would like to know more about how it is going to work in practice.
Shaun Spiers: The one area that I have not mentioned is that, where the permission in principle works—we are slightly sceptical about it—it should trigger a neighbourhood planning process whereby a neighbourhood can draw down funds to develop a neighbourhood plan, and shape the development that is in the outline plan and ensure its quality, the mix of housing and so on. That would help to get local support for high-quality development, which is one of the things everyone wants. We could use the neighbourhood planning mechanism alongside the permission in principle.
Kevin Hollinrake
Q 265 Mr Spiers, you concede that, if a property is sold through the housing association through the extension of right to buy, the person living there is still part of that social mix?
Shaun Spiers: They are while they carry on living there. They can sell it on, though, and that has been the problem with the sale of council houses in villages. Villages have been transformed by the sale of council houses. The village that I partly grew up in had council houses built in Cotswold stone with Cotswold slate roofs paid for by a local philanthropist. They have almost all now been sold on the open market because they are very desirable houses built to Parker Morris standards. They are not for local people any more. Portable discount, maybe; but if you want to have villages in 20 or 30 years’ time that have a genuine social mix of the sort all of us have always thought was intrinsic to village life, we need to think again about the right to buy as conceived in the Bill.
Kevin Hollinrake
Q 266 Your villages must be different to my villages. I live in a rural area in north Yorkshire that is quite expensive, but a lot of the properties sold into the market through the original right to buy have people on lower incomes still living in them, having either bought them or rented them. I cannot accept that that is not part of the social mix you are trying to ensure. Those properties tend to be less expensive than the other properties in those villages.
Shaun Spiers: Do you think that that will be the case in 20 years’ time?
Kevin Hollinrake
It is certainly the case now; we are 20 years on from the original right to buy, are we not?
Shaun Spiers: I can assure you that it is not the case in many villages across England.
The Chair
We have come to the end of our allotted time. To both Historic England and CPRE, thank you very much for your evidence, which has been extremely useful for the future deliberations of the Committee.
Examination of Witness
Brandon Lewis MP gave evidence
The Chair
Q 267 We come to the high point or the low point—I am not sure which—of our deliberations: the Minister will address us. It is the high point of our deliberations, no matter which party we come from.
I take this opportunity to welcome to the panel the Minister, Mr Brandon Lewis, who I know wants to make a few opening remarks. I remind the Committee that we are here not to disagree or, indeed, to agree with the Minister, but to enlighten ourselves about his views with regard to the Bill.
Brandon Lewis: Thank you, Chair. I am not quite sure I can live up to the introduction of being the high point, but I will be happy if Members decide to support and agree with me. I appreciate the chance to say a few words about what we have heard so far and the purpose of the Bill. I want my comments to match the main themes of what we have been talking about so far, so I will begin by looking at starter homes and housing supply and management.
We have heard a lot about the importance of affordable housing, which I have no doubt we will return to over the next few weeks. I want to clarify, from the outset, that affordable housing is a priority for the Government. That is why we have committed to build more new affordable homes than in any equivalent period in the past two decades. Hon. Members on Second Reading and those who have given evidence and spoken in Committee so far have underlined the need for affordable homes, including for social tenants, which we agree with, but as Ian Fletcher said last Tuesday, we cannot look at the Bill in isolation from wider Government policy on housing. We are already making social housing more affordable by cutting rents for housing association and local authority tenants. That is equivalent, by the way, to £12 off the average weekly social rent. Indeed, we have seen more council homes built in the past four years than in the previous 13 years.
It is now the turn of those who want affordable housing to buy. Starter homes are the next stage in our package of affordable housing support for everyone across tenures. I found it helpful therefore to hear Richard Blakeway confirm that the GLA welcomes the introduction of starter homes and the Government’s focus on promoting home ownership, with a real role for starter homes in London. We heard fears from those such as Councillor Philip Glanville, who said that starter homes would cost £420,000, but as the Committee has heard, the Council of Mortgage Lenders says that first-time buyers purchase properties costing an average of £280,000 to £290,000 in London, as well as across the country. There is also a 20% discount for starter homes. I hope that puts those concerns to rest once and for all.
I will give a couple of examples. In my constituency, you can buy a two to three-bedroom new build home for £145,000 to £160,000. In the constituency of the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones), you can buy a two-bedroom apartment for £125,000 or even £95,000, and a three-bedroom house for £150,000. When you then put a 20% discount on those homes, let alone linking them to the Help to Buy scheme that the Government have brought in, it really makes home ownership affordable for people again.
Tim Pinder and Mark Patchitt expressed their concerns about the amount of compensation the Government will give to housing associations. I want to assure the Committee and be very clear that we will provide full compensation for the discount and that housing associations will retain the sales receipt, enabling them to invest in the delivery of new homes. They also asked why such a commitment was not in legislation. We heard comments this morning from Shaun Spiers about things he would like to see in the legislation around the voluntary agreement for the right to buy. It is worth remembering the exact words of David Orr, who made it very clear that this is a “voluntary deal” and that the “core principles” will be the basis on which it operates. I will be very clear: we legislate only where we need to.
We have heard a lot from London over the past few sessions. Witnesses from the LGA and London local authorities gave strong evidence about the scale of the housing challenge in London. The LGA said that we need to build at least 230,000 homes in the capital. I was pleased to see a number of witnesses agree that the measures in the Bill will increase housing supply and, indeed, housing supply in London. Amendment 1 and new clause 1 propose a way of going further. I look forward to discussing those at the appropriate time over the next few weeks.
Whether we talk about one home extra being built for every one sold, or two built for every home sold, let us be clear: before the extension of right to buy, a relevant social property might not have gone to someone new for another 20 or 30 years, or even longer. Now, not only will that home help somebody into home ownership, but the sale will deliver at least one extra home within three years. It is a good deal for Londoners and for the rest of the country. We heard concerns about how it will be funded. Richard Blakeway believed the sale of high-value council houses would cover at least the cost of the discount and the cost of re-provision in London. We are doing complex thinking about how to best implement this and we are working and liaising with local authorities. As you have heard, I am still meeting various bodies.
On ensuring social rents better reflect income, we will flesh out various provisions in secondary legislation. Putting the detail in regulations allows the policies to be influenced by the debate in Committee. Further analysis and the views of local people will also be taken into account—those people will implement the policies on the ground—which is something Governments have practised for generations.
We welcome thoughts, as always, but, as we debate the clauses, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and I will be clear that we owe it to housing associations, councils and those on the ground to resist any amendments that will limit our ability to adapt the detailed implementation of the policy. We need to do this based on the feedback that we get on various issues over the next few months. When we get to clauses that give the Secretary of State the power to make regulations, the Committee may wish to reflect on the flexibility of those and how adaptable they can be. Many of our witnesses, including this morning’s, have expressed support for the approach in that flexibility.
I want to touch briefly on our reforms to the private rented sector. We have heard from Campbell Robb and Jon Sparkes, for example, how important it is to have a secure home. I know many witnesses want us to go further to crack down on rogue landlords. David Smith, for example, wanted the most serious offenders to always go to court, and I know that many already do, but I am happy to look into how we can go further to get the worst representatives—those rogue landlords—driven out of the sector. The vast majority of landlords support those who rent their homes, and the Bill will help them go further to do so.
We all agree that the planning system needs to be streamlined in order to deliver more homes to rent and more homes to buy. We want developers to know where suitable brownfield land is, and we will make the planning process more predictable by allowing planning permission in principle to be given. We want those who wish to build their own home to know it will be easier to do so, and therefore boost the economic recovery of small builders, too. We are improving neighbourhood planning. Local plans have been around for more than a decade. Despite some of the reasons given in evidence so far, the time for excuses is over. If plans are not in place, I make no apologies for intervening and making sure that we work with communities to get them done, representing people in their communities.
Finally, as I said earlier, the Bill is part of our wider package to help people into home ownership and to deliver a full range of affordable housing across all tenures. I hope we will not have too many Divisions over the next few weeks. On clauses where we divide, I ask Members to consider this: everyone on this Committee wants more homes for people to buy or rent. We all want to make it easier and safer for people to live in their properties or to manage them effectively. Every clause in the Bill helps such things to happen, and every vote against helps to prevent or delay it. I am happy to take any questions the Committee may have and I look forward to debating the Bill with everybody in the next few weeks.
Dr Blackman-Woods
Q 268 We have heard from a number of witnesses—perhaps not the ones mentioned by the Minister—who pointed out that starter homes, although welcome, are not an alternative to genuinely affordable housing. On what evidence base did the Government decide to prioritise the delivery of starter homes above all other types of affordable housing, and what do they mean for our meeting the delivery of affordable housing targets locally?
Brandon Lewis: They are part of the mix. The recession has meant that first-time buyers have been very hard hit. I am proud of the fact that we now have roughly double the number of first-time buyers that we inherited back in 2010. That is good news, but we want to go further and do more to help first-time buyers get the chance to own a home of their own. Help to Buy was a part of that and has played a huge part in the more than 200,000 helped since 2010 by Government-supported schemes.
Help to Buy has meant that people can get a home with a 5% deposit, but does not deal with whether homes are affordable to purchase. We are making it clear that an affordable home is not simply a home to rent; many people—86% of our population—want to own their own home. One of the things that I find most disappointing is people arguing against that. With great respect, Shaun Spiers—whom I like and meet with regularly—spent a long time making a case for why people in villages should not have a chance to own their own home. I absolutely refute that. I want to do everything possible to ensure that people who aspire to that chance to own their own home get the opportunity to do so, whether through the extension of the right to buy or through creating starter homes.
Starter homes will give people the chance to buy a new home of their own at a 20% discount on the market value. New two-bedroom homes, including white goods, are being built in parts of the country for £129,000. A two-bedroom home can be under £150,000 in my constituency and, as I said, in the constituency of the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Marcus Jones), under £100,000. With a 20% discount and perhaps a link to Help to Buy, buying a home is affordable again. That is an important thing to be doing.
Furthermore, that is only part of the mix, which is one of the points that I have made in response to questions and before the Communities and Local Government Committee only last week. No one is saying that the Bill in and of itself deals with the entire housing market. The Bill does part of the job and the Government are doing a lot of other things. The housing market includes people with shared ownership, the affordable rental sector and social renting, market-priced housing, and private rented sector housing, as well as the retirement housing that is coming forward—there is a whole range of tenures. Starter homes are only part of the mix.
Dr Blackman-Woods
Q 269 We all accept that starter homes are part of the mix, but what will the Bill do to ensure that the whole mix is delivered? From witness after witness, we have heard that the prioritisation of starter homes will crowd out other sorts of affordable housing, which are needed as well. On what evidence base did the Government come up with the plan to prioritise starter homes over everything else?
Brandon Lewis: I am sure that we will debate such matters over the first few sittings in the next week or so, but I draw attention to my opening remarks in answering your question. When first-time buyers are the hardest-hit part of the housing sector, it is entirely appropriate for us to do what we can to help them. I am slightly surprised at your comment, which I would reverse: why for so many years has no one been making the case for people who want to own their own home being crowded out of the affordable housing market by other forms of affordable housing? For the first time we are able to introduce a product that will create new homes for people who want the chance to be able to afford to buy their own home, alongside affordable rent as part of the mix. To say that something that does not exist yet is crowding anything else out seems anomalous.
Dr Blackman-Woods
Q 270 However, do you accept that it is quite unusual to come up with a policy where witness after witness says that we all think it is good to support starter homes, but not at the expense of other types of housing, which are very much needed as well?
Brandon Lewis: You have also had people making the point that this is not necessarily at the expense of other things and is part of the mix. For example, Dr Ellis from the TCPA made your point today as well, but, with the greatest of respect, this is also someone who tried to make the case that the regional spatial strategies worked, despite the delivery of the lowest level of housing starts since 1923; argued that the Bill brings back segregation; and at other times argued that Hull is about to disappear as an area. I therefore do not give that a lot of credibility. A lot of other people have made the case for starter homes being a good thing, not least the tens of thousands of people who have registered to buy one. We will do all we can to deliver for them.
The Chair
I now have eight Members who have caught my eye for the 25 minutes left to us. With mutual respect and by keeping things as short as possible, we can get everyone in.
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)
Q 271 Is there any evidence to suggest that starter homes will necessarily crowd out other low-cost ownership, or indeed that every starter home will be built at the maximum? Is there not some evidence, particularly from the Council of Mortgage Lenders and others, that a number of the starter homes might be built well below that cap?
Brandon Lewis: Absolutely. That is a key point to bear in mind, which we managed to flush out of Councillor Glanville eventually. Other witnesses have made that clear, including the Council of Mortgage Lenders. We have put in a cap and made it very clear what the price limit will be. We expect to see that delivered. Also, the 20% discount is at least a 20% discount. I would not be surprised if we see people coming in with bigger discounts, which would also help to move this market.
I have just listed some homes, and people can look on Rightmove themselves—I wrote a blog for it just a couple of weeks ago—and find plenty of new build homes at well below £200,000 and in some areas below £100,000. I expect to see that. When we then link that with the 20% discount on top of the market price, and if somebody can also link it with Help to Buy, then somebody earning £20,000 or £25,000 to £35,000 who has been effectively locked out of the ownership market since the great Labour recession suddenly has a chance to own their own home again. I think that is a really good thing.
You make a really good point about the mix. We will continue to see a mix. People sometimes underestimate—or maybe do not understand the housing market enough to appreciate—the way that large developments in particular work. Housing associations work in partnership with large developers. There are a number of very large developments that private sector developers are building at the moment in partnership with housing associations. They will not want to change that. They both want those joint ventures, both financially and in delivering the mix. Some housing associations are building in phenomenal numbers at the moment, and are looking to go further. We will be working with them to deliver that. In schemes in London or outer London, or indeed other parts of the country, you can see them working together. The finances of that work for both developers and housing associations, and both have made the case publicly and in this Committee about the importance of a mix of tenures on a site. I think we will see that continue.
Stephen Hammond
Q 272 Presumably it is that mix that gives you confidence that some of the infrastructure that is needed will be built.
Mr Spiers, and indeed the GLA, have suggested that 95% of the brownfield sites are already under development or have planning permission attached to them. Is that a number that DCLG recognises?
Brandon Lewis: No. What we have said we will do, and what we were elected on a manifesto to do, is to make sure that 90% of brownfield sites have planning permission by 2020. I do agree with Shaun Spiers and others who have commented that we need to identify these brownfield sites. I have worked with the Campaign to Protect Rural England over the past year or so to make sure that we do everything we can. We all want to see those sites built out first. The brownfield fund is also part of making sure that we deal with some of the viability issues of some of those sites. It is important that we encourage local authorities to do this. Having the register out there in a way that is transparent and in the public domain will help that. Planning permission in principle goes a long way to help that.
You also make a very good point, as Mr Jackson did earlier, about infrastructure. By having mixed sites and larger sites, of course the part of the site that is not delivering starter homes will still be creating both the community infrastructure levy and section 106 agreements, where that is appropriate and relevant for that local authority. That is putting aside local growth fund issues and devolution deals, which are also providing infrastructure. It is right to do so, and we need to make sure that we are providing infrastructure as well as well designed homes for people.
Helen Hayes
Q 273 Yesterday in the Communities and Local Government Committee, we heard evidence from four councils. Two of them were Conservative-led, one Liberal Democrat-led and one Labour-led. All of them gave very compelling evidence that, despite the comments you just made about the ability of the Bill to deliver a mix, it simply isn’t there. They talked about the way in which the 1% rent reduction will undermine the ability of councils and housing associations to deliver new socially rented stock. One of the councils was up against its borrowing limit on its housing revenue account already, and said that once that is taken into account the receipts from homes that are sold under the right to buy will not be there to replace homes that are lost to the rental market.
The evidence from housing associations, which was previously heard by this Committee and also by the Communities and Local Government Committee, is that while many of them say that the Bill will deliver more homes as a whole, most of them say that they as individual housing associations will be delivering fewer of those homes at social rent. I am afraid that I am just not convinced by the statement that starter homes will be part of a mix, and that they will not crowd out much-needed homes for rent. I would be very grateful if you would say a bit more about where the evidence is for those statements, because I have not seen it.
Brandon Lewis: You have conflated a few things there, so I will try to cover all of them if I can. First, the 1% cut is obviously an advantage to tenants in social housing of both local authorities and housing associations, and I am slightly surprised that you seem to be against us reducing the costs for residents.
Local government has done a phenomenal job in the last few years of realising efficiencies, sharing management, sharing chief executives, reducing its costs. I will be quite up-front about this, as I was in the Select Committee: I think local government can go further. I think it has a long way to go in doing similar things on planning. Touching on some of the evidence given this morning, I think that local authorities can go a lot further in terms of having good resilient resource as well as saving efficiencies.
Housing associations have not been subject to that kind of transparency. I think a 1% reduction year on year over the next four years is not an unreasonable thing for the public to expect them to do, which tenants then benefit from as well. Equally, I have spoken to housing associations that have made the point to me that they expect to reduce their rent by 4% to 5% next year, in one case because they are being challenged by the private rented sector. That is no doubt because social housing rent has gone up in the last four or five years by roughly double what the private sector has. We need to be up-front about that.
You say it affects housing supply, but we have housing associations saying quite the opposite. The largest, Sanctuary, is talking about increasing housing supply; L&Q just last week, I think, published the fact that it has had a very successful bond issue to go and build further. It has very ambitious plans to build more, some of which, like others, it does in partnership with private developers. It shows and backs up the point in the closing remarks of David Orr in his evidence. He said that yes, this will drive up housing supply, and yes, housing associations will want to deliver starter homes. That is a good thing.
Touching on the point about HRA, we have to be very cautious about the housing revenue accounts situation. We gave local authorities some headroom last year for those who wanted to bid to go a bit further if they were near the headroom. There is more than £2 billion-worth of headroom in the HRA nationally for local authorities to use to build, and I think that they should be doing that if they want to show they are building more. We also need to bear in mind, however, that any use of HRA affects the public sector borrowing requirement. It affects the country’s books, and we need to do what we can to make sure we are managing our deficit so that we can get on top of the debt we inherited.
Helen Hayes
Q 274 South Cambridgeshire District Council told us yesterday that it was up against its borrowing cap on the HRA, which meant that the receipts from homes sold under the right to buy would not yield sufficient funds to replace those homes. I hope that you will look at the evidence session, because I do not think that the evidence from four councils from all political persuasions, which was very powerful yesterday, should be ignored.
I want to ask about the issue that was raised in the earliest evidence session this morning about the lack of quality standards for the delivery of affordable homes and for urban development corporations. How confident are you that those measures will see genuinely high-quality development going forward?
Brandon Lewis: Actually, if you look at some of the papers put out by the NHBC over the last few months you will see that—don’t get me wrong, as Housing Minister I get people coming to me, and when I visit sites I see issues out there, and I am not pretending for a minute that people buying new homes do not have issues from time to time; we have all done it, and I have done it as well—the reality is that, from a general point of view, we build some of the highest-quality homes in the world at the moment. That is good, but it does not mean we cannot look to go further. I make the point quite regularly that I think we should be looking to ensure quality of build and quality of design—design is important not just in terms of what homes look like but also in terms of master planning.
On starter homes and affordable homes, I put together a design panel earlier this year that is still in place. Starter homes are a very good example of where quality is important to us, which we made very clear by having some of the most renowned architects involved in that— Terry Farrell, Quinlan Terry and others. It has put forward design templates, so that we can say to people that if they buy a starter home, it will be at least as good as homes designed by some of the best architects this country has to offer. If a local developer with the local authority comes up with something that is better or more appropriate for them, then I believe in trusting local people to make local decisions. But starter homes will be at least as good as the best architects that we have can design.
Maria Caulfield (Lewes) (Con)
Q 275 I am pleased to hear that the starter homes are a mix of the affordable housing element. I wondered if the Minister could confirm—we did not hear it in the evidence in either session really—that for those on a low income, being able to afford a mortgage is crucial because mortgage monthly payments are significantly lower than rental monthly payments in the private sector. Could the Minister shed any light on that? Encouraging people to be able to own their own home would help those with low monthly incomes.
Brandon Lewis: Absolutely. I have seen plenty of examples of people who have made that case to us over the past few years—they are in the private rented sector and are paying a certain amount in rent, but when they work out what the equivalent mortgage cost on that home would be, it is roughly half. Usually it is at least 30% less than their rental costs, but more often than not it is 40% to 50% less. The challenge had always been around getting a deposit together to buy that home. That is what the Help to Buy scheme was about, as it allows people to buy their home with a 5% deposit.
I come back to a point I made earlier about starter homes: if you are able to buy a starter home, particularly in the kind of price range I outlined, which you see partly in East Anglia and certainly outside London—the evidence session with Shelter was quite enlightening in pointing out that this debate is about more than just London—and if you can get a 20% discount on market value, that makes it affordable again. It makes it a real possibility for someone—especially people in the private rented sector but potentially in the affordable rented sector and the social housing sector, as well, with right to buy—to look at it as a chance to own their own home. I come back to the fact that we were very clear: we were elected on a mandate to deliver home ownership to an extra 1.3 million people. We are very aware of the fact that 86% of that population want a chance to own their own home and we will do everything we can to support them in reaching that ambition.
Maria Caulfield
Q 276 To return to the point about delivering one-for-one in the right to buy sector, I asked in a previous evidence session about housing associations looking at other models of house building—not just traditional house building but perhaps things like modular house building—but we did not really get an answer from the housing associations. What are your thoughts about alternative ways of building? Also, on pay to stay, we have heard that housing associations are worried about the 1% cut in council housing rent yet they could not say why they are not implementing the pay to stay measures that are already in place for those who earn £60,000 a year or more. That would bring them some income, so why are they not doing that to fund new house building?
Brandon Lewis: There are a few points in there. On build-out rates and different types of building, I absolutely agree. The reality is that, generally, we still build homes in the way we did 20 years ago—sorry, 100 years ago—which means it takes, on average, 20 weeks to build a house, if the weather holds out. Modern technology means you can build a house much quicker. I have seen two two-bedroom semi-detached homes built in a day. Modular homes can be built in a couple of weeks. They are high quality and have very high energy efficiency. I highlight that, because they do not need any more regulation on zero-carbon homes—those kinds of homes deliver that. That really speeds up the rate of delivery.
The National Housing Federation, on behalf of its members, has been talking to us with some very ambitious plans for going further. We are already seeing organisations—Sanctuary, L&Q, Gemini and others—looking to be quite exciting with what they are building. They already build a mix of tenures, with market properties to sell as well as affordable private rented sector and social sector properties as well. They are looking more and more at that kind of modern technology. If we can do that, we will see a dramatic sea change in the way we deliver housing, certainly in terms of the scale and speed at which we can do so. One of the biggest challenges we face—I appreciate that this is slightly outside the remit of the Bill, but it highlights my earlier point about the Bill being part of the solution—is that we still have house builders building out on sites at an average of 50 homes a year. With modern technology we could easily convert that to 200-plus homes a year. That is where we should be looking to go. There is a real opportunity there.
The extension of right to buy through housing associations will help housing associations release capital and get access to capital. That allows them to build homes that would not otherwise exist; hence David Orr’s point, which he made quite clearly, that this will drive up housing supply. Every time a home is sold, that creates an income and a generation of asset that that housing association can use to build more homes. The reinvigorated right to buy scheme was introduced in 2012. There have been three years to build homes, and at the moment we are ahead of schedule in terms of building one for every one sold. In London, it is closer to two. We can expect to see that with the extended scheme. In some parts of the country, that will mean more than one home built for every home sold.
Matthew Pennycook
Q 277 Minister, this is not in the Bill, but you have indicated previously that regulations will allow starter homes to switch to full market value after five years. I am struggling with that logic, and I wonder whether you can help me: at a time when you are asking for Government, across all Departments, to make greater savings, and given that the rationale is to ensure an affordable home ownership offer, what is the logic for giving people that windfall rather than ensuring that starter homes remain in perpetuity as affordable homes?
Brandon Lewis: I am happy to answer. We went through this at the Communities and Local Government Committee, so you might want to have a look at the transcript. There are schemes selling homes at a 20% discount in perpetuity—Pocket Living, a super product in London, is a good example. We are saying something slightly different for two reasons. First, this is not about building any number of starter homes—they stay in perpetuity and therefore you can slow down building, which is what happened with social housing under the previous Labour Government. We will need to build starter homes and to keep building them. We want to build 200,000 in this Parliament, but not stop there. We need to keep building them for first-time buyers going forward and to see that number grow and grow.
There is a clear logical reason for mortgage lenders, bearing in mind that we want people to be able to buy these homes. Most people buying a home will need to get a mortgage. It is not a discount if a 20% on market value discount is available but market value can never be realised.
Matthew Pennycook
Q 278 What assessment has the Department carried out on the number of people who are currently unable to buy their own home but will be able to do so under the starter home programme? I asked a previous witness about this but did not get a satisfactory answer. In essence, I am trying to get at what estimate you have done of the widening of the home ownership pool that the Bill and the starter home policy in particular will create. What are the numbers over and above those already in a position to buy their first home?
Brandon Lewis: We have already said we want to see 1 million new home owners in this Parliament. The 200,000 starter homes are part of that, but only part of the picture.
Matthew Pennycook
Q 279 Can I push you on what assessment you have made?
Brandon Lewis: I am not going to publish here the advice we are looking at on taking policy forward. We don’t do that. Our policy is to make home ownership available to more people with 200,000 starter homes. The clear evidence is that first-time buyers were the hardest-hit through the recession under the previous Labour Government and we want to do what we can to help them. We have already doubled the numbers and we want to go further.
To finish with your query on five years—the issue applies to right to buy as well. Why should somebody who owns their own home that they have bought through one scheme be treated any differently to anyone else who owns their home? They should have the same rights over their home as other people. I have very little sympathy with the argument that, just because somebody has bought their home through a scheme, they should have different rights of ownership to anybody else. Once somebody owns their home, they should have the same right to do what they like with it in good time as any other home owner.
Chris Philp
Q 280 To develop the question about home ownership versus rental, would you agree with the analysis that Crisis and Shelter alluded to that home ownership is a fundamentally better form of tenure because it is more secure and the person owning their home gets to participate in house price growth? As Maria Caulfield said, it is often cheaper as a form of occupancy than the private rental sector. Is that part of the reason why you are so keen to promote home ownership?
Brandon Lewis: The short answer is yes. It is important to bear in mind one of the differences between the private rented sector here and in other parts of the world, particularly the US and to an extent Germany. One of the biggest challenges for somebody in this country in the private rented sector is that 91% of the stock is owned by small landlords who own nine properties or less. I think the point was made in the evidence session that nearly 90% of the people who move in the rented sector move home through their own choice.
The biggest risk to a tenant in the private sector is if the landlord decides to sell to an owner-occupier and the type of tenancy at the property changes. In other parts of the world, where there is more institutional investment, multi-family housing and things like that, if a landlord decides to sell their property, they sell it to another private landlord. The tenant’s invoice changes from one company to another, but the tenure of the property does not. That is why people here still look to ownership to being a key part of secure tenure. Extending every opportunity for people to get into ownership is a good thing.
Chris Philp
Q 281 Do you agree that extending home ownership is an effective way of fighting poverty?
Brandon Lewis: Certainly. We can go back to when the right to buy scheme was brought in. The Minister who took it through the House was Michael Heseltine, who came to our Department to extol his wisdom—he showed me some of the debate, which I read through. It is interesting that some of the arguments against right to buy back then, in the early 1980s, are almost word for word what we hear from people on the left of politics in the Labour party today. They do not seem to have learned. One thing that people should have learned is that right to buy has been arguably—I would make the case—one of the most powerful forms of social mobility this country has ever seen.
Chris Philp
Q 282 Absolutely. To pick up a point that was alluded to by the planning witnesses earlier, they mentioned that planning departments in councils are under-resourced, which is probably broadly true. Do you have any sympathy for proposals that some developers have made that they would be willing to pay much higher planning fees provided that they got a better service in return? For example, if they did not get the service, the enhanced fee might get refunded? I know it is a complicated area and the council might simply swipe the money. Do you have any views on those proposals?
The Chair
Quickly.
Brandon Lewis: We need to be very cautious about simply allowing local authorities freedom on planning fees. It could be gamed, to an extent. I am sure that no local authority that any of us know would ever do this, but arguably they could put planning fees so high that it would make it difficult for small developers. Equally, there are planning performance agreements in place, particularly in London where we see very substantial agreements being formed between developers and planning authorities. However, I do think there is a real issue of making sure that local authorities are performing well and that they have very resilient planning teams.
I made the point to the Select Committee just last week, as well as on the Floor of the House last week during Question Time, that planning authorities should be sharing services and resources much better on planning. There is a long way to go with that and much to be found, not just in efficiency but in quality of service, quality of job for planners and excitement around the job. We could see a great improvement there, but we also need to focus on delivering small sites and small planning permissions in the same way we have seen improvements on large site speed of delivery over the past few years.
Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)
Q 283 The Government have pledged that property sold via right to buy will be replaced on at least a one-to-one grant basis, a one-to-one grant being provided for that purpose. Existing state aid rules do not allow for the Government to provide such aid to home builders, save for the provision of social housing. If grants are provided, for example, for building housing for commercial sale, it is possible that it would breach state aid law and give housing associations an unfair advantage over commercial house builders. What assurances can the Committee have that such a grant arrangement will be compliant with state aid?
Brandon Lewis: It would have to be compliant or we would not be able to do it.
Peter Dowd
Q 284 You are giving that assurance?
Brandon Lewis: If it was not compliant, we would not be able to do it, so it will be compliant.
Kevin Hollinrake
Q 285 Going back to starter homes and affordable rents, you talked at the Select Committee about local authorities and developers still being able to negotiate arrangements to suit local needs. Will you expand on that to say how that will happen in practice?
Brandon Lewis: At the moment local authorities negotiate with developers and we see different types of development and different viability issues in different parts of the country around what works and what the mix will be. Yes, we want to see starter homes. We think there is a real need to deliver homes that are affordable for people to buy and we want to put a clear focus on that, but local authorities will still negotiate what is right for them locally, what the viability is locally, and they are ultimately the ones who make the planning decision locally.
I think there was a fundamental misunderstanding by the TCPA representative today about how planning permission works in principle. Actually, it is ultimately driven by a democratic, locally focused scheme. They support the RSS, so I suppose I should not have been overly surprised by their evidence. Ultimately, local authorities have the final decision as to whether a planning permission is approved. Even when a plan is there in principle, the detail is for the local authority, and part of that will be the negotiations around what is viable.
At the same time, as I said earlier, I think we will continue to see developers working with housing associations to deliver mixes of housing, not least because that is how the financial modelling works for the developments that they are putting forward.
The Chair
That brings us to the end of our three evidence sessions preparatory to our detailed consideration of the Bill. I hope the Committee will agree that it has been an extremely useful series of panels. I thank the Minister for appearing in front of us and for being frank and straightforward in his responses. We will meet next on Thursday at 11.30 am in Committee Room 12 to start detailed, line-by-line consideration of the Bill. I thank the members of the Committee for their patience and I hope we have managed to get as many members in as possible during the question session.
Westminster Hall
(9 years, 1 month ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Reserve Forces
(9 years, 1 month ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the future of the reserve forces.
May I say what a pleasure it is to see you in the Chair, Sir Roger? May I also thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting time for the debate? I have called it because the defence of the realm is the most important duty of Her Majesty’s Government, and the reserve forces are an ever more important part of that. The recruitment and retention of reserves is an important issue for the House, and this is a good opportunity to hold the Minister to account for the way in which the Ministry of Defence is tackling it. Progress has been made, but I am sure the Minister will admit that more can and must be made. What better way to hold any Minister of the Crown to account than on the Floor of the House?
My understanding is that Her Majesty’s Government intend the armed forces to comprise the following numbers of servicemen and women by 2020: 29,000 in the Royal Navy, 31,500 in the RAF and 82,000 in the Army. They are to be supported by 30,000 Army reservists and 5,000 Royal Navy and RAF reservists. As of 1 October, the trained strength of the tri-service volunteer reserve stood at 25,970—an 11% increase on the year before. However, the target of Her Majesty’s Government is for the tri-service reserve to total 35,060 by 1 April 2019. Maths was never my strong point, but I reckon we have 9,000 reservists to go to get to that target—a 35% increase on where we are now. Broken down by force, the target would be 30,100 reservists in the Army, 3,100 in the Royal Navy and 1,860 in the RAF. That would seem to be a tough challenge for Her Majesty’s Government to meet, and I look forward to the Minister giving us the confidence that they are on track to do so.
The reserves are an important part of our defence. I know a little about the subject because in a previous life I served, in a humble capacity, as a member of the Territorial Army for eight and a half years. During the cold war, Trooper Hollobone was prepared to stand in a trench to hold back the Russian hordes advancing over the north German plain. I am pleased that that never came to pass, because I am not sure that I and my few pals would have been able to do very much in the face of the Russian onslaught, although we would have done our best.
Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
I should point out that my long-standing friendship with Trooper Hollobone goes back to my university days. However, my only military experience with him on the front line consisted of the very nice lunches we had at the Honourable Artillery Company—which, I should point out, he paid for.
Mr Hollobone
I was delighted to be able to entertain my long-standing friend for lunch at the Honourable Artillery Company—the oldest serving regiment in the British Army.
In my brief military career, I had three cap badges. Whatever colour beret I wore, I was always proud to serve. However, there are those present who are far more qualified than me to talk about military matters, because of their Regular Army experience or their experience in the Government, and I look forward to hearing their contributions.
It is important to remember that the Territorial Army, as it was called—the reserve, as it is now—is not a Dad’s Army. Now, there is nothing wrong with a Dad’s Army, and we have all enjoyed the television series. Of course, many reservists are in their 50s, and they provide valuable service to the Crown. However, there are also lots of very young men and women in our reserves, and we should remember that the make-up of our reserve forces is very different from that portrayed in the television programme.
Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)
Is not one of the areas where reservists can particularly excel, no matter what their age, the specialist services dealing with cyber-defence? Given that the Chancellor announced yesterday that £2 billion will be going to extend our cyber-capability, should we not be looking to recruit into the reserves from our IT and technology companies?
Mr Hollobone
I welcome that helpful contribution. The hon. Lady is known throughout the House for her experience in military affairs. She is in charge of the all-party group on reserve forces and cadets, and she is a distinguished serving member of the armed forces parliamentary scheme. In other words, she is a lady who knows what she is talking about, and she gives the Chamber very wise counsel. There are many very good things about Her Majesty’s armed forces, but one of the bad things is that they can be too rigid in applying themselves to future challenges. The threat of cyber-warfare is a big unknown, and we have to be flexible and adaptable, and to think outside the box in meeting that challenge. The hon. Lady is absolutely right: we need to get people on board who understand cyber and IT. If we have to change our recruitment and retention processes to make sure that such people are contributing to Britain’s defence, we should do that, and we should do it quickly. The announcement of the extra expenditure suggests that the door of Her Majesty’s Government is open to such thinking. I very much hope the Minister will pass the hon. Lady’s wise words on to the Treasury, No. 10 and all the others who make these big, important decisions.
Mark Field
I would like to echo the words of the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon).It is very positive that the Government have recognised the great danger of cyber-attacks not only in the military sphere, but in the commercial sphere. Given that the Bank of England has been so robust about the importance of resilience and the potential gaps in that respect in the commercial sphere, does my hon. Friend agree that Ministers should look again at having a reinsurance package in the cyber area, rather like what Pool Re provides in the terrorism area?
Mr Hollobone
My right hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. He represents the City of London, and we need to tap into the pool of talent that exists in our capital city in insurance and IT. We need to do whatever it takes to get the computer experts from the big international banks in the City of London, if necessary, to work in the interests of Britain’s defence. I know my right hon. Friend will be leading the charge to make sure that the Government are aware not only of the threat of cyber-warfare, but of the opportunities offered by the pool of talent in our great city to meet that challenge.
Some 330 reservists are currently mobilised around the world. They can be found in Afghanistan and Cyprus and in global counter-terrorism and counter-piracy operations. Reservists formed the core of the infantry training team recently sent to Ukraine. We also have reservists deployed in Jordan, Iraq, Kuwait and Qatar, as part of the counter-ISIS effort.
I am pleased that many reservists also serve as part of formed bodies and teams, not just as individuals. A platoon from 6 SCOTS, which is based in Glasgow, is in Afghanistan. The 2nd Battalion the Royal Irish Regiment, based in Lisburn, has two platoons deployed to Cyprus. I understand that a reserve unit will be the Cyprus lead from April 2018, that formed reserve bodies will also be deploying in some 23 overseas exercises this year and that the 4th Battalion Parachute Regiment will mobilise and deploy as a formed sub-unit to the Falklands in June next year.
When I was involved, in a humble way, during the cold war, my understanding was that we could not be deployed under Queen’s regulations. There would have to be an extreme national emergency for that to happen. I understand that Queen’s regulations were changed in the mid-1980s, and there is now more flexibility about how reservists can be deployed, and I think that is a good thing. Of course, reservists engaged in hot contact with the enemy are serving with distinction. A serving reservist in the Artists Rifles was recently awarded the Conspicuous Gallantry Cross for his endeavours on the front line. Reservists are serving with distinction and doing the country proud. Everyone present for the debate would, I think, agree that Her Majesty’s armed forces represent Britain at its best. They are the best individuals, serving with the best of motives in the very best way.
As well as the front-line soldiers who have been awarded gallantry decorations, I want to mention youngsters in cadet forces. I was proud to see at Remembrance Day services in the borough of Kettering how smart and proud the Army, RAF and Royal Navy cadets were on parade. A lot of effort had gone into displaying the pride of their units and representing their areas. If we can instil such a sense of loyalty to the Crown, self-respect, discipline and motivation into youngsters in the cadet forces, that must be a good thing.
I have drawn for inspiration for my brief remarks from an interesting document entitled “The United Kingdom Reserve Forces External Scrutiny Team Annual Report”. The team is looking at the way in which Her Majesty’s Government are developing the concept of Future Reserves 2020. I am sure that the Minister will have gone through all its recommendations and that it is required reading for anyone with an interest in how our reserve forces are to develop. It is worth emphasising some of the key recommendations, one of which is:
“The success of FR20 depends first…upon increasing the size of the Reserve. Each Service has challenging manning targets to meet, with heavy emphasis on recruiting and initial training. This year the Services appear to have turned the corner on growing numbers, after poor achievement over the first two years.”
However:
“Notwithstanding some excellent workarounds on in-flow, we are not convinced that they are sustainable into the medium term, suggesting that systemic problems with the recruitment process still need to be rooted out. Medical screening sits prominently as an area of concern.”
The report goes on:
“The sustained health of the Reserves is highly dependent upon the quality and quantity of officers available at unit level, in order to plan and lead the challenging training on which the Reserves thrive. Progress in attracting and recruiting young volunteer Reserve officers needs attention.”
The Minister will be acutely aware of those recommendations and will have been working hard to address those concerns. The good news is that the current recruitment marketing campaign has resulted in higher levels of advertising recall than UK recognition norms, and that resonance is increasing among 18 to 35-year-olds. However, understanding of the Army Reserve especially remains low and messaging needs to be adjusted to reinforce some key things: adventure, excitement and personal development. Potential recruits are worried about the possible extent of the commitment, and there is also fear of injury.
Martin John Docherty (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
This is an important debate. Since the last strategic defence and security review, there have been personnel reductions of 5,000 in the Royal Navy, 5,000 in the RAF and 7,000 in the Army, followed by an additional 12,000 reduction to the Army. What is proposed for the forces 2020 vision is that part of the recruitment process will involve those leaving the services—regulars who are leaving. Given that they have been made redundant, does the hon. Gentleman agree that it will be extremely problematic to fill that gap?
Mr Hollobone
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who has identified a real issue, and hope that the Minister will respond to those figures. We want to ensure that ex-regulars join the reserves. We also need to retain the reservists who are recruited. Retention is a key issue. All too often we focus on how well recruitment is going, and do not spend enough time on retaining reservists.
I am pleased that the Government have an employer recognition scheme. It was launched by the Prime Minister in July 2014 and is intended to recognise employers through a scheme with bronze, silver and gold tiers. I understand that 10 employers received gold awards last year.
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that part of the problem is that the original plan was to hold the regular forces and not let sizeable numbers go until there was clear evidence that the plans for the reserves were working? That original plan changed because of financial considerations, which is the reason for the present large capability gaps. Perhaps it is also the reason for the problem with recruitment.
Mr Hollobone
It would not be a proper debate on Her Majesty’s reserve forces without a contribution from my hon. Friend, and I am glad that he has highlighted his concern, which I know many other hon. Members share, about the gap between the growth in size of the reserve forces and the decline in the number of regular personnel. I started my speech by quoting the fact that the Government wanted the Army to be 82,000-strong by 2020. My understanding is that it has fewer personnel than that now, so there appears to be a gap. That is why we must get the reservist part of the plan right. I am not sure that we are there yet, as the external scrutiny report said.
On the matter of retention, the report explains:
“The Reserves’ age profile is currently too heavily skewed towards older reservists who are closer to the end, rather than the start, of their service and therefore outflow will be relatively high for the next few years as they leave due to natural factors. Consequently equal attention needs to be paid to retention during earlier stages of the Reserve service spectrum. In the main retention should be significantly enhanced by the provision of challenging individual and collective training, at every phase of service. Such provision cannot rely solely on opportunities structured around the Regular ecosystem; bespoke, Reservist-friendly development and training needs also to be available.”
As an example, many reservists who want to improve their reservist career are sent on regulars’ courses during the week, but many cannot do that sort of training during the week. We need more flexibility about providing it at the weekend. Also, there is a lot of interest in weekend sport among regulars, but reservists who give up their weekends do not want to play sport; they want to fire weapons. However, a lot of the weapons training is not available at weekends. We need to think more flexibly and adaptably about what reservists want to do. A reservist who feels bored and fed up, and that they are not being challenged enough, will leave. Then all the effort that has been put into recruitment is wasted.
Mrs Moon
A further £2 billion for the special forces was announced yesterday by the Prime Minister. We have had tragic incidents in Brecon, where reservists were seeking to join the special forces. I would not want people to be put off joining the special forces because of those incidents. Does the hon. Gentleman agree we need to be very clear that reservists are welcome in our special forces, though we have to accept that the training is arduous and the commitment heavy?
Mr Hollobone
Having completed that course myself, I know that it is a very challenging experience. The deaths of the applicants were tragic. The publicity around the horrendous circumstances of that incident will, funnily enough, encourage others to come forward, in a perverse way, because they will have seen how difficult it is to get into the special forces. My understanding is that the exercise in question was not actually run by the special forces, and I would imagine there is quite a lot of concern among the special forces that the tragedy has been branded as their responsibility. My clear understanding is that it was not run by the special forces. Part of the challenge and the attractiveness of the special forces to potential recruits is the very difficult nature of the task presented to them, and we must not dilute that in any way.
One thing I am sure we can all agree on is that pro rata, we have the best armed forces in the world and the best special forces in the world. We have centuries of experience in developing our military capability; we know what makes people tick and we know how hard we can push people. Sometimes, tragically, it goes wrong, but those are a minority of occasions. The bulk of the training that both regular forces and special forces receive is some of the very best in the world, and we should be very proud of that.
Like the hon. Lady, I welcome the announcement of extra spending on special forces, as well as extra spending on cyber-warfare. In providing the capability for both, the reserve has a golden opportunity to contribute. We will not tackle these issues just through regular personnel; we have to attract reservists with specialist skills.
Mark Field
On a budgetary point, while the commitment to additional spending within what we might call the defence budget is obviously welcome, does my hon. Friend share my view that we need to be a little cannier about the way in which we utilise the soft power that comes with the 0.7% in the Department for International Development budget for a range of areas, such as community cohesion in foreign lands? We can utilise elements of that budget for precisely this sort of element of the reservist side. Even if we cannot commit ourselves, as many of us would like to, to a 2% or even higher percentage of GDP for defence, at least elements of what would traditionally be the defence budget can come through the important soft power of DFID.
Mr Hollobone
My right hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. I am all for maximising the military component—that is a clumsy phrase—of our defence spending. Using our soft power budget legitimately to enhance our hard power capability is fine. I am all for, for example, sending armed forces personnel on aid programmes in other countries to become familiar with the language, culture and how those countries work, because that will help our hard power defence effort.
I am pleased that the Government are committed to spending 2% of our GDP on defence. I cannot for the life of me understand why the Government will not enshrine that in law, because if we have enshrined the defence spending into law, enshrining the 2% commitment in law should be no issue. I am confident that a majority of this House would support doing just that, if the Minister were so minded.
As I understand it—the Minister can correct me if I am wrong—there is an issue regarding medical reservists, who will make up about 50% of Defence Medical Services by 2020, with some specialties such as neurology and urology being provided entirely by the reserve forces. There is, understandably, concern about the approach some NHS trusts are taking on medical reservists—the NHS is hard pressed, and we need all the doctors we can get—but there are benefits for crossover expertise between doctors working in the NHS and doctors working with our reservists. Some years ago, I had the privilege of visiting our front-line A&E facility in Afghanistan, which I think is the most advanced A&E facility in the world. It is manned by NHS doctors, who can bring their expertise back to the UK. There are lots of crossover benefits, but there is considerable range of practice within the NHS regarding the ease with which reserve doctors are allowed to leave their NHS posts to fulfil their reserve training commitments.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Julian Brazier)
On that specific point, my hon. Friend will be aware that in the past few years the reserves have provided the framework unit for half of all the rotations in Helmand. There is indeed a range of practice, but we are working hard with the NHS, and many of the award-winning employers are in fact NHS trusts.
Mr Hollobone
I am pleased that my hon. Friend is on the case; I can think of no better man for the job. My understanding is that there is a range of different practices in the way different trusts handle their medical reservists. It strikes me that there is an opportunity for the Government to streamline the process for the benefit of the reservists, the reserve and the NHS trusts themselves.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
My hon. Friend is being very generous in allowing interventions. He talked about the reserves having specialist skills. In areas such as the cyber-sphere, there are people who perhaps would not be attracted to joining the full-time military but who have just the sort of capabilities and skills the military needs. Does he agree that the reserves could be a great opportunity to allow a mix between being a civilian in the day and also being in the military.
Mr Hollobone
I am most grateful for that intervention, which is extremely helpful. My hon. Friend is spot on: to meet the cyber threat, we will have to be more flexible and more adaptable in how we attract such skills for the benefit of the defence of the realm. I hope the Minister heard what my hon. Friend said and will feed that back.
I am going to sit down because I have spoken for far too long and there are people far more qualified than me who want to contribute to this debate, but I want to highlight the last paragraph of the external scrutiny report, which says:
“Our assessment is that FR20 remains on or near track for delivery. The main 2014/15 objectives have been met and Reserve manning levels appear to have turned the corner. That said, it is a long corner before the home straight and successive annual inflow targets are typically far more challenging. Although not within the reporting period we feel obliged to point to an emergent potential risk to the programme. We are acutely aware of the current tautness the Defence budget, with significant risk in many programmes. Any further budgetary pressure resulting from the 2015 Comprehensive Spending Review, if realised, is likely to have a direct bearing on the Services’ ability to deliver FR20—whether as a consequence of direct cuts to the programme or indirectly though reductions in activity which exacerbate recruiting and retention risk.”
It is my contention that a key element of the extra money announced for cyber-warfare and special forces needs to be directed towards the reserves, because that is where the skills and capability can be best provided to meet the challenges this country faces in future.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)
Order. Before we proceed, I have two things to say. First, I should have placed it on the record that the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) has indicated to me that she has to be elsewhere in the House, as is sadly so often the case when we try to do two things at once. That is a matter of record, as is her presence. Secondly, I was asked earlier whether I would have to impose a time limit. At that time, I said no, but the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) has been very generous in giving way; I imply no criticism whatever, but that does mean that we now face the need for a time limit. If hon. Members confine their remarks to seven minutes, we shall be able to accommodate all those seeking to speak.
Douglas Chapman (Dunfermline and West Fife) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I thank the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) for bringing this important debate to the House.
I will start with how we recruit to, and encourage people to remain in, the reserves. Deployment and the value that we place on people who join the reserves are of crucial importance. The ability to allow people to put into practice what they have been trained for, whether at home or abroad, is a really important aspect of maintaining a professional reserve force.
My first question to the Minister is, how strong is the link between the regular forces and the reserves? I know there has been a lot of work recently to strengthen that link, but surely the reserve force can never be treated exactly the same as the regulars. Some roles may be interchangeable, and there may be an element of flexibility, but reserve training, which takes place primarily on evenings or at weekends, can never really reach the same standard as what we would expect for a full-time soldier, airwoman or seaman.
Does the Minister agree that we need more specialism for the reserves—the hon. Member for Kettering touched on this point—so that they can bring their professional expertise to bear? For example, in the recent tragic events in Paris, security, policing and intelligence skills were to the fore; it would supplement the work that goes on 24/7 in those areas, and support the greater good, if reserves used the talents that they already have from their professional lives. Likewise, the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) made a good point about cybercrime. The hon. Member for Kettering raised the issue of the NHS, and some of the gaps in specialist medical skills and nursing. I ask the Minister, is there anything further that the Government can do to extend the number of reserves we can take from our NHS?
A common complaint that I often hear concerns reserve officers. The average age for a reservist is 37; for an officer it is 44. It has been related to me that people serving in the reserves feel that is too high. Reserve officers are still on civvy street, obviously; the careers of many may be peaking at that age, and their families are probably at their most complex and busiest. Do they have the time and energy to take on a demanding reservist role as well as their normal day-to-day career? My question for the Minister, then, is, how do we encourage younger people, from all backgrounds and all sections of society, into the reserves and give them increased opportunities to access officer training much earlier?
On recruitment, the 35,000 figure is a tall order in anyone’s book. The Secretary of State suggested that the target was “stretching away”; that was in The Daily Telegraph, which is a fairly pro-Government newspaper, if I can put it that way, and not at all critical. The Major Projects Authority described the target as “unachievable”, and the project was downgraded from amber/red to red. We are currently 10,000 shy of the target, so at what stage will that become red and flashing? Reservist capability and numbers are crucial to forward planning for the military as a whole.
The hon. Member for Kettering also mentioned retention. Over recent years the Government have spent millions on recruiting reserves, but there is no point in recruiting all these people and training them to a very high standard only to see them haemorrhage out the other end. Many reservist units see that as a major problem, and many who lead those units see retention as far more important than recruitment, in many respects. As Members have suggested, many regulars have been made redundant in recent years; we might have thought that more effort would be made to ensure that people who leave the services get the chance to take up a reserve post if they want to—they would jump at it. Transfer from the regulars to the reserves is pathetically low. The Minister should have another look at that.
In Scotland, the activities of the Ministry of Defence can be summed up in one word: cuts. In 2012, there were 12,200 full-time regular service people in Scotland; we were promised that that number would be roughly maintained, or would rise to 12,500, in future years. The Minister will be more than well aware that that figure is now around 9,300. In Scotland, there is a big gap to fill in mainstream activity. Not a single Royal Navy surface ship is based in Scotland. Our coastline is equivalent to that of India, and we have assets such as fisheries, oil, gas and renewables to protect. Where is the Royal Navy in Scotland? Under this Government, in Scotland the Royal Navy surface fleet could be said to be absent without leave. There are 28 Air Force bases in the UK, but following the closure of Leuchars, Scotland is down to one. That barely rated a mention in any of the MOD literature put out before the referendum last year.
Recruitment rates for the reserves are appallingly low in Scotland, with barely 50% of the target figure met. That lack of take-up among reservists is because of a lack of confidence in the MOD to defend our shores and airspace in an increasingly dangerous and unpredictable world. The target will not be met in Scotland against a background of cuts and a reducing MOD footprint.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I apologise to the shadow Minister and the Minister; two of us have another meeting at half-past 10, which we are duty-bound to go to, so I will have to leave. I mean no disrespect to either hon. Gentleman; it is simply that business presses in other places.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) on bringing this important issue to the House and setting the scene well and in great detail. I declare an interest as a member of the Defence Committee—as are others here—and as a former part-time soldier, with three years in the Ulster Defence Regiment and 11 and a half years as a Territorial Army soldier in the Royal Artillery. I never achieved officer status; I drove a 4-tonne lorry—someone had to drive the lorries—and I achieved the very high rank of lance bombardier. I was an ordinary soldier, and so bring some knowledge to the debate.
We have a proud history as a military nation, and are always at the forefront of defending justice, democracy and the vulnerable. That has never been more important, in the light of the attacks on Paris last weekend. We are living in tough economic times, but must ensure that we do not retreat from the world stage. We cannot become isolationist. We are Great Britain—the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland—and are bigger and better than that. Our role is on the global stage, as a strong extrovert international voice. We have been a force for good in the past, and can be in the future. We cannot put that at risk by making huge decisions about our armed forces and our reserve forces without taking into account the changing global environment.
The tragic events of Friday are a stark reminder of the global nature of the threats that we, as a civilisation, face today, so we must think more carefully than ever about the implications of cuts to any aspect of our armed services. I know times are tough and we are being asked to tighten our belts, but the goalposts have moved. The global security environment has changed. The world has changed, and is changing again, and we need to be aware of that. Our armed forces and reserve forces are there if we need them, and we do not want to have depleted armed forces when they are most needed.
I understand that we have to have 82,000 full-time service personnel; on the present figures, we have about 79,500, so we have not even met the figures for full-time personnel. If we are having problems filling the uniforms in our full-time Navy, Air Force and Army, the issues for reserve forces are even more acute. Perhaps the Minister can tell us that the figures have changed and that, in the last few months, we have recruited about 2,500. That would be marvellous news, but let us make sure that when we talk about reserve forces, we do not unknowingly disregard our full-time forces.
I welcome the recruitment drive to increase the reserve forces to 35,000 in strength by 2018, but I reiterate that it is imperative that our armed forces’ effectiveness as a whole is not adversely affected as a result. The Minister and the hon. Member for Kettering, in his introduction, have set the scene relating to our reserve force capacity. It is obvious that we are not yet achieving our aim, but we cannot keep depleting our full-time forces if the reserve forces do not fill the gap—and, to be fair to our reserve forces, they should do so in a way that allows them to compete, and to add to what is already there. With proper training and the appropriate services and amenities, I am sure that we can have the future reserves that we are talking about, whom we can depend on when needed, but we have to make sure that that happens. We cannot replace lost service personnel with reservists who need to be fully trained, because the ultimate consequences of that would be simply too much to bear.
Many of the people who sign up to reserve forces, and are first in line for call-up, work in small businesses; that is probably more the case in Northern Ireland than on the mainland. Perhaps the Minister can tell us how to make sure that there is an employer-employee relationship that ensures that the reservist can give their commitment, and the small business employing 10 or a dozen people can operate. That small business might even employ fewer people than that. If it employs five people and one is taken out, it has a 20% reduction in its workforce. We need to address those issues for the employer as well.
Mr Brazier
I am avoiding making interventions because time is so short and so many people want to speak, but I shall, given that the hon. Gentleman has to leave. We have not only expanded the provision for employers in general when people are mobilised, but have introduced a supplementary £500 per month per individual mobilised for small and medium-sized enterprises. However, I welcome his point.
Jim Shannon
It is obvious that the Government are responding to the situation, but I am conscious of the mechanics of how that works in a small business. I appreciate the Minister’s response, however.
In Northern Ireland, we are already almost at our capacity for reserve forces. Our numbers are very clear. I have said in the past, and I say it again for the record, that if there is room to take more reservists, and I believe there is, it is important to make up at least some of those numbers in Northern Ireland. We can expand recruitment capacity in the Province to help meet the required number of reserves, as the Province has a long history of serving. Indeed, it provides more service personnel proportionally than any other British region.
The British Medical Association is concerned about undermanning in the Defence Medical Services and the effect that will have on morale, motivation and retention. The 253 (North Irish) Medical Regiment has an important role to play in the future of any Army action, wherever that may be in the world. The reservists’ role in that is so important. DMS says that although many who are willing to serve Queen and country get the very best, which is no less than they deserve, there are concerns about how the numbers will be made up, so there needs to be a strong recruitment drive. Constituents of mine who are doctors, and other personnel and staff from hospitals, are involved in that. Some specialities, such as neurology or urology, will be provided entirely by the reserve forces, as I understand it, and perhaps the Minister will comment on that. According to the BMA, there is a shortfall of approximately 68% in DMS. We need to deal with some of those issues.
Time is going by, so I will finish. We need to focus on where the shortfalls are in DMS, and to ensure that employers have a role and can let their personnel be part of that. We should offer our strongest condolences to those affected by the Paris attacks. I urge Members to learn from those events, and to be mindful, when deciding the future of our armed forces, that evil forces such as Daesh or ISIS are exactly why we must maintain strong, influential and quality armed services. Our reserves are very much part of that.
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) for securing the debate. When he was serving in his trench in Germany in the 1980s, I was even further east during the cold war, in Berlin, surrounded by the enemy. We were always told that quality would see us through, but some of us also knew that quantity has a quality all of its own, and that we stood very little chance. Our job was just to slow the progress of the advancing forces in time for when they met my hon. Friend, who would obviously put a stop to them.
I start by making the obvious point: the plan to replace 20,000 regulars with 30,000 reservists was born out of financial pressures, not strategic logic—let us be absolutely clear about that. As was described to me and others by the then Secretary of State for Defence, the financial logic was very simple. In peacetime, reservists cost a fraction of regular forces; they are easier to maintain on the Ministry of Defence budget, but when the balloon goes up and they need to be deployed, the cost of deployment, which is far higher for reservists than it is for regulars, gets transferred to the Treasury. It was an accounting exercise designed to save money. There were no strategic grand designs with this plan. That is not to say that there are not advantages from having a more flexible reservist force available to hand, or that one does not have a deep regard for the Territorial, now reservist, forces—I served with them myself in Berlin, Germany, Cyprus and Northern Ireland back in the 1980s—but the bottom line is that the plan was born out of financial pressure, not strategic design.
The plan was criticised by some of us at the time. The criticism manifested itself most starkly when we tabled amendments to the Defence Reform Bill, later the 2014 Act, in the last Parliament. I managed to secure the support of the official Opposition and the Scottish National party for an amendment, but unfortunately I could not carry quite enough Members from my side, although I am very thankful to those who did support me in that amendment, including my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering.
For us, the problem was that replacing 20,000 regulars with 30,000 reservists would create capability gaps and false economies in the longer term. The original plan was to hold those 20,000 regulars in situ until we had clear evidence that the reservist plan would work—in other words, until we had geared up on the reservists’ recruitment. There were clear indications that we could plug that gap—that, by the way, was confirmed by the previous Defence Secretary, who stood up during the debate on the amendment to the Defence Reform Bill and said that that was the case and that was the original plan. However, in addition to the cack-handed plan of replacing 20,000 regulars with 30,000 reserves, simply on the grounds of financial pressure, we then compounded the problem by saying, “We’ll let the regulars walk out the door, and no doubt we won’t have any problem with reserve recruitment.” What madness that turned out to be. We let the regulars out the door and the Army is now, I think—no doubt the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—below 82,000 on our regular strength, and meanwhile we are struggling to recruit the reservists, as my hon. Friend has clearly outlined.
The problem is not just numbers. My hon. Friend rightly pointed out that we are perhaps 9,000 or 10,000 reservists short, but, as has been alluded to in this debate, it is not just the numbers that are the problem; it is the age profile of the existing reservists. Answers to written questions more than a year ago highlighted that the average age of an infantryman in the reserve forces was in the mid-30s, and that going up the ranks, whether senior NCOs or officers, it was heading into the 40s.
We all loved “Dad’s Army”—great series—and there is a place for a home reserve, but Dad’s Army was not on the Normandy beaches. In addition to the numbers being recruited into the reserve, we need to look at the age profile of the existing reservists. The figures I quoted are for infantrymen, not the other arms of the reserve. Infantrymen have to be of a certain age to be at their peak capability on deployment.
Mr Brazier
My hon. and gallant Friend is generous in giving way. Dad’s Army was not on the Normandy beaches as it was a home defence force, but the Territorial Army most certainly was there. A division helped to hold the line at Dunkirk and, indeed, a national guard division on its own took Omaha beach.
Mr Baron
I do not deny all that, and the Minister will not be able to deny that the Government have made it clear that they intend to deploy reservists much more frequently in overseas operations. He gives us only half the truth. If the plan is to deploy reservists much more regularly, not only will that be more costly than deploying regular forces, but we will have to address the demographic issue within existing reservists and the TA.
In the time remaining, let me return to false economies. No one can deny that capability gaps have occurred as a result of the change in plan, but the Minister must address the false economies resulting from that. Letting regulars go prematurely and the problems with reservist recruitment highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering have resulted in extra spending. It is not just the IT fiasco, which cost £10 million, but the extra spending on incentives for both employers and employees —£500—pension equalisation and advertising.
I have asked parliamentary questions about whether the Government can quantify those extra expenses, which were not foreseen when the original plans were put in place. We have not had answers. We keep being told that there is £1.8 billion, which should cover those expenses, but that £1.8 billion is over 10 years. We need detailed answers from the Government on what those unforeseen extra costs have been. When will we have those answers? Either the Government do not know the answers, which would be worrying, or they do know and will not disclose them. That would be equally worrying and may suggest to some that they are trying to hide something.
I look forward to answers from the Minister, and if he does not have time to provide them today, perhaps he will write to me and others who have raised the issue and say what the extra costs are. Our two central concerns are capability gaps in the short term and false economies in the longer term. At the moment, the reservist plans seem to have both problems.
Steven Paterson (Stirling) (SNP)
First, I thank the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) for securing this debate. I am delighted to speak in it as the Member for Stirling, which has a long and proud tradition of association with the armed forces.
During the 1990s, when I was at university in Aberdeen, I was a member of the Royal Naval Reserve. The unit was part of the university and was designed to expand and increase understanding of the armed forces generally and the Navy in particular. I am pleased that I had that experience, which has carried me forward to today. It is probably fair to say that the word “humble” is relative in the light of some hon. Members’ contributions, but I mention it to show that I have a little experience of the Royal Naval Reserve which has stood me in good stead.
I will make a rather obvious statement: our armed forces reserve plays a crucial part in its contribution to the armed forces as a whole. The White Paper published by the Ministry of Defence in 2013 proposed significant changes, many of which have been discussed, but this is a good opportunity to consider one or two. Many of the proposals made sense in terms of modernising how the reserves operate—for example, updating and expanding the range of tasks the reserve can be called on to do, and reconfiguring the way reservists operate and complement regular forces. The strategic defence and security review will include a lot on that and I hope that the Minister will say a little about it today. I hope that more flexibility and broadened opportunities will help to increase the number of people in the reserve forces; many hon. Members have called for that this morning and I agree with them.
I have been told anecdotally of reservists hiding their military service from their employers, and that some use their annual leave for exercises. If there is any truth in that, we have work more closely with employers and reservists to solve that problem, because that should not be happening. People are entitled to make a contribution and to enjoy their work with breaks and holidays. Reservists develop a range of skills through their military service and bring a huge benefit to employers, but we must recognise that their commitment may have a serious impact on businesses. I welcome the Minister’s comments about contributions to employers. Perhaps we should investigate that avenue further as a way of expanding the numbers and reaching the targets.
Hon. Members mentioned enabling additional payments and the necessity of the reserve being more flexible and adaptable, which in many respects they are compared with the regular forces. That is an advantage. The reserve is more affordable, which may be partly why we are moving in this direction. It is good if it allows our forces to become more flexible.
Stirling is home to an assault pioneer platoon, part of Delta company of 7 SCOTS, whose job includes a range of things, including the construction of tools for infantry soldiers to cross natural and man-made obstacles, breaching enemy fortifications, supervising the construction of field defensive works, such as bunkers, support weapon firing positions and so on. Those are important skills and they make an important contribution. I am pleased to have the platoon in my constituency. I take this opportunity to recognise each and every reservist in the Stirling area and thank them for their dedicated service and hard work. As we have discussed, those reservists, due to the Future Force 2020 plan that the Government have set out, are becoming vital to our armed forces.
Looking to the future, the Government have set out an ambitious target of 35,000 trained reservists, 30,000 of whom are in the Army, by 2018. However, the National Audit Office has warned that that target is unlikely to be met before 2025. The point has been made previously and I know that the Minister will address it.
The external security team annual report suggests that, although there has been a significant increase in recruiting reservists, there is likely to be a high outflow due to the age profile being heavily skewed towards older reservists. That is a real problem and one that we must tackle. Working closer with employers to generate flexibility may be a way of creating the opportunities we seek to solve the problem.
The problems of recruitment in my constituency have been mentioned. Stirling has a long association with the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders, which was, sadly, subsumed into the Royal Regiment of Scotland before being downgraded to a ceremonial battalion. That, combined with the closure of the Army recruitment office in Stirling, has caused problems for recruitment. Perhaps we should think again about how we approach that to ensure that people have the chance to benefit from the real opportunities and advantages in reserve service.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I congratulate the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) on securing the debate; it is vital that we have these discussions. I found today’s speeches, particularly from those who have served in the forces, very interesting. It is clear that there is a commitment in this Chamber to our reserve forces, and many vital points have been made about that, but we must ensure that our forces and our reserves are fit for purpose, that we are willing to stand up for them, and that these are not just words.
People who serve in our reserve forces deserve our commitment and support. It is vital that we understand the impact that their service has on their day-to-day lives. As we have heard, the conclusion of an independent commission was that previously our reserve forces were neglected, under-exploited and in decline. We welcome that being acknowledged and the commitment to a new relationship with reservists, families, employers and society, but it was interesting to hear the concern raised by the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) that the current plan for our regular and reserve force numbers was an accounting exercise, not a strategic decision. I echo his request for answers on the costs that that bad planning has led to.
We heard from the hon. Member for Kettering about the deployment of reservists who are currently on patrol, and the importance of deploying troops while recognising the threats that we face. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said that the world has changed and the goalposts have moved—and clearly they have. He noted that in that context, we have problems filling our full-time forces, and the issues that face our reserves are even more acute.
Our need to fill the reserve posts is clearly a key issue for our national security—I have noted that Trooper Hollobone agrees with me. It is vital to consider the impact on the lives of the people who serve in our reserve forces, because that has a direct impact on people deciding to enter the forces. We also need to consider the impact on their families and the longer-term impact on them, which we have not discussed much today.
We need to think about the interrelationship between our veterans and our regular forces, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Douglas Chapman) stated. There is no doubt about the great work that both groups do, and they do it with huge determination and courage. That is appreciated hugely by all of us, I am sure, but as my hon. Friend said, in Scotland we see cuts and we have serious concerns regarding numbers. In September 2015, the number of military personnel in Scotland stood at a historic low. It is down 9.5% from the previous year. That is serious cause for concern. Undoubtedly, Scotland has served proudly. We were told clearly last year, during the independence referendum campaign, that our defence capabilities would be delivered by a force that included 35,000 reservists. That will now be a stretch, and the figure will not be reached until 2020, if indeed at all. As the hon. Member for Kettering said, we have 9,000 to go and it is a tough challenge.
In June this year, the Major Projects Authority in Whitehall rated the Future Reserves 2020 project as red. As my hon. Friend the Member for West Dunbartonshire (Martin John Docherty) said, that means that it is unlikely to be achievable. The Defence Secretary himself has admitted that it is a challenge, and I certainly agree. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and West Fife highlighted, it would be particularly good to hear more from the Minister on that to get some clarity. We are clear that we need to prioritise having the air and naval capability to monitor and secure our country. We need to ensure that our oil and gas, fisheries and coastal waters are safeguarded. That needs resource in the shape of equipment, but also personnel, yet the UK Government persist in planning to spend £167 billion on nuclear weapons of mass destruction, which deter no one. Those vital funds could be spent better on our forces, including our reserves, and on ensuring that we are appropriately resourced to meet both regular and reserve requirements. The hon. Member for Kettering quoted the report as saying that budgetary issues cause a real risk to delivery. I agree and I question those spending priorities.
We heard from a number of hon. Members about the age profile, particularly of officers. This issue is crucial. We must take action to diversify the officer age profile and better to link service leavers with reserve opportunities. I echo the sentiment that the reserves forces are not a Dad’s Army. We must recognise the huge and diverse contribution that they make, and the increasing contribution that they could make if we recruit wisely. The hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) made very important points about the vital and diverse skills that our reserves bring to the table. Having worked for many years in recruitment and retention, I urge the Minister to be cognisant of the issues in that respect, because as we go forward they will become more pressing and could cause difficulties in terms of our overall military footprint.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Steven Paterson) made important points about the reserve forces and the relationship between them and employers. I welcome the fact that funds are available for employers, and I urge the Minister to consider how we go further down the road of making it possible for people to live the double life that reserves must live.
It is important that we consider the welfare of our reserve forces. It is a difficult line that we expect them to tread, and we must ensure that proper support mechanisms are available for them. Clearly, reservists who require medical treatment must be able to expect that process to work in all the different NHS board areas, and all the different countries of the United Kingdom. In Scotland, our NHS meets the health needs of our reserve forces. It is vital that that can be relied on. Our Scottish Government and NHS have worked together very well to ensure that proper support is provided to our veterans.
I am very pleased that in Scotland we have raised the profile of the needs of our service personnel and veterans. We have NHS armed forces champions in every NHS board area in Scotland. That has allowed a real joined-up approach to effective joint working. Similarly, in our local authorities, our armed forces champions are making a real difference; they include two reservists. In my area, Jane Duncan, the East Renfrewshire Council veterans champion, is, with her team, making a significant difference to people’s lives in practical ways. Our reservists, service personnel and veterans deserve that kind of back-up from all of us.
To conclude, it is vital that we recognise our defence responsibilities, the interrelationship between reserve forces and regular forces, and our responsibilities to veterans—to people while they serve and after their service. We rely on them to do the hardest and most dangerous job there is, and we must support them in doing it.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I congratulate the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) on securing the debate. I start by paying tribute to the contribution of both our regular forces and our reserve forces. As a former Defence Minister, I have seen at first hand the contribution of both, and in Iraq and Afghanistan, the contribution that reservists made, not just in medical services but on the frontline, was sometimes overlooked. We ought to pay tribute to them.
The hon. Gentleman raised the important issue of ensuring that we monitor the Army 2020 process. He welcomed the Chancellor’s announcement yesterday of an extra £2 billion for special forces, but I ask him to look closely at the details, because as usual what the Treasury announces is not what it seems. If it includes the £1.5 billion that was already announced in the Budget, and if the extra equipment for the SAS is coming out of the 1% that has already been announced, it does not appear that there is any new money at all, so I ask that the hon. Gentleman look more carefully at that.
Importantly, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) highlighted, as he always does, the contribution made not only to the regular forces but to the reserve forces by people from his part of the world—Northern Ireland. We also had contributions from the hon. Members for Dunfermline and West Fife (Douglas Chapman), and for Stirling (Steven Paterson); the latter highlighted the important role of the reserves and the contribution that his constituency makes to recruitment to the reserve forces.
I was sad to see the Scottish National party then revert to its usual victim mentality; it argued that Scotland was not getting a fair share of its resources. As for the idea that the Royal Navy is not present in Scotland, I was the Minister who oversaw the relocation of the submarine force to Scotland, and I think that it has a large footprint in, and makes a large contribution to, Scotland.
The hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Kirsten Oswald) argued that the non-replacement of the nuclear deterrent would free up resources. That is a myth, and she needs to explain to her constituents and voters in Scotland the economic black hole that would occur in the defence budget and the economic contribution to Scotland if that decision was taken. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Stirling is chuntering from a sedentary position, but unfortunately the Scottish National party does not want to address the real issue of the contribution that defence already makes, not only to Scotland but to the entire UK.
The hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) has been consistent in his criticism of Army 2020. He put his finger on the problem with Army 2020, which is that it was not conceived from strategic need and thought; budgetary considerations and the Treasury were in the driving seat. In 2010, the strategic defence review argued for a reduction in the Army from 102,000 to 95,000. To meet budgetary restrictions, it was announced in July 2011 that the Army would be reduced to 82,000, with an increase in the number of reservists from 19,000 to 30,000. As the hon. Gentleman highlighted, the then Defence Secretary, the right hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr Hammond), said that the reduction in the regular Army would take place only if reservists filled that gap, but that has not been the case.
It is clear from the National Audit Office report of 2014 that the future size of the Army was determined not by strategic needs but by financial savings. The comments by General Sir Peter Wall, the former Chief of the General Staff, were quite revealing:
“I remember the genesis very clearly. It was a financially driven plan. We had to design a new structure that included the run-down of the 102,000 Regular Army to 82,000, which is pretty well advanced now, to follow a funding line that was driven by the austerity with which everybody is very familiar...It triggered the complete redesign of the Army”.
As he has told the Defence Committee on several occasions, the head of the Army was informed by the permanent secretary at the MOD what the future size of the Army would be. The former Defence Secretary made the point that the cost envelope was the driving force behind the proposal, not any strategic needs, and I believe that is the problem.
I do not in any way criticise the Minister for his determination or his enthusiasm for reservists, but we come back to the fundamental question of where the 82,000 figure came from. Unfortunately, it is being reinforced in the present defence and security review, and the fact that the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force will have to take the bulk of the cuts seems to have been overlooked. There is an opportunity now to review not only Army 2020 but the entire strategic defence review process. Unfortunately, the Conservative party, having nailed the figure of 82,000 to the mast with its other electoral colours during the general election, will find it difficult to withdraw from that, but that fundamental review needs to take place.
Despite the valiant efforts of the Minister and those who are working hard in the MOD, there are still serious problems, as highlighted by the NAO. One of the most damning points highlighted in the report is the fact that recruitment targets are not underpinned by robust planning. Likewise, the IT fiasco has wasted some £70 million. I accept that some of those problems have been resolved, but it does not fill people with a great deal of confidence that the process will result in the targets outlined in today’s debate being met.
Another telling point comes from the MOD’s continuous attitude survey, which shows that among personnel who have been made redundant or left the forces, there is little appetite for joining the reserves; the figure was less than 17%. The hon. Members for Kettering and for Basildon and Billericay both made the point that the important thing is not numbers, but what we have in our reserve. If this is simply made into a numbers game, it will not necessarily translate into the capabilities that we need in the infantry, or tackle the severe shortages in Defence Medical Services that have been mentioned. I know from my time in the Ministry of Defence that those skills were vital to our deployment in Afghanistan. We need to think about not just numbers but the kinds of individual that we are recruiting.
An important point was made about the retention of reservists once they have been recruited. The hon. Members for Basildon and Billericay, and for Kettering, made the good point that if people do not feel challenged and do not feel as though they are making a contribution, they will not necessarily stay in and continue to contribute to the reserves. It is a waste of the resources put into the training and recruitment of those individuals if we retain them for only a short time, which is not cost-effective for the taxpayer.
There is an opportunity in the security and defence review to look at the 82,000 figure and ask whether the reserve recruitment targets—realistically, they are not going to be achieved—should be revisited. The Navy and RAF numbers will come under pressure, because for some unexplained reason the Conservative party in its election manifesto set the figure of 82,000 on a tablet of stone, not to be changed. That needs revisiting. Events over the weekend show that the threats we face change quickly, and that some of the skills that we need—in cyber, intelligence and other capabilities—must be procured in the regular forces, but the reserve forces can also make a contribution.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Julian Brazier)
What a pleasure it is to respond to the debate under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) on securing the debate and on his remarkable, predictably thoroughly researched and self-effacing speech. The debate takes place as we remember the first world war, in which the then Territorial Force won 71 Victoria Crosses, and the Battle of Britain, in which two of the three highest-scoring squadrons were from the Royal Auxiliary Air Force.
I will try to pick up as many points as I can in the short time available. My hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon), who had to leave to attend the Defence Committee, know that I am not allowed to respond to the points they made about special forces, beyond saying that my heart goes out, as I know theirs do, to the families of the three young men. I share my hon. Friend’s pride in the Conspicuous Gallantry Cross he referred to, which is the latest in a series of decorations won by the unit we both served in.
The expansion of the reserve forces is critical to our ability to deliver defence on a sustainable financial basis and to maintain the Clausewitzian trinity of the armed forces, the Government and the people. It will enable us to ensure that the armed forces are structured and resourced to meet the challenges of the 21st century. After many years of neglect, the Government are restructuring and revitalising our reserve forces and investing in new equipment and support.
The programme is not—my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) and I have debated this many times—about swapping regular personnel for reserves. In 2010 we did, indeed, make some very painful decisions right across Government. After that, the commission on which I served looked at the issue of the balance and recommended changing the way that we delivered defence to make the best use of our resources, better to harness the talents of the wider UK society and, above all, to help to restore links and understanding between the armed forces and the communities that they serve. The sombre events in Paris remind us of the importance of those close links. We should be in no doubt at all that, whatever the size of our armed forces, we must always have reserves.
Now, the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) knows that he is not going to tempt me into anticipating the strategic defence and security review, but I can say that I am pleased to be part of a Government who are genuinely committed to 2% for defence spending, although I know I will not satisfy my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering on the legal point. Nevertheless, we are committed to it.
Our programme to grow the reserves is making good progress but, as my hon. Friend said, there is no room for complacency. In the year to 1 October, more than 8,500 people joined the volunteer reserves, an increase of more than 65% on the previous 12 months, taking their strength to more than 33,000. Most notably, 6,500 people joined the Army Reserve, an increase of 73% on the previous period. All three services are ahead of their trained strength targets, but that certainly does not mean that we can relax. We must continue to make further progress to meet our commitment of creating a force of around 35,000 trained volunteer reserves by April 2019, and to deliver the usable, motivated and capable reserve forces that the country needs. My hon. Friend is right that that means another 9,000 trained personnel in three and a half years’ time. Given that we have grown by 1,300 trained personnel in just the past six months, that seems challenging but not unattainable.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right—a number of other Members referred to this—that the biggest challenge is building the officer base. The internal study set up by the Chief of the General Staff and headed by a reserve brigadier has recommended considerable restructuring, including a marketing post manned by a volunteer reserve officer with huge marketing experience, who is now installed in Sandhurst. The numbers are going up. For example, just outside the constituency of the hon. Member for Stirling (Steven Paterson) is 71 Engineer Regiment, which I visited recently. It now has six young officers under 30—a transformation from even a couple of years ago. The same thing has happened with my local reserve unit.
A number of Members made a point about the need to get the age structure down. In fact, the largest concentration in the age structure of the Army Reserve is in the 25 to 29 category. We are working hard on it, but the averages are pulled up by the fact that we want older people—those in their 40s and even 50s—in areas such as intelligence and for some of the medical skills. A number of Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering, mentioned transfers from the regulars. Those are running above our target. In fact, that is the one part of reserve recruiting that has been consistently above target, and we are offering substantial financial incentives to those who transfer.
We are offering reservists today more challenging opportunities than before. New call-out powers enshrined in the Defence Reform Act 2014 have allowed us to use reservists in the same way as regulars, and reservists have taken up the challenge. We would only have compulsory call-out only in an emergency, but people join the reserves because they want to be used. In the past 12 months, they have been deployed, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering said, in formed groups to Afghanistan and Cyprus. They have provided specialist help to deal with the Ebola crisis in west Africa, and maritime reserves have taken part in counter-terrorist and counter-piracy operations alongside their regular counterparts. As my hon. Friend said, next summer a company from 4 Para will provide the framework company for the Falkland Islands.
We are offering reserves more and better training opportunities. In the current training year, the services have planned more than 50 overseas exercises involving reserves, including a series of Army exercises in Kenya with integrated companies of regulars and reserves. A number of Members referred to the crucial importance of the specialist courses in what we call phase 2 and 3 training and to the difficulties of tailoring those to reservists in civilian employment. The fact that Chatham has managed that for an area such as bomb disposal shows that this is possible more widely across the Army.
Several people, including the hon. Member for Bridgend and my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering, referred to the importance of cyber. For quite a long time, the only cyber-unit in the armed forces was a reservist one in the then Territorial Army. Today, reserves play an important role in cyber in all three services.
We have invested in new equipment. We have given reservists access to the regular pension scheme and a paid annual leave entitlement. We are giving them full access to Defence-provided medical care and physiotherapy, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering will remember, was an issue when he and I served. We have improved civilian accreditation for training. Employers are vital and we are immensely grateful for the commitment some of them make.
Mr Baron
No one in this Chamber doubts the dedication, hard work and enthusiasm that the Minister is putting into the task of increasing the reserve forces, but he must also accept that key questions remain unresolved, including the age profile of the infantry. We all accept the age profile when it comes to reservists and specialisms such as cyber, but the age profile of the infantry is still far too high—mid-30s and early 40s. May I return the Minister to the central issue of extra costs? There have been extra unforeseen costs with these plans, which, despite frequent requests to the Government, he and the Government are unable or unwilling to disclose. Does he intend—if not here today, then perhaps in the immediate future—to put that right?
Mr Brazier
I have written to my hon. Friend and I will write to him again. The ongoing costs of the recruiting process have shown some significant savings, but it is difficult to separate regulars and reserves because they are in the same contract. If he is referring to the contingency costs of deploying reserves on operations, there is a cost associated, but it is a cost that is paid for only when there are large-scale operations. The point about reservists—as the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Kirsten Oswald) said, if I heard her correctly—is that it is very much cheaper most of the time to have part of the forces in reserves.
We have established the defence relationship management service, to which 42 of the 100 FTSE companies are now signed up. I have already mentioned the extra benefits for small and medium-sized enterprises. Crucially, we have set up an annual employer notification process, so that employers know a long way in advance when reservists are being called. That is crucial for retention, which so many Members referred to.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kettering set out the progress we have already made on the employer recognition scheme, which includes many NHS trusts. We are not in a position to dictate this, although I pay tribute to the Scottish Government, who run a more unified system and are able to dictate. Many hospital trusts have won employer awards. The Cabinet Secretary has the 1% challenge; we now have 1,250 civil servants serving in the reserves. These are at the heart of the retention issues. I cannot give the exact figures for medical reserve recruiting at the moment, but I can say that over the past 12 months the Army medical services, which are the bulk, have seen a considerable surge in numbers. I will write to my hon. Friend and to the other Members who raised that issue with some more detailed figures.
We have overcome a number of challenges that were affecting Army Reserve recruitment. We are making more imaginative use of advertising media, and we have hugely reduced the delays in the pipeline under the new system and provided better mentoring and support in units for those enlisting.
I thank all Members who took part in the debate and the many other Members who support their local units. Our reserves are stronger and better equipped than they have been for years. Despite the neglect, over the past 10 years, 70 reservists won decorations for gallantry in Afghanistan and Iraq, and 31 gave their lives. There is a great deal that we can be proud of in our reserve forces. We are making the reserves proposition that we set out in the 2013 White Paper a reality.
Mr Hollobone
All of us who have taken part in the debate want the Government’s reforms to our reserves to work. All of us recognise that this is a huge challenge. I am confident that the Minister is the right man in the right place at the right time, and I look forward to him fulfilling the challenging task that he faces.
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).
M56 (Junctions 12 to 14)
(9 years, 1 month ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)
Before we begin, I notice that hon. Members are present who, geography suggests, might have a constituency interest. I have received no notice of any other speakers having been agreed with the Minister or the Chair, but if hon. Members wish to intervene, they may do so with the consent of the hon. Member in charge of the debate.
Graham Evans (Weaver Vale) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered Junctions 12 to 14 of the M56 motorway.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I have secured this debate because I have serious concerns about the stretch of motorway between junctions 12 and 14 of the M56, which is a major motorway in its own right that links three other motorways—the M6, the M60 and the M53—connecting Cheshire, north Wales and Greater Manchester. The M56 eventually becomes the A55, which continues to Holyhead, providing the single most important transport link for moving freight into and out of north Wales.
Accidents happen all too often on the M56, particularly between junctions 12 and 14, which is the stretch that runs alongside the important communities of Helsby, Frodsham, Sutton Weaver, Preston Brook, Norton and Beechwood in my constituency of Weaver Vale. There is a long, straight stretch of motorway between junctions 12 and 14, running east-west from Runcorn to Chester. There are services at Hapsford, but there is very little technology or electronic signage alerting drivers to potential hazards ahead. The purpose of this debate is to try to get technology on that stretch of motorway.
This is a busy stretch of motorway, with more than 120,000 motorists using the M56 each day and just short of 10,000 vehicles passing through junctions 12 and 14 in both directions during the 5 pm to 6 pm evening rush hour, with even more using the same stretch between 7 am and 8 am during the morning commute. I routinely use the M56 when attending engagements around Weaver Vale, and my constituency office is located off junction 11 at Sci-Tech Daresbury. I therefore have first-hand experience of the challenges that motorists face along the M56.
The section of motorway between junctions 12 and 14 is predominantly east-west, and the setting sun can have knock-on safety implications, particularly at this time of year, or when inclement weather makes it difficult for drivers to see. There have been a number of incidents in the past 12 to 18 months. Sadly, some of those incidents have been extremely serious and have had a devastating effect on the local community. Last month, the police declared a major incident and shut the motorway in both directions from junction 14 to junction 11 after a chemical tanker overturned on the eastbound carriageway near Helsby, just past junction 14.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for securing this debate on an important issue that affects not only his constituency but mine. Junction 14, of course, is just within the boundary of Ellesmere Port and Neston, and we have Members here from other constituencies in the wider area that are also affected. He has clearly set out some of the issues. Statistics reveal that the number of incidents on this stretch of motorway has doubled in the past four years. Does he have any thoughts or theories as to why we have seen such an increase in serious incidents on this stretch in recent years?
Graham Evans
I welcome the help and support of the hon. Members for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders), for City of Chester (Christian Matheson), and for Halton (Derek Twigg), and I look forward to working with them. There have been issues on this stretch of the M56 for many, many years. Indeed, as the hon. Member for Halton will know, junction 12 is currently under pressure from severe roadworks. As I will say later in my speech, the Mersey Gateway bridge is also adding pressure, so there are factors that may be regarded as temporary, but that does not detract from the purpose of this debate, which is to get smart technology installed on the whole stretch between junctions 12 and 14. I will explore the short-term measures that could alleviate the problems, but I am looking for significant investment in the whole area for a long-term solution.
There were eight casualties in the recent accident, and five were treated by the North West ambulance service, which does a fantastic job, at Hapsford services off junction 14. Three casualties were taken to the Countess of Chester hospital, but they have all since been released. A secondary collision on the eastbound carriageway occurred at 8.31 pm that evening involving a car transporter and a car, which resulted in a 24-year-old man, a 26-year-old man and a one-year-old baby boy suffering serious injuries.
The motorway was closed for several hours following the tanker crash last month as an investigation was conducted to ascertain the nature of the chemical carried by the tanker. In the meantime, a 1,500-metre cordon was established that also shut down the Holyhead to Manchester railway line. Mid-Cheshire was brought to a complete standstill, and commuters were left stranded, unable to travel by car or rail. I understand why there are very strict safety protocols that must be followed in the event of a chemical spillage, but for some reason the investigators were not able to contact the chemical company to ascertain the contents of the tanker. I am looking into how that came about.
Last year, an empty bus collided with a car and two heavy goods vehicles near junction 12. Police and fire and rescue teams attended the scene and tried to cut a man and a woman out of two different vehicles. Sadly, both the man and the woman were declared dead at the scene. These are not isolated incidents. Accident rates have worsened since 2013, as the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston highlighted, with accidents clustered around the junction 12 exit slip road and the chevron-marked area between Runcorn and Frodsham all the way through Hapsford services at junction 14. There have been more than 160 road traffic collisions on this stretch of motorway since 2011, more than 50 of which have caused either injury or death.
Unhappily, there was a significant tanker fire in August in the vicinity of junction 14, which prompted me to organise and facilitate a multi-agency meeting in October in response to the increasing frequency and seriousness of the incidents. Present at the meeting were senior representatives from Highways England, Cheshire constabulary, the Mersey Gateway company, Halton Borough Council and Cheshire West and Chester Council, and I made it clear that the meeting was the start of an ongoing process to ensure that we address all the concerns of constituents across the area affected. A number of issues and potential initiatives were explored, such as the introduction of smart motorway technology, enhanced cameras, improved advance notice of incidents and electronic signposting. We also discussed how the various agencies respond to incidents, both in the immediate aftermath and as a situation unfolds, such as the use of carriageway gates to release trapped drivers. Our principal objective was to identify key issues; consider solutions and seek to introduce them in an effective and timely manner to minimise the possibility of accidents recurring; and reduce disruption when accidents occur. At the meeting, a Highways England representative informed me that, two years ago, it considered an alternative traffic management plan for when this section of the M56 is seriously gridlocked, but that plan has not yet come to fruition. I urge the Minister to ensure that the plan is revisited as a priority.
Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)
As the hon. Gentleman knows, this is a serious issue of concern in Halton. What evaluation has there been of these accidents? At what time of day do they happen? In what weather do they happen? Were mobile phones being used? Has there been a road safety audit of this stretch of motorway? If so, what was the result and what was done about it? There have been cuts to incident support units, which is an added factor in being able to get to such incidents quickly.
Graham Evans
The hon. Gentleman raises serious and important points, some of which I raised with Cheshire constabulary. I was somewhat disappointed with the response. Cheshire constabulary looks at every accident; it says that there is no connection, and that they are individual accidents with no linked contributing factors. I agree with his underlying point, because I think there is a connection: the east-west aspect of the motorway and the timing of these accidents when the sun is setting at rush hour.
A further point raised at the meeting was the use of carriageway gates, which I touched on briefly earlier. Several reservations along the M56 have carriageway gates that can be opened to release trapped drivers. They are located roughly every 2 km, and the keys are kept centrally and delivered to the relevant personnel when needed. Keys are now kept on all Highways England vehicles, which is a definitive step in the right direction, although the challenge in using the carriageway gates remains in getting the appropriate personnel in place to close and monitor a lane on the opposite carriageway so that traffic can be released from the affected carriageway. I was interested to note that the keys were not carried in the vehicles; I found it quite amazing. Apparently they are now. I look forward to working with the relevant agencies and the Minister over the coming months to discuss how we can achieve that more readily on that stretch of motorway.
There is little digital signposting along this stretch of motorway to alert motorists to incidents or danger ahead. I have made it clear that I fully support the introduction of smart motorway technology to improve safety and traffic flow. The introduction of smart motorway technology is planned for junctions 6 to 8 of the M56 and junctions 5 to 11 of the M53, and I have been campaigning for similar technology along the stretch between junctions 12 and 14 of the M56.
The key to preventing the build-up of tailbacks following an incident is moving vehicles away from the area as quickly and safely as possible. The M56 between junctions 12 to 14 is unfortunate in that it has few trunk roads that can handle overspill traffic when an incident occurs. The main route at present is the A56, which goes through the residential areas of Frodsham and Helsby and has numerous pedestrian crossings, making it unsuitable to cope with the volume of motorway traffic following a severe accident on the M56. I would be interested to know whether it is possible to bias the timing of pedestrian crossings in favour of traffic flow when an incident occurs, to help relieve tailbacks faster.
The Government have already invested heavily in the area. Work has been undertaken to improve safety and traffic flow on the motorway; £2.3 million in improvements have been made to access roads on junction 11. The works include installing signals on the roundabout, widening the carriageway at key locations on the roundabout, constructing an additional lane on the M56 westbound exit slip and constructing an additional lane on the A56 approach to the roundabout, as well as resurfacing and road marking. The scheme was opened fully in September. As part of the Government’s road investment strategy for my area, work was announced last December on junction 11A to connect the M56 with the A533 at Runcorn to create a new, improved link with the M56 to the new Mersey Gateway bridge, which is under construction.
Likewise, improvement works are being undertaken on junction 12 to link up the Mersey Gateway bridge, which might or might not contribute to some of the accidents around junction 12. Part of the knock-on effect of the improvement works has been an increase in use of roads through Beechwood, including Halton Station road. Very big HGVs and coaches are using that small, residential one-way street, and my constituents are concerned to know what can be done to alleviate the problem.
The works at junction 12 finished yesterday, on time. I am not criticising the workers and their work; they work hard, and they are doing a good job. When complete, the Mersey Gateway bridge and the improved access to the M56 will undoubtedly ease congestion in the area. Likewise, I was delighted when my right hon. Friend the Chancellor confirmed that the Halton curve scheme will be part of a joined-up transport strategy for Weaver Vale, mid-Cheshire and beyond. I have worked closely with the Chancellor, the Department for Transport, Merseytravel, Cheshire West and Chester Council, Halton Council, the North Cheshire Rail Users Group and north Cheshire rail users to ensure that funding for this important transport link is delivered. The Halton curve is a game-changer for the area, providing a direct link for Frodsham, Helsby and Runcorn—areas running alongside the M56. It provides essential potential to ease traffic congestion in those areas by taking commuters off the M56 altogether.
Justin Madders
What the hon. Gentleman says about the Halton curve is important. Obviously, increased rail services will be needed to reduce the pressure. An issue raised with me by constituents is the convergence of different sets of traffic from Wales, Merseyside, Chester and Cheshire Oaks, as well as the heavy industrial traffic entering at junction 14 from Elton, Stanlow and Quinn Glass. Does he think that there is an opportunity for some of that industrial traffic to go by rail as well?
Graham Evans
The hon. Gentleman raises some good points; perhaps that is a subject for another debate in the House. I totally agree. Electrification of north-western rail, and electrification generally, are part of the northern powerhouse, as is a deep-water port in Liverpool connected to a railhead. We have an opportunity to get a lot of the products of the valued heavy industries in our constituencies on the railway. It is a massive infrastructure project, but perhaps we can work together to get freight off the M56.
The hon. Gentleman highlights an important point: in order to import and export from Holyhead along the A55 from north Wales into Manchester and the north-west generally, we must improve not just the M56 but transport infrastructure generally, creating a linked-up service. Commuters are important. Disruptions and road closures on the M56 sometimes include closure of the railways, which has a far larger knock-on effect on constituents across Cheshire and north Wales.
Each incident is an incident too many. Injuries and fatalities cause untold devastation to the families of loved ones affected; they have long been calling for action on this stretch of the road. Something can and should be done about this. We cannot leave things as they are and allow more families to suffer. I firmly believe that the increasing frequency and serious nature of incidents warrant close inspection and action.
Although my main priority in calling this debate was to bring to light and discuss ways to make this section of the road safer, the other aspect is the huge delays and disruptions in surrounding areas caused by incidents on the motorway. If the motorway snarls up, many people hop off and go down the A56, causing huge traffic jams, as I highlighted earlier, through residential areas such as Sutton Weaver, Frodsham and Helsby. It makes everyday life difficult for residents near the motorway.
In the two years between 2012 and 2014, the average incident length on the eastbound carriageway increased by 10 minutes to 32 minutes. However, over the same period, on average, the incident length on the westbound carriageway has doubled from 30 minutes to 60 minutes. The M56, like the new Mersey Gateway bridge and the Halton curve, are integral to the delivery of the northern powerhouse. I am committed to securing the best possible infrastructure facilities for Weaver Vale and the surrounding area.
I look forward to continuing to work with the Minister and the agencies that I mentioned earlier, and to working cross-party with my parliamentary colleagues throughout Cheshire, north Wales and Greater Liverpool to discuss how progress can best be achieved in a timely manner, and how we can improve safety and reduce disruption along this important stretch of the motorway.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Andrew Jones)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale (Graham Evans) on securing this debate on road safety, an issue I know he champions consistently. I am grateful for the opportunity to update the House on current and planned action between junctions 12 and 14 of the M56.
I know that my hon. Friend is concerned about the number of incidents on this stretch of the strategic road network. He has made his case eloquently and I want to reassure him and the House that I take safety seriously. I share his concern that some of the incidents have resulted in serious injuries and, sadly, fatalities. Highways England is already investigating the reasons for that worrying trend, examining the data in depth to see whether any trends emerge in terms of causation factors. It is too early to say at this point what final measures the review might identify or the time scales for implementing them, but I will ensure that that is given priority and that Highways England is aware of the concern in the House, which is shared by colleagues on both sides.
Derek Twigg
Has the Highways Agency carried out a road safety audit? If not, why not? If it has, what were the results?
Andrew Jones
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. He has been assiduous in asking about safety on the M56 and he will recall that I wrote to him about it in September. I assure him that safety is a top priority for the Department and for Highways England. The investigatory work is ongoing and I will make sure that the results of that work are shared openly and given appropriate priority by Highways England. I will also make sure that a report of this debate is sent to Highways England with immediate effect.
I will say a little about the long-term investment in the road network. We are taking a strategic and long-term approach to planning our network and we are providing stability of funding for Highways England, so that it is better able to plan its investment in the network. My hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale will recall that the first road investment strategy, which Highways England is now delivering, includes a commitment to invest in stretches of the M56, including the new junction 11a to link the M56 to the A533 at Runcorn, creating an improved link to the new Mersey Gateway bridge from the south.
The first RIS was informed by a comprehensive review of the entire strategic road network through a series of route strategies, prepared at that time by the Highways Agency. The pressures and needs of the M56 were assessed as part of the broader south Pennines route strategy. Such route strategies marked the first time that the needs of the strategic road network had been comprehensively assessed, link by link and junction by junction. I am pleased to advise my hon. Friend and indeed the House that such an assessment of the M56 and other parts of the network is not a one-off.
We are developing the process for preparing a second RIS, which will cover the period after 2020. A key part of the evidence base will be Highways England’s next iteration of these route strategies, which it will use to identify the current and future constraints that the performance of the strategic road network places on economic growth. It will then use this information to identify how future delivery and investment plans might address and remove those constraints. As we take the local route strategies forward, I think we will see greater collaboration with local authorities, local enterprise partnerships and other local stakeholders to determine the nature, need and timing of the future investment that the network requires.
To inform the second RIS, Highways England will begin to develop the next round of route strategies with a view to publishing them at the end of 2016-17. I want to change the process a little bit for our second RIS, to make it far more open and to ensure that colleagues here in the House are able to contribute to it with their suggestions. There is no shortage of ideas about the improvements that are required across our network and I want to make sure that colleagues get a chance to contribute to, inform and shape the strategy.
Justin Madders
I think we will all be grateful for the opportunity to make an input to this process for investing in the network. Will the investment plan also consider the day-to-day operational costs and expenses of running the network? The hon. Member for Weaver Vale (Graham Evans) highlighted the increase in the time taken to deal with incidents, and my hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Derek Twigg) mentioned the reduction in the number of incident support unit officers. Will some consideration be given to reinvesting in incident support units, to alleviate the impact of collisions on the whole network?
Andrew Jones
Road investment strategies are focused upon capital, but I am acutely aware that in certain cases capital brings with it revenue implications, and we consistently hear arguments about that. Today, however, I am talking specifically about capital investment.
I expect to make announcements about RIS2 and the process for it within the next few weeks. I expect that the assessment of the M56, as part of the route strategy work, will include consideration of any further safety-related measures, as well as consideration of whether or not to upgrade this section of the motorway to a smart motorway. I noted the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale for smart motorways. They work by using technology to control traffic and to vary speed limits, with detectors in the carriageway that monitor the flow of traffic. I have seen these smart motorways being introduced up and down the country, and they have been highly successful. I have also noted that colleagues have expressed support for them on many occasions in other debates. These solutions are very much long-term solutions, and if a decision is made to upgrade this section of the M56 to a smart motorway, it may be that the construction work could commence after 2020, but I assure the House once again that as we develop RIS2, safety will be central. It is one of the key requirements in the first RIS and it will continue to be a priority as we develop our plans.
In the meantime, I recognise the importance of minimising the disruption to road users when incidents occur. Highways England is considering, subject to final funding decisions, improving technology around the junction of the M56 and M53, known as Stoak interchange, or junction 15 of the M56. There are plans to install portable variable message signs at this junction. When an incident occurs on the M56 that results in severe congestion or even a closure, Highways England’s north-west regional control centre would be able to activate these signs, which would highlight the problems ahead and advise motorists to look for alternative routes, for example a signed diversionary route.
On a different issue, I notice that my hon. Friend has an online campaign to support quieter road surfacing on the M56. I fully understand his concern, and he has spoken powerfully on behalf of his constituents. Like all colleagues, I recognise how distressing traffic noise can be. It can be extremely loud, even if it is a clear fact that road surfaces have improved significantly in recent years. As a Minister with responsibility for roads, I am taking a great interest in asphalt technology and bitumen. I am keen to impress on my officials the importance of working with the sector, particularly contractors, on bitumen research and development to deliver better surfaces and quieter roads. Such work is a part of improving our road network, including its durability and safety. I have also received a very interesting presentation on this subject from Shell, which then kindly presented me with “The Shell Bitumen Handbook”—a surprisingly large tome.
I understand that my hon. Friend has been out with Highways England to see some of the resurfacing work on the network, and I commend him for that. Of course, road surfaces can help to reduce noise levels, but it is not just the road surface that highway authorities should consider to mitigate the noise for residents living close to a busy road. There are other measures that can be taken, such as erecting noise barriers, walls or noise embankments.
I will quickly mention the local road network. The Government are providing local authorities with £6 billion between 2015 and 2021 to improve local roads. This certainty of funding will ensure that local authorities can plan ahead and use cost-effective and sustainable materials for their roads to mitigate excessive road noise. I am pleased that local residents close to the M56 will benefit from the resurfacing of the westbound carriageway with a material that makes less noise than the material used in 2014. I think they will be reassured to know that Highways England will consider resurfacing the eastbound carriageway within the next two to three years.
Finally, my hon. Friend and the House will recognise the benefits for the region that will result from the plan to relieve build-up in and around Runcorn, and the new junction 11A, which forms part of the Government’s commitment to the northern powerhouse. Rebalancing the economy by creating a northern powerhouse is part of our long-term economic plan. Our objective is simple: it is to allow the north to pool its strengths and to become greater than the sum of its parts. That plan puts transport right at the heart of the agenda. We are making huge progress. By committing £13 billion to transport across the north in this Parliament, we aim to capitalise on the success of transport investment in London to create the northern powerhouse, which will be a second powerhouse region in the UK.
Rail investment has been mentioned, but I think that is a subject for another day.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale for all he does in championing his constituency, and I hope that he is reassured that the Government are listening. A fantastic level of investment is going into our transport infrastructure, now and in the future. Safety is at the heart of that investment and it will remain so. My hon. Friend made some specific points and I will write to him with detailed responses, but I assure him that road safety is at the heart of our plans. In fact, the first piece of work that I commissioned as a Minister was on road safety, which I hope indicates my personal commitment to the subject. I thank all Members for their contributions to this debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Guaranteed Income for Retirees
(9 years, 1 month ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered Government policy on guaranteed income for retirees.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. It is also a pleasure to see the Economic Secretary here to respond to the debate, given the popularity of pensioners to the Government and to the rest of us. I know there is always some conflict between the Department for Work and Pensions and the Treasury regarding who has responsibility for such matters.
I am delighted that we are having this debate. We in the Scottish National party believe that the Government have a duty of care to ensure that our elderly population has security of income in retirement, and healthy and fulfilling lives. The Government should also ensure that they carry on as much as possible of the progress made in the last few years in ending pensioner poverty. I want to focus specifically on the pension freedoms that were introduced in April of this year, and the responsibilities that we in the SNP believe the Government should have for pensioner protection.
We in the SNP support many of the measures introduced over the last few years to encourage and enhance the growth of pension saving, while recognising that there is still some way to go before we reach a level of saving that matches the desire of many of our citizens to have an adequate level of income in retirement. To that extent, we support auto-enrolment and look forward to taking part in the debate over the coming months and years about how it can be strengthened, based on the three pillars of individual, employer and Government incentives to engage in pension saving.
It is in that regard of encouraging pension provision that we should take stock of the pension freedoms introduced in April and, in particular, consider what steps might be appropriate to ensure that the principle of securing an income in retirement is supported and fostered. When pension freedoms were introduced, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that people
“should be trusted with their own finances”.—[Official Report, 19 March 2014; Vol. 577, c. 793.]
Although that is an admirable aspiration, it must come with the recognition that there has to be protection from pensioners aggressively running down pension pots to the extent that pensioner poverty could creep back on to the agenda. We should be mindful of the fact that a pension is a deferred income. It is not a cash machine, but is there to deliver security in retirement.
The untested nature of the pension reforms poses a potential risk to individuals and to the state. It is essential that the Government closely monitor consumer outcomes and identify risks to the state and to individuals over the longer term.
In the context of this debate, the Strategic Society Centre published a paper in July year entitled “Income, Security and Wellbeing”. The report was commissioned to explore the potential impact on people’s retirements of lower private pension incomes that might result from the freedom of choice changes. The Strategic Society Centre undertook quantitative research, looking at how the level of guaranteed income affects people’s experience of retirement. It found that, regardless of the level of someone’s financial wealth, the level of guaranteed income is significantly associated with various aspects of wellbeing and leisure, including going to the cinema, reading a daily newspaper, taking a holiday and participating in community groups and other activities. The study also found that income is associated with how people feel about their life and whether they report, “The conditions of my life are excellent,” and “I have got the important things in life that I want.”
In the light of the research findings, the Strategic Society Centre set out a number of policy recommendations, including the need for the Government to actively
“promote receipt of a guaranteed income in pension policy to improve the wellbeing of retirees. Educate savers before retirement about the role of guaranteed income for a good retirement. Include information about the importance of guaranteed income to wellbeing in retirement in Pension Wise guidance and information. Ensure receipt of a decent, guaranteed retirement income is the default option for DC”—
defined contribution—
“pension savers. Undertake regular research into the effect of the April 2015 changes on older people’s wellbeing.”
The Strategic Society Centre study has been followed up by a study into pension flexibilities by the Social Market Foundation, which has left me increasingly concerned that the Government have not yet put in place adequate safeguards for older people opting to free up pension assets.
With life expectancy increasing and savers gaining unprecedented access to their pension savings, the Government have an obligation to oversee individuals planning ahead and to support society to plan for the future by making the public aware of the importance of securing a guaranteed income for life. As I have said, pensions are a deferred income and should not be seen as a cash machine. We in the SNP are not against people having an element of choice, but there must be a guaranteed income before funds can be drawn down, to protect individuals in later life.
Before April 2015, 75% of people with defined-contribution pension schemes used them to purchase an annuity. We should also recall that the opportunity existed for pensioners to take up to 25% of their pension pot as a tax-free lump sum. That mixed ability to draw down cash and to secure a regular income is still, to us, far and away the most attractive option for most pensioners. A key advantage of annuities is that they provide a guaranteed income throughout retirement, protecting individuals from longevity insurance and investment risk. However, annuities have become unpopular with some consumers, partly because annuity rates have fallen, but also because of reports by important bodies such as the Financial Conduct Authority, which have highlighted ways in which the market has not always worked well for consumers. Also, many prospective pensioners did not shop around, and whether consumers were getting value for money was therefore a cause for concern. We acknowledge all those things. There was, and is, a case for reform, but in our opinion the challenge was to enhance the market for annuities.
Many people welcomed the principle of increased choice introduced by the Government, but there were also concerns that that would bring with it a significant burden of responsibility on individuals to understand the complexities of the choices they were making, leaving them to bear the risk that the value of their savings might fall and that they might even exhaust them prematurely, leaving them dependent on the state pension later in retirement.
There is also the potential for scamming. The report of the Select Committee on Work and Pensions, entitled “Pension freedom guidance and advice”, states:
“Readier access to pension pots combined with the difficulties consumers have in making decisions regarding retirement finances mean that the pension freedom reforms have increased the potential for scamming.”
Regulators are also working to raise awareness. The FCA has launched the ScamSmart campaign and has taken enforcement action in a number of cases.
I acknowledge that the Government’s establishment of Pension Wise is an important step, but take-up of the service has been limited. The Work and Pensions Committee recommended that the Government urgently redouble their publicity efforts about pension scams and that the FCA tighten its scam awareness and reporting requirements for regulated firms.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this timely debate. He mentioned that there have been abuses since the new pensions regulations came into effect, and it is right that the matter should be looked at. He is also right that there should be some guarantees and better policing. In the past people took out annuities for mortgages, and I am sure we all remember the mortgage scandal. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is a real danger that the same thing could happen in this case unless there is proper policing and regulation?
Ian Blackford
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution. I agree that all of us in this House have a responsibility to ensure that an adequate level of protection is in place for consumers. We must learn from the large number of mis-selling scandals that have happened over many years. I am concerned that, as things stand, there are not yet adequate safeguards in place to protect consumers from the changes.
The Work and Pensions Committee described the scarcity of information about Pension Wise as being
“not conducive to effective scrutiny”
and asked the Government to publish statistics on a quarterly basis, including on the take-up of the different channels of guidance and advice, and on the reasons for not taking them up. The FCA claims that eight out of 10 savers would have got a better deal if they had shopped around when choosing the best product for retirement. That illustrates another reason for clear, understandable, accessible guidance for consumers. The untested nature of the reform demands close monitoring and data collection.
George Kerevan (East Lothian) (SNP)
I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. To add to what he has said, when I questioned the FCA in the Select Committee on the Treasury, they said they were worried that not enough time had been given for new products to emerge for savers drawing down their pension pot. The Chancellor announced the change rather precipitously, and a longer timescale might have allowed those new products to emerge.
Ian Blackford
I agree with my hon. Friend, although I come back to the fundamental point that what we need is reform of the annuity market. I am not sure that the products that may come to the market over the coming period will do what we need them to do, in allowing the level of consumer protection and choice that we are talking about.
Witnesses to the inquiry by the Work and Pensions Committee, such as the Financial Services Consumer Panel and the Pensions Policy Institute, said that it was essential to enable the policy to develop in the light of experience. The Committee recommended that the Government publish regularly data encompassing
“customer characteristics including pension pot size and other sources of retirement income…take-up of each channel of guidance and advice…reasons given for not taking up guidance and advice…subsequent decisions taken; and…reasons given for those decisions.”
Roger Mullin (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate, which is extraordinarily timely. Does he agree that there is a particular challenge with the gender divide? Women in particular are exposed to difficulties, largely because their pension pots tend to be smaller. Added to that, the Women Against State Pension Inequality campaign pointed out that after the Pensions Act 2011, some women born in the 1950s were given little notice and utterly inadequate guidance in preparation for the sudden extension of the retirement age. Does my hon. Friend agree that, because of that and the inadequate information on pension freedom, women are exposed to particular risks?
Ian Blackford
Yes, I do, and I was going to come to the issues of gender, because they are important in the context of this debate. My hon. Friend makes some reasonable points. When we talk about the risk of pensioners exhausting their pension pot, we know that that is particularly true for women, given two factors. He alluded to the first, which is that women in general tend to have smaller pension pots. They also tend to have longer life expectancy, and there are particular issues in that regard. The second factor relates to the reforms to the state pension, which I argue have not allowed for a significant length of transition, thus yet again exposing women to a much greater extent than men to the negative side of the changes. I would like to see the House come back to that debate.
The Financial Services Consumer Panel and the Pensions Policy Institute called for a rolling research programme to tackle the longer-term consequences of pension freedom decisions. Some organisations have called for action to require providers to offer default options for people who do not make a decision. The Pensions Policy Institute has argued that that would mean people being offered something with an element of life expectancy insurance that would kick in at some point when they get older.
We must learn from experience elsewhere. The Social Market Foundation has looked at overseas experience to see whether there are lessons for the UK. The SMF report, “Golden Years? What freedom and choice will mean for UK pensioners”, modelled the potential long-term outcomes for UK retirees based on outcomes in Australia and the USA. It looked at three scenarios: a “cautious Australian” who decumulates their pension wealth by less than 1% a year; a “quick-spending Australian” who decumulates very quickly and exhausts their pot by the age of 75; and a “typical American” who draws down his pension pot by 8% a year. The report’s key findings include the conclusion that:
“UK retirees are at risk of pension pot exhaustion.”
Those who follow the “typical American” path or the “quick-spending Australian” path would on average exhaust their pot by retirement year 17 and year 10 respectively.
Retirees are at risk of low replacement rates. Retirees who over-consume in early years of retirement may enjoy a rate of income closer to their working income for some time, but will then face much lower rates later in life. Retirees are at risk of low incomes. The new state pension and pension credit mean that retirees are at a low risk of falling into poverty, but retirees are at substantial risk of falling below the 70% median low-income threshold in later life if they spend their pensions quickly.
Preservation of pension wealth is possible through under-consumption, but has big drawbacks. The “cautious Australian” path results in a very low risk of running out of pension wealth, but means that people would receive very low levels of income as a consequence. That can mean a reduced income and lower replacement rate, as well as subdued demand across the broader economy. Retirees face variation in investment returns and uncertain incomes. Investment returns can result in huge variations in incomes in retirement and in the age at which pension savings run out. There are significant risks to the state as a consequence. Decumulation paths could also mean fiscal risks to the state associated with the costs of increased claims for means-tested benefits.
Mr Jim Cunningham
The hon. Gentleman is being generous in giving way. What he is saying prompted a thought in my mind: if pensions are mishandled by individuals, we get a problem later in life with the need to pay for care, which adds to pensioner poverty. People are struggling to pay for care, but pensions freedom could make that worse if it is not regulated properly.
Ian Blackford
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely spot on. One of the examples given in the SMF report is of an individual with a pension pot of £184,000. Many people would consider that to be a reasonable sized pension pot. However, based on the behaviours I have described, it would not be unexceptional for them to exhaust such a pension pot and have to rely on the state in later life for support, particularly with council tax and care costs. That is why, for two reasons, this is such an important issue for us to discuss: first, because we are exposing the consumers of this country to risk; and, secondly, because we run the risk of placing an additional burden on the state as a consequence.
Specific sub-groups are also exposed to enhanced levels of risk. Those sub-groups include women and early retirees who are likely to face a longer period of retirement; those without other savings or assets to fall back on, particularly non-homeowners; and those with defined-contribution pension savings only, who will not have other private income to top up their budgets. The report recommends that the Government develop an early warning system to monitor closely what retirees do with their pension savings and identify risks to groups of individuals and to the state. That would involve the creation of a retirement risk dashboard to help the Government to monitor retirement decisions and to provide a view on long-term outcomes for consumers and the state. By establishing personal pension alerts, it would also allow for policy makers to intervene where appropriate with the sub-groups the Government have identified as being at particularly high risk.
The level of uncertainty about the impact on savers is concerning. The Office for Budget Responsibility said that there was a high level of uncertainty about the Exchequer impact of the reforms and that the impact depended on take-up and other behavioural responses, which were uncertain. The OBR said:
“Some people will temporarily increase pension saving in order to benefit from tax-free lump sum withdrawals. It is possible that funds will be redirected from annuities and into other assets, such as other financial products or housing. It is also possible that such funds could be used to finance consumer spending”.
Would we consider that to be desirable?
The available data for the first quarter of 2015 show sales of drawdown products increasing and those of annuities reducing. The number of income drawdown contracts sold by Association of British Insurers members during quarter one of 2015 increased by 64% over the past year, from 6,700 to 11,500. The number of annuities sold continued to fall, with 20,600 annuities sold in quarter one, compared with 28,700 in the previous quarter and 74,100 in quarter one of 2014. The volume of interest is indicated by the 80% increase in provider call volumes during the first six months compared with the same period in 2014. A consequence of the changes is the massive £2.5 billion paid out as cash to customers in the first six months. To put that into context, £2.5 billion has been invested in other pension products over the same period. In other words, 50% of the value of pension pots accessed has been cashed in over the past six months.
We do not know what the long-term developments will be, but that must surely raise concern that such a high percentage of cash has been withdrawn. If we put that in the wider context of defined-contribution pension pots, there is today approximately £175 billion held in those pots by more than 2.2 million consumers. Do we as a society want to see pensioners draw down their pension pots at such an aggressive pace? Frankly, I believe we should not. There will be a price paid both in terms of pension pots running out and, ultimately, as has been said by various hon. Members, the state will have to pick up the pieces and support those whose income has gone.
To reflect again on some of the numbers, 60% of all cash lump sums have been paid out to people younger than 60 and 80% to those younger than 65. In 95% of cases where cash lump sums have been accessed, the entire fund has been withdrawn, and fewer than one in 10 of those accessing their pension pots are using the Pension Wise service. The Government need to take on board the evidence of what has been happening and explore other options. Reinstating a requirement to annuitise would help to address some of the concerns.
The UK Government must learn the lessons from abroad. Concerns over the rates of exhaustion of pension savings and the subsequent impact on retirement income led the Australian Government to commission an independent review of their retirement system.
The Murray inquiry published a range of recommendations for the Australian financial system in December 2014, including a recommendation for schemes to put in place a default comprehensive income product for retirement to address longevity risk. In October, the Australian Government announced their intention to implement the inquiry’s retirement income default recommendation, and a consultation is expected later this year.
We also need to look at affordability—for example, by introducing measures to keep costs down; introducing products such as a NEST-style decumulation option to act as a beacon of good value; enabling the state to play a bigger role in providing a low-risk, good value alternative or capping charges in drawdown products; allowing Pension Wise to provide a personalised service or recommend specific products or options to consumers; or strengthening the disclosure and governance requirements relating to complex retirement income products.
I want to engage positively with the Government on how we in Parliament can together discharge our obligations to those who will be accessing their pension pots not just in the years, but the decades to come. Although it is understandable that we want to create opportunities for those with spending pots to make their own decisions about their plans for accessing cash, it must be done from the premise that we give clear guidance that securing a regular income in retirement should be the default position.
Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts, although, following this morning’s footballing activities, perhaps it is more appropriate to say “captainship”. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) on securing this important debate, although I think it was remiss of him not to declare an interest earlier in his speech, given how much closer to retirement age he is than others in this debate.
All joking aside, the debate is important as we all have an interest in ensuring pensions are accessible, affordable and abiding, not just on a personal basis for all retirees, but for society in general. In recent times, pensioner poverty has declined considerably compared with other age groups as there has been a focus on pensioner income and supporting households in matters such as energy efficiency and central heating systems—indeed, the Scottish Government have supported a series of very successful programmes on this front—but income is the primary factor in poverty, regardless of what the Government plan to do on how we measure poverty. It is therefore critical that we guarantee that income levels remain consistent for retirees for the duration of their well earned retirement.
I certainly welcome the Government’s roll-out of auto-enrolment for workplace pensions. Ensuring that people save over and above what they should receive from the state pension is clearly very important. In the National Audit Office report on this subject released earlier this month, it appears there has been a very good uptake from workers and employers so far. That is to be welcomed.
I can understand why it is desirable to have pension freedom in the way the Government legislated for. Indeed, I am dealing with a case now where a constituent is looking to access his flexibility earlier than is currently available. It is certainly desirable for the Government to see people spending their pensions earlier. As the Government withdraw billions of pounds from the economy with their wholesale public sector and social security cuts, their growth target is under serious threat. I am sure they would be delighted to see people spending heavily from their savings upon their retirement to keep the economy ticking over, but there are great risks of unintended consequences.
There are many reasons why we are all paid salaries monthly or at regular intervals rather than in an annual lump sum. One of those reasons is our own budgeting convenience: it is far easier to plan in smaller monthly chunks than on an annual basis. So imagine the challenge facing retirees who are looking at taking their pension in one lump sum and not paying for an annuity. How can they plan what they can spend each week, month or year when they do not know how long it will need to support them for? There is no reason to believe that all pensioners will be rash or profligate when they are given access to their savings, but we must ensure that protections are in place so that they have a sustainable income for the duration of their retirement. I absolutely and wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber.
A recent Social Market Foundation report highlighted several areas of concern for us. We do not believe that the Government have put in place the necessary safeguards to protect those approaching or in retirement. With life expectancy increasing and savers gaining unprecedented access to their pension savings, the Government have an obligation to assist individuals to plan ahead and to support society to plan for the future by making the public aware of the importance of securing a guaranteed income for life. If the Government get this wrong, they are storing up a massive future liability not only for pensioners, but for the state. I am not just worried about pensioners being able to manage their finances—the vast majority will have no problem at all—but I am worried about these big savings pots being incredibly attractive to scammers. We have all heard stories of perfectly plausible sales calls, door-to-door inquiries and fliers resulting in pensioners and vulnerable people being duped out of their savings. Having a pension in an annuity may not always give us the best deal, but it guarantees a lifelong income that the scammers cannot touch.
I welcome this opportunity to speak to such an important debate, and I thank my hon. Friend again for securing it. I hope the Minister will advise what steps her Government are taking to ensure we are not storing up major trouble for the future.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) on securing this debate. Although I have grey hair, I want to put it on the record that I am quite a way from pension age.
When I first heard of the Government’s pension freedom scheme, I thought it was a political gimmick. I hope that when the Minister sums up she will be able answer all the important questions raised and prove that it is a well thought out and evidenced policy. Otherwise, it is actually short-term isolated thinking.
If we take a step back, we see that when the original annuity system was introduced in the UK, life expectancy was considerably lower than it is today. Back then the state still felt a responsibility to try to ensure that people had a guaranteed income to look after themselves for the rest of their lives in some form of comfort. Just because the annuity system was not always maximised to the benefit of the saver—as we heard, 80% of people could have got a better deal if they had shopped around—does not mean we should scrap the system altogether. Instead, we should look at ways to improve it.
The recent message from the Government has been that people should save responsibly, and I agree. They have helped to force the issue with auto-enrolment. They have also said that people need to work or wait longer until they get their state pension. We are told that that is justified because life expectancy is much higher. There are contradictory messages: the left hand says, “Save. Be responsible. Understand that you might well have a nice long retirement to look forward to, consider and plan for,” but the right hand is saying, “Well done guys—you’ve worked hard. It’s your money—do what you want with it.” The Government should take cognisance of the fact that those are competing messages.
We have heard about the hidden unintended consequences of the pension freedom policy, one of which relates to the recent increases to the state pension age, which particularly affect women. Members will have been lobbied by Women Against State Pension Inequality. These women feel particularly hard done by: they planned to retire at a certain age, they worked all their lives with that plan in mind, but now they feel the opportunity has been taken away by the Government. Some women are now considering whether to access their pension pot early and effectively burn through it until they reach the increased state pension age. I am concerned for the women who stay on in work and, once they reach state pension age, retire and access their pension pot, who might feel that they have missed out by having to work longer and so be tempted to make best use of the money they have put by in a short time. That will not benefit them in the long run.
This is speculative, but another scenario I have considered is the fact that we currently have a housing shortage, combined with a Government who reinforce the message that home ownership is everything and is something to which families should aspire. If retirees have access to lump sums, they might want to access their pension pots to help their family out by getting them on the housing ladder. In the short term, helping their family looks like a good thing, but it will lock their money up for the future, so might not be right in terms of the long-term financial planning for retirees and their dependents. They are not, though, going to get that financial advice otherwise.
We have heard that the fundamental idea behind pension freedom is that we should trust people, but on balance that is not what the evidence suggests. The Government should look at the evidence from Australia and the United States, which suggests that a large percentage of pension savers spend all their money in a relatively short time. As we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber, in Australia there are polar opposites in play: 40% of people use all their savings in just 11 years, while at the other extremity is a group of people who are too cautious and do not access their money to give themselves the high quality of life that they should have after saving responsibly. Reflecting that reality, Australia is now moving towards an annuity scheme. That is the red flag that the Government should be paying attention to. The Australian report was published before the Chancellor introduced the changes, so there is no excuse for not taking that evidence on board sooner.
There is more evidence of how people behave when given pension freedom from the United States, where half of retirees have spent their entire pension pot within 17 years of retirement—in real terms that is a really short amount of time. Overall, I fail to see the wider benefit of people having complete freedom when the evidence shows that pension contributions tend to be exhausted rather quickly. Aside from it giving a short-term feelgood factor for some people and a low-level cash injection to the economy because of the additional spend, I do not think complete freedom is the way to go.
I understand that populist policies are almost a necessary evil for Governments. As politicians, we all want to do things that make us popular, and Governments want to ensure that they are re-elected, but Governments should never forget that they have responsibilities. A default pension income for retirees would fall into the category of responsible governance; otherwise, there is a risk that future Governments will end up paying out more money in pensioner welfare. In all probability there will be a higher burden on the NHS because of the higher healthcare costs associated with retirees who have exhausted their funds—they are out and about less and they are stuck in homes that they might not be able to afford to heat. Those knock-on healthcare effects will have financial implications for the state in the long run. We know that the Government are hellbent on reducing the size of the state for the future, so that is counterintuitive. Again, the messages are contradictory.
There is very limited evidence in the public domain on how the new arrangements are working, but what evidence there is suggests that currently the majority of cash sums paid out go to people under 60 years old, and 80% goes to those under 65—so in many cases people well below state retirement age—yet only one in 10 people are accessing the Pension Wise service. At the very least, the Minister should consider the following. People should be given targeted financial guidance and advice before they access their pension funds. They should be made to think twice about making large cash withdrawals, especially when in some cases people are penalised by having to pay a higher tax rate, which again, is not beneficial in the long run. There should be mid-retirement health checks, although to be honest that might be too late for some, which is why we need reform sooner rather than later.
The Government must look again at what is happening now and come up with a compromise to ensure some form of guaranteed income for the future. They should consider the Australian Murray report and at least try to arrive at a mix of flexibility, which can be good for some people, and security for all retirees, so that they benefit from working hard and putting money by.
Mhairi Black (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) on securing a debate on such an important issue. It is fair to say that I am a fair bit further away from this issue than most of my colleagues; nevertheless, I appreciate this opportunity to speak.
I am sure that most Members present will agree that the current Government—any Government, for that matter—have a responsibility to ensure that all members of our elderly population have a secure form of income upon retirement to enable them to live comfortable, healthy and fulfilling lives, as well as a responsibility to continue efforts to end pensioner poverty. Any move by the Government to encourage and enhance the prospects of people saving for retirement and to ensure that all our citizens maintain a decent standard of income must be welcomed. It is for that reason that, in the context of pension freedoms, the Scottish National party supports auto-enrolment. We look forward to taking part in the debate on how it can be strengthened, based on the inclusion of the individual and the employer and Government incentives to engage in pension saving.
With that in mind, we must pay close attention to the scrutiny and constructive criticisms that have been made of the pension freedom reforms. First, there clearly needs to be an increase in data collection. The Work and Pensions Committee inquiry into the changes asked whether people are adequately supported in making good and informed decisions, and concluded that appropriate information and monitoring arrangements are not in place to provide the answers. Criticising the Government’s failure to publish adequate statistics on the pension freedom policy, the report said:
“The Government’s reticence in publishing statistics on the effects of its pension freedom policy, a full six months after the reforms, is unacceptable. The scarcity of information regarding Pension Wise in particular is not conducive to effective scrutiny. It is also not conducive to effective policy: it would be fortunate in the extreme if such radical change operated as hoped without any need for adjustment.”
Many bodies in the pensions policy area have made similar observations. If we are to be able to make informed decisions and adequately respond to the changes the reforms are making to people’s lives and the decisions they make, we must be watching closely and at least attempting to collate in-depth and satisfactory data. That way, we will be able to form a real-life picture and idea of what is going on and to respond appropriately.
Secondly, more effort needs to be put into educating people so that they are equipped with the information and knowledge to make informed decisions. The potential for negative consumer outcomes arising from disengagement, low awareness of retirement risks and poor financial capability is likely to be compounded by supply-side failures. The FCA thematic review and retirement income market study identified continued failures: 60% of defined-contribution pension customers did not switch providers when they bought an annuity, despite the fact that 80% could get a higher—in many cases, significantly higher—income on the open market. The FCA found that 91% of those purchasing enhanced annuities could have got a better deal by shopping around. It also found that consumers are highly sensitive to how options are presented to them. Savers reaching retirement face a much more complex landscape than previous generations, and they will need support to make sense of their options and to make sensible choices that match their needs and preferences.
Even before the announcement of the pension reforms, the pensions industry was still working through many issues, despite seven years of heightened scrutiny and regulatory oversight. As many will know, lack of information has been a problem for some time. Given the lack of data on how pensions are being affected now, it is important to look at some of the few statistics that we do have.
Ian Blackford
Does my hon. Friend agree that one issue consumers face in the landscape of choices she eloquently describes is that they often do not consider their own life expectancy—that they might live for another 30 or 40 years or even longer? When people look at their experience of annuities, that is often part of the problem: they might consider they are getting a poor deal from their annuity, but that is because they are not taking into account how long they might live and how long they might have to fund their lifestyle for.
Mhairi Black
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention—I was actually about to get on to that point.
In terms of the few statistics we do have, the Social Market Foundation has looked at the lessons the UK can learn from overseas experiences. My hon. Friend spoke about the different stereotypes in terms of how people engage with their pensions—the cautious Australian, the quick-spending Australian and the typical American. One of the report’s key findings was that UK retirees are at risk of pension pot exhaustion specifically because they underestimate how long they will live. In fact, those who follow the typical American path or the quick-spending Australian path would, on average, exhaust their entire pot by retirement years 17 and 10 respectively.
Retirees are at risk of low replacement rates. Retirees who over-consume in the early years of retirement might well enjoy a decent income for a good few years, but if they live a lot longer than they predicted, they find themselves on much lower rates later on in life and may completely exhaust their pension, putting the responsibility on to the state to fill the gap.
We should also consider the fact that the number of income drawdown contracts sold by ABI members during 2015 increased by 64% over the previous year, from 6,700 to 11,500. The number of annuities sold has continued to fall, with 20,600 sold during that quarter, compared with 28,700 the previous quarter and 74,100 in the same quarter in 2014. There was an 80% increase in provider call volumes during the first six months, compared with the same period in 2014. As has been mentioned, £2.5 billion was paid out as cash to customers in that period. Some 60% of all cash lump sums have been paid out to people younger than 60—those who have a considerable time left to live, given that life expectancy is now 80-plus. In 80% of cases, those who have taken out cash lump sums were under 65. In 95% of cases where cash lump sums have been accessed, the entire fund was withdrawn. As for evidence that people have engaged with Pension Wise, whether face to face, over the phone or by email, the reality is that fewer than one in 10 of those accessing their pension pots have used the service. It is clear that more can be done to educate people adequately.
My last point relates to the Government’s position. Concerns about rates of exhaustion of pension savings and the subsequent impact on retirement income led the Australian Government, which we look to for at least some idea of where pensions are going, to commission an independent review of their retirement system. The resulting Murray inquiry published a range of recommendations for the Australian financial system, including that schemes set in place a default comprehensive income product for retirement. On 20 October, the Australian Government announced their intention to implement the inquiry’s retirement income default recommendation, and a consultation is expected later this year.
It seems only reasonable and responsible, therefore, for the Government to tell people, “Look, the choices are there for you. It is not for us to tell you how to spend your money, but we recommend that you use your pension for the exact purpose it was created for and that you consider how long you will live for and how much money you will have, so that you engage with your pension appropriately.”
I welcome the debate, and I hope the Government take heed of some of the concerns that have been raised by myself, my colleagues and the relevant independent bodies.
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. It is also a pleasure to appear before the Economic Secretary to the Treasury for the first time.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) on securing this timely debate. I agree with much of what he said. This is the time to take stock of the pension freedom reforms. The idea of monitoring and identifying risks is important, and I will return to that in a moment. The concepts of supporting society and planning for the future are also vital.
My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham) and the hon. Member for East Lothian (George Kerevan) made good points about choice and protection. My hon. Friend also made a crucial intervention about pensioner poverty, and it is important that we monitor that issue.
The hon. Members for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Roger Mullin), and for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown), raised the issues faced by women born in the 1950s due to the increase brought in by the Pensions Act 2011 in the state pension age. In that respect, I have a question for the Minister about transitional provision. On 20 June 2011, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions said:
“Let me simply repeat what I said earlier—it is a bit like a recording, but I shall do it none the less: we have no plans to change equalisation in 2018, or the age of 66 for both men and women in 2020, but we will consider transitional arrangements.”—[Official Report, 20 June 2011; Vol. 530, c. 52.]
What has happened on transitional arrangements since 2011? What meetings have been held on them? What proposals do the Government have to put such arrangements in place to assist women who lost out by virtue of the date on which they were born in the 1950s? I sincerely hope the Minister can deal with that issue today.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Neil Gray) on his contribution. He made a good point about the problems that will arise in the future if the Government do not deal with these issues now. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mhairi Black)—we can safely say that every Member of the House is closer to retirement than she is. She made a good point at the start of her speech, and the scrutiny and constructive criticism she mentioned throughout her contribution are precisely what needs to be brought to bear on these reforms in the months and years ahead.
The debate has been extremely useful in highlighting a number of issues that the Government need to deal with. The issue of scams came up, and it is crucial. In that respect, I quote the recent Work and Pensions Committee report:
“The pension freedom reforms have increased the prospects of people being conned out of their life savings.”
That should be a warning to the Government. The report also treats the promotion of awareness as a crucial weapon against those scams, and the Government should seriously consider paying more attention to that.
The hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South brought up the issue of Pension Wise. To deal first with take-up, the first set of statistics we have had seem to suggest that only about 18,000 people—fewer than one in 10—have accessed the guidance. Clearly, more needs to be done to flag up the availability of Pension Wise. Other criticisms in the Work and Pensions Committee report also need to be dealt with. The website has been described as not fit for purpose; the Government should attend to that damning criticism. The guidance has also been criticised for being too general on the one hand, in that it pays insufficient attention to people’s individual circumstances, and too narrow on the other, in that it deals with pensions but not the other things that people need to cope with in retirement. Pension provision is a crucial part of that, but people will have varying interests, such as property that they own, or their care needs. Those other things need to be taken into account in the guidance provided by Pension Wise.
Another issue is the advice gap. Someone whose pension pot is enormous will have access to expensive financial advice on it, and that would be proportionate. However, there is an enormous gap in the middle between people who have access to the free guidance, and those who obtain specialist advice at the top. Many people with pension pots will be in the middle, where such advice is not available. This is a two-way street: we want to increase demand from people who want advice, but on the supply side, we need a regulatory framework in which advisers feel comfortable and confident in giving advice, and about the liabilities to which they open themselves. In that regard I look forward to the results of the financial advice market review, but there is action that can be taken now, certainly as far as improvements to Pension Wise are concerned.
The hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber mentioned the Social Market Foundation’s recent “Golden Years?” report. That, too, should warn the Government about what can happen in these situations when policy is not managed appropriately in the short and medium term. He mentioned, of course, the cautious Australian, the quick-spending Australian and the typical American, but the statistics from Australia make sobering reading. It seems that about 25% of people exhaust their pension pots by age 70, and the figure is about 40% by age 75. Those numbers are highly significant, particularly in an age of increasing life expectancy. Our cautious Australian would decumulate by less than about 1% a year, which would be a more optimistic statistic; but we might compare that with the decumulation rate of about 8% a year for the typical American. That would be a far more worrying statistic to deal with.
There is a broader point to make. Advice and guidance are obviously important at the age of 55, but we must move away from the view that this is exclusively about making sure that people have the appropriate information at the start of their retirement. The reality is that people’s needs between the ages of, say, 55 and 65 are different from their needs between 65 and 75, or 75 and 85. Life expectancy is of course rising, and their needs would be different between 85 and 95 as well. I suppose that that point goes to the heart of what the debate is about: a guaranteed income—that is the phrase used in the title of the debate—throughout retirement. We must look beyond what happens at age 55, although that is highly important, at structured ways through retirement, in which people have access to the advice and guidance they need to make informed decisions. It is vital that the Government do that.
Overall, we can see today’s debate as a marker for the need for action. No one wants people to exhaust their pension pots at age 75. We want action now, to ensure that people will be protected from scams, and that they can get the advice and guidance they need.
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Harriett Baldwin)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I am not quite sure what the sporting achievements mentioned earlier are, but I look forward to hearing about them.
Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)
I think the word “achievements” might be stretching it a little bit, but we will pass over that for the time being. [Laughter.]
Harriett Baldwin
I congratulate the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) on securing the debate and making a thoughtful, constructive contribution to our national debate on securing a guaranteed income for retirees. Perhaps I should not confess this, but if Wikipedia is correct, I am the one who should declare an interest as being closest to retirement age of all those speaking in the debate—but perhaps Wikipedia may not be accurate. That has happened before.
Harriett Baldwin
The hon. Gentleman wears it well.
The debate is timely, because we are just over six months into the pension freedoms, and are beginning to get data on what pensioners or retirees have been doing with those freedoms, and about use of the free and impartial guidance from Pension Wise, which was set up by the Government. As we speak, life expectancy is growing by about five hours a day in this country, which makes it all the more important that we have this debate and agree on the aspiration to ensure that hard-working people are in a position to fund a comfortable and, we hope, increasingly lengthy retirement.
Against the background that I have set out, the Government introduced radical reforms giving people freedom and choice in how they access their own hard-earned retirement savings, replacing an effective obligation on pensioners to purchase an annuity—a product that often they did not shop around for and that may not have been right for their circumstances.
Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con)
The hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford), whom I congratulate on securing this important debate, mentioned at one point reinstating the requirement to annuitise. The old open market system failed many vulnerable consumers, as my hon. Friend the Minister mentioned, and many with impaired life expectancy were shunted by providers into poorly paying and inappropriate annuity contracts. Will she comment on that?
Harriett Baldwin
My hon. Friend is right; the world where we obliged people to buy an annuity income with their retirement savings was not perfect. Often they did not shop around—the data from the Financial Conduct Authority suggest that about eight out of 10 consumers could have got a better deal by shopping around—so I cannot agree with what I believe was SNP policy. That seems to be to end the current situation where there is more flexibility, and once again to require people to buy an annuity. However, I recognise that Members across the House have concerns about customers and how they are supported as they make perhaps their most important long-term financial decision, other than purchasing a home.
Ian Blackford
I just want to clarify something. I absolutely share the concern that the annuity market was not working properly. Where there is a difference of opinion is that we believe that the market should be reformed. We need greater choice in the annuity market: for example, we need to think about how we explain index-linked products in the annuity market, and circumstances such as lower life expectancy must be reflected. We must consider those things in the light of experience of what has happened with pension freedom.
Harriett Baldwin
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that clarification. I agree that we need to evaluate the measures, which is why this is such a timely debate. It is extremely important that, as people take advantage of the new pension freedoms, they have the right information and the tools they need to make an informed and confident decision about their financial future. I recognise that there is a range of different circumstances and that one size does not fit all.
It might be helpful if I summarise some of the changes made over the past five years to the pension landscape to strengthen the finances of people in retirement. They include ensuring that there is no enforced retirement age at 65, and strengthening the first pillar of retirement income, the basic state pension, which now rises with a triple-lock—increasing by the greater of 2.5%, earnings or inflation every year. That has been very important cumulatively over the past five years—the income replacement of the state pension is now at its highest level since 1992—and we have pledged to continue that throughout this Parliament.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I refer back to the Hansard quotation from 20 June 2011 that I cited about the transitional provisions for women born in the 1950s who have lost out under the new state pension provisions. Can the Minister update the House about what has happened with that policy and how the transitional provisions will be introduced?
Harriett Baldwin
I assure the hon. Gentleman that I am just setting out the background. I will address the points that colleagues raised later in my speech.
The changes we are making to simplify the state pension are also important, because they are going to set a new level for the state pension that is higher than the means-tested threshold that we have had in this country historically. That is very important, because we do not want those who draw down their retirement savings to be thrown on to means-tested benefits. I believe I am right in saying that that is a crucial difference from the situation in Australia. We have also safeguarded support for older people in other ways, such as providing free bus passes, eye tests, television licences and so on.
The changes we made in April are an integral part of the whole landscape. I will describe for the benefit of all hon. Members what we think success for the reforms looks like: a vibrant and competitive retirement income market with a range of different products that give people the flexibility and security that is right for them, and well informed, engaged consumers who can access the guidance and advice they need. As more people are automatically enrolled in employer schemes, more people engage with the process. More than 5 million more people are now saving for a retirement income than were in 2010, and by the full roll-out in a couple of years’ time, we will have almost 9 million additional new savers through automatic enrolment, saving £15 billion a year more in aggregate.
Ian Blackford
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way; she is being very gracious with her time. As I said, we fully support auto-enrolment. It is fantastic that there has been an increase in saving and that both employers and employees are contributing, but will she reflect on the situation that could develop? People will have a greater ability to access the pension pot that they are saving into and take out cash at 55, but I am concerned that employers may be disincentivised from contributing to the pension scheme if they see that those who benefit from it can walk away with a cash pot at 55.
Harriett Baldwin
Methinks the hon. Gentleman is worrying too much. At this point, I think we will just welcome the fact that £15 billion a year more is going into pension saving in this country. The hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mhairi Black) can say to her generation that the earlier they start, the better, given the cumulative impact of the wonders of compound interest. Nevertheless, I take on board the point the hon. Gentleman made.
The hon. Gentleman said that providers may not have time to get ready and may not have the right kinds of products. In fact, providers have stepped up to the challenge: the systems requirements were admittedly very challenging, but more than 90% of people are now being offered flexibility within their existing scheme and something like a quarter of the largest firms are planning to launch new products in the next six months, so there has been real innovation and engagement with what customers want. We have moved away from the inflexibility of the old annuity market.
The hon. Gentleman highlighted the recent data from the ABI stating that £4.7 billion was paid out in the first six months. The first six months will not necessarily be representative of the settled state of the market, because obviously there has been a lot of pent-up demand, but it is fair to say that in that six-month period £2.5 billion has been invested in income drawdown products and £2.2 billion in annuities. That does not suggest that people are shying away from the annuity market, which we hope continues to be successful and an important part of people’s retirement planning. I am delighted that so many people have already taken advantage of the freedoms and that many providers have stepped up to deliver for their members.
Many hon. Members asked about Pension Wise, the Government’s free and impartial guidance service. It, too, is playing an important role. There have been more than 30,000 guidance appointments and 1.7 million hits on its website so far. Hon. Members alleged that only one in 10 people are making use of Pension Wise, but we dispute that in the sense that people will be getting financial advice, sometimes from a regulated adviser, or they may get information, guidance or advice through their provider. There is a range of different ways in which people can inform themselves; Pension Wise is one of them. It is free, impartial and backed by the Government.
Pension Wise prompts users to consider their life expectancy and any health issues and lifestyle factors they have, and it links to the Office for National Statistics life expectancy calculator, which I am sure everyone in the room has visited. All in all, that is excellent news, but we are always on the lookout for ways to make the service more useful. Last month’s report from the Work and Pensions Committee, of which the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South is a member, was welcome. It noted the progress we have already made in ensuring that the reforms deliver for consumers, but made it clear that the job is not yet done.
In line with the Committee’s recommendations, we are considering a number of developments to make Pension Wise even more useful. For example, we are looking at how appointments can be tailored to individuals. In the summer Budget, we opened it up to people from the age of 50 onwards, and we are developing more online tools for the website and calculators that people can use to see how the new pension freedoms relate to their particular circumstances. We are trying to make the website more interactive, and the team has done a fantastic job in delivering that to such a tight timeframe. We are looking to amend the content of Pension Wise appointments to ensure they are more tailored to people in the 50 to 55 age bracket, who are not yet able to take advantage of the pension freedoms but want to start thinking about the options available to them.
The hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds) rightly mentioned the financial advice market review. I am delighted to hear that he supports the initiative. The Treasury and the Financial Conduct Authority are reviewing what he called the advice gap—the fact that between guidance and paid-for financial advice, there is a gap for ordinary people who do not want to pay for a financial adviser or are not able to afford one at their stage in life. The aim of the review is to come up with a package of reforms, along the lines of those that the hon. Gentleman outlined, to ensure the financial advice market works for everybody. I hope he will write to the review with his recommendations.
Advice, in and of itself, is not enough. It is important that we supplement our guidance provision and review it on an ongoing basis. We must ensure that we make the most of Pension Wise, which focuses on pension freedoms, the Money Advice Service, which focuses on some of the other aspects of financial markets, and the Pensions Advisory Service, which is run out of the Department for Work and Pensions. We must make those services more effective for consumers. Alongside the financial advice market review, we are also looking at the guidance and hope to have some findings ahead of next year’s Budget, so that people get the help they need to take such important long-term decisions.
Several hon. Members mentioned scams, and the Work and Pensions Committee report also flagged that risk, which we recognise is not new. Pension scammers were previously trying to get people to take money out of their pensions before the age of 55, causing a lot of harm in the marketplace, but I agree that it is an important matter. Given that consumers have been given unprecedented freedom and choice in how they access their retirement savings, we appreciate that fraudsters will use that as an opportunity to try and exploit people. An effective strategy to target scams must bring together all the relevant parts of Government and work with providers to focus on both the prevention and the disruption of scams. That is what we are doing and will continue to do. We have set up Project Bloom, a multi-agency taskforce led by the National Crime Agency, which is joining up the various Departments involved, the regulators, anti-fraud groups and police forces to tackle scams. It is worth reiterating here how important it is that we remind consumers that they should never engage with anyone who telephones them out of the blue offering help with their pension. I encourage all hon. Members to get that message out widely in their communities. I emphasise that Pension Wise will never call without a consumer having previously asked them to.
The pensions regulators have their own pension scam campaigns to raise awareness of the issue. The FCA runs ScamSmart and the Pensions Regulator runs Scorpion. Warnings are sent out with paperwork from pension providers and both of them give advice to businesses and consumers on how to protect against scams. Pension Wise also alerts customers to the risk of scams during guidance sessions and on its website, and firms have a duty to flag the risk of investment scams, when appropriate, to their members as part of the FCA’s retirement risk warning rules. The hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South, who asked me about this during a Work and Pensions Committee hearing, wanted to know about some of the numbers. So far this year, since the pension freedoms were launched, incidents reported to Action Fraud are lower than the year before, but I completely agree with her that we must remain on top of this. To be frank, we have to be tough, because one scam succeeding is one too many.
Moving on to women who have been affected by the change in pension age, I am probably one of the few women affected who actually welcomes the fact that I will be able to do this wonderful job for longer, but I realise that not everyone feels that way. To respond to the questions from the hon. Member for Torfaen about the number of meetings that have been held, the number of updates and the transition protection and his Hansard reference, which shows what an effective researcher he is—he is a published biographer—I will defer to my colleague Baroness Altman, who will write to him with the details.
The hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South also asked about the Pension Wise data and when it will be published. In ministerial speak, I believe that the word is “shortly” so it should be up on the website soon. We will write to the Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee as soon as that happens so that he is the first to know.
I have responded to most hon. Members’ points, but I will remain on my feet in case anyone feels that they have not had a chance to ask their question or to get one answered.
Roger Mullin
I thank the Minister for giving way at this late stage. Does she agree that, as I mentioned earlier, women face particular risks and therefore require particular additional support and guidance to ensure that they make the most of their futures?
Harriett Baldwin
I am sure that, like me, the hon. Gentleman is a passionate feminist and thinks it important that men and women have the same pension age. I appreciate, however, that the process of transition from the much earlier age at which women were retiring will, depending on people’s circumstances, have posed a range of challenges, of which the Government are well aware. As a constituency MP, I am also well aware of such issues. I will write to the hon. Member for Torfaen and the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Roger Mullin) with more specific points from my noble colleague.
Shall I conclude with my impassioned concluding remarks, Mr Betts, or is everyone happy to stop there?
Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)
It is up to you, Minister. You have time if you wish to impassion us.
Harriett Baldwin
I will say something in conclusion as we have time.
I thank all hon. Members who have participated in the debate. How people access an income in retirement is an incredibly important question. It is also an issue of huge international importance. I have summarised a range of changes that have been made over the past five years. The more recent pension freedoms are major changes and it is important that we get them right, which is why the Government and the regulator will continue actively to monitor the post-reform retirement landscape closely.
Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)
I was only too pleased earlier that, as I was in the Chair, I was not able to join in the competition about who was nearest to retirement age. We will move on to Mr Ian Blackford winding up briefly.
Ian Blackford
I thank all hon. Members who have participated this afternoon. We have had a good debate on the issues as we see them. I thank all who have contributed and expressed legitimate concerns about the consequences of the pension freedoms.
We all share the view that we need to architect a pension structure conducive to people having the best outcomes possible in their elderly years. I encourage the Government to look at the evidence of the first six months. I accept that some of the pension drawdown of the first six months was pent-up demand. None the less, as the Minister has conceded, £2.5 billion is a considerable sum to be drawn out of pension pots—50% of all the cash that was exorcised from them over that period. We have to look at that closely.
I remain concerned that pensioners will be put in a position of some financial hardship if they expose themselves fully to running down their pension pots. We accept that over the past few decades considerable moves have taken place to eradicate pensioner poverty, which we are all delighted about, and that there is little likelihood of pensioners falling below the threshold of 60% of median income, which we used to use to define relative poverty, but none the less, on the evidence from the Social Market Foundation, we can see that pensioners would fall below the 80% and perhaps even 70% income thresholds. That should concern us. It is right to continue to debate such matters and we should see if we can work together to provide more certainty and security for pensioners.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered Government policy on guaranteed income for retirees.
Court Charges (Access to Justice)
(9 years, 1 month ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered court charges and access to justice.
I want to consider the effect that the criminal courts charge has had on access to justice. In the past five years, whether in criminal or civil law, access to justice—the ability to secure legal representation or to maintain one’s innocence—has come under repeated attack. While the Conservative party is apparently so adamant about imposing British values through the Ministry of Justice’s output, I can think of no other British Government who have attacked the principles of Magna Carta in such a manner.
The debate focuses on the criminal courts charge. While I am relatively new to the House, other Members—[Interruption.]
Mr James Gray (in the Chair)
As a result of the Division, the debate will run until a quarter to 5. The Member in charge might perhaps wish to leave a quarter of an hour or thereabouts for the Minister to respond.
Tulip Siddiq
To pick up where I left off, the Government are attacking the principles of Magna Carta. I am relatively new to the House, but other Members will have been concerned about previous legal reforms by this Government. The focus of the debate is criminal court charges, which have attracted widespread criticism from all parts of the legal world, from magistrates to the Lord Chief Justice.
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
My hon. Friend has mentioned magistrates; does she share my concern about the fact that at least 50 magistrates have resigned since the implementation of the charges?
Tulip Siddiq
My hon. Friend has anticipated a point I will come on to. As he said, 50 magistrates have resigned, and in one case highlighted by the Howard League, a magistrate felt inclined to pay the court fee from his own pocket because of his sense of injustice.
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray, and I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate at a very timely moment. Does she agree that a major risk of the charges is that they will have a disproportionate effect on the poorest defendants, which is unfair?
Tulip Siddiq
Absolutely. I secured the debate because I am worried about access to justice for people from poor socioeconomic backgrounds. I will touch on that later.
The court charges were introduced by the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012. They have had a dramatic impact on the number of cases going to court. I am particularly worried about tribunal numbers, which have plummeted, and the number of discrimination and unfair dismissal cases, which seems to be going down. I am concerned that the charges are in effect an attack on the most vulnerable in our society. I say the most vulnerable, because statistics show that sex discrimination cases brought by women have gone down by 80%. Similarly, if we compare the first few months of 2014 with the same period in 2013, the number of race discrimination cases has gone down by 60%.
Access to the court system is not, as the Government have put it, part of the welfare state. I prefer to agree with the Law Society, which said that the court system should be seen as
“part of the…rights and duties that give…resilience”
to the society that we live in. I do not doubt that our centuries-old court system needs some reform, but we need to think carefully before proposing those reforms. The Government would do well to remember their responsibility to enable every citizen to be treated equally before the law, whether they are a defendant, a victim or another party.
It is important to consider the effect that the criminal courts charge is having on poor defendants, as my hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds) mentioned. Despite the lack of quantitative data at my disposal, a lot of anecdotal evidence has been brought to light, especially by organisations such as the Howard League, revealing that this charge is not only intolerable in its consequences but will in no way recover the money that the Government talk about.
Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
In the light of the failure to consult before the criminal charge scheme was introduced; the clear concerns of judges, magistrates and the whole legal profession; and the likelihood that this will add to the problem, rather than solve it, does my hon. Friend agree that this scheme should be reviewed this autumn, as the Howard League argues, rather than in three years?
Tulip Siddiq
I absolutely agree with my hon. and learned Friend, who has a lot of experience in this field. That is something I raised with the Justice Secretary when I asked him in the Chamber a few weeks ago why this absurd policy had been signed off in the first place, and he said that it was under review. We should not wait three years, while the reform has dramatic effects on the most vulnerable in our society. We should move the review forward; if the scheme is under review, that should be done immediately, and we should not procrastinate.
Let me highlight what I find most concerning about this charge and what has struck me. This charge will put pressure on people to plead guilty because they are worried about financial costs. If someone pleads guilty early on, they are less likely to incur costs than if they say and then maintain that they are innocent, and are found guilty later down the line. That will inevitably put pressure on people to plead guilty. I want to read out some of the figures, to hammer this home. The charge rises from £150 for a guilty plea for a summary offence in a magistrates court to £520 for a conviction after a not-guilty plea. The charge at Crown court is £900 for a guilty plea and £1,200 for a conviction after a not-guilty plea. Think about the constituents who live on the estates of Hampstead and Kilburn, the constituency I am so proud to represent in this House. They would not be able to afford those fines.
Christina Rees (Neath) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that one aspect of this issue is the fact that courts are given no discretion to take account of an individual’s ability to pay?
Tulip Siddiq
I will touch on that later, but there is a lot of anecdotal evidence, as I have said. The Howard League and other organisations have highlighted that people on benefits or people who rely on social security are being expected to pay fines that we know they will not be able to pay. It is unrealistic to expect those people to pay these charges, and administratively, it probably costs taxpayers more.
Wayne David
The figures I have seen underline the point my hon. Friend just made. My understanding is that some £5 million in court charges has been issued, but less than £300,000 has been collected. Does that huge gap not show how ridiculous this policy is?
Tulip Siddiq
Absolutely. If we look at the money we have managed to claw back, it shows why this policy should be scrapped. It should not take three years to review it, because we have the evidence, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) said.
I rarely agree with Conservative Members of the House, but I agree with the Chair of the Select Committee on Justice, the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), who said on Radio 4 that the charge
“does seem to be distorting the way in which people behave in court…defendants might plead guilty to save the cost of the charge when otherwise they would not have done”.
That is from a member of the Conservative party. I could not agree more with him.
In 21st-century Britain, we should be appalled by the miscarriage of justice, especially when defendants are foregoing their freedom due to financial constraints. To pick up on a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen, in some magistrates courts about 80% of defendants are dependent on state support to meet basic living costs, which makes this issue even more pressing. The charge means that poorer defendants are likely to make a different decision from the one they would have ordinarily made. That means we risk their voice being at best constrained, and at worst shut out from our justice system.
Keir Starmer
Does my hon. Friend agree that this cuts across the principle we have had in our criminal justice system for many years of being willing to reduce a sentence for an early guilty plea, because we are setting our face against increasing the consequences for not pleading guilty?
Tulip Siddiq
Again, I draw on my hon. and learned Friend’s experience in the legal world. I absolutely agree with him, and I hope the Government will listen to his interventions today, because I do not think anyone could be better equipped to help the Government at this point than him.
What is even more frustrating is that we are unable to place a specific figure on the increase in the proportion of guilty pleas at first hearing at the magistrates court. Until recently, quarterly criminal court statistics routinely included that figure. While the Government may be reticent about taking on board demands for revision, they must strive to make those figures available so that the extent of the recent phenomenon can be made public. I urge the Minister to be transparent about the impact this reform is having.
My hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David) mentioned that 50 magistrates have resigned since the implementation of this policy. Let us listen to the experts and judge them by their actions. The Magistrates Association claimed in written evidence to the Justice Committee that
“the lack of judicial discretion means that the charge…is not in accordance with the principles of justice.”
My second concern is that the charge is producing fines that are disproportionate to the minor offences for which defendants are often charged. For generations, magistrates imposed financial penalties in accordance with how severe the crime was and the defendant’s ability to pay, which my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Christina Rees) mentioned. The mandatory charge can account for 50% or more of the total, placing enormous anxiety and stress on individuals who sometimes have been driven, in despair, to commit crimes. I am not saying we should not punish criminals, but the importance of judicial discretion cannot be underestimated.
I would like to give one example from Highbury Corner magistrates court, where a lot of Hampstead and Kilburn’s constituents are tried. The defendant in question had no savings, no income and a drug addiction. He was put in the docks of Highbury for stealing a couple of steaks and 70p lollipops. He was told he should plead guilty, because the charge would be £150, whereas if he was found guilty further down the line, it would rise to £1,000. Of course, he pled guilty. The reporters at the case wrote that he sat there with “sunken cheekbones”, his shirt falling off his back, and he knew that he would in no way be able to pay the court fees imposed on him. The charge was £150, with a £65 victim surcharge and further costs of £85, which came to £295 for a man who the judge said needed 12 months of rehabilitation and community service. There is no way he will be able to pay that back. Is this a system that works for people? Should we not be looking at these vulnerable people who cannot afford to pay the fees we are imposing on them? Is this the future we want for our criminal justice system? It is surely time the Government realised that this policy is not fit for purpose and needs to be reviewed.
I want to ask the Minister a few questions. First, we have been told that the Government are listening, which is a good sign, but can we ensure the review is brought forward? May I have an answer to my original question to the Justice Secretary: how did this absurd policy get signed off in the first place? Secondly, in the medium term, will the Government disaggregate the statistics that are due in December, so that we can see exactly how little is being paid back and how much the policy is costing taxpayers in administrative costs?
A lot of Members in this House and in this Chamber today came into politics because they believed in the values of equality, fairness and social justice. If we carry on in this way, we will create a legal system in which people with money will have access to justice and those without will be shut out. That is not the kind of society we want to live in; we want to live in a society that has equal access to justice, and we need to be very careful, because we are in danger of hitting the most vulnerable people in our society with the legal reforms that are being proposed. I ask the Minister to respond to my questions, and I urge him, once again, to listen to all the Opposition Members who have made points.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Shailesh Vara)
May I say what a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr Gray? I congratulate the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) on securing the debate and on so eloquently and passionately putting forward her views. I also commend all the other colleagues who have joined the debate, which shows the importance that colleagues attach to this very important subject.
The Government believe that convicted adult offenders should take responsibility and contribute towards the costs that they impose in the criminal courts. The criminal courts charge has made it possible to recover some of those costs from offenders, which in turn is reducing the burden on law-abiding taxpayers.
Broadly, the levels of the charge cannot be more than the relevant costs reasonably attributable to a particular type of case, in line with the limits of the primary legislation. This means that when the costs of running the courts change, such as when efficiencies are made and running costs decrease, we will need to be able to change the levels of the charge to reflect that. As we have specified the levels of the charge in secondary legislation, we can review the charge levels and will change them when necessary.
The criminal courts charge framework means that it is imperative that offenders are given a fair and realistic opportunity to pay the charge. It is important to remember that, in setting payment terms, the court has the discretion to consider the offender’s means—a point that the hon. Lady considerably expanded on. The court may make sure that payment terms are set at an affordable rate. Offenders can also contact a fines officer at any point to request variations in payment rates if their circumstances change and they are no longer able to pay at the rate initially set. At those points, the court and fines officer will have an opportunity to take existing debts into account, making sure that repayment is reasonable and affordable, given the offender’s individual circumstances.
Melanie Onn
Thank you, Mr Gray; the Minister referred to me as Liz Saville Roberts yesterday, so I am not doing very well.
On the point about people who are unable to pay the costs, for some, a financial penalty is utterly meaningless. Those without the means to pay are without the means to pay, and reducing the cost will not make a difference if they are already severely indebted. If they are not in a position to earn any additional funds, does it not add to the burden of an administrative system to seek to reclaim costs from somebody who clearly is never going to be able to pay them?
Mr Vara
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for intervening; she gives me the opportunity to explain an important issue. The criminal courts charge is payable only after, first, the compensation has been paid; secondly, the victim surcharge has been paid; thirdly, the prosecution costs have been paid; and, fourthly, fines have been paid. A judge imposes those, and only when all four have been paid does the criminal courts charge come along; and, although set at a specific rate, it is nevertheless assessed by the court’s officers on the basis of ability to pay. That means that the other debts, income and all other such financial factors are taken into account; and then, based on what the officer feels is an acceptable way for the charge to be paid, the money is paid, after the other four impositions have been dealt with. I might add that if an individual has made all reasonable efforts to make the payment and they have not reoffended, then after two years whatever is left is scrapped.
Keir Starmer
Does the Minister agree that it is highly unusual for a number of magistrates to resign over an issue such as this? When they do so, what is the level of concern in the Department, ranked between one and 10?
Mr Vara
We have some 20,000 magistrates. At any given point, there are always some who are resigning. It is regrettable that some have felt it necessary to resign on that basis, but I will say that magistrates do hugely beneficial work. It is an important role in society and they give up valuable time of their own to do a good service. Of course, it would be wrong for me to comment on individual circumstances, but it is regrettable that some have felt it necessary to resign on that basis.
Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab)
Does the Minister not agree that the fact that only a fraction of the imposed costs has been recovered indicates that those charged with repayment are unable to repay, and that this therefore makes the whole court charge untenable?
Mr Vara
It is not yet known how much has been recovered, because those statistics will be forthcoming in the December quarterly statistics. Just to explain, they were not in the September quarterly publication because, although initial data from the first three months of operation—the change having taken place in April—were included in the regular September quarterly statistics, it was not possible to provide separate figures on the charge in time for that publication which met the data quality standards required for published management information. Detailed figures will, however, be published on 17 December.
I note the comments made about the effects on the offender’s plea decision and the issue of access to justice. The Government are committed to ensuring a fair and effective criminal justice system that is accessible to all, and we are assured in the knowledge that the coalition Government carefully considered the compatibility of the criminal courts charge provisions with the European convention on human rights, on article 6 “access to the court” grounds. Article 6 of the European convention on human rights has an implicit right of access to the courts, and the charge does not interfere with that right in any way. In particular, it should be remembered that the charge is imposed at the end of proceedings. Defendants facing trial are not required to pay the criminal courts charge and the charge is not a condition of an offender being able to access the courts. A person will be subject to the charge only if convicted following a court hearing that will have taken into consideration all the available evidence. Therefore, those who are innocent and should be found not guilty by the courts will not be required to pay the charge.
We should also remember that our justice system already creates a number of incentives for those who enter early guilty pleas to ensure that the wheels of justice run more smoothly. For example, if defendants who are guilty enter a guilty plea as early as possible, the courts recognise the benefit to victims, witnesses and the criminal justice system as a whole by means of a reduction in sentence. I recognise, however, the need to ensure that any incentives are proportionate and I note the concerns expressed about the matter.
Keir Starmer
I spent many years working on proposals for early guilty pleas and I support them, but the underlying principle was always that the sentence or consequences were reduced for an early guilty plea, not increased for not pleading guilty. Does the charge not offend that principle, and was the Sentencing Council consulted before the charge was brought forth?
Mr Vara
I am not sure I follow what the hon. and learned Gentleman is saying. It seems pretty straightforward that at the moment we have a system whereby if somebody pleads guilty, it assists the criminal justice system, the witnesses, the victim and so on, and proper due regard is taken of that. In this instance, if a person pleads guilty, due regard is taken, but they should not plead guilty if they are not guilty. They should allow the court process to take its course.
Keir Starmer
I will be brief, and I accept that the debate is time limited. The point I am making—it is a point of principle—is that the courts have always fixed the penalty and then reduced it for an early guilty plea. The penalty has never gone up because someone did not plead guilty in the first place. That is the fundamental principle that is being offended.
Mr Vara
The charge is not part of the sentencing process, and that has been made abundantly clear to magistrates and the judiciary. It is a contribution to court costs and is not intended to be taken into account for sentencing purposes. There has been confusion, and I want to put on the record the fact that it is not intended to be a means of sentencing.
Given the financial imperative to bring down public spending, the Government must ensure that the courts are adequately funded in the long term in a way that allows the budgetary challenges ahead to be met. There is a high level of consensus across the justice system that the current system is unsustainable.
Christina Rees
Can the Minister say whether the revenue collected from the court charges goes towards the legal aid fund?
Mr Vara
The legal aid fund is one of the most generous in the world, after the reductions, at some £1.6 billion. It was previously over £2 billion. We have made reductions and we still rank among the top countries in legal aid provision. It is important to remember that point, which also addresses some of the comments of the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn about access to justice. Let me remind her that, notwithstanding the reductions made by the Government in the past five years, we remain one of the most generous countries in the world for legal aid payments.
There is a high level of consensus across the justice system that the current system is unsustainable. This means that the court system must undergo fundamental reform. Our justice system must work better to deliver swifter, fairer and more efficient access to justice for everyone.
Tulip Siddiq
I would like to know whether the review will be brought forward or whether it will take three years.
Mr Vara
As my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor has said, the matter is under review.
Our justice system must work better to deliver swifter, fairer and more efficient access to justice for everyone. It must uphold the rule of law, the most precious asset of any civilised society. Changes to fees have occurred on the civil side, and bearing the burden of running the criminal courts cannot continue to be purely the responsibility of the taxpayer. Offenders must take responsibility for their actions, and the criminal courts charge is an important part of this. In reforming the courts and bearing down on the costs of running them, the Government are determined to make the justice system more efficient and to transform it into a modern public service.
I want to make it clear to the hon. Lady and to all other hon. Members present that I am aware of the concerns and various issues that have been raised, and I will certainly take on board all that has been said by her and other hon. Members. However, it is important to stress—I hope the hon. Lady will appreciate this—that in reviewing the charge, we must consider all the evidence to allow us to form an appropriate view and to help us to make sure that the criminal courts are run efficiently and fairly. I congratulate the hon. Lady again on securing this important debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered court charges and access to justice.
Groceries Code Adjudicator
(9 years, 1 month ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the role and powers of the Groceries Code Adjudicator.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray, while discussing a topic that has not yet been debated in depth this Parliament. Before doing so, I must draw hon. Members’ attention to my declaration of interest. Having been a Yorkshire farmer before becoming an MP, I have farming interests, but I do not have any commercial relationship that would be affected by the role of the Groceries Code Adjudicator.
I would like to place on the record my thanks to all the industry bodies and trade associations that have been in contact with my office to feed their views into this important debate. In kicking it off, I would like to voice the concerns that many in the food and farming industries share regarding certain aspects of the Groceries Code Adjudicator. The organisation has been broadly welcomed by many in the sector, but there has been some disquiet about issues concerning the adjudicator’s resources, powers, performance and overall remit, which I will discuss in turn.
As many hon. Members know, the adjudicator was established back in June 2013 to ensure that the largest supermarkets treat their direct suppliers lawfully and fairly. The adjudicator’s primary role is to ensure compliance with the groceries supply code of practice. It is worth mentioning that before the code was introduced in 2010, many farmers reported widespread unfair practices such as last-minute price cuts, being asked to guarantee the supermarket a minimum profit margin, and growers being expected to pay as a condition of being a supplier. Those unfair practices would all now be illegal under the code, but the impact of the code has been to force many food producers out of business. As a nation we have become increasingly reliant on imported food—a theme I will touch on later.
Mr Mark Williams (Ceredigion) (LD)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this important debate. I do not have the pedigree of a farming background, but I represent many farmers. An increasing feature of the market has been the development of voluntary codes, such as those in the dairy and beef sectors. When he goes on to talk about remit, will he be mindful of the need to encourage the adjudicator to have the power to look at where voluntary agreements are and are not working?
Julian Sturdy
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. He is absolutely right that some of the voluntary codes are working well and are successful, while others need much more work. I would welcome the codes falling under the remit of the Groceries Code Adjudicator. As I will set out, there needs to be a much wider remit for the adjudicator, especially given that the Minister will review the remit in March 2016.
To go back to the history, the Groceries Code Adjudicator oversees a sector that is worth £177 billion and employs 3.8 million people—14% of the UK workforce or one in every seven jobs in the country. It is also our largest manufacturing sector, worth almost a fifth of our manufacturing output, which is more than our car and aerospace manufacturing sectors combined.
Supermarkets are huge wealth creators in this country, and I am sure that many hon. Members present will have first-hand experience of the community work that supermarkets do in their constituencies, so this is not about being anti-supermarket, as they play a huge role in our economy and society. However, in the light of the sheer scale of the grocery industry, it is about fairness. Given the scale of the industry, it might come as a surprise that the adjudicator is employed for only three days each week and is assisted by a team of just five people. I have always been a champion of lean and efficient public bodies, but the current resources do not appear appropriate for the challenges at hand.
Chris Davies (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con)
May I echo the words of my friend the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams)? I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Julian Sturdy)has brought this debate to Westminster Hall and highlighted this very important issue. While he is on the history, can we go back a little further? He will remember, as I am sure all hon. Members do, the great anticipation that there was for a Groceries Code Adjudicator. Various Governments had promised to create that role, but it never came about. When we brought it forward, there was great anticipation among the farmers and producers in my constituency of Brecon and Radnorshire that this organisation would have real teeth to deal with the situation with the supermarkets. As my hon. Friend rightly says, supermarkets are a very important part of—
Chris Davies
Yes, Mr Gray. The supermarkets are very important, but so is this adjudicator and so indeed are suppliers. When we look at the history, we see that we need to strengthen—
Julian Sturdy
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. He is absolutely right about looking back at the history. I remember, before the 2010 general election, attending many hustings and talking about a Groceries Code Adjudicator and how it was so important that we brought that forward. I remember, as I am sure a number of hon. Members here will, speaking in the debate on Second Reading of the Groceries Code Adjudicator Bill, and warning then that, while we had to bring that forward, we had to ensure that it had real teeth to act. I feel that it has been a good step forward, but there is much more work to do, and I want to touch on that.
Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on initiating the debate. A number of us, including the Chair of the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), have already discussed some of these issues, but does the hon. Member for York Outer (Julian Sturdy) agree that the Groceries Code Adjudicator’s remit should be expanded in legislation to include fair and reasonable prices for producers? Many people—not solely in the dairy sector, which has a voluntary code—have been asking for that.
Julian Sturdy
The hon. Lady is absolutely correct. I will go on to pay tribute to the EFRA Committee and the work that it has done on this subject. I know that it has forthcoming inquiries on the topic as well. I entirely agree with her. I want to touch on the dairy sector later in my speech, but this issue goes right across the fresh produce sector, and we have to get fairness there.
I was making the point about the sheer scale of the industry and whether the Groceries Code Adjudicator has enough resources to do its job. Why does the adjudicator have a team of only five, and why is the adjudicator employed for only three days a week? Is that because there is not a real problem of the supermarkets using their massive size and resources to abuse their dominant market position? Or is the problem simply not being taken seriously enough, with the result that those are the resources available to the adjudicator?
The powers of the GCA have also been called into question. My hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Chris Davies) has touched on this. I remember making a contribution on Second Reading of the Groceries Code Adjudicator Bill, when it was not envisaged that the adjudicator would be able to fine companies from day one. I warned then that, without adequate teeth, the GCA would be like a referee without a whistle. I think that another Member in that debate said that it would be like a referee without a red card in his top pocket. The fear with all new regulatory bodies is that they are set up too cautiously and they become ineffective talking shops, unable to gain influence or authority in the sector. It was therefore a welcome development when, before the Bill’s Committee stage, the Government accepted the argument about giving the adjudicator the ability to fine retailers. Secondary legislation was introduced to give effect to the power to impose penalties on the large supermarkets of up to 1% of their annual UK turnover. That was another positive step forward—a step in the right direction—as the adjudicator requires teeth to send a strong message to the supermarkets that treating suppliers fairly is not optional.
It is deeply unfortunate, however, that the adjudicator’s ability to impose robust fines will come in after the GCA’s investigation into allegations that Tesco overstated its profits by £250 million. Should a breach of the code be found to have occurred, the only possible sanctions will be to name and shame the retailer, which is redundant at best, as the matter has already been widely reported in the media. In the light of the GCA’s limited resources and the late arrival of its powers, it is fair to ask what the adjudicator has achieved in the two years since it was established.
Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)
I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. We have discussed this issue at length during the EFRA Committee’s farm prices inquiry, and it is very pertinent. I wonder whether the adjudicator is working three days a week because she does not have enough powers to fill the other days. She is legally prevented from looking for evidence, and her remit extends only to direct suppliers, which leaves out the majority of farmer suppliers, which in turn does not encourage them to bring evidence forward.
Julian Sturdy
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. She has hit the nail on the head: the Groceries Code Adjudicator does not have the powers to fill the whole week. But let us be serious about this. Ultimately, we must have a Groceries Code Adjudicator that has the powers to act on behalf of primary producers right across the sector. I am sure that if we deliver those powers, the Groceries Code Adjudicator will be able to fill her time right the way through the week.
To date, the adjudicator has not completed a single investigation, has not made any final decisions in arbitration cases and, as we have discussed, has not imposed any enforcement measures, financial or otherwise. The GCA is, however, to be commended for the transparent way in which it measures its own performance through the use of surveys. The key findings were that eight out of 10 suppliers said that they had experienced a potential breach of the code in the past 12 months. Unfortunately, only 38% of direct suppliers said that they would consider raising the issue with the adjudicator. Something has gone seriously wrong when the majority of suppliers have suffered problems with the code but most would not even consider raising the matter with the body in charge of protecting their welfare.
This year, the surveys show some positive developments, with a drop in the number of suppliers reporting potential breaches and a rise in the number of suppliers who would consider raising the issue with the GCA. However, serious weaknesses remain. Despite an increase in confidence in the GCA, the majority of direct suppliers still would not have confidence in the adjudicator helping them when they are in need. The reasons for the lack of confidence are, sadly, all too clear: 68% of suppliers fear retribution by the retailer should they be identified, and 45% are not confident that the GCA will maintain their confidentiality, despite being bound to do so.
The surveys ultimately raise more questions than answers. How can we make sure that the majority of suppliers have confidence in the GCA to handle their complaint appropriately? What can we do about the apparent climate of fear that surrounds the reporting of potential breaches of the groceries code? I will be inviting the GCA to discuss those matters with my colleagues at a special meeting of the all-party group for rural business next year, which I hope the Minister might attend. I hope that she will at least address those concerns today. I know that she is very experienced in this matter and I look forward to her response.
Perhaps most important is the question of extending the remit of the GCA. That has been widely supported by many in the food industry, especially in the light of the plight of our dairy farmers. Although I appreciate that the Minister will review the role and powers of the adjudicator in March next year, the truth is that many of our dairy farmers cannot wait that long. It is to be welcomed that the EU support payments to help hard-pressed dairy farmers manage their cash-flow problems started arriving in farmers’ bank accounts yesterday, two weeks ahead of schedule. I am also pleased that the Government have secured from the European Commission more than £26 million—the third largest support package among member states—to help dairy farmers affected by the global volatility in milk prices. As the Tenant Farmers Association has argued for some time, however, the GCA could play a hugely positive role in helping dairy farmers by ensuring fairness throughout the supply chain.
In January this year, I was greatly encouraged by the Prime Minister’s response to a question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies), who is here today. He enquired whether the powers of the GCA should be extended and strengthened to support the dairy industry. The Prime Minister agreed with him, saying, of the GCA:
“I also think it is time to look at whether there are ways in which its remit can be extended to make sure it looks at more of this vital industry.”—[Official Report, 21 January 2015; Vol. 591, c. 217.]
Sadly, nine months later its remit remains the same, and the plight of dairy farmers continues.
There are three crucial ways in which the remit of the adjudicator could be extended to help dairy farmers and those most in need in the fresh produce sector. First, as the British Poultry Council, the National Farmers Union and the Country Land and Business Association have made clear, the adjudicator must have the power to initiate its own investigations. Currently, it can act only on complaints. It has been suggested that in much the same way as Ofsted has the powers to investigate the performance of schools on its own initiative and at very short notice, the GCA should be able to investigate potential breaches of the code among the larger supermarkets at any time. At the moment, it appears that the adjudicator needs to be handed all the evidence and have a conclusive case against a retailer before an investigation can commence. Perhaps it would be better if the GCA could say, “I have heard enough from this area of the industry, and there is clearly a problem. I will open an investigation to make sure that the supermarkets are not abusing their dominant market position.”
Secondly, trade associations such as the Federation of Small Businesses and the Royal Association of British Dairy Farmers argue that the adjudicator needs to be able to examine the whole supply chain from the farm to the checkout. Currently, only direct supply contracts can be investigated. Although the vast majority of farm produce passes through a processor before ending up on the supermarket shelves, as the law stands the GCA cannot consider the impact of retailer activity on farmers, even though that is at the centre of the dairy industry debate.
Thirdly, although we do not want to give the adjudicator the power to fix prices, the GCA should have the power to investigate and report on the balance of pricing throughout the supply chain. That would ensure that all suppliers in the chain—the primary producers as well as the direct suppliers—were getting a fair deal. The information would also provide much-needed transparency, which would assist farmers and food producers in negotiating fair and sustainable contracts with the processors and, ultimately, the supermarkets that they serve.
I have briefly touched on the fact that there is widespread concern about the huge volatility in milk prices and the impact that that has had on the British dairy industry. As few dairy farmers sell direct to supermarkets, there have been calls, most notably from the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, for the scope of the GCA’s powers to be extended. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) will be able to update us on the Committee’s excellent work on the dairy industry and farm-gate prices.
It is not only dairy farmers who come under the remit of the GCA. As the NFU “Catalyst for Change” report makes clear, fruit and vegetable growers up and down the country describe the current environment as a battlefield. There are concerns that because of the price wars among the largest supermarkets, driven by the increasing competition from discount retailers, supermarkets are up to their old tricks. Feeling the pinch from their new discount competitors, the temptation to attempt to claw back profitability from further down the supply chain is, sadly, all too real. That will have dangerous consequences, but the GCA cannot intervene because the vast majority of farmers sell their produce through processors. The impact of that poor practice, as in the past, has been to force producers out of business, increasing our reliance on imported food. The value of British fruit and vegetable production has fallen by 14% since 2010, and imports have never been higher.
Mr Mark Williams
I have been listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman’s excellent speech. Does he agree that we are talking about not only an economic argument, but confidence in the industry? The theme in my constituency has been the confidence of young people whom we desperately need—the age demographic of farming is going up—to join the industry. If they do not see fair play at its most basic, they will be less inclined to join the industry.
Julian Sturdy
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. We are absolutely talking about confidence in the industry—confidence for primary producers to invest in the sector and move their businesses forward, and confidence for the younger generation to get involved in the industry. He is absolutely right that the age of people running the industry is getting higher and higher, and we desperately need younger people to get in.
Food security, which I have touched on, is so important to our country. Imports of fruit and vegetables have increased by more than 650,000 tonnes in the past four years, and further decline in British food production will have serious consequences for food security and the farming sector. The GCA could have an important role in preventing supermarkets from exacerbating the problem.
Although the introduction of the GCA is to be welcomed, two years on it is clear that there is potential for the adjudicator to do so much more. The Government review will take place in only four months’ time. Will the Minister assure me and other Members here that details of the review will be published as early as possible? As I am sure she will agree, it is essential that the entire food sector has the opportunity to feed into the review, and the trade associations need time to present a strong submission. Will she assure me that submissions will be accepted from indirect suppliers, not just from direct suppliers who are currently under the GCA’s remit? Will she assure me, as the Prime Minister indicated to the House at the start of the year, that she will look at extending the adjudicator’s remit to help those right across the supply chain, including dairy farmers and fruit and vegetable producers?
A properly resourced GCA that has the right powers and acts proactively in the market has the potential to be a powerful source of fairness in a cut-throat industry. Anything less would be a missed opportunity, and British food producers and, ultimately, the end consumer would be all the poorer for it.
Mr James Gray (in the Chair)
Mr Shannon has inquired whether there is a time limit in this debate. There is no such time limit. None the less, I am keen to bring in the Chair of the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in good time before the first of the three wind-ups. He might like to time his comments to allow that to occur.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Thank you, Mr Gray; that is very helpful.
It is good to speak in this debate, and I thank the hon. Member for York Outer (Julian Sturdy) for giving us a chance to contribute. This is an issue for us in Northern Ireland, which is why—although my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson) is absent just now—we have three Members from Northern Ireland present. My hon. Friend and the hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie) are members of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee so they have input to this issue as something that concerns them. I declare an interest as I chair the all-party parliamentary group for eggs, pigs and poultry. The APPG may dwell more on the issues of the laws that come from Europe, but one of the issues that came up at our launch just two weeks ago was that of fair prices. Although Members have referred to the dairy industry, many other sectors of agriculture and farming have problems with that as well.
It is nice to see the shadow Minister and the Minister in their places. We have been here together in debates on at least two different subjects—health and defence. We are now debating agriculture and the Groceries Code Adjudicator; the Minister has a wide interest.
Competition is a healthy part of society, contributing to economic growth, ensuring competitive prices and driving innovation, but sometimes the system that ensures competition is broken. Sometimes competition is not working as it should. That is a clear issue for us. With just four retailers taking 85% of the market, it is clear that competition in the groceries sector is not working. Farmers say that they are not getting their prices, they are working long hours and they are the ones getting squeezed. All the evidence indicates that that is the case. To break the domination and get competition working again, action is needed. Today is a welcome opportunity to discuss that potential action, and to ensure that we take action that works and does not have negative unintended consequences.
Recently across the country and across my largely rural constituency of Strangford, we have seen the impact of the abuse of purchasing power by major supermarkets. The major supermarkets are very important as they push out the product matter, but it is also important that they have local people to supply them. Many of those supermarkets claim, “We buy so much of our products locally.” It is okay to buy it locally, but they have to give the producer a fair price. Farmers are on the brink, with some even contemplating suicide—these are hard times—over the position they had been forced into by abusive monopolies. Unfair trading practices are referred to in the background notes. That is one of the issues.
Ms Ritchie
My constituency neighbour will know, as I do, that agricultural produce is critical to our local economy. In that vein, does he agree with me, and with the conclusion of the Ulster Farmers Union, that the Groceries Code Adjudicator should have more power to tackle unfair trading practices, particularly in the dairy sector but also in the red meat and vegetable sectors? That would have an impact on his constituency.
Jim Shannon
As always, I am pleased to have accepted an intervention. I note the hon. Lady’s wise words, which outline clearly the issues for my constituency and her constituency, in referring to the unfair trading practices.
We have to value the benefits of supermarkets, as I said earlier. The Competition Commission views the country’s supermarkets as delivering
“a good deal for consumers”.
However, the commission did warn about the impact on suppliers if current practices were to continue—that continuing to produce a quality product at a cheaper than cheap price is unsustainable. It said that
“the transfer of excessive risk and unexpected costs by grocery retailers to their suppliers through various supply chain practices if unchecked will have an adverse effect on investment and innovation in the supply chain, and ultimately on consumers.”
In the background information sent to us by the National Farmers Union, there are three examples. Just last week on the TV—I think it was early on Tuesday morning last week—there was a clear illustration of this. A farmer, who I think was from Norfolk, was producing parsnips for Morrisons and had been doing so for years, but he was not getting his price and the company was continuously squeezing him. The problem for him was that it had got to a stage where it was unsustainable. Last week a TV programme carried the story. Morrisons had not replied over a six-week period. Ultimately, he was saying, “I cannot continue after years of the product being purchased at low profit.” This had an impact on him, as he had young sons. He needed to ensure that everything for him was beneficial and cost-effective, but it was not. Whether it is Morrisons, the Co-op or Tesco, those issues need to be addressed. Action must be taken. Relevant powers need to be given to the new ombudsman or eventually to a body that takes responsibility for this issue.
The Competition Commission’s proposed ombudsman would enforce compliance with the groceries supply code of practice. Perhaps the Minister will tell us what extra powers the ombudsman will have to bring supermarkets into line and ensure that they do what they should do. We have to strike the right balance between addressing the abuses of purchasing power by monopolies and allowing legitimate businesses to operate with as little Government interference as possible. That is appropriate, given the serious detrimental impact to suppliers. As I have already outlined, the grocery retailers will be prohibited from making retrospective adjustments to terms and conditions of supply, which are issues that have a direct impact on them.
It is my understanding that the Groceries Code Adjudicator would not have to have, or seek to have, any role beyond what is necessary to monitor and enforce the code of practice. However, with the right approach, and with the teeth that Government can give it, we can, as the hon. Member for South Down and others have said, make the change, make farmers more profitable and help them, as they produce a quality product that in many cases leads the world. They need that profit and that money to continue to be producers.
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)
It is great to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Julian Sturdy) for securing the debate—in fact, he could be considered a young farmer in this day and age. It is great to see him here fighting the corner for agriculture as well as for his constituency. It is good to follow the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). Northern Ireland has particular problems because it needs to export much of its food. All products—dairy, beef, lamb and poultry—are under pressure, so this debate is timely. I will not go into the history of the adjudicator as my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer did that very well.
I am unashamedly going to make a speech that is pro-farming and pro-food production. We produce some of the best food in the world with some of the highest welfare standards, but that often adds cost to the food we produce. We have massive retailers, which are good for consumers. They can have a good war with each other and drive prices down, but as they drive the prices down, the suspicion is—it is not always the case—that the farmer and the processor pay for those low prices in the shop. If Tesco has a price war, the price comes down; I just wonder, for Wiseman or whoever supplies Tesco, whether the farmers are getting a good price from the Tesco direct milk contract. Are the processors then being squeezed? Are the other parts of that milk contract—cheese, butter and yoghurt—then being affected? All those things are appropriate and we need to look into them.
We want to produce more and more food in this country. We are becoming less self-sufficient every year, but we should be more self-sufficient every year. I have every faith in the Minister to ensure that we are more self-sufficient in food. The only way that will happen is if the farmer and the producer are paid a full price. The Groceries Code Adjudicator needs to be able to go into a retailer, whoever it might be—a bit like a spot check—and check that it is not using unfair practices to keep the commodity price or the price that is paid to the producer down. It could be milk, beef, lamb or perishable products. With perishable vegetables, the farmer or the grower is even more vulnerable because there is no way of storing much of that produce. Often the large retailers know that and they will drive the price down until it is uneconomic to produce.
The Groceries Code Adjudicator has powers. She appears before the Select Committee next month, so we will be able to put these questions to her directly. Five members of the Select Committee are here this afternoon, which shows the importance we attach to this subject. Is the Groceries Code Adjudicator using her powers sufficiently? Is she resourced enough? I echo my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer in saying that I do not usually come to Westminster Hall to demand more bureaucracy and more money, but if we are to take on these massive retailers, which have billions of pounds-worth of trade, we need someone who is resourced enough to be able to go in and stand up to them.
Few processors are feeding milk, beef, lamb and poultry into Tesco, Sainsbury’s and Morrisons, or whoever it might be, so if there is a complaint, the retailer knows very well where it has come from. Suppliers are therefore not likely to make a complaint. Whistleblowers and people with a real complaint must be able to come forward and must be protected. If the big retailers are using their muscle unfairly, the Groceries Code Adjudicator should have the power to come down on them in an even heavier fashion, because 1% of the turnover of Tesco or Sainsbury’s is quite a fine. Such a fine would send a message to the rest of the retailers that they need to behave properly.
Mr James Gray (in the Chair)
Order. I am keen for the wind-ups to start, so the intervention should be very brief.
Rebecca Pow
We have heard much about the 25-year plan for the future of great British food and farming, not just for Taunton Deane, where I come from, but for the whole of Britain. Is it not important that we give the Groceries Code Adjudicator teeth, so that she can be part of that 25-year plan and help to enable everything that we want for our home-grown food?
Neil Parish
I could not agree more. Greater production in this country would mean that we did not have to import so much food. That would be good for our balance of payments, and it would be good not only for farmers but for our processing industry—all this can help to build the industry. We are therefore looking forward to the Minister proposing greater powers and more resources for the Groceries Code Adjudicator so that she can look into more of these large retailers to ensure that the farmer, the grower and the processor get a fair deal.
Stuart Blair Donaldson (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I congratulate the hon. Member for York Outer (Julian Sturdy) on securing this debate on an issue that is important to many of my constituents and to the constituents of Members on both sides of the House.
I am sure all Members would agree that the Groceries Code Adjudicator is well intentioned but its powers do not go far enough. In particular, it is insufficiently responsive to a failing supply chain. Earlier this year, the Scottish Government’s Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs, Food and Environment, Richard Lochhead, wrote to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, stating:
“I have long been pressing the UK Government to widen the Groceries Code Adjudicator’s remit and powers so that she can shine a spotlight on contracts between primary producers and processors, as well as processors and retailers.”
In conjunction with that, Mr Lochhead has continued to press the milk prices crisis with the adjudicator. There has been huge volatility in dairy prices over the past two years, and no fewer than 19 Scottish dairy farmers have gone out of business this year. Dairy is the most visible area in which the GCA’s remit does not go far enough. The GCA has no remit to investigate prices; it may investigate only the relationship between the largest supermarkets and their direct suppliers. The fact that the code extends only to retailers with a turnover of more than £1 billion and deals only with direct suppliers is unacceptably restrictive, as the vast majority of farmers supply the market through processors.
As few dairy farmers sell direct to supermarkets, consideration should be given to extending the scope of the GCA’s powers to provide a mechanism to tackle the problem. Dairy farmers who deal with large retailers often receive substantially less than the cost of production for their milk. Dairy producers cannot be expected to subsidise retailers in that way. It is not in the long-term interests of either our food security or our consumers to push dairy farmers out of business. That is why I echo the recommendation of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee’s report on dairy prices that the Government should give urgent consideration to how the GCA’s remit could be amended.
Expanding the role of the GCA would give it the powers that it should have, and indeed that many people already think it has. That is reinforced by the words of the adjudicator, Christine Tacon:
“I think very many farmers thought I was going to be there to get involved with price. I have been asked to get involved in the price of beef and milk and fleece. None of these can I get involved with: first, because I cannot get involved on price, and secondly they are very rarely direct suppliers themselves.”
That restrictive remit seems to be hampering the work of the GCA. Ms Tacon has also said:
“I continue to spend a great deal of my time explaining the remit of the GCA. This has hampered my ability to pursue important work that is within my remit…. The continued misrepresentation of my role is of great concern to me and I am keen to resolve this issue swiftly.”
I suggest that expanding the GCA’s remit would help to resolve that issue.
As has been mentioned, the GCA must have the power to initiate her own investigations, rather than only being able to act on complaints, as is currently the case, and she should be able to do so at any time. The GCA also needs to be given a role to look at the whole supply chain, rather than only being able to investigate direct supply contracts. That would finally bring the vast majority of farm produce into her remit. Finally, she should be able to investigate and report on the balance of pricing throughout the supply chain. That would bring transparency and help farmers and others in their negotiations with the retailers. Farmers across the UK are vital contributors to the rural economy and to the sustainability of our nation. They deserve a better deal and fairer pricing. I urge the Government to consider the points raised in this debate and broaden the remit of the Groceries Code Adjudicator.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for York Outer (Julian Sturdy) on securing this debate, which has been remarkable because we have had unanimity across multiple parties. I am fascinated to hear how the Minister will deal with the overwhelming demand for improvement in the remit of the Groceries Code Adjudicator that has been clearly expressed by all Members who have spoken today. I can only agree with many of their comments.
The Groceries Code Adjudicator was set up by Act of Parliament in 2013 following complaints by suppliers, smaller retailers and commentators about unfairness in retailing. A code of practice was introduced in 2001 and in 2008 the then Competition Commission recommended the creation of a statutory body to oversee and enforce a strengthened code. The Labour Government launched a consultation in February 2010, and the coalition Government responded by announcing plans for an adjudicator to enforce the groceries supply code of practice.
Many people raised concerns at the time about the watering-down of the role from the recommended ombudsman to an adjudicator, and those comments have been echoed by a number of Members today. It is perhaps no surprise that we have returned to that point because, as the hon. Gentleman said, an adjudicator working three days a week with a team of five will struggle to look after 300,000-plus suppliers in the retail supply chain. The expectations go way beyond the adjudicator’s ability to deliver.
Major retailers operate in a competitive market. To gain market share, the supermarkets loss-lead milk, bread and other products and they have promotions on many individual lines. When retailers cut prices, the question can arise of who pays and what the knock-on effect will be—a point made well by the Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish). Retailing runs on tight margins, so the pressure to cut costs in the supply chain is understandable. Ensuring that such pressure does not unfairly affect suppliers is a key responsibility of the adjudicator. There is a voluntary code of conduct in the dairy industry, and the Competition and Markets Authority also has responsibility to help smaller suppliers.
To be fair, since the Groceries Code Adjudicator was set up the number of suppliers saying that they have problems with retailers has fallen. The adjudicator says that she believes that being in post has on its own acted as a deterrent, and that the existence of the office has alone made a difference. However, many suppliers still say that they are unfairly treated by large retailers.
We have heard about anonymous complaints and suppliers’ concerns about retribution if they are identified. Again, the Chair of the Select Committee made the strong point that it is all too easy to identify who a complainant might be. The adjudicator has said that a lack of trust is a barrier to suppliers who might have complaints. Suppliers all want the ability to raise concerns free from the fear of reprisals. I am sure that the Minister would agree that minimising the danger of retaliation by retailers is essential if the adjudicator is to be effective. Will she comment on the adjudicator’s inability to investigate where there is a possibility that a complainant’s identity might become known to the retailer, and how she might improve how that aspect of the adjudicator’s role is carried out? The way the adjudicator is set up acknowledges that particular problem without solving it.
According to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, there are 7,000 direct suppliers, all of which are covered by the adjudicator, and a further 300,000-plus indirect suppliers, which are not. That issue has arisen again and again in this debate, and Members want it to be addressed, as those smaller suppliers are excluded from the remit of the Groceries Code Adjudicator. The adjudicator has made it clear that she has a small office and spends much of her time explaining what she can and cannot do. She has also made it clear that she cannot possibly cover the 300,000 suppliers in the supply chain, unless of course the scale of operations is dramatically altered, as is being demanded in this debate.
The Government said in their response to the previous Government’s consultation that they wanted to act in consumers’ long-term interest. I am sure that all of us agree with that now, when the adjudicator has been in post for some years, but the reality is that a system where there is quarterly reporting to the stock market and a very short-term approach, and where management are judged on short-term results, either quarterly or annually, leads to actions that can have drastic effects on suppliers throughout the supply chain. Short-term actions can also have long-term consequences. If producers are unable to stay in business due to unfair business practices by major retailers, main suppliers or both, we may lose good producers. If we lose good producers of quality goods, consumers will ultimately lose out.
The Chair of the Select Committee made the point that we have some of the finest food and standards in the world, and we want to retain those, but if our short-term actions threaten them, consumers will lose out in the end, which is no good to anyone. If the actions of retailers lead through the supply chain to that end, retailers will lose choice as well, thus losing out themselves. It is in nobody’s interest for such things not to be sorted out.
I will not go into the issue of dairy pricing in too much depth, other than to say that it is a particularly important issue. Only 3% of dairy suppliers supply direct to supermarkets, so there is a special case to be made. There is also a special case to be made for supporting the dairy industry in the longer term. In fact, the Secretary of State spoke in January of doing all that she could to ensure resilience in the dairy sector. If only the same vote of confidence and support had been given to the steel industry, I am sure that steelworkers would feel much better. [Interruption.] The Minister waves me away with that dismissive air she does so badly.
Bill Esterson
I am sure that the Minister will have a response.
What is needed in the sector is a level playing field that benefits consumers, suppliers and retailers in the long term. The Minister should ensure that the adjudicator and others, including Ministers, intervene in the short term to ensure long-term success. The adjudicator review is due in March. I hope, as I am sure do all Members who have spoken, that when the review is concluded, changes will be made that address the concerns raised here and by those in the supply chain on behalf of business and consumers. I look forward to hearing her response.
The Minister for Small Business, Industry and Enterprise (Anna Soubry)
It is, as ever, a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I sat through some of the previous debate and was looking forward to this one on the basis that my job would not be as difficult as that of the Minister in that one. I fear that I was mistaken. As you have heard, Mr Gray, everybody has ganged up on me. [Hon. Members: “Aww.”] I am not complaining particularly, because I think I have robust rebuttals to some of what has been said.
Given that, as ever, I have 10 minutes, the usual rules will apply. My hon. Friend—he is my hon. Friend—the Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) will know my rules, which are that if I do not answer any questions or points raised by hon. Members from whatever party, they will of course receive an answer in a letter. It is always good to say that, because I can simply put off the more difficult ones to another time by putting the answers in a letter.
Being serious, and with great respect to everyone who has spoken—particularly my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Julian Sturdy), whom I congratulate on securing this debate—I think that there are some fundamental misunderstandings about the Groceries Code Adjudicator. I will be even more controversial, and a little churlish, by saying that I am sure that the adjudicator is looking forward to appearing before my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) and his Committee. Clearly, nobody else here has met Christine Tacon. I have had the great pleasure of meeting her. She is a lady who takes no prisoners, and she is forthright not only in her views but in defence of the great work that she does. She is a formidable player, and in her we have an excellent first adjudicator.
I point out the following facts. The Groceries Code Adjudicator and her team are funded wholly by a levy on the 10 designated retailers, as outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer. The levy for 2015-16 has been set at £1.1 million, but the important point is this: the adjudicator decides for herself what her resource requirements will be for each year, based on her assessment of forthcoming work. They are approved by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, and then the amount is levied on the retailers. She is very much in charge.
I was looking at the Groceries Code Adjudicator website only today. I noted that in her report published today on her work over the last three months, she says, for example, that she has just appointed a new compliance officer. I urge hon. Members to read her three-monthly report to see the great advances that she is making. There is also scope to bring in additional resource if required, for example to help with investigation work. The adjudicator is satisfied that she has adequate resources and with the process for agreeing those resources with BIS. She has made that clear. It is up to her: if she is not satisfied, or thinks that she does not have enough, she can say so. If we agree, and there is no reason why we would not, she can increase the levy on those supermarkets. She has those powers.
The adjudicator also has powers to initiate her own investigations where she has reasonable grounds to suspect a breach of the code. That can be based on, but is not restricted to, information from direct and indirect suppliers, whistleblowers and the public domain. I argue that despite the complaints made by some, she has the ability to take complaints from other sources. In addition, it is clear from the Groceries Code Adjudicator Act 2013 and the guidance that the investigation threshold is determined by the adjudicator herself, which means she can be proactive in her approach.
Neil Parish
The point I was making was not so much about whether the adjudicator is able to take these complaints but that those who are making the complaints are too identifiable by the big retailers and therefore are not prepared to come forward.
Anna Soubry
I have a rebuttal for that somewhere, because I am told that regarding whistleblowers—the clue is in the title, I suggest—the adjudicator has a statutory duty to protect confidentiality. That addresses the fear factor among suppliers. Also, the National Farmers Union has a scheme that allows suppliers to make anonymous reports of code breaches via an online form on its own website. The NFU is exactly the type of third party that can take up a complaint on behalf of somebody in the manner that my hon. Friend would like. I thank my officials for that information.
Several hon. Members rose—
Chris Davies
I thank the Minister for giving way. May I say, very briefly, that the collective discussion we have had and the collective request we have made are not about making a complaint against the adjudicator? It is just that her powers do not go far enough.
Anna Soubry
I will deal with that one as well, if I may, because I am reliably informed that the problem for the adjudicator is that, as has been identified, she has no power to address matters falling outside the code, for the following reasons. First, the Government cannot change the code. As hon. Members have made clear in their speeches about the history of the establishment of the Groceries Code Adjudicator, the code came about from the work of the Competition and Markets Authority, arising from an investigation that it conducted into competition. Forgive me for saying so, but once again the clue is in the name and the history: it was all about unfair competition. I must say to the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Stuart Blair Donaldson) that it was never about pricing. If there are to be changes to the code, they can be made only by the CMA.
Also, with great respect to everybody, the 2013 Act was passed by a previous Parliament; it was what Parliament decided. The Government could give the adjudicator additional statutory duties outside the code, but that would involve amending primary legislation and it would have to be debated in Parliament. There is nothing wrong with that, but just so everybody understands: new legislation would be needed.
Ms Ritchie
As part of such a review, would the Minister consider allowing the adjudicator more freedom within legislation to launch investigations on her own initiative?
Anna Soubry
The adjudicator already does that, as I have said, but it must be within the terms of the code, and those terms do not include pricing. I have huge sympathy for the dairy industry—in fact, I think it is important that I say that my mother’s family were dairy farmers and my partner is a non-executive director of Morrisons. I just want to put all my background on the table, so to speak, in case anyone listening to or reading this debate queries my own background. As everyone here knows, I am my own woman; nobody influences me—and some would complain about that. Of course, I always listen to hon. Members and the good arguments that they make, but I am my own woman, whatever my family’s interests may be. Although I am sympathetic to the plight of the dairy farmers, the Groceries Code Adjudicator is not the way to fix the problem.
Steel has been mentioned, but the problem with the steel industry is much the same as the problem with the milk industry at the moment: there is a flood of cheap steel and a flood of cheap milk, which is why prices have fallen. And of course, as everybody knows, when we make the case in whatever part of the agriculture sector it might be and we complain about tumbling prices and the problems that they create for our wonderful British farmers and their excellent products, the problem is that it means we go against the interests of many of our constituents and the other people who buy food at low prices. Of course, if prices were to rise for the farmer, the person who would pay the extra money is the consumer. And full credit to those supermarkets that have said, “We are going to put more money on, because we want to support our dairy farmers.”
Sadly the clock is against me, but it is really important that everybody realises that the Groceries Code Adjudicator’s remit cannot be extended without primary legislation, which would mean going into a different area. It was certainly thought at the time the adjudicator was established that this was the right route to go down.
I apologise that I have not been able to deal with all the excellent points that have been made, but I assure you, Mr Gray, that, as has been asked of me, we will publish details of the review. I look forward to Christine Tacon, who is excellent, giving evidence to the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, which can make a full inquiry into her work.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the role and powers of the Groceries Code Adjudicator.
Written Statements
(9 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Devolution
(9 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Greg Clark)
I am pleased to inform the House that the Government have reached devolution agreements with local authorities in the Liverpool city region and in the west midlands. These agreements are another significant step in the Government’s ambition for the northern powerhouse and midlands engine respectively.
Both agreements will give local leaders far-reaching new powers and enable voters in each region to directly elect Mayors in 2017, who will take on new powers over local transport budgets, adult skills funding, and strategic planning.
The deals also include local control over investment funds for the next 30 years, which will help realise the economic potential of each area.
As part of the agreement, the new, directly elected Mayors of the Liverpool city region and west midlands will act as chair of their respective combined authorities and will exercise the following powers and functions devolved from Ministers in central Government:
Responsibility for devolved and consolidated transport budgets, with multi-year settlements to be agreed at the spending review.
Responsibility for franchised bus services, which will support the combined authorities’ delivery of smart and integrated ticketing across the city regions.
Powers over strategic planning.
The Mayors will also have the option, on the basis of support from local business, to raise business rates. Further details will be set out following the spending review through a place-based settlement.
The Liverpool city region combined authority and west midlands combined authority will, working with their Mayors, receive the following powers:
Control of multi-million pound investment allocations over 30 years, to realise the economic potential of their local areas as well as maximise the opportunities from HS2.
Greater control over local skills provision including control over the 19+ adult skills funding from 2018-19.
Joint responsibility with Government to co-design employment support for the harder-to-help claimants.
More effective joint working with UKTI to boost trade and investment.
Develop and implement a devolved approach to the delivery of national business support programmes from 2017.
Liverpool city region’s deal will build on the success of international festival for business 2014 and international festival for business 2016, and Liverpool city region and the Government, and in particular UKTI and the GREAT Britain campaign, will continue engagement to establish international festival for business Liverpool as a vital feature of the international business calendar in 2018 and 2020.
As part of the west midlands devolution deal, the Government will support the combined authority shadow board’s HS2 growth strategy, and will approve the business case for a significant extension of the enterprise zone at Curzon Street.
Local enterprise partnerships have played a key role in the negotiation of these agreements. The Government welcome and support co-operation between businesses and local government, and will work with both areas to ensure that devolution supports both the public and private sectors to deliver strong, sustainable local growth.
These agreements mark the next step in an ongoing process to devolve funding, responsibilities and powers from central Government to the Liverpool city region and west midlands. I look forward to both areas continuing to hold discussions with Government in the future, to build upon today’s agreements.
Copies of both agreements will be placed in the Library of the House.
[HCWS308]
Syria: Conflict, Stability and Security Fund
(9 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr Philip Hammond)
It is the normal practice when a Government Department proposes to make a gift of a value exceeding £300,000, for the Department concerned to present to the House of Commons a minute giving particulars of the gift and explaining the circumstances, and to refrain from making the gift until 14 parliamentary sitting days after the issue of the minute, except in cases of special urgency.
There is an urgent strategic and operational need to provide the gift outlined in this statement at the earliest possible opportunity. It has therefore not been possible to conform to the normal notification period for this gift. As a result, the window for parliamentary objections to this gift has been reduced to 10 parliamentary sitting days.
The Government’s priority for Syria is to seek an end to the conflict through an inclusive political settlement by bolstering those who have a moderate and unified vision for the country and by putting pressure on the regime and its backers, and on ISIL, while alleviating human suffering through the provision of humanitarian aid. An important line of effort in achieving this strategy is the provision of non-lethal assistance to carefully vetted members of the Syrian moderate armed opposition.
This minute sets out the Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s (FCO) plans to deliver two packages of support to the Southern Front of the moderate armed opposition in Syria through our conflict, security and stability fund (CSSF): a medical and a border force project.
The Southern Front is a coalition of moderate armed opposition groups operating in the south of Syria. They have had recent successes on the ground and provide a real, moderate alternative to extremists. The provision of non-lethal aid to moderate groups can directly increase their effectiveness and resilience. Ensuring that moderate armed groups are logistically self-reliant and able to provide for the welfare of their constituents can directly increase their legitimacy and help to prevent extremist groups from poaching fighters. Accordingly, we plan to provide training and non-lethal equipment to vetted members of the Southern Front, in order to significantly improve their casualty evacuation capabilities, and their capacity to control and defend a defined section of the Syrian-Jordanian border.
As part of these two projects, the FCO plans to gift equipment to the Southern Front to the value of £2.05 million, funded by the CSSF. The proposed list of equipment includes medical supplies for a rear trauma facility and ambulance units, generators, 4x4 vehicles, communications equipment, observation cameras and binoculars, uniforms and other logistical equipment such as tents. There are some controlled items in this package, which have been assessed against the consolidated EU and national arms export licensing criteria. These include radios designed to use encryption, observation cameras with thermal imaging technology, chargers and a low grade of protective vests. The total budget for these two projects has been set at £5 million, which also includes the costs of training.
Equipment will be procured through two carefully selected implementing partners, with whom HMG has worked previously. It will be delivered to vetted members of the Southern Front at a regional training site, after the completion of certain training modules, including training on human rights and the law of armed conflict. HMG closely monitors the situation on the ground in Syria, and has long-established links with members of the Southern Front. All recipients are carefully selected to ensure that they are not involved in extremist activity or human rights abuses. We will monitor these projects closely, halting support if we believe the equipment is being misused.
The Treasury has approved the proposal in principle and, given the urgency involved, has agreed to the proposal to reduce the period for parliamentary scrutiny. If, during the period of 10 parliamentary sitting days beginning on the date on which this minute was laid before the House of Commons, a Member signifies an objection by giving notice of a parliamentary question or a motion relating to the minute, or by otherwise raising the matter in the House, final approval of the gift will be withheld pending an examination of the objection.
[HCWS310]
Justice and Home Affairs Council
(9 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
On 9 November, I attended the extraordinary meeting of the Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) Council in Brussels. The meeting was convened by the Luxembourg presidency in response to the ongoing European migration crisis. The discussion focused on continuing efforts to manage migration pressures, including those at the external EU border, and efforts to improve the effectiveness of the migration “hotspots” in Italy and Greece. The Council also discussed the implementation of relocation measures, in which the UK is not participating.
The presidency urged member states to deliver on the pledges made at previous JHA Councils to support those frontline member states experiencing the most pressure. The UK is contributing substantial practical assistance in this regard.
The Council conclusions agreed emphasised the need to implement the measures already approved, and the need to include tougher language on addressing non-compliance with asylum processes. I pressed for the conclusions to clearly state that genuine asylum seekers must claim asylum at the first point of entry and that illegal migrants not in need of protection must be swiftly returned. I welcomed tougher language on combating abuse, especially in light of the great expense faced by member states in processing those not in need of protection. And I made clear that member states need to use detention as necessary in order to prevent secondary movement by those refusing to comply with asylum processes at the external border.
I also made clear that the EU is seeing an unprecedented interaction between organised crime and migration—and that there will continue to be serious security implications as long as the EU’s external border controls fail to be properly enforced. I encouraged the Council to think about how information can be shared to ensure the UK can get access to the intelligence we need, and can take the decisions that keep us safe. I stressed the need for reciprocal access to key data between Schengen and non-Schengen countries and for better use of the information we have, not just for managing migration but also to ensure security.
I argued that the EU must also pay more attention to managing secondary movements. This should include recognising the significant impact of applications for family reunification and reducing the scope for abuse of free movement rights. It cannot be right that, following the Metock judgment, third country nationals illegally present in the EU could avoid return through EU law on free movement.
The presidency announced the activation of the integrated political crisis response (IPCR) mechanism, which will produce regular analysis of information provided by member states, facilitating a joint response to the current crisis. I confirmed that the UK would continue to respond quickly to requests under the EU’s civil protection mechanism, as well as working directly with non-governmental organisations and the UN High Commission for Refugees (UNCHR).
I made clear that the Government see resettlement as an essential element in a comprehensive response to the crisis. Taking those in need of protection directly from the region under national schemes should remain the preferred approach. The UK is making good progress towards our aim to resettle 20,000 people by the end of this Parliament and we have teams working with UNHCR to identify the most vulnerable genuine refugees for our national programme.
The Council remained split on whether to take forward the Commission’s proposal for a permanent crisis relocation mechanism. The Council conclusions undertake to examine pending legislative proposals on this matter. The Government do not support relocation as it is the wrong response to the migratory pressures the EU faces. It undermines the important principle that asylum should be claimed in the first safe country and does not address the causes of illegal migration.
[HCWS311]
Hazardous and Noxious Substances (Opt-in Position)
(9 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Robert Goodwill)
The Government have decided to opt-in to the proposed Council decision on the ratification and accession by member states, in the interest of the union, to the protocol of 2010 to the international convention on liability and compensation for damage in connection with the carriage of Hazardous and Noxious Substances (HNS) by sea, with regard to aspects related to judicial co-operation in civil matters.
The 1996 international convention on liability and compensation for damage in connection with the carriage of Hazardous and Noxious Substances by sea (‘the 1996 HNS convention’) was agreed by the International Maritime Organization (IMO) to fill a gap in international law on the treatment of HNS at sea. A 2002 Council decision agreed that EU member states would take the necessary steps to ratify the 1996 HNS convention within a reasonable time and, if possible, before 30 June 2006. Despite this, due to the concerns that many EU member states, including the UK, had over the 1996 HNS convention, none of them ratified it and it has never been brought into force.
The 2010 HNS protocol consolidates the 1996 HNS convention and amends it to address concerns with the initial agreement. However, the 2010 HNS protocol created new concerns and made the implementation process complex. As a result, no state has yet ratified the 2010 HNS protocol, and although some would like to do so, in practice none are likely to until the outstanding concerns with the convention are resolved in the International Maritime Organization, and unless the convention comes into force in other countries simultaneously (it will not enter into force until it has been ratified by at least 12 countries with enough contributing cargo).
The Commission has proposed two Council decisions, one relating to matters of judicial co-operation in civil matters and one with the exception of matters related to judicial co-operation in civil matters. These decisions, when combined, lift any barriers within EU legislation that were preventing EU member states from ratifying the 2010 HNS protocol and so EU member states will now be able to ratify if they wish to do so.
The Government took the view in this instance that UK interests would be best served by opting-in to the proposed decision that deals with “aspects related to judicial co-operation in civil matters”, as this would retain the UK’s ability to fully ratify the HNS protocol, and the removal of any binding deadline from the proposal has the effect of maintaining the UK’s current flexibility to be able to ratify and accede to the HNS protocol if and when we are ready to do so.
[HCWS309]
Grand Committee
(9 years, 1 month ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Education and Adoption Bill
(9 years, 1 month ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Geddes) (Con)
My Lords, it is now 3.30 pm. I am obliged to begin by advising the Grand Committee that, if there is a Division in the Chamber—which I am brave enough to say is singly unlikely—while we are sitting, this Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and resume after 10 minutes.
Clause 9: Consultation about identity of Academy sponsor in certain cases
Amendment 23
Lord Storey
“(d) parents of children registered at the school, and(e) the teaching and support staff at the school.”
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, I understand that there are some drafting issues with this amendment, but I will still speak to it and we can perhaps resolve those in later amendments. I have always believed strongly that it is important that every pupil or student should have a qualified teacher. That does not prevent the opportunity for those members of staff who are preparing to become qualified and it does not prevent those teaching assistants who have NVQ level 3 or 4 from teaching.
Sorry, am I on the right amendment here?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education (Lord Nash) (Con)
I am tempted to say that you might as well keep going.
Lord Storey
As a teacher, it was a fascinating experience to see the students looking quite puzzled, but when I asked whether I was correct, nobody would say “No”—they just looked on. I think that they wanted me to have an even bigger fall than I was already taking.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees
In order that the discussion can continue, would the noble Lord be kind enough to move his amendment.
Baroness Massey of Darwen (Lab)
My Lords, as the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, is not here—it is not a good start—I shall rise to speak to this group of amendments, which follow on in a different way from the concerns about consultation that were raised last week but with the added dimension of consultation on a proposed academy sponsor. I remain astonished at the requirement to consult if a school is undergoing a voluntary conversion but not if it is classed as being eligible for conversion—we discussed that last week—and I also remain astonished that the Government do not see the absolute necessity to consult those people who are most involved in the school, whatever the school’s type.
I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, who is here, thankfully—so she may correct me—previously in Committee raised the issue of what happened to schools in London when comprehensivisation took place. As she pointed out, there were many different types of school in London at that time: there were successful grammar schools and successful secondary modern schools, and there were failing grammar schools and failing secondary modern schools. There were also different ideologies about education and there were immense complications about land transfers. I was a parent and a governor in Inner London at that time, and I remember those battles. I also remember the consultations—with parents, teachers, governors, directors of education and the inspectorate—and I think that that consultation was valued and made for the successful re-establishment of many schools.
I assure the Minister that, like many colleagues, I have fought for high standards in education and for the welfare and rights of children. In this Bill, we are not trying to delay or disrupt; we are seeking the best for children, and I hope that the Minister will respect that. I also know that hurry is often the enemy of satisfactory results and that consultation processes are important. There seems to be some sort of air of desperation—“How dare parents and governors challenge so-called education experts?”. It is not a case of experts against the rest; any expert worth the name will accept that they might not have all the answers and will want to seek a diversity of opinion. Effective experts want to help others to understand their reasoning and proposals. I cannot go along with this hurry here.
The Minister will say, as Nick Gibb has said:
“We want the transformation of a failing school to begin from day one”.—[Official Report, Commons, Education and Adoption Bill Committee, 9/7/15; col. 288.]
Fair enough, but let us not go along the track whereby a pupil who is “languishing” in a failing school even for a day is suddenly whisked away into a different structure. It simply does not, and cannot, happen like that. It takes time—certainly longer than a day—to transform a system. Parents and teachers are very aware that some academy sponsors have actually failed. I argue that there is time for consultation to take place, and it cannot possibly happen in a day.
Moreover, I cannot go along with Nicky Morgan’s argument about sweeping away,
“the bureaucratic and legal loopholes previously exploited by those who put ideological objections above the best interests of children”.
I cannot believe, as Nick Gibb said, that,
“unnecessary debate, delaying tactics and obstruction of the process”—[Official Report, Commons, Education and Adoption Bill Committee, 9/7/15; col. 285.]
is a justification for cutting out consultation. This is a particularly unpleasant and aggressive way of polarising the argument. Everyone, especially parents, seeks the best interests of children. The parents and teachers know the children that we are talking about. They know the school and the community, and they need to be certain of an appropriate academy sponsor. That is what this is about—the appropriateness of the academy sponsor.
Ofsted is the obvious body to give an overall vision or view of an academy chain as well as of individual schools. The Secretary of State should surely listen to Ofsted giving its objective view. Surely the parents, teachers, governors and pupils have the right to know a great deal about a proposed academy sponsor from Ofsted and other reports: the sponsor’s track record, its philosophy, its ethos, and its experience in dealing with all types of pupil, including those with special educational needs. Websites and reports are useful, of course—and I have looked at many websites of academies—but what is more important is face-to-face consultation, where questions can be asked and reports considered. Academy schools and chains can fail, just as any school can fail. Some schools have had to be transferred to a new chain. Parents and governors, quite rightly, do not want to take unnecessary risks. This idea really does need to be looked at again.
Lord Storey
I will try a second time.
The noble Lord, Lord Nash, has a view that he has expressed a number of times: that there is not time for consultation with parents; that if a school is failing, we have to get on with putting it right; and that, the longer we delay doing something, the more effect it will have on the progress of a child and the success of the school. That is a view that I can understand, but I equally understand that parents play a hugely important part in the development of a child’s education. The notion that a school should close down and become an academy without any discussion among those parents is very strange. That does not seem the correct way we have viewed education over the last X number of years. We have always seen parents as pivotal—as part of that partnership.
On my second point, again the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Nash, resonated with me. On Second Reading, he talked about his own experiences in Pimlico, and I think he alluded to some of the abuse that he and his wife received when they were consulting to start up the school. As someone who closed more schools in Liverpool at the time of falling rolls than anyone else, I know those sort of pressures. Yes, some people will use consultation as a means of maintaining the status quo or for political reasons, but that does not make this the right thing to do. Surely we can look at this objectively and say that it can take place at an agreed period of time or if there is an agreed means of doing it. However, the principle of consultation must be enshrined as we go forward on this.
I do not have any objections to academies. I have come to the view, which I have expressed on two or three occasions, that I would rather see all secondary schools become academies than create a whole pattern of different types of schools. Therefore, I do not have any ideological view against academies. We should not be getting to the point where a school is failing and a pupil is languishing in it—we should be in there before that happens. I cannot understand why we get to a point where we suddenly say, “This school is failing, so let us close it down”, with all the trauma that the pupils face when that happens. We should be there before that happens. However, if a school is going to close, an academy is going to be established and an academy is going to be chosen for that school, we should consult with parents. I hope that the Minister will look creatively and objectively at how we might achieve that, with the minimum fuss and the minimum amount of time, but in the interests of that all-important partnership.
Once again, I apologise for getting the amendment wrong.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 24 and 25 in this group and to whether Clause 9 should stand part.
Amendment 24 aims to bring some much-needed transparency to the process of selecting academy sponsors. There is an unanswerable case in general terms for consultation but there is also a case for consultation on this very specific issue. Local communities should not have sponsors imposed on them without having some say in the matter. Sponsors are not just interchangeable. They have particular approaches to managing schools and to the curriculum. They have very different records, in terms of both their effectiveness and their record in managing public money. Again, I urge the Minister to acknowledge the essential fact that public money is involved here—which ought to mean that transparency and accountability are guaranteed. It is public money, yet the Minister wants to cancel the public’s right to have any say locally as to how it is used in educating their children. It is unacceptable that a Minister can come to Parliament, propose such a fundamentally undemocratic measure and hope to get away with it.
Currently, there is absolutely no public quality control of would-be sponsors. On academisation, we know that Ministers are determined to press ahead at full speed and are thus required to find sponsors at all costs. We also know that regional schools commissioners are paid by results—that is, how many academies they can bring into being—and so they need to find sponsors at all costs. That is surely not a healthy situation. Someone, somewhere, needs to have the responsibility to say, “Wait a minute—these people are just not up to the task”. If that means that some schools cannot be converted as quickly as had been intended, surely that is preferable to signing up sponsors who are inadequate. More needs to be done by government—in whose name we are told the regional schools commissioners act—to get the sponsors right, rather than to get them right now.
Lord Sutherland of Houndwood (CB)
My Lords, I shall comment, I hope briefly, on the three listed amendments in reverse order, starting with Amendment 25. I made it plain under desperate interrogation at the previous sitting that I am in favour of Ofsted having rights of inspection over academies, and I do not move from that. However, rather than this fairly complex amendment—which I have to say, as presented, has a touch of an amendment by innuendo, which I am not comfortable with—I would hope for provision to be made for Ofsted to make its own judgment on when inspection is required, and to be open to requests from the department and the Secretary of State, as it currently is, to carry out specific tasks. I would think that Ofsted is probably in the best position to take the view on whether detailed inspection, and all that that implies, is necessary. That is Amendment 25.
On Amendment 24, I do not like the very last subsection about “all correspondence held by” the Secretary of State being published. We have a freedom of information system, and I think that that can and should be used as appropriate.
In some ways, the more substantial Amendment 23, on consulting parents, will not necessarily produce total wisdom, as I have made clear on this Bill and elsewhere. I have been a parent myself in these contexts, and sometimes we can get it wrong. On the other hand, I take the point that providing more time for consultation is not in the interests of the pupil. However, I then worry that if a provision is made for consultation of religious authorities, I can only believe that that is being pushed by a fairly powerful lobbying group who say that it is really rather important that, “We are consulted”. If these are the authorities presiding over a school that turns out to be coasting, what have they been doing? I think that there is a case for a rethink on this, or alternatively, having an opportunity for parents to make their views known, I would hope that the local press and MP can be a useful avenue in that.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, this is a fairly minor point, but I heard the Hewett School in Norwich being mentioned, and I am one of its alumni. Possibly that explains quite a lot.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie
It is no longer the Hewett School but the Hewett Academy.
Lord Addington
It is still a school or an academy, and if we remembered that it might help some of the progress on this Bill.
Regarding some of the points raised by the noble Lord, that school sits on sports grounds that have served half the sports clubs in the area. Indeed, the club where I started my career—I should declare—and finished, started on those grounds. These are the sorts of things that need to be worked into the system. We have to try to get them in somewhere along the line. On its use as a community asset, the noble Lord will not know the place but these are acres of prime playing fields in the heart of one of the fastest growing cities in the country. They are wonderful playing fields on flat, open ground that have been used as an asset by everything going on there. How we build on such a utility is something that should be taken into account. What are we doing on the broader picture? That has not been brought in here, and it should. The fact that the community and parents should be given that courtesy is self-evident. That greater asset to the local community is something we seem to have missed so far.
The Earl of Listowel (CB)
My Lords, I shall be taking part in the Second Reading of the Welfare Reform and Work Bill, so I apologise to your Lordships if I cannot be here for much of this afternoon’s discussion.
Listening to this debate, I think back to the experience of my half-sister, who for many years was a school librarian in Canada. She would complain about fathers coming in and taking books for their three year-olds about the planets and stars, which were completely inappropriate for the age of the children in question. Fathers were expecting children to understand things that they had no possibility of understanding. I think that probably happens a lot in the education system and outside it. People feel very strongly that certain things are important and others are less so.
My concern with sponsors is that they may have a very strong vision; sometimes that is a very positive thing, but sometimes that may not be so helpful. That is why I am interested to hear from the Minister, in a letter in due course, about the selection, training, support and development of sponsors, and why I have some sympathy with the concerns expressed by the Committee about who these sponsors are and who guards the sponsors. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Hughes of Stretford (Lab)
My Lords, I will make just a few comments on this group of amendments. I, too, apologise that I will not be able to be here for the whole Committee sitting. Unfortunately, because of other commitments I will be in and out a little bit.
I support the spirit of Amendment 25. I cannot see any reasonable and valid arguments why chains of academies should not be routinely inspected. The noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, made the point that that discretion could be left with Ofsted, but if it does not actually inspect chains I do not know how it will know whether or not it needs to inspect them. They ought to be brought into the fold of those organisations that Ofsted routinely inspects.
I want to focus on parents and what I believe is the right of parents to be both informed and consulted about significant changes to the status and organisation of the school in which their children are pupils. We touched on this in an earlier meeting. We have since had, just before this Committee session started, the response of the noble Lord, Lord Nash, to the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, who raised some of these issues. It is now clear from this letter, notwithstanding the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Evans, at the previous meeting, that in relation to a failing school the governing body does not have a duty to inform parents; it is required to take reasonable steps, but we all acknowledged in Committee that in many instances that does not happen. So there is not a duty on the governing body specifically to inform parents if Ofsted has decided the school is failing and that consequences will follow.
The noble Lord, Lord Nash, also admits in the letter that:
“There are no requirements within the Bill for the governing body to have to inform parents that the school has been identified as coasting”,
by the regional schools commissioner; nor is there a requirement on the regional schools commissioner to inform parents that he or she has decided that the school is coasting. It seems that, when it comes to these important matters, parents are falling between a number of bodies which may or may not decide that they should inform parents and which may or may not consult them. It is in the gift of the Government to make that a duty and to bring the rights of parents to information and consultation to the fore in the Bill. Surely that is right.
As the noble Lord, Lord Storey, said, the only argument we have heard against that so far is that the Minister thinks that that would delay things at a time when speed is of the essence in setting matters to rights when a school is not performing. But that is within the Government’s own gift. The Government could set strict time limits. They could set down the means by which that consultation should take place. They could set that in statute or in regulation to minimise any delay, but that could still involve putting the rights of parents to information and consultation to the fore as an equally important principle, along with the others in the Bill.
I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to that point, because if he is still relying on the very weak argument that this would cause unnecessary delay, he really has to say why the Government do not grasp that nettle and bring forward proposals that would minimise delay but still involve parents in decisions about their children.
Lord Nash
My Lords, in speaking to Amendments 23, 24 and 25, regarding consultation about the identity of a sponsor that has been identified for an underperforming school, I shall also use the opportunity to set out the case for Clause 9 remaining part of the Bill.
I hope by this point in the debate that noble Lords will be all too familiar with the strong case for the central pillar of the Bill—that is, that where a school is underperforming and an academy solution is needed we want the transformation to take place from day one. We do not want the process to be delayed through debate about whether that school should become an academy. We have been clear that becoming an academy with the support of a sponsor is the best way to bring about radical improvement in a struggling school. That is why Clause 8 makes clear that there is no duty to consult where an academy order is to be made because the school is eligible for an intervention.
We also do not want any delays caused by ongoing debate about who the sponsor should be for the school in question. Where it is necessary for a school to become an academy with the support of a sponsor in order to address failure or bring about necessary improvements, regional schools commissions will decide the most appropriate sponsor.
However, I have committed during a previous debate in Committee, as well as in my letter sent to the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, today, to reflect on whether any further commitments can be made to ensure that parents will always be engaged if their child’s school is causing concern.
Amendment 25 seeks to require Ofsted to report on, and in some cases inspect, an academy trust prior to the Secretary of State entering into an academy arrangement with that trust in relation to a failing or coasting school. I agree with noble Lords that regional schools commissioners must have a clear picture of the performance and capacity of academy trusts operating in their local area. This information is required when RSCs make decisions about which trust is best placed to take on a failing or coasting school and when they hold trusts to account for the performance of their existing academies.
There are already strong systems in place to scrutinise and assess the performance and capacity of trusts, and I hope that when the noble Lord, Lord Watson, meets regional schools commissioners he will be able to satisfy himself of this. Regional schools commissioners already hold trusts to account for their education performance based on the individual Ofsted inspections of schools within that trust and on performance data. The Education Funding Agency already carries out trust-level reviews, assessing the financial and governance arrangements in trusts against the robust requirements set out in the Academies Financial Handbook.
In fact, the accountability framework for academy trusts reflects their status as both charitable companies and public bodies. This means that, when it comes to matters of good governance and financial management, they not only have statutory responsibilities under company law but are also accountable to Parliament for how they spend public money. Furthermore, Ofsted can already inspect a group of schools within a trust and make an assessment of the support that the trust provides to all its schools through these individual inspections and through taking the views of any schools in the trust about the support they receive. The published inspection report after such focused inspections include Ofsted’s assessment of the overall performance of the trust, as well as a summary of the outcomes of the individual academy inspections.
The noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Huyton, spoke last week of the importance of regional schools commissioners working well with Ofsted regional directors. I reiterate that regional schools commissioners already meet regularly with Ofsted regional directors to share information about academies, trusts and sponsors and discuss any performance concerns. We have shown that we take decisive action where trusts do not improve the performance of their schools. With a number of trusts we have moved a number of their schools to more effective sponsors to address concerns about the trusts’ overall performance. We also carefully monitor the capacity of trusts as they expand. Where we have concerns, we will pause a trust from further expansion until we are convinced that it has the capacity to provide the high-quality support that failing or coasting schools require.
At his most recent appearance before the Education Select Committee, Sir Michael Wilshaw, Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector for Schools, was clear that the current arrangements whereby Ofsted can inspect batches of schools within an academy trust at the same time are appropriate. Therefore, the proposed new clause is not only unnecessary but would create an additional layer of bureaucracy that prevented regional schools commissioners and trusts moving swiftly to bring about much-needed improvements in failing and coasting schools.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hughes, spoke about Ofsted inspecting chains. We do not think that it is right that Ofsted should have an additional role in judging a trust’s central functions or operating model. This would simply place another burden on Ofsted, distracting it from what is most important and from the core skill of an HMI, which is inspecting the quality of teaching and learning in schools.
However, I have already had discussions with senior members of the Ofsted team about circumstances which may arise in which we may want to organise a parallel audit of a trust, where an inspection by Ofsted of a batch of schools in the trust and the trust’s school improvement capability would take place alongside a simultaneous but separate investigation by the EFA of the trust’s central governance, management and financial competence—an area of activity which we think the EFA is more appropriately qualified to inspect.
Having reassured Peers on the processes for holding trusts to account, I turn to Amendments 23 and 24, which would require wider consultation about the identity of the sponsor for a school eligible for intervention. RSCs, supported by their head teacher boards, will use their local knowledge and expertise to identify the sponsor which they believe will provide the most benefit to an underperforming school. I see no need to consult the local authority or the existing governing body of an underperforming school about that decision, given that it is those bodies which have overseen the failure of the school or have been judged to be unable to address underperformance at the school. The quote I mentioned in last week’s debates, about turkeys voting for Christmas, comes to mind.
Dave Baker, the CEO of the Olympus Academy Trust and one of the individuals who attended the meeting with Peers the week before last, has perhaps summed up the position most compellingly:
“Where a school fails, swift action is needed and there is no time for debate and delay. As a member of a Headteacher board, I know the effort that goes into identifying and matching the right sponsor for any individual school. Where a school has failed, efforts should be spent on getting the right sponsor in place as soon as possible so that the sponsor can start engaging parents and start to secure change through decisive leadership. This should be the focus of everyone’s attention rather than lengthy debates about who the sponsor should be”.
Once an RSC has identified a sponsor for a school, the sponsor will usually be keen to engage with staff and parents about its plans for the school, ensuring that they understand what will happen next and have the opportunity to share their views on the sponsor’s approach. This means that staff and parents still have a say on the future of the school. I have already set out in earlier debates examples of how this engagement has taken place. I would also quote Martyn Oliver, the CEO designate of the very successful Outwood Grange Academies Trust, who said:
“A prospective trust does not just ride roughshod over a school and its community. Outwood Grange has a clear vision and we are passionate about engaging staff and parents on that vision. The advantage of our model is that alongside the clear vision of the trust, local governing bodies are left with more space to focus on things like engaging with the local community. Ultimately parents are happy, especially when they start to see the dramatic improvements in results for their children”.
Noble Lords have also proposed that correspondence about how a sponsor for a school is identified should be published. I believe this to be unnecessary. As I have described, RSCs already subject sponsors to thorough scrutiny. The decisions of RSCs and head teacher boards are already transparent. RSCs assess applications from prospective new sponsors against published criteria. The rigorous assessment process ensures that prospective sponsors have a strong track record in educational improvement and financial management, and that their proposed trust has high-quality leadership and appropriate governance. The majority of sponsors are high-performing schools which have been subject to rigorous assessment by Ofsted and have been found to provide outstanding education. We publish a list of approved academy sponsors. After sponsors are approved, they remain under careful monitoring by RSCs and the department. RSCs take account of the trust’s capacity and its track record in turning the performance of academies around before allocating them any new sponsored academies.
A full list of RSC decisions is already published on GOV.UK and we are making RSCs’ decision-making more transparent. From December, a fuller note of head teacher board meetings will be published to cover all meetings from 1 October this year and will contain information on the criteria that were considered for each decision.
The noble Lords, Lord Watson and Lord Addington, made some comments about the Hewett School and its land. I can assure the noble Lords that the terms of our legal agreements with the sponsor in that case make it absolutely clear that it will not be able to dispose of any of the land without the consent of the Secretary of State.
I would like to take this opportunity, however, to reiterate the purpose of Clause 9, which specifies the limited circumstances in which it will be appropriate for RSCs to consult on the identity of the sponsor. Clause 9 requires that, where a foundation or voluntary school with a foundation is eligible for intervention and subject to an academy order, then the RSCs must consult the trustees, the foundation and—for a school with a religious character—the appropriate religious body about who they propose should be the sponsor. It is important that underperformance, whatever type of school it is in, is tackled. That is why we are clear that there should be no consultation on whether a failing school should become a sponsored academy, whether it is a foundation school or not, but in the case of faith schools we must also ensure that their ethos is preserved.
In many cases, a diocesan sponsor will be the best choice for a failing church school, but where appropriate—for example, where the diocesan sponsor does not have sufficient capacity to take on that school at that time—a non-faith sponsor can be put into place in such a way that the school’s particular ethos is protected. I expect that dioceses and RSCs will work closely together to agree on the best academy solutions for any failing church schools. To support those arrangements, we are having discussions about reviewing and updating the memoranda of understanding that set out the roles of dioceses and government as they relate to the academy programme, in order to reflect the changes in this Bill and the wider evolving policy landscape. These discussions are ongoing.
The trustees, foundation and religious body are specified in Clause 9 because they are being consulted specifically in recognition of their responsibility for the ethos of the school, and to contribute their views on how this may best be preserved. This is why we do not agree with Amendment 23, which proposes that parents and staff should be consulted, too.
I hope that noble Lords have once again been persuaded by my commitment to ensuring that underperformance is tackled swiftly wherever, and in whatever type of school, it occurs. I have, however, explained the reasons why Clause 9 is important in the group of schools it applies to and reiterated my belief that sponsors can, and will, engage with parents, staff and communities once they are matched with a school. As I said earlier, I have committed to reflect further on whether any more commitments can be made to ensure that parents will always be engaged when their child’s school is causing concern. In light of this, I urge the noble Lords not to press their amendments and to allow Clause 9 to stand part of the Bill.
Baroness Massey of Darwen
Before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask a question? I am grateful for the letter to the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, which I have not got through my own post but through the photocopying skills of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, but no doubt it will come to me. I thank him for that. I have not said it yet, but it seems from what the Minister just said that there has been, if not a softening of approach, then at least some consideration about parents. However, could the Minister tell me—we have talked about this day one, but what exactly happens on day one? Surely, a child or children cannot be transferred to another school on day one, so there must be some gap between all this. How large is the gap, and why is it not possible to set a timetable for some sort of consultation, given that there will be a gap already? Children cannot just be put into another school the day after, so what is this day one? Could he tell me, or perhaps write to me about it?
The Earl of Listowel
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his helpful reply. I found it very reassuring in terms of my particular concern about sponsors. I think that he was saying that most sponsors will already have a track record, and they will be the ones who are being looked at.
Perhaps he could say what proportion is likely to be coming in new to the field, and answer this example. Let us say I ticked all the boxes to become a sponsor for an academy, and seemed to be a very good person to do the job, but I thought that schools were places for work, not play, and that school playtime should be quite short. What would be the process to enlighten me that that is not the case or to weed me out and keep me away from the academy? How much influence might I have? I am thinking here of the story of an academy, which may be apocryphal, that was built without playgrounds for some reason, as somebody believed strongly that that should be the case.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that 28% of five to 15 year-olds are either overweight or obese? Is that not the point that he wishes to stress on this issue?
The Earl of Listowel
I thank the noble Lord for saying that. That is a very important point which, with his health background, he would raise. I am simply trying to give an example of a possible candidate and how he might be processed by the system. But from what I heard from the Minister just now I am very much reassured that most of these academy sponsors will be experienced and will have a track record, and we can have confidence in them because of that.
Lord Nash
If the noble Earl is contemplating making an academy sponsor application, I am sure we would be happy to guide him through the process, but as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, says, if he is serious about restricting play space, we can save him the bother. I believe a visit is being organised shortly to King Solomon Academy, which is a remarkable school. From memory, I think the statistics are that about 60% of children get free school meals, 90%-plus get five A*s in English and maths, and more than 75% get an EBacc. The noble Earl will have formulated his views on academies and we can discuss his pending sponsor application in more detail.
Lord Storey
I shall refer to two comments made by the Minister, if I may. The first was that underperformance should be tackled quickly. We all agree on that. When all the coasting schools are to become academies, we need to have sponsors lined up to take them over. We do not want to wait months for an academy sponsor to be found, in which case the delays that the Minister is concerned about will invariably happen.
On the question of parental consultation, I was taken with the Minister’s comment that we want parents to be engaged. The best way of doing that is at the start by allaying their fears and sharing the vision with them. Maybe in Committee we can have some further discussions on how we might make that a reality. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Storey
“Inspection of Academies
Before section 9 of the Academies Act 2010 insert—“8A Inspection of Academies
Before a coasting school is converted into an Academy by virtue of this Act, and of section 61 or 62 of EIA 2006 (schools requiring significant improvement or schools requiring special measures), the Chief Inspector of Education, Children’s Services and Skills must inspect and report on the person with whom it is anticipated the Secretary of State will enter into an Academy arrangement.””
Lord Storey
My Lords, in our endeavours to ensure that we have the highest standards in our schools, we look at three processes. One, of course, is testing and examinations. When schools are not achieving the level anticipated it is a sign that we need to take action. The second method is inspections when we inspect schools in, I hope, a supportive way, and when there are concerns we are able to act on them. The third area is the quality of the leadership and the teachers in those schools. The amendments in my name—Amendments 30, 31 and 32—are linked to those three areas.
I will deal first with Amendment 31 on teachers. You would not go to your local medical centre to see your doctor and be given an unqualified opinion. You would not go to the dentist and be seen by an unqualified dentist. It is hugely important, not just for the status of teachers and how they are valued by society, that we make it absolutely clear that in whatever type of school—local comprehensive, free school or academy—every pupil has the right to be taught by a qualified teacher. The notion of bringing unqualified people in to teach because they might be enthusiastic beggars belief. That is not to say that there will not be people who have a particular interest and enthusiasm but they will be part of an ongoing project and there would be a qualified teacher with them; nor is it to prevent those people who are aspiring to be teachers from teaching, again alongside a mentor who is a qualified teacher.
The previous Labour Government permitted non-teachers to teach by allowing classroom assistants to teach. I have real reservations about that, I have to say. We allowed NVQ level 3s to teach lessons but not to prepare, plan or mark, and NVQ level 4s to teach, plan and mark lessons. We almost passed the buck when we allowed that to happen. It was interesting when the noble Lord, Lord Watson, said at Second Reading that this present Government and the coalition Government had more unqualified teachers in schools. Actually, that was not correct. There were more unqualified teachers in schools under the previous Labour Government than currently.
I am not trying to score points here. We should not be trying to score points off each other, we should all—Government and Opposition—value the role of teachers, and we should say that every pupil should be taught by a qualified teacher and it is as simple as that. Linked to that should be the quality of the training of teachers, which is not covered by this amendment—
Lord Watson of Invergowrie
I am not going to gainsay what the noble Lord has said. I am sure he has done his homework. But will he accept that there are different categories of unqualified teachers? When Labour was in government, a lot of the teachers involved were from other countries so had gained their qualifications abroad and were in the process of bringing those up to standard here or did not have the appropriate qualifications at that time. Quite often, under the current academy status, we are seeing people move into jobs simply on the grounds of enthusiasm and the ability to communicate, and we need a bit more than that if we want to get people through GCSEs and higher exams.
Lord Storey
I agree with that. Of course, the other reason is, despite what the Minister constantly tells us, that there is a shortage of teachers and we are desperate to find people. Figures published last week suggested that one in six teachers comes from overseas. I do not have any problem with overseas teachers, provided that they are qualified. I come back to the issue that I want to see every pupil in every type of school having a qualified teacher. Linked to that would be the quality of the teacher training and of the professional development while that teacher is in post.
On inspection—and this goes back to the previous debate—it is interesting that some academy chains are now bigger than local authorities. My local authority had 50-odd schools. The Harris academy chain has more than 50 schools. We inspect local education authorities but we do not inspect academies. Amendment 30 suggests that if a school is coasting or failing or going to become an academy, do we not want to know the reasons why that is happening rather than just saying, “It has failed, let’s move on”? Do we not want to understand what has happened in that school so that we can put it right? Do we not also want, when we move that school into an academy, to be absolutely sure that the academy that is chosen is up to inspections and up to the mark, and that we do not move the pupils from one difficult situation to another? I beg to move.
Baroness Perry of Southwark (Con)
My Lords, I respect the noble Lord’s motivation in tabling these amendments. My objection to them does not get into the specifics relating to qualified teachers or whatever, but it is simply that I think that it is wrong for primary legislation to lay down what Ofsted should and should not inspect. The noble Lord suggests a very short list of what should be inspected, and I am sure that Ofsted would have a much wider field of interest in any inspection that it conducted, but I think that he has a focused and almost myopic picture of what Ofsted can and cannot do.
Over the years in which it has worked, Ofsted has built up a comprehensive picture of what is going on in schools and in education. It will undoubtedly have inspected at least one of the schools of most of the chains which might be candidates to sponsor a coasting school. Similarly, I cannot believe that any school would have been classified as coasting over a three-year period without Ofsted having been alerted to that and having gone and had a look at it. So we should have more confidence in what good HMI can do and their knowledge both of the system and of individual schools which are in trouble, rather than trying to lay down specifics such as, “They must inspect to see how many qualified teachers they are going to have, or they must inspect for this, that and t’other”. I therefore ask the noble Lord to think again about the amendments and to have a little more confidence in what HMI within Ofsted would be able to do.
Lord Storey
Does the noble Baroness not agree that the difficulty is that local authorities no longer have the resources to give that support which previously existed? Does she not think that we should ensure that academy chains have the resources to do the very things that she suggests rather than always leave it to Ofsted?
Baroness Perry of Southwark
I have declared my interest as chair of Wandsworth Academies and Free Schools Commission. We interview every prospective sponsor. We look at their track record; we listen to what their aims and objectives are; and we listen to their views of education. We can then offer advice from the local authority to the department. I know that the department’s evaluation of every potential sponsor is very detailed. Of course, local authorities will no longer be asked to comment—so my little commission will disappear—but I know that the regional schools commissions will do an extremely thorough job before they hand over any school to a new sponsor. They will have looked carefully at every aspect of the sponsor: its aims, its objectives, its track record, its vision of education and its proposals for what it will do with a school and so on. We sometimes try a little too hard in this House to nail everything down in legislation instead of having more confidence in what professional people will do.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, like the noble Baroness, I see the noble Lord’s three amendments as being essentially about the quality and standards of the academy chains being considered to take over individual schools. As a matter of principle, it does not seem unreasonable to require that information be available to those who make decisions and to parents and teachers about the record of that academy chain. I take the point that one does not want to write everything into primary legislation and to instruct Ofsted in everything that it should do. On the other hand, one of the themes through our debates is whether maintained schools are being treated on a level playing field with academies. The suspicion arises because the Government seem to convey the view “Academies are good; maintained schools are bad”. That is why some of us want to see something in the legislation to ensure that academies are dealt with equally, and looking at the past performance of the chain seems to me to be particularly important.
Lord Sutherland of Houndwood
My Lords, on the question of the qualifications of teachers, we can build ourselves into nonsense positions of the kind that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has been spelling out. In general, I agree with the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Perry.
To give an example of the nonsense—from outside this jurisdiction, so that there can be no unpleasantness in our reactions—up in the north-east of Scotland, on the bit of coast where we watch dolphins quite a lot, there is a shortage of teachers. In that area, instead of insisting that the standard QTS or GTC and all the rest apply, people have suddenly realised that the RAF personnel and people coming into industry in that area bring with them spouses—male and female—who are very good teachers and probably, in our terms, qualified. However, they have to make special arrangements. A bit of common sense in how we do things is very important. In that area, a policy is now being pursued to attract such people into the schools, where they will, I have no doubt, enrich the variety in the system.
Another, related point is that, if I were looking to improve the quality of teaching—as we all want to do—I would rather ask about the policies on continuing professional development in those schools, local authorities and chains. That is exactly where, I think, we have been rather remiss. I would look, not in this Bill but elsewhere, to put that in place.
Lord Nash
My Lords, I will speak to the new clauses proposed by Amendments 30, 31 and 32. These clauses, proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Storey, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Bakewell, Lady Pinnock and Lady Sharp, all relate to reports which Ofsted would be required to provide before a failing or coasting school becomes a sponsored academy. In particular, they seek to require that Ofsted must inspect an academy trust, report on teacher qualifications and report pupil absence levels prior to the Secretary of State entering into an academy arrangement for a failing or coasting school.
First, on Amendment 30, I agree with the intention behind the noble Lord’s amendment to ensure that regional schools commissioners should be fully informed about the performance and capacity of academy trusts in their area. However, this proposed new clause is an unnecessary addition to the Bill because regional schools commissioners already have access to this information, as I outlined in some detail in responding to the previous group of amendments. I hope that the Committee can see that, given the information already available to regional schools commissioners, this clause is unnecessary. I have described that there are already a number of ways in which this full picture of an academy trust is built up, rightly utilising the skills set of Ofsted inspectors on educational performance and the assessments of the Education Funding Agency against the robust financial and governance standards under which academy trusts are held to account.
The clause inserted by Amendment 31 would place a duty on Ofsted to report on the teacher qualifications required by a particular academy trust before a failing or coasting school joins that trust as a sponsored academy. I understand that, in tabling this amendment, noble Lords are concerned about ensuring the highest quality of teaching in academies, and I agree that this is a vital ingredient—probably the most vital ingredient—for securing the excellent education that every child deserves.
Teacher quality is a complex mixture of different attributes, including personal characteristics such as commitment, resilience, perseverance, motivation and, of course, sound subject knowledge. These cannot be guaranteed through a particular qualification. We believe that children should be taught by good teachers who inspire them, regardless of the qualification they hold. The noble Lords, Lord Storey and Lord Watson, seem to have some notion of academies hiring unqualified teachers purely because they are enthusiastic. I doubt very much whether any professional head of a school would allow that to happen, and I am surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Storey, thinks that they would.
One of the most important “qualifications” that teachers need is deep subject knowledge. I am delighted that, over the last five years, the number of postgraduates entering teaching with a 2:1 or better has risen from 61% to 73%. We do not think that we should necessarily require a PhD in physics to go through nine months’ teacher training, over 60% of which is likely to take place in a school. If they have deep subject knowledge and the right personal characteristics, they can make great teachers without any further qualifications, as I have seen myself on many occasions. Neither do we think that a drama teacher from RADA who has a spare afternoon a week to teach in a primary school should have to get QTS.
Lord Addington
What would the noble Lord say about the skills you need other than your primary consideration? If you have a PhD in physics, do you, for instance, know what to do with a child with special educational needs? That is the sort of thing that attracts the attention and the worry. It is not the fact that they are great at their primary function but that a lot of other stuff has to be dealt with to get to the primary function.
Lord Nash
I know that the noble Lord is always concerned about this point. Of course every school has to have a SENCO, and every school, particularly if it has high SEN numbers, will have plenty of teachers focused specifically on this area. However, if a person has high academic qualifications and the right other characteristics, as I have already said, we do not see why they would necessarily have to get a particular other qualification.
Lord Storey
If this physics teacher who has deep subject knowledge is taking a class which misbehaves, and he or she cannot control that class even though they have that deep-seated knowledge, does that not suggest that an understanding of behaviour management is important? Or, if there is a child protection issue among those young people which perhaps goes unnoticed by this teacher with deep subject knowledge, does that not suggest that they, too, need some qualification or training in this area?
Lord Nash
I entirely agree with the noble Lord that behaviour management is key, which is why I am surprised that it is not focused on in many qualifications for teaching. That is why we have appointed a behaviour tsar, Tom Bennett, to look at this and why we will ensure that behaviour management is focused on, because you cannot teach if you cannot control your class. I should point out that, according to the latest statistics, 9,900 teachers working in academies and more than 10,000 teachers working in maintained schools do not hold qualified teacher status.
We trust heads to make decisions about getting the best possible teachers to teach in their schools. The funding agreements of many academies give trusts the freedom to employ teachers without reference to standard qualified teacher status. This allows head teachers to exercise their autonomy to bring in appropriately qualified or otherwise eligible people from a range of different backgrounds to enrich the teaching offer available to pupils. Of course, head teachers are held to account for the quality of teaching in their schools through the Ofsted inspection regime, as my noble friend Lady Perry said, and the regular publication of school performance data. As such, I do not think that it is necessary to place a further requirement on Ofsted to report on the required qualifications for teachers.
Amendment 32, proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Storey, and the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, seeks to require Ofsted to report on the level of pupil absence over three years in a failing or coasting school before it becomes an academy and on the levels of absence in other schools already part of the trust taking that school on. Noble Lords are right to highlight the importance of pupil absence. We, too, take attendance very seriously. There is clear evidence that absence from school is linked to lower levels of attainment. Pupils with no absence during key stage 2 are over four and a half times more likely to reach level 5 or above at the end of primary school than pupils who missed 15% to 20% of the sessions, and twice as likely to do so than pupils who have missed 5% to 10%. The outcomes at secondary level are similar: pupils with no absence across key stage 4 are nearly three times more likely to achieve five good GCSEs, including English and maths, and around 10 times more likely to achieve the English baccalaureate than pupils missing 15% to 20% of school across key stage 4; for pupils missing 5% to 10%, the figures are 1.4 times and 2.5 times.
That is why we are supporting schools and local authorities to keep absences to a minimum and to develop measures to support and promote good attendance. We do not want children missing their education. That is why we changed the law to tackle the culture of taking holidays during term time. In 2013-14, the latest academic year for which figures are available, overall absence across state-funded primary, secondary and special schools fell to 4.5% from 5.3% the previous academic year, with persistent absence falling from 4.6% to 3.6%. Data on the level of pupil absence are already collected and published annually for all schools as part of the performance tables. Requiring Ofsted to report separately on this would merely duplicate what is already available.
As the noble Lord said, even if these amendments were necessary, which I do not agree they are, Ofsted has a great deal to do and, at the moment, is going through a major restructuring as it brings inspections in house. In my view, these new clauses are all unnecessary and would simply introduce additional bureaucratic processes for Ofsted that would delay regional schools commissioners from making decisions and trusts from beginning to bring about the much-needed swift improvements in the schools concerned. I therefore urge noble Lords not to press their amendments.
Lord Storey
I first want to comment on teaching assistants. I do not want to give the impression that I do not value them. I think that, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, rightly pointed out, they do a fantastic job in supporting classroom teachers. My concern is how they are increasingly being used to cover for sicknesses, shortages and other absences—it has become almost de rigueur to take them on for that role.
Turning to the amendments, I agree with the Minister that it is vital that the person teaching the subject or the class has a deep knowledge and understanding of that subject or, in primary schools, an understanding of child development and behaviour management. However, far too often we see a subject specialist who has an incredibly detailed knowledge of his or her subject but no ability—no flair, imagination or creativity—to put that subject across. Of course, the pupils are then not able to be successful in that subject.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie
My Lords, in moving Amendment 32ZA, I will speak also to Amendment 33. This group focuses on the voluntary adoption agencies, about which quite a bit was heard at Second Reading, but considerable difficulties remain as far as the agencies are concerned. We owe a duty to them to air those views and to seek the Government’s help in prioritising them.
The DfE’s Regionalising Adoption document, published in June this year, was interesting. It devoted two pages to the role of voluntary adoption agencies, beginning with this statement:
“We are particularly keen to consider models that have an element of cross-sector collaboration, bringing together the best of the voluntary and statutory sectors”.
If the DfE had finished the consultation document there, I am sure that the voluntary adoption agencies would have been perfectly happy because that is basically what they seek. The document then proceeds to list three options for local authorities,
“to acknowledge and use the potential of the voluntary sector to provide services at a regional level and have the confidence to take forward these partnerships”.
The first is:
“Involving a voluntary adoption agency in a regional partnership as a specialist adoption support provider”.
The second is:
“A voluntary adoption agency leading a regional partnership, providing adoption management services to a group of local authorities, and working with and through local authority staff in social work positions”.
The third is:
“A voluntary adoption agency providing specialist services to a number of local authorities as part of a formal partnership arrangement”.
I have perhaps been remiss in not welcoming the fact that we are on Clause 13 and now dealing with adoption. I have been slightly thrown because of the way in which the amendments have been grouped, with Amendment 32ZA at the beginning rather than Amendment 33, which I was going to speak to first. This is an important issue. I do not believe it is an afterthought in the Bill, as has been suggested. It is a relatively small but very important part of the Bill and will affect a great deal of people.
The voluntary adoption agencies play a very important role within that. I got the impression from reading the sections I have quoted from Regionalising Adoption that the Government value the role of voluntary adoption agencies. My question stemming from that is: why not formalise that role? Voluntary adoption agencies are seriously concerned at the possible dilution of their role and this would help to allay those fears.
Although the Minister had quite a bit to say about Clause 13 in his opening remarks at Second Reading, in summing up he had very little to say. In fairness, I should remind noble Lords that he revealed that he was extemporising on that occasion. That was perhaps somewhat ill advised because he devoted just five lines in Hansard to the question of voluntary adoption agencies, and what he did say betrayed a misunderstanding of the concerns expressed by the voluntary adoption agencies. When adoption agencies in Wales were reorganised into five regional groupings, smaller voluntary agencies were the casualties. What assurances can the Minister give that the same will not happen in England? That fear was expressed by several witnesses who gave evidence to the committee in another place. That view is also held by the Consortium of Voluntary Adoption Agencies and by its biggest member, Barnardo’s.
The key concern here is about accountability and ensuring that the new system results in meaningful improvements for vulnerable children, especially the hard-to-place ones—those in the categories of age four and over; children with a disability; sibling groups; and children from black, Asian and minority ethnic backgrounds. Voluntary adoption agencies have particular expertise in work with hard-to-place children and the danger is that local authorities may look to protect their own interests after the introduction of regional adoption agencies, leading to a squeeze on the smaller but still influential voluntary agencies. As I have said, that concern was raised by several witnesses who gave evidence to the committee in another place.
It was also said at Second Reading that voluntary adoption agencies play a key role and yet, despite government support over the past few years, they are struggling for survival. Many are reducing the size of their social work teams as the proportion of adoption work that was done by the agencies decreases. In some areas, local authorities—despite clear direction from government, which I acknowledge—exclude them from discussions. It is not clear how voluntary adoption agencies will play a part in the proposed new regional structures while retaining their individual independence, or how funding arrangements will support their activity.
Voluntary adoption agencies are concerned about transitional instability because some are losing their relationship with local authorities, which feel that they may not need the voluntary agencies when the local authorities become part of a regional adoption agency. As I have said, voluntary adoption agencies play a key role. However, it is not clear how they will play what they would regard as a meaningful part in the proposed new regional structures while retaining their individual independence. Equally, they are concerned as to how funding arrangements will support their activity.
Amendment 33 would require the Secretary of State to lay an annual report before Parliament containing information about how she has exercised the power given to her in Clause 13 and the safeguards she has put in place to protect the voluntary agencies, other models of care and the provision of post-adoption support. In referring to the power to direct local authorities to come together in regional adoption agencies, the noble Lord, Lord Nash, said at Second Reading:
“I assure your Lordships that we expect to use this power rarely”.—[Official Report, 20/10/15; col. 586.]
That is as it should be. However, if that is the case, an annual report to Parliament would not involve many examples of their use and could hardly be regarded as onerous or particularly bureaucratic by the Government. I trust the Minister will not look for reasons to avoid meeting what I believe is a fairly modest requirement.
The Bill provides the Secretary of State with the power to intervene directly in adoption arrangements. That leads us to believe that in cases where she uses her powers of direction it will be because she has failed to achieve the hoped-for consensus and voluntary arrangements that are clearly the Government’s ambition. In such circumstances, is it not right that Parliament should be told what persuaded the Secretary of State of the need to exercise her powers? Meeting the requirements of Amendment 33 would make that information available to Members of both Houses of Parliament, allowing appropriate scrutiny to be undertaken.
There is clear need for the Secretary of State to report on the impact of voluntary adoption agencies, the whole area of children in care and the question of support for adopted children and their parents, especially concerning mental health issues. Why is it the case that children currently entering the care system are subject to a routine physical health check but, despite the often chaotic, sometimes traumatic lives that led to them being placed in care, they are not automatically given access to a mental health check? For those reasons, it is important that the Government are prepared to report on an annual basis to ensure that that information can be made available to Members of both Houses, and that progress relating to this part of the Bill can be tracked. We all wish it success but we also want to see that that is actually what is happening.
Returning to the question of voluntary adoption agencies, these organisations undertake only about 16% of adoption placements. There is therefore a real danger that they could get lost within the new system when the local authority with which they work becomes part of the regional adoption agency. It would be a great shame, and a real loss, to a sector that has recently seen the demise of the British Association for Adoption and Fostering if they fell by the wayside. I look to the Minister to reassure them that their vital and long-established role will be both recognised and protected. She can meet that hope by accepting our amendment and agreeing to report annually to Parliament. I beg to move.
Lord Storey
I will speak just to Amendment 34 in this group, which seeks to develop the work we did on the Children and Families Bill, where quite important progress was made on the whole issue of adoption. There was an important amendment from the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, about the increasing length of time that children stayed with foster parents.
Let us build on that: Amendment 34 seeks to support that progress by saying that children in the care of local authorities are perhaps the most vulnerable children. Many of them have mental health problems. In fact, the figures—I will not repeat them now—are really alarming. Many local authorities and agencies which carry out the role for local authorities make tremendous progress with those looked-after children. But there are real concerns, and this amendment suggests that we should always have those concerns in the front of our minds through having an annual report on the support we are giving those young people, so that we can adjust our provision and policies where we need to. I hope the Government might consider supporting this amendment.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
My Lords, Amendments 33, 34 and 32ZA raise important issues about ensuring that any use of the power given to the Secretary of State in Clause 13 is transparent and considers the impact on voluntary adoption agencies, other parts of children’s social care and the provision of post-adoption support. The amendments require an annual report to be laid before Parliament and enable the Secretary of State to direct local authorities and voluntary adoption agencies to jointly determine who should deliver adoption functions.
I thank noble Lords for raising these issues and I agree that we need to be clear about how this power is used, and what its impact is, so I appreciate the intent behind the amendments. First, I assure both noble Lords that any use of the power will be transparent and fair. Decisions will be informed by input from the affected agencies and other agencies operating in the local area, including voluntary agencies. However, I believe that laying an annual report before Parliament on the use and impact of the power would be disproportionate, and that directing local authorities and voluntary agencies to make decisions jointly will not work in practice. I will go on to explain why.
First, I assure the Committee that we have carefully considered the impact that moving to regional adoption agencies will have on other parts of the care system, and on the provision of post-adoption support. We have been clear that regional adoption agencies need to consider how adoption support functions will be carried out and how links with other parts of children’s social care will be maintained. This includes ensuring that adopted families have access to appropriate mental health support to meet their children’s needs. We will come to that in more detail in the next set of amendments. We see regional adoption agencies as an opportunity to deliver improvements in these areas. We are also encouraging innovation. This may well include broadening the regional approach to include wider permanence services, where this has potential to drive improvement.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
Clearly, the noble Baroness has given considerable reassurance to the Committee, but how does this all fit with procurement policy? The reason I ask that is because we know that the Cabinet Office has been leading very hard-driven, centralised procurement and there have been complaints that, despite the Cabinet Office also having a policy to encourage SMEs, those have been squeezed out by the prime contractors. I think that the Cabinet Office is reviewing that at the moment.
It struck me from what the noble Baroness was saying that although Ministers clearly recognise the role of the smaller voluntary agencies, particularly the specialist ones, one of the problems is that once you create regional entities, inevitably they adopt a bureaucratic process. I worry that the smaller agencies may find this very overbearing. I do not think this is a matter for statute but rather one of reassurance that the regional agencies understand that they cannot develop processes that make it almost impossible for these very small agencies, often with very limited infrastructure, to get agreement to be part of the new agencies in the future.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
We think that the VAAs should be involved in early conversations about regional adoption agency design. We will issue procurement guidance for projects shortly, so it is in our minds.
Finally, the noble Lords raise important points about the proportionate use of this power. It is important to emphasise that we are committed to supporting local authorities and voluntary adoption agencies to move to regional adoption agencies voluntarily in the first instance. These powers are only backstop powers to be used for the reluctant few.
As I have already said, we are delighted that the sector has already seized the opportunity to be involved. We have announced 14 regional adoption agency projects that we are working with this year, which, as I said, will involve more than two-thirds of all voluntary adoption agencies and local authorities. In the rare cases where the power is needed, decisions will be made following extensive discussions with all those involved or affected, including voluntary agencies. Prior to making a final decision, we will write to any relevant local authority formally requesting its views on the matter. I therefore reassure noble Lords that all those involved will have the chance to comment on the proposal before a final decision is taken.
I take this opportunity to mention the role of the national Adoption Leadership Board, which meets quarterly and has a remit to drive significant improvements in the performance of the adoption system in England, and which will also have an important role to play in shaping decisions and overseeing service development. This board has already been paramount in driving forward our reform programme, and that role will continue. The board is made up of the most senior officials from key organisations in the system, including representatives both from local authorities and voluntary organisations. The Consortium of Voluntary Adoption Agencies, which represents all voluntary adoption agencies, is a key member. Board members have been appointed to represent their sector and to take responsibility for galvanising performance improvements within their respective areas. Involving the board in any decisions about regionalisation will therefore be vital. This is another indication of how we are trying to bring all parties together.
This is a practical and proportionate approach to ensuring that the powers are used appropriately and that all interested parties are involved in decision-making. In view of this, I hope that noble Lords will feel reassured enough not to press their amendments.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie
I thank the Minister for that reply, which was to a large extent warm and, I am sure, encouraging to voluntary adoption agencies. She talked of them being involved in 14 of the regional adoption agencies that are in the process of being established—that is all very well and good—but that is the start. We look some way down the road and it may not happen. What if some local authorities or some regional adoption agencies decided not to involve voluntary adoption agencies? It is quite unlikely that none would be involved, but the agencies themselves remain concerned—it is not those of us on this side of the Committee who need to be reassured, it is the voluntary adoption agencies. For whatever reason—well, the reasons I have outlined, to be frank—they are not yet confident that that is how it is going to be into the future, and it is the future that concerns them rather than the present.
The Minister did not say specifically what was wrong with Amendment 32ZA. I do not see why it cannot be added to the Bill. It would simply add nine more words and ensure that voluntary adoption agencies were fully involved. If that is the Government’s intention—and I have no reason to doubt that it is—why not just write it into the Bill on that basis? It is disappointing that the Minister is not willing to do that, because I cannot see that it would have any real effect on any other part of the adoption system.
On the annual report, the Minister talked about transparency and about the agencies being fully informed, but transparency is also important as far as Parliament is concerned. You may say that Members of this House or another place can read the reports that are made available—no doubt, they will be put in the Library—but Parliament has a right to expect that such information be made available to it. If there was a need for a debate on these issues—it would not be every year, by any means—that could take place. If I noted the Minister correctly, she said that this would not work in practice. I may have missed it, but I did not hear from her why that would be the case. Yes, it would perhaps be a little bureaucratic, but only a little bit. I think that it would have a much wider benefit, not just for parliamentarians but for the agencies involved. The Minister’s response is therefore disappointing. Perhaps the Government could further clarify why they seem resistant, particularly in respect of including voluntary adoption agencies in the Bill. I know that that is what they want for reassurance and it is what we want with this amendment. But given what the Minister has had to say, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Earl of Listowel
“(f) the provision of child and adolescent mental health services for children in the adoption system;(g) the assessment of the mental health needs of children in the adoption system”
The Earl of Listowel
My Lords, I shall speak also to my Amendment 34A. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, regrets not being present and would have liked to support these amendments—she spoke eloquently on these issues at Second Reading. Perhaps I may also say how good it is to see the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, in his place. When he was Education Minister many years ago taking through Parliament the Children (Leaving Care) Act, he listened to the concerns of noble Lords and extended protections for children.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
I should just correct the noble Earl: for some reason, they would never let me near the Department for Education. I took the Children (Leaving Care) Act through as a Health Minister. Of course, I well recall our debates, because the noble Earl eloquently and consistently raised the issue of the poor outcomes of children in care, and we were concerned about the transition from care into adulthood and about making sure that there was still a duty on local authorities to support. We made some progress but, alas, the figures speak for themselves as regards the outcome for children in care. That is why this issue of mental health is so important.
The Earl of Listowel
I could not agree more. If we are reflecting for a moment on the past, Governments have invested a huge amount of money and resource into young people in care, and perhaps that money might have been better spent if more thought had been given to ensuring that mental health was fully integrated with all the educational support that is given to young people in care.
Amendment 32A extends the ability of the Secretary of State to allocate functions and includes the provision of child and adolescent mental health services for children in the adoption system as well as an assessment of their mental health needs. I suppose that the Secretary of State might say of a charity such as the Brent Centre for Young People, “They do a very good job—maybe they should do it more widely, and maybe a certain local authority needs them to give it help in this particular area”.
Amendment 34A ensures that the quantity and quality of mental health support provided for in the adoption system will be maintained or improved by these steps to ensure that there is a movement forward, not backward, in any changes made. The headline I put to your Lordships is that, while this is quite narrowly focused on children in the adoption system, I hope that the Minister might allow me to make a plea for improved mental health support for young people coming into care. In particular and most important, currently, children who come into care have a health assessment by a GP, which is welcome. I will expand on this later, but they really need a mental health specialist or perhaps a clinical psychologist to give them an assessment that is focused on their mental health. Following on from that assessment, they need the services that follow to help them meet the need to recover from the trauma that many of them will have. Therefore, that is the headline I put to your Lordships: an appropriate clinical professional at the very beginning, the services to follow up, then ongoing monitoring to ensure that those services are being provided, as well as of the mental health of the young people. That would make a huge difference.
I am most grateful for the many measures that the Government have taken to improve the adoption system, in particular with the assistance of my noble and learned friend Lady Butler-Sloss with regard to the adoption support fund. I look forward to hearing from the Minister how that will apply to this particular area, and on accelerating the adoption process so that children get to a loving family more swiftly than in the past.
There are challenges. As the noble Lord, Lord Storey, said, 60% of children who come into care have experience of neglect or abuse, and 45% have a mental disorder in care as against 10% of the general population. Therefore it is not surprising that they will have often experienced trauma in their lives before arriving into care. Being taken into care—being taken from one’s family—is a traumatic process in itself; then there may be further trauma as regards shift of placements in care. Therefore, there is a huge mental health element to the work that needs to be done here as well as the educational attainment, which is being better grasped for.
It is very welcome that the Children’s Minister, Edward Timpson MP, is well aware of these issues. His father has written on the issues of attachment in the past and, of course, Mr Timpson has siblings who are adopted. He is very sympathetic and has been meeting with the NSPCC and young people who have left care recently to discuss these particular issues. I commend him for paying such attention to this area.
Baroness Massey of Darwen
My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, for his very detailed speech today. I think that we have become much more knowledgeable and sympathetic about adoption issues. We have had the excellent report from the Select Committee on Adoption Legislation. We have had the report chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, on childcare. To echo what the noble Earl said, this Government have expressed a great deal of concern and work has been done, particularly by Edward Timpson MP, who takes a real interest in this. The last Government also did a great deal of work on adoption. We therefore know what good practice should look like; we also know that the background of some adopted children has been horrendous, quite often from a very early age. We know that children in care are more likely to fail or do badly academically, are more likely to get involved with drugs and alcohol, more likely to become pregnant as teenagers and more likely to fall into a life of crime. This is immensely costly, not only to the welfare of those children, but financially to society. It costs a great deal to pull somebody up from being in the criminal justice system if they got there for one reason or another. I therefore welcome these amendments.
It would be good if the Government could, for example, examine some of the work done by the Thomas Coram Foundation, which I visited recently. It has a programme of working with prospective parents and children, taking on mental health issues on both sides to look at what might best make for a successful adoption. It follows that up with support for mental health and all kinds of other issues for parents and the children themselves.
Lord Storey
I am so pleased that the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, managed to get this amendment down. I tried, and could only get the wording to say “report”; he actually got a lot more, and I am very grateful for that. He obviously has charm and persistence that we need to learn from. I very much want to support the amendment.
There are moments in our lives that obviously have a profound effect on us and our personal circumstances. Some of those can be life-changing. I can remember one such occasion when, after being a bit blasé, thinking, “Do I really have to go?”, I went to meet a group of looked-after children in Liverpool. This was about five or six years ago. Liverpool Education Authority was the guardian of these looked-after children, and it had formed a committee that invited me to tea. It was one of the most life-changing moments for me because these young people talked about their problems: how they had been pushed from pillar to post, and how nobody had understood their concerns or needs. It made me realise that looked-after children had so many problems and concerns on their shoulders that you would not expect people of that age to have. We have the duty and responsibility to make sure that we do everything possible to help and support them.
I am glad to say that the whole issue of mental health is now moving much further up the political agenda: that is a good thing. The previous coalition Government, for the first time, made resources available for mental health. The present Government are carrying on with that commitment. I noticed that the Labour Opposition have appointed a shadow Minister for mental health, Luciana Berger, which shows how important mental health is. That is to be praised. Certainly in schools, it goes back—dare I be so bold as to say—to this teacher with incisive knowledge of physics, where the issue with the student in front of him might be a mental health issue. Unless that teacher has that knowledge or understanding, or somebody else in the school is able to pick up on this, it is to nought. Just as my noble friend Lord Addington went on and on and on about dyslexia—and probably all of us were waving the white flag and saying, “We give in”—we need the same focus on issues of mental health. We should keep at it like a dog with a bone. We talked about bullying in schools and the issue shot up the agenda. Many of the bullies have mental health problems. If we were able to identify them and deal with them at an early stage, they would not be bullies and some of the problems and the suffering that they and the people they bully face would not happen.
We also need to learn from others. I read about an interesting mental health project in the United States of America for young children. That is why I was nervous when the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, was talking in a previous discussion about play—the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, rightly jumped up and asked about obese children—but this project looks at how you deal with mental health through role-playing. The results have been quite stunning. So we should be learning all the time from different projects as well.
Looked-after children need us to go the extra mile more than anyone else. I hope that we can all get behind and support this amendment.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie
My Lords, I commend the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, for tabling Amendments 32A and 34A, for the eloquent manner in which he introduced them and for the eloquent examples he gave of some of the existing stresses relating to adoption.
However, I have a question for him. Given the wording of Amendment 32A, which calls on a local authority or an adoption agency designated by a local authority to act, it might be better to tie the National Health Service into this provision because I wonder whether local authorities have the authority or the power to undertake what he is seeking they should do. I would like to see it done but I am not clear in my mind whether this is the best way to do it.
The issue of support once a child is placed in adoption can be crucial as to whether or not that adoption becomes permanent. Often specialist support is needed to care for a child appropriately. This is because, having experienced abuse or neglect, 45% of children in care have a mental health disorder compared with only 10% of the general child population. However, the mental health needs of children in care often go unidentified and there is a subsequent lack of mental health support. The Government urgently need to provide specific measures and greater resources around mental health assessment and support for the tens of thousands of children entering care, whose welfare must remain a priority concern.
The Department for Education’s document Regionalising Adoption, which I referred to in the debate on the previous group of amendments, stated:
“We still have too few adopters willing and able to adopt harder to place children”.
Harder-to-place children are a particular concern and yet the document does not suggest any solutions for this serious gap in provision. I hope the Minister will be able to say what the Government propose to do in terms of increasing the number of harder-to-place children who find a permanent home. She may well say, “It is out for consultation; let us see”, but this is an urgent matter. The argument advanced by Ministers in terms of the academisation of schools with no day to be lost perhaps applies even more urgently in the case of harder-to-place children.
I am aware that it is only a consultation document but, worryingly, it does not make a single mention of children with mental health problems. In something like—I cannot remember offhand—20 pages there is no mention of that. I wonder whether the Government appreciate the need and fully understand the issue and how it impacts on so many children in care. That is often a significant factor in their being in care in the first place.
The document goes on to say:
“Currently, adoption support services are provided by a mix of local authority provision, the NHS and independent providers”.
But—it was perhaps inevitable that there would be a “but”—
“There are regional gaps, gaps in the types of services on offer, and little evidence of spare capacity”.
We had some gaps a minute ago and here are some more, which are highlighted in the Government’s own document. It is fine to flag them up but we need some suggestion from the Government—the Minister might tell me it is a bit early just now—as to how those gaps are going to be filled because they are pretty glaring and very serious.
The Earl of Listowel
My Lords, I hope it may be helpful to the Minister if I fill in a large omission that I made in my opening statement; I apologise to the Committee for not having alluded to this. One important issue is the cuts to local authorities over the last several years. One understands why those cuts have had to be made, but it is a particular dimension of child and adolescent mental health services that half the funding comes from health and half from local authorities—the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, might correct me if I am wrong. However, for some reason the cuts to local authorities have particularly impacted services under CAMHS, so there is very little CAMHS around. Therefore to target the CAMHS resource at the most needy children might be an improvement with regard to using a scarce commodity in the most effective way. However, in any case, because of the scarcity of resource and because of our particular responsibility for these children in the care of the state, we should take more steps to ensure that they get the appropriate specialist mental health service that they need.
Baroness Benjamin (LD)
I will quickly say why I support Amendments 32A and 34. I am very sorry for not having been here earlier, but I am on the Select Committee on Communications; we are looking at the BBC charter renewal and were just questioning John Whittingdale, the Secretary of State.
I am here because we must ensure support for all options for looked-after children that are considered, whether they remain in care, leave care independently or live with a special guardian. I support Amendments 32A and 34A because they will create provision in this Bill to improve the timeliness and quality of mental health assessment and support for all looked-after children. Looked-after children have significant needs, and improvements are needed to ensure that their emotional well-being is better promoted.
We have an increased focus on children and young people’s mental health, but we must not forget children in care, who are sometimes the most vulnerable children. One young person told the NSPCC recently that the trauma associated with the abuse that she experienced was not picked up on her early entry into care. She felt that she did not receive help until she reached crisis point. She said:
“We shouldn’t have to do crazy things before people notice we need support and do something”.
That is why I put my name to the amendment. I see that it is not on the list, but I did put my name to it because I feel very strongly that it should be given as much consideration as possible. It creates such provision in the Bill that will make sure that children’s mental health is assessed automatically and supported much earlier in the adoption system.
Another young adult, Liza—not her real name—told the NSPCC that before turning 16 she had around 15 placements and between 20 and 25 placement moves. This caused her so much stress and trauma because she had to travel around from place to place, which was extremely tiring, both physically and mentally. Reflecting on this experience, Liza made it clear to the NSPCC that she would have benefited from easier access to therapeutic services which would not have required her to travel long distances. Liza’s experience is not untypical of that of many children in care who struggle to find the right therapeutic support. Amendment 34A, which I support, would require the Secretary of State to oversee an increase in the quality and quantity of therapeutic support services and would create provision in the Bill to stop more children having the terrible experience that Liza outlined.
Almost two-thirds of looked-after children have experienced some sort of abuse or severe neglect, and 45% of children in care have a mental health disorder compared with just 10% of the general child population. We know that looked-after children are four to five times more likely to attempt suicide, less likely to attain good results at school and more likely to end up homeless. However, the mental health needs of children in care often go unassessed and unidentified and there is a substantial lack of mental health support for these children.
Current guidance from the Department of Health and the Department for Education on mental health assessments for looked-after children does not go far enough. The BBC—I have the BBC on my mind; I am sorry. The NSPCC believes that the important aspect of quality support in Amendment 34A relies on quality assessment as outlined in Amendment 32A, so the two go together. Looked-after children’s initial health assessments rarely include the involvement of mental health professionals, thereby reducing the chances of identifying their mental health needs. Furthermore, there should be direct contact with the child and their carer to fully explore the child’s emotional and mental health needs. We have to make sure that children know that they are being considered, no matter where they are from.
I welcome the Education and Adoption Bill but urge the Government to include specific measures around mental health in particular: all children entering care should receive an automatic mental health assessment in addition to the physical assessment that they currently receive; children in care should then immediately receive the subsequent necessary support to help them deal with issues of mental health identified in the assessment; and there should be regular monitoring of children’s mental health while in care to inform the support the child receives and ensure that it contributes to their improved well-being.
The NSPCC recently released figures which show that more than a fifth of all children referred to local specialist NHS mental health services, including children with problems stemming from abuse, are rejected for treatment. This cannot go on. Children who have been abused or neglected could face serious long-term mental health problems because of the lack of support. The NSPCC recently stated that this is a serious “time bomb” because it is getting worse, not better. So I hope that the Government will take on board the things that I have said and support this amendment. This is something that we need to address in the best way possible. I hope that the Government will consider the amendments in the constructive spirit in which they are intended as the Bill moves through Parliament.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
My Lords, Amendments 32A and 34A, spoken to by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, and the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, raise important points about the mental health needs of children adopted from care.
I absolutely agree that the mental health of adopted children is a key issue, as all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate have said, and one that we expect to be central to the development of regional adoption agencies.
The Government have committed £1.25 billion to improve mental health services for children and young people over the next five years through the implementation of Future in Mind, the report resulting from the Government’s review of child and adolescent mental health services. The report included a section on vulnerable children and makes specific recommendations about looked-after and adopted children. This includes improving access to services, working better with parents and carers and support for children who have suffered trauma in their early life.
We are working very closely with the Department of Health and NHS England on the implementation of Future in Mind. Locally, clinical commissioning groups have been—
Lord Watson of Invergowrie
On that Future In Mind document, the Minister said that the chapter on vulnerable children makes specific reference to proposals for looked-after children. I do not expect her to respond now, but could she write to me pointing it out? As I said, I could find the word “adoption” used only once in that chapter.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
Clinical commissioning groups have been working with their local authority partners to develop local transformation plans to improve their local offer based on the recommendations. These plans, alongside additional government funding, will cover the full spectrum of mental health issues, including, crucially, addressing the needs of the most vulnerable children.
Improving assessment of and support for looked-after children will be a key priority in our programme of work. We welcome the recent report on this issue from the NSPCC, as mentioned by a number of noble Lords, and agree that getting assessment right when children enter care is critical. All looked-after children already have an annual health assessment, which must include an assessment of their emotional and mental as well as their physical health. That assessment, which informs the development of their health plan, should take account of the information provided from the strengths and difficulties questionnaire which is completed by their carer. The guidance also sets out clear expectations that all looked-after children should have targeted and dedicated support through child and adolescent mental health services and other services according to their need, arranged by CCGs, local authorities and NHS England. However, I accept the point made by the noble Earl that, for some young people with a range of problems, a follow-on referral to specialist health services is required.
The Department for Education hosted a round table last month, bringing together children’s social care and mental health stakeholders, to discuss how to improve mental health services for adopted children. As a result, we are considering how centres of excellence, possibly linked to regional adoption agencies, might enable the mental health needs of looked-after and adopted children to be better met.
At the moment, the specialist support that many adopted children need in order to address the effects of abuse and neglect in their early years is simply not available in their area, as the number of adopted children at local authority level is too low to ensure that the right provision is there. Assessment and commissioning of specialist support on a regional scale will allow providers to expand their services, provide better value for money for the taxpayer and help ensure that all adoptive families receive a consistently high quality of assessment and provision.
In addition, we are providing £4.5 million of funding this financial year to accelerate the development and implementation of regional adoption agencies. Adoption support, including mental health, is a key element of that. We are clear that regional adoption agencies must have a focus on improving the assessment of adopted children’s mental health needs and the provision of appropriate mental health support services.
Regional adoption agencies will be able to make use of the government-funded Adoption Support Fund, as the noble Earl mentioned. More than 2,000 families have already benefited from £7.5 million of therapeutic services provided by the fund for adopted children and their families. We know that getting a high-quality assessment of need is critical, and local authorities are increasingly using the fund to pay for specialist assessments and, where appropriate, specialist therapeutic support.
The noble Lord, Lord Watson, asked about harder-to-place children. We are providing £30 million to help pay the interagency fee to both local authorities and voluntary adoption agencies so that harder-to-place children might be adopted more quickly. More than 200 children have already been placed through this new scheme. On recruiting adopters for harder-to-place children, we believe that recruitment from a wider geographical base than simply a local authority, which takes into account the needs of children across a number of local authorities in a regional recruitment strategy and uses specialist techniques for recruiting adopters of harder-to-place children, will have an important effect.
The noble Lord, Lord Storey, said that schools needed expertise in supporting looked-after children and children with mental health issues. We made changes in the Children and Families Act to introduce a virtual school head for looked-after children. This measure was designed specifically to ensure that looked-after children receive the support that they need at school.
I hope that noble Lords will see from this range of initiatives the importance that this Government and the previous Government have attached to ensuring that our most vulnerable children receive the support that they need, and that we are already committed to meeting the objectives of these amendments. I hope that the noble Earl will feel reassured enough not to press them.
The Earl of Listowel
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in the debate on these amendments today and for the supportive comments made by many of your Lordships. I am also grateful for the care with which the Minister has responded: to some extent, I am somewhat reassured. I was interested to hear what she said about centres of excellence and that seems most welcome. In Wales, for instance, a fostering charity that provides services has to find its own mental health professionals, because there simply is not enough of a CAMHS in that particular area of Wales to provide for it. I can imagine, as the noble Baroness says, that there will be areas where there is a deficit of expertise, and therefore the principle of drawing in from the best elsewhere—as provided in the academies programme—is a good principle to utilise.
The noble Baroness referred to the strengths and difficulties questionnaire and to the fact that the initial and ongoing health assessments look at the emotional and other needs of young people in care. That is welcome. However, given the experience of these children before entering care and that that they are pulled away from their families into the care system and have that trauma too, I feel that that is not sufficient. They need at the very beginning to see a specialist and to have a specialist assessment. I do not want to push that too hard but, as we speak, I remember a young woman who had been through the care system and whose brother was in the care system with mental health difficulties. She must have been 22 or so and she said to me that what she would have liked to have had when she first went into care was a therapist to speak to and somebody to stick with her through the care system—they had one mental health professional to stick with her through the system—and she wished the same for her brother, who was having difficulties.
I am going to make a slight detour and I hope that your Lordships will forgive me. These are difficult issues. In the past, the Department for Education used to employ civil servants who had a long tenure and a lot of experience in one particular area. For instance, the recently deceased Rupert Hughes was one of the chief civil servants behind the Children Act 1989, under Baroness Thatcher’s Government. I used to serve with him as a trustee for several years. One did not realise his important background from meeting with him but from hearing about it from others and seeing how important his memorial service was to so many people who knew of him. He was a hugely important figure. In dealing with these systemic responses to the difficult questions that we are discussing today, I wonder whether the Minister might consider what more might be done to ensure that there is a continuity of experience within the Civil Service to deal with these difficult problems over time. I do not think that it was this Government—the Conservative Government—who got rid of these longer tenure civil servants but in the past they frequently had more people like Rupert Hughes.
I am sorry for the digression. There is much to be welcomed in what the noble Baroness has said and in the investment that has clearly been made by the Government. I thank her for her helpful reply and other noble Lords for their comments. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“(3A) In giving directions under subsection (1) regarding the provision of adoption support services, the Secretary of State must take steps to ensure that decisions as to whether a particular child should be placed for adoption with a particular prospective adopter are made in such a way as to be blind to whether the adopter was approved by the relevant local authority, an external local authority, a regional adoption agency, or a voluntary adoption agency.”
Lord Watson of Invergowrie
My Lords, I will also speak to the Clause 13 stand part. Amendment 33A would require the Secretary of State to take steps to ensure that the process for making decisions about matching children with prospective adopters is conducted so that the decision-maker is blind as to which body—be that the local authority, the regional adoption agency, or a voluntary adoption agency—approved the prospective adopter. This would ensure that personal bias and other irrelevant factors are absent from decision-making and that instead, decisions are focused solely on considering the best match for the child. This would reduce unnecessary delays in the matching process by ensuring that a wider pool of prospective adopters are given full consideration from the earliest possible point, preventing the sequential decision-making that currently happens.
The Department for Education’s Regionalising Adoption consultation document—I am not sure whether it will be pleased that I am mentioning it for the third group in a row—contained some telling statistics, not least from Professor Elaine Farmer’s research. This found that some local authorities tended to seek to place their children with adopters approved “in-house” before considering adopters approved by other local authorities and then voluntary adoption agencies. This results in what is termed, as I mentioned earlier, sequential decision-making, which means that some children wait longer than they should to be adopted and the average is eight months between placement order and match. Professor Farmer’s investigation revealed that in 30% of cases delay was associated with an unwillingness to seek an adoptive family outwith a local authority’s own group of approved adopters. Clearly, that kind of behaviour is unacceptable.
The aim of Amendment 33A is to ensure that regional adoption agencies are not allowed to discriminate in terms of financial considerations when deciding where to place an adoptive child. There should be an assumption of them being blind to provenance, otherwise the interests of the child are not being put first. Unfortunately, an assumption—even where given by a regional adoption agency to the Department for Education—will not be enough. It needs to be guaranteed by being on the face of the Bill.
Currently there is an interagency fee of £27,000 per child placed with adoptive parents and it is welcome that the Department for Education has given £30 million in one- off funding. I heard what the noble Baroness just said in reply to the previous group. I had understood that that was simply in general terms to enable local authorities for whom the interagency fee, or at least the extent of those fees, was preventing them matching children, and that the £30 million was to break the logjam. If it is specifically, as the Minister said, for harder to place children, that is interesting, but perhaps she can clarify that in her reply.
What happens in the future after that £30 million has been spent? If local authorities need to save costs—we know that they will—they may well cut the voluntary adoption agencies out of the process, as I suggested earlier, and place a child with another authority to which, by agreement, they do not need to pay each other the interagency fee? That situation must not be allowed to develop. The fact that the voluntary adoption agencies are already fearing that it might do so ought to provide the Minister with the confidence to accept this amendment.
Turning to the clause in general, I have to say that it is worthy of support, as far as it goes. The trouble is that it does not go far enough. Will the Minister say why this clause focuses only on adoption? Why did the Government not think more creatively, more substantially and bring forward something called, perhaps, an emerging from care Bill rather than just a clause, with all types of settlement included? The adoption reforms in the Bill relate only to the 5% of children in care who are placed for adoption. It is wrong for adoption to be singled out for preferential treatment in relation to other forms of permanence.
Of course, where adoption is in the child’s best interests, an adoption order must be made, and the placement commenced in a timely fashion. That said, for other children, adoption is not necessarily in their best interests. Foster care, kinship care or special guardianship may be more appropriate for a range of reasons, so care should be taken in advocating increasing the number of children to be adopted. What is clear is that the number of children being placed for adoption is falling, whereas the number of children going into care is rising. It stands to reason, therefore, that there is a hold-up in the system. Certainly—I think we all agree—the process needs to be made more efficient.
It is also not helpful, to put it mildly, when the Prime Minister uses language such as appeared in his press release of 2 November, when he said:
“It is a tragedy that there are still too many children waiting to be placed with a loving family—we have made real progress but it remains a problem”.
That comment is both inaccurate and misleading. Many children in excellent foster homes are not waiting to be placed with a loving family; they are with a loving family who are meeting their needs, caring for them, helping them recover from trauma and offering stability and continuity. The same is true for children placed with relatives. The Government’s suggestion that adoption is the primary focus and that other options are somehow lesser is at best unhelpful and at worst insulting to those who give so much for children in other forms of care.
The Earl of Listowel
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for allowing us this opportunity to have a clause stand part debate.
Of course, it would be much better if children were not taken into care in the first place. We need to think about what we might do to support families better so that these circumstances do not arise—for instance, what we can do to ensure that more fathers stick with their families.
Many boys grow up without a father in the family. Obviously, there are circumstances where parents have to separate, but I am sure that we could do more to enable parents to stick together and to help young men who grow up without a father in the family experience what it is like to have a father through providing mentors and positive male role models. This is a huge challenge for us. Currently, 22% of our children grow up without a father in the home. However, that figure will rise to more than 30% in the next 10 or 15 years, according to the OECD, so we will overtake the United States. Many boys will grow up without a father in the family. How will they know how to be a father if they have not had one themselves? As a society, we need to think what role models and mentors we can provide for these young men.
It is also important to think about the impact of the huge cuts on local authority funding over the last five years or so. I declare an interest as a vice-chair of the Local Government Association, which has expressed concern that we have reached the point where any further cuts will inevitably cut into services for adults and children. I sponsored a meeting recently with a charity that provides excellent support to families—for instance, providing an Arabic-speaking woman to support Arabic-speaking mothers in London who would otherwise be very isolated. That body was on its last legs and said, “You cut us any further and this service will disappear”. It costs a lot to regenerate that service, so it will be lost to those families.
Cuts have also been made to children’s centres. One understands the pressures the Government have been under, their achievement on the economy and on many other levels, and the huge importance of the increase in employment in terms of benefits to families. However, we have to keep in mind the removal of family support services as a result of the cuts to local authorities.
I think that a fairly recent ruling has led more courts to choose to go down the special guardianship line rather than the adoption line. Perhaps the Minister will write to me on the direction of travel in that area. That may be the reason why new regulations on special guardianship are being introduced. I know there are concerns that special guardianship may on occasion be granted too easily.
I agree with what the noble Lord said about the pathways to permanence being many, and adoption being just one of them. I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Nash, and his ministerial colleagues for introducing the “staying put” amendment on the last education Bill, thereby allowing all young people leaving care stability in circumstances where they wish to remain with their foster carer, and their foster carer wishes them to remain, to the age of 21.
Another issue relates to adolescence. Many children are adopted at a young age and from when they enter primary school until the age of about 10 or 11 they may be quite manageable and easy to deal with. The emotional tantrums and outbursts of the under-fives tend to dissipate. However, when they become teenagers and enter adolescence, all that stuff can re-emerge, so services need to cater for that. I would be interested to hear from the Minister about outcomes for adopted children.
I was speaking to a researcher recently and she said that the issues around teenage pregnancy for adopted children are not that far removed from the issues experienced by young people leaving care. That suggests that some issues are important still even with the benefits of a more permanent experience through the adoption process. It occurred to me that one might think of allowing young people who are aware that they have been adopted to have entry to the care-leaving system. This would give some kind of support for young people growing up in adopted homes through the care-leaving system. I am not sure that that would work but it did occur to me. I will be interested to hear from the Minister what information he has on the outcomes for adopted children, particularly during adolescence and up to the age of 21 or 22.
As I say, I am grateful to the noble Lord for this opportunity to have a more wide-ranging debate on the adoption procedures. I look forward to the Minister’s reply.
Lord Nash
My Lords, Amendment 33A seeks to ensure that adoption agencies match children with the right parents for them, regardless of which agency recruited and approved those parents. The noble Lords, Lord Watson and Lord Hunt, also oppose the inclusion of this adoption clause within the Bill.
Clause 13 introduces powers to direct one or more local authorities in England to have certain adoption functions carried out on their behalf by another adoption agency in order to create regional adoption agencies. Regionalising adoption is necessary if we are to remove delay from the adoption system and ensure all adopted families have access to the support services they need wherever they may live.
We have already made significant improvements to the adoption system, with record numbers of children finding permanent loving homes, but there is still more to do. The system remains highly fragmented, with around 180 different adoption agencies currently recruiting and matching adopters. We do not think such a localised system can deliver the best service to some of our most vulnerable children. This is starkly illustrated by the almost 2,500 children who are still waiting for their forever families despite there being enough approved adopters across the country. Forty-five per cent of these children have been waiting longer than 18 months.
That is why we are proposing the measure in this Bill to increase the scale at which adoption services are delivered. Actively encouraging local authorities to join forces and work together will give regional agencies a greater pool of adopters, enabling them to match children more swiftly and successfully with their new families. It will also ensure vital support services are more widely available as these will be planned and commissioned at a more effective scale.
The noble Lords raised important issues about how decisions on matches between children and prospective adopters are made. The amendment seeks to remove the practice of sequential decision-making, where agencies seek first to place children with adopters they have recruited and approved before looking more widely. I appreciate the intention behind the amendment and can reassure the Committee that one of the primary motivations in introducing regional adoption agencies is to prevent this sequential practice and to encourage agencies, both local authorities and voluntary adoption agencies, to work much more closely together, always putting the interests of the children first.
The Government will also continue to invest in national infrastructure to enable matches to be made between children and adopters from different regions. We will also continue to use data to bear down hard on any delay so that regional adoption agencies are incentivised to find the right family for a child as quickly as possible, regardless of which agency recruited and approved the family in question. The proposals in the amendment would be difficult to make work in practice and could have unintended consequences.
Effective agencies will plan their pipeline of adopters so that they match well with the children coming through the system. This means links can be made early in the process to avoid any delay. This good practice would be difficult to maintain if the agency was discouraged from shaping its own recruitment to match the needs of the children it knows are coming through the system. If we break the link between the children waiting and the adults being recruited, the opportunity for strategic targeting of recruitment will be weakened.
Furthermore, if agencies have to consider all adopters available nationally in every single case, it is likely to increase delays as they try to filter and sort a large number of potential adopters. It could also impact negatively on adopters who are considered and rejected for a large number of potential matches.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie
I was not arguing that all national agencies should be considered in each case—it is more local to whatever the region happens to be—but the amendment would make sure that nobody was excluded. That may be the intention—I heard what the Minister said and, no doubt, reading that in Hansard tomorrow, a number of agencies will be encouraged—but what about the future? That cannot be guaranteed. The purpose behind putting it into the Bill is to make sure that all local options are considered—not nationally. It need not slow the process down if that is kept within the region in which the agencies operate.
Lord Nash
I do not think that I can add anything at the moment, but I will think about what the noble Lord said.
The noble Lord asked about the £30 million figure. This is for children in one of the following groups: children who have been waiting for 18 months or more at the time of placement; children who are aged five or over at the time of placement; children who are in a sibling group of two or more and placed as siblings at the time of placement; children who are from a BME background; or children who are disabled.
The noble Lord asked why the clause covers only adoption. If local authorities are interested in bringing together other permanent services voluntarily, they have the freedom to do so. Furthermore, they can apply to our regional adoption agencies support programme for support to create a “permanence hub” that goes wider than just adoption. More than half of the bids for which we announced funding recently are interested in going wider than adoption. However, given the specific nature of the adoption system, this legislation is in relation to adoption only. Adoption is the system where consolidation and scaling-up of services is a pressing concern.
The noble Lord was not around when we passed the Children and Families Act, a substantial piece of legislation with 177 amendments which comprehensively covered wide aspects of SEN and children in care. Had he been, I think that he would have realised that we have substantially reformed the system for children in care and SEN. His comments about the Prime Minister’s recent concerns about adoptions are ill-informed and unfortunate. The Bill does not go any wider because we have covered fostering in the Children and Families Act and taken considerable steps to improve the situation for children in care homes. The children’s homes regulatory framework underwent significant consultation and review in 2014 to enable the development of new quality standards that must be achieved for looked-after children living in children’s homes.
The Prime Minister announced on 28 October that Sir Martin Narey will lead a review into residential care for looked-after children. Sir Martin will report his findings and recommendations in spring next year. The overall purpose of the review is to set out the role of residential care within the wider care system and to make recommendations about how outcomes for children who are currently placed in residential care can be improved. Given the proportion of looked-after children who have poor mental health, it is likely that the review will explore mental health and well-being of looked-after children in residential settings.
This year, we are providing up to £4.5 million of start-up funding to support the development of regional adoption agencies. As my noble friend Lady Evans mentioned, we have already announced the first 14 projects, which involve more than 100 local authorities and more than 20 voluntary adoption agencies. However, for that small number of local authorities which prove unwilling to rise to the challenge and to get involved voluntarily, we need the power in the Bill as a backstop measure. Without it, children in those local authorities would miss out. They would continue to face unnecessary delay, which we know causes lasting harm, and miss out on the vital support that they need. I therefore recommend that this clause stand part of the Bill and I hope that noble Lords will feel reassured enough not to press their amendments.
The Earl of Listowel
My Lords, I was particularly interested to hear what the Minister said about Martin Narey and his work around children’s homes, which is very welcome. I endorse what he said about the quality standards for children’s homes, which are a step forward. If there is one thing that I might ask him to bring up with his colleague, Edward Timpson MP, it would be with regard to residential childcare. It is a matter of great regret that mental health and social care in children’s homes have not been embedded together from the word go. I was talking to a psychiatrist about the history of residential care in this country. We have some excellent residential care, but I am afraid that in general the quality is pretty variable in my experience.
The continentals were interested in our approach. The noble Lord, Lord Warner, published his report on staff in children’s homes, Choosing with Care, which I think came out in 1993. In the witness evidence to that inquiry the psychiatrist said that on the continent staff in children’s homes have an ongoing relationship with mental health professionals. I discovered later that they learned that from us. If we only had that ongoing partnership in all our children’s homes, we would see better outcomes and better protection for children in those homes. I am asking for a model where a clinical psychologist, who is appropriately trained, a child psychotherapist or some other mental health professional goes into children’s homes regularly—maybe once a fortnight—and speaks with the manager and staff, providing an opportunity for them to talk about their relationships with young people and how they are managing them.
In my experience that has such an effective input. This kind of work is emotionally exhausting. People talk about the turnover of staff and how they just burn out after a few years. However, if there was that kind of support, staff would be far more likely to stay. There would be a continuity of relationship, which is so important, and experience would be built over time. Staff members would have years of experience of children with complex needs and they would know the right things to do. We should make sure that all children’s homes have that close support from CAMHS which would make all the difference in this area. I am glad to hear from the Minister of Martin Narey’s review.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie
I thank both the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, and the Minister for their replies to the debate. I very much share the comments of the noble Earl relating to the importance of role models, particularly for boys. Having a father figure or male in the household is important for many reasons.
I note that the noble Earl picked up the point I made about resources for local authorities. The Minister did not, but in fairness to him that is not his remit. It is important if we are looking at the broader context. The £30 million that has been made available will be welcome and well used. There will still be people in the hard-to-place groups that the Minister highlighted, as well as those who have been waiting for some time in the logjam. They will need specific assistance. At a time when local authority budgets are shrinking, it would be helpful if the Minister had something to say about the clause being robust enough to withstand the stresses and strains that will inevitably come in the years immediately ahead of us.
I note what the Minister said about the Narey review. I await that with interest as it will cover important issues. I hope that it will provide some positive ways forward. In terms of the overall structure, we can exchange a bit of political knockabout across this Committee Room but the professionals who are doing the job daily—I mentioned the NSPCC, Barnardo’s and the voluntary adoption agencies—would not have been speaking to members of the opposition parties had they not been sufficiently concerned that the proposals as they stand, and how they are likely to play out, would create further difficulties in the future. As I said earlier, it is not me or my colleagues that the Minister has to reassure but those at the sharp end. It appears, so far at least, that they are not reassured.
I was disappointed that the Minister made a rather dismissive remark about my comment on the Prime Minister. I note that in his earlier remarks, the Minister himself talked about loving families. He must realise that the point I was making was that the Prime Minister’s statement seemed to suggest that other forms of care were of a lesser value, or were not providing enough loving homes, whereas adoption did. That was the point I was trying to make. Adoption seems to be a buzzword within the department and the Prime Minister has used it in this context. I think that is unhelpful and, again, the professionals in the field think it is unhelpful. There are many loving homes that are not the subject of adoption orders. That was the point I was trying to make. It just so happened that the Prime Minister had made the remark. I want to see children secure in whatever form of care is best for them. If it is adoption, fine; if it is any of the other forms of care, so be it. I want to see the resources available to make sure that permanence is the watchword for those children.
It has been a lively and, I think, helpful debate. A lot of the points have been highlighted and we will return to them in other forums. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Storey
“( ) A statutory instrument under subsection (2) may not be made until the Secretary of State has laid before Parliament a report on the funding of the costs of conversions under this Act.”
Lord Storey
My Lords, I will be brief. I know how important transparency and accountability are to the Minister. This amendment is to do with the cost of conversion to academies. If, as the Prime Minister says, by the end of this Parliament all schools will become academies, it will put an enormous burden on resources to make that happen. Will those resources be available from within the existing budget or will extra resources be needed? Can we be assured that any school that becomes an academy will get the same financial advantages as academies currently do or will there be a reduction in that provision? I beg to move.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, there were some pertinent questions in the noble Lord’s short introduction to his amendment. One might think that the Explanatory Notes to the Bill would provide some helpful information in that respect but I pay tribute to the drafting of officials in the Minister’s department because they elegantly provide no information whatever.
The Explanatory Notes acknowledge, as the Minister has done, that this policy is bound to lead to increased expenditure by the Minister’s department. They say:
“The cost of any additional intervention will be considered as part of the normal Budget and Spending Review process”.
We will know the outcome of that next week. I do not know when we are coming back on Report but I assume that by then the department will have worked out the consequences for its own spending programme over the next three years, and that we might get some reassurance that we will be given some more information on Report. In the expectation that the noble Lord receives no comfort this afternoon, perhaps he will bring this back on Report to probe a little more on it.
Lord Nash
My Lords, Amendment 35, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Storey, and the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, seeks to require that the Bill cannot be commenced until a report on funding the costs of the academy conversions resulting from this legislation has been laid before Parliament.
In the light of the ongoing spending review it would be inappropriate for me to speculate on the future costs of academy conversions. As I am sure noble Lords will appreciate, the spending review will determine the Department for Education’s total settlement and it will be that which determines the final cost. I will be delighted to comment more on the DfE’s total settlement on Report, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, suggested.
Of course, while I cannot provide specific details of the future funding regime, the existing grant rates for schools converting to academy status are already publicly available and published on GOV.UK.
As the published guidance sets out, there are various types of grants available to schools becoming sponsored academies. There is a grant awarded to all schools prior to opening as an academy to cover costs such as staff recruitment, project management and legal costs. There are three flat-rate amounts for this, depending on the level of transformation the school requires. In the most serious cases of concern, sponsored academies may also receive a small capital grant to improve the school environment and indicate a fresh start for the school. Overall, in the academic year 2014-15, the department paid nearly £20 million to academy trusts in pre-opening grants. We are committed to ensuring that funding for academy conversions results in maximum value for money. Since the days before 2010, we have very substantially reduced the costs involved. Funding amounts are regularly reviewed to ensure that the grant levels are appropriate.
The purpose of the Bill is to ensure that, where a school has failed, there will be swift and decisive action to bring about improvements. We anticipate that this equates to up to 1,000 inadequate schools converting to academy status over the course of this Parliament. The exact number will vary depending on Ofsted judgments, but it is important to emphasise that this number represents a continuation of the trend we have seen over the past five years. When the previous Government came to power in 2010, there were 203 sponsored academies and now there are more than 1,500. Including converter academies, there are now more than 5,000 open academies overall.
I turn to the assertion made by the noble Lord, Lord Storey, that the Prime Minister’s vision was that every school would become an academy during this Parliament. In fact, he did not say that he expected that to happen: he said that his vision was for every school to become an academy, but he did not put a timescale on it. As far as coasting schools are concerned, as we have already discussed, that is not a default option.
Alongside failing schools, the Bill also proposes that schools that have been notified that they meet a new coasting definition should become eligible for intervention. When we discussed coasting schools earlier in Committee, I went to some lengths to stress that regional schools commissioners will exercise discretion to decide whether and how to act in coasting schools, and that not all coasting schools will become academies. As noble Lords will be aware, we are currently consulting on our proposed coasting definition and no school will be identified as coasting until after the final 2016 performance data have been published. It is therefore impossible to predict, before the definition has been finalised and the tests have been set, exactly how many schools we expect to be labelled as coasting. We expect, however, to identify hundreds of schools which can be challenged and supported to improve.
In light of the assurances that I have given about the existing costs of conversion and the number of schools we anticipate will become sponsored academies, I hope that the House will agree that a report on the future costs of conversion is not necessary and I urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Storey
Heaven protect us from speculation. I think that people read very clearly into those comments from the Minister. There was a fear that coasting was the mechanism for ensuring that all schools did become academies by the end of this Parliament. People will look at that very clearly. If there are hundreds of schools that are coasting, and we need to find academy sponsors for them, there will be a cost—
Lord Nash
For some. I do not know if the noble Lord was here last week, but we discussed in some detail the circumstances in which a school might be sponsored if it was coasting, but also there were many circumstances where it may be able to cease coasting on its own or with some limited support.
Lord Storey
My apologies for not having yet been able to read the Hansard of those Committee proceedings. Of course, there will also be costs, presumably, for those academies that are identified as coasting. I take his point about the spending review and obviously we will come back to this issue as well. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
House of Lords
Introduction: Lord Porter of Spalding
Introduction: Lord Shinkwin
Retirement of a Member: Lord Stewartby
The Lord Speaker (Baroness D'Souza) (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I should like to notify the House of the retirement, with effect from 12 November, of the noble Lord, Lord Stewartby, pursuant to the Section 1 of the House of Lords Reform Act 2014. On behalf of the House, I thank the noble Lord for his much valued service to the House.
Criminal Justice: Anonymity
(9 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Fowler
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what action they propose to protect those who have not been charged with any offence from being named as under investigation.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Bates) (Con)
My Lords, decisions to release the name of a suspect in an investigation are for the police to take. Such decisions should be made on a case-by-case basis, and the police should not release the names of those who are arrested or suspected of a crime except in exceptional circumstances.
Lord Fowler (Con)
While I thank the Minister for that Reply, does he realise that in the case of our late and respected colleague Leon Brittan, the CPS told the police not once but four times that, in respect of an alleged case of rape half a century previously, he had no case to answer? However, that did not prevent his name being critically plastered over the media, even on the very day that he died. There have been similar cases, such as that of Paul Gambaccini, who, again, was named but never charged with any offence. Rigorous investigation should clearly take place in cases of rape and sexual abuse, but surely that should not be at the price of public injustice to innocent men and women.
Lord Bates
My noble friend is absolutely right to draw attention to this. When accusations of this vile nature are made against people who are subsequently found to be not guilty, it is a matter of incredible distress to them and their families. The police guidance on this is very clear. It says that the police should not release the names of those who are arrested or suspected of a crime unless there are clear circumstances to justify it. That means that such a decision should be taken by a chief officer and should not be the subject of informal press briefing: it ought to be communicated above the line. I am aware, as is my noble friend, that the Metropolitan Police has itself looked into this and has issued a letter of apology to Lady Brittan in respect of some allegations and conduct. It has also invited another constabulary to review its procedures. In this case, as in any other, there is also the possibility of referral to the Independent Police Complaints Commission.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick (Con)
Does the Minister agree that the strictures on naming people in these circumstances should apply not just to the police but to the public and Members of the House of Commons and House of Lords? Is he aware of the evidence given to the House of Commons Home Affairs Select Committee by Detective Chief Inspector Paul Settle, the senior investigating officer for Operation Fairbank? When commenting on the activities of Mr Tom Watson MP, who had called for the investigation into Leon Brittan, he said that it was a “baseless witch hunt”. Does the Minister also agree that Mr Watson’s letter to the DPP undermined the police and that his conduct was very damaging to future investigations into child abuse? Surely, Mr Watson’s activities were wholly reprehensible. He had a duty to inform the police, and then keep quiet.
Lord Bates
I appreciate my noble friend’s feelings, but he will understand that, because some aspects of these issues are the subject of ongoing review and investigation, it is not possible for me to comment further. Suffice it to say that, because of the seriousness of the allegations, it behoves every person in public life, wherever they are, to apply the most rigorous and judicious process to the words and language they use and to the accusations they make.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, from detailed personal knowledge of the Paul Gambaccini case, from the beginning, it appears that the police feel under political pressure to investigate such cases to the nth degree, even when it becomes immediately apparent that a prosecution is unlikely. Does the Minister believe it is time for the Government to call on the police to exercise a more proportionate approach to such cases?
Lord Bates
This is a very difficult issue. We have historic cases in which very serious allegations were made, and in places such as Rotherham, Manchester and Oxford, there is often a public outcry and a feeling that the police have not taken the claims seriously enough. That has to be balanced against the right to fairness and due process throughout. In the past, child sexual exploitation has far too often been swept under the carpet; it needs to be brought out into the open and reviewed. That is why we set up the inquiry and why we have told the police that they need to investigate all allegations based on their credibility, rather than that of the complainant.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
The Minister referred to the ACPO guidelines. If I understand them correctly, the guidelines accept that in exceptional circumstances, the police may release the name of a suspect if it is considered to be in the public interest to do so. Also, when a media organisation has already discovered a suspect’s name through investigative journalism and seek confirmation of it, the police are permitted to confirm the name. Do the Government believe that the ACPO guidelines should be amended or reviewed?
Lord Bates
The College of Policing guidelines on the relationship with the media are currently under review. A number of the points raised during this Question would merit submission to that review.
Lord Dear (CB)
My Lords, the Minister mentioned apologies and the machinery for handling police complaints, but frankly, that does not go far enough. If I correctly sense the mood of your Lordships’ House, while all of us perhaps understand that there is some advantage on some occasions to publicising the identity of a person subject to inquiry, that is massively and frequently outweighed by the considerable reputational damage not only to those already in the public eye—public figures, if one likes—but to those who hitherto enjoyed anonymity. Is the Minister willing to explore with me and others introducing legislation at the earliest opportunity to prevent personal identification until the preferment of a charge by the police?
Lord Bates
That specific idea was raised by the Home Affairs Select Committee in one of its recommendations. As the noble Lord will know better than most, it gives rise to particular issues and difficulties when applied across the board in all cases. But it is certainly something we should look at, and there will be legislative opportunities, most notably in the Police and Criminal Justice Bill, to consider such issues further.
Lord Morris of Aberavon (Lab)
My Lords, if injustice can occur in these circumstances, how is it justified to release names when there is no charge?
Lord Bates
The police very much need to deal with such issues on a case-by-case basis. I am struggling to think of particular circumstances, but they might include a threat to life, the prevention or detection of a crime, or public interest and confidence. Those are the tests that the police have to pass before it is done, and when it is done, it should be done in a formal way, not by leaking—which, of course, was the subject of another inquiry by Lord Justice Leveson, into the culture and ethics of the press.
Disabled People: Independent Living
(9 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Campbell of Surbiton
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they are monitoring how local authorities disburse money previously disbursed from the Independent Living Fund to enable disabled people to live as independently as they were before the closure of that fund.
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Altmann) (Con)
My Lords, the Government are conducting research on the impact of the closure of the Independent Living Fund based on interviews with a sample of former users. They are also conducting research on the implementation of the Care Act 2014, which made the Independent Living Fund’s main features—personalisation, choice and control—part of the mainstream social care system.
Baroness Campbell of Surbiton (CB)
I thank the Minister for her reply. Is she aware that two independent research reports, carried out by In Control and Scope, have been published in the past month? Both found that more than half of disabled people using social care can no longer get the support they need to live independently. Now that the Independent Living Fund has been transferred to the wider social care system, will the Government commit, in the spending review, to invest in social care that will directly ensure that disabled people’s independent living support continues in the future? It would be a travesty if it returns to 1980s provision.
Baroness Altmann
The Government are committed to ensuring that people who require care and support have choice and control over their lives, and they are aware that independent living is often vital to the well-being of those we are trying to assist. That is why the Government added the extra chapter to the Care Act guidance before closing the Independent Living Fund. We will be monitoring the situation, and local authorities now have a statutory duty to ensure minimum standards.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, many disabled people view local authorities as uncommitted to independent living. They say they face a different social worker each time, a lack of understanding of their needs and very bureaucratic assessment processes, leading to further stress for them. Can the Minister reassure your Lordships’ House that the Government have a plan in place to monitor council spending on independent living and to ensure that those in need can access the benefits to which they are entitled?
Baroness Altmann
My Lords, the Government are committed to this matter and are following it up with research into both the general implementation of the Care Act and the specific impact on former users of the Independent Living Fund. We do not currently have any evidence that those affected by the closure of the Independent Living Fund, 94% of whom were already receiving local authority support, have been unable to maintain the standard of care they require.
Baroness Hollins (CB)
My Lords, is the Minister aware that the recent survey by In Control, referred to by my noble friend, found a significant reduction in well-being among those receiving social support? Will not those transferring from the Independent Living Fund also be affected, and how will the Government prevent the situation getting worse for all those receiving care?
Baroness Altmann
My Lords, the Government are committed to spending on care and support for those who are disabled and vulnerable. Indeed, every year between now and 2020, spending will increase beyond the 2010 level. Local authorities supported the changes to the Independent Living Fund, and people will now be dealing with only one system, whereas previously they dealt with two. The ILF was a discretionary trust; now, there is a statutory underpinning to protect users to the minimum required standard.
Lord Elton (Con)
My Lords, when will the Government take steps to make it the norm that people dependent on local authority support have a nominated member of the support team as their principal carer so that they establish a continuous relationship with somebody in the outside world?
Baroness Altmann
My Lords, the Government believe that local authorities are best placed to decide what intervention and support disabled people require. I should add that all Independent Living Fund users had one-to-one visits, and reports were sent to local authorities before the scheme was closed.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I can see that the Minister has a brief that requires her to tell us how committed the Government are, but I wonder whether she can listen to some of the stories she has heard today. From the comments made by the noble Baronesses, Lady Campbell, Lady Hollins and Lady Brinton, and from the two reports that have been mentioned, it is quite clear that there is very serious disquiet that people who used to get help from the ILF are not now getting it. Therefore, I ask her again: what plans do the Government have specifically to ensure that disabled people are able to get the care that they used to get and can expect to get in the future?
Baroness Altmann
My Lords, as I have said, we are monitoring the impact of the Independent Living Fund: 94% of users were already receiving local authority support. Local authorities have an obligation under the Care Act to meet the minimum standards required for all those who need care and support, including taking account of their requirement to live independently. I assure the House that the Government are committed to supporting those who need care and support. As I said, the spending will be higher each year between now and 2020 than it was in 2010. This will rely on local authorities carrying out their duties, which we will monitor.
Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting: Human Rights
(9 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Berridge
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what action they propose to take to raise human rights issues at the forthcoming Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Malta.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for International Development (Baroness Verma) (Con)
My Lords, Ministers will seek opportunities at CHOGM for constructive dialogue, while avoiding an approach that exposes divisions and entrenches positions. The UK remains absolutely committed to universal human rights. The Government are committed to combatting discrimination and violence and to promoting efforts to address human rights abuses throughout the Commonwealth more generally.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
I am grateful to the Minister for that Answer. One important addition in many nations across the Commonwealth has been the development of national human rights institutions based on models akin to the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission. The chairmanship of the Commonwealth forum for those institutions is passing to the Northern Ireland commission. Will the Minister outline whether there are plans to give additional resources to the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission so that it can perform its important convening role across the Commonwealth?
Baroness Verma
My Lords, the answer to my noble friend’s question is yes. I am pleased to confirm that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is making contributions from programme funds to allow the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission to take on its role as chair of the Commonwealth Forum of National Human Rights Institutions with an agreed fund.
Lord Chidgey (LD)
My Lords, in December 2012, the Commonwealth charter was adopted. Under the heading “Human Rights”, it states:
“We are implacably opposed to all forms of discrimination, whether rooted in gender, race, colour, creed, political belief or other grounds”.
Yet almost three years later, the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative report, Civil Society and the Commonwealth, found that the Commonwealth is not living up to its core values and is losing relevance to the international community. Will the Government therefore press at the Malta CHOGM for a Commonwealth ministerial action group on human rights abuses, particularly the use of obsolete 19th-century laws to prosecute homosexuality and other gender issues in this, the 21st century?
Baroness Verma
The noble Lord is absolutely right in highlighting the charter. We agree with him that we must push hard for the Commonwealth to meet those commitments under the charter. All forms of discrimination are unacceptable and we will do our bit at CHOGM to raise those questions with the countries that continue to abuse the charter.
Lord Singh of Wimbledon (CB)
My Lords, will Her Majesty’s Government use the opportunity of the summit to ensure a greater commitment to human rights within the Commonwealth by suggesting, on the lines already mentioned, the creation of a human rights task force within the secretariat to monitor and tackle human rights abuse wherever it occurs within this unique and important group of countries?
Baroness Verma
The noble Lord reiterates what the noble Lord, Lord Chidgey, said. The important thing is that there is a charter and we should ask all countries within the Commonwealth to uphold that charter. We need to push hard. It is not about creating more task forces; it is about pushing and working together to make sure that the Commonwealth is relevant in today’s world. In doing that, I hope that a new Secretary-General will, as part of their commitment and role, push hard for countries within the Commonwealth to adhere to the rules and regulations of the Commonwealth.
Baroness Whitaker (Lab)
Will the Government take the opportunity to make representations to the Government of Bangladesh about the assassination of humanists and others because they do not profess a religion?
Baroness Verma
The noble Baroness raises some important points. We have to make sure that no space is created where freedom of speech is not allowed. The UK Government raise this issue regularly as a matter of course. Wherever we can, we will make sure that all countries, including Bangladesh, that are closing the space for freedom of speech address these issues so that the Commonwealth meets its commitment to the Commonwealth charter.
Lord Cashman (Lab)
My Lords, the criminalisation of homosexuality is a relic of our colonial past. Forty out of 53 Commonwealth countries criminalise homo- sexuality. At CHOGM, will the Government advocate and promote the decriminalisation of homosexuality within the Commonwealth, support those countries that have already done so and express regret for the UK’s historic role in the global criminalisation of homosexuality?
Baroness Verma
My Lords, I welcome the noble Lord to his post on the Front Bench and I look forward to working with him, particularly in this area. At CHOGM, I will be chairing the round table on LGBT issues. It is absolutely unacceptable in the 21st century that we are still looking at these issues, but we have to do it with sensitivity. We have to work with countries where these are sensitive issues and make sure that we continue to raise them while also working locally on the ground, with grass-roots organisations, to offer help and support.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, will my noble friend try to ensure that it is made plain to the new Government in Burma—or Myanmar, as it is sometimes called—that they would be most welcome in the Commonwealth?
Baroness Verma
My noble friend is right to raise the issue of the Burma elections, which allow us an opportunity to make some real progress with the reforms process that started in 2011. We look forward to working with Burma.
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
My Lords, these are sensitive issues, but is it not true that all these Governments have signed the Commonwealth charter? Is the Government not distressed that, among the list of the worst offenders in, for example, the persecution of Christians are several Commonwealth countries, notably in south-east Asia? If the Commonwealth is serious, should it not have some means of monitoring or peer-reviewing how countries are performing in relation to their commitments under the charter?
Baroness Verma
Again, the noble Lord raises an important issue. We regularly urge Governments to protect the right to practise religious belief free from persecution and discrimination. We shall continue to do so.
Rob Lawrie
Lord Alton of Liverpool
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what representations they are making to the French authorities about the case of Mr Rob Lawrie, arrested in France for attempting to rescue a refugee child and to bring her to her relatives in the United Kingdom.
The Earl of Courtown (Con)
My Lords, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has been in contact with the French authorities regarding Mr Lawrie’s arrest. It is ready to provide consular assistance to Mr Lawrie, should he request this. However, we cannot interfere with another country’s police investigation or judicial proceedings.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
I thank the Minister for his reply. Rob Lawrie, a former soldier now facing five years in prison, rescued a four year-old girl from the jungle camp at Calais. In the words of the petition now signed by 100,000 people, were these not the actions of
“an ordinary man who was trying to do the right thing in extraordinary circumstances”?
As we recoil in horror at the atrocities committed in Paris, and witness the many shocking consequences of mass migration, what are we doing to prioritise—as he tried to do—the special plight of children, thousands of whom are now reported to have gone missing and who have been caught up in events entirely beyond their control?
The Earl of Courtown (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord raises an incredibly important point. I am sure that the thought of all these children who have gone missing is quite appalling to all noble Lords. The noble Lord also refers to the Save the Children proposals. We looked very seriously at them but major international organisations, such as UNHCR, advised caution on relocating unaccompanied children. This is why the Dublin Regulations are so important in relation to the children who have come into Europe. It is important that we register and give identities to these children who find themselves on our shores.
Baroness Masham of Ilton (CB)
My Lords, has the child been reunited with her family?
The Earl of Courtown
My Lords, as I understand the situation, the child’s father is in Calais. However, I cannot give any more information at the moment, so I will write to the noble Baroness.
Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale (Lab)
My Lords, as we have discussed before in the Chamber, not only is the situation dire for these children when they arrive in Europe, it is dire when they arrive in Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan, as well as in Iraq. Does the Minister agree that the United Kingdom bears a special responsibility to those children who have been born in Iraq since 2003 and who face the prospect of not having permanent schooling, being internally displaced, or living in fear of ISIL and other threats? Do the United Kingdom Government intend to support those children through UNICEF and other organisations to make sure that they have better opportunities in the future?
The Earl of Courtown
My Lords, the noble Lord makes some very pertinent points relating to children to Iraq. With regard to the Syrian resettlement scheme, the noble Lord and the whole House will be glad to hear that children and adolescents are being especially looked at for resettlement in the United Kingdom.
Lord Roberts of Llandudno (LD)
Does the Minister agree that of the 10,000 children who have arrived in Italy, some 4,000 have gone missing? The situation we face today is very different from any that we have faced in the past, and that means that a rethink is needed by our Government, especially when they bring forward proposals in the new Immigration Bill. We must remember that children are our special concern. Lloyd George said that he wanted to build a world fit for heroes to live in; we want to build one fit for children to live in.
The Earl of Courtown
The noble Lord is quite right. I have not seen the figures he referred to, but obviously children are important for our future. I know that my colleagues in the department will be keeping a close watch on this debate.
Lord Hylton (CB)
My Lords, will the Government ensure that an excessive burden of unaccompanied children does not fall on the county of Kent, where so many have been concentrated? Further, will they make sure that those children who have been taken in to local authority care do not then go missing?
The Earl of Courtown
My Lords, I understand that we are working on a redistribution, and I know that this is something which my honourable friend in another place, Mr Richard Harrington, is looking at.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)
My Lords, following on from the question of the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, the Minister will be aware that outcomes for looked-after children in this country are not especially good, and one might suspect that children who have had a particularly rotten start in life as refugees from a war zone are more vulnerable than most. What will the Government do to ensure that those children are looked after in a way that ensures that they have a good outcome for their adulthood?
The Earl of Courtown
I apologise, but I did not catch the whole of the question. It is our duty to do as much as possible to help these children and thus ensure their futures. I will write to the noble Baroness if there is anything more I can add.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I think that the Minister referred to the report from Save the Children when he responded to the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Llandudno. Will he undertake to meet representatives of Save the Children to discuss that report? As the noble Lord correctly said, it has identified some 10,000 children arriving in Italy in one recent year, 4,000 of whom have gone missing. I know that the noble Lord shares my concern about the actual implications of going missing.
The Earl of Courtown
My Lords, I will pass on that question to the Minister whose responsibility that is, if the noble Lord finds that acceptable.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)
My Lords, is the Minister aware that at the moment an exhibition in Prague runs the length of Wenceslas Square about the children who were brought to this country in 1938 by Sir Nicholas Winton in that magnificent humanitarian gesture of his? No other country would take those children. Is it not time that this Government adopted a similar principle towards the children who are clamouring for help in Europe at the moment?
The Earl of Courtown
The noble Lord reminds the House of the great work that was done at that period. The whole point is to try to stop these children making the journey in the first place. This is what we are working at through the departmental work and, particularly, with what has been happening in Valletta recently, where we have been concentrating on the Valletta action plan, which is to get people work and sustainable lives in their own countries.
G20 and the Paris Attacks
(9 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Stowell of Beeston) (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House I will now repeat a Statement made by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister in another place. The Statement is as follows:
“With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a Statement on the terrorist attack in Paris and the G20 in Turkey this weekend. On Paris, the Home Secretary gave the House the chilling statistics yesterday, and now we know that among the victims was a 36-year-old Briton, Nick Alexander, who was killed at the Bataclan. I know the thoughts and prayers of the whole House will be with the families and friends of all those affected. On Saturday I spoke to President Hollande to express the condolences of the British people and our commitment to help in whatever way we can.
After our horror and our anger must come our resolve and our determination to rid our world of this evil. So let me set out the steps we are taking to deal with this terrorist threat. The more we learn about what happened in Paris, the more it justifies the full-spectrum approach we have discussed before in this House.
When we are dealing with radicalised European Muslims, linked to ISIL in Syria and inspired by a poisonous narrative of extremism, we need an approach that covers the full range: military power, counter-terrorism, expertise and defeating the poisonous narrative that is the root cause of this evil. Let me take each in turn.
First, we should be clear that this murderous violence requires a strong security response. That means continuing our efforts to degrade and destroy ISIL in Syria and Iraq. And, where necessary, it means working with our allies to strike against those who pose a direct threat to the safety of British people around the world.
Together, coalition forces have now damaged over 13,500 targets. We have helped local forces to regain 30% of ISIL territory in Iraq. We have helped to retake Kobane and push ISIL back towards Raqqa and, on Friday, Kurdish forces retook Sinjar.
The UK is playing its part—training local forces, striking targets in Iraq and providing vital intelligence support. Last Thursday, the United States carried out an air strike in Raqqa, Syria, targeting Mohammed Emwazi, the ISIL executioner known as Jihadi John. This was a result of months of painstaking work in which America and Britain worked hand in glove to stop this vicious murderer.
It is important that the whole House understands the reality of the situation we are in. There is no government in Syria we can work with, particularly not in that part of Syria. There are no rigorous police investigations or independent courts upholding justice in Raqqa. We have no military on the ground to detain those preparing plots against our people. In this situation, we do not protect the British people by sitting back and wishing that things were different. We have to act to keep our people safe. And that is what this Government will always do.
Secondly, on counterterrorism here in the UK, over the past year alone our outstanding police and security services have already foiled no fewer than seven terrorist plots right here in Britain. The people in our security services work incredibly hard. They are a credit to our nation. We should pay tribute to them again in our House today, and now we must do more to help them in their vital work.
So in next week’s strategic defence and security review, we will make a major additional investment in our world-class intelligence agencies. This will include over 1,900 additional security and intelligence staff and more money to increase our network of counterterrorism experts in the Middle East, north Africa, south Asia and sub-Saharan Africa.
At the G20 summit in Turkey this weekend, we agreed additional steps better to protect ourselves from the threat of foreign fighters by sharing intelligence and stopping them travelling. We also agreed for the first time ever to work together to strengthen global aviation security. We need robust and consistent standards of aviation security in every airport in the world, and the UK will at least double its spending in this area.
Thirdly, to defeat this terrorist threat in the long run we must also understand and address its root causes. That means confronting the poisonous ideology of Islamist extremism itself and, as I have argued before, going after both violent and non-violent extremists. Those that sow the poison but stop short of promoting violence are part of the problem. We will improve integration, not least by inspecting and shutting down any educational institutions that are teaching intolerance, and we will actively encourage reforming and moderate Muslim voices to speak up and challenge the extremists, as so many already do.
It cannot be said enough that the extremist ideology is not true Islam, but it does not work to deny any connection between the religion of Islam and the extremists, not least because these extremists are self-identifying as Muslims. There is no point in denying that. We need to take apart their arguments and demonstrate how wrong they are. In doing so, we need the continued help of Muslim communities and Muslim scholars. They are playing a powerful role, and I commend them for their essential work. We cannot stand neutral in this battle of ideas. We have to back those who share our values with practical help, funding, campaigns, protection and political representation. This is a fundamental part of how we can defeat terrorism both at home and abroad.
Turning to the G20 summit, there were also important discussions on Syria and on dealing with other long-term threats to our security, such as climate change. Let me briefly address them. On Syria, we discussed how we can do more to help all those in desperate humanitarian need and how to find a political solution to the conflict. Britain, as has often been said, is already providing £1.1 billion in vital life-saving assistance, which makes us the second-largest bilateral donor in the world. Last week, we committed a further £275 million to be spent in Turkey, a country hosting more than 2 million refugees. In February the United Kingdom will seek to raise further significant new funding by co-hosting a donors conference in London together with Germany, Norway, Kuwait and the United Nations.
None of this is a substitute for the most urgent need of all: to find a political solution that brings peace to Syria and enables the millions of refugees to return home. Yesterday, I held talks with President Putin. We reviewed the progress made by our Foreign Ministers in Vienna to deliver a transition in Syria. We still have disagreements, there are still big gaps between us, but there is progress. I also met President Obama and European leaders at the G20 and we agreed some important concrete steps forward, including basing some British aircraft alongside other NATO allies at the airbase in Incirlik, if that is the decision of the North Atlantic Council that will meet shortly. They would be in an air defence role to support Turkey at this difficult time.
We also agreed about the importance of stepping up our joint effort to deal with ISIL in Iraq, Syria and wherever it manifests itself. This raises important questions for our country. We must ask ourselves whether we are really doing all we can be doing, all we should be doing, to deal with the threat of ISIL and the threat it poses to us directly not just through the measures we are taking at home, but by dealing with ISIL on the ground in the territory it controls.
We are taking part in air strikes over Iraq, where we have struck more than 350 targets and where significant action has been taken in recent hours, but ISIL is not present just in Iraq. It is operates across the border in Syria, a border that is meaningless to it because, as far as ISIL is concerned, it is all one space. It is in Syria —in Raqqa—that ISIL has its headquarters and it is from Raqqa that some of the main threats against this country are planned and orchestrated. Raqqa, if you like, is the head of the snake.
Over Syria we are supporting our allies—the US, France, Jordan and the Gulf countries–with intelligence, surveillance and refuelling. But I believe, as I have said many times before, we should be doing more. We face a direct and growing threat to our country and we need to deal with it, not just in Iraq, but in Syria too. I have always said there is a strong case for us doing so; our allies are asking us to do this and the case for doing so has only grown stronger after the Paris attacks. We cannot and should not expect others to carry the burdens and the risks of protecting our country.
I recognise that there are concerns in this House. What difference would action by the UK really make? Could it make the situation worse? How does the recent Russian action affect the situation? Above all, how would a decision by Britain to join in strikes against ISIL in Syria fit into a comprehensive strategy for dealing with ISIL and a diplomatic strategy to bring the war in Syria to an end? I understand these concerns and I know they must be answered. I believe they can be answered. Many of them were expressed in the recent report by the Foreign Affairs Select Committee.
My firm conviction is that we need to act against ISIL in Syria. There is a compelling case for doing so. It is for the Government, I accept, to make that case to this House and to the country. I can therefore announce that as a first important step to do so, I will respond personally to the report of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee. I will set out our comprehensive strategy for dealing with ISIL and our vision for a more stable and peaceful Middle East. This strategy—in my view—should include taking the action in Syria I have spoken about. I hope that setting out the arguments in this way I can help build support right across the House for the action I believe it is necessary to take. That is what I am going to be putting in place over the coming days and I hope colleagues from across the House will engage with that and make clear their views so we can have a strong vote in the House of Commons and do the right thing for our country.
Finally, the G20 also addressed other longer-term threats to global security. In just two weeks’ time, we will gather in Paris to agree a global climate change deal. This time, unlike Kyoto, it will include the USA and China. Here at this summit, I urged leaders to keep up the ambition of limiting global warming by 2050 to less than two degrees above pre-industrial levels. Every country needs to put forward its programme for reducing carbon emissions and as G20 countries we must also do more to provide the financing that is needed to help poorer countries around the world switch to greener forms of energy and adapt to the effects of climate change.
We also agreed that we should do more to wipe out the corruption that chokes off development, and deal with antimicrobial resistance. Corruption is the cancer at the heart of so many of the problems the world faces today, from migrants fleeing corrupt African states to corrupt Governments undermining our efforts on global poverty by preventing people getting the revenues and the services that are rightfully theirs. While if antibiotics stop working properly—the antimicrobial resistance issue—millions will die unnecessarily. These are both vital issues on which the United Kingdom is taking a real lead.
Let me conclude by returning to the terrorist threat. Here in the UK the threat level is already severe, which means an attack is highly likely and will remain so. That is why we continue to encourage the public to remain vigilant and we will do all we can to support our police and intelligence agencies as they work around the clock. The terrorist aim is clear. It is to divide us and to destroy our way of life. Now more than ever we must come together and stand united, carrying on with the way of life that we know and love. Tonight England play France at Wembley. The match goes ahead. Our people stand together as they have done so many times throughout history when faced with evil. Once again, together we will prevail. I commend this Statement to the House”.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Baroness for repeating the Prime Minister’s Statement. I am sure other noble Lords shared similar emotions to mine as we watched the horror of the attacks in Paris unfold on Friday evening. Such deliberate, calculated evil is almost impossible to comprehend, especially in such a beautiful city, where so many of us will have happy memories and remember good times.
I totally endorse the comments already made about our thoughts and prayers being with those who were murdered and maimed, their friends and their families, but also with the citizens of Paris and the whole of France, whose lives and confidence have changed dramatically as a result of what happened on Friday evening. There can never be any justification for such acts of terror, so we share their hurt, their anger and their resolve. We also share the determination to protect our citizens, and those of other countries, from such attacks. Such violent attacks are totally indiscriminate. Those of all faiths and none can be killed, maimed or lose loved ones, and those of all faiths and none have come together to condemn universally those responsible, without reservation.
I reiterate and reinforce the commitments made by my colleagues in the other place: this is an issue above and beyond any party politics. A Government’s first duty is to the safety, security and well-being of their citizens, and we will work with the Government to fulfil that duty.
The Prime Minister outlined the action that has already been taken with our international allies to tackle those who create death, mayhem and fear. I welcome that he acknowledged, and said that he understands, the concerns raised by the Foreign Affairs Select Committee and others about the way forward, and how and whether further military action, such as airstrikes on Syria, should be part of that response. We welcome his commitment to respond personally, as the noble Baroness said.
I know the noble Baroness understands the huge human cost of the conflict in Syria and the necessity for a full, strategic plan to seek a politically sustainable resolution that will bring peace to Syria, and for a longer-term strategic plan to seek to deal with the aftermath. The thousands who have fled their homes include so many of those who will be needed to return to build the peace. The Prime Minister’s comments at the G20 yesterday, when he said:
“I think people want to know that there is a whole plan for the future of Syria”,
and for,
“the future of the region”,
were widely welcomed. To be successful, any plan will need national and international support.
I shall raise specific questions about security here at home. We welcome the additional support and money being made available for security and intelligence. We welcome the announcement of greater resources for tackling cybercrime and terrorism. But when asked, when he made the Statement today in the other place, about the role of community and front-line policing—given the cuts that have been made and are being planned to the “eyes and ears” on the ground—the Prime Minister did not respond.
There are many in your Lordships’ House who, through professional experience, can provide real examples of how community policing is essential and successful in tackling crime and terrorism. On 28 October, I asked the noble Lord, Lord Bates, about this very issue. My Question was prompted by those in the most senior roles in counterterrorism in the UK being very clear that community police, through the normal course of their work, pick up intelligence and information that is essential to fighting serious crime and identifying terrorism threats. Of the proposed further cuts in policing, Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe, the Met commissioner, said:
“I genuinely worry about the safety of London”.
I understand that the noble Baroness is unlikely to answer a question that the Prime Minister failed to, but can she assure your Lordships’ House that she recognises the seriousness of this issue? Will she commit to raise it directly with the Prime Minister and report back to your Lordships’ House?
Those seeking to leave and enter this country, including British citizens, will face increased levels of checks and security at borders. It is right that visitors and refugees fleeing the brutality of ISIL and chaos in the region should be subject to such security, but the noble Baroness will also know of the reductions made in border security staff at ports and airports. What plans are there to ensure that staffing levels will be appropriate to deal with the increased level of security required?
In recent years, the Government have introduced a number of new measures designed to tackle terrorism. One referred to in the Statement, which the noble Lord, Lord Bates, and I discussed at length in the course of a recent Bill, is about closing down any educational institutions teaching intolerance. Is this commitment and others to be met from existing resources, or will new resources be made available? To what extent is the Treasury involved in such decisions on new powers?
Lastly on security, the Prime Minister said in his responses that all members of the Privy Council can receive security briefings on these issues. The noble Baroness may be aware that I have previously requested such briefings when speaking for the Opposition on security and counterterrorism, but I was not successful in receiving any. The Official Opposition in the other place has welcomed the briefings to date, so will she confirm the Prime Minister’s commitment to briefings for privy counsellors?
I welcome the understandably brief comments at the end of the Statement on the other issues that were raised at the G20. Specifically on global warming, we welcome the fact that the USA and China will join the Paris talks and we look forward to hearing more on that after the conference. However, the noble Baroness also referred to the UK taking the lead on action to tackle corruption in a number of areas. This is essential. I appreciate that there is not enough time today to cover the whole range of issues that this raises, but can she provide further information on the areas and the success of any measures that have been taken? If the noble Baroness is unable to respond today, perhaps she will write with more details.
Finally, in the Statement, the noble Baroness, repeating the Prime Minister, asked the public to be vigilant. We must, of course, do that, but let us also pay tribute to those in the emergency services and the first responders, who never know from day to day what they may have to attend to. It is right that this House should recognise their service.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness (LD)
My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Baroness the Leader of the House for repeating the Prime Minister’s Statement. On behalf of my noble friends, I join in condemning the atrocities in Paris on Friday evening, and those who perpetrated them. I also offer condolences to the families and friends of those who were killed, those who were injured and those whose lives will have been shattered. I also join the noble Baroness the Leader of the Opposition in paying tribute to the emergency services and the ordinary citizens who responded with such evident compassion and help.
I also ask the noble Baroness the Leader of the House to join me in expressing sympathy for the victims of the suicide bombings in Beirut on Thursday, which killed more than 40 people as they, too, went about their daily lives. It is important to send a signal by showing our solidarity with the people of Beirut, as we do—rightly—with the people of Paris. While ISIL likes to frame the conflict as one between the West and Islam, is not the truth that, day in, day out, ISIL is murdering scores of Muslim believers?
We, too, support what the Government are doing. We accept that the primary duty of any Government is to safeguard their citizens. I welcome the announcement of additional support for the security services in general and for strengthening cybersecurity in particular. I hope the Leader of the House will endorse what the Prime Minister has said in another place about the importance of safeguarding human rights. ISIL detests our diversity, our freedoms and our values; we let it win if we compromise on any of these.
I also echo what the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, said about police funding. Reassurances have been given about the counterterrorism element of police funding. I will not elaborate on what she said because she very clearly and concisely put the point about the importance of community policing and the intelligence-gathering that can be done through it. I repeat her request to the Leader of the House to recognise the strength of feeling on this and to undertake to take the matter up with the Prime Minister.
It would be very easy, in the aftermath of such outrages, to make knee-jerk, rather than properly considered, responses. I therefore welcome the fact that the Prime Minister says that he will respond personally to the report from the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs in the House of Commons on military intervention in Syria. I also welcome the Prime Minister’s acknowledgement that many questions and concerns have been raised—including some from these Benches—about the wisdom of joining in airstrikes and adding our explosives to the tons that have already been dropped on Syria. Specifically, the Prime Minister, in articulating some of these concerns, asked what difference action by the UK would make. Would it make the situation worse? How does the recent Russian action affect the situation? How, above all, would a decision by Britain to join strikes against ISIL in Syria fit into a comprehensive strategy for dealing with ISIL and a diplomatic strategy for bringing the war in Syria to an end?
He went on to say:
“I understand those concerns, and they must be answered. I believe that they can be answered”.
I do not expect the noble Baroness to give us the answers today, but will she give us some indication of when those questions are likely to be answered? When the Prime Minister says that he will set out a comprehensive strategy for dealing with ISIL and our vision for a more stable and peaceful Middle East, will he also be consulting our allies before he makes that announcement on his strategy? It is important that we reflect on the allies. He has said that progress has been made in Vienna to deliver transition in Syria, but we are entitled to ask some questions about the nature of the international coalition. It is important that it is international. We have called in the past for engagement with Russia and Iran but clearly, too, there are a number of different countries and partners—such as the Sunni monarchies in the Gulf and Turkey—that do not all share the same priorities and objectives. Trying to pull together that coalition is clearly a complex matter. What specific steps are the United Kingdom Government taking to make sure that when these talks take place and a coalition is being put together, everyone is pulling in the same direction?
At home, the Statement recognises the importance of engaging with the Muslim communities. Britain’s diverse Muslim communities are affected by conflict and they are as well aware as anyone of the efforts being made by those who would pervert Islam to try to sow poison in those communities. We need an active dialogue with the leaders of our Muslim communities on an appropriate response. When she held office, the noble Baroness, Lady Warsi, did sterling work in taking this forward and I would welcome reassurances that the level of work and engagement that she undertook continues to be undertaken by Ministers.
Finally, the Statement also referred to climate change. Not surprisingly, given the enormity of what happened on Friday, it has been somewhat overlooked but it will be in Paris next month that people gather again to discuss climate change. The Secretary of State at DECC is reported to have indicated recently that the forecast is that we will manage only 11.5% of energy from renewables by 2020, rather than the EU obligation of 15%. Can the Minister confirm this and, if it is indeed the case, will she not take the opportunity that this House has provided by taking out the clause that would accelerate the ending of the renewables obligation for onshore wind? Perhaps she could reflect again on that and just quietly drop it.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, for their comments and support for the remarks of the Prime Minister in his Statement. I certainly share in the warm thanks of the noble Baroness for everything that the emergency services do in and around our country, alongside the security services, in keeping us safe. I understand very much the risks that they face.
Various points and questions were put to me, and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, raised a number about policing, which were echoed by the noble and learned Lord. I will make a few points in response. First, it is absolutely this Government’s commitment that the police forces should have the resources necessary to do their work. In the previous Government and this Government, we have not just protected the funding for counterterrorism policing but are actually increasing it, as has been announced in the last few weeks. More general police funding will be part of the spending review but it is worth noting that, over the last few years, the police have worked very hard to achieve efficiencies in police forces in order for them to apply their resources to front-line policing. Community policing numbers have actually risen in recent years.
Secondly, the noble Baroness raised points about additional resources for counter-extremism and protecting our borders. It has been evident from what we have said in the last few days—not in response to the events in Paris but as part of a clear plan for ensuring that the right funding is available for these essential services—that we are putting money where it needs to be and that by having a growing economy, we are ensuring that we use our resources effectively, in the way that is needed to deliver the security that we all expect.
The noble Baroness raised a point about briefings for privy counsellors, and I will take that issue away. I certainly do not want to exclude her from any appropriate briefing that is available for privy counsellors. I will get back to her outside the Chamber.
The noble Baroness also asked about corruption’s being on the agenda at the G20 summit. This is a matter on which the UK has very much taken the lead. One of the steps we have taken, which other countries are now following, is to ensure greater publication and transparency of ownership of companies. We will be implementing a public register of company ownership in the UK from next year, and hosting an anti-corruption summit next year. We believe, as I said in the Statement, that this is a big contributing factor to overall safety in global matters. I am pleased that we are very much in the forefront of action in that regard.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, rightly referred to the terrible attack by ISIL in Beirut a few days before that which took place in Paris. I very much share his view and the point he made that ISIL is quite indiscriminate: it is not attacking just western countries but a range of different countries. We must never ignore the fact that this is a group of extremists, of violent people—the Prime Minister has called them a “death cult”—who attack Muslims as well as people of other religious faiths. The noble and learned Lord asked about protecting human rights and liberties. Of course, these terrorists—this evil group—are trying to remove from us our liberties and our belief in liberty and the way of life we hold so dear. We are taking steps to combat them in order to protect the liberties and human rights which are an important part of our society.
The noble and learned Lord asked various questions about the response the Prime Minister will make to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee in the other place. He also asked what discussion there has been and will be between the United Kingdom and allies who, like us, are seeking to defeat ISIL and bring stability to the Middle East. The Prime Minister held several bilateral talks while he was in Turkey yesterday, and the Foreign Secretary was very much involved in and at the forefront of talks in Vienna at the weekend. We continue to talk and remain in contact with all interested parties in this way.
We are just recognising as a House one of the reasons why some of our allies are keen for us to go further than we have. Although we are not contributing militarily in Syria in the way that other countries are, we are doing an awful lot already in contributing to the effort against ISIL. Noble Lords have heard me talk about the contribution we have made in air strikes in Iraq. Some of our ground forces are training Iraqi ground forces on combating IEDs—we are doing a lot to support the coalition.
Some of those countries are keen for us to get involved further, particularly with the air strikes, because we have some of the best equipment for targeting these terrorists in a way which protects civilians. Other countries, including the United States, do not have this. By contributing to the military effort in Syria, we could make a big contribution not just by attacking ISIL, but by doing so in a way that affords greater protection to civilians.
The noble and learned Lord mentioned climate change and the Paris summit in a couple of weeks’ time. Clearly, this remains an important priority for us, and we are committed, as we have been throughout, to making our contribution to tackling climate change and ensuring that all other countries make their effort as well.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con)
Your Lordships will, I hope, be pleased to know that the question time period has been extended to half an hour, which I hope will be good news—but that will enable more questions rather than lengthy questions.
Lord Singh of Wimbledon (CB)
My Lords, if a killer disease was rampant, every effort would be made to find its causes and the environment in which it thrives. With Islamic extremism, we need to do much more to look at the ways in which radicalisation takes place. There are verses in the Koran that were written for particular circumstances 500 years ago, when the infant community was being besieged and its very existence threatened—words such as, “Kill them wherever you find them”, which are pretty direct. They were written for different circumstances, but they are being used today by those people who want to radicalise disadvantaged youths, or youths generally, to move them towards this extremism. Do the Government agree that they and the Muslim community need to do much more to ensure that young people in mosques understand the context in which some of these verses are written—and that, perhaps, the explanation should be in English?
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
My Lords, we published the counter-extremism strategy in October. It is very important to stress that it is about supporting mainstream and inclusive Muslimist voices, and showing that we actively back them. There are four strands to our counter-extremism strategy, and building cohesion among communities and ensuring that we take steps to prevent the radicalisation that is such a serious threat is very much part of that.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (LD)
My Lords, will the Government consider expediting the enactment of the Investigatory Powers Bill, perhaps with a sunset clause and detailed post-legislative scrutiny, to ensure that the security services have the proportionate facilities they need, and to enable an informed judgment to be made of the provisions in action?
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
I know that the noble Lord and many others in this House are concerned, and rightly so, to ensure that our security services and counterterrorism measures are adequate for the threat we face. If there was any suggestion that that was not the case, clearly, we would want to look at that and take the necessary steps. The Investigatory Powers Bill, which is about to receive pre-legislative scrutiny, is landmark legislation that futureproofs the existing legislation, which gives the powers the security services need at this time. So while the noble Lord makes some interesting points, what is important is that that Bill receives the proper scrutiny that Parliament expects it to receive. However, at the same time, I assure the noble Lord and the House that, if there is anything the security services do not have now that they need to do their work, we will review that legislation and reconsider our approach to it.
The Lord Bishop of Birmingham
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her repeating of the Statement and, from these Benches, join your Lordships in offering our sympathy for the tragic loss of life and the injuries that occurred in Paris—and, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, said, in other parts of the region, in recent weeks.
On the area of ideology, the third area in the Statement, can the Minister go a bit further? While we make every effort, as we must, to deal with this issue by military power and by counterextremism measures, the area of ideas is a matter which I ask the Minister to consider very seriously in terms of quite small but important resources, as we try to develop the right relationships in the community that the Prime Minister so wants—not just asking Muslims to argue for a good Islam, but also to join people of faith, or no faith, of all parts in developing right thinking, friendship and deep relationships, which will allow us to move on from this ghastly use of violence into a more integrated society. Will she also encourage us to make a successful integration of the new wave of Syrian refugees fleeing from death in their own country?
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
The right reverend Prelate makes an important set of points about the importance of cohesion and for us to all unite around a clear set of values that are so important to our own way of life. In the counterextremism strategies that I have already referred to, a big part is about supporting different communities and cohesion among communities. The Prime Minister has been clear about the importance of British values. This is something that we are keen as a Government to promote. As a country, we should not shy away, as we may have in the past, from saying that our values as British people are the ones that—whoever we are, whatever our faith—must unite us and are so important to the way in which we continue to prosper.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
Does my noble friend accept that the efforts of our right honourable friend the Prime Minister are very welcome in trying to nudge Mr Putin into a more co-operative and commonsense approach to the horrors of ISIL? Should we not now put aside further hesitations on this point and take firm decisions by the Executive of this country and others to pull together regional and global powers to support efforts by, for instance, Jordan to cut into the heartland of ISIL territory—and to do so on the ground, against a ruthless enemy who is not open to dialogue, does not believe in political discussion of any kind, and will not be dislodged just by bombing?
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
The Prime Minister has talked about a comprehensive approach and his overall strategy. That very much involves not just the way in which we are currently supporting the region and the way in which he is talking about extending military action, it is also about supporting neighbouring countries and working with them in the region. The points that my noble friend makes are well made, and certainly very much in the Prime Minister’s mind as he considers how best to respond to the current situation.
Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)
My Lords, there is a great deal in the Prime Minister’s Statement with which I concur—not least his sentence which was very simple but should mean a lot to all of us:
“In this situation we do not protect the British people by sitting back and wishing things were different”.
In that context, I make just two comments to the Leader of the House. First, it is absolutely proper that we should be engaged in trying to find a political solution to some of the problems in Syria, but we would be operating under a delusion and deceiving the people of this country if we implied that even should a political solution—with President Assad or without him—be achieved tomorrow, it would solve the problem of ISIL. It will not. This is part of a long-running, generational attempt to establish an Islamo-fascist empire under people who will stop at nothing. Therefore, it is to delude the people of this country to say that opposing ISIL is somehow made redundant if we achieve a political solution.
The second thing is what is missing from the Statement in terms of domestic security. Last week I asked the relevant Minister, and received assurances, about the scrutiny of refugees coming to this country. However, 750 UK citizens have gone off to Syria, 450 of whom have come back. They are prime facie not only sympathisers but active supporters of the atrocities that have been carried out by ISIL abroad, and there is every reason to suspect that they will continue that sympathy, and potentially that action, in this country. What are the Government doing about the 450 who have come back, and why was there no mention of them in today’s Statement?
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
The noble Lord argued in his first point that finding a political solution in Syria would not render our efforts to destroy ISIL redundant. I agree; he is absolutely right. On his question about those Britons who have left the UK, gone to Syria and elsewhere and then returned, the measures that we introduced in the Counter-terrorism and Security Act, which was passed by Parliament earlier this year, were designed specifically to address this kind of threat.
Lord King of Bridgwater (Con)
My Lords, I strongly commend the Prime Minister’s Statement that my noble friend has repeated on the response to the terrible tragedy and outrage in Paris.
There is an aspect of the Statement that I regret. It rightly says that, recognising the threats that we face, intelligence is a crucial first line of defence for this country—one or two breakdowns in that respect may have contributed to the disasters in Paris. It also says that we will do all that we can to support the intelligence and security services. If I may make one small point, I do not think this Parliament has done that. For more than two years, we have been trying to consider the gaps that exist in our armoury of what is available to our intelligence services to protect our country. Two weeks ago in this House I asked a question about the Investigatory Powers Bill, pointing out that we are now embarked on a pretty leisurely process which, if we are lucky, will get those powers into effect by next September or October. I wondered at that time what events might happen between now and then. I am all too sorry that within two weeks that has proved to be the case.
I have one constructive suggestion. Following on from the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, I do not think it realistic to take the whole of this huge Investigatory Powers Bill through on some accelerated process, but there is one element in it that the Home Secretary has indicated is the one additional power that she wants: the retention of internet communications data, which might enable us to identify some of the links that obviously existed in the attack in Paris and the way that it was organised. I suggest that, by discussions through all the usual channels, this particular element in the Bill is taken out and dealt with by an Order in Council and emergency regulations, with a sunset clause, so that it is operational while the normal parliamentary procedures for the Investigatory Powers Bill can continue in the way proposed by the Government without the liability that we do not yet have the crucial power that the Home Secretary has identified as being essential.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
On my noble friend’s first point about the security services and intelligence being our first line of defence in this country, I agree that they are the first line of defence and do magnificent service for this country. Indeed, I think that the UK’s intelligence services are very much seen as the best in the world.
I am not sure that I agree with him that we have not supported them in the way that they need in order to do their work. We have ensured that they have all the funding and additional resources that they need, and I am sure that the House will be familiar with the range of different announcements that the Government have made, as I have already referred to, in the past few days.
We will keep the Investigatory Powers Bill under review. If there is anything in the draft Bill which the security services need now to do their work but do not have, we will certainly reconsider our approach. However, my noble friend must accept that the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act, which we passed in July, brought into force the additional powers which the security services need, but they expire at the end of next year. The Investigatory Powers Bill will make sure that we enshrine and protect those powers for the future. It is about future-proofing powers, rather than giving new ones.
Lord Wright of Richmond (CB)
My Lords, I note that the Statement makes no reference to the Government’s announcement, last week, that we are still providing munitions to the so-called moderate rebels. Does the noble Baroness the Leader of the House accept that, instead of pouring more fuel on the fire of the Syrian civil war, we ought to be persuading the rebels whom we call our friends to enter into talks with what our American friends, at least, still regard as the Syrian Government in Damascus?
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
The United Kingdom has been ensuring that we support the moderate forces which oppose Assad in their efforts to fight him and ISIL. They have regained some important territory and are making some progress. We need to encourage them to go further and that is where we are focusing our efforts.
Lord Ashdown of Norton-sub-Hamdon (LD)
My Lords, remembering the baleful effect that ensued when George Bush Jr used the word “crusade” in the context of the second Gulf War, does the Minister agree that the language we choose at this moment is extremely important? In this context, does she agree that use of the word “war” is, at best, unhelpful and perhaps even unwise, given that it will only reinforce the Manichean view of the terrorists? Does that also apply to the Prime Minister’s favourite phrase, which is that we are fighting for “western values”, when we are, in fact, fighting for the universal values that underpin all the great religions and philosophies, including Islam?
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
The noble Lord is right that language is very important, at any time, and certainly so at a time of great sensitivity. As to the Prime Minister’s use of language and what we are fighting for, he has been clear, on very many occasions, about the importance of protecting the way of life which all of us in the West enjoy and which many in other parts of the globe look to and want for themselves.
Lord Rooker (Lab)
In the main, I would oppose fast-tracking the Investigatory Powers Bill. Much of it concerns modernising the authorisations. It is right that we do that: nobody is arguing that the present system will prevent what needs to be done. However, I served on the RUSI panel, which gave evidence about this sort of thing, and if, as the noble Lord, Lord King, said, there is a need to take out a couple of clauses then I would support that. The international internet companies need reminding: not one of them would ever have been able to start their businesses in China, Russia or any of the other oppressive states in the world. They relied on doing it in western, liberal democracies. If the extra powers are needed just to retain some information to assist the security services in protecting our people, then it would be legitimate to fast-track them. Their opposition to it would be damaging to their own customers.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
I am grateful to the noble Lord. I hope I have made it clear, in responding to several questions on this, that if there is any need for us to reconsider that Bill, we will. However, at the moment I am confident in the approach we are taking.
Baroness Afshar (CB)
My Lords, have the Government considered why educated, bright, French or Belgian-born Muslims are driven into extremism? These are people who know no Arabic, have no understanding of their religion and actually train in order to find an alternative so that they are recognised and valued. Is it not necessary to start at the very beginning?
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
The noble Baroness is right. That is why we, in this country, are trying to tackle the root causes and reasons, and to prevent young men—and women—being influenced and adopting a mindset that is clearly and completely wrong. That is part of our overall comprehensive approach; it has to be because we have to combat this evil ideology.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch (UKIP)
My Lords, in that vein, I welcome the Prime Minister’s commitment to inspect and shut down any educational institutions which teach Islamist intolerance and, I presume, violence. Can the noble Baroness confirm that this policy will include all evening madrassahs and, indeed, our mosques, where so much of the poison is spread?
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
My Lords, it will include any establishment where this kind of extremism—non-violent and violent—is being pursued. We can no longer tolerate a situation where it is okay for somebody to espouse extremist views and stop short of inciting violence. Because of that, we are committed to taking all necessary steps. As the noble Baroness said a moment ago, we have to ensure that people are not in a position where they are influenced by or attracted to this kind of ideology, which is so damaging and dangerous.
Lord Tebbit (Con)
My Lords, does my noble friend take as much encouragement as I do from the extent of the support all around the House for the guts of the Government’s policy on this? Will she advise the Prime Minister, if he needs it, to listen to that advice and not to the leader of the Opposition?
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
My noble friend is right in saying that there is widespread support for the measures that we have already committed to taking, and I am very grateful for that. The Prime Minister said very clearly today that he knows that he and the Government have a responsibility to come forward and make their case for the additional steps that we believe are right, and that is what he is going to do. He hopes very much that by doing that in a very clear way, he will attract strong support for the additional action that is necessary to keep this country and its people safe.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
Is it not perhaps an unpalatable truth that the progressive removal of border controls—and, indeed, the virtual elimination of boundaries between many countries of Europe—while very good news for law-abiding people, can have pretty serious consequences so far as the movement of terrorists across Europe is concerned? Has the Leader of the House seen reports that it is now a deliberate strategy of the terrorists to make plans for terrorist attacks in one country and implement them in another? Given the dangers facing Europe at the moment, is not the progressive removal of border controls—not, of course, applicable to the UK—an aspect that heads of Governments need to look at?
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
As the noble Lord has just acknowledged, we are not part of the Schengen agreement. We remain very committed to retaining our borders and to policing them strongly. As we have announced in the past few days, we are taking even more steps towards, and investing further in, protecting those borders. We also play a big part in protecting the outside borders of Schengen agreement countries. However, I agree with the noble Lord that this raises very serious issues that have to be considered by countries that are part of Schengen.
Lord Elton (Con)
My Lords, we neglect the home front at our very great peril. The Statement rightly says that the terrorists’ aim is clear: it is to divide us and destroy our way of life. We therefore need to strengthen everything that holds our society together, and that lead must be given by the Government. We have to demonstrate that they are a Government for the whole people, not part of the people. Where things appear to bear down unfairly not only on members of ethnic minorities but on our indigenous community, such as we saw demonstrated a fortnight ago, it is essential that the Government put themselves in a position that shows that we are all on the same side in this and no longer fragmented.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
My noble friend is right that good governance is about governing for all the people and about being clear about the principles and values to which a country expects its citizens to subscribe. That is an important part of what makes us British. I say to my noble friend that one of the problems in countries such as Syria that needs to be addressed as part of the overall approach towards civility in the region relates to good governance and to those in charge governing for all the people.
Lord Lea of Crondall (Lab)
My Lords, the language that we use was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Ashdown, and, by implication, many others. Does the Minister agree that there is no contradiction in, on the one hand, using very severe language to describe the bloody extremism, fascism and so on of a tiny minority and, on the other hand, using language to describe the civilisation that is common to all of us, going back to the Indus Valley, the Nile Valley, Mesopotamia, Assyria and so on? That is our common civilisation and it needs to be emphasised. It is not a question of thrusting it down people’s throats; rather, it is a question of nurturing the great majority. There is a need to use language to describe our common civilisation in order to make some purchase in that territory.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
The two words that are important for all of us are “freedom” and “liberty”, and they are words that I will certainly continue to promote in the discourse that we have on this topic in the months ahead.
Lord Thomas of Swynnerton (CB)
My Lords, the Prime Minister uses the word “generation” very frequently and it is also used by others. Does that mean that this is a challenge that is going to last for a generation? Is that not extremely pessimistic?
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
My Lords, I think it is a question of being realistic rather than pessimistic.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
My noble friend has been trying to get in from the very beginning.
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes
My Lords, although tiptoeing across some very dangerous ground, I should like to expand on what the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, said, which I endorse wholeheartedly. Among all the difficult problems that the EU has to consider at present, surely it must now be a priority for it to consider the question of having open borders—both the extent to which they exist today and the extent to which they facilitated the dreadful scenes in France that we have all witnessed.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
Clearly, borders are a very important issue. As I have already said, we as a Government are pleased that we retain control of our borders. I am sure that this matter will be discussed again by the European leaders. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary will be at a justice and home affairs special meeting at the end of this week and I imagine that this will be very much a part of the discussions there.
Lord Avebury
My Lords, reverting to the need to eradicate Daesh and its territorial base as part of a comprehensive strategy, does the noble Baroness agree that the YPG is the most effective military force in opposition to Daesh? Will we therefore make supreme efforts to bolster its efforts by supplying armaments and logistics?
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
We are supporting the moderate opposition groups in the area so that they can combat ISIL and Assad, and we will continue to do that.
Welfare Reform and Work Bill
(9 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Freud) (Con)
My Lords, this Bill will ensure that the welfare system is put on a sustainable footing, while continuing to support the most vulnerable. It will ensure that work always pays and it will restore fairness in the system.
It is important to remember that this Bill forms part of a broad package of reforms, which includes the introduction of the national living wage, increases to the personal tax allowance and an enhanced childcare offer. Our welfare reforms are focused on transforming lives by supporting people to find and keep work. There is a focus on employment, fairness and affordability, while supporting the most vulnerable.
We have already made some key achievements over the last Parliament: 2 million more jobs have been created; there are 2.3 million apprenticeships; the number of workless households has reached a record low, down nearly 700,000 since 2010; and there are 800,000 fewer people with relative low income. Perhaps most importantly, these achievements came during a Parliament in which welfare spending increased by the lowest rate since the creation of the modern welfare state. But we still have work to do.
We will continue to bear down on the deficit and debt, achieving a surplus by the end of the Parliament. We spend £3 billion on government debt interest payments alone every month: that is £33 billion a year or £1,230 per household. Every pound we spend on paying off the debt is a pound we are paying to others, such as overseas investment funds, rather than spending on public services such as schools and hospitals. We need to end the cycle of borrowing, which is burdening our children with an ever-increasing debt. Eliminating the deficit and paying off our debts is the moral and most effective thing a responsible Government can do for people on low incomes who rely on those services.
This is a Bill for working Britain, underpinned by three key principles: first, that work is the best route out of poverty, and being in work should always pay more than being on benefits; secondly, that spending on welfare has to be put on a more sustainable footing, but in a way that protects the most vulnerable; thirdly, that people on benefits should face the same choices as those in work and not on benefits.
In the past, we have seen that just throwing money at the problem is not the solution—it is much more complex than that. That is why we are bringing in changes to help support people back into work and drive real change in their lives, both now and in the future.
Everyone deserves to have the dignity of a job and the pride that comes with earning your own pay packet. We want to support everyone in society who can and wants to work, and that is why we are committed to progressing towards full employment.
We also need to make sure that today’s young people start off on the right track, with the skills and experience required to open up employment opportunities in the future. That is why we are committed to delivering 3 million more apprenticeships during the course of this Parliament. The measures in this Bill will help to drive these commitments by requiring us to report on each measure every year.
The £26,000 cap we established in 2013 has reintroduced fairness into the system. Most importantly, it has driven meaningful change in people’s lives. The cap has helped get people back into work. Capped households are over 40% more likely to go to work than similar uncapped households. More than 18,000 previously capped households have now moved into work.
The changes to the benefit cap in this Bill are underlined by three basic principles of fairness. First, the cap should be set at a level that ensures it continues to be fair and to provide the right incentives for people to move into work. Secondly, this measure ensures that the cap better reflects the circumstances of working families around the UK. We know that around four in 10 households outside London earn less than £20,000, with the same proportion of households in London earning less than £23,000. Thirdly, welfare spending needs to be put on a sustainable footing.
Let me be clear: we will continue to provide protection and support for the most vulnerable. That is why exemptions will still apply, including those households entitled to DLA, PIP or Armed Forces PIP, industrial injuries benefit, the ESA support group component, and the limited capability for work-related activity component in UC; those moving into work who are entitled to working tax credit; and war widows and widowers. We have provided considerable additional support through discretionary housing payments for those claimants who need temporary financial assistance to adjust to the reforms. This additional funding will continue, and we are making £800 million available for discretionary housing payments over the next five years.
For too long now, this country has been dependent on unsustainable borrowing, with government debt repayments currently costing each household more than £1,200 every year. We simply cannot continue this way. It is not fair to keep borrowing and burdening future generations with even more debt. That is why we are committed to achieving a surplus by the end of the Parliament. During recent years, since the financial crisis began in 2008, benefits have been increasing at a greater rate than average earnings. Between 2008 and 2015, the minimum wage increased by 17%, whereas the main rates of most benefits, such as jobseeker’s allowance, have increased by 21%, and the individual element of child tax credits has increased by 33%.
The Bill will freeze working-age benefits for the next four years, helping to bring welfare spending under control. As part of our commitment to protecting the most vulnerable, benefits reflecting the additional costs of disability are excluded from the freeze. This includes PIP, DLA and the support group component of ESA. Pensioner benefits and statutory payments will also be excluded from the freeze.
During the last decade, growing evidence has shown that work can keep people healthy, as well as helping to promote recovery if someone falls ill. We are committed to ensuring that everyone who is able to has the opportunity to take advantage of the financial, social and health benefits which employment brings. However, perverse incentives in the benefits system and the lack of appropriate support can mean that some miss out. The work-related activity group component of ESA was never designed to help towards the additional costs of disability.
It is clear that the current system is failing claimants. Some 61% of WRAG claimants want to work but only 1% leave the benefit each month. People on ESA receive nearly £30 a week more than those on JSA, but receive far less support to move closer to the labour market and, when they are ready, into work. For new claims, the Bill will end this disparity between what people receive. Current claimants will not be affected, and new funding rising to £100 million a year in 2020-21 will be provided to help new claimants with limited capability for work to move closer to employment. A similar change will be made to the limited capability for work element of universal credit, ensuring that we provide the same level of support under the new system as we do through the current one. We are committed to ensuring that everyone who is able to has the opportunity to take advantage of the financial, social and health benefits which employment brings.
The Bill will also enable the Government to recover the expenses they incur for administrating benefit diversions to the Motability scheme. This is a purely administrative change which will not affect Motability’s users. The change involves less than £1 million a year and has the support of Motability, and I am sure that noble Lords would not wish such a minor issue to occupy too much of the Chamber’s time.
We also want to support parents claiming universal credit to get into and stay in work after having a child. We found out just last month that the number of children living in workless households is at a record low, down by 480,000 since 2010. That is really good progress and we want to build on it. The Government are introducing a far-reaching childcare offer. With universal credit, people will get up to 85% of their childcare costs paid from April 2016, up from 70% under the previous system. Working parents of three and four year-olds will receive an additional 15 hours of free childcare a week, while tax-free childcare will benefit up to 1.8 million working families. In line with that, we think that parents claiming universal credit should be required to look for work when their youngest child turns three, and to prepare for work when the youngest child turns two. In addition, the Bill will create a statutory duty to report on our progress supporting troubled families with multiple, highly complex problems. This will include how we have supported them to move closer to work.
We are also making provision to tackle social rents, which have increased by 20% since 2010. The Bill will reduce rents in social housing in England by 1% a year for four years from April 2016, protecting taxpayers from the rising costs of subsidising rents through housing benefit and protecting tenants from rising housing costs. This will reduce average rents for households in the social housing sector by around 12% by 2020 compared with current forecasts. It will also mean that people who are not on housing benefit and not subject to “pay to stay” will be better off by around £12 per week by 2019-20.
The Bill reforms the way support for mortgage interest will be paid in the future. The current system of providing benefit payments towards the cost of mortgage interest payments will be replaced by a system of interest-bearing loans which are secured against the claimant’s property. Loans will not be repayable until the home is sold. This change will ensure that claimants receive the same level of protection from repossession that they enjoy now, while providing a better and fairer deal for the taxpayer.
We are ensuring that people on benefits face the same choices as those in work and not on benefits. Families in work have to make careful choices about what lifestyle the money they earn can support, and what their income can provide for. People who receive child tax credit should make the same financial choices about having children as those who are supporting themselves through work. Therefore, from April 2017, the Bill will limit the child element of child tax credit to the first two children. A two-child limit will also apply in universal credit in relation to third or subsequent new children in the household, and to completely new claims. Again, we are ensuring that this change is fair, so it will not affect existing claimants at the point of change.
Finally, I turn to how we will tackle the root causes of child poverty and improve children’s life chances. We want to see substantial and sustained improvements in the life chances of our children. The past approach, enshrined in the Child Poverty Act, has focused on dealing with the symptoms of child poverty rather than addressing the root causes. It has incentivised Governments to move families a pound above the poverty line, not to help them transform their lives.
Evidence tells us that worklessness and educational attainment are the factors that have the biggest impact on child poverty and children’s life chances. We want legislation to focus government action where it can have the biggest impact. The Bill will provide a statutory basis for much-needed reform to drive real change to improve children’s life chances and tackle the root causes of child poverty.
The Bill will remove the existing measures and targets in the Child Poverty Act and introduce a new duty on the Secretary of State to report on worklessness and educational attainment. Alongside these statutory measures, we will develop indicators to measure progress against other root causes of child poverty, including family breakdown, addiction and problem debt. Our new approach will drive action which will make the biggest difference to the most disadvantaged children, both now and in the future.
This Bill is an important legislative step. It will ensure that the right support and incentives are in place, so that people are always better off in work rather than trapped on welfare, and it will protect the most vulnerable members of our society. We acknowledge that these are difficult decisions to make, but we think they are the right decisions. They are decisions that put work first, drive sustainable welfare spending and allow us to continue to protect the vulnerable and those most in need. I beg to move.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that introduction to the Bill and I look forward to the debate, especially to the four maiden speakers.
In his speech to the last Conservative Party conference, the Prime Minister talked of the need to tackle social problems, including entrenched poverty, in our country. Why? He said this:
“So when the new mum looks at her new-born baby—the most precious thing she’s ever seen—and she vows to provide for it, she knows she actually can”.
This Bill makes a mockery of that pledge. It is a sustained assault on low-income families. It will increase poverty, penalise working households and push more families out of their homes and into temporary accommodation, homelessness or on to housing benefit, and the evidence base for it is poor. So often, I am sorry to say, this Government’s cuts to social security end up being counterproductive, adding more to the benefit bill by undermining work incentives or raising spending elsewhere.
A good example is the proposal to cut social sector rents by 1% a year. This sounds great, but, as the IFS points out, it does little for the 93% of tenants who will lose housing benefit pound-for-pound as their rents falls. As the IFS points out:
“The policy largely represents a transfer from social landlords … to the exchequer, rather than to social tenants”.
As the OBR has pointed out, it will mean fewer social sector properties being built. Social landlords risk having their credit ratings downgraded, planned investments are being cancelled and if specified or all supported housing becomes unviable, costs are simply transferred to the NHS and local government.
As the Minister mentioned, the Bill abolishes the scheme that gives help to some people on benefits to pay the interest on their mortgages so that they do not lose their homes and end up on housing benefit. In future, they will be offered a nine-month wait then the option of a loan secured by a charge on the property. Almost half of recipients are of pensionable age, despite the Government’s pledge to protect pensioner benefits. We will seek, as the Bill goes through, to retain support for low-income pensioners, who may never be able to pay off a loan.
The Bill also takes £30 a week, one-third of their employment and support allowance, from the 500,000 sick and disabled people in the work-related activity group. The impact assessment reassures us that if they worked for just five hours a week at the new higher minimum wage rate, they could recoup the money, but these are people an independent assessor has decided are unfit for work. They include people with learning difficulties, mental health issues, Parkinson’s disease or MS. Only 5% of that group will get back to work within a year. We can see no justification for making people poorer to incentivise them back to work they have been deemed unfit to do. How can the Minister justify this, especially in the light of the manifesto commitment not to cut disability benefits?
The other measures in the Bill all hit low-income families with children. Child poverty has already risen by 400,000 since 2010 and is predicted to rise by another 300,000 by 2020. Two-thirds of poor children will have a parent in work. Those figures could explain why the Bill decides to remove the requirement to measure child poverty or to do anything to reduce it. It abandons the internationally recognised benchmark for poverty because the Government have decided poverty is no longer about money. The Bill expunges the word “poverty” from the legislation. We all accept that deprivation is multifaceted. By all means measure other things as well, but the idea that poverty is not really about money is risible. I fear that what is really happening is that the Government are trying to hide the trail of devastation their reforms are leaving in their wake.
Successive government welfare reforms are hitting the same groups of people, yet Ministers consistently refuse to do a cumulative impact assessment, and now they will not even count child poverty. This will not do. The first rule of power surely means that if you will the ends, you must will the means and you must know and take responsibility for the consequences of your decisions. I hope this House will see fit to challenge that proposal as the Bill goes through.
Then there is the benefit cap. When the Government introduced it, their whole argument was that it was set at the level of average earnings. We had a long debate in this House on whether the test was fair. I remember marching into the Lobby behind the much-missed Bishop of Ripon and Leeds, who proposed an amendment to remove child benefit from the cap on the grounds that people would get child benefit as well. We voted for it. Now Ministers have ditched the entire standard and simply plucked figures out of the air. They have simply decided that they are going to cut the cap by £3,000 for families in London and by £6,000 for families elsewhere. In future, Ministers can change the cap at whim by regulation without reference to any external benchmark and with minimal parliamentary scrutiny. The evidence is nowhere near as strong as even the impact assessment has suggested. Housing providers are worried that rent arrears will rise, as will evictions and homelessness. We have heard that £800 million has already been set aside for discretionary housing provision to deal with it. In Committee, we will want to see a great deal more evidence about the cost-benefit analysis of this policy, as well as about the impact on families.
The Minister mentioned that DWP is changing conditionality in universal credit. At the moment, parents are expected to work when their youngest child turns five. The Bill will mean that parents on universal credit will be expected to work when their youngest turns three. They will have to do work-related activity when their youngest is two and when the youngest reaches one, they will be out doing work preparation interviews. If the Government are going to push mothers of very young children and babies into work preparation activity, they need to be a lot more convincing about the availability and affordability of suitable childcare than they have been in this House in recent months when the Childcare Bill was going through.
Then there is the benefit freeze. Previously, the retail prices index was used to uprate benefits. Then the Government came along and decided that CPI was the measure—the only thing that would do—so they changed it to CPI. Then in 2013, they decided it would be reduced to just 1%, as a temporary measure, rather than CPI. Now it will be 0%, whatever happens to inflation during this Parliament. If inflation carries on flatlining, the Government may not get the savings they have been hoping for. There is a real process issue here. This is undermining the long-standing convention by which Ministers are meant to make an assessment annually of what poor households need to live on, come to the House and propose an alternative, and take responsibility for what should happen to benefits. This is moving away from that, which is deeply regrettable.
Finally, there is the proposal the Minister outlined to change universal credit and tax credits to abolish the family premium for all families with children and to limit the amount paid per child to the first two children in a household. This means that 3.7 million households will lose money. The two-child limit will cut payments by up to £2,780 per child per year, affecting 640,000 families by 2021 and 150,000 families with disabled children.
The Government repeatedly stress that the aim of their welfare reforms is to get people into work but child tax credit and universal credit are paid to working families as well as those who are out of work. If the aim is not to get families into work, what is it? The impact assessment said that,
“people may respond to the incentives that this policy provides and may have fewer children”.
I should like to ask the Minister some questions. First, is the objective that people in low-paid work should have fewer children, or is it just to give them less money? What does the Minister expect to happen in the 16% of pregnancies in the UK that are unplanned? What assessment has he made of the impact on adoption and kinship care, especially of sibling groups? Will there not be a disincentive to remarry if a stepfamily would then have more than two children in the household? The equality impact assessment is silent on religion and belief; can the Minister tell the House what work his department has done in assessing whether this policy will be likely to affect people of some religions more than those of others or of none. We are also told in the impact assessment that the Government will exempt women who have a third child as a result of rape. I wonder if the Minister has really thought through the implications of a woman having to prove to the Department for Work and Pensions that her pregnancy was the result of rape.
Even if the Minister could answer all those questions robustly, this policy spectacularly fails the Government’s own family test. There are reasons the state has traditionally helped with the cost of raising children. First, it is to avoid British children growing up in poverty, since child poverty is significantly higher in larger families. The real losers of this policy will be children born into larger families, especially as younger siblings, through no choice of their own. Secondly, it is because children are good for society. Maybe if I use the language of economics the Minister will work with me on this. In economic terms, children are a public as well as a private good. Parents bear the bulk of the costs of raising their children but we all contribute through our taxes because we want to see the next generation thrive and, being practical, as our population ages, we need to ensure that there are enough people around of working age to pay for our pensions, our health service and our social care. Most of all, it is because children are not a luxury. We give child tax credit to families to ensure they can afford to raise their children healthily.
Let us be clear: this is not about the small number of people with lots of children who are not in work. They would be caught by the benefit cap anyway. Shelter pointed out that the benefit cap would kick in for a couple with two children renting a house not in Mayfair but in Leeds or Plymouth. It is not about them. It is about a family with three children who, despite working very hard, are struggling to make ends meet. It is about the mum I met who never thought she would need state help until her husband disappeared and left her with three children. It is about all those people who had children confident they could provide for them, until something happened—perhaps a parent died or became sick or disabled and could not work; perhaps they had their hours cut or got made redundant. These are all things our welfare state is meant to protect us against. When the Minister says it affects only people making new claims, anybody making a fresh claim for universal credit next year will get no help for their third child already in existence.
When Mr Cameron spoke about that mum looking down at her new baby and knowing she could provide for it, the reason she knows that is that she lives in a country that offers the safety net of the welfare state alongside the National Health Service and state education. Our welfare state was never about workers helping workless or rich helping poor. It is about pooling risk across our life cycles and across our population. There are times, such as when children are young, when it is hard to make ends meet even if you are working. The best laid plans can go also astray. Anyone can get cancer, lose their job, lose their spouse or have a disabled child. We will all get old—we hope—and draw a pension. When things go well we pay in, and when things go badly we take out. The Government’s reforms undermine that. They change the way our welfare state works, by undermining work incentives, breaking the link between need and support and refusing to protect the next generation from growing up in poverty. If the Bill goes through unchanged, when that mum described by the Prime Minister looks down at her newborn baby, especially if it is her third child, she can no longer know that she can provide for it because that safety net will have a child-sized hole in it.
Baroness Manzoor (LD)
My Lords, the Liberal Democrats’ approach to this Bill is based on two simple principles. First, the benefits system should encourage people into work whenever they are able and it really should pay to be in work. Secondly, the £12 billion of welfare cuts the Government announced in the Budget are unnecessary to deal with the deficit. They are a political choice based on the Government’s wider political agenda to achieve a budget surplus by 2020, rather than the pragmatic need to eliminate the structural deficit by 2017-18.
While we are not averse to finding savings from the welfare budget, we do not believe that savings of the scale set out by the Government are needed. Cuts of the scale proposed will harm the principles of making sure that work pays and will remove much-needed support to the most vulnerable in society. This cannot be defendable on the grounds of savings alone. Having a job is not just about earning an income. It is also strongly linked to building dignity, self-esteem and improving health outcomes. The social security system must be able to help people avoid the benefits trap and to make work pay by ensuring that there is a more gradual withdrawal of benefits when someone enters work.
There is also a third principle that guides our view of this Bill: Lib Dems remain committed to the framework of universal credit, a project that has the capacity to fundamentally improve the structure and goals of our welfare system. We recognise the hard work and commitment that the noble Lord, Lord Freud, has given to universal credit and we are clear that he deserves significant recognition for this. However, I hope that the Chancellor will not seek to undermine the universal credit framework in the comprehensive spending review to dig himself out of the hole that he has created on tax credits—or, indeed, to introduce new horrors.
Although the Government assert that a central goal of the Bill is to strengthen work initiatives and to encourage households to move out of poverty through employment, many components of this Bill will weaken work initiatives, further negatively impact the most vulnerable, drag more people into poverty and may hinder the United Kingdom’s economic recovery.
There is a fundamental problem with the Bill, in that the worthy aim set out in the first clause—that of achieving full employment—risks being undermined by the subsequent clauses. We are proud that our work in government helped turn the tide on unemployment to the point where more people are now in employment than ever before. But that means that, to take the next step, we need to focus on supporting the hardest to help. That means looking at how we improve the work programme, how we support the disabled and how we provide high-quality training in skills needed by the labour market. Sadly, the Bill does nothing to address these issues. It is not a Bill about work.
The Lib Dem’s biggest concern is around Clauses 13 and 14, which would effectively reduce the amount of money given to claimants in the work-related activity group—WRAG—of the employment and support allowance. It is worth noting that more than 50% of the people in the WRAG have a mental health and behavioural disorder as their primary condition. I cannot see how cutting the amount of money going to people in this group, especially those that the Government’s own work capability assessment has deemed vulnerable, can possibly help achieve the Government’s own target of halving the disability employment gap. Indeed, we are concerned that it will instead push these people further from the job market and it risks aggravating conditions such as depression or eating disorders.
The changes are also likely to increase appeals and intensify high levels of stress. They may have the perverse effect of pushing people from the WRAG into the support group, rather than into the labour market. The Government would do better focusing on providing people with the support that they need to get better and with specialist disability employment advice via the jobcentres to make the transition into work, rather than placing the emphasis on the stick. In its review of the links between disability, long-term conditions and poverty, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation found no evidence that disability employment rates are improved by reducing benefits.
With reference to the proposed benefit cap, while we agree on the need for a cap, we do not see the logic in reducing it to £20,000. Nor do we see the logic behind breaking the link between average earnings and the cap. The real concern here is that the requirement to find affordable housing may force families away from areas where there are high levels of work opportunities, such as London, to places of high unemployment. This would undermine the ultimate aim of getting people off benefits. Will the Minister say whether the Government intend to undertake a distribution analysis of the levels of housing benefit the average person hit by the benefit cap would receive and where they may be able to secure suitable housing?
The Bill also introduces a two-child limit on receipt of the child element of tax credits for children born after 5 April 2017, and the child element of universal credit for families making a new claim, whether or not the child is born before April 2017. The Government estimate, based on the current profile of tax credit claimants, that by 2020-21 640,000 families will lose support as a direct result of this limit.
While it is right that people should take responsibility for the number of children they have, there are a number of cases where exemptions should be made. These are: families fleeing domestic violence; stepfamilies; bereaved families; kinship carers, who, according to the Children's Society, support an estimated 200,000 children across the UK; cases of rape; multiple pregnancies; and where the third or subsequent child is disabled. I would be grateful if the Minister gave an assurance to make exemptions and to review the two-child limit in all such cases.
It is also of concern that the Bill repeals the income targets and associated duties to eradicate child poverty that are set out in the Child Poverty Act 2010. Without question, worklessness and lack of access to employment are key drivers of child poverty. However, while work can be a key route out of poverty, it is by no means a guaranteed one. As the End Child Poverty coalition has shown, the latest government statistics show that 62% of children in poverty now live in working families. This affects 2.4 million children. The changes that the Government plan to make to the support for low-income families is only likely to make this situation worse. Will the Minister look at maintaining income-related measures of poverty among the life chances measures?
We have a significant concern about the decision to reduce social housing rents over four years. This represents, as the Minister has said, an overall reduction of 12% compared to current forecasts. While this may indeed help to reduce the housing benefit bill, and the costs for people living in social housing, we are concerned about the impact it will have on the ability of housing associations to borrow in order to build more homes or to ensure that improvements are made to current social housing stock.
The Government have already decided to keep housing costs for specified accommodation—such as that offered by St Mungo's Broadway, which provides specialist services and housing for the most vulnerable—out of universal credit and benefit calculations. This is very welcome, but by introducing a rent-reduction measure the Government will undo these steps and a vital safety net may be cut. Will the Minister give an assurance that the Bill will be amended to exempt specified accommodation?
Finally, there are a number of areas which are not in the Bill but we believe will further undermine the principle that work should pay and people who are able to work should be supported back into work. In particular we are concerned about the appalling cuts to tax credits, which even Conservative MPs are now in open revolt over; the cuts to housing benefit for those under 21, which will make it harder for young people to move to areas of high employment in pursuit of career opportunities; and the deepening cuts to further education colleges, which make it harder to ensure that young people get the skills they need to become employable. These are all areas in which further work is needed by the Government if they are to be truly on the side of all working people. This Bill is not a Bill for work.
Before I sit down, I wish my noble friend Lady Thomas a speedy recovery from a knee operation after a fall last week. I hope that she will be well enough to join us for the remainder of this Bill.
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, four years ago, speaking during the passage of what became the Welfare Reform Act 2012, I highlighted the many issues faced by those in the work-related activity group, or WRAG, on employment and support allowance, and the necessity of them receiving adequate financial support for the period when they are too ill to work. I will focus again on that one cause: people who are too ill or recovering from a debilitating disease. The Minister may well remember that I carried four amendments, but he immediately turned the Bill into a money Bill, so the discussion had to stop. But he came true on that occasion and understood the cause that I was fighting for. He brought in a government amendment to put people with cancer in the support group, and I am forever thankful for that. I am hoping to get the same response this time without having to win any votes.
I am having to repeat many of the same points today which I made at that time. Clauses 13 and 14 would cut the amount that people claiming ESA in the WRAG, and with a limited capability for the work element of universal credit, can receive from £102.15 to £73.10. You may say that £30 a week is not a great deal of money, but for people who are on benefits, it is a great deal. They will receive the same amount of money as those on jobseeker’s allowance yet be unable to work. This is a significant cut for anyone to face to a weekly budget.
Let me highlight briefly the individuals who will be affected in the WRAG. I am talking about people such as cancer patients who have undergone debilitating treatments such as chemotherapy or radiotherapy and are in the process of recovering from their illness. I am also talking about people with other diseases such as Parkinson’s or multiple sclerosis, or who have physical and learning disabilities. Mental health has of course already been mentioned. I want to draw particular attention to people who have had a cancer diagnosis. As the Government have stated, it is true that many people undergoing most types of chemotherapy and radiotherapy go into the support group, thanks to the amendment that the Government brought in. I am pleased that that level of support is not being changed. I welcome that.
However, thousands of others who may be experiencing long-term side-effects as a result of their cancer and treatment, or those living with other comorbidities, are placed in the WRAG. While many of these people will have finished their treatment, they will still be suffering from disability. The side-effects of treatment such as chemotherapy and radiotherapy, as is well known to many Members of this House, can be severe and long-lasting. Ask any who have had such treatment and they will tell you what it feels like and for how long. It also varies from person to person, depending on their cancers and their ability to cope with the therapy. Research by Macmillan and other cancer charities found that one in four of the 2 million people in England alone living with and beyond cancer today face disability or poor health following their treatment. It is not uncommon for a cancer patient still to be reporting pain and extreme fatigue long after their treatment has ended. Many of them will be unable to work as a result. To suggest that these people should be treated in the same way as jobseekers who are fit and able to work cannot be, and is not, right. It is uncompassionate and uncaring.
I am concerned that the Government’s proposals fail to recognise a clear distinction between those on jobseeker’s allowance who are available for, seeking and able to engage in work and those on ESA in the WRAG who have been independently medically assessed as being too ill to work. Most cancer patients want to get back to work. They see that as a recovery from their illness, so they wish to work.
The Government have stated that this move is about providing an incentive for people to return to work, no matter what their condition. However, I have yet to see any evidence to suggest that this is needed, let alone that it will work. If I am wrong, I have no doubt the Minister will correct me with the evidence that he has. What people who are ill need is enough time and the right support to recover and get well. They do not need to be penalised for not recovering quickly enough.
Let me give an example that many of your Lordships may have seen. Stacie, a 43 year-old in remission from leukaemia, recently wrote an article in a leading daily newspaper about her experience of having cancer. She said:
“Throughout it all, I wanted to work. I am still desperate to return to the classroom. My hospital room was wallpapered with cards and pictures from my students and fellow teachers. When I was struggling, I only had to glance up to see the gallery I’d created of children’s artwork. Those crayon suns and stars brightened a very dark time in my life. The idea that I’d need to be further impoverished to be incentivised to return to teaching is not only ludicrous, it’s insulting”.
Stacie’s doctor told her that, because of the effect that cancer and depressed immunity had on her immune system, teaching was for her now,
“more dangerous … than police work”.
This comment highlights what I fear that the Government have failed to consider in their proposals. In order for people with long-term illness, physical or mental, to return to work without further risk to their physical or mental health, they need the right support, and they need time. They should not feel pressurised to return to work before they are mentally and physically fit enough because of financial worries. Doing so could have a significant negative effect on people’s physical and mental health. People could actually require longer-term welfare support: the exact opposite of what the Government are seeking to achieve.
I wonder what, if any, assessment the Government have made of the potential knock-on costs and implications for both the health and benefits systems if people who have been medically assessed as being too ill to work return to work too soon and their health deteriorates as a result. I spoke about people living with cancer, but, as I mentioned, it is not just people with cancer but others with long-term disabilities and other illnesses.
I welcome the fact that no current claimants will lose money, but that will provide no comfort to those who will be placed in the WRAG after April 2017. I, like many noble Lords, welcome the Government’s commitment to provide extra investment in employment support for those in the WRAG. I look forward to the Minister’s outlining more detail about this. If not, then there is a risk that the Government’s proposals will inadvertently move people further away from the labour market as people already too ill to work are made even more ill.
There is a clear link between financial difficulties and poorer health. Four years ago, I was accused of not understanding the need to reduce costs. I said then, and I repeat it now: I clearly understand the need to balance the books. However, it is not compassionate, caring, or a mark of a civilised society to do so by making the sick poorer and sicker.
I know that the noble Lord, Lord Freud, who I know from my previous experience does care, will look at Clauses 13 and 14 particularly in relation to this group of people who are suffering or recovering from cancer, and suggest a way of mitigating the effects of these proposals. I look forward to his comments.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
My Lords, I will pick up on some of the themes that have been raised by some of my noble friends who have spoken today, particularly on the area of vulnerable adults and those who are disabled. I invite the Government to think about two issues in particular. The first relates to the clause in the Bill legislating for a mandatory 1% annual reduction in social housing rents over the next four years. I, like other noble Lords, understand that the Government have their reasons for introducing this mandatory reduction, not least the considerable savings on housing benefits that such a rate reduction would deliver. I welcome the discretionary power that the Secretary of State will have to waive the requirement for rent reductions. This will go some way to protecting those housing associations which find themselves financially exposed due to circumstances outside their control.
What concerns me most about these measures is the direct and indirect effect that they might have on the supported housing sector, which provides vital accommodation and a degree of independence for vulnerable groups such as the mentally and physically handicapped, the homeless, those with addiction issues and those fleeing domestic violence. While I welcome the DWP’s indication that there will be an exemption from the rate reduction for specialised housing support, that constitutes only a very small subset of the supported housing sector, and I do not believe that the exemption goes far enough.
Because of the various needs of the tenants, supported housing is far more expensive to maintain than standard social housing, creating an extra cost burden on supported housing that is inevitably reflected in smaller operating margins. One supported housing provider has pointed out that its housing is on average 64% more expensive to provide than standard housing, while one large, mixed-sector housing association has calculated that the proposed rent reduction would leave one-third of its supported housing stock making a loss. Given the small margins involved, it seems highly likely that a forced rent reduction in supported housing will endanger the supply of supported social housing in this country. Smaller housing associations which are devoted to the supply of supported housing might be simply unable to absorb the rate cut, while larger housing associations with a variety of housing stock might find themselves forced to get rid of their most unprofitable supported housing. New supported housing developments would inevitably be postponed and, even where supported housing remains viable, it is likely to face staff cuts that would lead to a drop in the standard and provision of care for some of the most vulnerable people in our society.
Any of these outcomes would not only be bad social practice, but be bad economics. Any measure that increases the number of vulnerable people in unsuitable accommodation, or the number of those experiencing homelessness, is only going to increase the wider financial burden on the state. Given that other measures in this Bill are liable to increase the pressure on the social housing sector, such as the benefit cap as applied to homeless households and the proposed changes to the support for mortgage interest scheme, it seems ill advised to place this vital service under undue pressure.
There is, of course, a simple solution to all this, which is to exclude supported housing from the measures in this Bill. Given that supported housing forms only a small proportion of wider social housing—estimates put it at around 4%—the cost of such a measure would be relatively small, and would certainly not prevent the Government from making significant savings on housing benefits. That is one way in which we can seek to ensure that the most vulnerable in our society are properly protected, and I urge this House, and indeed the Government, to consider any such amendments if and when they are brought forward.
I also want to raise a more general point of concern about how this Bill impacts vulnerable disabled adults. The Government have rightly given some protection to the most vulnerable disabled people in protecting the current employment and support allowance support group component from cuts. Yet even this group, which the Government have promised to protect, will face a cut in real terms through the freeze on the basic ESA allowance. The Motor Neurone Disease Association has estimated that the freeze will leave those suffering from terminal and degenerative illnesses over £250 a year worse off by 2020, when the projected rise in prices is taken into account. This is deeply problematic, both in that it is liable to put an extra burden on those who might be nearing the end of their life—and something like motor neurone disease hits people with incredible speed—and in that it sends the wrong message to those who should have our fullest support. I would welcome a comment from the Minister about whether Her Majesty’s Government would consider measures to mitigate the impact of the rate freeze on those in the support group.
I also find myself deeply concerned about the substantial reductions in benefits for those in the ESA work-related activity group. This issue has already been discussed by those far more knowledgeable than me, but I want to make one point before I finish. The work-related activity group is formed of half a million people who, as has already been said, have been medically assessed as not fit for work. This includes those with cancer, mental health issues, musculoskeletal diseases and even progressive and incurable diseases. They are people who are in a deeply vulnerable position. Those who have had members of their own family hit by these illnesses realise just what a huge and devastating impact they make—and how quickly they can hit. In no way should they be treated as your average jobseeker, just because there is a hope that with the right training and support they might one day be able to re-enter the world of work, yet that is exactly what this Bill is in danger of doing. I urge the Government to reconsider this aspect as we go through to the next stage.
Lord Lansley (Con) (Maiden Speech)
My Lords, it is my privilege to address your Lordships’ House for the first time. I beg your indulgence, together with my noble friends who are making their first speeches in the course of this Second Reading debate. It is a privilege to follow the right reverend Prelate and to contribute to this debate.
Coming here, having retired from another place, and not seeking re-election, one is often asked, “What’s the difference? Why did you do that?”. The difference was lost on my 10 year-old son, who said, “So you’re off to the five-star place with the red seats and the gold leaf”. He was literally right, but the metaphorical differences are much more important. I went to the other place as part of a governing majority and—perhaps I am old-fashioned in this respect—with the purpose of upholding that governing majority and securing the Government’s business in what I regard as the determinative House. Here one has a freedom; I come here with the intention of seeking out that freedom—the freedom to take my own view about the policies that have a long-term impact on this country.
I am proud of what we achieved in the coalition Government. People will argue heatedly about whether the things I did as Secretary of State were right or wrong, but from the policy point of view I believed in them and I continue to believe in them. I think they made an enormous difference compared to what would have happened without them in a transition over three years, which was achieved on time and on budget, which saved £5.5 billion off administration costs in the last Parliament, which gave to the NHS an independent voice, which just over a year ago the NHS used for the first time at a general election—its own view of what should happen for the NHS in the next Parliament. We brought waiting times down to their lowest ever level; we kept the NHS out of deficit over the course of that transition; we brought hospital-acquired infections down to their lowest ever level; we virtually abolished mixed-sex accommodation and had a million more people with access to NHS dentistry; and this at a time when the increase in the NHS budget was marginal in real terms, as compared to large real-terms increases in the past.
Policy can change things, but very often the optimum policy and the exigencies of politics are not the same thing. I will not go on at length about the differences—many here realise that entirely. I come here knowing, as a Secretary of State and a Cabinet Minister who had to take Bills through this House, what this House is capable of doing. It is presumptuous of me to say so, but I hope to be part of that. I saw Bills, like today’s Bill, where the prior debate was a reflection of the interests, the stakeholders and the comment that came to this House from outside. To that extent, it started to feel as if it was going to be—how shall I put it?—a rerun of the same arguments. However, what I appreciated as a Cabinet Minister, enjoying all the frustrations of watching this House scrutinise my legislation, was that as time went on more and more Members of this House took the trouble not just to listen to what other people were saying but to read it themselves, to understand it, to see why things were being done in the way that they were in the legislation, and then to propose worthwhile amendments to do those things better, not to try to overturn the purposes of government but actually to fulfil them in a more effective way. I hope that that is what we can achieve here.
From my point of view, I started as a policymaker—I was a civil servant before I was a politician—and I hope in a sense to be a policymaker after being a politician. I should say that when I first came here I was rather surrounded by all my old bosses. When I was a civil servant my noble friend Lord Tebbit was my Secretary of State. I am the first, and thus far I think the only, Principal Private Secretary to a Cabinet Minister subsequently to have become a Cabinet Minister. I am not sure that civil servants should necessarily seek to emulate my path, but there it is. I want to be a policymaker after being a politician, and in this House we can do that.
It is important in the debate on this Bill to realise that its purposes are the right ones. I have never been a fan of declaratory legislation, of simply setting up targets in legislation and imagining that those things will happen as a matter of course. They do not; you have to have policies and substance to make them happen. However, I do not think that legislation can be, as this is designed to be, a mechanism for accountability. Regarding life chances for children and social mobility, therefore, it is important to set out in this legislation what that accountability should look like. For my part, I think this structure is better than the previous Child Poverty Act structure because in the past there was a risk that it added no value—that it was essentially about redistribution. For the benefit of our children we need to add value and ensure that their life chances are greater than they would otherwise have been without our policy interventions.
I look to the Minister and suggest that we look beyond simply key stage 4 educational attainment and reducing the number of workless households, important though both of those are. When I was Secretary of State we supported the work of the Marmot review on the social determinants of health, and there are aspects, particularly for children, such as readiness for school when children first go to school and minimising the number of those who are not in education, employment or training, that in themselves are central determinants of subsequent health and indeed of long-term life chances as well. So we should be looking progressively to see whether we can expand the accountability aspects of the reporting process.
The other thing that we have to do, of course, is recognise that there are two purposes of the Bill that we must see through. The first is the manifesto mandate to reduce the cost of welfare and enable the Government consequently to reduce the deficit, so we have to see where those savings will come. On the first day when I was here after my introduction I listened carefully to the tax credit debate. I heard more about what was wrong with what was being proposed than about how in practice the saving could be accomplished in a way that did not significantly reduce the incentive to work.
My second and final point is exactly that: the Bill is designed around a purpose of sharpening incentives to work. Doing the right thing is often tough. However, it is important to look at the evidence and say, “Is the present structure of work incentives in the employment and support allowance, or in the new structure of universal credit, right yet?”. If it is not right, and if it is not yet delivering the work incentives that it should, we have to support the Government in the Bill in trying to make those incentives much more effective in future. For those reasons, because I agree with those purposes, I for one will certainly be supporting the Bill.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, what a privilege to be present today for the maiden speech of my noble friend Lord Lansley. When I looked at the alphabetical list of speakers last week and saw my noble friend’s name, I hoped that I would not be following him since he would show up the gross inadequacies of my contribution. Naturally, my silent prayer to the Chief Whip went unanswered.
We have just seen a splendid example of how this noble House benefits from the addition of Peers such as my noble friend, who are experts in their subject and have considerable experience of government and the other place. My noble friend has told the House that he was Principal Private Secretary to my noble friend Lord Tebbitt. I assure your Lordships that he did not inherit all the views held by that noble Lord. In fact, although my noble friend was the Bernard of his time, rising to become the Minister, he often had to say, “No, Minister”, so he also did a Sir Humphrey act with my noble friend Lord Tebbitt. In addition to what he has told us today, the House will have discovered that my noble friend has brought a disarming and quiet style of delivery. I have always found this to be persuasive in the past and I am sure your Lordships will find it so in the future. We shall all look forward to his further contributions on a range of subjects. However, as a former Chief Whip, I hope my noble friend will not range too widely with the freedom he intends to exercise.
I support the Bill, which has to be seen in the context of what the Government have achieved on the economy since 2010. Employment is now at a record high of over 31 million, up 2 million since 2010. That represents a record employment rate of 73%. Crucially, the number of workless households is at a record low, down nearly 700,000 since 2010. The best thing that any Government can do to help people on welfare is to get them into paid employment and off welfare. I will touch on a few aspects of the Bill, first of which is apprenticeships. I like the idea of reporting annually on this. Apprenticeships are absolutely crucial for individuals and the economy and they are the best way to boost employment chances for young people. I am delighted that the Government have delivered over 2 million new apprenticeships over the past five years and plan to deliver 3 million more over the next five. It was wonderful to read of the brilliant A-level student who turned down Oxford or Cambridge to take up an apprenticeship with Rolls-Royce. Of course, not all apprenticeships are of the calibre of Rolls-Royce and, although we need to make sure that all apprenticeships do offer genuine skills training, we must not let cynics rubbish the less glamorous and technical end of the scale.
I am thinking of catering, for example, which is often scorned as low-grade work. I suppose that an apprenticeship to serve a skinny latte at Starbucks would be a bit thin, but what about the 15 kids Jamie Oliver took and trained to be really good chefs? That was quality training in cooking which we should not scoff at—if your Lordships will pardon the very bad pun. In 1980, when I was Food Minister, the splendid Albert Roux came to see me. He said: “Everyone, especially we French, mock English food as just roast beef and sticky brown gravy; but within 25 years English food will be regarded as the best in the world. We are training brilliant young apprentices who will one day be among the finest chefs in the world, but it all depends on training apprentices”. How right Albert turned out to be.
I welcome Clause 3 and the duty to report annually on the troubled families programme. If we are to add to the 117,000 families already helped by getting children back in school, and significantly reducing youth crime and anti-social behaviour, then we need as much information and as many facts as possible. All the research I have read shows that, when children come from a home with one or more parents who are unemployed or who have a criminal record, or from a home with absent, uncaring fathers where there is no support or encouragement to attend school, the chances of those children going bad are greatly increased. That is not making any moral or social judgment. It is a simple fact that the fewer positive factors are present during a child’s upbringing, the less chance he—and it is usually a he—has to succeed. So information is vital, and then policy can be revised accordingly.
Similarly, I like the clauses on life chances, although the phrase sounds a bit trendy. This reform is long overdue. The existing statutory framework in the Child Poverty Act, set around the four income-related targets, is a nonsensical way to measure real poverty. As the Prime Minister said,
“we are in the absurd situation where if we increase the state pension, child poverty actually goes up”.
If we focus on the number of children living in workless households and their educational attainment by the time they get to 16, and we incorporate family breakdown, problem debt and addiction, we will get a real measure of poverty, will be better informed and will be able to devise proper policies to tackle it.
The benefit cap restores fairness to the welfare system and has incentivised work. I will not bore the House with the statistics; we shall no doubt hear a lot more today. Lowering the cap emphasises the message that it is not fair for someone on benefits to be receiving more than many people in work, and better reflects the circumstances of many working families. Tens of millions of people in work and paying taxes would love to live in a bigger house, in a better street or in a house with a nice garden, but they cannot afford to. They have to settle for what they can afford. No wonder all the polls suggest that they are outraged to see people on benefits being paid to live in housing which they, as hard-working taxpayers, simply cannot afford.
Clauses 11 and 12 will limit child tax credit and universal credit to two children from April 2017. As we have heard, this is controversial, but it has to be right. Families in work have to make tough decisions on how many children they can afford. It is probably the most difficult decision any parent can make. Therefore, families on benefits should be encouraged to make the same financial decisions as families supporting themselves solely through work. It is not fair to the working families who can afford only two children that they have to pay taxes to support those who decide to have more, on the basis that the taxpayer will pay. Some will say that this is inconsistent with child benefit paid for any number of children. Yes, it is, but in politics one has to accept political reality: no Government have dared to tackle it. There are inconsistencies in many policy areas, such as the state pension being paid to the poorest and to multimillionaires, but that does not mean that we should perpetuate, or create new, unfair regimes. We are where we are and must make incremental changes where we can.
Finally, I will mention the welfare budget generally. We have heard a lot, and will hear a lot more today, about those who may have their benefits reduced because of the Chancellor’s Budget. I pay tribute to Gordon Brown for keeping us out of the euro: it was the right decision. No doubt, at the time, he considered his plan on tax credits and child tax credits to be right also. However, that was when it was set to cost £4 billion; but it has rocketed to £30 billion and applies to nine out of 10 households. So who are all the people who were not in his original plan but became included later on? Who were the unexpected beneficiaries? Did Gordon Brown never intend some or all of those who may lose out now to be winners in the first place? I simply do not know, but I cannot imagine that he intended the costs to rocket as they have, and for so many other people to be included.
There have been intriguing suggestions about where the Chancellor could get alternative funding so that there are no losers. However, the whole point is that welfare spending is out of control and has to be cut. Taking away what has been given, even if it was not justified or intended in the first place, is never easy but we all know what the long-term sustainable solution is. It is a big hike in the minimum wage until it eventually becomes the real living wage. We cannot reduce welfare dependency while large multibillion pound companies are paying poverty wages and depending on the taxpayer to pay their employees what they should be paying them in the first place. I make no apologies for returning to this theme for the fourth time this year. We have the fastest growing economy in the G8. Business is flourishing and businesses should pay their workers a lot more than the present minimum wage. I urge the Chancellor to increase the rate still further next year and ignore the usual sob stories of the CBI. We will reduce the welfare bill when people working 40 hours per week get sufficient pay on which to live, without other taxpayers having to top it up. We have a long way to go but the Bill is another step in the right direction, and I commend it to the House.
Lord Layard (Lab)
My Lords, I will make just one, completely simple, point. If you are on ESA because of mental illness, you are sick. If you are sick, you ought to be in treatment. It is an astonishing fact than under half of the people on ESA by virtue of mental illness are in any form of treatment: a crazy situation. If we really want to get these people back into work, the most important thing would be to help them get better. They should be in treatment and the purpose of the Bill should include the effort to get them into it.
So how can this be done? The vast majority of mentally ill people on ESA are suffering from depression or anxiety disorders. For all these conditions, NICE recommends the offer of psychological therapy. For severe depression and some anxiety disorders, it also recommends medication, but we know from the evidence that most patients would prefer psychological therapy. However, until 2008, NICE-recommended psychological therapy was hardly available at all on the NHS to this group of patients. Since then, however, the Improving Access to Psychological Therapies services have become available nationwide—partly due to the efforts of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley—and in the past 12 months these services saw nearly a million people.
Incidentally, the services have different names, and your Lordships may not always realise that what they are talking about and seeing is an IAPT service—I will just use the term IAPT. The key step, therefore, is to ensure that every person with depression or an anxiety disorder who is awarded ESA is referred to an IAPT service. I am planning to move an amendment—I hope in agreement with the Minister—to ensure that this happens. It should happen as automatically as possible, although we should allow the claimant to decline. We should make sure that this is an automatic part of the procedure.
The first step would be to get the claimant an assessment of his health problem. Your Lordships may not be aware of the extraordinary situation that, when people come on to ESA with depression or anxiety disorders, the vast majority will never have received a diagnosis of what is wrong with them and will have no specialist assessment of what their problem really is. They will have seen their GP, but for most of them that will be all, unless they have been referred to an IAPT service. What we need is a mechanism whereby all those coming on to ESA are automatically offered an assessment by the IAPT service locally and, following that, suitable psychological therapy. Ideally, this could all be arranged on the first day after the award of ESA, when the claimant is called to the jobcentre to be allocated to the Work Programme. Next they would be invited to go along the corridor to see Mrs or Mr So-and-so. This has to be the way to go.
By contrast, it has sometimes been suggested that we should create a separate system of psychological therapy for people whose mental health problems are affecting their employment. However, it would be extremely costly to build up a separate system; and when we have one system that is working well, that is what we should build on and use. But of course it needs improving. In particular, it needs to include professional employment support for those looking for work or at risk of job loss. This was a central feature of the original design for IAPT, which, in fact, prescribed one employment support worker for every eight therapists. Unfortunately, the Department for Work and Pensions objected to this suggestion by the Department of Health and said it was its own job to do it, but then it failed to get the money and the job did not get done at all. This is, roughly speaking, what has continued to the present day.
Fortunately, the Government—led by the Minister—have now piloted a system of individual placement and support, which will be introduced within the IAPT services. That is excellent news. Obviously, the best location for employment support workers is within the therapeutic team so that they can exchange their understanding of the claimants’ problems. However, for any of this to work, the claimants must first be referred to an IAPT service. As I said, half of them are not referred to anything and are in no treatment of any sort, so the key issue is to make that happen. But could the IAPT services cope with the extra numbers of people? The answer is yes, if the resources are provided. Of course, no alternative system could cope either without the resources being provided.
Where we are now is that the IAPT services are seeing 15% of all the adults in the community with depression and anxiety disorders. The Department of Health has proposed to the spending review that this should rise to 25% by 2020. In my view, expansion on that scale is vital, on the grounds of parity of esteem for the claimant and of simple, common-sense economics. When people recover from depression and anxiety disorders, there are massive savings in reduced welfare payments, increased tax receipts and reduced costs of physical healthcare. Our calculations are that if the proposed expansion from 15% to 25% is allowed to happen over the next five years, the public debt in Britain in 2020 will be £1 billion lower than if we did not have the expansion that we need to have. This is because clinicians recognise employment issues as an indicator of clinical priority. Work can be a major therapeutic agent. We can confidently say that the IAPT services would respond if they were given the job of treating this group of patients. The bigger doubt is about the willingness of the jobcentres to refer people; we have had a lot of trouble trying to make that happen. That is why we need legislation to ensure that a rational system of referral is put in place.
I know that the Minister is very interested in this issue and I hope that he can help us to devise a practical solution for the present absurd situation. What we have is taxpayers paying billions of pounds to people who are unable to work due to a treatable condition, for which they are not being treated. This cannot make any sense. It makes no sense for the people themselves, for whom it results in terrible hardship, or for the Exchequer. It is time that these people got the treatment that they desperately need.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
My Lords, the Government's pledge to halve the rate of unemployment for disabled people is very welcome, but I question whether their proposals will deliver that promise. The Bill requires the Secretary of State to report back to Parliament on progress towards full employment, apprenticeships and work with so-called troubled families, but there is no mention of reporting back about progress on halving the disability employment gap. Why? What of the action the Bill proposes to support disabled people into work?
The biggest barrier to overcoming the disability employment gap is employer attitudes. Most disabled people lose out on a job because of the way employers perceive their disability. Employers may sign up to the guaranteed interview scheme for disabled people, and I recognise that the public sector leads the way on this, but real-life experience suggests that this is all too often a tick-box exercise that simply raises false hope.
Take the example of a young man I know who is blind. He left university with an excellent degree. His interpersonal skills and his writing ability are second to none, and he has excellent computer skills, yet he has spent much of the last 12 years searching for paid employment. He could paper the walls with the rejection letters he has received in that time. His experience in interviews has left him convinced that even the most enlightened employers see disabled applicants as simply too risky. The Bill does nothing to tackle the discrimination that people like him face when looking for work.
The second barrier to work for disabled people is inadequate support to help them find work. The Work Programme has a very poor record of supporting disabled people to find work, and the feedback that I have received from disabled people suggests that disability advisers at jobcentres—if available at all—are less than good. The majority of employers are small enterprises, which will not necessarily have practical adaptions such as disabled toilets or lifts, which are essential for people with disabilities. Employers who employ disabled people therefore need to be certain that specialist support and accurate practical advice are available from government, easy to access and professionally delivered. A poor experience will simply reinforce employment prejudices against disabled people. Without a coherent, consistent and locally tailored service to support disabled people into and in work, Ministers will fail to make real progress in cutting the disability employment gap.
Not only does the Bill not do enough to tackle the barriers that disabled people face in finding work, it does nothing to fix the woeful record of the work capability assessment. The failure of the assessment has been bought home to me by the experiences of a close friend. Injured in a motoring collision, my friend Ann has endured years and years of successive operations and chronic back pain. Her pain clinic judged her unable to stand for more than three minutes at a time, yet, despite that, she was classified by the government system as fit for work until her consultant was so concerned that he waded in and helped to get her reassessed.
While doing nothing to confront the frequently inaccurate assessments, the Bill does address those who are considered unfit to work now but who may be fit to work at some time in the future—the work-related activity group. For the sick and disabled people in this group, Ministers plan a £30 a week cut in the employment and support allowance, claiming that this will incentivise them to find work. If the Government’s tough, not to say harsh, assessment regime has judged them unfit to work, what do Ministers expect the £30 a week cut to do? Do they think it will act as some kind of miracle cure for their illness or disability?
The language of the Bill, and that used by Minsters, in talking about incentivising disabled people to work is patronising in the extreme. Disabled people want to work; disabled people do not need to be incentivised. What disabled people need is for government, and society as a whole, to work at removing the barriers placed in their way—barriers that hundreds of thousands of disabled people who are in work overcome every day, often with Herculean effort, energy and patience.
The Bill as drafted will move disabled people further away from the workplace and act as a disincentive for people in the work-related activity group. In addition, it does not answer the fundamental question: what do the Government plan to do to educate non-disabled employers and recruiters about employing disabled people? I look forward to addressing these issues further in Committee.
Lord Rix (CB)
My Lords, first, I must apologise for being absent from your Lordships’ House for the last 18 months, but a touch of cancer, a pleural effusion and other ghastly things which can happen to people approaching their 92nd birthday have, understandably, kept me otherwise occupied.
It is of course people with a learning disability with whom I am most concerned. While there are some things to welcome, a number of clauses in the Bill will hurt many people with a learning disability, together with their families and carers. There are 1.5 million people with a learning disability in the United Kingdom and, while we have come a long way in building a more inclusive society, understandably many are on the margins, few are employed and many live in poverty or close to it. The Government have said that they will protect vulnerable and disabled people, and indeed it was clear in the Conservative manifesto that that was their intention, but I fail to see how the Bill meets that commitment.
One should of course give credit where credit is due, and it is extremely welcome that the Government have chosen to protect the disability living allowance and its replacement, the personal independence payment, from these cuts. Many people with a learning disability rely on these payments to make ends meet. However, those with mild and moderate learning disabilities are not always in receipt of DLA and PIP and so would be adversely affected by the benefit cuts and benefit freeze. The majority in this group are on employment and support allowance, a benefit specifically for people found unfit for work on account of their disability or illness.
Regrettably, the Bill also proposes cutting employment and support allowance for new claimants in the work-related activity group by around £30 a week. Currently, there are half a million sick and disabled people in this group, almost a quarter of a million of whom have mental health problems, autism or learning disabilities. These are people found unfit for work, albeit encouraged to take steps towards work, training and the like. Cutting their benefits from £102 to £73 a week is going to have a huge impact on this group. Fewer than one in 10 people with a learning disability are in work and are reliant on this much-needed income in order to make ends meet.
The Government have stated that the cut is to remove financial disincentives to work. This seems to imply that people with a learning disability are living a life of luxury on benefits, free from the desire to work. This is, frankly, insulting. There are of course barriers to work for people with a learning disability, ranging from employer attitudes to a lack of support in finding work, integrating and staying in work. The Government have pledged additional money to support people into work by the end of this Parliament, which is a welcome commitment. I hope that the Minister can confirm that a proportion of this money will be spent on those with significant barriers to overcome, including those with a learning disability.
I look forward to Committee on the Bill. Alas, I do not know how much of a role I will be able to play in the House over the coming debates, but I certainly hope that my colleagues will speak on behalf of those with a learning disability if I am unable to do so.
In conclusion, I wish to ask a question to which the Minister may find it a little difficult to give an honest answer. Where is the evidence that cutting benefits results in more people with a learning disability getting a job? I rest my case.
Lord Lupton (Con) (Maiden Speech)
My Lords, it is a great honour to stand here as a Member of this House and to speak for the first time. I begin by expressing my thanks to noble Lords on all sides of the House for the warmth of the welcome I have received. The huge amount of support available to newcomers such as myself from your Lordships, the doorkeepers, the clerks, the Library, the IT support staff, the Pass Office, the dining rooms and all the members of staff have greatly eased the rites of passage, and I thank your Lordships and them warmly.
I should also like to thank my supporters for their advice and encouragement: the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, whom I first met three years ago when I joined the board of trustees of the British Museum—an arrival she immediately celebrated by announcing her departure—and my noble friend Lord Rose of Monewden, who has been a business friend for many years. I could have no finer supporters, spanning, as they do, my interests in business, the arts and the not-for-profit sector.
Finally, I give thanks to my noble friend Lord Borwick, who has approached his duties as mentor with exemplary zeal. Two weeks ago, I made the mistake of mentioning to my noble friend that I was about to spend an early Friday evening with my pass and a map familiarising myself with this building. Within minutes, I received an email from him listing six obscure rooms that I had to find—a very upmarket sort of treasure hunt.
I am glad to make my maiden speech on a subject so vital as the Welfare Reform and Work Bill. I support the Minister’s aims for the Bill, and in particular I want to highlight the work of the troubled families programme, which the Bill seeks to enhance. Based on my family’s active interest in the welfare of those children right at the bottom of the social pile in the UK, I feel that the troubled families programme is on the right track but still has a lot to do. I suggest that more focus be brought to the needs of the most troubled children in our society.
I should like to put my speech in context. My two brothers and I grew up in a beautiful part of north Lancashire, where my father ran our long-established textile engineering business from a dark, satanic mill in Accrington, until the de-industrialisation of our UK cotton industry put it, and its many employees, out of business some years after my father’s retirement. We were brought up in an environment where love and mutual respect were strong; where hard work was expected; where ambition and, yes, competition were encouraged; where knowledge was held precious; and where the concept of community service was regarded as the expected norm. We lacked for nothing but we were taught not to want everything. It was a perfect childhood, and it gave me the foundation and all the tools to make the best of my life. Would that every child in Britain should be so lucky.
That brings me back to the Bill. It is right to highlight that income may be important in measuring poverty, but it is not the only measure. The Centre for Social Justice report, Reforming the Child Poverty Act, highlights the five measures of worklessness, family breakdown, educational failure, addiction and serious personal debt as elements of an interconnected problem that income-only based definitions of poverty fail to cover. To end poverty in this country, we cannot afford to just play with statistics; we have to strike at its underlying causes.
That is what makes the work of the troubled families programme indispensable. This programme aims to identify families in difficulty who have complex needs at a local level, and to intervene to help them directly. Three years ago, the Prime Minister set local councils the challenge of joining up services to help 120,000 such families. By now, 116,000 such families have been helped, but we simply cannot stop here. In its 2012 report, the riots panel estimated that there are around 500,000 “forgotten families” experiencing multiple disadvantages that require intensive intervention. This is a major problem of our age and of our society.
I want to go further: I have a concern that there is a whole class of young—sometimes very young—damaged children effectively growing up alone, in that they are not even part of what we think of as a family. They are not in families at all. I have met teenagers with six siblings, each from a different father. I have met children who have been physically and emotionally abused by their mother’s boyfriends. I have met children who have been excluded from school aged 13 because they have never been given a concept of boundaries and acceptable behaviour, and children who have turned to committing sexual acts on the street at that young age to fund their mother’s heroin addiction.
Why would children as young as 12 or 13 be on the street alone? Because they may have been excluded from school for their almost feral misbehaviour, caused by their lack of any upbringing. The school will have complied with DfE guidance by notifying a parent of their exclusion, whether or not any mother, father or guardian was capable of picking them up, due to their own inadequacies. Surely, that is a case where the law is failing in practice in its primary duty of care to the child rather than the school.
One might consider such a child to be beyond hope. However, it is remarkable how the human spirit can overcome impossible obstacles in the desire to survive and thrive—given help. I saw this last Friday afternoon, when my wife and I visited the Mulberry Bush School near Oxford. I declare an interest, as our family charitable foundation has recently made a small initial grant to the school. We saw first-hand the inspirational help that that school gives to some of the most damaged children in the UK, from the ages of five to 13. These are children who, in the school’s own words, have,
“been so constantly deprived and frustrated that they are full of helpless rage, which one day will manifest as panic, violence and destruction, and we must find ways to intervene early to break this destructive cycle”.
I ended our visit to the school having a conversation about shifting continental tectonic plates with a lively 12 year-old boy who only two years ago could not read or write a word; nor could he express himself intelligibly.
A good upbringing is not available to all children because, as the CSJ says in its report:
“Many of these parents received poor parenting themselves when they were children so the cycle continues unless the right intervention is given”.
We have a moral, social and economic need to intervene.
The children I describe seem, through no fault of their own, to fall between the lack of statutory duties of the DfE after they are excluded from school and the DWP, because of their young age. That is why the troubled families programme is so vital. It specialises in a whole-family approach, it cuts through jurisdictions and statistics, and it helps people who need it most. It uses many different models to fill the gap that I describe.
My point is that the new reporting requirements for the troubled families programme as set out in the Bill are a useful step in the right direction. But there is so much more to develop, not least whether there are more relevant ways to measure success so that the payment-by-results approach can be applied to greater effect and children who somehow survive in what is anything but a family unit are scooped up into the care net.
We owe it to the legion of “lost families” and “lost children” to intervene. I applaud the direction of travel of the troubled families programme, especially the renewed investment of a further £200 million to add to the £448 million already invested in this programme. I finish by quoting what Confucius is credited with saying some 2,500 years ago:
“The strength of a nation derives from the integrity of the home”.
Some things, my Lords, do not change.
Lord Borwick (Con)
My Lords, I first must congratulate my noble friend Lord Lupton for an outstanding maiden speech, in which he has carelessly set the bar very high indeed for his future performances. I have known the noble Lord for some years, and I know that he is widely respected in the City of London and by his colleagues. To have that combination of wisdom and friendliness is an awesome mixture, which will encourage no end of requests for him to volunteer to help in this House. I predict that we will hear from him those words often muttered in this House, “I wonder why I volunteered for that”.
My noble friend Lord Lupton is clever enough to actually understand the welfare system, while not actually needing it. I recently saw a video on YouTube making the point that it would take the world’s fastest speed-reader more than five days straight to read through the entire UK tax code. The regulations and guidance on the myriad benefits that are available to claim may pose an equally difficult challenge, so much so that I am sure that the ability to really understand the benefits system is a skill that would make anybody employable at a very high level.
I noticed that the benefits cap puts a cap on a total of 14 different benefits. We have a structure so convoluted that I am not sure that anybody who administers it can really control it. Universal credit will do much to simplify the system but there are still dozens more benefits, which keeps things complex.
Perhaps much of the complexity came from a previous Chancellor, Gordon Brown, a man who is reputed to believe that anybody can understand this composite cat’s cradle. I am not sure how many claimants get all 14 benefits, but the sooner we get a simpler system in place, the better.
So, the benefit cap—at £23,000 in London and £20,000 elsewhere—has to be a step forward. I wonder, though, whether future claimants will regard it as a new measure of success to get the maximum rather than anything less. I am sure that we can rely on the benefits system to retain enough complexity to keep people employed.
I wanted to talk about Clause 20, an important clause which manages to take up 38 lines without using the one word which describes the subject of that clause—Motability. Clause 20 takes up those 38 lines, and only manages to improve the Government’s deficit by charging Motability a sum of about £1 million. Every million pounds counts, we are told.
The Motability scheme has been a great success over very many years. Founded by my noble friend Lord Sterling, it has enabled millions of disabled people to get a car—which would otherwise have been impossible. Indeed, it has provided finance to a group who may be described as being about the only big group in our society unable to obtain finance. This is partly because of the well-known fact that poverty is inextricably linked with disability. The regular stream of income from welfare payments is irrevocably diverted to the Motability scheme for the length of the finance term. Because of this, Motability has been able to obtain catering quantities of finance to lend to disabled borrowers. It has then been able to use its buying power, as the largest individual purchaser of cars, to obtain discounts unavailable to other people. Of course, there is a further enormous difference in the VAT position. VAT is not charged on vehicles purchased by Motability, but a second-hand car is generally sold without VAT.
I may have a certain advantage over other noble Lords in that I had the privilege of running a portion of the Motability scheme. That involved financing wheelchairs and scooters, in partnership with a great charity called the Enham Trust, for a period of seven or so years until we sold it back to Motability Finance. So I have no interest to declare, but I do have a certain amount of out-of-date knowledge and a lot of respect for the people who run the Motability scheme. When I took over the powered wheelchair finance scheme, I little realised that I was entering a trade that made the fictional Arthur Daley look like an angel. The scams, rip-offs and downright fraud, with disabled people as the victims, were amazing. We sorted out the book and got rid of most of the bad dealers, promoting the good ones and serving the customers much better.
One thing always puzzled me about the car scheme—the way that the scheme provided the same sort of car, including insurance, everywhere in the UK. That was because the level of benefit was identical throughout the UK, despite car insurance varying widely in price depending on where you lived. Essentially, then, disabled customers in countryside areas, or perhaps with small mileages, were subsidising disabled customers who lived in London or Northern Ireland—places with historically higher insurance rates.
Given the immense problems which disabled people generally face, perhaps one group of disabled people having an unfair advantage over another is not the worst problem that can perplex noble Lords who are trying to do the right thing. Maybe we should try to do something about why disabled people are generally poor, or why poor people have a greater chance of becoming disabled. There are difficulties with both, but I feel that the problems of cross-subsidies could perhaps be ameliorated by the structure hinted at in this Bill—that of introducing more competition into the Motability scheme. If there were a choice of finance providers, such bias in the system would soon disappear. There is a king-sized danger of vulnerable customers being mistreated, as there is in any finance scheme, but competition and good regulation have a way of driving out the bad guys.
The great success of the Motability structure over the last 40-odd years of its existence is that it has really changed the market. It has moved disabled drivers from those horrible three-wheeler Invacare trikes, known to most people as Noddy cars—and usually mistaken for Reliant Robins—into a system where, if you were looking for the group with the highest percentage of new cars, it would probably be younger, mobility-impaired, disabled people. That they have more new cars, financed at cheap rates, is a triumph. So this partnership between a charity and a finance company is a powerful structure.
Why do we limit it to things with wheels? Could it not be widened to embrace parts of the health service and benefit distribution as well? Noble Lords on all sides of this House would encourage the Government to do more of what they do well. Noble Lords on this side would like to stop the Government doing things they do badly. Surely the Motability system is one of the best organisations that we have, so we should look at ways to widen the range of things it might do. I wholeheartedly welcome Clause 20 of this Bill, but I ask the Minister whether it could not go further forward on this point.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham (Lab)
My Lords, the wind-up speech on Third Reading of this Bill by the Minister of State at the Department for Work and Pensions, Priti Patel, in the other place on 27 October was remarkable. Much of it was echoed today by the noble Lord, Lord Freud. I believe that almost all her assertions were false, apart from the fact that she supported the Bill. Priti Patel said that welfare spending was out of control; she said it was “unaffordable” and that we needed to make cuts which were “fair to taxpayers”.
That is false. Tax credits did not rise from £1 billion to £30 billion, as was parroted down the other end, but they built on the almost £5 billion base we inherited from the admirable family credit of the noble Lord, Lord Fowler. Some 50% more lone parents entered work with the help of tax credits, and the income support bill fell from £15.7 billion to £2.9 billion between 1996-97 and 2012-13 as women transferred from out-of-work benefits to in-work benefits—tax credits. Add the fact that more than two-thirds of the jobs created between 2008 and 2013 were for people in self-employment with a median income of £10,000, who needed tax credits to survive, and that broadly explains the cash rise. Have we been told that at any point? Oh no, my Lords.
None the less, is the welfare bill unaffordable? No, my Lords, false again. The Office for Budget Responsibility report, Welfare trends, of October 2014, shows that welfare benefits, including pensions, as a share of national income —GDP—which is surely the true test, were 12% in 1983-84 and 12% in 1993-94, and are 12% now. They have not raced away, but have been broadly steady, fluctuating only a little in times of recession. Have Ministers told us that either? Oh no, my Lords.
The Minister in the other place says that we must be “fair to taxpayers”. This assumes that there are two tribes—benefit recipients and taxpayers. We heard something about this today. Professor Sir John Hills’ research shows that even the poorest pay for half the benefits they get back through their national insurance and taxes, especially indirect taxes. The mirror-opposite is true: most of us get back most of what we pay in over our lifetime. As my noble friend Lady Sherlock said, social security smooths out and supports us. This happens if we have children, through child benefit; if we experience a broken marriage, unemployment or under-employment, disability, caring responsibilities, bereavement or old age. Speaking personally, while paying taxes every year, I have also received benefits to help smooth five of those seven life-changing circumstances. That will be true for many of us here. Indeed, over the course of 18 years, half the population has needed and received a means-tested benefit. There are not two tribes of taxpayers and benefit takers. It is a fact that almost all of us are both, often at the same time, one with another. Shame on those who deliberately inflame social hatreds with such malevolent fictions.
The Minister in the other place also claimed that she was part of the “one nation Government”. Equally, the Prime Minister has talked about “compassionate Conservatism”. Really, then why are we loading these expenditure cuts on the backs of the poor? Why push the poor into debt to help the Government out of it? Compassionate Conservatism? We have heard about ESA. Disabled people want to work, but DWP work programmes have failed, so now the Government are going to press them into work by cutting their benefit by £30 a week to JSA levels. Most of them will not work because they cannot. Instead, they will appeal, as nearly 40% of them do now, and more than half will win those appeals. They will move further away from work into the long-term support group of ESA instead.
Compassionate Conservatism? Let us take the benefits cap. Half the 120,000 affected families, larger families living in the private rented sector, will lose more than £50 a week. The Government cut local housing allowance because a couple of years ago the noble Lord, Lord Freud, believed, against all the evidence, that this would bring down private sector rents. He was wrong; it has not and it will not. Only an increase in the building of new social and affordable rented homes will check rents. Instead, with its 1% cut, the Bill does exactly the opposite. You could not make it up. It will remove around 19,000 prospective local authority homes and probably even more housing association homes from potential construction. Norwich, Milton Keynes and Cambridge are cities with high housing demand, but they will cut back their supply. From next April, a capped family of four will not get enough housing benefit to pay for any private rented home in London. I am told that a capped family of five will not be able to pay for a three-bedroom housing association property anywhere in the country. One nation? There is not even one city as the poor are moved on and out, destabilising the very family life that Mr Duncan Smith calls for.
Finally, in the name of compassionate Conservatism, let us take children. The Prime Minister and the Chief Whip told the country during the election that child tax credits would not be cut, but in fact they will be. In addition, the Government will remove funding of £3,325 from the family element for the third child and more, even if that child is disabled—from Catholic, Jewish and BME children; from families who have offered kinship care; from one in seven families. We do not refuse the third child his school place or her hospital visit because every child matters—except to the DWP. We do not even deny better-off families child benefit for the third child. Most European countries actually increase support for larger families because they care about child poverty, but not this Government. Suffer the little children in larger families—and they will indeed suffer, to our shame.
The Minister, Priti Patel, went on to say:
“This Government are committed to working to eliminate child poverty and to improving life chances”.—[Official Report, Commons, 27/10/15; col. 305.]
That is impossible. Every measure in this Bill will increase, not eliminate, child poverty. No doubt that is why the Government will no longer count the numbers; it is too awkward. Instead, we get “life chances”, allegedly determined by worklessness and educational attainment, along with addiction and other issues thrown in. This is grotesque.
Worklessness? Some two-thirds of children in workless families are not in poverty, while two-thirds of children in poverty are in working families. The research is unambiguous. Life chances are determined by income, not, as the Secretary of State seems to believe, the other way around. In the 19th century there was a belief that if you could only remoralise the poor, there would be fewer of them, or possibly none of them. A few sentences later in the same debate, the Commons Minister insists that the Government,
“are absolutely committed to protecting the most vulnerable in society”.—[Official Report, Commons, 27/10/15; col. 306.]
Unless, of course, they are disabled and in a WRAG, or vulnerable children.
That brings me to the Government’s final claim: that they are the workers’ party. It is a pity, then, that working families on tax credits and UC will be poorer in the future. MPs swagger down at the other end, telling them to work longer and harder, but for what? After tax, national insurance, and HB and council tax tapers, low-income families on tax credits will lose 96p in the pound for every extra hour they work. They will keep 4p. Even with UC, which I support, the same family will keep just 19p in the pound. Does 4p in the pound per hour really make work pay? Would any lone parent, mother or indeed any of us trade an hour caring for our children to earn 4p an hour? I would not. Or does the DWP propose to sanction her into it? As the Spectator said, these are battles of choice by the Government, not battles of necessity. They do not need to do it. Please spare us unctuous phrases like, “difficult decisions” and “hard choices”. For whom, exactly? They are not for Government Ministers. The hard choices and harder lives will fall on the working poor, on disabled people in WRAG and on children as people struggle to avoid debt, arrears and eviction, as their health deteriorates and their families break up. That is the offer in this Bill from a self-professed one-nation Government. We can surely do better than this.
Lord Low of Dalston (CB)
My Lords, here we go again with another round of ideologically driven cuts to welfare. I say “ideologically driven” because we do not need all this austerity. This is not the moment to argue the point, but we do not. Even if we did, requiring the poor to bear the brunt of it reflects a highly retrograde sense of priorities. Be in no doubt: this Bill represents a clear government decision as to their priorities, which could have been otherwise. It is the brainchild of people who are on a mission to shrink the state. Welfare can disincentivise work and keep people in a state of dependency, and that is rightly being tackled, but overwhelmingly, welfare benefits are paid to people in need and are the product of a society which increased prosperity and increased state provision has made increasingly civilised. The Bill legislates for a raft of cuts to meet the Government’s target of cutting £12 billion from the welfare budget. That cannot but have a devastating impact on poor people who depend on benefits. We should remember that Tony Blair was reputed to have asked what you had to do to save £1 billion on welfare. He was told that 1 million people have to lose £1,000, so 12 million people will have to lose £1,000, which is an awful lot.
These cuts are likely to have a disproportionate impact on disabled people, which I begin by highlighting. Here I declare my interest as a vice-president of the RNIB. The Government have made a welcome commitment to protect DLA and its replacement, personal independence payment, from the proposed cuts. However, the Bill cuts a number of working-age benefits that disabled people are disproportionately likely to receive, such as ESA, JSA, housing benefit, tax credits and the new universal credit. Households with disabled members in receipt of DLA/PIP or who are in the ESA support group are exempt from the benefit cap. However, many disabled people do not fall into these categories. In particular, those in the ESA WRAG group would be subject to the cap, despite being found unfit for work and despite DWP research showing that only half of those in this group were also claiming DLA/PIP.
The Bill freezes a number of key benefits that many disabled people receive, such as JSA, housing benefit and universal credit. Those on DLA/PIP are exempted from the four-year freeze, but specific elements targeted at disabled people, such as the basic rate and work-related components of ESA, housing benefit and the limited-capability work component of universal credit, are frozen. These are clearly matters we will want to pursue in Committee. I merely flag them up. I do not propose to pursue the impact on disabled people further this evening because, along with the noble Baronesses, Lady Meacher and Lady Grey-Thompson, I am carrying out a review, supported by a number of disability charities, of the impact of the cuts in ESA for those in the WRAG group and it is best that I do not anticipate the review.
Instead, I want to talk about two issues in the context of the Bill: first, how claimants might get the support and advice they need to adjust to the changes; and, secondly, how to protect against the worst effects of sanctions hitting the most vulnerable. For the past three years, I have been chairing a commission on the future of advice on social welfare issues, which has highlighted these issues for me.
Starting with information and advice, every time we debate new measures on welfare in this House, we find that the complexity of the regulations and rules around things such as conditions of entitlement, contributory and non-contributory elements, time limits, disability benefits assessment descriptors and differential withdrawal tapers baffle even the most expert. How much more baffling must the system be to claimants who have to grapple with long and unclear forms, technical language and shifting entitlement rules? For those in insecure employment or in and out of low-paid work, just calculating income accurately can be a nightmare. Even when claimants get all their information right, the system is prone to error. DWP estimates that just as a result of simple administrative errors, claimants are underpaid by £1.4 billion and overpaid by £2.4 billion. Then there is the vast number of decisions that DWP gets wrong. The success rate on appeals runs at more than 56%, despite the introduction of mandatory reconsideration.
Universal credit claims to tackle, and eventually remove, many of the system’s complexities, but, as it proceeds laboriously through stage-by-stage implementation to absorb new rules and aggregate different benefit entitlements, new complexities emerge. For example, there is a misunderstanding of the rules or gateway conditions governing who is eligible to claim universal credit in the first place and whether tax rebates count as earnings under universal credit, and the regulations now differ significantly between digital trial areas and elsewhere. New residency rules and interaction with child benefit and child tax credits are a further source of confusion.
Universal credit implementation and the ongoing impact of the 2012 reforms affecting disabled people’s transition into either the new ESA or PIP regimes are generating additional pressures on advice agencies as more people seek support on how to claim, how changes to benefits calculations affect their household income and how to challenge decisions through the tortuous reconsideration and redress process. All but second-tier appellate tribunal issues have been taken out of the scope of legal aid and local government funding for welfare rights advice has also taken a massive hit. The availability and quality of advice has been adversely affected as demand has rocketed. More than one-third of the issues that present to the CAB network concern welfare benefits. Last year, there were around 1.8 million issues spread over nearly 650,000 clients, overtaking debt as the largest category of individuals that CABs deal with. Our commission argues that a new strategy for advice should be put in place on an invest-to-save basis and on the basis that early preventive rights-based advice, provided through CABs and other agencies, can save resources in other parts of our public sector welfare and support systems as well as in health and criminal justice.
Cabinet Ministers appear to recognise that intermediaries and advice can play an important part in the welfare system. As part of universal credit delivery, local authorities are expected to play a key support role by arranging provision for face-to-face services for those claimants unable to manage their benefit claim electronically or for those with more complex and multiple needs. The universal credit local support services framework, agreed between DWP and the LGA, has followed from a number of pilots. The model is based on partnership working between DWP and jobcentres, local authorities and contracted providers, such as housing associations, including in the voluntary sector, and with money advice agencies as key delivery partners. There is also some specific outcome-based funding support from DWP to local authorities for the programme, which I hope will be protected from the Chancellor’s cuts. Overall, this initiative is very welcome, although the stress is on financial capability, that is to say budgeting on benefits-supported lower incomes, and on supplementing back-to-work support rather than welfare rights, income maximisation and related social need.
How much help is this programme really delivering? How many delivery partnership agreements have been signed? So far the Minister has announced only 11 local partnerships, the same partnerships that were piloting this approach before. If this is the scale of the scheme, then it hardly qualifies as universal support. The Bill should address whether the information and advice support services’ framework for welfare reform should be put on to a statutory and less discretionary footing or should at least form part of DWP’s statutory guidance, perhaps linked to the information and advice strategies that local authorities are having to prepare to meet their obligations under the Care Act 2014. This statutory guidance approach could also make it clear that expectations around delivery must be factored into local commissioning or grant-making arrangements that councils use to support their local advice sectors. The whole universal support process should be one of co-production between statutory agencies and the independent advice sector to underpin the proposed delivery partnership agreements.
The second issue is the growing concern about the use of sanctions in our benefits system. There are protections or safeguards in DWP guidance dating back to 2000 to prevent automatic sanctions applying to vulnerable claimants or to claimants with complex needs, based on social services data and mental health status and, if necessary, home visits. However, as legislation and regulations have become more complex while, at the same time, reinforcing conditionality and sanctions as approaches to encouraging work-seeking behaviours, this guidance is becoming increasingly outdated and weak. This is especially the case in respect of universal credit claims, new JSA claimants and clients of Work Programme providers. There is also often a lack of awareness of the safeguards among DWP and Work Programme provider staff. The Work and Pensions Select Committee report on sanctions after the Oakley review recommended that safeguards should be included in legislation. This Bill gives us the opportunity, and I shall be bringing forward amendments to bring that about.
Earl Cathcart (Con)
My Lords, this is the first time I have spoken in a welfare Bill. What caught my eye was the clause on social housing rents, under which the social housing sector, which provides affordable housing, must reduce rents by 1% a year for four years. My initial response was that it might cause some controversy, but I see that the social housing sector has increased its rents by 20% since 2010, which is more than double any increase in the private landlord sector. As a private landlord, I do not see how the social housing sector managed to get away with that. It is unfair on its tenants and, indeed, the taxpayer, who has to pick up the tab for these increases—so much for affordable housing. I support this measure.
Private sector landlords play an increasingly important role in the rented housing market. The number of properties rented by private landlords has doubled in the past 10 years and they now account for 4.2 million properties for rent, more than half the total rental stock. Private sector landlords also play an increasingly important role in housing those in receipt of benefits. According to Department for Work and Pensions statistics, as of August, around 32% of all housing benefit claimants lived in private rented accommodation.
As the market tightens due to increased demand, it is important to encourage and support landlords to house those in receipt of universal credit so that they are able to access accommodation, otherwise they will find themselves at the back of the queue. It is vital that landlords have full confidence that they will be paid in full and on time if vulnerable tenants are to have access to the rented homes they need. This is especially important since the Government took away the option for tenants to ask that the housing element of universal credit be paid directly to the landlord, as was formerly allowed under housing benefit, even though many tenants want to do this. In October 2012, a survey of more than 1,000 landlords carried out by the Residential Landlords Association and the Scottish Association of Landlords found that more than 91% of landlords were less likely to rent to tenants on benefits as a result of the decision not automatically to make payment of the benefit direct to the landlord, even when a tenant reaches eight weeks’ worth of rent arrears. It would be good if the Government brought forward an amendment allowing the housing element of universal credit to be paid directly to the landlord. That is my first point.
There are two other measures that should be included in the Bill to assist with giving landlords the confidence they need. The first is that landlords need information on payment of universal credit. Landlords need assurances that tenants have the funds available to pay their rent. Without these, renting to them becomes a risky proposition. Currently, private landlords have no information about the level of payment of universal credit to tenants or about when it will be paid. To provide confidence to a landlord, tenants should be allowed to give their consent to their landlord accessing a limited amount of information to confirm that a universal credit claim has been made and to check the status of that claim. I understand that social landlords are able to gain such information, so why not private landlords? For tenants in work, landlords always ask for a reference from employers to establish their income to ensure that funds are available to cover the rent. It must surely be common sense for landlords to be able to do likewise for those in receipt of housing benefit. I hope that in Committee the Government will bring forward an amendment that will ensure that there is a clear legal power, where the tenant provides written consent, for the Department for Work and Pensions to disclose to a landlord information on the housing element of a tenant’s universal credit claim, including the amount and when it is paid.
My last point concerns universal credit claimants’ rent arrears. As benefit claimants may often move home, including to seek work, landlords need the security of knowing that tenants in receipt of universal credit cannot simply stop paying their rent and leave their property. Currently, rent arrears can be recouped where a benefit claimant is still living in the house to which the arrears apply. There is, however, little or no opportunity for landlords to recoup them when such tenants move house unless they are prepared to go through a lengthy and probably costly court process. It is important that measures are put in place to give landlords more confidence that they will not be left facing rent arrears. Knowing that the landlord could recover rent arrears from an ongoing universal credit claim, even after a tenant has left the property, would be a strong disincentive for a tenant to rack up arrears in the first place. I hope the Minister will bring forward a measure in the Bill that will ensure that rent arrears follow a tenant in receipt of universal credit, and that landlords affected have a clear route to reclaim the lost rent in such circumstances. I hope the Minister will look favourably on my three points, but I shall not hold my breath.
Baroness Bakewell (Lab)
My Lords, in considering the implications of this Bill for our society, I invoke the judgment of Adam Smith, author of The Wealth of Nations and acclaimed founder of the economic theory that gave birth to economic liberalism and the free market economy, who is a hero in many people’s eyes. Adam Smith was not just an economist; he was also a philosopher. In his work The Theory of Moral Sentiments he expressed concerns that man in society had obligations other than to give free rein to his ambitions and self-interest. He wrote:
“How selfish-soever man may be supposed, there are evidently some principles in his nature which interest him in the fortune of others, and render their happiness necessary to him”.
From this sprang what is called caring conservatism, a concept already referred today by my noble friend Lady Hollis. It has had a good run for its money, finding expression in Disraeli’s one-nation politics and, in our own day, in David Cameron’s big society.
That very concept is currently being gouged out and hollowed by the cruelties attendant on this Bill. We have been living for some time within a sea change of outlook on the part of our Governments to the public realm and the obligations of the state to care for its citizens. We have seen its impact on civic society. Even the Prime Minister has noticed. In his letter to the Conservative leader of Oxfordshire County Council, he expressed his concern at the cuts to services: elderly day centres, children’s centres, libraries and such. In response, the council leader, a Conservative, wrote:
“I cannot accept your description of a drop in funding of £72 m or 37% as a ‘slight fall’”.
Other local councils are similarly up in arms at the scale of what they are having to cut: libraries, museums, galleries, sports facilities, parks and playgrounds, children’s centres, youth clubs, after-school and holiday clubs, health and safety inspections. All and more are being stripped from the public realm.
Now with this welfare Bill claiming to promote employment we see real cruelty in dealing with people. In the service of whatever ideology or economic imperative these policies are promoting, their scale is now indefensible. This Bill deliberately hits those who are already poor, disabled or young. I ask the Minister to explain in what way this does anything to eliminate the prevailing direction of our society towards ever-greater divisions between rich and poor and how that is defensible in the name of caring conservatism.
Let me now refer to another ideology altogether. I was part of a cultural delegation to China in 1983 when the diktats of Chairman Mao were in full swing, including the one-child family policy. A Chinese friend I met there took me aside and explained that he and his wife had defied the ruling and had two children, for which he had been demoted and financially penalised. Our delegation was scandalised. I little thought that some decades later a Bill before Parliament would be discriminating between the worth of one child and another in the same family. I am equally scandalised today and I am not alone. Faith groups across the country —Baptist, Jewish, Church of England, Church of Scotland, Quaker, Methodist, the United Reformed Church and the Caritas Social Action Network, which is the Catholic bishops—have expressed concerns about Clauses 11 and 12 limiting financial support to the first two children in any family. The government assessment estimates this measure will affect 640,000 families by 2020-21, which will mean at least 2 million children will be affected. We are not China but we are seeking by economic policies to limit family size.
Clause after clause of this Bill attacks the vulnerable. Clauses 7 and 8 lowering the benefit cap will affect 120,000 households forcing—so leaked DWP documents suggest—40,000 children below the poverty line. How can we then reduce poverty and its damning statistics? Clauses 6 and 4 will take care of that, by repealing the existing income-based measures of poverty and replacing them with so-called life chance indicators.
The whole area of disability and assessment, as we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Low, will need to be carefully scrutinised. While welcoming certain aspects of the Bill’s intentions, Parkinson’s UK is worried, as are many charities, about the impact assessment for Clause 13 to cover the known problems with work capability assessment. We can begin with Clause 1 and ask that the reporting obligations are confirmed.
The Bill flies defiantly in the face of caring conservatism. Its measures, meant to promote employment, need to be scrutinised clause by clause against the damage they will do to the well-being of all our citizens.
Baroness Maddock (LD)
My Lords, I have three relevant declarations of interest. I am vice-president of the Local Government Association, vice-president of National Energy Action, which is a fuel poverty charity, and vice-president of the Sustainable Energy Association. I will confine my remarks this evening to two main areas—the almost wholesale repeal of the Child Poverty Act 2010, and how the fuel poverty strategy put in place during the coalition Government interacts with this Bill.
First, I have a general comment. In another place, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, Iain Duncan Smith, said:
“This is a Bill for working Britain … work is the best route out of poverty … being in work should always pay more than being on benefits … spending on welfare should be sustainable and fair to the taxpayer while protecting the most vulnerable”.—[Official Report, Commons, 20/7/15; col. 1258.]
Many of us might agree with quite a lot of that but, when we examine the Bill closely, we find that it does not quite live up to those aims. This is particularly so when we look at the sections on child poverty and life chances. The Bill removes the four poverty targets set out in the Child Poverty Act 2010 and thereby the Government’s duty to meet those targets. Under this Bill, the Secretary of State will have only to report annually on the number of children in workless households and educational attainment at the end of key stage 4. Other noble Lords commented on this earlier. Gone are any targets on income and material deprivation. I recognise that, during the previous Parliament, coalition Ministers called for improved measures of child poverty that would better reflect the causes of poverty but we seem to be—and I apologise for this phrase but I could not find a better one—throwing the baby out with the bath water.
The Government’s evidence review, published in January 2014, indeed showed that long-term worklessness had a very high bearing on the ability of children to exit poverty, as did low earnings. It also showed that low educational attainment had a major effect on the likelihood of poor children becoming poor adults. It was also clear from the review that income levels affected many of the areas that keep children in poverty and lead to poor life chances. There are so many factors that affect children’s ability to do well educationally—not just housing but life experiences and the food they eat, which affects their health. All these are affected by levels of income.
I know that free school meals for all young children, which was pushed against the wishes of some of my Conservative colleagues when we were in coalition, have made a huge difference, not only to family incomes, particularly in my area of north Northumberland, but also to levels of attainment in those children. We have heard rumours that the Government want to close the scheme down. Can the Minister tell us whether this is true or merely a rumour?
In drawing up this Bill, how much attention have the Government paid to duties under the Fuel Poverty (England) Regulations 2014, particularly the legal requirement for the United Kingdom Government to declare how they will reach the new fuel targets in England within six months of the most recent general election? To date, this has not been done and the Energy and Climate Change Committee has already pointed out that the current resources are less than half those required to meet the targets set in that strategy. Has the Department for Work and Pensions looked at how its proposals will affect the numbers in fuel poverty? We know that reduced incomes will send more people—more families, more children—into fuel poverty. Has the Department for Work and Pensions looked at the interaction between any change in the warm home discount and its proposals, particularly any changes to the incomes of low-paid working families with children?
The warm home discount scheme provides automatic electricity bill support for low-income older-age house- holds. For other vulnerable and low-income electricity customers who are not of pensionable age there is a one-off payment of £140. This is not paid automatically but is available to people if they apply in the summer. The policy is paid for through a levy on energy consumers and delivered across Great Britain by obligated energy suppliers. Without an extension this scheme will expire in 2016. It is important to know how these measures will interact with each other. Can the Minister tell us whether his department has taken account of such matters? I realise that it is not directly his responsibility but we urgently need to know what plans the Government have for the warm home discount scheme.
In conclusion, we can all agree that the strategies put in place after the 2010 Act have not led to the level of changes that we would have liked, particularly around child poverty. We all want better results. We have had two strategies with a review in between and now drastic changes to the 2014 strategy. I wonder if the Minister—I am sorry he is not in his place but I understand it is a long time to sit there—can tell us why he thinks we are going to do so much better with the proposals here today. Many think they do not reflect well enough what the 2014 review actually showed. They will certainly help the Government by reducing targets but will they help reduce child poverty? Will they improve the life chances of children in poverty? Having listened to contributions this evening I am quite sure we are going to have robust discussions in Committee and I sincerely hope this will lead to an improved Bill. I hope that we can look further at the issue of fuel poverty.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, the title of this Bill is a misnomer. It will not enhance welfare in the true sense of, to fare well. Instead, it will undermine the welfare of families with children in particular—already hit hard by a succession of social security cuts—because, unlike the last welfare reform Bill, which included some genuine reform alongside cuts, this Bill does not. In so far as it promotes work, it does so through the punitive Poor Law “less eligibility” principle and the devaluation of unpaid care work. A truer title would be the “denial and aggravation of child poverty Bill”. It effectively erases child poverty from the legislative lexicon, while together with other measures it could mean a further 600,000 children in poverty by 2020, according to the Resolution Foundation. The Joint Committee on Human Rights, of which I was a member, recommended that the Government should assess the impact on child poverty of any new law, as well as its compatibility with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. There is no such assessment, and that with regard to the rights of the child is written in a rose-tinted font.
Instead, as we have heard, the Bill removes all the statutory measures, duties and targets that underpinned this country’s child poverty strategy, which, under the last Labour Government, led to a significant reduction in child poverty. How will the Government now be held accountable for meeting their manifesto pledge to,
“work to eliminate child poverty”?
As for measures, the 2012 consultation balanced a preference for a multidimensional measure, with the statement:
“The Government is not playing a zero-sum game with child poverty measurement”.
This is from the coalition Government, but led by a Conservative in the DWP:
“There can be no doubt that income is a key part of our understanding of child poverty”.
The Government are playing a zero-sum game now. The 2012 consultation demonstrated overwhelming support for the retention of an income measure, as analysis of the responses by Kitty Stewart and Nick Roberts, of the LSE’s Centre for Analysis of Social Exclusion, demonstrates. They found general agreement that low income/material deprivation are the only factors that are reliably able to distinguish those in poverty from those who are not. In evidence to the Public Bill Committee, respected academics branded the proposal as “silly” and warned that we are in danger of becoming “an international laughing stock”. A systematic academic review by CASE demonstrated unequivocally that family income is a key driver of children’s development and opportunities. As a CASE blog observed, not measuring income poverty while professing concern about life chances is little short of bizarre.
The Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission called for,
“a clear commitment to maintain the centrality of income in measuring poverty”.
Perhaps that is why it is now going to lose child poverty from its remit. Will the Minister explain why that is the case? Given the replacement of the Child Poverty Act with a life chances Act, would it not make sense to call it the “life chances commission”, which would signal a broader remit than the narrow, meritocratic concept of “social mobility”?
Why, when the majority of children now live in households with a parent in work, is there to be no measure that can capture this alongside worklessness? Perhaps one reason is that some of the Bill’s measures, together with other tax credit cuts, are likely to aggravate in-work child poverty. In particular, families “supporting themselves through work”, to quote the Minister, could be hardest hit by the removal of means-tested financial support for third and subsequent children because of the interaction with the benefit cap for out-of-work families. The Children’s Commissioner is one of many who have voiced concerns, pointing out that this does not take account of the way family circumstances can so easily change. Yet, when introducing universal credit, Ministers placed such emphasis on the need for a dynamic understanding of family behaviour. Overall, children in black and minority ethnic families are likely to be disproportionately hurt. Their already high risk of poverty will increase, as will that of disabled children.
Another measure that will bear down particularly hard on larger and minority ethnic families is the reduction in the benefit cap. Now that it is being decoupled from average earnings, the rationale for its level is unclear. The original arguments against the cap have even greater force. As I argued when we last discussed the cap, it is unfair deliberately to reduce the amount of money some families will receive to well below the amount Parliament has determined is the minimum required to meet their needs.
It is even more unfair when, as my noble friend Lady Sherlock pointed out, the Government do not compare like with like when contrasting out-of-work and in-work incomes. No account is taken of the in-work benefits received on top of the comparator earnings, in particular child benefit and child tax credit, yet these benefits are included in the cap. This was pointed out in a recent Supreme Court judgment. Three out of five of the judges believed that the cap is not compliant with the UNCRC’s requirement to treat the best interests of the child as a primary consideration. Although the appeal was not allowed, the hope was expressed that the Government would address the implications of this finding when they review the cap—some hope.
One of the justifications for the cap is to increase work incentives, yet the House of Commons Library observes that,
“there is no general consensus”,
that it is,
“proving an effective means of moving claimants into work”.
Instead, a Community Links study found that when you force people into what they call “survival mode”, it can make finding and keeping a job harder and less of a priority because all you can think about is trying to get by. Also, 6% of those already capped are claiming carer’s allowance. Carers UK warns that many,
“are not in a position to pick up work or further work without reducing or withdrawing the care they provide”.
It asks, as the Government have said that it is not their intention to encourage people to stop caring and go into work, why this policy applies to carers. I hope the Minister has an answer. Also, is it reasonable to expect the 15% of capped lone parents who have a child aged under one to work when they are not required to do so even under the Bill’s further extension of conditionality?
Finally, the benefits freeze comes on top of existing cuts in their real value, which is particularly marked for child benefit and has been described by the IFS as “highly regressive”. The impact assessment notes that women are more likely to be affected than men, which is true of many of the measures. Moreover, as the main managers of poverty, women will bear much of the burden, at the expense of their mental and physical health.
I end with two questions. Will the Minister explain how the family test—which the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, assured your Lordships’ House would be “strictly applied” to “all new policies”—is applied to a Bill that will spell disproportionate hardship for families with children? Will he explain how this damaging and punitive Bill, which will increase child poverty, is compatible with the Prime Minister’s pledge of,
“an all-out assault on poverty”?
Baroness Hollins (CB)
My Lords, the Government have ambitious aspirations to halve the disability employment gap, to achieve parity of esteem for mental and physical health conditions, and to improve children’s life chances. My remarks will be particularly relevant to Clauses 1 and 13, and are intended to highlight some risks in the Bill and to propose some changes and different approaches.
Clause 1 obliges the Secretary of State to report on progress made towards full employment, but this full employment reporting obligation does not include a breakdown to show whether any progress is being made towards halving the disability employment gap. Such a breakdown would maintain focus on the Government’s welcome manifesto commitment. Does the Minister agree that the reporting duty in the Bill would be strengthened if it included progress towards their wished-for reduction in the disability gap?
The employment rate for people in all disability groups between July and September this year was 47.6%. The gap between unemployment for disabled people and the rest of the population has remained stagnant at 30% for a decade, although it seems to be beginning to grow. People with certain specific disabilities are further underrepresented in the workplace. For example, just 15% of adults with autism are in full-time paid employment.
I have an interest and expertise in learning disability. There are 1.5 million people with a learning disability in the UK. As my noble friend Lord Rix mentioned earlier, fewer than one in 10 adults with a learning disability are in work. Supporting people with a learning disability back to work requires specialist skills. A number of approaches are known to help people with learning disabilities into work. These include skills development; buddying schemes and mentoring; improved access to apprenticeship schemes, especially traineeships and supported internships; and breaking down the structural and societal barriers that prevent people with learning disabilities entering or returning to work. Dr Knight, a psychiatrist colleague and researcher who has helped me with this speech, recently saw three patients with a learning disability. Each of them wanted to work and had experience as a volunteer. None of them, however, has been able to progress to paid employment. The workplace is where efforts should be focused to get people with learning disabilities into work. A good example of that is the recent announcement by NHS England that NHS employers will become model employers of people with learning disabilities. I shall watch that with interest.
The Work and Pensions Committee report Welfare to Work highlighted the ineffectiveness of the current work programme in supporting disabled people into work. It called for a separate, specialist employment programme for disabled people. Scope has produced a range of proposals for what specialist employment support for disabled people could look like. Will the Minister commit to developing detailed plans on specialist employment support for disabled people? The Government have committed an additional £100 million to support people into work by the end of this Parliament, and I join my noble friend Lord Rix in hoping that the Minister will pledge a proportion of the money to getting people with learning disabilities into work.
Clauses 13 and 14 propose to cut the money that new claimants receive within the employment and support allowance work-related activity group, to encourage them to seek work. This group includes more than 490,000 disabled people, the largest group of them having serious mental illness, learning disabilities or autism. Being in this group means that they are not currently fit for work. This might be because of frequent and uncontrollable episodes of aggression or disinhibition; an inability to travel independently outside their home; an inability to learn anything beyond a simple task, such as setting an alarm clock, or an inability to cope with a minor planned change.
The Royal College of Psychiatrists has pointed out that only 8% of people with mental health problems have been helped into work, compared to 24% of those who do not have a health problem. Furthermore, a survey by Rethink found that 78% of respondents said that they would require more support from their GP, community health services or in-patient mental health services if their benefits were cut. A survey by the Disability Rights Coalition found that almost seven in 10 disabled people say that cuts to employment support allowance will cause their health to suffer. Between 2010 and 2013, just over 1 million recipients of the main out-of-work disability benefit had their eligibility reassessed using a new functional checklist, the work capability assessment.
Although reviews of the functioning of the work capability assessment have led to changes in the way that mental disability is assessed, the reviews have not looked at the mental health effects of such reassessments. Doctors and disability rights organisations continue to raise concerns that they have had an adverse effect on the mental health of claimants, but until now there has been no population-level study exploring the health effects of this policy. However, a new study by Dr Barr at Liverpool University was published online yesterday in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health. The researchers adjusted for factors known to influence mental ill-health and for baseline conditions. They looked for any association between the reassessments conducted and changes in local rates of suicide, self-reported mental health problems and anti-depressant prescribing rates, in 149 local authorities in England. The researchers found that for each additional 10,000 people who were reassessed there were an additional six suicides, 2,700 cases of reported mental health problems and 7,020 anti-depressant prescriptions, all in working-age adults, and this trend has continued after the economic recovery.
A report of this study in the Guardian today quoted a DWP spokesperson as saying that the researchers did not know how many of the suicides were by people who had had an assessment. This seems to me, however, to miss the point. It is, in the first place, a population-level study—a large epidemiological study. The whole system, however, puts additional mental stress on an already disabled and vulnerable group, and the anticipation of reassessments may be too much for some. The researchers concluded:
“This policy may have had serious adverse consequences for mental health in England, which could outweigh any benefits that arise from moving people off disability benefits”.
These important new findings add weight to the demands from a number of disability charities that Clause 13 should be left out of the Bill altogether. Does the DWP intend to link benefit data to mental health data, including suicide, and how and when will such information be made public? I also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Layard, that being assigned to the ESA WRAG group should trigger referral to IAPT for psychological therapy.
The Bill in its current form has missed a number of opportunities. A focus on welfare rather than help to get back into work misses the opportunity to deliver on the commitment to halve the disability employment gap. There is a missed chance to design proper support to get the 250,000 people with mental health problems who are out of work back into employment. In his eloquent maiden speech the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, suggested that critics of legislative proposals should suggest alternative ways to achieve their goals. I suggest that specialist employment support for disabled people would be more cost-effective than the non-evidence-based so-called financial incentives proposed in this Bill.
Baroness Browning (Con)
My Lords, it is always a great pleasure to follow my noble friend Lady Hollins. I hope that I will not repeat too much of what has been said. I refer the House to the register and my declaration of an interest as vice-president of the National Autistic Society.
I want to focus on the change to the work-related activity group ESA. One group of people has not been mentioned at all so far: the support group, who have been independently assessed and deemed not to have to apply for paid work, and the WRAG group, as we shall call them. For a year, they are required to attend interviews—they are not just left alone, they must attend interviews—but the activity side of it is meant to involve getting back into work. We have heard from across the House today: from the noble Lord, Lord Patel, speaking very knowledgably about cancer patients; from the noble Lord, Lord Layard, speaking about mental health; and from my noble friend, who spoke about learning disability. In that very large WRAG group are a considerable number of people on the autistic spectrum. I pay tribute to the Minister for the interest he has shown in and the time he has devoted to the problem of getting people on the autistic spectrum into paid work. I know that he cares about this issue and has put a lot of time into it since becoming a Minister. I hope he will not think me presumptuous when I say that, to judge by our conversations about this, he knows just how difficult that is.
The point about people on the autistic spectrum is that I know of no other group with disabilities who are so passionate about wanting to take their place in society and become independent, even if it is only working on a part-time basis. They are passionate about wanting to earn some money and be just like everybody else. This is not a group of shirkers or people who are “working” the system. It is not just children who are being newly diagnosed with autism; a lot of quite mature adults are still being diagnosed with it, very often because crisis points develop. I wonder what it is about people on the autistic spectrum which means that in 2017, they will be deemed to live on £30 a week less than the group who have been independently assessed as currently unable to work because of their disability or illness.
The impact assessment, which has been referred to today, is available in the Printed Paper Office. It says that the reduction in the WRAG level of payment will,
“remove the financial incentives that could otherwise discourage claimants from taking steps back to work”.
That is printed in a government document. I have to say to my noble friend Lord Freud that I am disgusted with those words. I am disgusted that they were repeated down the other end and I hope that when my noble friend speaks, he will not in any way pray in aid that concept. We have heard about people such as cancer patients and many people with behavioural problems, autism or mental health problems—and people with complex problems whose disability is often a mixture of more than one of those. Those are very difficult people to help back into work. It is not always impossible but it is difficult. Where is the evidence for that statement in the impact assessment? What evidence have the Government identified from the people in the current WRAG group, who have already been independently assessed and put into the group? What is it about them that has given the Government sufficient evidence to change a policy in such a dramatic way? In 2017, this will almost certainly affect that whole raft of people we have heard about today, whether they are cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy or people newly diagnosed on the autistic spectrum.
I have a feeling that the reason why the Government have gone in this direction is not as obvious as the Treasury putting the DWP’s arm up behind its back and saying, “This is what you are going to do”. Everybody who has served as a Minister will sympathise with my noble friend Lord Freud, because we all know the Treasury’s ability in the art of arm-wrestling. However, the Government need to take a clear look at how they see disability, and to look first of all at the individual. It is quite striking that disability issues, and the Office for Disability Issues, are placed within the DWP—the Minister’s own department. That is considered the right place for them to be. Can the Minister perhaps share with the House in due course what exactly the Office for Disability Issues does? Is it looking across the piece and beyond that important point about getting people into employment, which I do not disagree with? My noble friend will know that I have banged on his door many times to talk about getting disabled people back into work, or into work for the first time. But what is the Office for Disability Issues meant to do?
If we are concerned about disability, surely we are interested in the individual in a holistic way—not just their employment opportunities but the help they receive, their well-being, their housing, their ability to take their place in society and their social environment. Surely that covers almost every piece of legislation dealt with by almost every government department. I wonder whether placing that responsibility in the DWP has made it become narrow and channelled. Perhaps it fails to look outwards at what the real, day-to-day living needs of disabled people are across the piece, particularly those with complex disabilities whom it is not so easy to get into work.
I have been so impressed by companies such as BT, which has made it its mission actively to employ people with mental health conditions. It has done a fantastic job. Right the way through that company’s culture, it now actively looks to employ people with mental health conditions. I have been impressed by what I have seen in some areas regarding the employment of people on the autistic spectrum, but it is patchy. It is hit and miss, unco-ordinated and not really as serious as it should be. I do not in any way hold my noble friend Lord Freud personally responsible, but I do believe that the Government have lost their way in making assumptions about people with disabilities and generalising about what living with a disability really means.
Lord Smith of Leigh (Lab)
My Lords, this has been a wide-ranging debate on a wide-ranging Bill, but I intend to concentrate on two aspects which I think I know something about from my experience, so I declare my interests as being leader of Wigan Council and a vice-president of the LGA. The two areas that I want to concentrate on are troubled families and social rents.
The House may be surprised to hear that I am a great supporter of the Government’s troubled families programme. If anything, it is too timid, but the principles are the right way forward. Led by the rather formidable Louise Casey, the programme has assisted 120,000 or so families and helped to turn them around. It has worked as a cross-departmental scheme and it has worked well with local government. The investment of just over £400 million has, according to the Prime Minister, produced savings of £1.2 billion—and who am I to question the Prime Minister’s comments? There have been significant savings through the programme, as we know in my own authority. There are a lot of sceptics around who say that local authorities are in the troubled families programme because there is payment by results or because they have fiddled the figures. When we were asked to turn around exactly 755 families, they asked how we could achieve exactly that number. The answer is that we worked with more than 1,000 families to make sure that we had the 755. We did not charge for the others but made sure that we could charge for them.
The programme has worked because there is an emphasis on prevention and getting in there early, working with families to make sure that we can do it. It is a slow process because you need to get families’ confidence. Frankly, some of these people are used to having men in suits come around—people like me, as they told me—to give them advice, but not necessarily the advice that they need or want. I was pleased to see that a phase 2 is going on but perhaps not so pleased that the money is not there. I hope that in the Autumn Statement, a real amount will be invested in this programme because it is about investing in people.
I was surprised to agree with a comment that the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, made about school readiness in his interesting maiden speech. School readiness really is a factor that determines life chances. In my authority about a third of kids come to school when they are not ready, but in deprived areas it can be more than 70%. We need to turn that around. I am hopeful that in the Autumn Statement, the Government will start to reverse some of their changes to Sure Start schemes and early years work because that is where we need to put a lot of attention.
In a parallel universe, today in the Moses Room we have been discussing an education Bill. I am disappointed that that Bill does not recognise—as far as I can see, as I was not able to take part—the really important role that schools play as community assets. We need to use schools to work in our communities. Where we have done that, we have even helped people to get jobs simply because they trust what goes on in schools, they trust head teachers, and so on.
In Clause 3, we are expected to agree a typical Westminster or Whitehall reporting obligation on troubled families. That is pretty weak. I hope that the Minister can assure us it is not just making sure that my officers, who are engaged in this work, have to spend more time reporting in. We want it to be a way that innovation and good practice can be spread around so that we can get this working properly across the country.
Clause 21, as a number of noble Lords have mentioned, implements the Government’s policy on social rents—a reduction of 1%. Again, as my noble friend on the Front Bench said: how can you be seen to be opposing this, opposing a reduction in the rents roll? The answer is that, for councils, it is a reversal of regular practice, it is reneging on a policy the Government agreed to only three-and-a-half years earlier.
Three-and-a-half years earlier, the Government said to local councils, “We need to review housing finance, and we need to localise it”. So we went through it, and a big exercise was done by the Department for Communities and Local Government. It came up with a booklet of which I have only the front page, The Housing Revenue Account Self-financing Determinations. As an integral part of this, some councils had to borrow money. They said that in 30 years’ time the accounts looked as though they needed to borrow money. Some actually got paid money back. The total amount borrowed was £13 billion; £6 billion was paid back. So there is a net benefit to the Treasury there of £7 billion.
My local authority was encouraged to borrow a significant amount: £98 million? Why would we do that? The Government said, “Don’t worry. Under the scheme, you will be allowed for 10 years to have a 1% increase in rents to pay for the additional servicing of the debt borrowed”. Within three-and-a-half years, that deal has been reneged on, as I said, by the Government, so in fact we have a financial deficit in my authority of probably about £35 million. What do we do? How do we cover that? We cannot raise the rents. We cannot subsidise—not that we have any money anyway. The only way to recover that debt is to reduce activity, reduce the repairs, reduce the maintenance on the property or—probably more likely, of course—reduce house building, stop doing that.
So here is a policy that the Prime Minister was announcing at the conference, a crusade to get more houses built, and in one swoop they have cut off the building of council properties. It does not take long, does it, to change minds? Of course, the beneficiaries of this rent, as my noble friend said, are not the tenants; about 70% of tenants are on housing benefits. Actually, the social housing authorities, the LGA reckons, are paying about £2.6 billion a year into the Treasury coffers.
A local authority obviously meets at the front door, as it were, the consequences of some of the welfare changes. Unlike some authorities, I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Low of Dalston, that we have maintained our welfare advice sector. The Minister has been to Wigan and seen this for himself, but it would be instructive for other Members—we are always talking about theories in here—to come to see what we call the crisis desk in Wigan.
Over the past 11 months, to give the most recent figures, we have had more than 4,500 people coming to that crisis desk in Wigan. Seventy percent of them said that they had no money. It is a complicated thing. Most of them were referred to food banks. Most of them were given support. Often, of course, DWP issues have caused them to have no money—benefits not being agreed or refused, sanctions or slowness in dealing with cases. Really, we need to change that.
We have devised a programme—unfunded, but we do it—which we call Living Well. We are trying to understand what we can do to help people. The complexity of issues that people have prevent them from getting work. Really, the DWP does not always help. We have one young man who is homeless. I would have thought that the best thing for that young man would be to try to find him a roof over his head, but the DWP keeps telling me that he has to get 10 job interviews a week. He said that, really, he just wants to get a home.
There is a toxic mix of people who have mental health problems, probably suffering from domestic abuse and other issues. We need to resolve that. If we are going to solve poverty in this country, the DWP needs to become part of the solution, not one of the main causes.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, I will explore just some of the concerns about this new wave of welfare cuts. We need to consider these cuts in the context of the £21 billion of cuts implemented in the last Parliament. Under this Government, we are witnessing the most dramatic rolling back of the role of the state and the deepest reductions in the security floor for our most vulnerable citizens ever seen, in my view, in the UK.
The Minister said, I think, three times that the Government will protect the most vulnerable. My Lords, I have to say that is not my perception. What, for example, will this Bill mean for disabled people? The Government’s justification for the cuts is, of course, that they want to make sure that work pays and to end benefits dependency as far as possible. This is certainly a fine theoretical position—no one could disagree with it—but it does not work for people with a disability or long-term sickness who cannot find an employer willing to take them on. This is the bit of the jigsaw that is missing in this Bill: the probably perfectly realistic position of employers. Whom will they employ? They will not employ some of the people who are going to be affected, and the results could be catastrophic.
Can the Minister inform the House whether his department has assessed the likely impact of the benefit cuts on the demand from disabled people for mental health services—for example, a bed in a psychiatric hospital or social services? The Royal College of Psychiatrists has expressed some concern about what that effect could be. In my view, it could be very worrying. The key issue is that if the DWP succeeds in cutting its budget, all that happens is an increase in the budget for the NHS and social services. Then, the Government’s objective of a smaller state will not be achieved. I really would be grateful if the Minister addressed that point in his wind-up speech.
There are many, many causes for concern, but the cut I find most cruel—other noble Lords have mentioned this—is the cut of nearly £30 per week for sick and disabled people placed in what is commonly known as the WRAG: the ESA work related activity group. These people—as, again, other noble Lords have pointed out—have been assessed by an independent assessor as unfit for work. The Government argue that the extra £30 disincentivises sick and disabled people from working. The noble Baroness, Lady Browning, mentioned those on the autistic spectrum. I have worked with people with a variety of mental health problems and people with learning difficulties. In my experience, all these people desperately want, more than anything else, is to be regarded as normal. What does that mean? It means being able to go to work. They really do not need this sort of incentive or disincentive.
About half those in WRAG are entitled to DLA or PIP. These are people with serious disabilities who will find it very hard to find work or to keep a job if they get one. Does the Minister not find it appalling that people with Parkinson’s and multiple sclerosis—progressive illnesses, of course—are included in the WRAG because they are unfit to work now, and they will be subject to this £30 a week cut? If they are not fit for work now, the chances of an employer’s taking them on in the future, as their symptoms get worse, are surely remote. Will the Minister ensure that such groups with worsening symptoms, assessed as not fit for work, are in future placed in the support group, whatever happens to the WRAG group?
Further, over 50% of people affected by this cut will suffer from mental and behavioural disorders. These people long to be accepted. Their families, who themselves may be on benefits, will have to pay for their food and heating. Is the Minister aware that 70% of respondents to the Disability Benefits Consortium survey said that the cut would in fact mean a return to work later, rather than sooner? Obviously, that is a judgment, and it may be wrong—but job hunting costs money, including money for transport and clothes, since you cannot go to work or an interview without appropriate clothes. That is probably particularly true for disabled people. If a claimant cannot afford the fare to attend an interview, how will that promote his employment prospects? Does the Minister have any evidence of the likely consequence of this cut on the employment prospects of sick and disabled people?
The Disability Benefits Consortium welcomes the commitment in the Conservative manifesto to halve the disability employment gap. Again, we are all behind such an objective, but depriving disabled people of essential resources will simply not achieve it. A specialist employment support programme has been mooted, which really could make a significant difference. Again, it would be good if the Minister advised the House about progress in developing that proposal.
The exemption from the benefit cap for claimants of DLA, PIP and the support group level of ESA is very welcome. However, many sick and disabled people will be subject to the cap, along with a small but significant number of carers of those defined as non-dependants in the benefits system, such as carers of adult disabled sons or daughters. The four-year freeze of benefits, including JSA, ESA, WRAG, housing benefit and universal credit, will also severely affect many disabled people, so there are multiple cuts coming along for particular families.
Perhaps the most extraordinary fact, if I am right about it, is that the most drastically affected claimants are families with disabled children. As a result of a cluster of cuts to child tax credit, the disability component and the introduction of the two child limit, a new universal credit claimant would have a maximum annual entitlement of just one-quarter of their current entitlement in the tax credit system. Will the Minister inform the House whether that is correct? Do the Government really want to penalise such families with a disabled child more than anybody else? I find that quite difficult to believe. What action are the Government taking to assess the impact of these cuts on those people? I would be grateful to know about the evidence behind that.
There are many other serious concerns, including the impact of the reduction in social housing rents on the provision of supported housing for a number of vulnerable groups, as explained by the National Housing Federation. On housing, it seems that there is one real opportunity for the Government to save billions without hurting anybody, which I have mentioned before: by releasing 10% of the greenbelt around the major urban areas. That would transform the cost of land, housing and housing benefit. Yes, we love our greenbelt, but we go walking in the greenbelt regularly, and there is never anybody there.
In conclusion, the level of anxiety among sick and disabled people and others about this onslaught on their modest standard of living is unimaginable. The future for them is truly frightening. I hope that, through debating this Bill, we can truly mitigate the effects of the Government’s plans.
Lord Polak (Con) (Maiden Speech)
My Lords, it is a great honour and privilege to sit in this House and to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher. I am deeply grateful to my supporting Peers, the noble Lords, Lord Sterling and Lord Grade—both fine men with outstanding records in industry and public service. The noble Lord, Lord Sterling, has been and continues to be a source of wise advice and the noble Lord, Lord Grade, has been a great friend and is by far my favourite after-dinner speaker. I am grateful, too, for the courtesy and kindness of so many in this House: from fellow Peers, Clerks, Doorkeepers, restaurant and bar staff—in fact, everyone has been enormously welcoming.
At my introduction to this House just three weeks ago, so many thoughts and emotions were running through my mind. How did this sport-loving Scouser with a happy-go-lucky attitude arrive in your Lordships’ House? I was brought up in Liverpool, where we listened to Lennon and McCartney or talked of Shankly and Dalglish; it was and still is a city full of people with warmth and character, where, as a young member of the small but vibrant modern orthodox Jewish community, I was encouraged to play our part in the community, and to get involved in charitable projects in order to help others. This notion of giving of oneself for the benefit of others is central to my Jewish faith. As it says in the ethics of our fathers:
“Other people’s dignity should be as precious to you as your own”.
I moved to London in 1984 and took up my first job as a youth and community worker, and I have continued to be involved in communal and charitable endeavours. It is therefore fitting that I am delivering my maiden speech in your Lordships’ House on the Second Reading of the Welfare Reform and Work Bill—a Bill full of examples of the Government taking their responsibility. However, like my noble friend Lord Lupton, I would like to concentrate on Clause 3, which introduces a duty to report annually on the troubled families programme. This clause demonstrates the Government’s commitment to supporting and improving the lives of families with multiple problems. The original troubled families programme improved the lives of 117,000 families by getting children back to school and significantly reducing youth crime and anti-social behaviour, with many of the families on the programme seeing an adult move off benefits and into continuous employment.
Families were mentioned nearly 100 times in the 2015 Tory manifesto, and we have an opportunity to develop a robust and comprehensive range of family policies. We need to match the promises we have made with economic support, particularly childcare, and with further policies to prevent family breakdown as a result of parents’ relationships faltering, or of parents and carers being unable to provide the safe, stable and nurturing relationships that children need to flourish. My rabbi shared a second quote from scripture, saying:
“A society and a family are like a pile of stones. If you remove one stone the pile will collapse—if you add a stone to it, it will stand”.
I hope to be able to support welfare, education and particularly health programmes and policies through which help can be given to those in need. Just over 27 years ago, I was given six months to live as a result of a brain tumour. It was discovered on the day in 1988 when I was organising a reception for the new Lord Chancellor, my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern. I did not get to the reception. Fortunately, the NHS and some wonderful people at the Royal Free Hospital saved my life. The dedication, professionalism and care displayed by the doctors, nurses and support staff was truly remarkable, and I know that these traits continue today. As a result of the surgery, I am 100% deaf in my left ear, which over the years has occasionally proved quite useful. I am aware that today, I have not been interrupted—but I am also aware that this courtesy is for today only. So I apologise if, in future, a noble Lord wants to intervene and I carry on speaking: it will just be that I did not hear them.
In conclusion, I could not help noticing that the Book of Genesis is full of family problems, family disputes and dysfunctional families. However, as you reach the end, Jacob resolves the dispute with Esau, Judah takes responsibility for Benjamin and Joseph forgives his brothers. It was only when individuals and families began to take responsibility—when they began to forgive and turn to reconciliation—that the families became a people and a nation. It is with the policies in this Bill, and particularly with the troubled family programme, that we can strengthen our families, our communities and our nation.
Lord Farmer (Con)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure and an honour to follow my noble friend Lord Polak—I am not sure he can hear me as his left ear is to this side—particularly after a maiden speech that was remarkable for both its humaneness and its humility. The tone he struck rings completely true for those who, like me, have known my noble friend in his previous incarnation as director of Conservative Friends of Israel and now as the organisation’s unsalaried honorary president. I have always been moved and touched by my noble friend’s consistent work in improving relations between Britain and Israel for the common good of each country. He will, I am sure, make a uniquely valuable contribution to the work of this House. We welcome him to us.
I am pleased that this important debate has also enticed other new Peers to make their voices heard in this Chamber. I congratulate my noble friends Lord Lansley and Lord Lupton on their impressive contributions. Given her important role in designing universal credit, I am particularly looking forward to hearing the contribution from my noble friend Lady Stroud, and I want to acknowledge how fitting it is for to make her maiden speech in this debate. What better occasion to express the compassionate and one-nation conservativism—and I believe it is—that is not a new-fangled device cynically constructed to sweeten the bitter pills of difficult decisions? Rather it has a deep seam of tradition and a valued history in our party that goes back to Disraeli, Baldwin, Chamberlain and Butler—and today reaches Iain Duncan Smith and the Prime Minister.
As my noble friend Lord Polak said, government must take responsibility and it is vital to remember what the coalition inherited in 2010: a welfare system run by 35 different IT systems and a monster of complexity that constantly had to be fed and kept satisfied by myriad accretions of former Conservative and Labour Administrations alike. As he entered the last days of the 2010 election campaign, Gordon Brown promised a tiny toddler tax credit of just £4 a week, threatening to add further confusion to a system of 51 different benefits even highly numerate people found extremely difficult to understand.
In 2005, the National Audit Office said:
“Simplification is not an easy option. Radical reform is a rare, costly, time-consuming, and potentially controversial act”.
So it is hugely to their credit that the coalition Government embarked on the costly and ambitious project of root-and-branch welfare reform, so that we did not repeat the mistakes of previous downturns, when it became pointless for claimants who fell on hard times to get back into work. We urgently needed a system with an internal dynamic that responded to extra effort and other kinds of behaviour we want to see across the whole working-age population—and in the rising generation for whom they are role models—so that they benefit from the better health, social networks and sense of achievement and self-esteem that comes from earned, but not benefits, income.
The starting point of universal credit was the need to tackle relative poverty effectively. In the boom years of the mid-2000s, the DWP’s households below average income statistics showed that someone who had spent five years in low income had no more than a 10% chance of escaping poverty the next year. Large tranches of our population, often concentrated in poorer communities, were locked out of the record growth this country had been enjoying to 2008.
In 2009, by the time the recession had well and truly begun to bite, 5.9 million people were claiming out-of-work benefits, but throughout the preceding decade of high growth that number was only 500,000 lower. This speaks of a structural problem: high-participation tax rates preventing people in precarious economic circumstances moving into work and high marginal tax rates deterring them from working longer hours and progressing. Now, however, the British jobless rate has decreased to 5.3% and is at the lowest level since April 2008, when employment was at a record high.
Yet getting people into work is not the only priority. My understanding is that the ambition of ongoing welfare reform is to help people secure more hours and progress to better rates of pay so that they eventually no longer need tax credits at all. The 2009 Family Resources Survey showed that one in seven households were dependent on benefits for more than half of their income, and this may still be the case. Could the Minister explain to what extent underemployment, particularly as a result of working part-time, is contributing to low earnings, and not just unacceptably low wages? Surely progression towards full employment must distinguish between full-time and part-time work so that the Government hold themselves fully to account.
There were also penalties in the system that discouraged people from activities that could decrease their dependency over the long term, such as forming a stable family unit. Couples who had previously claimed as single people stood to lose far more income from benefits by moving in together than they saved through the economies of scale of sharing a home. If they were simply cohabiting, many continued to claim as single parents. In 2013, ONS and DWP figures suggested that well over 200,000 couples were pretending to live apart, with the couple penalty in tax credits a likely prime mover in this particular form of benefit fraud.
Married couples cannot hide their status and this is surely a major contributor to the social gradient in marriage. Wave 3 of the Millennium Cohort Study found that around half of new parents on a low income are married, compared to nearly 90% of those earning an annual salary of more than £52,000. Given the far greater stability of marriage, this has a terrible knock-on effect. Sadly, only half of children in poor families are still living with both their parents when they start school, compared with over 90% of those from higher- income families. Can the Minister explain what progress has been made in reducing the couple penalty in universal credit?
While on the subject of fraud, which is, after all, stealing from the taxpayer, your Lordships should also be aware that a tax credits system that pays for every child has created perverse incentives—for some migrants, for instance. Social workers in the borough of Westminster have made known to me that some are bringing in a large number of children, at least some of whom are very unlikely to be their own. If children are being treated as cash cows by exploitative adults, this is wholly unacceptable and must be exposed. It also puts the two-child limit for new claimants into a somewhat different light from what we have heard today.
To conclude, I was encouraged that, at earlier stages of welfare reform, noble Lords across the House acknowledged how complex, burdensome and inefficient our benefits system had become under successive previous Governments, and that universal credit offers a desperately needed runway out of poverty at a time when deficit reduction remains a pressing concern. The challenges predicted by the National Audit Office have been significant but surmountable. Universal credit is being relentlessly rolled out, and well below budget. I hope that the Bill will be similarly welcomed and given co-operative support, and that we can work together to ensure that this Government fulfil their elected mandate—for the common good.
Baroness Donaghy (Lab)
My Lords, I shall concentrate on an area in which the Government take some pride: the self-employed. The Bill will make the lives of the low-earning self-employed more difficult. The chasm between the Treasury and the DWP is more apparent in this area than in any other. There has been a huge growth in the number of self-employed since 2008 and the Government have favoured it as a viable route off welfare and into work, which is good, provided that it is not forced and that it is genuine self-employment.
Benefit claimants starting their own business are encouraged by the Government with a grant or loan under the new enterprise allowance, together with support from a business mentor. Perhaps the Minister could tell the House, if not today then in a letter that could be placed in the Library, how many loans or grants have been awarded in such circumstances, together with their value, and how many business mentors have been involved. You never know, that may present a rosy picture, but things become a lot bleaker for the self-employed when one contemplates the effect of the tax credit and universal credit cuts without the counterweight of the new national living wage premium—which employees, but not the self-employed, will receive. It has also become tougher for the self-employed to secure working tax credits since April this year.
I am grateful to the Low Incomes Tax Reform Group, and to Robin Williamson and his colleagues, for the briefing that they have provided. As I said, HMRC has tightened up the rules for the self-employed claiming working tax credits. The decision was first announced in the Chancellor’s Autumn Statement in December 2014 that self-employed claimants whose earnings were below 24 hours a week multiplied by the national minimum wage would be asked to show that their self-employment was genuine and effective. At the time of the Autumn Statement, the Low Incomes Tax Reform Group said that the proposed test was likely to discriminate unlawfully against disabled self-employed people who might not be able to work 24 hours a week for health reasons but who qualified under existing legislation on the basis of a 16-hour week.
The actual legislation, SI 2015/605, effective from 6 April this year, creates a slightly different rule whereby a claimant must meet the condition of being either employed or self-employed, as defined. For them to be self-employed, their activity needs to be undertaken on a commercial basis with a view to making a profit and it must be “organised and regular”. What is interesting is that the additional conditions laid down in the Autumn Statement—namely, that a client must register as self-employed with HMRC for self-assessment and provide their unique tax reference number with their working tax credit claim—have been postponed for introduction next year. Reading between the lines, I wonder whether this was a minor victory for the DWP and the Minister.
In a briefing published in April 2015, HMRC offered some information about how the new condition will be applied. It refers to selecting cases on the basis of a minimum-earnings threshold equivalent to qualifying working hours multiplied by the national minimum wage. It appears from its guidance that it is using the declared hours of the claimant rather than the hours needed to qualify for working tax credit to select claimants, and that leaves many uncertainties. How will HMRC determine whether an activity is undertaken on a commercial basis? Will there be practical implications for the difference in tax and tax credit interpretation of status, whether employed or self-employed? How will claimants and prospective claimants be helped to ensure that they claim on a correct basis to avoid incurring an overpayment by mistake? Apparently, HMRC is still developing its guidance on this. No wonder the Bow Group has said that self-employed people may be pushed on to unemployment benefits as a result.
I turn to the minimum income floor and universal credit. I raised this during the debates on the Welfare Reform Bill, and nothing has changed. The Government make the incorrect assumption that a self-employed person is running a viable business if they are making a clear profit equal to at least the national minimum wage. This ignores the fact that a business has to meet its own costs and expenses before it can declare a profit, and for an employee the salary that he or she is paid is clear of all those costs and expenses. The self-employed worker, though, has to pay for rent, heating, lighting, office equipment, a van, tools and so on, and can take home only what is left over. The two situations are not comparable. However, the DWP, in administering universal credit, deems that a claimant who is gainfully self-employed should be earning a clear profit equal in most cases to the national minimum wage for a 35-hour week, known as the minimum income floor. If they are not, their welfare payments will be restricted as though they were.
The exception is the start-up period during the first 12 months of a new business. This policy is unrealistic and impractical because very few self-employed people are able to make much, if any, profit in the early years of a new business, let alone the first 12 months. Many make a loss as a result of new premises, low receipts, bad debts, seasonal factors or taking on their first employees. This particularly affects the farming and hospitality industries. From April 2016, claimants will be allowed a limited carry-forward of cash trading losses made in any month, but this will not help to cushion the impact of the minimum income floor. Another rule will provide that if the claimant’s earnings in a month are high enough to no longer entitle them to universal credit, any surplus is to be treated as earnings in any of the next six months in which the claimant again claims universal credit. This rule is likely to bear more harshly on the self-employed claimant, again because of the impact of the minimum income floor.
Do the Government intend to align the minimum income floor with the national minimum wage, or the national living wage for the over-25s? This would raise the level of profit that they assumed a self-employed universal credit claimant was earning if their actual earnings in the month were less than that amount. With the cuts in tax credit levels and an increase in deemed income for universal credit purposes without any increase in actual income, this would be a double whammy for the low-earning self-employed worker and Britain’s pay rise would become another cut in welfare for the low-income self-employed worker.
Lastly, I want to raise the issue of the support for mortgage interest. According to the impact assessment, 170,000 households receive support for mortgage interest or SMI, 55% of claimants are of working age, and single females comprise almost half the case load. However, it is difficult for me to say how many self-employed would be affected because there is no reference whatever to the self-employed in any of the impact assessments.
Whether or not the proposal is justified, it will make life more difficult for the self-employed on low earnings. The SMI payments will be changed from a benefit to an interest-bearing loan, secured against the mortgaged property, from April 2018. Would the Minister consider a two-year grace period before SMI payments become loans secured on the property? This change, which would reflect an option previously given by the DWP during consultation, would ensure that SMI continued to act as a straightforward short-term safety net for homeowners in financial difficulty. I strongly believe that interest should not be charged on SMI loans and that administrative costs should not be secured on property. I look forward to the Committee stage of the Bill.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I declare an interest as vice-president of the Local Government Association and of National Energy Action. As has been said, this is a wide-ranging Bill, in which the housing elements should be seen in the context of the Housing and Planning Bill that we shall shortly be considering. I shall concentrate tonight on issues relating to the future of social housing for rent, the particular difficulties the Bill presents for supported housing and its potential negative impact on delivering welfare-to-work programmes.
I am becoming very concerned about what seems to be clear government policy not to prioritise the social housing sector, nor to support new build-for-rent adequately. In a recent report, the estate agency Savills found that the Government’s focus on boosting home ownership is set to exclude 70,000 more households each year from either buying or renting at a cost people can afford. I am unclear why the Government are so set on promoting owner-occupation, to the exclusion of social renting, and seek to deliver three-quarters of their promise to promote affordable housing through starter homes for sale with a 20% discount. In terms of providing homes to rent, this is not enough as a policy. It will not meet demand and it will not help those who cannot afford to buy.
In terms of supported housing, social housing providers play a critical role in keeping costs down, particularly for the National Health Service, but also for public spending generally. The case of homelessness is an example. In 2012, the Department for Communities and Local Government concluded that an individual being homeless cost the Government between £24,000 and £30,000 a year. It is much cheaper to prevent homelessness arising in the first place and supported housing is part of the means of doing that. The cost of placement in extra-care housing is much cheaper than alternative placements or care packages. There is, therefore, a strong case for the Government to exempt housing for vulnerable people from the 1% cut in rents each year for the next four years proposed in the Bill. Without that exemption, the reduction in rent income could result in fewer refuges, fewer homelessness hostels, fewer homes for veterans and fewer homes for people with disabilities, with the additional public spending that would entail.
The Bill was amended in the other place to allow for the possibility of organisational waivers. Given that the Government have accepted, in their own impact assessment, published at the end of September, that,
“the rent reduction measures may disproportionately impact on supported housing and may cause a reduction in service provision”,
the case for housing for vulnerable people being exempt from the rent decrease provisions in the Bill is very strong.
I move on to local authority housing. There is a difference between the impact of the Bill on housing associations and its impact on local councils. Typically, the rents are higher in housing association properties and housing associations generally carry more reserves. The level of annual surplus for some housing associations is very high—in some cases well into the tens of millions of pounds. This may well be one of the factors in the Government’s wish to reduce rents. However, council housing revenue accounts are different, with little or no annual surplus contributions to general funds. The view from this sector seems to be that it will have to consolidate and concentrate on core business, with the extra services it provides, which in some instances can be very important, facing withdrawal. There will, therefore, be a slowdown in new building across the sector, which is most certainly not in the public interest. The noble Lord, Lord Smith of Leigh, alluded to this. Have the Government assessed the impact on new build, since councils need to be confident about their ability to borrow? Constant changes in rent income levels do not help them and, if they are not helped to build, more prospective tenants will be forced into the private rented sector with its higher rents and an adverse impact, as a consequence, on the housing benefit bill.
A further impact of the Bill relates to social housing provider schemes to develop employability for tenants. It may not continue in the way that it has, yet the outputs for the level of spend are impressive. An example is Your Homes Newcastle, which is where I live. In 2014-15, 64 people were employed through either the Your Homes Your Jobs programme or an apprenticeship programme, with 83% moving into permanent employment. Some 42 tenants were supported to create their own businesses and in excess of 200 tenants received employment support through training programmes provided by Your Homes Newcastle. All this could be in danger of being lost. There are many similar examples that could be provided and of which I hope the Minister is aware. I hope that, in his reply, the Minister will explain whether the Government have plans to enable social housing providers to maintain and, indeed, enhance their welfare-to-work programmes, given the critical role they play in addressing low skills and barriers to employment and reducing social exclusion. These bodies deliver welfare to work, in line with government policy, for large numbers of people and I suggest to the Minister that it would be highly retrograde if this were to be lost.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote (CB)
My Lords, it would be wrong to discuss the measures in this Bill without highlighting the disproportionate impact the changes would have on people with mental health problems, and I am very glad to say that a number of your Lordships have already raised this issue as important. Just like physical health, we all have mental health. More of us are speaking out about mental health than ever before but, as has been mentioned, there is still a long way to go.
One area where people with mental health problems are still far too often unsupported and misunderstood is in back-to-work support. Over a third of people with mild to moderate mental health problems, and almost two-thirds of people with more severe mental health problems, are unemployed. Only 9% have been supported into work through the Government’s flagship back-to-work scheme, yet we know that the majority of people with mental health problems want to work. It is essential that this legislation looks at improving support to help people with these difficulties into work.
One problem is that mental health needs are not properly understood or acknowledged, which leads to the wrong support being provided. This does not help people get into work. The story of Lee, a 38 year-old man with mental health problems including depression, anxiety and a personality disorder, illustrates the difficulties. When out of work, in the employment and support allowance work-related activity group—the ESA WRAG—Lee attended a weekly self-help management course at his local jobcentre, which he had to attend or face his benefit being sanctioned. But the support he was provided with did not take into account his mental health. Lee said that,
“it was focussing more on people in pain, people who had bad backs and first aid ... and I did say a number of times at these meetings that this doesn’t apply to me. I’m not in pain as such, I have a mental health problem”.
Of course, Lee’s experiences are not unique. Another sufferer said that her adviser,
“simply did what I could already do on my own, put together a CV and look for jobs. There was not enough support geared to my specific difficulties. Every task was the same for everyone. Not everyone’s needs are the same”.
In addition, the conditionality and sanctions regime has become an unchallenged aspect of back-to-work support. Research by Mind, which does so much in this field, shows that people with mental health problems are three times more likely to have their benefit sanctioned than they are to be supported into employment. That is a clear signal that the system is not working for people with mental health problems, despite this group making up over half of all people on employment and support allowance.
The changes which this Bill legislates for—namely, reducing the amount people on the employment and support allowance work-related activity group receive by £30 a week—would have a serious impact on people with mental health problems, as others have said. We should all be concerned by the Government’s lack of assessment of the impact that these changes will be having on people and their families. I am pleased to hear about the review being undertaken by my noble friends Lord Low, Lady Meacher and Lady Grey-Thompson, which I gather will look at how the cut will affect the day-to-day lives of disabled people and whether it will help them move closer to work. We know already that 75% of people with common mental health problems, such as anxiety and depression, receive no appropriate treatment, and that many people use their benefit to pay for talking therapy treatments and well- being activities. There is space in this legislation to support people with mental health problems better and ultimately to move closer to the Government’s welcome commitment to halve the disability employment gap.
I end by asking the Minister two questions. One is a repeat of the question that my noble friend Lord Rix asked. The government impact assessment stated that the justification for the £30-a-week cut was to,
“remove the financial disincentive to work”.
Can the Minister present us with the evidence to show that cutting disabled people’s benefits results in more disabled people getting jobs? Secondly, the Equality and Human Rights Commission has said that the impact assessment accompanying the Bill does not,
“fully assess the impact on equality and human rights. This may make it difficult for parliamentarians to properly consider the implications of the measures in the Bill”.
Does the Minister accept this criticism? It would be good to hear his reply at some stage as the Bill progresses through your Lordships’ House, even though I do not expect much of an answer this evening.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
My Lords, there have been 27 speeches so far and I want to avoid ploughing or reploughing ground that has probably been pretty extensively tilled already. Therefore, my contribution will draw on my experiences in the charity and voluntary sector and, in particular, on the work that I did for the Government in looking at effects on that sector in a report called Unshackling Good Neighbours. The report tried to find ways of removing barriers to the growth of the third sector, and the research for it gave me the chance to see the condition of some of our most disadvantaged fellow citizens. At times it could be slightly dispiriting but, by contrast, the activities of the volunteers in the third sector organisations—and they were mostly volunteers—were almost universally uplifting. Often with very little money and few assets, they set out to tackle some of the most deep-seated and intractable problems in our society. They were trying to provide a ladder up which our unlucky fellow citizens could climb.
It will come as no surprise to the House that one of the main rungs of the ladder was a job—regular, steady employment, often with third sector organisations helping to provide an introduction to the disciplines and self-disciplines that the commercial world requires from people who perhaps have become unfamiliar with them because of a long period out of work. Self-evidently a job provides an answer to some of the economic challenges but it does much more than that, as my noble friend Lord Lupton said in his distinguished maiden speech. It helps to provide an answer to social challenges, because one of the pernicious effects of long-term unemployment is an erosion of self-confidence. By contrast, a job creates self-confidence. It creates a sense of self-worth, a sense of belonging and a sense of having a stake in society—above all, a stake in a society that values the individual. Thus, it contributes to social cohesion—the glue that binds us all together—the creation and maintenance of which I believe is one of the great challenges that we will face over the next few years. I will come back to that in a minute or two.
Therefore, it will come as no surprise to the House that I strongly support the direction of travel of the Bill, and in my few minutes I want to address briefly three issues: the apprenticeship programme, the troubled families initiative and the restriction of certain benefits to two children only.
The plan to create 3 million apprenticeships seems admirable. There is a pressing need for vocational training, and the noble Lord, Lord Young of Norwood Green, will, I know, follow me on that. It will provide people with more satisfying, better-paid and more secure jobs than—dare I say it?—a 2.2 in media studies. The Sutton Trust and Big Society Capital are only two of the many organisations that provide many concrete examples of the advantages of this policy. It is certainly not a policy that lacks ambition, but I have some concern that, as numbers expand to meet the 3 million target, the quality standards may be compromised and an apprenticeship may too often become not much more than basic training. So some element of quality control will be essential to keep faith with those joining the programmes. On that point, at least, I am happy to agree with the UNISON briefing circulated to Members of your Lordships’ House. The Skills Funding Agency, as the potential policeman, has a vital role to play in this regard. It should also consider establishing a confidential hotline so that those who feel that what was promised is not now being delivered can seek support and redress.
Secondly, I strongly support the initiatives in the Bill to help break the cycle of underachievement, underperformance and deprivation—that is, the troubled families initiative. The troubles faced by each family are unique. Themes there may be but the admixture is unique. Government programmes tend by their very nature to be broad brush—no other approach is possible at scale—but what many of these families need is the detailed attention that can often best be provided by smaller third sector groups. However, their role is often constrained by the commissioning processes. Commissioners can be highly risk averse, preferring to put their faith in large groups, for which smaller third sector organisations can too often become “bid candy”, being landed with the most challenging areas, which perforce carry a higher risk of failure, while the main contractor takes the “vanilla flavour” mainstream cases.
A Second Reading debate is not the place to discuss the details of the commissioning processes but I urge my noble friend to ask his officials to consider establishing some commissioning yardsticks. The third sector deserves a level playing field and a series of yardsticks would help to establish it. It would also provide a means for more effective delivery of the Government’s admirable policy objectives in this area.
I turn thirdly to what I might call, in shorthand, the two children issue, which is possibly the most challenging. In my various visits and trips compiling my reports for the Government I have been struck by how many people, from every sector in every region of our country, emphasise the concept of fairness. It is of course true that the detailed aspect of what each thinks is fair varies according to the eye of the beholder, but the underlying principles are very often the same. This concept of fairness underpins the unspoken and unwritten contract that commits all of us to playing our part in preserving our social model, whether it be pay-as-you-go pensions, the method of funding the National Health Service or the issues that we are discussing tonight. However, the elasticity of the social model is not infinite and should not be taken for granted.
I have of course read very carefully the briefings from a number of organisations on this issue and, in particular, the one from the faith groups, signed by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham. I understand the point being made and, no doubt, we shall have some robust debates on this point in Committee. However, with great respect to the right reverend Prelate, and indeed to the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, who spoke very strongly on this matter half an hour ago, at this stage, I think that with the careful shaping given to this part of the Bill by the Government—for example, that it is a two-child rolling programme and disabled children are exempt—they have got the fairness balance about right.
In the last part of my speech, on the background of the Bill and the issue of social cohesion, I want to turn to a very different point: how we are going to preserve the social cohesion of this country over the next 20 years and the challenges that we face.
This country is undergoing an exceptionally rapid growth in population. I want to make it clear, as I always do when I speak on this subject, that this is not about people’s race, creed, colour or ethnic origin. It is purely about absolute numbers—and the numbers are stark. The ONS figures for 2014, produced in late September, indicated that the population of this country increased by 1,435 people every day—just under 900 from immigration, and around 600 from excess of births over deaths, or the natural increase. That is 10,000 people a week. We are putting a small town on to the map of the United Kingdom every week, 52 weeks of the year.
Think of the consequences of that. Take just one consequence that we always debate in your Lordships’ House, that of housing. Currently, we house 2.3 people per dwelling. I make the assumption that we would want our new arrivals, wherever they come from, to be no less well housed. To house 1,435 people per day means that we need 624 dwellings. That is 26 per hour or one every two and a half minutes, night and day, without any improvements being made to our existing housing stock, which I suspect most of us would believe are necessary.
I am afraid that this is not a temporary phenomenon. The ONS projections indicate a mid-point for the UK’s population in 2035 of a further 10 million people—that is made up of both immigration and natural increase. Twenty years from now, we are going to have to build three new Greater Manchesters. On the same metric of 2.3 people per dwelling, that is 4.4 million homes. If noble Lords do the simple arithmetic, they will see that that is one new house every two and a half minutes for the next 20 years.
I fear that the introduction of 10 million people and 4.5 million homes will pose challenges to our social cohesion that we have not really begun to think carefully about. This is 10 million people in a country that has just overtaken the Netherlands as the most densely populated in Europe, with 425 people per square kilometre—the Netherlands having just under 400 people per square kilometre.
It is easy to put this issue into a box marked “too difficult” because it is difficult. I urge my noble friend on the Front Bench; I urge the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock—this is not a party political matter—and, indeed, I urge the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham to hold this question and its implicit challenges in their collective mind. For, if there are to be challenges to our social cohesion, it will not be those of us in your Lordships’ House who will suffer. It will be the poor, the ill-educated, the unemployed and, above all, the recently arrived—in many ways the people we are trying to help in this Bill—who will bear the brunt.
Twenty years from now, I will probably be dribbling into my cornflakes, unaware of what is going on around me. I believe our successors will be entitled to ask why, on this important issue, we always looked the other way.
Lord Young of Norwood Green (Lab)
My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, confidently predicted, I shall focus mainly on the question of apprenticeships. I welcome the Government’s commitment in the welfare Bill to both full employment and reporting on the status of apprenticeships. It is hard to quarrel with a Government who announce the ambitious target of 3 million apprenticeships. I make my usual comment that I only wish they would disaggregate that figure and be more upfront in recognising that a significant number of those apprentices—probably about 60%-plus of them—are people already in existing employment who are retraining and reskilling. It is not that we do not have to do that, but I think that “apprenticeship” is the wrong label.
The real focus of attention ought to be on the lower end of the age spectrum—on the 16s to 18s, or even up to age 24. Notwithstanding the progress that has been made on employment, that is where the levels of unemployment are probably at their highest in many parts of the country.
My other concern is one which I have expressed on a number of occasions. In the drive to push up apprenticeships, which is laudable and with which the previous Government made a reasonable start, can you sustain quality as well as quantity? Take a situation where you have already had an Ofsted report which said that, in a number of sectors where the largest volume of apprentices were in areas such as business administration and retail, the quality was manifestly not being sustained, the level of training was minimal and people were, quite frankly being exploited. We should be concerned about that. It is not more than a couple of years ago that a young apprentice went out to work one day and never returned. He died in an environment which was absolutely appalling. I make no apology for reiterating these concerns.
Recently I received a helpful response about some of these issues from the noble Earl, Lord Courtown. He said:
“An ‘approved English apprenticeship agreement’ carries the status of a contract of service. That means that employment and health and safety laws apply. The apprenticeship agreement confirms that the apprentice is undertaking an apprenticeship and specifies the standard they are working towards completing. For apprentices who have an employer, an apprenticeship agreement (whether based on the old frameworks or the new standards) must be in place in order for an employer to claim government funding”.
As a statement, it is okay, but does it really guarantee quality? Does it absolutely guarantee that that young person is going to a good quality, safe working environment? I am not convinced that it does. I issue this as a caution against being complacent if the Government are going to drive up the level of apprenticeships at the rate that they say they are.
The letter goes on with more helpful news—about the introduction of a,
“‘Statement of Commitment’ which is signed by the employer, training provider and apprentice … and sets out the key expectations, roles and responsibilities”.
All of that is good and I want to see it. I am not complaining about it, but I also want to see that the Government actually have in place processes that will ensure that the quality of apprenticeships is consistently monitored and reviewed. I do not expect the Minister in a debate as wide-ranging as this to have anticipated all these questions, but that does not make them unimportant or unnecessary to pursue them.
We are told about the Skills Funding Agency which “runs the apprenticeship helpline”. That is good, but in many cases young people are only too grateful to be in employment. They do not want to rock the boat, so to speak, so they are capable of being exploited. I merely make the point. Another paragraph really does worry me a little. It states:
“Beyond the quality guarantees inherent in the new apprenticeship standards themselves, quality is assured by the assessment process. Whilst employers are generally free to arrange whatever on-programme training they believe will be needed”—
as I say, that worries me a little—
“to ensure their apprentice reaches full competence, which will often include the completion of a qualification”.
If it is an apprenticeship, should it not always include the completion of a qualification? If we are talking about raising the quality of apprenticeships and convincing parents that the vocational route is just as good as the academic one, that ought to be addressed. If it is a quality apprenticeship, it means that the individual is acquiring skills, training and competence that ought to be tested by an external, independent source.
I am conscious of the time, but I want to turn to a briefing from the charity Leonard Cheshire Disability, which I thought was really interesting; I am grateful for it. It focuses on disability. I cannot deal with as much of it as I would like, but I shall cover some of the points made. It states:
“Given the Prime Minister’s commitment to implementing the manifesto in full we welcome the inclusion in the manifesto of a pledge to halve the disability employment gap”.
I think that we would all welcome that. The charity goes on to stress four key points:
“Reporting on the progress towards halving the disability gap …Ensuring that more disabled people can benefit from apprenticeship schemes by ensuring that they are as accessible as possible …Greater clarity from the Government around the specialised support that will be available for disabled people to help them secure and stay in work … Exploring how the Government can use its role as a public sector employer and commissioner to encourage its supply chain and other employers to employ more disabled people”.
Those are good, constructive points and I hope that the Minister will be able to respond to them.
The briefing then goes on in another interesting paragraph to address apprenticeship schemes and disabled people:
“Apprenticeships provide an excellent route into work for young people—including disabled people—and allow them to develop the skills they need to succeed in the job market. We welcome the Government’s pledge to fund three million new, high quality apprenticeships this Parliament. However too often apprenticeships are inaccessible to disabled people; indeed the number of disabled apprentices has declined from 11.5% in 2007/8 to 8.7% in 2014/15. During the passage of the Bill, we would like to see further commitments from the Government to support more disabled people to participate in apprenticeships, by ensuring that vital funding, such as Access to Work and training funding, remains available and can meet the demand”.
That is a helpful, factual and constructive analysis of what is actually going on. I believe that the Government are genuine in their attempts to seek to secure full employment, but if they are going to meet the target of halving the number of people with disabilities who are not in work, some issues are raised here that need to be addressed. I want the Government to succeed because I believe that getting people into worthwhile employment has a transforming influence on their lives.
Baroness Greengross (CB)
My Lords, in the time available I can consider only a very few of the many issues covered in this Bill. I think we all encourage measures that support people into work and to remain at work, so I welcome the clauses which cover the new reporting obligations the Government will have to commit to. They include annual reporting on the progress towards full employment, and this should assist in the task of halving the disability employment gap and recruiting and keeping disabled people in work.
I also welcome the measures that seek to remove income-related targets and replace them with new measures to improve the life chances of children. The new duty to create an annual report on children living in workless households in England and their educational attainment is also very welcome.
The re-emphasis of the importance of encouraging social mobility is also good, but I have some concerns that some of the measures contained in the Bill may, in fact, drive up homelessness and consequently drive people further away from the labour market. In particular, I have concerns about the lowering of the benefit cap, which has been widely discussed by your Lordships. Most working-age benefits are to be frozen under Clauses 9 and 10. Some benefits, however, are not affected and are going to rise in line with CPI. Many of these are pensioners’ benefits. As someone who has worked for most of my adult life to ensure fairness for older people, I say that we must have regard to inter-generational fairness on some of these issues.
Some clauses will change the current provisions for help with mortgage payments. In the future, any assistance with interest payments will be in the form of a loan secured by a charge against the property. Under these regulations, the loan will also accrue interest and incur an administration fee. These costs will be recovered from the available equity in the property when it is sold, but this means that people could be left with nothing because they do not happen to live in the areas such as London and the south-east which enjoy the property prices that now prevail.
Clause 19 requires that registered providers of social housing must reduce the rents payable by 1% each year for the next four years, as the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, has illustrated. While this will be welcome relief to those struggling with the annual uprating of rents in the social housing sector, it is another blow to housing associations, which are still reeling from the plans to force them to engage in subsidised right-to-buy schemes. As a result of that, many associations are now selling off properties on the open market at full price and, if the rent is fair, they will also have to take the hit on any rent reductions. Not all landlords are exploiters of their tenants. While reducing social rents is obviously welcome, tackling the high cost of housing is the only sustainable way of reducing welfare spending in the long run. More housebuilding is the only way to bring housing costs down, and progress in achieving this aim must not be undermined. This reinforces the need for support in the latest round of the Affordable Homes programme, which aims to increase the supply of new affordable homes in England by March 2018.
Finally, as a former commissioner on the Equality and Human Rights Commission, I share the concern of the EHRC, which in its evidence to the Public Bill Committee felt that the impact assessments and human rights memorandum which accompany the Bill do not fully assess the impact on vulnerable groups, and that this could make it difficult for parliamentarians properly to consider the implications of the measures in the Bill. This Bill needs very careful consideration and the sort of scrutiny that only the House of Lords can give it.
The Lord Bishop of Durham
My Lords, I support many of the principles underlying this Bill: the importance of personal, as well as collective, responsibility; the value of decent work, not just financially, but for human dignity; the role of the welfare system in encouraging positive behaviours; the recognition that poverty is not simply about lack of income; and the desire for fairness for those who receive from and contribute to the system, including the vast majority of us who do both at different points in our lives. None of these is completely new, but the Government’s approach to welfare reform has certainly reinvigorated the debate about poverty, helping to challenge implicit assumptions and some very tired thinking. Governments naturally want to distinguish themselves, but in seeking to introduce a fresh perspective on old problems, there is always a danger of going too far or of throwing out the good with the bad. That is my concern about some of the measures being discussed today.
The first is the proposal to replace the existing child poverty measures and targets with an obligation to report on a set of life chances indicators. Where I agree with the proposal is that poverty is not simply a matter of economics and the possession of material goods. Unemployment, low skills, poor housing, addiction and family instability are all tied up with people’s experiences of poverty, so it is right to acknowledge this in some way in our understanding of poverty and our approach to tackling it.
However, to scrap all of the income-based measures ignores the importance of money in meeting people’s basic needs. It also ignores the wealth of evidence pointing to the damaging effects that income poverty has on children’s lives in terms of their health, education and future opportunities. Life chances are affected by a multiple of factors, and basic income is one of them. When the coalition Government carried out a public consultation on child poverty measurement in 2013, more than 200 public, academic and voluntary organisations responded. The overwhelming majority argued that poverty is defined by lack of income and that other non-income-based indicators should be used to supplement the current income-based measures. Only one respondent did not think that income should be included in the child poverty measures, yet this is what is proposed in the Bill.
If the Bill goes through in its current form, there will be no recognition of in-work poverty in spite of the fact that around two-thirds of children in poverty have at least one parent in paid employment and there will be no targets for the new indicators and no duty on central and local government to publish strategies to tackle child poverty, simply an obligation to report on the listed indicators. With child poverty projected to rise by up to a million over the next five years, it is convenient, but unacceptable, for the Government to abandon the commitment they made to these targets when the Child Poverty Act was voted through in 2010 with cross-party support.
Last week, I wrote to noble Lords to express deeply held concerns—I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, for having read the letter and commented on it—about the limit that this Bill would introduce on the support for families with more than two children, so noble Lords will not be surprised that I am raising them now. We firmly believe that children are a blessing and strongly resist anything that implies that an additional child is unwanted or burdensome. Every child is valuable; every child matters. We are also very concerned about the practical consequences for the families affected who are already struggling to make ends meet. Larger families will lose up to £2,780 for each additional child beyond the first two. Two million children will be affected by the end of the Parliament, many of whom are already in or at risk of poverty. The majority of these live in working families with limited scope to increase their income. Also affected will be many families who had their children in good times, but who are unlucky enough to lose their job, become ill or disabled or experience a divorce. The Treasury is unable to forecast its own finances accurately more than a year ahead, yet parents are expected to anticipate their own future income for the next 16 years.
As faith leaders, we believe that this measure is fundamentally anti-family and surely fails the Government’s own family test. In extreme circumstances, older children may be forced to leave home before they are ready and large families may break up in order to avoid the two-child penalty. Vulnerable parents who are bereaved or fleeing domestic violence often require extra support at a time of acute need, but they will not be adequately supported if they have more than two children. Kinship carers and private foster parents—there are around 215,000 in the UK—may be unable to take on this vital role if they are no longer eligible for additional support.
This measure will also have a disproportionate impact on particular faith communities where large families are the norm, perhaps because of parents’ devout desire to avoid contraception or abortion. If the two-child limit is designed to encourage lower-income families to have fewer children there is very little evidence that it will be effective. Instead, the impact will be to increase child poverty, penalising children in a largely futile attempt to influence the behaviour of their parents.
A parent from the St Chad’s Community Project in Bensham in my diocese had this to say about the changes: “I receive Working Tax Credit as a single parent with three young boys to support. I feel that making these changes would be adding more pressure to my family. I already have to be very careful with my spending budget — rent, council tax, electric and gas all have to be paid before everything else. My children would suffer as a result. The extra money I get goes towards the children’s school uniform, trips and extras”. She is worried that she will not be able to manage if her benefits are cut, having only recently turned her life around when she was offered a job as a part-time support worker. This particular family may be protected in the short term, but future clients will find life gets even harder if these changes are introduced. Already, this project refers five to 10 families a week to the local food bank, because they are struggling so much, even though the majority of its clients are in work.
This situation will almost certainly get worse as a result of this Bill. I therefore urge the House to support amendments that would relax the limit on support for larger families—or at least reduce its impact by protecting the most vulnerable families—and look very carefully at ensuring that income is included as a factor in child poverty.
Baroness Andrews (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham, even if he has made most of my speech for me—although I can hardly complain about that. I shall try to add a few points that he did not mention.
This is a very regressive Bill that plays fast and loose with language and is based on a series of false premises. The basic tenets of the Bill have already been demolished by my noble friend Lady Hollis and the cumulative impact exposed by my noble friends Lady Sherlock and Lady Lister, the latter of whom also offered the House an alternative and rather more accurate title for the Bill.
I will confine myself to two broad points. The whole tone of the Bill is based on the assumption that if we call poverty by other names or measure it in other ways it will go away. In fact, as has been systematically demonstrated this evening, the Bill cuts the incomes of the poorest, and the working poor in particular. It puts children inevitably at the greatest risk. It prejudices family life and threatens the most vulnerable. It is a prospectus for greater poverty and greater inequality. It is a deliberate policy choice by this Government.
Clauses 1 to 7, which eradicate the poverty targets, are a very simple solution to the problem—they aim not to abolish poverty itself but simply the targets in the framework that has enabled successive Governments to examine, understand, chart and attack poverty. As we have heard many times already, the targets would be replaced by a set of life chances. It is a solution worthy of Kafka. The Government, as we have heard, are virtually alone in defending this. My own figures—perhaps the Minister can confirm this—say that 97% of respondents to the consultation on the new measures believe that the targets under the Child Poverty Act should be retained; a mere 3% disagreed. Can the Minister in winding up tell us who constituted the 3%? It would be quite interesting to know who agreed with him.
The reasons for the abolition are pretty unsubtle. Those income measures tell a graphic story of failure: half a million more children will be in absolute poverty after 2016 and a likely 4.7 million will be in absolute poverty by 2020. Clearly, income is no longer an indication, let alone a determinant, of poverty, because the Government decree it so. I find it astonishing that this can be defended with any integrity or logic, yet we know that the Minister is a man of great intelligence and integrity. Instead of robust, independent targets that will impose on the Government reporting requirements and accountability for troubled families, worklessness and educational achievement—these are the substitutes for the hard measures of income poverty. They are not, as they have been described by the Minister in another place, measures of poverty. They are not the root causes of poverty. Research shows that they are more likely to be the outcomes of poverty. There is a mass of evidence showing the proven link between poverty and educational failure, and much of the other indicators. If the Government were serious about the root causes of poverty, they can do something very simple: keep the income measures in place, add them to the new measures of life chances, explore the relationship between them and devise policies to attack them.
When I think about what the Government are trying to do by redefining poverty, I think of a young man I heard about last week. He is a student who was unable to go to school because he had only one shirt. When it was washed he had to wait for it to dry, but there was no money for the meter, so he missed school. That is what poverty means: it means having no money for the meter, not having a spare shirt or a spare pair of shoes. That young man possibly came from a troubled family, and it would be good to measure his educational achievement and his social mobility, although it would take years and involve sophisticated methodologies. The point is, by dismantling the full picture of the impact of policies on incomes of families in and out of work, we cannot equip ourselves to understand or frame the policies that have the greatest effect, let alone eradicate material poverty.
One of the most disingenuous aspects of this part of the Bill is that the new measures proposed are at most half measures. The most egregious gap is that there is no measure for the poverty of families in work—those families attacked by the attempted tax credit changes. Another is that there is no reference or target for measuring the cost of housing on families, at a time when working families are being priced out of the private rented sector. Will the Minister explain why these measures do not take into account those two most fundamental aspects of family costs?
That brings me to the second area: housing. As we have heard, Clause 21 introduces a 1% reduction to social housing rents for each of four years, beginning in April 2016. It looks like a sensible step and has been cautiously welcomed. What are not welcome are the perverse consequences. The predicted loss of income to housing associations is £3.85 billion. The Office for Budget Responsibility has estimated a loss of 14,000 homes; the National Housing Federation, 27,000. Which of these figures does the Minister agree with, or does he have an alternative figure? There is only one way to compensate for this: maintain funding for the affordable homes programme. Will he give us that assurance?
As we have heard, some of the most vulnerable people in society will be badly hurt by these reductions in rent. These are people in supported housing, people who need shelter from domestic abuse, people who would otherwise be on the streets. It is the most expensive form of housing support. It carries high rents. As the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, said, housing associations are already cutting back on their plans. It is such a false economy. Supported housing is estimated to save the country about £640 million a year. In 10 years’ time the shortfall, if these plans go ahead, will be 46,000 homes. The only certain prognosis is a massive increase in homelessness and greater cost to the NHS. This is yet another example of the dysfunctional disconnect between housing and health policy. The Bill has already been amended in the House of Commons to allow for some limited exemptions. I urge the Minister to do what many of the agencies that really know what they are talking about are asking him to do and introduce an amendment for the whole of the supported housing sector. That is the only thing that we can do to guarantee viability.
Finally, I come back to a very significant point about young people. The Government announced in the Budget that 18 to 21 year-olds making a new claim for universal credit will not be automatically entitled to support with their housing costs. As yet, the details are unclear, as is the process of implementation, but there is widespread concern that many young people may not fall into a protected category. Already, 8% of 16 to 24 year-olds report homelessness. The last thing we want is more young people recruited on to the streets. Will the Minister give us an assurance this evening that he will provide the list of exemptions that takes into account all the reasons that young people may need support with their housing costs, and that this will be the subject of wide consultation before any regulations are brought forward?
In conclusion, in his foreword to the Cabinet Office briefing on the Bill, the Prime Minister said that the Bill was designed to champion social justice. We on this side of the House have a better idea of what social justice means. It does not mean cutting benefits. It does not mean removing a guaranteed framework so that you know how many people are in poverty and whether those figures are going up or down. It means being fair and introducing policies that really support families and the most vulnerable in our society.
Baroness Stroud (Con) (Maiden Speech)
My Lords, it is an honour and a privilege to stand before you today for the first time as a Member of this House. I have been overwhelmed by the kindness and generosity of Members on both sides of this House as they have supported me in taking my seat here. I would also like to thank the doorkeepers who, on various occasions, have found me on red-carpeted corridors going in the wrong direction and have simply turned me around and pointed me back in the right direction. I thank too my noble friends Lord Freud and Lord Farmer, who introduced me to the House as my supporters. I have worked with the noble Lord, Lord Freud, for five years in the Department for Work and Pensions, and have known the support of the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, for eight years at the Centre for Social Justice. I cannot think of two better men to be my supporters and I thank them.
There is a line in the Queen’s Letters Patent to each of us which says:
“I give you a seat, a place and a voice”.
To have a place and be able to sit in this House is nothing short of a privilege, but to have a voice here is nothing short of a responsibility. It is my desire to use my voice in this House to speak up on behalf of those who cannot speak for themselves.
I first became convinced that it was possible to see those in poverty completely turn their lives around when I left university—a few more years ago than I care to admit to. I went to live in Hong Kong. I lived in a place called the Walled City, a slum area rife with drug trading and prostitution. I worked with drug addicts to take them off drugs and see them completely rehabilitated. It was not the drug withdrawal process that really astounded me, however: it was the life change that followed—the rebuilding of learning to work again, of family relationships, of learning how to manage one’s finances and deal with one’s mental health problems. This is where the true courage of those who I worked among really lay. This is when I became convinced that true personal change was absolutely possible.
I came back to the UK to see if the same transformation was possible here too. Working with those struggling with drug and alcohol addictions and those with mental health problems, I started a night shelter, then a hostel, then a rehabilitation house and a halfway house back into the community. We saw lives transformed here too and it taught me not to sell anybody short with a maintenance culture, but to support the innate human desire of individuals to fight their way out of poverty and to take every opportunity available to them.
After 17 years of front-line poverty fighting I had built organisations that cared for 50 people for one night and another 50 for another night. But I found that down the road there were another 50—and in the next town another 50, and in the one after that. So I started asking: how do you translate up on to a national level the lessons that we had been learning on a local level?
It was at this point that I met Iain Duncan Smith and founded the Centre for Social Justice, which was all about translating solutions to poverty from local levels up on to a national level. It was about tackling the root causes of poverty and not just the symptoms. If we were to get ahead of the curve and start addressing the real problems, we needed to turn off the tap and not just pick up the pieces. We identified family breakdown, the failure of our education system for the poorest, addiction, debt and worklessness as the key drivers of social breakdown. It started with the understanding that if you are born into a family who love you and care for you, if you go to a good school, do not get involved in drugs or get into debt and have a job, your chances of being poor are really remote. But if one of those drivers turns—you lose your job, say—or a second turns so that you lose your job and get into debt, your life begins to destabilise. If you lose your job, get into debt and experience family breakdown, things become really tough for you. If all five of those pathways reverse, you become entrenched in poverty and without some other external intervention, you are unlikely to see the life transformation which you as an individual long for.
These five pathways, developed at the Centre for Social Justice and informed by front-line poverty-fighting organisations from all over the UK, have become the building block of the Government’s life chances strategy. This is a life chances measure, which is about saying, “Let’s actually tackle the reasons why someone is poor. Let’s support people by removing the obstacles that confront families so that they can take responsibility for their own lives”. It is about saying: let us challenge the risk of future poverty, by narrowing the educational attainment gap, and challenge current poverty by ensuring that children grow up in working households—preferably full-time working households. But let us ensure that the entrenching factors of family breakdown, mental health, serious personal debt and addiction are challenged, too.
Since I arrived in this House I have been deeply moved, in listening to the debates from all sides of the House, by the genuine care, compassion and commitment that exists in this place for disadvantaged people. It is my wish to add my voice and experience to support those who are the most vulnerable, and to ensure that every life chance is given and every obstacle torn down.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
I congratulate my noble friend Lady Stroud, whom I have known and worked with for some time, on her maiden speech. We worked at the CSJ on Breakdown Britain and Breakthrough Britain, and I compliment her on identifying not just problems but the solutions that make a real difference to the lives of people. She is committed, knowledgeable and incisive regarding the issues and the solutions we need to put in place. This House will be the richer for her contribution and involvement. From all my dealings with her, the one thing I would say is that she is very good at challenging herself and her colleagues—and, I hope, the whole House—to do that which is best for those who need us most.
I support the principles behind this welfare Bill. While I am sure that it will have been quoted many times, I fully support the objective of doing all we can to move our country and the individuals in it from a low-wage, high-tax and high-welfare society to a higher-wage, lower-tax, lower-welfare economy. This principle will ensure that work always pays more than a life on benefits and that support is focused on the most vulnerable in a way that they need. We must not miss the point that the system must be fair, as my noble friend Lord Blencathra explained, to all those who have put in and those who receive the help they need. I do not mean being fair to one group at the expense of another; I mean basic fairness.
We heard about China tonight. I am thankful that we live in a democracy that allows everybody in this House to stand up and say exactly how they see the situation. People listen, and some people’s views may well be changed, but we need to make sure we work together to get the best of this Bill for those who need it most.
I will focus on apprenticeships. Clause 2 introduces a duty to report annually on the progress being made towards the Government’s ambitious target of 3 million apprenticeships being started in England during this Parliament. That figure is ambitious, but we have to be ambitious for the people we want to take part in apprenticeships. However, our ambitions must not stop at the quantity of apprenticeships; we must also consider their quality.
It is encouraging to know that in development are more than 140 Trailblazer groups, involving more than 1,300 employers and 187 published approved apprenticeship standards. Of these, more than 60 are higher and degree apprenticeships, and more than 160 are new, approved English apprenticeship standards. Provisional data show that during the last Parliament, there were 2.3 million apprenticeship starts, of which more than 600,000—26%—were taken by 16 to 18 year-olds. We need to build capacity for more 16 to 18 year-olds in approved apprenticeships.
For me, apprenticeships have three benefits: for the participants, for the employers and for the economy. I will talk about the participants. Apprenticeships are part of the journey of people who want and need to make a successful transition from education to employment. I have spoken many times in this House about the need to take young people on a journey and support them. Apprenticeships introduce young people in particular to the world of work. They do not just produce work experience but, most important, they provide real experience of the world of work and give young people the necessary skills.
Research by London Economics shows that the lifetime benefits associated with apprenticeships at Levels 2 and 3 are significant: between £48,000 and £74,000 for Level 2, and between £77,000 and £117,000 for Level 3. Higher apprentices can earn up to £150,000 more, on average, over their lifetime than those with just vocational qualifications. I am a great believer in evaluating programmes. In 2014 an apprenticeship evaluation showed that 89% of apprentices were satisfied with their apprenticeship; 85% said that their ability to do the job had improved; and 83% said that their career prospects had improved. Apprenticeships are good for apprentices. Nine out of 10 of all apprenticeship completers—88%—are in either full or part-time employment, seven out of 10 with the same employer.
Secondly, apprenticeships are good for employers. According to the 2014 apprenticeship evaluation, 82% of employers were satisfied with the programme, while 70% reported that apprenticeships had improved the quality of their product or service. That is an excellent basis on which to build to ensure that quality as well as quantity is maintained. I fully accept that larger employers have the capacity and infrastructure to accommodate and support apprenticeships. I am pleased at the number of SMEs that are giving such opportunities, but sometimes they do not have the capacity and infrastructure to do as well as they want. Are we doing enough to support SMEs to make sure that they play their full role and give young people the opportunities that they should? I would also like to encourage the whole public sector to open their minds more to providing apprenticeship roles.
Thirdly, the economy as a whole benefits from apprenticeships, as people are upskilled and make a good transition from education to employment and understand how they can play their full role in the business. That helps our economy to continue to grow.
In summary, we have a welfare Bill that aims to ensure that we do better for people. I am sure we will have a big debate about the rights and wrongs of that, but let us not only have the debate but find some really good solutions, so that many who start their journey can, with our support, complete it and reach a good destination. Apprenticeships are a key, fundamental part of that journey, and quality is important. None of these things will happen unless employers, particularly SMEs, are able to deliver good quality apprenticeships and, as a result, a good economy.
I look forward to the continuing debate and, with some trepidation, to the continuing challenge. But I hope that the hearts of every one of us will beat in concert, and at the end of the day we will do the right thing for the people whom we in this House are here to serve.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab)
My Lords, last week in my capacity as chair of the National Housing Federation, I hosted a briefing on this Bill. One of the speakers was the chief executive of an NHF member organisation, St Mungo’s Broadway. St Mungo’s provides supported housing for about 3,600 people a year. On any one night, about 2,500 people are in its hostels, semi-independent housing or care homes. St Mungo’s provides vital support to help people to gain the skills and confidence to recover from homelessness and to live as independently as possible. The CEO was enormously concerned that, under the Government’s plan to reduce social housing rents as set out in this Bill, it will not be able to deliver for homeless and vulnerable people on anything like the same scale. Taking into account the rental income that it had anticipated over this period, it expects to lose £4 million, and local authority cuts over the same four-year period will mean further falls in income. These cuts will mean that St Mungo’s will have to stop running some of its vital supported housing schemes. Their residents have slept rough, been in prison, have a mental health problem or a significant physical health condition; more than half have a substance-use problem, and their problems often overlap. They need skilled and intensive housing management and support. Who else will provide it if schemes like these are forced to close?
Housing associations up and down the country will face the same dilemma. They are committed to building the homes the country needs and will do all they can to continue with this vital work, but we underestimate at our peril the impact of the 1% rent reduction over the next four years. The result is an estimated loss of more than £3.85 billion in rental income. This will have a significant impact on all associations; it will have a particularly severe impact on the provision of supported housing for vulnerable people, including domestic abuse refuges, homelessness hostels and homes for veterans and people with disabilities. Like the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans—I thought he set out the issues extremely well—and many other noble Lords in this debate today, I am deeply concerned that the rent reduction will result in a serious lack of provision for people with complex problems and high support needs.
I have had numerous examples from all over the country. I will mention just two: Framework in Nottingham estimates losing 240 high support units over the next four years, and Riverside based in Liverpool says that 32 of its 102 supported housing schemes will become loss-making as a result of the rent reduction. As well as this, the policy will add greater cost to the public purse. The Homes and Communities Agency recently estimated that the net financial benefit of specialist housing was about £640 million overall. Excluding specified accommodation from the rent reduction measure would result in a reduction in the overall savings delivered by this policy of around £93.5 million in year 4—over six times less than the savings that specialist housing offers the public.
As others have said, the Government have acknowledged that,
“the rent reduction measures may disproportionately impact on supported housing and may cause a reduction in service provision”.
The Bill was amended in another place to allow the possibility for organisational waivers. But the cost structures used by health, care and support providers are complex, and vary across the sector. The development of a waiver formula that is consistent and fair would be extremely challenging. As my noble friend Lady Andrews and other Members of this House have done already in this debate, I urge the Minister to agree that specified housing—in other words, housing for vulnerable people—should be excluded from the rent reduction requirement. I hope that the House will support this.
There are two other issues I want to touch on: the impact of the rent reduction on stock transfer organisations, and the impact of the benefit cap on housing affordability and temporary accommodation. Stock transfer organisations inherit from local authorities housing stock that needs improvement. They generally start out with a business plan that involves increasing rents in accordance with guidelines set by the regulator, and they use this anticipated revenue to underpin borrowings to undertake the much-needed improvements.
This means that the organisation’s finances are extremely tight in its early years of operation. The rent reduction will cause many of these organisations to struggle to deliver improvements promised to tenants at the time of the transfer. In some cases their financial viability will be put at risk. In regard to the benefit cap, a secure and decent home is often the starting point to help people back into work. The Bill’s proposal to lower the benefit cap to £23,000 in Greater London and £20,000 elsewhere will make housing unaffordable for thousands of families. This affordability challenge is not restricted to families renting in the private rented sector. The NHF’s modelling shows that a couple with three children would not be able to afford the average housing association rent on a three-bed property in any region. In London, families would face a shortfall between benefit and rent of £27.79 per week. The weekly shortfall under a £20,000 cap ranges from £37.40 in Yorkshire and Humberside to £67.35 in the south-east, based on the current rent agreement.
A lower benefit cap will have a particularly significant impact on families living in temporary accommodation. Temporary accommodation is a vital part of the homelessness safety net and is used by local authorities to house people who otherwise would need to be placed in more costly emergency interventions such as bed-and-breakfast accommodation. People placed in temporary accommodation by local authorities have little scope to move to reduce their housing costs, and are likely to be further from the job market. If they are no longer able to keep up with rent payments in temporary housing due to the cap, they may find themselves homeless again, and it is likely that local authorities will struggle to rehouse them. I hope the Minister will agree that people living in temporary accommodation should be treated in a similar way to tenants in supported exempt accommodation and have their housing costs omitted from the calculation of the cap.
The current system for regulating social rents is overly rigid and confusing. Currently rents are fixed by the Government, at either a percentage of the local private rent or the lower social rent level. Because private rents vary hugely across the country and do not rise and fall in proportion to local wages, housing association homes are much less affordable for customers in some places than in others. Surely it makes much more sense for housing associations to be able to set rents that reflect local market conditions and customer circumstances, within an overall envelope set by the Secretary of State. I urge the Government to give housing associations that flexibility.
The Bill will have some significant unintended consequences for the housing of some of the most vulnerable people in society. I hope that the Minister will be prepared to look carefully at exempting specified housing from the rent reduction. Will he agree to meet some of the providers of these schemes to hear their concerns first hand?
Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)
My Lords, I welcome the Government’s manifesto commitment to halve the disability employment gap. I sincerely hope that the Bill will help to achieve that, but there are challenges along the way.
Scope’s analysis of the labour force survey indicates that between July and September 2011, 18.5% of the total number of unemployed people were disabled. The statistics from April to June 2015 indicate that disabled people now make up 26% of the total number of unemployed people. It is also estimated that a 10 percentage point increase in disability employment would increase GDP by £45 billion by 2030.
I believe that disabled people should be in work, but it is a complex issue. The Government have consistently said that they support the most vulnerable but it is no surprise that I have concerns about how we might achieve that. The importance of the annual report has been highlighted by the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, and she is absolutely right, but it is more likely that a disabled person will be asked at interview how they go to the bathroom than whether they have the skills to do the job. In other contexts, I have frequently been asked that question. A non-disabled person would be utterly appalled if they were asked that in an interview, but disabled people wrongly expect this as the norm.
I hope that in Committee we will be able to explore what good reporting will look like and how value can be added. That is important because, once out of work, disabled people face considerable barriers to returning. Some 10% of unemployed disabled people have been out of work for five years or more, compared with just 3% of the non-disabled population. I live in the north-east of England, where in the past eight weeks 5,000 jobs have been lost. The chances of a disabled person finding work in this environment will be few and far between. In recommissioning for the work programme and Work Choice in 2017, the Government must develop detailed plans for specialist employment support programmes for disabled people, as recommended by the Commons Work and Pensions Select Committee last month.
The current back-to-work support for disabled people is ineffective. The work programme may have been successful in helping to address cyclical unemployment but it has struggled to address the historically low employment rates among disabled people. Job outcomes for disabled people on the work programme are only 7.7% for new ESA customers and 3.9% for other ESA incapacity benefit customers. This is compared to a job outcome rate of 21.5% for JSA 25-plus customers. People referred to Work Choice between July and December 2014 had a job-start rate of 57.3% by June 2015, but Work Choice is small in scale and poorly targeted at disabled people on ESA.
I hope that the Minister will consult experts on what support into employment should look like, because the work capability assessment does not assess employment support needs. The level of financial support that a disabled person receives determines the employment support that they receive, but that is unhelpful because those two things are just not related.
I must apologise to the Minister that I am unable to attend the weekly Cross-Bench meeting tomorrow, where he will be speaking to my noble friends about this Bill, because I am launching a Citizens Advice report called Waiting for Credit, which looks at the universal credit rollout. It is vital that we get the correct implementation of this because it affects how disabled and non-disabled people are able to move in and out of work.
The noble Lord, Lord Low, has already mentioned that he, my noble friend Lady Meacher and I will be looking at ESA. I do not wish to pre-empt the findings but I imagine that there may be quite a number of amendments in this area. There is a great deal of concern. I do not want disabled people to be disincentivised from getting into work, and we need to explore further whether it creates a greater incentive for claimants to want to be placed in the support group. Given the limited support available to disabled people in the support group, it could have the negative impact of moving people further away from the workplace.
I would welcome a further discussion with the Minister about the impact assessment. I struggle to see how cutting support could incentivise disabled people into work, and I am looking forward to the DWP’s convincing arguments in this area.
There are also a number of issues to do with carers, who could be penalised by the lower benefit cap in the Bill. They make a huge contribution to society, but there is great complexity about whether they live in the same property and whether they are counted as a separate household, even if they do. We must consider how protection can be offered to carers who do not live in the same household. There are also many considerations for people with a life-limiting and potentially rapidly declining condition.
The noble Lord, Lord Borwick, raised the issue of Motability. I had a Motability car when I started learning to drive at 17, because insurance for a disabled person was ludicrous, twice the price of that for a new driver, which was blatant discrimination. It is better now, but under the changes that are coming, if a person loses their benefits they will lose their car. There was a recent case of Olivia Cork, a leg amputee, who was told she was not disabled enough. She went through the process and asked for reconsideration but was turned down. She now has to find £4,900 to be able to keep her car. In a Britain where there are many issues of accessibility to public transport, this is far more disabling than it is helping a disabled person get into work. Whizz-Kidz launched a campaign today looking at accessible travel. In London it is fine, but if you live in the north-east like I do it is really difficult for a disabled person to get around.
There is so much that can be done to help disabled people, but so much is outside the Minister’s remit. I dream that one day we will actually have a joined-up Government. I am chair of ukactive, and last week we released Blueprint for an Active Britain; it contains a whole host of recommendations, such as having activity experts in GPs’ surgeries to help everybody become more active. The Minister said that work is beneficial—activity is beneficial too. We need to be looking at physical literacy for all. Many disabled children are excluded from physical activity and PE in school and there are clear links between educational attainment and activity, but that is outside the remit of the Bill.
I am also chair of the national Wheelchair Leadership Alliance; it is looking at provision of day chairs, which in England is a complete postcode lottery. I am grateful that we have had a lot of support from MPs and CCGs but the wrong wheelchair causes harm. It excludes children from school and people from work. To highlight the issue, I had a picture of myself taken in a wheelbarrow. It has a seat, wheels and handles but is absolutely no use to me. That is the problem of providing a wrong wheelchair. Access to Work has been through reforms. I am currently dealing with a case—it provided a woman with a chair but only gave her five-sevenths of the money towards it. It then suggested that she leave it in work over the weekend so she would not wear it out. These changes are simply bonkers. Instead of encouraging people to work, they are making it really difficult.
Finally, I was today considering why we are here and what we are trying to achieve. I saw a story in the Bristol Post this morning about a young lady called Lily Grace Hooper, who is at primary school. She had a stroke as a baby and is now blind. After a health and safety assessment, she was told that she cannot use her white cane in school in case she tripped people up, but she should have a full-time adult helper instead. What a waste of resources. I am sure there are decent intentions behind it, but it is patronising, it does not promote socialisation, it does not aid her education and it takes away any aspiration. This case sends out a really poor message to disabled people about their independence. The message is, “Why bother?”. I know that this decision was not made by the DWP or the Minister, but the message it sends out about the value of disabled people in society is very worrying. If the Government want disabled people in work, we need to look at the wider issues, not just treat them in isolation. If children are important—if we genuinely want to look at their life chances—children like Lily Grace Hooper deserve a much brighter future.
Baroness Eaton (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a former chairman and current vice-president of the Local Government Association. Getting people into work and reforming welfare are two of the key priorities of this Government, building on the successes achieved over the past five years. In the previous Parliament, 1.9 million jobs were created, an average of 1,000 new jobs per day, more than in the rest of the European Union combined. Each of these new jobs represents a transformation in people’s lives, giving families more security, boosting the self-esteem of young people employed for the first time and providing renewed hope for the long-term unemployed. This successful record in relation to job creation is no accident. It is the product of hard work by people in every part of the country. It is thanks also to the Government’s long-term economic plan. However impressive this record is, it is not enough. The Government have set themselves the bold aim of achieving full employment, and this Bill introduces a duty on them to report to Parliament on the progress being made on this, which I welcome.
As other noble Lords mentioned, the Bill also introduces a duty on the Government to report to Parliament on progress towards another key aim: the achievement of 3 million apprenticeships in England. Over the past five years, the number of apprenticeships has reached record levels—2.2 million—but there is clearly more to be done. I strongly welcome the Government’s ambitions in this area, and I know that local government will be keen to play its part in meeting this target. Indeed, councils are currently leading the way in providing apprenticeship opportunities for young people in their local areas. By way of illustration, I will highlight just one example that I am aware of. Kent County Council, via the Kent Apprenticeship Programme, offers grants of up to £2,000 to businesses which take on a young person aged 18 to 24 who has previously been claiming out-of-work benefit.
The Government’s commitment to create 3 million new apprenticeships over the course of this Parliament has received universal support. It is absolutely right that we are prioritising apprenticeships, which provide a high-quality, accessible alternative for young people who are not pursuing the academic route. By championing apprenticeships, the Government are working in partnership with employers and further education providers to invest in the workforce of tomorrow. This is essential to the future success of our economy. Apprenticeships are also key to solving long-term unemployment. They provide a path for young people into work, a route out of benefits and a path to self-sufficiency and success.
As with all opportunities for young people, we must make sure that apprenticeships are accessible to those who are vulnerable or who need extra support to unlock their potential. We know that some young people will need additional support to transition effectively into work and become financially independent. Another group of particular concern is young people who have been in care. We know that these young people typically have much poorer outcomes than their peers. Multiple care placements too often lead to a disrupted education, which in turn means that they leave school without the necessary qualifications. Some 84% of children in care leave school without good GCSEs. In addition, many have emotional and mental health problems.
The Prime Minister used his party conference speech to restate his commitment to improving outcomes for children in care. As he said, the state has a responsibility, as their corporate parent, to provide them with opportunities by improving standards in our schools and performance in social services. We also need to think about what happens after a looked-after child becomes a young adult. The previous Government took some important steps forward, including the welcome introduction of Staying Put, which enables young people in foster care to remain with their foster families until the age of 21. We know that this has had a positive impact. But of course more needs to be done to help care leavers realise their ambitions and become independent.
The charity Barnardo’s has put forward a number of suggestions for improving access to apprenticeships for care leavers. There are two points that are worth consideration. The first is that we know some young people are not ready to start an apprenticeship straightaway. They may not have the academic qualifications they need, such as GCSEs in English and maths, or they may lack other skills needed for the workplace. What we must not do is to give up on these young people or write them off as unable to move into employment. Rather, we need to find the right pathways into work. Traineeships are an important way forward in this respect. The Government rightly identified that they can provide a useful transition between school and an apprenticeship or other forms of training or work. However, it is very important that these traineeships lead to paid work. I hope that Ministers will consider how we can ensure that traineeships provide an effective part of the solution to improving employment prospects for young people furthest from the workplace.
The other suggestion from Barnardo’s concerns young people who have the skills to do an apprenticeship but need support to complete it successfully. Let us consider, for instance, a care leaver who has qualifications but lacks what we often term “life skills” as a result of suffering trauma. For these young people, extra support either in the workplace or outside it is vital to boost their confidence and make sure that they stay on track. The challenge, of course, is that this kind of support has cost implications. I would welcome a discussion with the Minister to explore options for some kind of support fund for apprentices with additional needs.
In eight minutes, it is impossible to refer to all aspects of the Bill but, finally, I want to touch on the admittedly difficult issue of restricting child tax credit to two or fewer children. It is important that we understand that this Government have a mandate to reduce the welfare bill and that they need to be fair to the many working families whose budgets have to accommodate the cost of every additional child. In 2012, the average number of dependent children in families in the UK was 1.7. Limiting support through tax credits to two children is proportionate. Families on benefit should have to make the same financial decisions as families supporting themselves solely through work.
It is important to see this measure in the round. Child benefit will see no incursions, and the additional 15 hours of free childcare for working parents of three and four year-olds is worth £2,500 per child. I am relieved that the Government will treat multiple births as single births but with a child element for each sibling where there were previously fewer than two children in the household. I believe that the Government will be consulting on further exemptions, so obviously flexibility seems to be the order of the day.
Achieving full employment and ensuring that those in work are rewarded are key to securing a just society and a prosperous economy. These are the two central ambitions of the Bill and, as such, it has my strong and enthusiastic support.
Lord MacKenzie of Culkein (Lab)
My Lords, I will try not to detain the House for too long at this hour. I want to speak, in particular, about the effects that this legislation will have on people with life-limiting illnesses and on those with terminal diagnoses. I want to follow on from a lot of what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Patel, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans and from some of the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Browning.
As a nurse by profession, I could give many examples, but one that bears heavily on me is that of people living with motor neurone disease—that awful, usually rapidly progressing illness, which is always fatal. There is no cure, and it is a disease that I have seen at close hand.
We have heard much from the Government about the need to have a welfare system that is fair, that boosts employment; that is about choices, transforming lives, paying off the deficit and so on. The Conservative manifesto also promised—if I recall correctly—to protect people with disabilities and the most vulnerable in society. Therefore, I wonder why so many charitable organisations caring for the vulnerable and for those with differing disabilities are so concerned about the Bill—none more so than the Motor Neurone Disease Association, to which I should pay the warmest of tributes for its tireless work in supporting those living with MND and in supporting research into a possible cure.
One of the MNDA’s real concerns is the proposal to include the basic or main rate allowance of the employment support allowance in the freeze. People with motor neurone disease inevitably face rising costs as the disease progresses. If the Bill is enacted in its present form, they would be quite a bit worse off by 2019 or 2020.
A second issue causing much concern is the reduction in the benefit cap. This will undoubtedly have an adverse effect on those full-time, unpaid carers who do not live in the same household as the person they care for. This can include friends and/or family members who do not live in the same property. It could also include people who do live in the same property but who are counted as a separate household. For example, an adult living with and caring for an elderly parent or sibling may still be subject to the benefit cap. It cannot be right, therefore, that the inclusion of the carer’s allowance and bereavement allowance will affect full-time, unpaid carers in this way. In my view, these two allowances should be removed from the scope of the benefit cap.
Thirdly, there is very real concern about the question of mortgage interest. Converting this present benefit into a recoverable interest-bearing loan has the potential to leave many in great difficulty, not least those with an illness such as motor neurone disease, where the condition can deteriorate very quickly. In these situations, financial difficulties can follow just as rapidly. It cannot be right that people with life-limiting illnesses should be put in this position of possible financial crisis.
How can the waiting period of 39 weeks before qualifying for this new loan be justified? In not a few cases, 39 weeks is actually longer than the time between diagnosis of motor neurone disease and death. The cumulative effect of the reforms I have referred to is a potentially adverse effect for many people with life-limiting illnesses.
All Governments will sometimes propose or do things that provoke disappointment, anger and a whole gamut of other emotions and reactions. However, I suspect that anyone with a nursing background such as mine, and who is familiar with life-limiting illnesses, is entitled to be profoundly upset and not a little angry that any political party that claims to be on the side of the people, not least people with illness and disability, would seek to deal with the deficit on the backs of those living with always fatal illnesses such as motor neurone disease.
Nothing in these proposals has anything whatever to do with fairness, boosting employment or making work pay. Penalising people with life-limiting illness will do nothing to build an economy based on higher pay—or any of the other reasons that might be advanced as justification for this Bill. Except it will, perhaps, make the tiniest of tiny dents in the deficit. But if so, to how many decimal points would the Treasury have to go to measure that very tiny dent? Even if it were measurable, the Treasury would never publish such a calculation. Given the track record of that department in recent times, it is not about caring but about dogma. Others are being left to pick up the pieces.
I do not believe for one moment that the Minister would wish these things on people with terminal illnesses or diseases such as motor neurone disease. I hope that he will, in replying, be able to give a commitment that the Government will attempt to address these very proper and real concerns raised on behalf of those with life-limiting illnesses, and that the Government can show that they are listening. I look forward very much to the Minister’s reply.
The Earl of Listowel (CB)
My Lords, it was a privilege and pleasure to hear the maiden speeches of the noble Lord, Lord Polak, and the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud. I much regret that business in the Moses Room prevented me hearing the two earlier maiden speeches, but of course I will read those later. I much look forward to further contributions from the noble Lords and the noble Baroness.
I warmly welcome many aspects of this Bill. I welcome the attention paid to the importance of employment, to apprenticeships, and I welcome the troubled families clause. I have some serious concerns as well, in particular with regard to removing the monitoring of child poverty. However, I would like to convey my admiration for the Government in achieving high rates of employment and coming through such a difficult economic crisis. When I speak with people from Spain who come here to work and I hear of the atrocious unemployment rates among young people there and the difficulties they face, it brings home to me the achievement of this Government. We now have the lowest rate of unemployment since 2008 and, I think, the highest rate of employment on record—a real, important achievement.
This has been particularly brought home to me as I am a carer of a mentally ill, middle-aged man who has not worked for at least four years. What has brought a sense of the possibility of escape from his depression and paranoia has been the recognition that, if he carries on as he is, he will be wasting his whole life doing nothing, and the hope that he might be able to return to the job that he thoroughly enjoyed doing in the past.
There is a checkout lady in my local supermarket who is due to give birth in December. She has just had her last day at work. I see her quite regularly and I see customers saying: “I wish you well”. This will be her first child, so she is a bit worried about it. Because she is in employment, she has a community of people around her who are encouraging and supporting her. She need not feel isolated.
Many noble Lords will be aware of the recent report on perinatal mental health which caused so much concern. It highlighted the problems of depression during and after pregnancy. At the launch of that report, I spoke with a psychiatrist. He said: “One can bear almost anything, as long as one does not have to do it on one’s own”. So a key aspect of the Government’s success in creating more employment is how it can break the isolation that so many long-term unemployed people can experience.
Reference has been made to the work of Louise Casey and the troubled families programme. I remember Louise Casey in her first important job—the Rough Sleepers’ Initiative. I saw her on a number of occasions inspiring the people on the ground and bringing about very important and welcome changes to provision for rough sleepers. One thing that she really hammered home was the need to have purposeful activity for those on the streets as soon as possible. They needed to have something useful to do. I want to make clear my admiration and respect for the Government in what they have been doing to help many people into employment in these difficult times.
I hope there may be time for me to speak about homelessness and housing need. I urge noble Lords to consider introducing a metric in this Bill to look at housing need. Shelter is perhaps the primary requisite for people from which they can then find work and educate themselves. If we are looking at poverty, we should be looking at housing poverty as well.
I am concerned at the decision to move away from a metric for child poverty in terms of income poverty. I had the privilege of hearing the right honourable Iain Duncan Smith about six or seven years ago when he came to speak at a dinner at the Michael Sieff Foundation conference. I am a trustee of that organisation. He spoke knowledgeably and passionately about the work he had been doing at the Centre for Social Justice with Graham Allen MP to tackle some of the long-standing social issues in Britain. We found it very refreshing to hear from a politician who was so committed and understood the issues at hand so well.
The area of the Bill I am looking at in particular concerns the metrics around child poverty, not only for children in workless households but also for those in working ones. Some two-thirds of children living in poverty are in working households. It is important that we keep a hold on these things. Perhaps it is presumptuous of me to say this, but I noticed that the last coalition Government recognised that the women’s vote is very important. Around half way through the last Parliament one suddenly had the sense that the Government were saying, “We really need to think about our policy towards women”. I have derived such pleasure and satisfaction from working with the noble Lord and his colleagues over the years and I worry that perhaps they might be shooting themselves in the foot. If the Government stop thinking about child poverty and if they do not look at how many children are in low-income circumstances and thus in material poverty, that might make women think that perhaps the Government are not sensitive to families, particularly vulnerable families. It may be very presumptuous of me to say this, but most of the people I work with are women because it seems that it is mostly women who are interested in family issues, as I am. I notice that polling with regard to women has been changing and they are becoming more concerned about these issues. The work done by Iain Duncan Smith in the past was so important because of the perception that, way back, the Conservative Party had become insensitive to some of these areas and that it was being too harsh. Indeed, it was a female politician, Theresa May, who raised this issue at a party conference.
I shall move on to housing. I noted the speeches of the noble Lords, Lord Smith of Leigh, Lord Shipley and Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, on this subject. I have spoken to many women who are in housing need or are homeless and they have told me about the instability in their lives. I have seen the poor conditions and overcrowding, of which perhaps the worst example was a woman living in a house in multiple occupation. She shared the kitchen and bathroom with five other families. She had a newborn baby and felt deeply isolated; indeed, she was in tears during our visit because she knew no one. I agree with the Minister that we need to think not only about income, but employment and other aspects such as education. We also need to think about housing need among vulnerable families, which should be monitored carefully.
Finally, there is the question of housing benefit being paid to tenants. I declare an interest as a landlord; fortunately I have not had the issue of tenants not paying their rent, but I understand that it is a serious concern for landlords. If we continue to pay housing benefit directly to tenants, there is the risk that many of them will fail to pay the rent and arrears will accrue, exacerbating the problems that have been talked about for housing associations and local authorities as regards their financial security. They will spend a lot of time and resource on chasing up arrears. This is a matter I hope to take up with the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, at a later point in the Bill. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, I have listened for the past six hours to this excellent debate with its high-quality maiden speeches with a growing sense of relief that I am no longer the Government’s Chief Whip, as some serious issues have been raised that will need addressing in Committee. As someone who was a Housing Minister, on and off, for 10 years and who chaired a housing association for seven years, I want to focus my remarks on the two clauses in the Bill that deal with housing, which were welcomed in another place by the Opposition Front Bench.
Looking at the clauses on support for mortgage interest, the Opposition spokesman said:
“We support reforms to mortgage interest support that will strengthen work incentives and deliver savings”.—[Official Report, Commons, 20/7/15; col. 1265.]
Of the rent reductions, which have been controversial in today’s debate, the Opposition spokesman said:
“We want…reductions in social rents that will deliver savings to the taxpayer”.—[Official Report, Commons, 20/7/15; col. 1273.]
So the housing element of the Bill ought to be less controversial than the rest of it.
Dealing first with support for mortgage interest, which was touched on by the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, and the noble Lord, Lord MacKenzie, turning a grant into a loan is a sensible way of cutting public expenditure without reducing support to the homeowner who faces difficulties. I will come to the extra waiting period in a moment, but it is difficult to justify the fact that a householder sitting on a substantial chunk of equity gets a grant from the taxpayer, leaving when he dies his estate to his beneficiaries, unencumbered by the help he has had from the taxpayer. It seems sensible to convert that from a grant to a loan, and I think that would be justifiable whether or not one was looking for savings in public expenditure.
There are extra weeks before the entitlement kicks in, but that simply restores the waiting period to what it was before the financial crash in 2009. I understand the concern that this might push up repossessions, which are at an all-time low, but I wonder whether a bank or building society would go through the aggravation of repossession if it knew that in a few weeks’ time it would get, direct from the Government, monthly interest in full on the sum in question. In view of the concern, I wonder if it would make sense for Housing Ministers to have a dialogue with the CML, perhaps to get a memorandum of understanding that repossession would not normally be activated if SMI was about to kick in. Ministers made it clear in another place that:
“We remain committed to helping owner-occupiers in times of need to avoid the risk of repossession”.—[Official Report, Commons, Welfare Reform and Work Bill Committee, 13/10/15; col. 356.]
I think that dialogue might help.
The reduction in social rents is of course welcome news to tenants, and not just those who pay the rent in full. Of course, some of those currently on housing benefit hopefully will float off it in the next four years and therefore benefit from the measure. Those who currently pay their rent will be able to plan, knowing that for the next four years one of the largest items in their budget will go down in cash terms. This is good news for tenants and good news for the DWP, in that it reduces its outgoings not just on housing benefit but presumably on other index-linked benefits as well, as the downward pressure on rents will influence the CPI.
However, as my noble friend will know, this saving is subject to the ONS changing its mind on housing association debt. It decided just a few days ago that, as from next March, housing association debt will score as public expenditure. This means that, far from this measure reducing public expenditure, it will push it up unless between now and next March the Government can make sufficient changes to the housing association regime to convince the ONS that it can be reclassified. Can my noble friend indicate how they are going to ensure that the ONS ruling is reversed? Of course, that was based on measures taken before the rent reduction and the voluntary right to buy was introduced. It is important that any deregulation does not undermine the creditworthiness of the movement.
What is good news for tenants and the DWP is less good news for investment in housing, as many noble Lords have said in this debate. Ever since housing associations were able to borrow from the capital markets, there has been a link between housing associations’ rents and the size of their investment programme. I confess that when I was Housing Minister, much of my capital programme was funded by the DWP through housing benefit, so any reduction in rent affects cash flow and the ability to sustain borrowing, and therefore affects the investment programme.
It is therefore important that any measures in the Bill that reduce the investment programme of housing associations be replaced by other measures in the Housing and Planning Bill, because there are two sides to this coin. If one side of the coin is reduction in rents in this Bill, the other side has to be measures to increase supply to counteract that in the Housing and Planning Bill currently in another place. I understand the points that were made about supported housing and the excellent work done by those who help the homeless, such as St Mungo’s Broadway and other movements. Clause 22(7) enables the Minister to make exceptions, and I am sure we will want to look at this in Committee to see whether we can safeguard the valuable work housing associations do to support vulnerable people.
My final point concerns an issue that has not been raised in this debate. Reducing social rents at a time when market rents continue to rise brings into sharp focus the question of who gets lifetime tenancies at a lower rent from a social landlord, as opposed to the other half of the market, which has to accept short-term tenancies at market rents from landlords who, in some cases, are not as good as local authorities or registered social landlords. Noble Lords with very long memories may recall the Local Government and Housing Act 1989, one of the objectives of which was to influence the level of social rents to market level, with housing benefit taking the strain. The golden age of Nicholas Ridley never actually arrived, for good reasons, but this measure makes a sharp step in the opposite direction, widening the gap between the two sectors. That means that we need to ensure that the stock of social housing is more accurately targeted at those who need it most. That means another look at lifetime tenancies and at measures to encourage mobility through the social housing sector, as families now decently housed find their circumstances have improved and they can make their way into market housing, freeing social housing for those who, like they were, are in desperate housing need at the inception of their tenancies.
This Bill is an important building block in getting public finances under control, but it raises serious issues for those who want to see an increase in housing supply. Those issues need to be developed when the Housing and Planning Bill reaches this House, and I hope to take a part in those proceedings.
Baroness Gale (Lab)
My Lords, as I am the last Back-Bencher to speak in this debate, I believe that everything that has to be said about this Bill has already been said, but I will speak briefly on Clause 13. It will cut the support paid to people who cannot currently work owing to sickness or disability by about 30%. That means that this group of sick and disabled people will get the same financial support as those on jobseeker’s allowance who are fit and well enough to work. The rationale given for the cut is that this extra money for people in the ESA WRAG acts as what the Chancellor calls a “perverse incentive” which stops sick and disabled people getting better and working. The noble Baroness, Lady Browning, put it very clearly when she described this move as disgusting. I agree with her on that. The Government’s policy intention is to get more people from the work-related activity group back into work. Where is the evidence for the Government’s claims that the cut will get people into jobs who are currently unfit to work owing to sickness or disability?
Reducing financial support for sick and disabled people cannot improve a medical prognosis or speed a recovery. There are also fears about not being able to afford to attend all medical appointments and having to stop therapeutic classes that maximise physical movement and social confidence. It is clear that cutting support by one-third to half a million sick and disabled people is likely to put extra pressure on accident and emergency services and the health service generally.
This is not mentioned at all in the Government’s impact assessment, and the glaring omission casts doubt on the Government’s claim that this policy will save around £640 million a year by 2020-21. Sick and disabled people do not give up work lightly in order to claim benefits. It is not a lifestyle choice. A study found that people with Parkinson’s worked for an average of 3.4 to 4.9 years after being diagnosed. People report regularly that they want to work for as long as they are able. Many people with Parkinson’s work and, with the correct drugs regime and the help and support of their workplace, will be able to continue to work for some time. Eventually, as it is a progressive illness, they will have to give up work. They work as long as they can because of the uncertain future they face, which for many will mean expensive care and support.
There should be no doubt about the motivation of sick and disabled people wanting to work—most people want to work—but they face many significant barriers, including their health and workplace obstacles such as employer attitudes and inappropriate job design. The test does not capture the reality of living with a fluctuating condition, leaving people at risk of being assessed on a “good day”. People with Parkinson’s can have a good day and perhaps the next day cannot do anything. Tests such as the ability to lift a pen and place it in a pocket do not say anything of someone’s ability to have a job and carry out the work. The impact of pain and fatigue is not considered and neither is the fact that some people will not recover because they have incurable and degenerative conditions.
If someone has had to give up work because of the progression of their condition and their prognosis is further deterioration, this will inevitably impact their chances of securing employment again. As a result of the many failings of the WCA, employment and support allowance claimants with Parkinson’s are placed in the impossible and demoralising position of being told they are either fit for work or should be getting themselves back into work, and are often placed in the work-related activity group rather than the much more appropriate support group.
Many people struggle to survive on the WRAG payment, as they are already trying to improve or maintain their health. The Government would be taking £30 a week from almost half a million people on employment support allowance in the work-related activity group. Ministers argue that if these people worked between four and five hours a week on the new minimum wage they could recoup this loss. I wonder where these jobs offering four to five hours a week are. Can the Minister say how many thousands of jobs there are that people could work in for those few hours to recoup the money the Government are going to cut from their benefits?
How is making people poorer an incentive to work, especially people with progressive illnesses such as Parkinson’s and multiple sclerosis? In its excellent briefing, Scope says that it,
“opposes the proposed reduction in support provided to disabled people through the Employment and Support Allowance Work Related Activity Group (WRAG) set out in Clause 13. Disabled people placed in ESA WRAG have been found ‘unfit for work’ by the independent Work Capability Assessment (WCA). The proposed change will not incentivise disabled people to find work”.
I agree with Scope and look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope (LD)
My Lords, it has been a long evening and we are now in injury time. I will try to dispose of my winding-up speech with as much dispatch as I can. I am bound to warn the Minister at the beginning that, as my noble friend Lady Manzoor said at the end of her excellent speech, my noble friend Lady Thomas is not able to be with us because she managed to break her right patella while opening her mail. She obviously gets more exciting mail than I do, but the message I got said specifically that the noble Lord, Lord Freud, must understand that she still has one whole patella left. I do not know with what malice this was meant, but I pass it on, for what it is worth. She will be watching us on Parliament TV as we speak.
I characterise the Bill as one that would never have seen the light of day had any Liberal Democrats been left in the Government. I could say more about that, but I will save it for Committee, where we will all be manning the barricades yet again. I look forward to that. However, there is an unreality about the debate. It has been a very well-informed debate—I would expect nothing else—but we are all in the difficulty that we do not know what is happening in the comprehensive spending review. That will change the game in a way that will not help.
I see all this as a second squeeze. The first squeeze in 2010 was more understandable. This will be a harder sell. The Government will find this very difficult politically when it all beds down and the consequences are fully known and understood. I say that not just because of the deficit reduction programme embedded in the Bill; it is on top of everything else. One of my biggest disappointments in the coalition Government was that, despite the DWP having 200-odd researchers, they never got round to the interrelated, total evaluation of how some of phase 1 of the squeeze in the last Parliament was affecting individual, low-income families. We still do not know that. We are now putting extra pressure on low-income families who are in a much worse position than they were in 2010 when this went through its first iteration. Another thing that is different is not just that they are worse off than they were, but that the public services on which they could rely in 2010 are much degraded. That is almost as big a factor as some of the reductions in finance available to these low-income groups.
We really need to move in this direction with massive caution. I know and trust the Minister. I know that this has less to do with him than it does some other people, but he understands the importance of monitoring, piloting, watching and learning. He gets that. We are relying on him to maintain as much of that as he can keep hold of. Obviously he is not in charge of everything —I do not think that he would be here in the first place if he was—but we will need him to be in listening mode. Committee on the Welfare Reform Bill in 2012 was a model of what a Minister should do in response to some constructive but positive criticism from an Opposition who, I am sure, will continue to be constructive in the way they approach Committee on the Bill.
We have 32 clauses. I hope that the business managers understand that we need time for the noble Lord, Lord Freud, to work his listening magic. He needs time to reflect on what we say to him. The business managers may say, “32 clauses; we can do that in three or four weeks”. We seriously need to take time on this. My former colleague in the House of Commons, the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, spoke about being a former Chief Whip. Once a Chief Whip, always a Chief Whip; I was a Chief Whip in my time. I would not like to be whipping the government side.
Although some powerful and well-informed speeches were made by the Opposition, they were all about the need to get reports made to Parliament. Annual reports are terrific, but they change absolutely nothing and they make no one any better off. That does not mean that they are not important, but they are insignificant compared to some of the other changes that got the House’s attention. Clearly, I consider those to be Clauses 13 and 14. There has been a powerful set of speeches from all sides of the House about the need to change the provisions for the ESA WRAG group clients. That is clearly something we need to think about.
The child poverty measures will take time. The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, made a powerful speech, and I always agree with everything that she says. In particular, however, I agree with the reference to the LSE British Politics and Policy survey by Nick Roberts and Kitty Stewart, which looked at the results of the consultation on child poverty indicators. They looked at 230 of the 257 submissions under a freedom of information request. They said:
“There is very strong support for the existing measures, and near universal support for keeping income poverty and material deprivation at the heart of poverty measurement”.
That does not exclude any of the other things mentioned, a point made earlier. I am in favour of expanding some of the measures. What I am absolutely not in favour of, and I do not know anybody sensible who is, is ditching income. It does not make any sense at all. It makes us the laughing-stock of our European neighbours. We have academics—the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, is one of them—who understand these things better than anybody else in the world. Theirs were among the 230 submissions that were looked at by the LSE group, and that was their conclusion. It was a serious piece of work looking at what we need to do to get that set of indicators correct.
I want to say something else in passing—I have no time to develop it. Parts of the Bill affect Scotland. Parts of it, however, do not. I invite the noble Lord, Lord Freud, to come to Drumchapel and Easterhouse. He and I will go around advocating low-welfare and low-tax policies in the coming May elections in Scotland for Holyrood. Let us see how we get on. I promise the House that this could be used by the Scottish nationalist propagandists. They are grudge experts; we know that. This is meat and drink to them. It will make the job of the unionist parties, including the Conservative Party in Scotland, a lot more difficult than it otherwise might be. There are unintended consequences that we need to deal with. This is a very important Bill. I could say more, but I hope the Minister will be able to arrange some serious time in Committee to deal with this.
As a final point, I want to explore the idea of preventive spending. The noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, whose maiden speech was excellent, and whose work I know—although I do not always agree with her conclusions—made a very powerful speech. What she was actually saying was that if we were cleverer about evaluating the outcomes of preventive spending, the kind of things that she does would be an absolute no-brainer. However, they cost money and you cannot do bespoke preventive spending on an invest-to-save basis without giving some basic income support to keep people alive while you are doing it. I want to use Committee to explore some ideas about that through probing amendments. I hope that we will have a constructive Committee. We need to: this is an important Bill. It is important that we get it right. It would not have happened if there had been a Liberal Democrat in the Government.
Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)
My Lords, notwithstanding the fascinating and varied content of their contributions, given the hour, I hope that the House will allow me just to offer collective congratulations to all our maiden speakers. I look forward to hearing their contributions in future.
This is a wretched Bill. I am bound to say that it is the worst I have encountered in my time in the House. As my noble friend Lady Sherlock said at the start, it will increase poverty, penalise working households and accelerate homelessness. There is more besides as the Government are pursuing further cuts in parallel, not least their ill-fated attempt to cut tax credits through secondary legislation. This is done in the name of moving to a low-tax, lower-welfare and higher-wage society but we know that tax cuts and higher wages, even when they come, do not compensate for the scale of social security cuts which the poorest will be made to endure. The national living wage is not a direct substitute for cuts to in-work support and we know that half of the cash gains flow to the wealthiest half of households and are not available to the self-employed. My noble friend Lady Donaghy made some important wider points about the self-employed, which we will need to explore in Committee.
A significant contribution to the Chancellor’s £12 billion of cuts, which the noble Baroness, Lady Manzoor, rightly claimed as a political choice, will come from across-the-board freezes in working-age benefit rates. This amounts to a 4.8% real cut, given the OBR forecast for CPI, and comes on top of three years of nominal increases under the coalition Government—presumably, also a political choice. Because of this, the IFS tells us that 13 million families will on average lose something like £260 a year. Breaking the link with prices and earnings, a growing feature of government policy, means cutting the poorest off from the mainstream of society. We argue for an annual assessment of benefit levels. My noble friend Lady Hollis reminded us to be careful of the mantra around benefits and pointed that as a percentage of GDP, the welfare bill has been pretty constant over a long time. The welfare and social security system is something which we all dip in and out of during the course of our lives.
The IFS analysis of the distributional effect of the coalition’s tax and benefit changes shows that, overall, the coalition Government raised a net £13.5 billion in taxes and cut net benefits by £16.5 billion. Who picked up the tab when measured as a percentage of income? The bottom two deciles have borne the most. How is this supporting the most vulnerable? Where are Adam Smith’s values in all that and who will bear the cost this time round? According to the IFS, it will be the poorest income decile groups.
The reporting obligations of Clauses 1 to 3 can be supported if strengthened. We heard from the noble Baronesses, Lady Stedman-Scott and Lady Eaton, the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, and my noble friend Lord Young of Norwood Green, who was passionate about having quality apprenticeships and the importance of that government commitment. We need to be clear what employment means to the Government. I sometimes think that the impression is created that active market policies began with the Centre for Social Justice. If we need to look at a bit of history, perhaps I may take the Minister back to a report which he wrote in 2007, when he said that the Labour Government,
“has made strong, and in some respects remarkable, progress over the last ten years”.
He went on to say:
“This is a genuinely impressive record. And underneath these headlines the biggest improvements have been for areas and groups which were previously furthest behind. Nearly every disadvantaged group that the Government has targeted (e.g. lone parents, older workers, ethnic minorities and disabled people) has seen its ‘employment gap’ reduced”.
I commend the noble Lord for the excellent report which he wrote previously.
Several noble Lords talked about the troubled families programme. My noble friend Lord Smith and the noble Lord, Lord Lupton, have supported that. I think we need to make sure that reporting of the troubled families programme includes a report on resources that are made available to local government. Several noble Lords focused on the lowering to three of the age of children whose parents must undertake work search or be sanctioned.
As well as seeking an independent review of the operation of sanctions, we will look to constrain this policy in circumstances where suitable and affordable child care is not available. We agree that child poverty is multifaceted and have no problem with further reporting requirements around worklessness and educational attainment. We might think about bad housing as well, but, although we subscribe to work being the best route out of poverty, we need to acknowledge the growing reality of in-work poverty, a point made by several noble Lords during this debate. CPAG tells us that 64% of children who are now living in poverty are in working households.
Like my noble friend Lady Lister, we are vigorously opposed to the removal of the measures and targets in the Child Poverty Act. We know that the lack of adequate income is a decisive characteristic and one of the primary drivers of poor life chances. Not having to measure income or indeed develop a strategy may be convenient for the Government, but it will not change the reality, a reality where the Resolution Foundation says that we are facing, in this rich country of ours, having some 3.7 million children in poverty by 2020. This is an outcome which is spurred by cuts to working-age benefits.
We look forward to the review of the noble Lord, Lord Low, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Meacher and Lady Grey-Thompson, and to their bringing their expertise to bear on the consequences for disabled people of this legislation. We have great confidence in their deliberations.
We support the Government’s ambition to halve the disability employment gap, although their progress, as the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, said, should be routinely measured. However, there are a number of measures in the Bill which do not help in recognising that disabled people take longer to get back to work and have challenging financial resistance. The noble Lord, Lord Patel, gave us an authoritative account of some of the challenges that disabled people face in getting back to work. Removing the uplift for individuals in the WRAG will cost them £1,500 a year and is justified on the spurious and unsubstantiated basis that it will improve work incentives, notwithstanding, of course, that people in the WRAG—this is a point made by several noble Lords—have been assessed as not currently able to work. These are individuals also who will be disproportionately affected by cuts to working-age benefits, including, for those not in receipt of DLA/PIP, the benefit cap. How is that supporting the most vulnerable? We will seek to remove Clauses 13 and 14 from the Bill.
It is said that disabled people have been failed by the benefits system. We maintain they have been failed by the Work Programme, particularly those with mental health challenges. I commend the contributions of the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, and the noble Lord, Lord Layard.
That we have a housing crisis is not in doubt. New build is woefully short of what is required. Rents in the private sector are rising. Homelessness is increasing. Of course, one of the first decisions of the coalition Government was to cut capital spending for social housing and to put the burden of funding on so-called affordable rents. No surprise therefore that the housing benefit bill ballooned by some £30 billion, so now it is all going to go into reverse with enforced social rent reduction, amounting to an average 12% by 2020, reversing also the agreements relating to refinancing agreements for local authorities. That may be good news for some tenants, perhaps, but the benefit will overwhelmingly accrue to the Treasury in reduced housing benefit. Taking some £4 billion out of the sector by 2020 is bound to lead to fewer social homes being provided. We heard from my noble friend Lord Smith of Leigh that this problem is already beginning to bite. As was mentioned, the National Housing Federation has said that it could lead to 27,000 fewer homes by 2020.
We have received strong representations about the impact of this policy on providers of specialist housing that deliver vital services to some of the most vulnerable in our communities. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans in particular focused on this issue. Being able to seek an exemption from the policy is all very well, but we support a statutory exemption for specialised housing and seek to require the Secretary of State to bring forward arrangements to ensure that the impact of rent reduction will not impair the ability of housing associations or councils to build new affordable homes. We know that the benefit cap has already reduced the affordability of suitable housing and increased homelessness. Further reductions will make the vast majority of the country unaffordable to couples with three or more children. Freezing local housing allowance will further put housing beyond the reach of many. Shelter advises that in two years local housing allowance will not cover the bottom one-third of rents in almost all local authorities, which is staggering. The homelessness duty placed on local authorities will become intolerable, as cuts to their budgets bite. Of course, although DHPs will help, they are not a panacea.
We will support exemption from the cap for those in high-cost temporary accommodation; we will also seek to remove carers from the scope of the cap and exclude children-related allowances from the calculation. The assertion that this is all about work incentives is bogus, as those caught by the cap are overwhelmingly not required to work. Perhaps the Minister can give us the figure of how many people that actually involves. The Secretary of State should certainly not be let loose to change the cap almost at will and without reference to clear criteria.
As for switching support for mortgage interest by grant to a loan, we will seek protection for pensioners, who comprise some 45% of claimants. Given the switch, there seems little justification for the extended wait to 39 weeks. We will probe in Committee the availability of independent advice and concerns over conflicts of interest.
We have heard fierce opposition to the two-child policy, none more powerful than that from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham and my noble friend Lady Sherlock. Their opposition and that of the faith communities generally is not only about the financial impact of the restriction on larger families, including some 2 million children—families which already have a higher risk of poverty. As their briefing makes clear, the policy will have profoundly negative effects on family life. It raises horrific images of what women may have to endure in seeking exemption. There is much that we have to challenge in this Bill, none more so than this grotesque policy. It is a line that we must ensure that the Government are not allowed to cross.
Lord Freud
My Lords, I was expecting some excellent contributions to this debate, and I was not disappointed. We have all been privileged to enjoy the quartet of maiden speeches this evening. I was particularly struck by my noble friend Lord Lansley saying that we need to add value in our measures of poverty. No one could mistake the passion with which my noble friend Lady Stroud has devoted her life to tackling the root causes of poverty. My noble friends Lord Lupton and Lord Polak concentrated on the importance of the troubled families programme. As my noble friend Lord Lupton said, we need to intervene, not just look at statistics. I also thought that we had a complete variety of styles from the four—you could not get a more varied set of contributions—and I look forward to many more contributions from my noble friends.
This Bill builds on the principles first introduced in the Welfare Reform Act 2012. In the past, Governments spent money in an attempt to solve problems rather than drive real change in people’s lives, and our approach is different: we believe that we should reward work and support aspiration, that we must have in place a fair, affordable and sustainable welfare system, along with the appropriate protections for the most vulnerable, and that we must relentlessly focus on tackling the root causes of child poverty to improve the life chances of our children. It is also worth remembering that the measures in the Bill must not be taken alone. We must also take into account the national living wage, increases in the personal tax allowance and the reforms of childcare, all of which will help to ensure that work pays.
Let me address some of the points that were made in the debate. There were quite a lot, and I will attempt to answer as many as possible. We will have a chance to go into them all in Committee. To help that process, I will, as the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, asked, make sure that we have the same process that we had with the Welfare Reform Bill. I will make briefing sessions available for noble Lords on the specific policy in good time, so that we have an informed process.
Let me begin with the first three clauses of the Bill: the statutory duties to report on full employment, apprenticeships and troubled families. The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, asked why we are not setting the target for full employment there. We set out in our manifesto the aspiration for the UK to be the best place in the world to start a business, and to achieve the highest employment rate in the G7. Producing an annual report will illustrate our progress towards that goal.
The noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, asked whether underemployment as a result of working part-time is contributing to low earnings. The figures show that 85% of people who are working part-time are doing so through choice. The number of vacancies are now pretty substantial—in excess of 700,000 at any one time. In answer to the question asked by the noble Baronesses, Lady Manzoor, Lady Doocey and Lady Hollis, full employment will allow support for those with disabilities. We have already found 450,000 people in the Work Programme sustained work. We need to continue to support individuals into work through successful programmes such as Access to Work, and to work with the health system to improve access to treatment.
Closing the disability gap and improving employers’ attitudes to disabled people is a theme that was picked up by the noble Baronesses, Lady Doocey, Lady Meacher, Lady Hollins, and Lady Grey-Thompson, and by the noble Lords, Lord Rix and Lord Young. Clearly, it is a challenging ambition and we are committed to it. We have extended Access to Work and launched specialist employability support. We continue to work with employers through our Disability Confident campaign, and announced funding of a further £100 million per year for additional practical support. Clearly, progress here is a key factor in achieving full employment and closing the gap.
The noble Lord, Lord Young, my noble friend Lord Blencathra and my noble friend Lady Stedman-Scott asked about the quality of apprenticeships. Improving quality has been central to our reforms, and employers are developing new standards to ensure that apprenticeships meet the skills needs of their sectors.
The Government ensure that small businesses are engaged in the development of those apprenticeship standards, and we have made significant progress in making them easier for small businesses to take on. In answer to the question of my noble friend Lord Hodgson, there are 40,000 people with disabilities or learning difficulties starting an apprenticeship. More clearly can be done. My noble friend Lady Eaton asked about care leavers. The Government provide full funding for apprenticeship training for entitled 19 to 23 year-old care leavers. They can also get access to programmes such as traineeships for the support they need to get ready for an apprenticeship.
I turn to life chances. We have made it clear that our focus is on the symptoms of child poverty—excuse me, the existing statutory targets focus on the symptoms of child poverty—and we have a new approach, the life chances one, focused on transforming lives through tackling the root causes of child poverty. Clause 4 therefore places a duty on the Secretary of State to report annually on the key life-chance measures of worklessness and educational attainment.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
How is the Minister going to account for poverty among children of working families?
Lord Freud
The HBAI measures are still there. We will have all the measures that we normally have.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Hollis, Lady Sherlock and Lady Lister, were concerned about the impact of this on the Budget. Our reforms are designed to incentivise work and ensure that it always pays, and then to allow people to keep more of what they earn. The new life- chance measures will drive continued action on work and education, which will make the biggest differences to disadvantaged children now and in the future.
Numerous noble Lords argued that we should keep income-based measures and measure in-work poverty, as the noble Baroness has just reinforced. The existing statutory framework set around the four income-related targets is unfit for purpose. The framework does not drive the right action, so instead we will focus on the root causes such as worklessness and educational failure. The income measures led Governments to spend their finite resources on action that did not produce the best results for our children, and that is the reason for our new approach. As I just said, though, and in response to the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, we will still be publishing all the income measures and the HBAI report. I remind him that no other country in the world uses those measures as a target as opposed to a measure.
I am flattered by the vigorous quoting by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, from that small piece of work. I should point out that when I say there were some remarkable changes, there were no remarkable changes in the number of NEETs, which went up through the longest boom in history, nor in the amount of worklessness or social housing, which plateaued whether one was at the top or the bottom of the cycle, and I recommended a major effort to pull the disabled back into the labour market and into society. Of course some of the figures that I was so pleased with then fell straight off a cliff when we had a rather remarkable recession—probably the worst recession that this country has had since the 1920s. However, we took £60 billion out of the welfare bill over the last coalition Government, and up until the time for when we have the latest data, the relative measure of people in poverty had declined in that period by 800,000 people. So it is wise to use not people’s forecasts of income but what has actually happened.
I turn to the benefit cap. It is not fair for someone on benefits to receive more than many people in work; reducing the benefit cap to £23,000 in London and £20,000 elsewhere better aligns the level with the circumstances of hard-working families across the country. On the question raised by a number of noble Lords—the noble Baronesses, Lady Sherlock, Lady Hollis, Lady Lister and Lady Warwick—about whether the level was too low, we originally set the cap at £26,000 but we want to balance the key aims of strengthening work incentives and promoting fairness between those in work and those in receipt of out-of-work benefits.
Any changes to the cap level will require the passage of regulations. I can assure the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, who was concerned about this, that the regulations which lower the level of the cap will follow the affirmative parliamentary process. In response to the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, and the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, carer’s allowance is included in the cap. The Government fully acknowledge and value the very important role that carers provide to society but 94% of households in receipt of carer’s allowance will have a benefit income above the new cap level. They are, anyway, exempt from the cap.
The benefits freeze is a vital part of the Government’s welfare reforms, providing £3.5 billion of savings by 2019-20—without any cash losers—which would otherwise need to be found elsewhere. The noble Lord, Lord Low, asked about the impact of the freeze on the disabled. We have exempted the benefits which contribute to the additional cost of disability and care from the working-age benefit freeze. The noble Baronesses, Lady Hollis and Lady Bakewell, raised the issue of the two-child limit. Families on benefits should make the same financial decisions as those families supporting themselves solely through work. Families on lower incomes will continue to receive child benefit for all children in the household, including a higher rate paid for the eldest qualifying child or young person. The noble Baronesses, Lady Sherlock and Lady Manzoor, both raised questions about involuntary two-child families. The Government will look at the important issues around exemption through secondary legislation and will provide more detail in due course. The situation with kinship carers is similar.
The noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, raised the point of the impact on disabled children. Parents of disabled children will continue to receive the disabled child element and severely disabled child element in child tax credit and, in UC, the additional amount of the child element in respect of all disabled children, regardless of the total number of children in the household. The noble Baroness, Lady Manzoor, asked for assurance that the architecture of UC will not be lost. I appreciate her support on that and give credit to the Liberal Democrats, who were utterly supportive of universal credit and our efforts to bring it into reality under the previous Government. I am delighted to see that they maintain that level of support.
I turn now to the clauses which remove the work-related activity component in ESA, and its equivalent in universal credit, for new claimants from April 2017. The noble Baronesses, Lady Sherlock, Lady Manzoor, Lady Doocey, Lady Browning, Lady Meacher, Lady Howe and Lady Gale, asked for evidence that the WRAG component is a disincentive. A report by the OECD in 2005 argued that:
“Financial incentives to work can be improved by either cutting welfare benefit levels, or introducing in-work benefits while leaving benefit levels unchanged”.
On the other hand, employment support provides an opportunity to begin talking to ESA claimants about their ability to work. A positive relationship with a work coach, combined with evidence-based methods for goal-setting and striving, offers a promising way towards moving ESA claimants back into work. We will be increasing the practical support with new funding. The noble Baronesses, Lady Sherlock, Lady Manzoor, Lady Doocey, Lady Browning, Lady Meacher and Lady Gale, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans and the noble Lord, Lord Patel, argued that these claimants have been found unfit for work. The ESA claimants in the work-related activity group have been found to have limited capability for work. This is very different from being unfit for any work and, although they are not required to look for work, ESA explicitly recognises that claimants may be able to undertake some work via the permitted work rules. This change, combined with the new funding, is about providing the right incentives and support to encourage more people to move closer to the labour market.
The noble Lord, Lord Patel, made a point about those with cancer. The vast majority of those with cancer claiming ESA are actually in the support group, a point that he himself made. This includes anyone who is preparing for, receiving or recovering from chemotherapy or radiotherapy that will significantly limit their ability to work. Only a small proportion of individuals whose initial diagnosis is cancer will be placed in a work-related activity group.
On mental health conditions, raised by the noble Baronesses, Lady Manzoor and Lady Howe, and the noble Lord, Lord Layard, it was clearly acknowledged that returning to work can improve mental health, which is why we are committed to ensuring that as many people with mental health conditions as possible receive effective support to return to and remain in work. We will actually be investing £43 million over the next three years in trialling ways to provide specialist support for people with common health conditions to get back into the workplace.
On conditionality for parents, raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, we believe that more can be done to support parents with young children to prepare and look for work. Where childcare is not available, requirements will be tailored around caring responsibilities.
On the clauses to turn support for mortgage interest into a loan, the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, and the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, raised issues around pensioners. Pensioners will have access to the same level of support for mortgage interest payments as the current system provides. This will be provided via a loan, but that will not have to be repaid until the individual’s property has been sold—which often, in the case of pensioners, will be on their death, so the people who actually pay are the inheritors; that is not something the party opposite would have a huge problem with, I would have thought.
A large number of noble Lords talked about social housing rents. The answer to the noble Lord, Lord Smith, is that the Government were elected with a mandate to put welfare spending on a sustainable footing to reduce the deficit. We are confident that housing associations and local authorities will be able to find and make efficiencies to accommodate the new settlement.
On specialist supported accommodation, which a large number of noble Lords brought up, we are proposing that there will be some exceptions from the rent reductions. We have set out some of those in the Bill and we will be setting out further exceptions in regulations. Our intention is to align exceptions with the equivalent provisions of the rent standard. At present these include specialised supported accommodation, residential care homes and nursing homes, and intermediate rent and private finance initiative housing. We will work with the sector to ensure that the most vulnerable people are not adversely affected—indeed, I am planning to meet St Mungo’s.
Regrettably, I cannot deal with all the questions and must draw to a close. I thank all noble Lords again for their contributions. Welfare reform is about much more than simply money. Our reforms seek to change the state of the nation, break the cycle of dependency, create the right kinds of incentives, have a fair welfare system, provide the best possible start in life for children, and bring lasting change that directly affects attitudes and behaviours. This Bill is a real opportunity to make a difference to the lives of some of the poorest, the neediest and the most vulnerable people in our society. It is an important and necessary piece of legislation. I commend this Bill to the House and ask for it to be given a Second Reading.