House of Commons

Wednesday 18th November 2015 Commons Chamber

Wednesday 18 November 2015

The House met at half-past Eleven o’clock

Prayers

Wednesday 18th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions

Wednesday 18th November 2015 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

1. What steps the Government are taking to support the steel industry in Wales.

[The Secretary of State for Wales (Stephen Crabb)]

I would like to start by putting on record the enormous sense of solidarity felt by all people across Wales with the French nation. We stand with them shoulder to shoulder in these difficult and anxious days.

The steel industry in Europe is facing a perfect storm as a result of a glut of cheap imports, falling prices and high energy costs. With nearly half of the UK’s primary steel industry employed in Wales, we fully recognise the impact of these global challenges on Welsh steelworkers and their families. We are working closely with the industry and with the devolved Administrations to do everything possible to support the industry at this time.

[Wayne David]

We on the Labour Benches associate ourselves with the Secretary of State’s words about the people of Paris.

On 28 October, the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills attended an extraordinary meeting of the Competitiveness Council on the steel industry. Following that EU meeting, plenty of warm words were issued in a written statement, but can the Secretary of State tell the House what practical measures were agreed to help the steel industry in this extremely difficult time?

[Stephen Crabb]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for the question. Before I answer it substantively, I should make the House aware that there has been an explosion in the past hour at the Celsa Steel plant in the constituency of the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty). Our thoughts are with the workers at this time and with the emergency services who are at the plant as we speak.

On the practical response to the global challenges facing the steel industry, the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David) will be aware of the specific practical working groups that we established following the national summit. Those engage the Welsh Government as well as the Scottish Administration, and action has been taken by the Business Secretary at a European level to get our European partners to focus much more seriously and more urgently on tackling dumping and bringing forward state aid clearance so that we can fully compensate our steel industry for the higher energy costs that it faces.

[Chris Davies (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con)]

What assurances can my right hon. Friend give me that procurement for large infrastructure projects, such as the electrification of the great western main line, will prioritise the use of British steel?

[Stephen Crabb]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question, as it gives me the opportunity to talk about one practical measure that we have taken in recent weeks: we have changed the guidelines for Departments on procuring steel for major projects, allowing for Government contracts to take into consideration wider economic and social impacts, which we hope will create more opportunities for UK steel manufacturers to win those bigger contracts. With this Government making a record investment in infrastructure, that creates future growth opportunities for the British steel industry.

[Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)]

Although we clearly need measures such as help with business rates and energy costs, does the Secretary of State agree that if we do not tackle Chinese dumping, all those other measures will count for nothing and that the future of the industry in this country is bleak?

[Stephen Crabb]

I agree with the sentiment and the direction of the question. That is the backdrop to the global challenge, not just for the British steel industry, but for the steel industry in north America and all across Europe. With a glut of cheap Chinese steel coming on to the market, we are leading efforts at a European level to tackle dumping. We voted for the anti-dumping measures in one specific section of the steel industry and we are continuing with those discussions.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for the answers that he has given so far, but what measures is he taking with the Wales Office to lobby other Government Departments to pre-order steel from Wales and other areas of the country for our infrastructure projects to ensure that there is a future for steel in Wales?

[Stephen Crabb]

My hon. Friend is right. That taps into the point that I made a few moments ago about the changes that we have made in the procurement guidelines. The Crossrail project, for example, which has used 50,000 tonnes of high-quality steel from Celsa Steel, which I mentioned a few moments ago, is a great example of the UK Government investing in infrastructure and using the power of our procurement to create growth opportunities for British steel manufacturers.

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

The incident this morning at Celsa in my constituency to which the Secretary of State has referred is obviously deeply concerning news. Can he say anything more about the incident and ensure that there is full support from all in responding to and investigating it?

[Stephen Crabb]

As I understand it, the incident happened in the past hour. Ambulances are at the scene. I am told by officials that there are three injuries at the site. That is all I know at this moment. As the hon. Gentleman says, our thoughts are very much with the workers, their families and the emergency services at the scene.

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

First, I echo the words of the Secretary of State in respect of the tragic events in Paris and the explosion at Celsa this morning.

The Secretary of State knows just how serious is the crisis facing the steel industry in Wales, and indeed the whole of the UK. Four years ago, the Chancellor promised a compensation package for energy-intensive industries. What reassurance can the Secretary of State now give to the thousands of workers in Wales whose jobs depend on the steel industry that his Government will deliver that package by the end of this month?

[Stephen Crabb]

The point I would make first up is that we are in the process of delivering that compensation. We have already paid out about £50 million in compensation to British steel companies, not least to companies based in Wales, so the money is already getting to them. What we are talking about at the moment is getting state aid clearance for the final element of the compensation package. That is really important for the steel companies, and we are pressing hard to get it.

[Nia Griffith]

After four years, the Secretary of State’s Government have still not finished negotiating one package. That hardly bodes well for the promises the Prime Minister is making about EU reform.

The Government have made much of merely renewing existing anti-dumping measures, but with 94% of the Chinese steel that comes into the EU flooding the UK market, why is the Secretary of State’s ministerial colleague in the EU Council of Ministers blocking the much needed reform of the trade defence instruments?

[Stephen Crabb]

I am not sure that the hon. Lady is fully sighted on all the actions on steel that we are taking at a European level. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills and his colleague, the Minister for Small Business, Industry and Enterprise, have been at the forefront in discussions and negotiations at a European level to get change, with real, practical, urgent action on anti-dumping and on state aid clearance for compensation for energy costs. We are leading the way in trying to get change at a European level to support and protect our British steel industry.

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

2. What steps he has taken to ensure access to justice services in Welsh.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Alun Cairns)]

It was of course a Conservative Government who introduced the Welsh Language Act 1993, which provided for the use of the Welsh language in the courts system. We are committed to remodelling our courts to make them more cost-effective and efficient, and these changes will give due consideration to the needs of Welsh speakers.

[Liz Saville Roberts]

I take this opportunity to extend our sympathies to every nation that has suffered at the hands of IS in recent days, and to express concern at the news of the explosion in south Wales.

I understand that the Ministry of Justice has closed its consultation on the court and tribunal estate in England and Wales, which proposes the closure of 11 courts in Wales, including Dolgellau in my constituency, and that is without undertaking a Welsh language impact assessment, as required by law and under the Welsh language scheme. Will the Secretary of State ensure that a Wales-wide assessment is undertaken and that its recommendations are implemented before any decisions are reached on court closures?

[Mr Speaker]

I thank the hon. Lady, but we are very constrained for time and must move on.

[Alun Cairns]

I am happy to confirm to the hon. Lady that a full Welsh language impact assessment will be included in the Government’s response to the consultation. We are determined to protect the interests of Welsh language speakers, as demonstrated by the Department’s Welsh language scheme.

[Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)]

Over many decades, Conservative Governments have a strong record of supporting the Welsh language. Does my hon. Friend agree that every Department at Westminster, including the Ministry of Justice, should be committed to supporting the Welsh language and the modernisation of Government services, enabling us to give even more support to the language that we in Wales call the language of heaven?

[Alun Cairns]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Protecting and preserving our heritage is a core Conservative principle, and this Government, like previous Conservative Governments, have done a lot to secure that, as he rightly mentioned. The Government’s digital agenda provides an opportunity to bring about innovations to enhance the opportunities to use the Welsh language in the courts system and in other Government services.

[Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)]

Access to justice in both Welsh and English is important to my constituents in north-west Wales, but following court closures alternatives such as audio-visual facilities and paying fines over mobiles would not be possible in such areas, in English or in Welsh, because we simply do not have the infrastructure. Can we put court closures on hold until we get that infrastructure?

[Alun Cairns]

Estate reform of the Courts Service must continue, but that is allied to the digital transformation that the Government are bringing about. A total of £69 million has been invested in broadband services in Wales, in addition to European aid and Welsh Government money. We have also announced a consultation on a minimum service requirement for broadband distribution, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will welcome that.

[Andrew Griffiths (Burton) (Con)]

3. What assessment he has made of trends in the level of inward investment in Wales.

[The Secretary of State for Wales (Stephen Crabb)]

Almost exactly one year on from the UK investment summit in Newport, inward investment figures for Wales show the best performance for a quarter of a century. This is no coincidence. With the support and assistance of UK Trade & Investment and the UK Government, Wales continues to provide a world-class offer for foreign investors.

[Andrew Griffiths]

Will the Secretary of State join me in congratulating all the workers in Wales who make it such a brilliant place in which to invest? Does he agree that this record investment shows that the Government’s long-term economic plan is working?

[Stephen Crabb]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend. The economy in Wales is getting stronger, thanks partly to new inward investment. Just a few weeks ago, I had the pleasure of welcoming Israeli investors to south Wales, where they announced £3 million of new investment, creating almost 100 new jobs. We should all be encouraged by the fact that inward investment in Wales is back to the level of the days of the Welsh Development Agency before the Welsh Labour Government abolished it.

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

I am pleased to hear the Secretary of State welcome the more than 100 inward investment projects in Wales in 2014-15. Will he now congratulate the Welsh Labour Government on making it possible?

[Stephen Crabb]

The important thing is to welcome the more effective partnership that now exists between the UK Government and the Welsh Government to deliver the inward investment. Of the new projects coming into Wales, 87% were secured on the basis of co-operation between the Welsh Government and the UK Government, and I have no hesitation in congratulating both.

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

High-quality transport infrastructure is crucial to attracting inward investment. I was therefore delighted to see the Under-Secretary at the rail summit in Llandudno last week. Will my right hon. Friend convey to his colleagues in the Department for Transport the clear message that came out of that summit that north Wales regards itself as part of the northern powerhouse and demands an electrified railway line?

[Stephen Crabb]

My right hon. Friend has been a powerful champion and advocate for investment in transport infrastructure in north Wales. The summit that happened last week was very important, and the Transport Secretary has received loud and clear the message about the importance of investing in transport in north Wales.

[Mr Mark Williams (Ceredigion) (LD)]

Welcome though the figures are, the Secretary of State will acknowledge the important contribution of higher education to inward investment. Is he satisfied that UKTI is fully aware of what is happening in Welsh universities? That would give it more ammunition to promote the very good story of Wales.

[Stephen Crabb]

The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. We have some world-class higher education institutions in Wales that are at the cutting edge of innovation. It is a reminder to us to keep reminding UKTI of the importance of that, and how higher education links into business growth in Wales.

[Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)]

4. What assessment he has made of the economic value to Wales of the single market.

[The Secretary of State for Wales (Stephen Crabb)]

The single market offers enormous opportunities for Welsh business, accounting for 42% of Welsh exports. However, exports to non-EU countries account for 58% of our total exports and are worth more than £7 billion to the Welsh economy. That is why we are seeking EU reform to go further and faster on economic competitiveness, trade and deregulation, which will strengthen Welsh exports.

[Neil Carmichael]

Does the Secretary of State agree that the success of Airbus in Wales and in the south-west, which has connections to my constituency, demonstrates the value of the single market, and that reforming it further to include the digital economy and energy will give those important sectors even more capacity to expand and grow?

[Stephen Crabb]

My hon. Friend makes an important point, not least about the importance of investing in technology. If we are to drive up prosperity in Wales, we need more growth in higher technology. This afternoon, I am proud to be helping to launch a new compound semiconductor centre for IQE and Cardiff University. That is emblematic of the changes in the Welsh economy.

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)]

Twenty-five thousand jobs in Swansea bay city region rely on being in the single market. Swansea is, of course, in the convergence funding area. Will the Secretary of State support Swansea bay city region MPs’ bid to get the new tax centre for Wales in Swansea bay city region, given that it is an area of relative deprivation, and not Cardiff?

[Stephen Crabb]

Exciting things are happening in Swansea and the Swansea bay city region. I am delighted that Swansea MPs are working together. If they have a proposal about future changes to the delivery of Government services, with opportunities for Swansea, I ask them please to send them through and we will consider them.

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

Does the Secretary of State agree that no one who believes we should leave the European Union is suggesting that we stop trading with our European neighbours, and the fact that they sell more to us than we do to them means that there is no chance of their wanting to stop trading with us?

[Stephen Crabb]

The truth is that Wales’s future prosperity depends on whether we can transform the economy, improve productivity, invest in transport infrastructure and improve our skills and education. That is where Wales’s future prosperity and success lie, and the question of whether or not we remain in the European Union is therefore a secondary one.

[Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State is just a little bit shy today. Why cannot he just recognise that 191,000 Welsh jobs are totally dependent on EU trade and that Wales is a net beneficiary of EU aid? Cannot he just say—we will protect him from the Tory “Little Britain” sketch on the Benches behind him—that Wales is better off in?

[Stephen Crabb]

I am not often described as shy; I am interested that I have come across in that way to the hon. Lady this morning. I do not recognise the figure that she cites. The important point is that the single market creates a really strategic opportunity for Welsh business. That is what we need to defend and extend.

[Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con)]

5. What effect the hosting of international sporting events has had on the Welsh economy in 2015 to date.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Alun Cairns)]

The rugby world cup demonstrated yet again how Wales punches well above its weight in the global sporting arena. It was the most successful rugby world cup in history, generating £316 million for the Welsh economy. There should be no limit to our ambition to build on these successes and to attract more tourism and inward investment to Wales.

[Tom Pursglove]

What steps is the Minister taking to attract even more high-quality sporting events to Wales, such as the Commonwealth games, which would make my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff North (Craig Williams) very happy, as well as people across our great country?

[Alun Cairns]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making such a suggestion. It was on a Conservative motion back in 2006 that the Assembly voted unanimously to attract the Commonwealth games to Wales. The next opportunity is in 2026, and I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff North (Craig Williams) is keen on that date and keen to ensure that Cardiff makes a leading bid. The Wales Office is standing ready and waiting to support any bid that comes forward from any part of Wales.

[Christina Rees (Neath) (Lab)]

We were all pleased to see the rugby world cup come to Cardiff. I know that the Secretary of State shares my concern about the delays on the great western railway. What will he do to ensure that such delays do not happen again?

[Alun Cairns]

The hon. Lady raises an important point. Immediately after those disruptions occurred, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State spoke with the train operators, who have apologised to him and to the public. Of course, we are upgrading the great western main line, which will make a significant difference in the long term. We also call on the Welsh Government to bring forward their proposals for the M4 in order to improve the infrastructure for those coming to Wales by road as well as by rail.

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

6. What assessment he has made of the effectiveness of steps taken to rebalance the economy in Wales.

[The Secretary of State for Wales (Stephen Crabb)]

Our long-term plan is turning around the Welsh economy: since 2010, unemployment has fallen, manufacturing industry has created 12,000 jobs and the Welsh economy has grown faster than any other part of the United Kingdom.

[Andrew Bridgen]

Does the Secretary of State agree that key to rebalancing the economy is getting a proper grip of the public finances? Does he share my shock and horror at the recent TaxPayers Alliance report that exposes the enormous amount of waste in the public sector in Wales?

[Stephen Crabb]

With his eagle and sharp eye on the care of the public finances, my hon. Friend makes a really important point. I was actually shocked by some of the examples from the TaxPayers Alliance that we have read. Clearly, the Welsh Government and the entire public sector in Wales need to get a much stronger grip on the disciplines of cost control and to get on top of managing the national finances.

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

Provisional results from the annual survey of hours and earnings by the Office for National Statistics show that Wales is at the bottom of the pay table and is the only part of the British state where earnings have gone down. Does that not indicate that the Welsh Government need to be empowered with a wide portfolio of fiscal powers—the Secretary of State has supported that for Scotland—as direct control from Westminster is clearly failing?

[Stephen Crabb]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the Welsh Government need more fiscal tools. They need the responsibility of income tax devolution to encourage them to be a more financially responsible Administration. The point that he makes about earnings is also important. That is why he should be giving full-throated support to the steps that we are taking to drive up wage levels and end the curse of low pay in Wales.

[Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)]

7. What progress he has made on consulting civic society in Wales on the likely effects of the provisions of the draft Wales Bill; and if he will make a statement.

[The Secretary of State for Wales (Stephen Crabb)]

Last month, I published the draft Wales Bill for pre-legislative scrutiny and I continue to meet members of civil society, the judiciary and leading business organisations across Wales to take soundings and hear their views.

[Hywel Williams]

I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. There was a substantial deliberation on our country’s constitutional future, led by a distinguished former Officer of the House, Sir Paul Silk. However, the Secretary of State has so far chosen to include very few of the recommendations of the Silk commission in the draft Wales Bill. Will the final version of the Wales Bill give his final vision of our country’s constitutional future? Is this it for the foreseeable future?

[Stephen Crabb]

A lot of the Silk recommendations do not require primary legislation and we have already delivered them. We are committed to delivering the Silk recommendations that we have agreed on, which we set out in the St David’s day announcement earlier this year.

[Hywel Williams]

There is general, substantial and growing dissatisfaction with the draft Wales Bill, not least among legal colleagues. Would the Secretary of State not be better advised to withdraw the Bill and start again?

[Stephen Crabb]

I fear that if we were to withdraw the Bill, we would see no progress whatsoever on strengthening and clarifying Welsh devolution, which I understood Plaid Cymru and the Labour party supported.

[Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)]

When I raised this issue before the general election, a previous Secretary of State for Wales said that I was wrong. Will the present Welsh Secretary say that if the Welsh people would like a Welsh Parliament, rather than a Welsh Assembly, they will be able to have one?

[Stephen Crabb]

To paraphrase the famous old man of Pencader, it will be the Welsh people ultimately who determine the direction and pace of Welsh devolution. The draft Wales Bill will give powers to the Welsh Assembly to call itself a Parliament and take on more law-making responsibilities.

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

8. What assessment he has made of the effect of changes to tax credits on families in Wales.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Alun Cairns)]

Low pay has been a scourge on the Welsh economy for too long. Reforming tax credits is an important part of our plan to transform the whole of the UK to a low tax, low welfare, higher wage economy. The Chancellor will set out details of these reforms in his autumn statement.

[Mr Hanson]

What representations have the Minister and the Department made to the Chancellor about the impact on 44,600 people in north Wales and 200,000 people across Wales of the loss of £1,300 per year as a result of his changes? What has he said to the person who is sitting next to him?

[Alun Cairns]

The Wales Office is in regular dialogue with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor and the Treasury. The Chancellor will set out how we plan to achieve the goal of a lower tax, low welfare, higher wage economy in next week’s comprehensive spending review. The right hon. Gentleman needs to recognise that the tax credit changes are part of a wider reform that includes increases to the national living wage, changes to universal credit and help with childcare, on which we hope the Welsh Government will follow suit.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. There is still too much noise in the Chamber. The Chair of the Welsh Affairs Committee must be heard.

[David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)]

12. Will the Minister confirm that while the Government are, of course, listening carefully to any concerns about tax credits, the people of Wales stand to benefit enormously from the increase in the tax threshold, the increase in the minimum wage and the Government’s determination to stick to the long-term economic plan?

[Alun Cairns]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. When we move from the basic minimum wage to the national living wage next April, there will be an increase of 7.5%. That means that 100,000 people in Wales will benefit immediately from next April.

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

9. What assessment he has made of the effect in Wales of the Government’s measures to support small businesses.

[The Secretary of State for Wales (Stephen Crabb)]

Small businesses are the lifeblood of the Welsh economy and are leading the way in creating new jobs and driving growth. There are now 22,000 more businesses in Wales than in 2010. Supporting these businesses to grow is a key part of the Government’s long-term plan for Wales and the UK.

[Mr Jayawardena]

Does the Secretary of State agree that infrastructure is critical to supporting small businesses and that the electrification of the Great Western railway, which serves my constituency too, will unlock social and economic opportunities for his constituents and mine?

[Stephen Crabb]

I totally agree with my hon. Friend. Of course, investing in the Great Western line is just one part of the largest programme of investment in British railways since the days of Isambard Kingdom Brunel.

[Craig Williams (Cardiff North) (Con)]

May I associate myself with the comments about the explosion in Cardiff today and the sad situation at the Celsa steelworks, and thank the Secretary of State for making us aware of it?

The legal profession is a crucial part of the small business sector in my constituency. The Secretary of State will be aware that the First Minister now wants a separate Welsh legal jurisdiction, despite what he said 18 months ago. Will he assure me he is protecting our jurisdiction?

[Stephen Crabb]

I am aware of the calls from the First Minister and Plaid Cymru for Wales to have a separate legal jurisdiction. One of the sources of Cardiff’s growth in recent years has been investment in legal and professional services, and I fear that moves to create a separate jurisdiction for Wales will lead to a flight of talent from the Welsh legal profession.

The Prime Minister was asked—

[Mr Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)]

Q1. If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 18 November.

[The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)]

This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, and in addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

[Mr Marsden]

May I associate myself, and I hope the whole House, with what the Prime Minister and others in government have said about the attacks in Paris? No man or woman is an island. People from Blackpool were among those murdered on the Tunisian beach, and, like other places worldwide, our tower was lit in red, white and blue in remembrance of those killed by the terrorists in France. I raised concerns with the Prime Minister here two weeks ago about neighbourhood policing and security being threatened by the scale of the proposed cuts and about the Lancashire funding formula, which has now been admitted to be flawed. Will he reflect on the words: “When facts change, I change my mind”? Given that police local intelligence can be crucial against terrorists, perhaps this is not the time to jeopardise it with arbitrary Treasury targets for cuts.

[The Prime Minister]

First, I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments about Paris and the importance of the whole House coming together. Perhaps the House would like a brief update: as I said yesterday, one British national, Nick Alexander, was killed at the Bataclan theatre; three other British nationals have now been released from hospital and returned to the UK; and the Foreign Office and Red Cross are providing support for trauma to at least another 15 British nationals. We will make sure we provide support to those injured and traumatised by the events that have happened. There has been progress this morning in France with the arrest of terrorists, but perhaps I can say more about that later.

On policing, we rightly protected counter-terrorism policing in the last Parliament, and we will protect it again in this Parliament. Otherwise on policing, we have seen an increase of 3,800 in the number of neighbourhood officers over the Parliament and a 31% cut in crime. I commend the police—not just counter-terrorism police, but all police—for the work they do, and we will announce our proposals on police spending next week.

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

Q2. As our hearts go out to the people of France, will the Prime Minister agree that the first duty of Her Majesty’s Government must be to protect British citizens from harm? So will he take immediate action to secure our UK borders against those who threaten our nation and, on security grounds alone, restore complete sovereignty over our British borders from the European Union?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend raises an important question. In answering, I want to explain an important point: because the UK is not in the Schengen area, we already retain full control over who enters our country and can check all entrants at the border, including EU and European economic area nationals. The House might be interested to know that, since 2010, we have refused entry to almost 6,000 EU nationals, more than 3,800 of whom were stopped at our juxtaposed border controls in Calais. Since 2010, we have denied entry to nearly 95,000 people. Of course, one of the principal reasons for not letting people in, be they EU or non-EU nationals, is national security concerns. We are in that situation already because we are not in Schengen.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

Let me start by expressing the horror of all Opposition Members at the events in Paris on Friday evening, and our continued solidarity with the victims and all those affected by conflict and terrorism, whether in Paris, Beirut, Ankara, Damascus or anywhere else in the world. Nothing can justify the targeting of innocent civilians by anyone.

We know that at least one British national has been killed, and many more injured. Many British people live and work in Paris, and millions visit Paris and France every year. Will the Prime Minister continue what he was saying in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool South (Mr Marsden) about the support given to British nationals affected by the attacks, and will he say what the Government’s latest advice is for those travelling to France, and speak about our need to show the best possible normality in our relations with the French people?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his remarks, and it was a pleasure to be with him last night at the England-France football match where there was a tremendous display of solidarity. I am sure that they can sing the Marseillaise louder in the Stade de France, but I think we did a pretty good job yesterday, and I was proud to be there.

The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that there is never any justification for terrorism, and we should be clear about that right across the House and at all times. He asked specifically what more we can do to help British people who are caught up in these problems, and Peter Ricketts, our ambassador in France, has done a brilliant job with his staff. I have been keeping a close eye on the consular situation, and I think that everything that can be done is being done.

Our travel advice is all on the Foreign Office website, but I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the most important thing is for people to carry on with their lives. It is important that the Eurostar continues to function, that flights continue to go, and that people continue to travel and to enjoy London and Paris. We must continue going about our business. As we do so, yes, we need enhanced security, and that is happening in the way that the police are acting in the UK and elsewhere. One way to defeat terrorism, however, is to show the terrorists that we will not be cowed.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

We know that, sadly, after atrocities such as those we have seen, intolerance such as Islamophobia, anti-Semitism and racism often increase. Does the Prime Minister agree that it is vital that everyone in public life—particularly we as politicians—must be careful how we discuss these issues? Will he join me in making it clear that the dreadful terrorism in Paris has nothing in common whatsoever with the 2 million British Muslims in this country who are as appalled as anyone else by the events in Paris last Friday?

[The Prime Minister]

I am happy to join the right hon. Gentleman in that, and some of the strongest and best statements following the Paris attacks have been made by a series of British Muslims who have come together to say that these attacks are in no way carried out in their name. I do think—we talked about this yesterday—that this raises an important issue, because it cannot be said often enough that these butchers of ISIL are no reflection of the true religion of Islam, which is a religion of peace. At the same time, we must recognise that whether these terrorists are in Tunisia, Egypt, Paris or London, they spout the same bile that they claim comes from the religion of Islam. That is why we must take apart what they say and prove that that is not the case. It is not good enough to say that there is no connection between these terrorists and Islam; they are making a connection, and we need to prove that it is not right. As we do so, the support of Muslim communities and scholars is vital, and I commend them for their work.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

Surely a crucial way to help defeat ISIL is to cut off its funding, its supply of arms, and its trade. May I press the Prime Minister to ensure that our allies in the region—indeed, all countries in the region—are doing all they can to clamp down on individuals and institutions in their countries who are providing ISIL with vital infrastructure? Will he, through the European Union and other forums if necessary, consider sanctions against those banks and companies, and if necessary countries, that turn a blind eye to financial dealings with ISIL that assist it in its work?

[The Prime Minister]

As I said yesterday, we play a leading role in ensuring that the supply of money, weapons and support is cut off. However, we should be clear about where ISIL got its money from originally. Because we did not have a Government in Iraq that effectively represented all their people, and because in Syria there is a leader who is butchering his own people, ISIL was able to get hold of oil, weapons, territory and banks, and they have used that to fund their hatred and their violence. We cannot dodge forever the question of how to degrade and destroy ISIL in both Iraq and Syria, and that is why I will be setting out my response to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee. Yes, we should go after the money and the banks, and cut off supplies to ISIL, but we should not make that a substitute for the action that is required to beat those people where they are.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

Next week the Chancellor will present his autumn statement to the House. Can the Prime Minister clarify something about the source of the necessary extra funding for the security services, which we support? Will it come at the expense of other areas, either within the Home Office budget or other areas of public spending, from the reserves, or from new funding? Does he want me to go on longer so that the Chancellor can explain the answer to him?

[The Prime Minister]

We will set out in full our decisions next week, but we have already said that we will fund an increase in the security services of 1,900 personnel. We will safeguard the counter-terrorism budget and we will see an increase in aviation security. All that is part of an overall spending settlement. At the same time as funding our security and increasing our defence spending, we have to make decisions that eradicate our budget deficit and keep our economy strong. We do not do that just for the current generation: we do it for our children and grandchildren, because none of these things—not even strong defence—is possible without a strong economy.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I am not absolutely sure where the money is coming from following the Prime Minister’s answer, but no doubt it will come.

London has been targeted by terrorists before, and this weekend’s events in Paris have focused attention not just on London but on other cities throughout the whole of Britain. Policing plays a vital role in community cohesion, gathering intelligence on those who might be about to be a risk to all of us, but that is surely undermined if we cut the number of police officers by 5,000. Does the Prime Minister agree with the commissioner of the Metropolitan police, Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe, who said:

“I genuinely worry about the safety of London”—

if the cuts go through on this scale?

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. Gentleman asks where the money comes from. On this side of the House, we never forget that every penny we spend comes from taxpayers. Borrowed money is simply taxes that are deferred, and that is why it is so important to eradicate our deficit at the same time as making sure that we fund our security and intelligence services and police properly. As I have said, we are protecting the counter-terrorism budget. We saw a 3,800 increase in neighbourhood police officers in the last Parliament, at the same time as a 31% cut in crime. The shadow Home Secretary has said that a 10% efficiency target for the police is doable. Is the Leader of the Opposition saying that he does not agree with the shadow Home Secretary? There does seem to be a little bit of disagreement on the Opposition Front Bench today.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I have a question from a taxpayer, actually. His name is John and he says—[Interruption.] He says that at a time when we are experiencing the greatest threats from terrorism ever faced, our police office numbers and their resources are being cut and that

“Demands on the police have been increasing steadily as budgets are slashed, increasing stress on officers. Couple that with detrimental changes to their pay, terms, conditions and pensions, it’s no wonder that morale”

in the police force

“is so poor that 1 in 3 are considering leaving.”

Will the Prime Minister be able to tell us whether community policing and other police budgets will be protected or not in next week’s autumn statement?”

[The Prime Minister]

Let me tell the right hon. Gentleman again: neighbourhood policing numbers have gone up by 3,800. In the capital city, we have seen a 500% increase in neighbourhood policing. Because we have cut bureaucracy, we have also put the equivalent of an extra 2,000 police on the streets. But I will tell him something: as well as wanting resources, the police want the appropriate powers. Has it not come to something when the Leader of Her Majesty’s Opposition is not sure what the police’s reaction should be when they are confronted by a Kalashnikov-waving terrorist?

[Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)]

Q3. The attacks on Paris were quite clearly an attack on all of us. Does the Prime Minister agree that our resolve must be unbreakable and that we should hunt down ISIL wherever it is operating, wherever it is planning, wherever it is plotting, and if that means “shoot to kill”, so be it, and if it means action in Syria, so be it?

[The Prime Minister]

I think my hon. Friend is right. What I have said is that in order to respond to this very severe threat that we face, we need to focus on counter-terrorism here in the United Kingdom, giving our intelligence agencies the laws they need and our police the powers they need and ensuring that we are vigilant. We need counter-extremism, as we discussed earlier, emphasising the importance of stopping the poisoning of these young minds, not least by radical preachers on the internet. We also need to stop the problems at their source. We know where much of this problem is coming from: it is ISIL not just in Iraq, but in Syria. I told the House yesterday that I will prepare a detailed response to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee report to demonstrate that we have a clear strategy of bringing in the neighbourhood powers and the regional powers, building a future for these countries and stability in the middle east. I believe that part of that is taking action against ISIL wherever it is.

[Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP)]

In the wake of terrorist outrages and the ongoing civil war in Syria, it is very welcome that there is significant diplomatic progress in trying to find a solution to the Syrian crisis. The UK joined the US, France, Russia and Iran at talks in Vienna at the weekend, and all signed a communiqué committing to progress through the United Nations. Will the Prime Minister confirm that he will support a UN Security Council resolution on this before seeking to intervene militarily in Syria?

[The Prime Minister]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for asking this question. The point is that Russia has different aims from us and has repeatedly threatened to veto any such resolution. Of course, it is always preferable in these circumstances to have the full backing of the UN Security Council, but what matters most of all is that any action we would take would be both legal and help protect our country and our people right here. As I said yesterday, we cannot outsource to a Russian veto the decisions we need to keep our country safe.

[Angus Robertson]

The first survey of UK public opinion on Syrian intervention since the Paris attacks, conducted by Survation, has shown that 52% believe that

“the UK should engage with all countries to co-ordinate an appropriate response, military or otherwise, backed by United Nations resolution”,

and only 15% believe that UK should independently launch air strikes. Will the Prime Minister give a commitment to secure a UN Security Council resolution, which the UK agreed to and which Russia agreed to as well?

[The Prime Minister]

I could not be clearer with the right hon. Gentleman. Of course it is always preferable in whatever action we are taking—whether it be lifting people out of the Mediterranean, flying air patrolling missions over Baltic countries that feel a Russian threat or taking action in the middle east against ISIL—to have a UN Security Council resolution. However, if such resolutions are vetoed or threatened with a veto over and over again, my job as Prime Minister is, frankly, not to read a Survation opinion poll but to do the right thing to keep our country safe.

[Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)]

Q7. The French armed police who stormed the Bataclan and killed those vile, murderous scum are heroes, and so are the British armed police who protect our public spaces and the people. Will the Prime Minister send a note of unequivocal support today to those officers on patrol, and ensure that in next week’s review, they have the resources they need to keep us safe?

[The Prime Minister]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. We ask the police every day to take risks on our behalf. Let me thank the police who policed so effectively the game at Wembley last night.

In terms of what the French police have done, I think the House would welcome an update. We have seen the news of a police operation in Paris this morning. Two terrorist suspects died, including a female suspect who blew herself up. Seven arrests are reported to have been made. This operation has now finished. As the French Interior Minister has said, we should all acknowledge the bravery of the French police in dealing with what is a very challenging situation.

I hope there can be consensus across the House—I mean right across the House—on this. If we are confronted with a situation like this, the British police should not be in any doubt. If you have a terrorist who is threatening to kill people, you can—indeed, you must—use lethal force.

[Phil Wilson (Sedgefield) (Lab)]

Q4. In a recent Financial Times article, President Obama said:“I have emphasised the importance…of tax credits to help working families afford childcare and keep two-earner families in the workforce.”Does the Prime Minister agree with the importance the President of the United States has attached to tax credits?

[The Prime Minister]

I think it is important that we do the best we can to help low-paid people. That is why we are taking people out of income tax: 3 million of the lowest paid taken out of income tax since I became Prime Minister. We are going to be setting an £11,000 threshold before people have to start paying tax at all. We are helping working families with childcare. We are helping with a national living wage of £7.20 starting next year, something I suspect President Obama would love to introduce in the United States. We are doing it right here.

[Mr Graham Brady (Altrincham and Sale West) (Con)]

Q10. Integrating health and social care will be a great prize for devolved cities and regions, but without effective democratic and clinical oversight things can go badly wrong. Already, in Manchester a major hospital reorganisation is awaiting judicial review. May I urge my right hon. Friend to ensure that proper safeguards are in place so that local authorities retain a last resort power to refer NHS changes for independent clinical review?

[The Prime Minister]

I will look carefully at what my hon. Friend says, but I think this does go to a larger point, which is that we are currently changing the way our country is run. These big devolution deals, first to Greater Manchester but now, with the announcements yesterday, to Liverpool and to the west midlands, mean that we are going to have powerful metro mayors who are accountable to local people for the decisions they make. That is a very direct form of accountability and that is why we can be confident of devolving health and social care to those authorities. For too long, our country has been too centralised. The great cities of Manchester, Birmingham and Liverpool—and soon Leeds, I hope—will benefit from these massive devolution deals, but if we devolve the power and we devolve the money, we have to devolve the trust and the accountability too.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

Q5. Against the backdrop of a tidal wave of local job losses, the Teesside Collective for industrial carbon capture has the very real potential to secure a major step change in our industrial renaissance. Ahead of the Paris conference, will the Prime Minister meet me and the industrial leaders driving this project so that we can secure these immense climate change gains with the UK leading this new industrial revolution, and make this initiative a reality for Teesside and the UK?

[The Prime Minister]

I know how important it is that we all work on behalf of Teesside, not least because of the difficulties there have been in Redcar. That is why we have the taskforce and why the additional resources are going in. I am very happy to look at the project the hon. Gentleman talks about. It may be best for him to meet the Energy and Climate Change Secretary, because we have to make important decisions about all these technologies in the run-up to the Paris conference and beyond.

[Craig Tracey (North Warwickshire) (Con)]

Q12. In my constituency, manufacturing is thriving thanks to innovative small businesses such as Powerkut and Naysmith Group, which are creating high quality local jobs and apprenticeships in the engineering sector. Given the challenges that these types of companies face in finding traditional bank and funding support, what assurances can the Prime Minister give that this Conservative Government understand the importance of our innovators and will continue to provide initiatives, such as the annual investment fund, to ensure British businesses continue to lead the way?

[The Prime Minister]

We want to rebalance the British economy not just in terms of the devolution of power I have just talked about, but to see a thriving manufacturing sector. Manufacturers have told us that they want continued investment in the catapult centres, which do a good job of making sure that technology is taken up. They want strong support for the apprenticeship programme, and we have set a target of 3 million apprentices during this Parliament. They also want to make the annual investment allowance permanent, and it will be permanent at £200,000 throughout this Parliament so that manufacturing companies and others that want to make investments know they can do so in a way that will be profitable for them.

[John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

Q6. My niece Ruby is safe and well after being caught up in the aftermath of the Paris attacks. She has been a student in Paris for three years, and she wants to know whether this country will be safe on her return. She has a question for the Prime Minister. She is worried about the cuts to the ambulance, police and fire services here, and whether those cuts will allow us to have the preparedness that was shown by the emergency services in Paris. I also want to know why we are not joining the Russians in calling for a UN mandate to remove ISIS from Syria.

[The Prime Minister]

First, let me say how glad I am to hear that the hon. Gentleman’s niece is safe after those terrible attacks. Let me answer her question very directly. We are doing everything we can to make sure that this country is safe. After receiving intelligence some years ago about the potential for a marauding firearms attack at multiple locations—perhaps in our capital city or elsewhere in our country—we have run exercises and we have done research. We have looked at everything we can do to make sure, for instance, that ambulances and their crews will be able to go into a so-called hot zone and recover casualties, that we have the right number of armed police in the different parts of our country, and that we can respond in ways that will include using other forces in all the ways that we can. We have looked carefully at what the French have done in surging troops on their streets and have made sure that that can now happen here, and that all the permissions are given.

There is never a 100% guarantee of safety in any country, but I would say to the hon. Gentleman’s niece that we are doing everything that we possibly can.

[Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)]

Q13. In that spirit, I warmly congratulate the Prime Minister on the new funding that has been announced for special forces equipment, but may I draw his attention to the plight of David and Maria Summers, in my constituency, who have struggled to obtain permanent residency for Maria despite having been married for 45 years? May I ask the Prime Minister to encourage officials to look at the case again?

[The Prime Minister]

I shall be happy to look at the case again, but, given the constituency that my hon. Friend represents, his question gives me an opportunity to say something about a group of people we say very little about because we do not comment on the amazing work that they do. Hereford is a very important part of the nation’s security, both domestically and overseas. Very, very brave people work there, and we should all give credit to them.

[Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)]

Q8. A constituent of mine was a soldier in Iraq and Afghanistan, and is currently training to be a doctor in London. He tells me that with the proposed junior doctors’ contracts, morale in the NHS is lower now than it has been at any time during his time on the frontline. Does the Prime Minister agree that low morale among our junior doctors and nurses is a threat to patient safety?

[The Prime Minister]

I would say that the hon. Lady’s constituent and all junior doctors should please look very carefully at what the Government are offering before they decide to go on strike. What is on offer is not an increase in hours—indeed, for many doctors it will mean less long hours—and it is not a cut in the pay bill for junior doctors; it is actually an 11% basic pay increase. It will also mean better rostering of doctors, including at weekends, and more support for consultants.

I would say to the hon. Lady’s constituent, as I would say to others, “Look at the Department of Health’s website, look at the pay calculator, and see how you will be affected.” We have given a guarantee that anyone who is working legal hours will not be worse off under the new contract. It is good for the NHS, good for doctors, and good for patients. Even at this late hour, I hope that the British Medical Association will call off its damaging strike.

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

Q14. Fundamental to the success of the Good Friday agreement was a spirit of peace and reconciliation that saw dozens, or even hundreds, of convicted terrorists released from prison. Many had been found guilty of murder. Yet in the last week, we have heard the alarming news that a 66-year-old former paratrooper has been arrested in connection with events that took place in Londonderry 43 years ago. In a week when we are all having to once again contemplate sending our young men and women into harm’s way, with our security services and police are on high alert, what message does the Prime Minister feel that that sends to our armed forces, our police and our security services?

[The Prime Minister]

I understand my hon. Friend’s concern and the feelings that many will have on seeing this news, but the truth is that one of the most important things about our country is that the Government do not decide who is prosecuted and who is not prosecuted. We have the rule of law; we have independent prosecuting authorities. This is something that people across the world cry out for and we have here, and we have to support them even when they take decisions that sometimes we would want to question.

In that context, let me make a broader point. Yesterday the principal parties in Northern Ireland came together and agreed a deal to make sure that the devolved institutions can continue to work. That deal involved people who have lost loved ones to terrorism, and who have been opposed to each other all of their lives, sitting down and working together to try to deliver good government for this part of our United Kingdom, It is that spirit we should look to for the future.

[Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)]

Q9. HMRC’s decision last week to close its offices in the Bradford district will mean the loss of over 2,000 high-skill, high-wage jobs, £1.2 million in business rates and almost £12 million of the district’s retail spending. This will have a devastating impact on Bradford’s families and economy, so will the Prime Minister give me assurances that HMRC will meet Bradford MPs to consider the clear economic and social case for keeping those offices in Bradford open?

[The Prime Minister]

First, I am happy to ask the Financial Secretary to meet the local MPs. Secondly, we will make sure that Jobcentre Plus and all the support is there for people who potentially are losing their jobs. The point I would make in Bradford more broadly is that the claimant count is down by 26% in the last year, so jobs are available. But let me also make this point, because it is a difficult and important point to make: everyone in this House wants to see HMRC raise more money and make sure that people and companies do not avoid their taxes. That does mean reform, and it means making sure that HMRC is even more effective in raising the taxes on which our public services depend.

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

In acknowledgement of the fact that sport can bring a nation together—and, for that matter, nations, as was demonstrated at Wembley last night—will my right hon. Friend ensure that, in addition to the welcome extra investment in the police and security services, investment in sports such as cricket will be maintained because they are a tool to help us face longer-term challenges in integrating communities?

[The Prime Minister]

I am sure that over the next week the spending requests will quicken as we get closer to the spending review. It is important that we have put in place the school sport premium for primary schools—it is making a real difference—but of course there is a role for the sporting bodies to play themselves. Many of them receive large amounts of money from the television contracts, and if more of them can use that money to invest in grassroots sports to make sure we are bringing on the young stars of tomorrow, that will be absolutely vital.

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

Q11. As the new leader of the anti-austerity movement in Oxfordshire, will the Prime Minister tell us how his campaign is going?

[The Prime Minister]

What I said to my local council is what I say to every council: “You’ve got to get more for less, not less for more.” As I said, on this side of the House we want to make sure that every penny raised in council tax is well spent, and if the hon. Gentleman’s council would like to come in and get the same advice, I will gladly oblige.

[Mr Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield) (Con)]

At a time when my right hon. Friend so rightly emphasises the need for our solidarity with France, will he see what he can do to ensure that the Franco-British Council, set up over 40 years ago by both nations’ Governments to promote civil society partnership, can continue to do its important work in fields as diverse as defence and community cohesion, because without a very small amount of funding from both Governments, it will not be able to do that?

[The Prime Minister]

I am very happy to look at that proposal. France and Britain have a lot to learn from each other, and we should enter into these discussions in that spirit. We have a lot to learn about how we try to integrate people in our country, how we have effective counter-terrorism policing, and how we share intelligence, and I am very committed to making sure that we pursue all those things with our French friends.

[Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)]

Q15. Wigan council has had a cut of over 40% in its funding over the past five years and lost a third of its staff. Does the Prime Minister advise that I should write to the leader of the council regarding the consequent reductions in services, or should I place the blame firmly where it belongs: in the hands of his Government?

[The Prime Minister]

If the hon. Lady is looking for someone to blame, she might want to blame the Labour party, which left this country with the biggest budget deficit anywhere in the western world. And as she does so, the advice I would give her about her local council is to look at its overall spending power—the combination of business rates, council tax and grant—and ask what money it has to provide good local services.

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

Points of order will come after the urgent question.

Parachute Regiment: Arrest

Wednesday 18th November 2015 Commons Chamber

12:36

[Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con)]

(Urgent Question): Further to the question to the Prime Minister from my hon. Friend the Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Jack Lopresti), may I ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will make a statement about the arrest of a former member of the Parachute Regiment who was on duty in Londonderry on 30 January 1972?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr Ben Wallace)]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. As part of an ongoing investigation by the Police Service of Northern Ireland into the events surrounding Bloody Sunday in Londonderry in 1972, a former soldier was arrested for questioning on 10 November. He was subsequently released on bail. Criminal investigations and prosecutions are a matter for the police and prosecuting authorities, who act independently of Government. The Government cannot therefore comment on an individual case.

This Government are committed to the rule of law. Where there is evidence of wrongdoing, it is right that it should be investigated. We remain unstinting in our admiration and support for the men and women of the police and armed forces, whose sacrifice ensured that terrorism would never succeed in Northern Ireland and that Northern Ireland’s future would only ever be determined by democracy and consent. Whether the current investigations will lead to a criminal prosecution is a matter for the police and prosecuting authorities in Northern Ireland.

As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister pointed out in his statement on Lord Saville’s report, more than 250,000 people served in Northern Ireland during Operation Banner, which was the longest continuous operation in British military history and one in which I was proud to play a part. The overwhelming majority of those who served carried out their duties with courage, professionalism and integrity. The Government will never forget the debt of gratitude we owe them.

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

Thank you for allowing me to pose this question, Mr Speaker. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Minister for his service in Northern Ireland.

When the Prime Minister made his memorable statement to the House in 2010 following the publication of the Saville report into the events of 30 January 1972—known elsewhere as Bloody Sunday—I and others hoped that a line would be drawn under that tragedy. We now find, however, that 43 years after the event and some three years after the PSNI started its further investigations, a soldier from the Parachute Regiment, known as Soldier J, who was in his early 20s at the time and is now in his late 60s, faces possible prosecution for murder. There is also a prospect of further arrests.

For two reasons, I submit that this is wrong. First, what national interest will be served in bringing these cases to court? The Saville inquiry found that there was no premeditation to murder in the minds of those young soldiers. One of those who was killed had four nail bombs in his pocket, and a witness said that Martin McGuinness was on the other side, probably armed with a Thompson sub-machine gun. Those soldiers of the Crown were not hired killers. They were seeking to do their duty to their country in a filthy civil war in which the enemy were dressed in civilian clothes and indistinguishable from the local population.

Secondly, as the Secretary of State said in response to a question from the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) on 1 May 2014,

“the royal prerogative of mercy…was granted in Northern Ireland 365 times between 1979 and 2002”.—[Official Report, 1 May 2014; Vol. 579, c. 762W.]

The Saville report cost £195 million and took 12 years to compile, but our servicemen, then based in Aldershot, some of whom remain my constituents, had to make snap decisions, the consequences of which have hung over them for the whole of their adult lives.

What happened that day was a tragedy, particularly for the families of those who lost their lives. However, they are not the only bereaved. What about the families of the 1,441 British soldiers who died in Northern Ireland in the service of their country? There was no Saville inquiry into how they were killed, often brutally. There was no Saville inquiry into the murder of six civilian cleaning ladies and one Roman Catholic padre in Aldershot the following month. I submit that it is immoral for the state to seek nearly half a century after the event to put these men on trial, while others who deployed their bombs and bullets in the shadows are now in government or have received royal pardons—an act of government, not of the courts. I urge the Minister to exercise the royal prerogative of mercy with immediate effect.

[Mr Wallace]

I hear what my hon. Friend says. He has been a doughty and outspoken champion of not only the Parachute Regiment and his constituents, but Britain’s armed forces. This is not easy for me either; I know what it is like to make those decisions under pressure. But we should not forget that the British Army is not above the law, and nor should it be. That is the difference between us and the terrorist; it is what makes ours a professional Army around the world, admired by many, and sets it apart from some of those more tin-pot armed forces elsewhere in the world.

The House will have heard what my hon. Friend said about the use of the royal prerogative of mercy. What I will say to that is: I cannot comment on these individual cases, as they are obviously a matter for an ongoing police inquiry. It is long way from following a line of inquiry to charging and conviction in a court. I am sure the House will reflect on his call, but the Government cannot comment on this current case, and the police must be allowed to do their job and uphold the rule of law—the rule of law that I went as a soldier to uphold in my time in Northern Ireland.

[Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)]

It is only right and proper at this time to pay tribute to our armed forces, who are at this very moment engaged in defending our freedoms and are in harm’s way. They operate to the very highest standards, and we should always remember the difficult circumstances in which they serve and have served. Does the Minister therefore agree with me that it is always difficult to criticise our armed forces if they fall below these high standards, but we cannot and must not fail to do so if evidence of wrongdoing should exist?

The Saville inquiry of 2010 was clear, and this is what the Prime Minister said:

“there is no doubt; there is nothing equivocal; there are no ambiguities. What happened on Bloody Sunday was both unjustified and unjustifiable. It was wrong.”—[Official Report, 15 June 2010; Vol. 511, c. 739.]

He also apologised on behalf of the British Government. The whole report made very uncomfortable reading for all of us, and of course we must never forget the victims and families of those who were killed, both on Bloody Sunday and throughout Northern Ireland on so many other occasions. Can the Minister confirm, so we are all clear, that evidence given at the Saville inquiry is precluded from being used in any court proceedings against a particular individual? Can he confirm therefore that the arrest of Soldier J was based on evidence gathered by the PSNI since January 2014, which is when it announced a new investigation? The PSNI has said that there will be no further arrests until the results of a judicial review brought by other affected soldiers is concluded. When does he expect that will be? Will he also tell us what work the Northern Ireland Office has undertaken pending the outcome of that review?

Yesterday, we heard the welcome announcement of agreement on many important issues at Stormont, which came after weeks of exhaustive discussions. It was, however, not possible within that agreement for the parties to agree on how legacy issues and the past should be dealt with. Will the Minister outline what steps the Government intend to take to continue to pursue such an agreement? Does the case of Soldier J, and potentially others that we are discussing here today, not emphasise once again the need for a comprehensive process to deal with these issues and outstanding cases, however difficult this may be? The whole House will agree that the independence of the police and the judiciary is central to any democracy, but a process has to be sought and agreed, however difficult.

Northern Ireland is coming out of conflict. Huge progress has been made. The Northern Ireland of today is hugely different from that of yesterday. All of us who have visited it on a regular basis have seen that for ourselves. We have seen the desire to build for the future, and the hopes that everyone has for the new generation. When the Minister answers my questions about this difficult issue, will he also agree that the continuing and emerging issues from the past have to be dealt with as they cannot be denied? Let us also not forget how far we have come. All parties, all communities and the people of Northern Ireland deserve huge credit for that.

[Mr Wallace]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his questions. On the important issue of testimony, it was established during the Saville inquiry that the testimony of anyone giving evidence to that inquiry could not be used either as a basis for conviction or indeed to incriminate themselves. That was done so that we could find out as much as possible about what happened on that fateful day. That principle still stands, and the protection of a person’s evidence is still an issue. However, it does not preclude other evidence that is gathered later. I cannot comment on the current police investigation. It would be wrong for me to interfere with the PSNI, or indeed inquire too deeply, as it must be left to follow the course of its investigation.

On the issue of legacy, I wish to place on the record my admiration for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, the Northern Ireland parties and the Irish Government who, over 150 meetings in the past nine-and-a-half weeks—75 bilateral meetings and more than 35 round table meetings—resolved the current impasse in Northern Ireland. They have decided that the best future is to move forward and not back. It is regrettable that that legacy has been left out of the final agreement in so far as legislation is concerned. However, the agreement signed yesterday continues to commit the parties to produce solutions to deal with the legacy; the victims of the Northern Ireland troubles will demand that. We, as the United Kingdom Government, have committed to provide the funding for that legacy inquiry to take place, and I hope that sooner rather than later, we get to a point where the policy we are examining in the Northern Ireland (Stormont House Agreement) Bill can be enacted so that, in the end, we can achieve not only justice for victims, but closure from the troubles.

[Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)]

The Minister—and indeed the Prime Minister a few minutes ago—was right to draw the House’s attention to the separation of powers. In order for people in Northern Ireland, and throughout the United Kingdom, to keep their faith in the peace process, is it not important that whoever is suspected of committing any crimes is fully investigated regardless of what roles they may be playing in Government now?

[Mr Wallace]

I totally agree with my hon. Friend, and it is why, not so long ago when a prominent member of Sinn Féin and former members of the provisional IRA were arrested, I said quite clearly at the Dispatch Box that we support the PSNI in pursuing the evidence that is presented to it to bring them to justice whether they are senior members of a political party or members of a terrorist organisation, but that is not to equate them with individuals who were in the British armed forces and who were doing their job to defend people who could not defend themselves.

[Mr Jeffrey M. Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP)]

We echo the comments made by the hon. Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth) and we endorse what he has said. Is it not the case that we still have people in Northern Ireland who are prepared to go out and murder former members of the security forces? Is it really appropriate that, when a man offers to go to a police station for interview, three police cars arrive at his home to arrest him in full public view, given his background? If we are to do this, we need to find a more sensitive way. We should not be placing men and women who have served this country well, and their families, at risk and in danger simply, as appears to be the case, to appease some other people?

[Mr Wallace]

The right hon. Gentleman is right to express concern at the manner in which anyone is arrested, but, as I have said, I cannot comment on this individual case. If he has issues with how and in what manner that person was arrested, may I suggest that he takes it up with the Chief Constable?

[Mr Owen Paterson (North Shropshire) (Con)]

I entirely endorse the comments of the Minister and the shadow Secretary of State about how the current circumstances in Northern Ireland could never have come about without the extraordinary bravery and discipline of all those in our security forces who allowed the peace process to take root. To pick up the shadow Secretary of State’s question, the Saville report is the most extraordinary compilation of detail. Will the Minister confirm that all the evidence given by soldiers who were questioned is absolutely untouchable and cannot be used on legal grounds to incriminate them, and that their anonymity is also legally protected?

[Mr Wallace]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his question. It is absolutely the case that the testimony given by a former soldier cannot be used against that former soldier in any future case. He or she is protected from incriminating him or herself, whoever gave that evidence. As for my right hon. Friend’s other point, I think the best thing is for me to get a proper, clear answer and to write to him on that matter.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

As the MP for the constituency in which the events of Bloody Sunday took place, I know that I have to take care not to go so far in rebutting some of the issues raised by the hon. Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth) that it adds to any impression of political pressure or motive behind the current investigation, or indeed any arrest. Will the Minister confirm that one of the things that all the parties have agreed, in all the discussions on the legacy, is that amnesty is no basis for dealing with the past, and that the House should therefore avoid getting involved when there are particular investigations or arrests?

Will the Minister also qualify his last answer by saying that protection does not extend to perjury, that Lord Saville warned several witnesses and that the prosecuting authorities took the position that they would pursue perjury—which would happen in this jurisdiction, because that is where any possible perjury took place—only after what they called the substantive crime of possible murder was dealt with? Therefore, if people are looking to say that the investigation of possible murder should somehow be parked or abandoned, will he consult with colleagues to see whether the issues around perjury should be reconsidered by the prosecuting authorities?

[Mr Wallace]

The hon. Gentleman is right that the protection does not extend to the area of perjury of witnesses giving testimony at a public inquiry, and that would be the same for any witness on that day. On amnesty, I can confirm to him that, throughout the whole legacy discussions of the Stormont House Bill, as it was going to be, amnesty was never part of the process—not with the Independent Commission on Information Retrieval or, indeed, with the Historical Investigations Unit. That was not something that either Government or parties wanted to commit to.

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

May I pay tribute to George Hamilton and the Police Service of Northern Ireland? They are bound to follow the evidence, and we should support them in so doing, but does my hon. Friend accept that in following the evidence they are likely to follow the actions of members of the armed forces first and foremost, as the Provisional IRA, inconveniently, was not in the habit of laying down written evidence? The legacy investigation branch is therefore bound to give at least the impression of focusing on former members of the British armed forces. Does my hon. Friend understand that that serves the historical revisionist agenda of Sinn Féin, and will he comment on whether that is likely to be helpful or unhelpful to the peace process?

[Mr Wallace]

My hon. Friend knows all too well, having stood here at the Dispatch Box doing this job previously, that what serves the peace process is the reckoning of the past, closure for victims—but also justice for victims—the pursuit of former terrorists, if they have not been convicted, and the pursuit of anyone else. That is what serves peace. Recognising the huge sacrifices made by members of the security forces and the civilian population of Northern Ireland is what actually brought us to the negotiating table. It is what defeated the terrorists, and that is why we need to make sure that, when we move forward, we do so in a spirit that is measured and recognises where justice needs to be done, but also that we do not indulge people who would like to revise the past, as if it were some big conspiracy against people.

[Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind)]

We often hear from the Prime Minister about the importance of having enshrined the military covenant in law in this country, and he is quite right to boast of that: it is a wonderful thing to have done. In that context, will the Minister guarantee that the Ministry of Defence will pay for all the legal costs—for legal advice and top legal representation—of any former soldiers who served in Northern Ireland who are charged in connection with any inquiry, such as Bloody Sunday, or any inquest, such as those announced for Ballymurphy?

[Mr Wallace]

I thank the hon. Lady for her question. The MOD recognises that we have a duty of care to all current and former members of the armed forces. As an essential part of that, we will pay for independent legal advice, so that they are able to defend themselves when they face legal proceedings or matters related to their former service, so the answer is yes.

[Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con)]

I entirely agree with what my hon. Friend has said about the need to uphold the law. I entirely understand why any decisions about prosecutions must be independent and why he cannot comment on this particular case. However, without prejudging in any way any particular case, does he understand that we also need to uphold justice and that it would offend the natural sense of justice of many in this country that how the Army behaved on a certain day 40 years ago is being reopened, while so many on the IRA side who killed have been granted amnesty? Does he agree that, if we are to draw a line under past events for the sake of peace, it should be drawn on both sides?

[Mr Wallace]

My right hon. Friend makes an important point. I would just like to correct him: paramilitaries and terrorists who have not been convicted and were not part of the Good Friday agreement have not been granted any blanket amnesty. They are still subject to the full force of the law, and there are no doubt individuals who are still being looked for or cases being prepared. In that case, I am afraid there is no blanket amnesty, but my right hon. Friend is right that we should not let individual cases colour the very strong and successful work that our armed forces did. We went to Northern Ireland to protect those who could not defend themselves. That is a record we should be proud of, but that record can be besmirched—it has always been the same since the war, or any other time—if members of the armed forces think they are above the law. It is what makes us different from the terrorists we challenge.

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

There may be no blanket amnesty, but is it not the case that former terrorists have been granted immunity from prosecution? Does the Minister agree that no fair-minded person will understand why the same right is not extended to British soldiers?

[Mr Wallace]

I think I have to correct the hon. Gentleman. It is not my understanding that anyone has been granted amnesty from prosecution, and we should not confuse some of the recent events with that meaning—a blanket amnesty. No one has an amnesty available to call on to protect them from facing up to what they did, but he is right: I face, nearly every week, people sitting opposite me who I know killed my soldiers, but I can do that because I think it is about the future and about making peace to move forward for the people of Northern Ireland.

[Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)]

My constituent, himself a Northern Ireland veteran, has written to me expressing dismay about the arrest of this 66-year-old ex-soldier. Chillingly, he writes:

“You should be aware that there is a large and rapidly growing undercurrent of anger and resentment of these actions within the current military and more importantly amongst the many tens of thousands of veterans who like me, spent long months and years being stoned, bombed, fired upon, injured, intimidated and vilified”.

I understand the parameters within which the Minister is operating, but can he ensure that an explanation is brought forward rapidly and that matters are brought to a swift conclusion, to allay the anger reflected in that correspondence?

[Mr Wallace]

I am tempted to say to my right hon. Friend that I might have drafted part of that letter. I was stoned, vilified and abused over many years on those tours.

The anger is real. I feel the anger of many of my former colleagues and of my right hon. Friend’s constituent about making sure that this is not used as some political campaign. We in the Government are determined to make sure that it is about the rule of law—that the police have to gather the evidence, if there is any, and that it has to follow its course. We are a long way from that. We are in a position where I cannot comment on the current case, although we are currently talking about people being questioned—under caution and, obviously, arrested—but it is a long way to make the jump to this being some form of campaign against the British Army. What I will say is that we are listening to what people are saying. The Government know that this is about moving forward, and therefore we shall do everything in our power to make sure that, as the MOD is doing currently, we recognise and support our soldiers who face prosecution or, indeed, investigation, to make sure they are given the representation they deserve.

[Danny Kinahan (South Antrim) (UUP)]

I am glad that the urgent question was granted. We recognise and support the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary, but there is real anger among veterans. Will the Minister take steps to end the current inequality that allows for those in the armed services to be pursued with greater vigour and effort than the terrorists, and ensure that we move towards a level playing field in the future?

[Mr Wallace]

I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman that there is an inequality in the process. I do not believe that some people are being pursued by the police and the Chief Constable with more verve than others. They will go where the evidence takes them and they will follow them. This is a process that I hope will help many soldiers and former Royal Ulster Constabulary members to clear their names. Having such a process is as important as not having a process that could allow people to make false allegations against them.

[Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)]

I entirely concur with the Minister’s point that no one is above the law, but the perception among many Members in this Chamber, and among people in the country, is that our British soldiers are hounded while those who murder and kill become politicians and are still allowed—I have personally faced them—to walk free. Will the Minister confirm that the identities of Soldier J and anybody else from before 1973, which I think is where the rule comes in, will be kept secret?

[Mr Wallace]

We must all challenge the perception that they are hounded. As I have said, 250,000 people served during those 25 years. No one is hounding them. The police must be allowed to follow a course of inquiry in order to help either to clear names or to achieve justice where there has been a breach of the law. That is very important. We have to distinguish: we are the people who follow the rule of law and it is the terrorist who does not. In answer to my hon. Friend’s second question, as I told my right hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson), the former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, I shall write to him about that detail.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

Five years ago, the Prime Minister stood at the Dispatch Box and tried to bring closure to the £200 million Saville report, and people across the House and in many sections of society expressed the view that the matter was at an end. I predicted in this place at that time that that would not be the end of the matter and, unfortunately, so it has proved. Does the Minister accept that he needs to meet the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland to ensure that, irrespective of whether people were in or out of uniform, if they had machine guns or probably had sub-machine-guns, like Martin McGuinness, they should be subject to the law and questioned equally, in order to be brought before the courts?

[Mr Wallace]

The Chief Constable is absolutely adamant that, in all criminal inquiries, he will treat people the same. He will investigate and he will follow the course of action. It was not that long ago that we were hearing cries about Sinn Féin politicians being arrested and taken in for questioning. I have confidence that the Chief Constable, who is respected by Members on both sides of the House, will follow his professional training, pursue people based on evidence and treat them fairly in that process. I cannot get involved in investigations. I cannot go to see the Chief Constable to interfere. If I did and the result was the same and there was no evidence in a particular case, it would never be allowed to be gotten away with. People would accuse me of having interfered in a case and someone would be prevented from clearing their name.

[Richard Benyon (Newbury) (Con)]

I took a patrol out on the streets of Belfast a few moments after we had discovered that our battalion band had been blown up while entertaining Londoners in Regent’s Park. I will never forget the restraint shown by riflemen and other ranks under my command as they faced the taunts of the IRA and its supporters. That is just one example of thousands of similar occasions when the armed forces showed unbelievable restraint in the face of unbelievable provocation. My colleagues at that time, and many veterans like them, want to say, “What about Bloody Warrenpoint? What about Bloody Regent’s Park? What about Bloody Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday? These things were happening every day of the week.” The Minister is entirely right to say that this has to be dealt with properly, but does he agree that society wants a line to be drawn under it?

[Mr Wallace]

I hear what my hon. Friend says and I do not disagree with him. Like him, I have had personal experience of that restraint. We should not forget the tremendous pressure that soldiers and police were put under every day, including provocation. I remember soldiers being attacked and people parking their cars in front of ambulances so that they could not come to their rescue. There was inhumane treatment, murder and victimisation by parts of a society that we were there to try to protect. Like my hon. Friend, I have real passion for what our soldiers achieved. The United Kingdom Government recognise and support that. He will also recognise that those soldiers who showed restraint are the ones who make ours the best Army in the world. Their professionalism meant that they managed to carry on and try to achieve a better result for the people of Northern Ireland, who they were there to protect, and that restraint means that those people who have a chance to clear their name should be allowed to do so. It is those soldiers who follow the rule of law who are only ever let down by those very, very few soldiers who break the law.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I concur and agree wholeheartedly with the comments of the hon. Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth). The diligence and zeal shown by the authorities in questioning and detaining Parachute Regiment soldiers cause concern when compared with the treatment of on-the-runs, who have committed horrible, brutal, evil crimes and are free today, some in elevated positions across the Province and in other parts of Ireland. Does the Minister appreciate the anger that many feel towards the double standards evidenced by what is happening today?

[Mr Wallace]

The hon. Gentleman is right and I understand his point. Indeed, I was on the Back Benches during the whole on-the-run process. I cannot comment much further on the on-the-runs, other than to say that it is my understanding, unless I am corrected, that the on-the-runs are not subject to any amnesty, and that means that they are not free from prosecution. I hope that the prosecuting authorities will hear what we say today and make sure that they continue, where they can, prosecutions of any of those individuals who have committed crimes against our armed forces and the people of Northern Ireland.

[Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)]

Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan), I have been contacted by constituents who are deeply concerned about the appearance of double standards and of some kind of amnesty for terrorists. In the week that the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly heard from the Chief Constable of the PSNI that his officers are still going about their business while dissident republicans aim to kill them as they work to protect their community, will the Minister assure us that there is no question of any amnesty for those who attack and maim our armed forces?

[Mr Wallace]

Not only can I assure my hon. Friend that there is no amnesty, but in the latest Northern Ireland agreement, which was reached yesterday, there is £160 million more money to fund our police forces and security services in Northern Ireland to pursue people who commit crimes, or who have done so in the past, against the innocent people of Northern Ireland. Yesterday’s agreement also included measures to monitor the paramilitary activity of former paramilitaries or organisations that should be inactive. We are determined not only to deal with the past, but to invest and give our police the support to make sure we bring to justice those terrorists who have been on the run and who have not yet been brought to justice, as well as those dissident republicans who are out there right now targeting colleagues and police officers who are going about their business in Northern Ireland every day.

[Tom Elliott (Fermanagh and South Tyrone) (UUP)]

The Minister has said that he does not think there is any inequality. How, then, does he explain that more than 20 PSNI officers are investigating Bloody Sunday soldiers, but not one police officer is investigating the 11 murders in Enniskillen on Remembrance Sunday in 1987?

[Mr Wallace]

I do not know the inner workings through which the Chief Constable and his senior officers decide to investigate each individual case, and nor should I. Suffice it to say that the Chief Constable is determined, as I understand it, to bring to justice any individual who has broken the law in the past. There are plenty of former and current terrorists who need to be brought to justice, and PSNI officers and Security Service officers are out there every day trying to catch the terrorist. It is not, in my view, all focused on former soldiers.

[Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP)]

We have always been opposed to terrorism and to on-the-runs. It was my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) who steadfastly opposed that in the House some years ago. We also believed in accountability and sensitivity for all victims, irrespective of where they came from. Will the Minister redouble the efforts to ensure that the legacy of the past is fully pursued and that we obtain a final resolution that takes on board national security considerations, so that truth is made available for all?

[Mr Wallace]

The hon. Lady is right. The SDLP has a fine and long track record not only of pursuing justice but of using democratic methods to pursue its political agenda. We should not forget that throughout the troubles the SDLP took quite a lot of intimidation. Like the hon. Lady, I regret that the legacy did not make it through the agreement. Like her, I am determined to make sure that we deal with those issues from the past. That is why funding is still available to do that. Next week I will press Northern Ireland parties on what we will do to move on from the agreement, to ensure that we move forward on the investigations and the legacy issue so that families get more information and closure and that justice is served.

[Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)]

I congratulate the Minister on his professional response to upholding the rule of law, which, given his background, must be very hard for him. His response is exactly what we expect from our service people, and we do expect more from them. That is why it is right and proper, if the rule of law is being followed, that the people concerned get the chance to clear their name if that is possible. We have to remember that 13 people were left dead on the streets of Derry 43 years ago, and that must be sorted out. If people did not act properly, it is right and proper that they are brought to book.

[Mr Wallace]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind comments. I reiterate that what sets us apart is the rule of law and soldiers who show restraint and professionalism. That is how we get public and community support. If we are trying to deal with a terrorist threat and counter-terrorism, we need the population on our side. I know more than anyone that when populations felt that we were above the law or that we did not treat them as if they were part of society, the soldiers’ job was harder and more dangerous because no one helped us or gave us information, and our lives were put at greater risk.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

What an invidious choice. I call Mr Sammy—oh, Mr Baron, you have suddenly risen to your feet. Was the hon. Gentleman here at the start? From the very start, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

How could I doubt it for one moment? Let us hear Mr Baron.

[Mr Baron]

Like other hon. Members in this place, I led soldiers and platoons in those troubled times in the 1980s. I pay tribute to the vast majority of soldiers who showed true professionalism, often in very hostile environments. I agree with the Minister that nobody should be above the rule of law, but may I make one plea to him? Will he use his offices to do what he can to expedite this matter? What we all want in this place, on all sides, is to draw a line under those troubled times so that we can move forward. That, together with good offices on all sides, will give peace and the peace process the best chance of succeeding for the longer term.

[Mr Wallace]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am delighted that you called my hon. Friend. He is right—we need to put all this behind us. However, I cannot interfere in a police investigation or any of the processes. To do so would jeopardise the course of justice and may jeopardise someone’s ability to clear their name.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

The Minister says that the Army is not above the rule of law, and that there is no blanket amnesty for those whom they were seeking to prevent from killing the people of Northern Ireland. However, the perception of the casual observer is that either because of political position or because of scandalous certificates handed out by the Labour Government, or by an action of the PSNI, there is a group of killers in Northern Ireland who are immune from prosecution. That stirs up animosity and puts police officers in fear while they are dealing with the current bunch of republican terrorists, that at some time in the future their families will also whinge for inquiries and those same police officers will stand in the dock. Can the Minister not see that some mechanism, such as that used in the past against IRA killers, must be used to ensure that Army personnel are not pursued in this way?

[Mr Wallace]

I can see the hon. Gentleman’s last point but I will not equate IRA killers with British forces. They are not the same, and I will not encourage an alternative mechanism that somehow equates them. My view and the Government’s view is that the police, and our forces, must follow the rule of law. If the hon. Gentleman is worried about perception, we must all do more to correct that perception. I shall do more to correct that perception, and next week when I meet the police and the security services, I shall certainly press on them again the need to pursue those people who are still at large and those terrorist crimes that have not been solved and for which people have not been brought to justice.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

The double standards in this affair are palpable for all to see. We have hundreds of on-the-run letters signed off, clearing people of mass murder, and some of several mass murders. A dozen of them were signed off by the Minister’s colleague. Is it not a disgrace that people such as Rita O’Hare are freely available to meet with Prime Ministers and Presidents, yet the Minister tells us that there is no double standard? There is a double standard and it must be addressed. These soldiers cannot be held in the way that they are being held.

[Mr Wallace]

The hon. Gentleman reiterates the point that there is an unfair playing field and a double standard, but I do not believe that there is a double standard. I do believe that the police and the PSNI, in their professional manner, are pursuing the evidence that is presented to them. A line of questioning is a long way from conviction and court cases. Who knows where it will take us? But if politicians interfere with that course of justice, we will not solve the problems of Northern Ireland. We will just extend those problems, and people will continue to refer back by saying that all along this was a big fix and it was not really about making sure that justice is done. Everyone in Northern Ireland deserves justice. Everyone who served in Northern Ireland deserves justice. I want to know who killed my soldiers and I will continue to ask those questions, but I will not find out who killed my soldiers if we do not move Northern Ireland forward and give the police the money to do their job, and allow them to pursue people and achieve convictions where they are deserved.

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I appreciate the latitude you have shown in calling me.

I am alarmed by the Minister’s apparent indication this afternoon that the pursuit of prosecutions is a good opportunity for ex-servicemen to clear their names. Surely, as a former serviceman, he can understand the anguish, the pain and the stress of people who stood by me, my family, my colleagues and my countrymen through all those hard days. He should reflect on whether the pursuit of such prosecutions is a worthy or noble way for people to clear their name.

[Mr Wallace]

I did not actually say “the pursuit of prosecutions”; I said that the pursuing of a line of inquiry is important to allow people to clear their name. It is also important because when, or if, the PSNI says on a number of occasions that there is no evidence to answer, the public will have full confidence that the police have done all they can to establish whether that is the case. If the police—or the Director of Public Prosecutions or anyone else—rule out charging someone, the public have to believe that that is because there is no evidence. They cannot do it on the basis that a politician, a Minister or anyone else interfered with the process, because that would be a subjective matter, and it would undermine justice, not strengthen it.

Point of Order

Wednesday 18th November 2015 Commons Chamber

13:20

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

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. On 14 March this year, the Communities and Local Government Committee produced a report on litter and fly-tipping. The convention is that Government Departments will respond to such reports within eight weeks. Sometimes there is a reason for a delay, and obviously the general election intervened, but it is now eight months since the report was produced. Despite repeated requests at ministerial and official level on a regular basis, we are still no nearer to getting a response. That shows disrespect not merely to the Select Committee but to the House as a whole. Will you use your good offices to ensure that the report is responded to in a proper manner?

[Mr Speaker]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his courtesy in giving me notice of this point of order. Clearly, it is important to the effectiveness of Select Committees that Government Departments respond promptly to their reports. The Government’s own guidance makes it clear that Departments should aim to respond to Committee reports within two months, and states:

“Only in exceptional circumstances should a response be deferred for more than six months after the Report’s publication.”

I trust that the concerns expressed by the hon. Gentleman, who is, after all, the Chair of the Communities and Local Government Committee, have been noted by those on the Treasury Bench and that the Government’s response will follow shortly. For the avoidance of doubt, and so that this is well recalled both in the House and beyond, I reiterate what he said. This important report was entitled “Litter and fly-tipping in England”, and it was published on 14 March 2015. It is hard to see why the Government have not been able to get round to determining and publishing a response, and they should now do so.

Royal Assent

[Mr Speaker]

I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Act:

Finance (No. 2) Act 2015

Speed Limits on Roads (Devolved Powers)

Wednesday 18th November 2015 Commons Chamber

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

13:23

[Scott Mann (North Cornwall) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend Part VI of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, and the Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996, to make provision about the powers and duties of parish and town councils in relation to applying for speed limit orders; to provide for the conduct of local referendums to determine whether such applications should be made; and for connected purposes.

This Bill accomplishes two main objectives: first, it encourages safer environments for motorists and pedestrians; and secondly, it empowers local communities. The Bill will give town and parish councils the ability to hold a referendum to change their speed limits. This gives power to local people. Local people know best whether the limits on their roads are too fast or too slow, and they know it better than an officer of the council who might reside some miles away from the place. They live there, so they know the environment of the roads and the motorists and pedestrians who use them.

I have been an hon. Member of this House for only six months, yet in that time I have had a coherent message communicated to me from constituents, parish councils and schools that the roads in their communities are becoming dangerous. I shall name some examples. In a small village called Stratton, near Bude, we have a primary school situated on a very nasty junction that sees very large lorries, tractors and cars speeding past. When I visited the site, I met parents and children who showed me how they cross the road via a tiny traffic island. As both sides of the road are busy, the traffic must pass within inches of the pavement. It is clearly evident that this road is too dangerous for children to use to get to school. People have resorted to driving as an option, and that is clearly not sustainable in the long term.

Not far from that road is a small village called Werrington, where recently a car crashed into the local school’s boundary wall because of excessive speed. Locals and schools have campaigned for a 20 mph speed limit to ensure the safety of children, pedestrians, and fellow motorists. I have received several handwritten letters from the children at Werrington school asking for something to be done to make the road safer. In St Teath, another village in my constituency, we see speeding cars passing schools and homes near very narrow pavements where people walk. These cannot be widened, and it would cost far too much for the road to be redesigned, but a lower speed limit could help. In nearby St Kew Highway, members of the parish council met me to talk about cars speeding up the A39, where they reach excessive speeds of over 60 mph, which is far too fast for some local people.

Those are just four examples of communities in north Cornwall that have specific issues, and I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members in this Chamber will have very similar issues in their areas. This Bill gives them the power to do something about it.

I have looked at some statistics on this matter, and they are truly amazing. According to data published in 2012 by the House of Commons Library, there were nearly 196,000 reported casualties on roads in Great Britain, including 1,754 fatalities and 23,000 serious casualties. On 30 mph roads, there were 582 fatal accidents; on 20 mph roads, there were nine. Two thirds of accidents happened in a 30 mph limit zone, whereas only 1.5% were on 20 mph roads. This is quite staggering, and it illustrates why people in some areas want to campaign for a lower speed limit.

The implementation of a 20 mph limit is particularly vital outside schools, which often face hurdles when they ask for speed-lowering or traffic-calming measures. I do not see as many school crossing patrols as I used to; they are undoubtedly in decline. I have parents in my constituency who rely on a mere crossing island to aid their passage to school. I went to a primary school to meet concerned parents who face the daily challenge of getting their children to school safely. If parents in my constituency want the limit on the road outside their school lowered because they fear for their children’s safety, their voices must be heard.

Of course, referendums are not cheap, and they do need planning, so I do not propose that they be held spontaneously at any time. If there is a will among the people for a speed limit to be lowered from 30 mph to 20 mph, then their voices must be heard, and it is at the ballot box that they can make them heard. Referendums should be held in line with other local elections, national elections, by-elections, police and crime commissioner elections, and town and parish council elections. This will save the taxpayer considerable cost. The desire for a referendum would also need to be present. Town and parish councils should be able to judge whether they feel that an issue on a road needs addressing.

The purpose of the Bill is to alter speed limits, not just to lower them. If a town or village wants to a raise a speed limit, it will have the option to do that as well, if local people want to vote for it. If representation is strong from within the community, and no strategy is being put forward by the local authority to address the issue, then a vote should be put to the people. If the community votes yes, then the local authority must begin work to implement the speed limit. To avoid the holding of referendums on one road after another, councils could list a number of roads in their area at the same time, or put forward a proposal for a whole area, such as a town centre. That would apply a blanket change, rather than some roads changing and some not.

In these times of increasing car journeys, I truly believe it is vital that we keep people safe. There is huge housing growth in some areas, and as houses are built, more parents and children are walking to school, there are more public transport movements and more heavy goods vehicles—the list goes on. This Government are passionate about giving more power to the people. We have seen the devolution packages agreed thus far, such as the devolution of business rates, the recent and historic Cornish devolution deal, and giving people the power to reject wind turbine applications.

I believe that the Bill will indirectly get more people interested in politics and create more understanding of the political process. If a majority want the speed limit changed, let them stand and put their names to doing so. They can then say that, by putting an X in the box, they changed their local community. Ultimately, I believe the Bill will empower people and help to address the issues that directly affect them on the roads.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,

That Scott Mann, Steve Double, Heidi Allen, Caroline Nokes, Rebecca Pow, Derek Thomas, Alex Chalk and Maggie Throup present the Bill.

Scott Mann accordingly presented the Bill.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 5 February 2016, and to be printed (Bill 98).

Opposition Day

Wednesday 18th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[10th Allotted Day]

The Economy

Wednesday 18th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

We now come to the first of the two scheduled Opposition day debates. The amendment has not been selected.

13:32

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

I beg to move,

That this House believes that the Government has failed to deliver on its commitment to stand up for working people; notes that the Government’s existing plans to cut tax credits will cost more than three million working families an average of £1,300 a year from next April; further notes that 4.1 million children now live in absolute poverty, an increase of 500,000 since 2009-10; notes that in 2014 the UK’s current account deficit reached the highest level ever recorded, at 5.1 per cent; notes that 85 per cent of the money saved from tax and benefit changes in the last Parliament came from women; further believes that the Government has failed to deliver the more sustainable economy the country needs; notes that, rather than investing in building new homes to cut housing benefit costs, housing investment has been slashed and housing benefit has risen by over £2 billion a year in real terms; notes that the gap between UK productivity per hour worked and the rest of the G7 grew to 20 percentage points in 2014, the widest productivity gap since 1991; believes that further deep cuts to the budget of the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills could damage the Government’s ability to boost innovation and productivity and could restrict opportunities for British businesses and workers to succeed in the global economy; calls on the Government to reverse fully and fairly its plans to cut tax credits from next April; and further calls for the Government to invest in growing a more productive economy with a focus on science, technology and green jobs to equip Britain for the future and share more fairly the proceeds of growth.

We have chosen to devote a section of today’s Opposition day to set the scene for next week’s autumn statement and comprehensive spending review. This will be the last chance many MPs from across the House will have to put their case to the Chancellor before he comes to his final conclusions on his spending plans and economic strategy for the coming period.

The Chancellor is not in the Chamber today. Naturally, we are disappointed, but I spoke to him before this debate. He is working hard on the comprehensive spending review, so I think we will forgive him if he gets his sums right and comes to the right conclusions.

The Chancellor’s decisions next week will have serious consequences for every constituency in the country. What we all need from the Chancellor is wise judgment and fairness. Our country faces serious challenges and risks ahead, which we should not underestimate.

Let me first deal with one issue that overrides all others. It has been heart breaking to watch the tragic events in Paris at the weekend unfold into the suffering of families coming to the realisation of their loss. I sent a message of condolence and solidarity to our counterpart Michel Sapin, the French Finance Minister, at the weekend. It is true that the first duty of a state is to protect its citizens, so may I therefore assure the Chancellor that he and the Prime Minister have our full support for the enhanced expenditure to strengthen our security services that they have announced this week?

May I also say that we share the view of the Metropolitan police commissioner and other police chiefs that the first line of gaining intelligence on potential hazards and threats to our safety, preventing terrorist attacks and responding to them is often the police officer in the community and on the street? There has been a great deal of speculation in the media about the scale of potential cuts to the policing service, prompting severe warnings from police authorities—on a cross-party basis—about the consequences for the safety of the public if this scale of cuts goes ahead. May I therefore assure the Chancellor that we would also support an urgent review of the policing budget proposals to avert this risk to the service, and that we would support any enhanced expenditure plans being placed outside the parameters of the fiscal constraints of the charter for budget responsibility?

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the fact that the tragic atrocities in Paris were focused on young people in social environments suggests that such attacks could occur anywhere in Britain at virtually any time?

[John McDonnell]

We are all fearful of the risk that exists, but we place our confidence in our intelligence and policing services. To be frank, when our community is under such a heightened physical threat, now is not the time to be dogmatic. When it comes to national security and keeping the public safe, I say to the Chancellor and the Government that they will always have the support of the Labour party.

Let me turn to an issue of fairness—tax credits—which I hope Ministers can reassure us today that the Chancellor has now sorted out once and for all. It came as a shock to Members on both sides of the House when he brought forward the proposals to cut tax credits without fully understanding, or calculating the consequences of, his actions. Plainly, it was an error of judgment. I want to thank all the Members of this House from all parties and our colleagues in the other place who found that they could not support the Chancellor’s proposals and hence forced him to think again. What convinced many people was exactly what Gordon Brown, our former Prime Minister, summed up so eloquently last week—that this is an attack on children. The prospect of 200,000 more children being pushed into poverty pushed many MPs and Members of the other place over the edge to oppose the proposals.

There has been a lot of speculation in the press about how the Chancellor has been trying to resolve the tax credits question, with much talk of cuts to universal credit and threatened Cabinet resignations, but I am pleased that the quiet man may have had to raise his voice and has won the day. However, the threat seems to have moved on to housing support and other matters. I do not expect Ministers to reveal to us today the detail of the Chancellor’s proposals to resolve this matter, but for the 3 million families who face a cut of £1,300 a year, may I ask them at least to assure us and those families that they will withdraw the tax credits cuts in full and that no existing or new claimant will lose out?

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

May I give my hon. Friend another reason for tackling this issue head-on? In the 10 constituencies across north Wales, £58 million will be taken out of the local economy next year if the proposals go ahead. That money would be spent in local shops, local businesses and local communities. If that is taken out, not only will families and children suffer, but local business will suffer.

[John McDonnell]

At a time when we are seeking to grow the economy, it seems bizarre to do so by reducing aggregate demand within a local area, which could in many respects bring about a localised recession.

[Jeremy Quin (Horsham) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman has just agreed with the argument made by the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson), so does he not accept that the same argument could be deployed for never cutting the deficit under any circumstances ever?

[John McDonnell]

The whole point of this debate is about political choices. To be frank, we have said to the Chancellor on a cross-party basis in debate after debate that this was the wrong political choice and that he should therefore look elsewhere. I am not asking for the detail of how he is resolving it—we will wait to hear that next week—but I am urging Ministers at least to give us the assurance that nobody will lose out. Families want that assurance now, because of the insecurity that they face.

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

With my constituency of Selly Oak now in the top 13% in the country for unemployment, with more than 20% of those in work not earning the living wage and more than 60% of families dependent on tax credits, is it not clear that five years of the long-term economic plan has not worked for Selly Oak? What we need next week is not a rethink, but a step change in the approach to working families.

[John McDonnell]

I hope that that is what the Chancellor is working on at the moment and that that is why he cannot be with us.

[Lucy Frazer (South East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman has mentioned children twice so far. The Greek Government overspent, leaving tens of thousands of children unschooled in Greece in September. Does he not accept that a country that does not look after its finances does not look after its children?

[John McDonnell]

Of course that is true, but there are false economies. On a cross-party basis, we came to the conclusion that cutting tax credits to working families would be a false economy because it would remove an incentive to work—one of the principles on which many of our budgetary proposals are founded.

[Maria Caulfield (Lewes) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[John McDonnell]

I will press on with my speech, because Mr Speaker has warned me that a large number of Members want to speak. I will come back to the hon. Lady.

It would be helpful to have an assurance today that no one will lose out. I have said repeatedly that if the Chancellor withdraws the tax credit cuts in full and fairly, he will have our support. On fairness, will Ministers also assure us that if the Chancellor does scrap his tax credit cuts, it will not be paid for by cutting the benefits and support for families elsewhere? I seek that assurance because, unfortunately, the Chancellor has a bit of a reputation for giving with one hand and taking with the other.

[Maria Caulfield]

I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s wish for cross-party support in reducing the deficit. I take it from his stance that his party wants to control the deficit, so where does he suggest the cuts should be made? Should they be made in the health service, schools, local government or defence? Will he give some suggestions as to how he would reduce the deficit?

[John McDonnell]

We have raised this matter time and again. I think that Members on both sides of the House found it incongruous that, at the same time as the Chancellor was seeking to cut working families’ tax credits, he was reducing inheritance tax for the wealthiest families in our country. People saw that as being basically unfair.

There is much that we hope the Chancellor will address in next week’s statement. We agree that we must continuously bear down on the deficit and debt, but that has to be done with realistic good judgment and fairness. I say that the judgment must be realistic because it will undermine confidence in government if we go through another comprehensive spending review like the one in 2010, when the Chancellor announced that he would eliminate the cyclically adjusted current deficit in the five-year period—that is, by this year—whereas he has cleared only half of it. In the last financial year, the current budget deficit stood at a massive £44 billion. I also remember the Chancellor saying in 2010 that he would reduce the debt to 69% of GDP. It now stands at over 80%.

The mistakes of the last CSR should not be repeated in this one. Our fiscal rules must be realistic, achievable and fair. The Chancellor’s rules, for all the revisions in recent weeks, have been none of those things.

[David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman and his colleagues have criticised the Government on many occasions for cutting too fast. Is he now suggesting that we should have cut faster? If so, we will be more than happy to co-operate with him.

[John McDonnell]

I would be happy to have that co-operation at any stage. What we said to the Chancellor five years ago was that he was going too fast and that he should have been investing in growth, which would have enabled us to reduce the deficit. He promised to reduce the deficit and debt in five years, but he is going to do it in 10. That is a doubling of the target.

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

Will my hon. Friend remind the House at what rate the Chancellor has accrued debt over the past five years? Has he not accrued approximately the same amount of debt over the past five years as the last Labour Government accrued in 13 years?

[John McDonnell]

The debt has increased by 55% in five years. That is a helpful record.

[Tom Blenkinsop]

So he has doubled the debt.

[John McDonnell]

Yes. Let me press on because time is limited in this debate.

We need to be realistic in recognising that our economy faces severe challenges. I warned in September that many of the factors that contributed to the last economic crisis are re-emerging. This is the slowest recovery in living memory. It is based on rising house prices and unsecured consumer lending rising at record rates. The Government’s own forecasters expect household debt shortly to surpass even the level reached before the crash. We have an increasingly unbalanced economy, based more than ever on insecure jobs in the service sector and an over-reliance on the finance sector.

[Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[John McDonnell]

I will press on because time is limited. I will come back to the hon. Gentleman if I have time.

Regrettably, all the predictions are that manufacturing is likely to go into recession next month. The UK’s current account deficit on the balance of payments was at an all-time high last year. That deficit is driven by a slump in British investors earning abroad, while those in the rest of the world continue to profit from the assets that we sell and the loans that we take out.

There are warning signs in the rest of the world, yet the Chancellor is bequeathing us an economy even more poorly prepared than it was on entering the storm in 2008. Back then, we had room to manoeuvre. The Bank of England was able to cut interest rates to rock bottom, sustaining the economy as the global recession hit. It hit us hardest of all because our financial system was appallingly over-exposed to risks that it did not or, in some instances, would not understand. At least at that time, the Government could take action. They slashed interest rates and introduced quantitative easing. Seven years on, the Bank of England base rate remains jammed at the lowest level in history. The room for manoeuvre in conventional monetary policy is essentially zero.

[Michael Tomlinson]

Does the hon. Gentleman welcome the jobs figures in my constituency for the past year, which show that the number of people claiming jobseeker’s allowance is down 30%, showing that Government Members are on the side of working people?

[John McDonnell]

Of course we welcome any increase in employment or reduction in unemployment. The problem is that the economy is unsustainable because it is based on rising house prices, borrowing and debt. My fear is that the jobs that have been gained in the past year may be lost in the forthcoming crisis, if we do not take avoidance action.

Andrew Haldane, the chief economist at the Bank of England, has warned that the third wave of the financial crisis, which is breaking out in the emerging markets, centred on China, could have an impact on Britain. Why? Because Britain is the country with the largest exposure to Chinese debt, at $500 billion. Any upset in the rest of the world will, thanks to our extraordinarily large financial system, rapidly make its way here. That is exactly how the last crisis happened, when failures to repay mis-sold mortgages by some people in American society turned into the failure of the entire banking system in this country.

We cannot know what will happen over the next few years. The Chancellor has warned repeatedly of trouble ahead, but surely these challenges are better faced if we have a more balanced and resilient economy that provides real security for all of us. Instead, we have a single-minded fixation on a single target: the 2020 surplus, which no credible economist supports. By clinging on to that so tenaciously, it appears that the Chancellor is putting the needs of his political career ahead of the prosperity of the country.

[Jeremy Quin]

The hon. Gentleman refers to the balance of trade. Part of the impact of that is that our country has been growing. Dividends have gone up 30%. Those who are investing in the UK are taking more money out of the UK because it is growing. We could be investing in places such as China, which are growing faster. Would he ban investment in China? Is that what he is saying? Should that be the result of his concerns?

[John McDonnell]

Part of the problem is that growth has not been high enough. In addition, we have sold off so many of our assets that money is pumping out of this country, rather than being invested in it. We are not making home-grown investments in our own economy, so the money is flowing abroad. That is causing our balance of payments deficit. In addition, our trade, particularly in manufacturing, has unfortunately not picked up on the scale it should have done.

Let me press on, because a large number of Members want to speak. We know, from the drip-feed of announcements, that the Chancellor intends to make swingeing and potentially devastating cuts to Government Departments and welfare spending. Let me make it clear that austerity is a political choice, not an economic necessity. The record of this Government shows that the Chancellor’s political choices are having a devastating impact on people across the United Kingdom. In many cases, his cuts are falling on the heads of those who are least able to afford them. [Interruption.] The Exchequer Secretary is asking for examples, so let us look at local government.

Since 2010, councils have dealt with a 40% real-terms cut in their core Government grant. In adult social care alone, funding reductions and demographic pressures have resulted in a £5 billion funding gap. Where are the cuts falling? According to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, the 10 most deprived local authority areas have lost £782 per household, while the 10 wealthiest areas have lost just £48 per household. Choices have consequences for people’s incomes and lives and the services upon which they rely. As a consequence of the Chancellor’s choices, ordinary people are being left worse off. He has made those choices and still failed to meet his self-imposed fiscal targets, so I pose this question: are the choices that are being made right, moral and fair? If the answer to any of these questions is no, it is self-evident he needs to rethink, and rethink fast.

[Suella Fernandes (Fareham) (Con)]

Is the hon. Gentleman seriously preaching about making the right choices, given that his party was responsible for the highest level of public sector borrowing? Is that the choice he is recommending—more borrowing and a greater burden on British men and women, just to feed the coffers of Government?

[John McDonnell]

We have to explain again: the deficit did not cause the crisis; the crisis caused the deficit. When Gordon Brown was Chancellor of the Exchequer and intervened with quantitative easing and by reducing interest rates, he was supported across the House, because that was the way to save what was left of the financial system in this country.

There is an alternative to the cuts. The Chancellor could, within the five-year timeframe of the spending review, lay out a long-term vision for the economy and how the Government can help to deliver it. He says he wants a high-wage, low-tax and low-welfare economy. We all want people in secure high-paid work, because it is the surest way to bring down the deficit—that is what we have been arguing all these months—but the Chancellor has no proposals on where the high-wage jobs are to come from. All he has had to offer in recent months is the national living wage, but it is set below the official living wage, so it is a national living wage that no one can live on, and it is nowhere near high enough to compensate for the proposed cuts to tax credits.

The Chancellor cannot deliver high wages unless he delivers investment. Investment is the fuel of future growth. Spending today on new equipment, new technology and infrastructure will deliver well-paid, secure jobs in the future. Yet investment in the UK is still below its pre-crash level as a share of GDP, and that level of investment is itself far below that in France, Germany and the US. Failure to invest has a dramatic impact. Every hour worked in Germany is, on average, a third more productive than every hour worked here. Productivity has flatlined for years in this country. Instead of investing in capital, too many businesses have relied on cheap labour. Our flexible labour market has made it too easy for employers to rely on low pay, and the Chancellor’s response has been woeful.

[Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)]

I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman’s speech. If he is so set against any form of welfare reform, why did he and his party not vote against the Second Reading of the Welfare Reform and Work Bill? Why the road to Damascus now?

[John McDonnell]

Some of us did vote against it. As we argued in that debate, there is a way to reform welfare while making sure people do not lose out. For example, we have proposed reducing housing benefit by building the homes people need to make sure they have roofs over their heads. In that way, we reduce rent levels as well.

Instead of investing in the future, using the Government’s powers to borrow carefully and invest wisely, the Chancellor has allowed Government spending on our vital infrastructure to fall from 3.3% of GDP in the last year of the last Labour Government to just 1.6% today. It is set to fall further to 1.4% over the next few years—less than half what the OECD thinks is necessary in a developed economy to sustain a decent standard of living. A lack of investment is why National Grid is warning of electricity shortages this winter and why too many businesses suffer from poor broadband connections and transport delays. His response to growing calls from business has been to run to the Chinese Government and hope they will get him out of this mess. We have been presented with the extraordinary sight of a British Chancellor refusing to use his own Government’s powers of investment but more than happy to exploit those of the Chinese.

While every other major developed country is pushing up its research and development spending, recognising the future value of science and technology, our Government have cut spending by £l billion in real terms.

[Lucy Frazer]

The coalition Government set up a £160 million fund for agri-tech investment, and that investment has continued under this Government through the regional growth funds. It is really helping the east of the country, particularly my constituency. What ideas does the hon. Gentleman have for investment in agri-tech?

[John McDonnell]

We should increase the amount invested. So far, so little has been invested, it is not having the impact it should have.

On investment in training, research from the House of Commons Library has shown that the budget for sixth-form and further education colleges could fall by at least £1.6 billion under the Government’s spending plans. This is the equivalent of four in 10 sixth-form and further education colleges being closed. Local councils, often the engines for investment-led growth in their communities, are having their budgets cut to ribbons, and even statutory services are now at risk. All this confirms that there is no long-term economic plan. It is a short-term quick fix from a Chancellor who cannot think beyond the Conservative leadership election.

[Mr Graham Allen (Nottingham North) (Lab)]

This is the first occasion on which I need to disagree with my hon. Friend. I think there is a long-term economic plan: to drive down the amount of money spent by Government as a share of GDP to 1920s levels. Is that not the real agenda, and a not very hidden one at that?

[John McDonnell]

The Chancellor’s agenda is to shrink the state and privatise most of what is left.

Instead, Labour would seek to use Government powers to invest to deliver world-class infrastructure across the whole country. The northern powerhouse will only become a reality when it is matched by real spending commitments. We would build on our country’s history of science, technology and innovation to deliver real increases in funding for research and development, seeking to match the commitments made by our neighbours; and we would work alongside the private sector to ensure that our businesses, rather than hoarding cash to the tune of at least £400 billion, would be seeking out opportunities to invest in the future. That is the role of a strategic state.

[Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)]

The Green Investment Bank has been a real success, generating investment in renewable energy projects. In just three years it has invested in 58 projects, committing £2.3 billion of its own money and leveraging more than £10 billion in additional private capital. It has done this despite Government policies working against investor confidence in the renewables energy sector. What are my hon. Friend’s thoughts on the Government’s plan to privatise the bank?

[John McDonnell]

Just as we are about to take off with regard to renewables, the Government are impeding and undermining their future. My hon. Friend, like me, will have spoken to some of the companies. Some have gone to the wall and others are struggling. It is a devastating blow.

Labour would also tackle the large-scale tax evasion and avoidance that the Chancellor is so reluctant to address. Let me say what many working in our economy want to hear from the Chancellor next week. First and most importantly, he must reverse, fairly and in full, his cuts to tax credits. That should be his absolute priority. Secondly, there should be a plan to support investment to well beyond the minimum 3.5% of GDP recommended by the OECD, in terms of both infrastructure and training investment. Thirdly, we need a plan to address the balance of payments crisis, so that we can pay our way in the world once more. The Government are focusing on one deficit while ignoring another possibly more serious one. Fourthly, we want a realistic plan to tackle the deficit, based on sustainable economic growth and fair and wise judgments. Finally, we want an end to the self-defeating cuts and a serious programme to address tax evasion and avoidance and improve the overall efficacy of our tax system. If the Chancellor fails to take these steps, he places in jeopardy the long-term health of our economy. The choice next week is his to make.

13:59

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Harriett Baldwin)]

I start by associating myself with the sentiments expressed by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) about the French atrocities and the importance of our security forces. I and other Treasury Ministers yesterday signed the book of condolence at the French embassy.

The economic policy of Her Majesty’s Opposition is now represented by a man who wants to overthrow capitalism, nationalise businesses without compensation, and who answers to Len McCluskey. He is a man who thinks that printing money, and triggering the inflation that hurts the poor and the elderly the most, is a good thing. He thinks that a budget surplus is “barmy”, and that we can balance the books by avoiding “any cuts whatsoever”. He is a high-tax, high-inflation, high-unemployment socialist who draws his economic inspiration from the Venezuelan economy and Syriza in Greece. The Government will not take economic lectures from him on how to run our policies, and we will do everything in our power to keep him in opposition.

[George Kerevan (East Lothian) (SNP)]

Will the Minister remind the House how many pound notes the Bank of England has printed through quantitative easing?

[Harriett Baldwin]

Monetary policy has been run by the Bank of England independently, and I am sure that the Scottish National party will continue to support the Bank’s independence against the inflationary tendencies of the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington. I am pleased to have the opportunity to remind the House once again of how this Government’s long-term economic plan is delivering for the working people of the United Kingdom.

[Mr Hanson]

May I bring the Minister back to reality? Reality for my constituents is the £1,300 cut to working families tax credits which, if it goes ahead in April next year, will mean that £58 million is taken out of our local economy from the poorest people in my constituency, three quarters of whom are in work. Does she think that is right, and will she commit to review that today?

[Harriett Baldwin]

The right hon. Gentleman will have to wait until my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announces his autumn statement next week. Because of the difficult decisions that we have been prepared to take since 2010, the country’s economy for the right hon. Gentleman’s constituents in north Wales is going from strength to strength, and the overall UK economy is now 12% larger than it was when we took over from the Labour Government. As we reach calmer economic waters, it is worrying that some seem to have forgotten the lessons that the crash of 2008 taught us.

In recent months we have seen the resurgence of familiar but dangerous ideas. First—we heard it here today—is the idea that the deficit does not really matter, that it should not be a priority to rein in unsustainable public spending, and that it is fine to kick difficult decisions down the line. Those views were put to the British electorate in May, and the electorate rejected them overwhelmingly. People looked at the 1,000 jobs that the UK economy had created every day since 2010, and at the highest growth figure in the G7 for the last two years in a row. They looked at rising wages, rising living standards, and falling inequality, and they said, “Your long-term economic plan is working, so we want you to continue the job.” Since the election, national debt has been forecast to fall this year as a share of GDP for the first time in more than a decade.

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

Is the Minister pleased with the appalling level of productivity in this country under her Government?

[Harriett Baldwin]

The hon. Gentleman knows that productivity has been a long-term issue for the British economy, and I shall be talking in more detail about our productivity plans in a moment.

[Mrs Main]

Does my hon. Friend have any figures associated with the cost of renationalisation that the Labour party seems to want to embark on? I have not heard any figure recently.

[Harriett Baldwin]

My hon. Friend is right. The bottomless pit of money from the magic money tree has been brought into service a lot over recent days, and we should focus instead on the good news about the UK economy. The employment rate has reached a record high—

[Geraint Davies]

rose—

[Harriett Baldwin]

Is the hon. Gentleman going to welcome that fact? I do not think he is. Wages have risen by more than 3% this year. Will he welcome that? For people in continuous employment, wages are up by more than 4%—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We cannot have hon. Members freelancing, or at least not any more than they are already accustomed to doing. The hon. Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) can seek to intervene, and the Minister must decide whether to respond. However, since the hon. Gentleman claims to have a point of order, I am keen to discover whether it is a point of order or a point of frustration, so perhaps we can hear from him.

[Geraint Davies]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. When the Minister exhibits such massive ambiguity by seeming to say “Yes, yes, yes,” to my intervention, so that then I am getting up and down, does that not cause great confusion in the Chamber and among the greater public? Would you like to make a ruling on that?

[Mr Speaker]

My ruling on that, for the benefit of the hon. Gentleman and the House, is that any Member who has the Floor should indicate clearly whether he or she is giving way, and if so, to whom. Any gesticulation that obscures rather than clarifies, although not disorderly, is unhelpful.

[Harriett Baldwin]

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman when he starts to welcome some of the positive economic facts that I was mentioning, but if he does not know whether he is coming or going, I have a hunch that he is in the right party.

The Government absolutely reject the Opposition’s accusation that we are failing to deliver for working people. Not only have we brought greater economic security, we have also delivered more growth, more jobs, and higher wages. That is what people working across this country asked us to deliver, and that is what we are doing.

[Suella Fernandes]

I echo and salute the track record and results that the Minister is outlining. A former Prime Minister, who is credited with reviving a failing economy, once said:

“The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.”

Does my hon. Friend agree that what we are hearing from the Opposition Benches is a reheating of simple 1980s socialism where the results are only failure?

[Harriett Baldwin]

My hon. Friend is right to remind us of two important facts. First, no Labour Government have ever left office with the public finances in a better state than when they came to power, and secondly, no Labour Government have left office without leaving more people unemployed than there were when they came to office.

Do we agree with the other points made by the Labour party?

[Geraint Davies]

rose—

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

rose—

[Harriett Baldwin]

I will not give way because I want to make a bit of progress and take each of the points in the motion in turn.

I am delighted that the Labour party has remembered to mention the deficit in the motion, although it is not the budget deficit but the current account deficit. Let me remind the House about progress on the budget deficit which, as a share of the economy, has fallen by more than half from its peak in 2009-10 to 4.9% at the end of last year. We forecast that we will be in surplus by the end of this Parliament. That is what the British people asked for, and that is what we are doing.

[Jonathan Reynolds]

rose—

[Harriett Baldwin]

Will the hon. Gentleman welcome progress on the deficit and suggest further progress?

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I love being given way to with caveats based on what I might say in my intervention. Let me ask the Minister a serious point in all this silliness. Since the end of the second world war, this country has been in surplus for only 12 financial years. Of those 12 years, 10 have had Labour Governments. Conservative Governments have hardly ever run a surplus. Is the Minister telling us that the Governments of Thatcher, Macmillan, Anthony Eden and Churchill were all spendthrift and socialist, or will she be a little more serious when addressing these issues?

[Harriett Baldwin]

The hon. Gentleman is right to say that this is a serious issue, and I hope that, as one of the more moderate and sensible members of his party, he will be able to convince those on the Labour Front Bench that this is an important issue to tackle.

The Opposition motion also mentions tax credits.

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

The Minister mentioned the fall in unemployment, but is there not a paradox? We are considering closing Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs offices and reducing the number of people who work for it, when its official figures show a £34 billion tax gap. If we collected that money, it would go a long way towards eating into the deficit. If we then scrapped Trident and the other place we would be nearly there, and we would not need to make cuts.

[Harriett Baldwin]

I would listen more to the advice of the SNP on the economy if it had not projected that the oil price would remain at over $100 forever and fought last year’s referendum on that basis.

Various hon. Members have mentioned tax credits. The British people want to see a lower welfare, lower tax and higher wage economy, and that is what they voted for in May. In the summer Budget, we set out a package of reforms for working people, which included the introduction of the new national living wage, continued increases in the personal allowance and the doubling of free childcare worth up to £5,000 a year for working parents. Of course, we will listen to the concerns raised about the transition period, and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will set out our response to those concerns next week. But make no mistake, creating a low-welfare, low-tax, high-wage economy is one of the most progressive goals a Government can have, and one that we will continue to work towards.

[Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)]

As my hon. Friend analyses the Opposition motion to decide whether she will support it—I think we are fairly clear on that—is she as surprised as I am that it does not mention the new national living wage? That is probably the most significant change in our economy over the next five years—[Interruption.] Well, there are issues with tax credits—I am not making a speech, Mr Speaker—but the fundamental point is that we will ask companies to pay our poorest paid workers what is effectively a 38% increase in their wages over five years, plus 3% on their pensions. Does she agree that that needs more attention from Members on both sides of the House?

[Harriett Baldwin]

My hon. Friend is right to highlight that progressive move, and it gives me a chance to emphasise the fact that yesterday’s data on earnings showed that the lowest earning 10% in our society saw a wage increase of 3.4% over the last 12 months, and that is before these changes have even taken place.

The Opposition motion also mentions child poverty. The best route out of child poverty is for a parent or parents to work. On our watch, the number of children growing up in workless families is at a record low, down almost 500,000 from 16.2% of all children to 11.8%.

[Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)]

Is the Economic Secretary aware that 500,000 children have fallen below the poverty line since 2010? What does she intend to do about that?

[Harriett Baldwin]

The hon. Lady is wrong about that. Since 2010, in terms of relative poverty, some 300,000 fewer children are living in poverty. The Government losing control of public finances and not being able to do anything about that would be the worst thing that could possibly happen for the opportunities for those children. The people who suffer when the country loses control of its public finances are the low-paid, and the people who get turned out of work are the ones who suffer the most—

[Geraint Davies]

rose—

[Lucy Frazer]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. May I say gently to the House that it is reasonable for the Economic Secretary to be given the opportunity to respond to one intervention before immediately being pressed to accept another? Some level of orderliness in the conduct of this debate needs to be restored, with the help of all willing parties.

[Harriett Baldwin]

In that spirit, I shall try to make some progress, Mr Speaker.

The richest do not suffer most when the economy suffers. It is not the trade union barons who lose their jobs when that happens: it is the poorest in the country. We are making sure that it never happens again.

The motion also mentions the impact of our policies on women. There are now more women working than ever before, the gender pay gap is at the lowest level since records began, and 56% of the people we have taken out of income tax, by raising the personal allowance, are women. Of course, 27.5 million working men and women have had a tax cut since 2010, and 58% of those receiving a much stronger, triple-lock state pension are women. Almost two thirds of the people benefiting from the introduction of the national living wage are women. In fact, since 2010, women have moved faster into jobs in the UK than in any other G7 country, and women’s employment rate has increased more since 2010 than during the previous three Parliaments combined.

[Margaret Greenwood]

rose—

[Harriett Baldwin]

The hon. Lady may be about to comment on this, and we live in hope that the wish of the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) that senior jobs in her party go to women will be granted soon. Does the hon. Lady welcome some of this good economic news for women?

[Margaret Greenwood]

Does the Economic Secretary share my real concern that 29% of women earn less than the living wage? That is not a success story for women—far from it.

[Harriett Baldwin]

That is exactly my point: they will be disproportionately helped by the increase in the national minimum wage through the national living wage from next year.

The motion mentions productivity, and it was also raised by the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David), who is no longer in his place. Productivity has been a long-standing issue since well before 2010, and we accept that. But rather than grandstanding, we have set out a wide-ranging productivity plan. We are delivering the infrastructure projects we need, through our infrastructure pipeline, and we have set up the national infrastructure commission to take a long-term, depoliticised approach to major projects. We have seen a recent strengthening in productivity growth. Output per hour rose by 0.9% in the last quarter, and the Office for Budget Responsibility forecasts that productivity will pick up by 1.7% next year, and 2.4% in the year after that.

The motion also questions our long-term commitment to science, technology and green growth.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

Does the Minister agree that the freezing in cash terms of money spent on science and research and development has had an impact on productivity growth and the potential for increasing productivity in the UK economy?

[Harriett Baldwin]

We agree that maintaining the science budget is incredibly important. As part of the £100 billion of infrastructure investment that we have already committed to, £6.9 billion will be going towards research infrastructure.

[Roger Mullin (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (SNP)]

If the Economic Secretary believes what she has just said about maintaining the science budget, why have the Government cut it in real terms by 10% in the past five years? They have made no commitment thus far to increase the science budget either, to such an extent that the UK is bottom in the G8 for investment in science.

[Harriett Baldwin]

The hon. Gentleman will know, and has just reiterated, that we have maintained the science budget, which has been one of the choices that we have made. We have secured £7 billion of investment per year for UK-based renewable energy projects. We are investing in major research facilities such as the new Turing Institute, the UK’s national institute for data science. Our science and innovation strategy sets out our long-term vision for the sector’s contribution to national prosperity.

[Lucy Frazer]

Does my hon. Friend welcome the comments by Sir Paul Nurse, the president of the Royal Society, who said recently that the UK is excellent on the world stage and that, in terms of effective research, we are probably top? Most people rank us second to the United States, and we lose out merely on size.

[Harriett Baldwin]

My hon. and learned Friend is right to highlight the effectiveness of our science spending. Earlier, she mentioned agri-tech, and my constituency has fantastic skills in cyber-security. Those are all important and we will continue to make sure that they are a Government priority.

[Steve McCabe]

Does the Economic Secretary accept that one of the problems is the contradictory nature of Government policy? It may well be true that they are investing in the science budget, but simultaneously—as the Coalition for a Digital Economy, or Coadec, revealed in its recent letter to the Prime Minister—they are strangling the digital industries through their immigration policy, which denies entry to tier 2 skilled workers and entrepreneurial visas to people who could boost our industries.

[Harriett Baldwin]

I welcome the opportunity to clarify that there is no cap on inter-company transfers at tier 2 or on people who will earn a substantial amount. I am aware that Tech City keeps very close tabs on this and informs me about its importance. The hon. Gentleman will welcome its continued success in attracting investment from around the world.

The motion also mentions the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills budget. I obviously cannot pre-empt what the Chancellor will say next week, but every single decision on spending has been based on our productivity plan to focus on world-beating productivity, to drive the next phase of our growth and to raise living standards.

People should never underestimate this Government’s commitment to helping British businesses and workers succeed in the global economy. We know that businesses drive growth and create jobs, and we work with them so that they continue to do so. In marked contrast, the Labour party could not get a single business even to host an event with its leader last week.

Is the economy perfect? No economy is ever perfect. We need to export more, work more productively and eliminate the gender pay gap altogether. It takes time for a country to recover from a significant economic crash, such as the one inflicted on us by the last Labour Government. But thanks to the hard work of the British people, the economy has recovered. We have more growth, more jobs and higher wages. We know that there is still much more to do, but there is no economic security, no national security and no opportunity when control of the public finances is lost. I urge hon. Members to reject the economic views of the Labour party, to reject the advice of the shadow Chancellor and to reject the motion.

14:21

[Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)]

I start by agreeing with what the shadow Chancellor said in opening his remarks—that cost should be no obstacle to providing the necessary security and intelligence to protect the people from the kind of threats that we are now seeing and that we saw in Paris. I therefore say to the Economic Secretary that if the Government wish to increase spending in those areas, there will certainly be no resistance from the SNP. I agreed with her, too, when she said that we need to cut out unnecessary and wasteful spending. I think that is absolutely right, and no one with any common sense would say that we should spend money on things that we do not need. So we will offer up a starter for 10, which is £167 billion on Trident and its replacement.

We will back the Opposition motion today. There is no doubt at all that this Tory Government and their coalition predecessor have failed, and we have seen the evidence of that failure, which I shall come on to develop. We essentially have an austerity programme from an austerity Government who have failed to deliver the growth the economy needs and are instead committed to making precisely the same mistakes all over again.

When I say that this Government have failed, we should remember precisely what the Chancellor promised when he became Chancellor in 2010. He said that debt would begin to fall as a share of GDP by 2014-15; that the current account would be in balance this year; and that public sector net borrowing would be £20 billion. We know now—many of us warned of it in the last Parliament—that debt did not fall as a share of GDP as planned; that the current account will not be back in the black until 2017-18 at the earliest; and that public sector net borrowing is not the £20 billion promised, but over three times that, at £70 billion. The key point is that the Chancellor failed to meet every single one of the targets he set for himself. In the eyes of any reasonable man or woman in the street, that is failure.

[Jeremy Quin]

The man in the street and the woman in the street have already spoken; they spoke five months ago, and they want more of the same. They want the deficit to continue to be brought down. We have halved the deficit and done so while maintaining one of the best levels of growth of any country in the G7.

[Stewart Hosie]

Growth was strangled throughout the early part of the recovery in the last Parliament. If it has picked up since, that might say more about the weakness of our major competitors than any inherent goodness or sense in the Tory plan, which, as I say, has actually failed. This is an austerity programme that saw £121 billion-worth of cuts, tax rises and discretionary consolidation in the last Parliament that strangled the recovery. With an extra £37 billion to come, we are now on track for a full decade of austerity.

It is worse than that, however. With the Government changing the ratio of tax rises to cuts from 4:1 to 9:1 during the last Parliament, we have the clearest indication not simply of failure, but of failure delivered by trying to balance the books in a way that was never going to succeed and on the backs of the poor. That is a situation that will only get worse, as the motion mentions, through changes to tax credits.

[John Stevenson (Carlisle) (Con)]

Does the hon. Gentleman not think that the creation of 2 million jobs is a success?

[Stewart Hosie]

I think that the creation of every job is welcome for the person who gets it, and I think that the creation of well-paid, permanent and secure jobs is fantastic, as those provide not only the income that families need, but the security with which to build strong and stable communities. Of course I welcome jobs as they are created, but we need to look at every single part of the economy, not simply single metrics—whether they be good or bad. The Government’s record in the round is lamentable.

I mentioned the plan to cut tax credits. Of course change may be announced next week, but few believe that the stubborn Chancellor and his Government will actually stray too far from the plans originally announced. Those plans have a quite horrendous impact on households in Scotland and throughout the UK. For many real people, real families and real communities, the erosion of household income is quite extraordinary. The average figures of £1,200 a year or £100 a month is routinely used, and it is an accurate figure, but for some households the annual loss is around £4,000 a year. [Interruption.] The Tories may find this funny, but a loss of that amount of cash implies a marginal tax rate of 90% on some of the poorest working households in the country. If the Government were to propose that, the Tory Back Benchers would be up in arms, but because they are taking what they see as benefits from poor people, it is suddenly okay, because that is the way smirking Tories always think.

[Catherine West]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that part of the problem with working tax credit cuts is that they are concentrated in certain areas, which means that there is a double effect on the local economy, where that money is no longer going into the high street or into the pockets of children and others and the poverty effect is multiplied?

[Stewart Hosie]

The scenario whereby pockets of poverty exist in communities that have been more reliant on tax credits or other benefits is well known. Of course, those communities always suffer disproportionately when this sort of cut is made, so the hon. Lady is absolutely right. That is an argument for having not simply an economic policy, but some form of regional industrial strategy that will deliver not just any old job, but good jobs in every part of the country.

The real failure of this Government’s so-called “long-term economic plan” is the absence of any real strategy to deliver inclusive growth, and that is what concerns me most. To the SNP, inclusive growth is essential if we are to narrow the inequality gap and absolutely vital to deliver the overall economic growth we need. The UK lost 9% in GDP growth between 1990 and 2010 due to rising inequality, so it is unforgivable to see the same mistake being made all over again.

Let us look at the big picture of the UK’s economic record in the Chancellor’s own words:

“We don’t export enough; we don’t train enough; we don’t save enough; we don’t invest enough; we don’t manufacture enough; we certainly don’t build enough, and far too much of the economic activity…is concentrated…in the centre of London.”

He went on to say in his Mansion House speech:

“We will tackle each and every one of these weaknesses with the same determination we have brought to tackling the deficit—and we’ll draw the whole government effort together in a single plan for productivity”.

The problem is that, on productivity, which is an essential prerequisite, very little has been done. The UK still lags behind the US, Germany, France and even Italy in GDP per hour worked. Even on a GDP per worker basis, the UK is still not competitive. The position in Scotland is broadly similar: both Scotland and the UK sit at the top for the third quartile. We should both be doing so much better than that.

The focus should be on productivity, innovation, internationalisation, and investment in infrastructure, skills and inclusive growth, which I have mentioned. To be fair, the Minister talked about investment and infrastructure. I will come back to that, however, because I am not sure whether her version of the world really matches up either to reality or to what was announced in the summer Budget. For example, on innovation, the 2014 Budget increased the amount available for research and development tax credits—which is to be welcomed—but the UK Government simultaneously reduced the qualifying expenditure.

On exports—I am glad this is back on the political agenda—the deficit in trading goods for 2014 was £124 billion. The deficit on the current account was £93 billion, up from £77 billion the year before. These numbers are all going in the wrong direction. In the Red Book, the contribution to GDP from net trade is negative for the entire forecast period. For the entire period of this Parliament, the contribution to GDP from net trade is negative in every single year. Where is the plan to actually encourage innovation and to support more companies to export and to drive up productivity?

We know that productivity requires investment. The Economic Secretary mentioned that and I said I would come back to it. In particular, we need investment in infrastructure. That is vital for the future. The Economic Secretary is right that the Chancellor and the Government have announced yet another review, but in terms of cold hard cash, capital expenditure forecasts were down for every single year in the Parliament between the spring budget and the summer Budget. That is not the way, if any Government are serious about infrastructure.

When we talk about investment to grow the economy, it is also vital to include investment in education. That will, of course, be the subject of the second debate today, but may I put on record, because it is important to this debate, our view that the Tory approach to education in England runs contrary to the investment approach needed? May I also put on record, because it is in context, my pride at what the Scottish Government have achieved: better school results, a record 119,000 full-time college places, a record 33,000 young Scots going to university, a move towards 30,000 apprenticeships every year and more children than ever from poorer backgrounds going on to further and higher education? This is the investment in education that will deliver the economic growth of the future. [Interruption.] If the Minister wants to chunter or defend the position of the Government in England, I will happily take an intervention.

Today’s motion talks about green jobs. There is much to commend an approach that supports the green economy and investment in it, because of the export potential that goes with those jobs. Like so much else, however, the Tory failure on the economy has been replicated in its approach to the green economy. We saw that with decisions on onshore wind farms, the calculation of the renewable strike price compared to nuclear, and the shorter contract length, all of which sucked investment from that important industry. We have seen it with the failure of successive UK Governments to address the inequity of connectivity charges to the grid over many years.

Any real economic plan should correct the imbalance of a £25 kW charge to connect to the grid in the north of Scotland, against a £5.20 subsidy in London to allow maximising the opportunity of investment. Indeed, the International Energy Agency has suggested that the stop-go political support for renewables is detrimental to establishing a more secure energy system, and that Governments

“must remove the question marks over renewables.”

Even the UN’s chief environment scientist highlighted the damage the UK Government’s “reckless, regressive and irrational” cuts are doing to the support that is necessary to the renewables sector.

[Catherine West]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree with the CBI, which said in a recent all-party meeting that the Government’s policy on the solar industry has severely affected investor confidence?

[Stewart Hosie]

I do agree. I thought it was telling that when the announcement in relation to onshore wind farms was made in this place to remove any support for those that had not passed every single hurdle, Tory Back Benchers were on their feet making the first attack on the solar sector as well. I agree with the hon. Lady entirely.

[Sammy Wilson]

Does the hon. Gentleman not see the contradiction, however, between some of the comments made by his own party colleagues last week when we were discussing the decline in the steel industry and the high energy prices and his support for renewables? Does he not accept that in Spain, for every one job created in the renewables industry, 2.2 jobs are lost in traditional industries?

[Stewart Hosie]

I have heard that argument before. I am not sure about its efficacy and I am not going to comment on it. On the substantive point, however, there is absolutely no contradiction at all between a general attempt to decarbonise, which is the right thing to do, and a clear recognition of the costs of high energy-using industries that are of strategic importance. There is no contradiction there whatsoever.

There is one final point of failure in the UK Government’s mismanagement of the economy: last week’s announcement of HMRC closures. If the UK Government are serious about clamping down on avoidance, evasion, fraud and even error, if they are serious about reducing the £16.5 billion tax gap from small and medium-sized enterprises, if they are serious about reducing the £14 billion tax gap from income tax, national insurance and capital gains tax, and if they are serious about maximising tax yield for investment, then closing 137 HMRC offices, including almost every single one in Scotland, is a catastrophic mistake.

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

I draw the hon. Gentleman’s attention to the Public Accounts Committee report, which said that HMRC is answering less than 50% of the calls put through to it. He, like me, is a constituency MP, so he will know that the biggest frustration for businesses is that they cannot get through to HMRC on the phone. This is a real problem for small, medium and large-sized businesses. Does he condemn the cuts to HMRC as much as I do?

[Stewart Hosie]

I absolutely condemn them. That point is extremely well made. Most individuals and businesses want to be honest. They want to pay their tax. They want to go to a counter, face to face, to make sure everything is absolutely as it should be and then pay the bill. If less than half the calls are being answered now, it will only get worse. Given that in Scotland there will be no face-to-face point of contact north of Edinburgh and Glasgow—Dundee, Aberdeen, Inverness and the whole of the highlands—or south of Edinburgh and Glasgow, including the whole of the borders, this is an idiotic and counterproductive thing to do.

What are the Tories’ plans all about? As the shadow Chancellor hinted, it is ideological to insist, as the Chancellor has done, that the economy not simply breaks even but runs a current surplus hitting £40 billion by 2019-20. It is economically foolish. To do that by delivering additional welfare cuts totalling £33 billion in this Parliament, alongside £5 billion of cuts to essential capital investment—announced in the summer Budget—is, frankly, vindictive, nasty and counterproductive. In short, to cut £40 billion more than is necessary to run a balanced current budget, with almost all of it paid for by punishing the poorest and stripping the capital budget by another £5 billion, is a policy we reject. It is a policy we have already seen fail. It is most certainly a policy the people of Scotland did not vote for.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)]

Order. Before I call the next hon. Member to speak, I am going to start by imposing a five-minute limit on speeches. That may have to come down if there are too many interventions, but right now, to get all hon. Members in, the limit will be five minutes.

14:39

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

The core message in the motion is that the Government have somehow failed to stand up for working people. I must tell the Opposition, with respect, that that message is misconceived.

Let us look at the context. The position in 2010, as we recall it, was that this country was staring into the abyss. Make no mistake: borrowing was over £150 billion a year. What does that mean, in concrete terms? We were bringing in about £600 billion, but we were spending £750 billion. It is perfectly true to say, as was said by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), that the crisis came and therefore the deficit became larger, but it should not be forgotten that on the eve of the crisis—as was pointed out by the Institute for Fiscal Studies—this country had one of the largest structural deficits in the developed world. That made us vulnerable, and it meant that when the crisis hit, the cupboard was bare. The point has been made—and it bears re-emphasis—that there can be no economic security, no national security and no opportunity when a country loses control of its public finances, and this country did that spectacularly in 2010.

The hon. Gentleman may not be interested in those figures, but the truth is that unemployment was up—unemployment, which has an impact on working people’s lives—and youth unemployment was up. What has happened since then, during the period in which the hon. Gentleman would have us believe the economy has gone to hell in a handcart? Well, last year more jobs were created in Yorkshire alone than were created in the whole of France, more jobs were created for young people in this country than in the rest of the European Union put together, and there were more women in jobs than ever before. Since 2010, 2,000 jobs have been created each day. That matters, because jobs bring dignity, self-worth and fulfilment. But if the hon. Gentleman is not interested even in jobs, what about living standards? Well, living standards are up as well: we are better off by £900 per household than we were in 2010.

There is also a suggestion that our growth is anaemic by comparison with that of other countries. How can that possibly be the case, when it is recognised that ours has been the fastest-growing major developed economy in the world, together with that of the United States? That is an achievement of which—I hope—Members on both sides of the House can be proud, because it is by securing that stability, that growth and that prosperity that we assist the most vulnerable in our society.

We recognise, of course, that there is more to do, but when the hon. Gentleman makes the point that the deficit is not closed—which he is perfectly entitled to do—the response should not be, “Let us widen it and make it bigger.” Instead, we should ask what we can do, in a constructive, sensible and, dare I say it, patriotic way, to close that deficit and thus secure our resilience. If we do not have a resilient economy and put money aside for a rainy day, we shall not be in a good position to weather the storm when it hits, as hit it will. The time will come when there is a global downturn, because that is the nature of events, but we must be prepared to weather it. I am sorry to say that the policies of the hon. Gentleman—if, indeed, there are any—seem to take us nowhere towards achieving that resilience.

Today we have a deficit of some £70 billion, which is not an inconsiderable figure: it is about double the defence budget. [Interruption.] I hear noises off from Opposition Members. On the one hand they say that the deficit is too large, and on the other hand they say, “Let us make it larger still.”

[Suella Fernandes]

I echo the point that my hon. Friend is making. The only way we can get to grips with debt is by tackling the deficit, and, thanks to the difficult decisions made by this Government, we have already cut it by more than half. As my hon. Friend says, there is more to do, but that is why we must carry on with the plan and finish the job.

[Alex Chalk]

I entirely agree. We must carry on in a way that is proportionate—of course—and fair—of course—but which focuses, ultimately, on the prize that is living within our means. I am sorry to say that Labour Members do not seem to be ready to adopt that approach, not least because they opposed the cap on welfare. In an article published in New Statesman in March, the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington said that he would avoid any cuts whatsoever, and that—as we have heard again today—he thought that running a surplus was “barmy”.

I believe that there is an issue not just for our times, but for future times. There is an issue of generational justice, because we owe it to the next generation to bequeath to them an economy that can pay its way. Make no mistake: someone born this week—a young lady, say—will knock on the door of the state in 30 years’ time, having been turfed out of her home by an abusive husband, and will ask for help. It is up to this generation to ensure that we have not left the cupboard bare; otherwise, what will that young lady say to us in 30 years’ time? “She will ask, “Why didn’t you deal with the problem then?”, and if we answer, “Well, it was all too difficult”, that will be no answer at all.

Let me say again, respectfully, that the motion is misconceived, and lacks credibility. It is our duty to our country and the future to have a stable economy, and the motion should be roundly rejected.

14:45

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

Let me begin by responding to what was said about the deficit by the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk). We should judge the Conservatives by their own record. In 2010, the Chancellor said that he would get rid of the deficit in one term; that target rapidly disappeared. He then said that he would halve the deficit in one term, a plan that was clearly shown to have failed when it was down by only a third at the time of the election. He then moved the target to 2019, and then to 2020. When it suits him, the Chancellor changes his mind and his measure as much as he can on the deficit, so it is clearly not as important as Conservative Members claim.

[Jeremy Quin]

Surely the hon. Gentleman welcomes the flexibility shown by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. After all, Opposition Members are always asking him to show flexibility. He makes certain that he stays on course and we get to the right place. The deficit has been halved to date, and that will continue, but it is happening in a measured and effective way.

[Bill Esterson]

Of course we need to get rid of the deficit so that we can start reducing the debt, but it must be done in a way that is sustainable, and that can only happen if we grow the economy.

The Government have presided over the slowest recovery on record. Tax receipts are an indicator of the health and productivity—[Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)]

Order. A conversation is taking place across the two Front Benches while a Member is speaking. Let us listen to him.

[Bill Esterson]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

As I was saying, the Government have presided over the slowest recovery on record. Tax receipts are an indicator of the health and productivity of the economy, and they fell as a result of the financial crisis. In the United States, Germany, France and Canada, they had returned to pre-crisis levels by 2013, while in the United Kingdom they remained 15% below those levels.

Meanwhile, the Tories have claimed that the financial crisis was the result of public spending—the result of recruiting nurses and doctors, and building new schools and hospitals. In fact, spending in this country was below the average among similar advanced western economies. The crisis was caused by an actual financial crisis, not by Government spending. The fact that the current Chancellor supported Labour spending plans before the crisis says what needs to be said about the claims that have been made ever since. Conservative Members know that the crisis was a financial one, not a Government one. They also know that the Chancellor was calling for less regulation of the banks, not more, in the run-up to that same crisis.

The fact is that in 2010 we had half the level of unemployment, half the number of home repossessions, and half the number of business bankruptcies that we saw during the Tory recessions of the 1980s and 1990s, precisely because the Labour Government intervened to support and protect people, businesses and jobs. The economy was recovering strongly in 2010 as a result of the stimulus injected by that Government, but it came to a juddering halt with the emergency Budget of June 2010, when investment in capital infrastructure projects was stopped. In 2010, other countries continued their stimulus package for far longer, and businesses, jobs and the wider economies of those countries saw the benefits.

So what should happen now? Let us look at what businesses say. They say that they want to see investment in infrastructure, energy, transport, broadband and, especially, skills. They say that they need those skills so that they can grow and pay good wages. That is what the CBI says, it is what the EEF says, and it is what the Federation of Small Businesses says. When businesses want to grow, they invest. They understand the need to invest in new equipment, property and skills. They develop a business plan. They invest capital and pay it back from the proceeds of growth. Households do something similar, whether through student loans to invest in skills or borrowing money to buy a house; they invest for the future. We take out a mortgage typically over about 25 years and the bank or building society works out whether we can afford the interest payments and the capital repayment over the term of the mortgage. Government should invest in the future, just as business does, and just as homeowners do.

The lack of an industrial strategy is clear in how the steel industry has been abandoned. The Government do not seem to believe in having a business plan for the economy at all. They do not believe in investing for the long term or in following the good practice of businesses in seeking a return on investment in the form of growth and increased tax receipts as the way to higher living standards and deficit reduction. The Government say that they will not borrow money at all and won a vote in this House to confirm their view. The Chancellor used to say that fiscal responsibility charters were the mark of a lack of confidence in a Government’s own policies; not any more, however, because they forced that through the House. The “fiscal irresponsibility charter”, as it is better known, is the equivalent of the Government saying that if they were a householder they would not take out a mortgage to buy a home and they would have to buy a house out of their annual salary. If this Government ran a business, they would not take out a loan to buy a new van or a new piece of machinery.

The Government have signed deals with the Chinese Government to build and run our new nuclear industry. They are happy for foreign Governments to invest in this country, but not for our own to do so. That is a strange way to do business, because in the end these sums of money will have to be repaid, it seems, through much higher energy prices paid by those very same people the Government say they worry about in terms of the deficit. This is a Chinese form of private finance initiative by any other name.

Let us have a debate about borrowing, the best value for money and the best way of investing in the future of this country. Let us not rely on a charter that is economically illiterate and undermines economic success and prosperity.

14:52

[Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)]

As a fan of “Yes, Minister”, I shall start by congratulating the Opposition on their brave decision to choose this subject; given the Labour party’s abysmal record in this area, that is perhaps courage verging on chutzpah.

In May, voters in a majority of constituencies around the country endorsed the difficult decisions taken by the previous coalition Government to get the economy back on track, and placed their faith in the Conservative party to secure the economy and to take the further difficult decisions in a fair way to secure that recovery.

It is disappointing that the Opposition motion omits the real progress that has been made over the past five years in improving people’s opportunities and giving a brighter outlook for working people in Britain. We have 2 million more people now in work; that is many, many more families with the security of a job and a steady income. We have secured 2 million more apprenticeships since 2010, with 3 million planned for this Parliament, meaning that ever more young people will have the skills that they need for future work. The Government are also doubling free childcare to 30 hours a week and introducing the national living wage.

[David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)]

Earlier in the debate, the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) was quick to say that the £9 national living wage was inadequate, but did not point out that the Labour manifesto set a target of only £8. Did my hon. Friend find that outrageous?

[Mike Wood]

I certainly did not find it surprising. As we knew at the time of the election, the £8 that the Opposition were proposing was probably lower than the minimum wage was scheduled to be by 2020 anyway, but the additional national living wage will mean a real increase in the incomes of the lowest paid families in Britain.

I am sure many of us remember the times when those on the Opposition Front Bench were making funny hand gestures to indicate that somehow the economy was flatlining. They are not doing that so much any longer, because the only thing that is now flat is inflation. With inflation at close—

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mike Wood]

I had better continue, as a number of Members wish to speak.

With inflation close to, or even under, 0%, the household budgets of families in my constituency and elsewhere in the country are going further, meaning further security. This benefits the whole country, including my constituents in Dudley South.

I represent a west midlands constituency and I have in the past heard many people in Dudley South say that it has seemed that the midlands has been ignored. It certainly felt like that under the last Labour Government. For every 10 private sector jobs created in London and the south, only one was created in the midlands and the north. There was no hope for millions left languishing on benefits; in fact, many people on certain benefits were, sadly, more likely to stop claiming those benefits because they had died than because they had found a job that meant they no longer qualified for them. That was unacceptable, and the action taken by this Government has meant that has been turned around, so people can have more hope and better opportunities.

The Economic Secretary rightly said that the country has faced low productivity for many years. I hope we would all agree that the key to tackling the productivity gap is rebalancing the economy so that it is not over-reliant on any one region. The Government’s devolution and cities agenda is essential to unlocking the full potential of the whole country and closing that productivity gap.

I was delighted that only yesterday the Chancellor and the Business Secretary were in the west midlands announcing a new £1 billion devolution deal—a devolution revolution that will mean the west midlands has the budgets and powers to make a real difference for people in the county and can tackle the productivity challenge and the skills gap that has held it back for many decades. That should be commended, rather than prompting the condemnatory motion tabled by the Opposition. This is not just about creating jobs; it is about hopes and opportunity, and that is why I will be opposing this motion.

14:58

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

The Chancellor is known for being a very political operator. Economic historians will pay tribute to the manner in which, following the 2010 election, he successfully framed the economic debate by focusing on the deficit. This enabled the Conservative party to challenge the economic competence of its predecessors while also allowing it the political space to pursue its ideological obsession with reducing the size of the state. The Chancellor has endeavoured to portray the economic recovery as one made in No. 11 Downing street. This ignores the fact that the last recession was the longest in economic history and was most certainly exacerbated by the deep contraction in public spending at the beginning of the last Parliament.

What is often conveniently ignored in debates such as this is the role of monetary policy. As I have said in the past, the UK economy continues to be on the life support of ultra-loose monetary policy. Central bank interest rates continue to be at an historically low level of 0.5% and the economy has been kept afloat with £375 billion-worth of quantitative easing. One of the perverse side-effects of QE has been to increase wealth inequalities as assets increase in value, a theme I will return to later. Monetary policy by the central bank filled the void left by the Treasury’s fiscal cuts, but it has led to a greater imbalance in the UK economy, where economic performance is now even more reliant on consumer spending, as opposed to public investment, exports and business investment. According to the House of Commons Library, household consumption now accounts for over 60% of the UK economy, and it should be an urgent Treasury priority to rebalance and boost business investment and exports.

The Bank for International Settlements—or, to give it its other name, the central bank of central banks—has warned that the danger with the current ultra-loose monetary policy is that the western economies will become hooked on low interest rates and that any normalisation will lead to significant economic headwinds. In other words, there is a danger that the abnormal in monetary policy will become the new norm. The obvious consequence, if there is no normalisation of monetary policy, is that the central bank will be impotent when the next downturn comes. Let us remember that, since the second world war, the average economic cycle has lasted between seven and 10 years, which means that we might be due another downturn very soon.

[Jeremy Quin]

I am not certain what the hon. Gentleman is asking for. Is he suggesting that we should be hiking interest rates now? No one likes the extent of unconventional monetary policy, but hiking interest rates would come as a shock to many.

[Jonathan Edwards]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, because I was about to make the point that the Treasury needs to be very careful with our fiscal policy.

A study by Credit Suisse shows that since the turn of the century the UK has been alone among the G7 members in seeing its wealth inequality grow. Even the International Monetary Fund argues that reducing wealth inequalities is a key economic growth strategy. Unfortunately, the recent Budget, with its assault on tax credits, is likely to lead to an increase in income inequalities and wealth inequalities. Considering the pressure faced by the public finances and the cuts being imposed on support for the poorest in society, we oppose the intention to end inheritance tax on family homes worth up to £1 million. Inheritance tax raised more than £4 billion in 2015-16 and it should be an important element of a more balanced approach to fiscal consolidation, as opposed to the Tory obsession with cuts. The decision to scrap maintenance grants for the poorest students at the same time as introducing the regressive changes to inheritance tax will not solve the major social mobility problems in the UK.

The Chancellor has eased what the Office for Budget Responsibility had described as a “rollercoaster” fiscal policy, whereby cuts would be front-loaded, with a spending splurge at the end of the political cycle. However, spending on public services by the end of this Parliament as a percentage of GDP will be at its lowest level since 1964-65, according to the OBR.

The economy faces several major challenges. The first involves the grotesque geographical wealth inequalities within the British state and the over-reliance on London and the south-east of England. This problem has built up under successive Governments, to the degree that the UK is now by far the most unequal state in the European Union. Regrettably, the communities I represent are at the bottom of the pile. To be fair, the current UK Government at least acknowledge that there is an issue. Their response has been to devolve significant taxation powers to Northern Ireland and Scotland, which have received powers over corporation tax and full income tax powers respectively. Significant powers are also being devolved to English city regions.

In the case of Wales, however, we are getting minor taxes and an income tax sharing arrangement pending a referendum many years down the line. The key question that the UK Government need to answer is this: what economic disadvantage do they envisage Wales facing as a result of our second-class settlement? Direct economic control from Westminster is clearly failing my country. We deserve equal respect with the other constituent parts of the UK and we need the same job creation levers that are being devolved elsewhere.

Secondly, the UK faces major challenges in relation to chronic levels of business investment and productivity. The Treasury Budget briefing note itself acknowledges that business investment levels in the UK are the worst of all major economies apart from Italy. To address this, the Treasury needs to return infrastructure investment to pre-recession levels, as advocated by the IMF. That would equate to around an extra 1% of GDP—£19 billion of extra investment across the UK with a share for Wales of around £1 billion. That is what we will be looking for when the Chancellor stands up next week to deliver his comprehensive spending review in his autumn statement.

15:04

[Mims Davies (Eastleigh) (Con)]

I am delighted to speak on the record from the Government side of the House on our growing economy. I oppose the motion.

More than 2.1 million more people are now in work, and income tax has been cut for 27 million people. Those are numbers that fall easily from the lips, but they have been much harder to achieve. In addition, 3.8 million people have been taken out of tax altogether. The state pension has been increased by £950 since 2010, and more than 120,000 families now have a home to call their own as a result of our Help to Buy scheme. Many Members have mentioned apprenticeships, and more than 2.3 million have been created since 2010. This Government have a proud record. It has been a good news story for me locally, and I congratulate Eastleigh college on its leading role in delivering those apprenticeships locally. I also want to thank all the businesses and companies that are part of the apprenticeship revolution.

In many ways, this economic revival has been hard won, against the best efforts of the Opposition to block any progress. We have cut fuel duty, and by the end of 2016 it will have remained frozen for five years. That puts more money in the motorist’s pocket for the school run and for getting to work. It is also saving our hauliers money, keeping people in jobs and keeping our economy growing.

This Government’s economic success represents the building blocks, but of course more needs to be done. We are proud of what we have achieved, but in each constituency we can all look to the extra measures and steps that we can take to move forward. Unemployment in Eastleigh is down by 199 people since this time last year and there are 45 fewer younger claimants. Those are numbers, but they are also people who now have a regular pay packet and the positivity and stability that work brings. That means a move from dependence to independence. Paying people to go away and not helping them to thrive is cruel and unacceptable. We are proud to be bringing in the national living wage, which is forecast to be more than £9 by 2020. This shows that we are the true party of the workers. It is wrong that we in Britain spend more on family benefits than do Germany, France or Sweden, with 7% of the world’s welfare spending. That needs controlling.

There are blocks on our economy that we need to address. In Eastleigh, our local council is failing to provide a local plan that would help to deliver strategic progression and economic development in our area. Instead of a strong plan for delivering houses and helping our local economy, we have been left with piecemeal, hostile planning applications. The council is not seizing the opportunities that localism has been bringing to Eastleigh and, sadly, those powerful tools are not being used. The Liberal-led local council lacks a brownfield-first focus. It also lacks a local town centre focus, and some businesses have approached me to express concern for their future.

I am looking forward to an important event in the local calendar this weekend: the switching on of the Christmas lights. The event is important in promoting local shopping and encouraging people to think local, act local and play a part in the local economy. I hope to come back with some full shopping bags.

We need to continue to push for the infrastructure projects that affect all our constituencies. This will help with our productivity. Locally, I have clogged roads and poor east-west rail links. There is also a lack of by-passes in Eastleigh. However, I am working with the local enterprise partnership and we are battling for an enterprise zone to support Eastleigh and Southampton airport and bring in much needed infrastructure. The Government also need to focus on how we can level the playing field for carers and parents who are coming back into the workplace. I have been encouraged by my meetings with Ministers to discuss that subject.

We have heard today that, without a strong economy, we will not be able to deliver the police and security services we need, or to react to the troubled times in which we find ourselves, here and abroad. There is a great need to succeed economically so that this Government can continue to do their job in keeping us safe. I conclude by saying again that I oppose the motion.

15:09

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

First, may I apologise to the House for having to leave the debate halfway through to attend a meeting, Madam Deputy Speaker?

I wish to use this debate to talk about my community. Teesside and East Cleveland have suffered huge economic challenges since mid-September. I have tried to use other tools within the House to raise this before, but the situation in Paris at the weekend meant that it was right and proper that that took precedence. This, however, still needs to be put on the record: 2,000 direct jobs have been lost at SSI-Teesside Cast Products in Redcar—a plant I know very well as a former trade union officer there—following its liquidation, with 900 jobs lost downstream; 700 jobs have been lost at Air Products; 70 jobs have been lost at Johnson Matthey; 200 jobs have been lost at Caparo, Hartlepool; 300 have gone at the Tees tax office; and last Thursday it was announced that 350 jobs are to go at Boulby potash in my constituency, with another 350 following that—that represents three quarters of the workforce there, and all of them are miners, so these are well-paid jobs. By any estimation, those statistics are truly dreadful. The direct impact on local people puts them in jeopardy, with their families and friends profoundly affected. It is hard to give proper representation to every single one of those people because of the massive effects on them. I know SSI steelworkers whose partners and sons worked at Boulby potash, and their ability to earn has been completely destroyed.

Those redundancies and potential redundancies are primarily in the private sector and are industrial. I cannot overstate the feeling of abandonment that my communities feel in the face of this onslaught. The all-party group on steel and metal related industry has for a long time made the five industrial asks, but they remain unanswered. I have written to the Chancellor demanding a response on those industrial asks in the affirmative to help not only the steel industry, but all energy-intensive industries. We know that the previous coalition Government reduced the carbon capture and storage programmes from four down to one. I have also written to the Chancellor about that in relation to the Teesside Collective, and my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) raised the issue in Prime Minister’s questions today. We are trying to turn this negative into an opportunity—to seize this bad publicity about industry in our area—and have a profound impact within the Tees economy by giving the Teesside Collective prime candidacy in terms of carbon capture and storage. I believe, and industrialists in the area know there is a means by which, we can not only revive steelmaking, but give a renaissance to process industries in the area if we have a state that is directly involved and provides a CCS scheme there. It has been four weeks since the steel summit and none of the asks by industry, the unions or MPs has been properly responded to.

One of those asks is about the profound issue of Chinese dumping. Some 94% of all Chinese steel that enters the EU enters the UK. There is something seriously wrong with that. We as an individual state can take action and there are lessons for us both within the European Union and with our partner nations and allies; we could act not only protectively together, but as an individual state. That means having a Government who are proactive about trade defence. I cannot go into that now because of time constraints, but the Government should take it far more seriously.

Another big issue is our need for cheaper energy, and we should be supporting coal gasification. The Tees area is right next to the Durham coalfields and there are years and years, if not decades, of coal still under there which can be gasified. That syngas is 50% cheaper than conventional gas. Make no mistake: the United States will turn off the tap of the current shale gas exports we receive at the moment. The only reason we get that gas is because the US does not have enough container vessels to contains its own shale gas. When it does, that tap will be turned off, which will have profound effects on our economy and our ability to keep the lights on. We should be using that syngas to prioritise the steel industry and other manufacturing.

We have also seen our economy exposed to the Chinese economy, with the relevant figure being $500 billion. In terms of steel, energy-intensive industries and manufacturing, China cannot, with its current subsidised practices, get market status from the EU. Ministers need to raise this issue over and over again: market status for China would end the conversation about whether we can maintain our manufacturing whatsoever.

Finally, let me make a point about defence. Unless this country looks at renewing the four Trident boats, there will be no viable way of saving the Dalzell steel site.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)]

Order. I am sorry, but before I call the next speaker I am going to have to drop the speech limit to four minutes.

15:14

[Luke Hall (Thornbury and Yate) (Con)]

First, I wish to associate myself with the call made by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mims Davies) for people to shop locally. Before coming to this House, I worked in retail from the age of 16, so I would say to people that the next time they are in south Gloucestershire, they should go to the high streets in Chipping Sodbury or Thornbury, which are two of the most beautiful in the UK.

I also wish to clarify a point. It was said earlier that the deficit was cut by just a third before the election, not a half, but figures released by the Office for National Statistics on 22 September demonstrate that public sector net borrowing fell between 2009-10 and 2014-15 from 10.2% to 5%, which is a fall of more than half in the last Parliament.

Managing a country’s finances and responsibly managing taxpayers’ money is one of the most important tasks of any Government. When the Government came to power in 2010, the country was borrowing more than £150 billion a year and unemployment had increased by nearly half a million. We had the second biggest structural deficit of any advanced economy. There have been some huge achievements over the past six years: as I have said, the deficit is down by more than half; there are over 900,000 more businesses, which have contributed to creating 2.5 million more private sector jobs; employment is up by over 2.1 million ; there are more women in work than ever before; unemployment in my constituency is down by over 60%; and there are more women in work there than ever before, too. But the job is not done, and I urge the Minister to remind this House that there is more to do.

There are risks in the global economy that are threatening this country. I urge the Minister to stick to the plan and principles that have got us this far. I want to see those 2 million more jobs delivered, so that unemployment in my constituency can continue to fall. I want to see the 3 million more apprenticeships delivered, so that South Gloucestershire and Stroud College in my constituency can continue the excellent work it is doing by training more apprentices. I want to see taxes cut so that when those young people start apprenticeships or go into work they will be keeping more of their own money. I want to see us reform welfare, so that we can assure those young people that work always pays. I do not want to explain to my children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren why my generation has burdened them with more debt than they can ever hope to repay.

Positive economic news has continued to come in the past few weeks. The OECD has forecast that we will be the joint-fastest-growing major advanced economy this year. The CBI has forecast that the UK economy will grow by 2.4%. The UK’s trade deficit narrowed in September, construction grew in October and manufacturing growth accelerated in October. A World Bank report has ranked the UK sixth for “ease of doing business”, so we are up two places from last year. I know that there will be more difficult decisions to come in the years ahead, but this Government will work tirelessly to continue to tackle them. It is clear from what we have seen over the past five years that markets, manufacturers and businesses around our country and in my constituency have confidence in this Government. I congratulate the Government on their fiscal management and policy, and ask that we plough ahead with our long-term economic plan.

15:18

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

It is interesting to hear speeches in this House. Since I was elected five years ago, I have been hearing the same thing from Conservative Members. The word “conservative” means to preserve a way of life. The Conservatives live in the past, they look back to the past and they are trying to preserve it, but the old certainties have changed. Globalisation is here to stay. Whether we like it or not, the way people go about their daily lives has changed for ever. Nobody will have a job for life any more. People will work in the same job all day and then come home to trade on Gumtree, eBay or Amazon. They will not see themselves as entrepreneurs but they will live an entrepreneurial life. It is up to Government to ensure that people can achieve their opportunities and ambitions.

The No.1 problem that anybody has in this country, whether or not they go to work, and whether or not they are in high-intensive industries, is climate change. Today’s motion is actually talking about green industry. Green technology is the last best chance for this country. Highly labour-intensive jobs go where cheap labour is, and that is not here. That is why we must invest in green technology.

As is often the case, it is America that is providing the most innovative solutions. In 2006, the Californian Global Warming Solutions Act set some of the most ambitious targets for carbon reduction anywhere in the world. Emissions were to be reduced by 30% by 2020 and by 80% by 2050. It was not just the targets that mattered, because the Californian Government attacked greenhouse gases from every angle—from industry, cars, households, cities, motorways and even farms. The law impacted on them all and provided the base on which to reduce emissions. We often talk about how Government action can only go so far, and that is true, but the Global Warming Solutions Act not only changed the approach of Government, but shifted the market.

California is one of the most polluting and car-crazed cultures in the world. Its most popular car for two years running was the Toyota Prius, which lost its crown last year to another hybrid, the Honda Accord. The California example is one the UK must begin to follow. It is a fallacy to say that there is a trade-off between tackling climate change and economic growth. The Act aimed—and it is succeeding—to create a whole new clean-tech industry. It created jobs, developed cutting-edge technology, supported established companies and helped entrepreneurs.

Nearly 10 years on from the passing of that Act, California has become the developed world’s second least carbon-intensive economy. For every dollar of goods and services, it emits less carbon than any nation except France. California is a living example of what research tells us to be true—that we can tackle climate change and dramatically boost our economy.

In 2011, Google.org compared a “business as usual approach” to the American economy pursuing a clean-tech approach. The report found that such a shift would do the following: grow the economy by $244 billion a year; create 1.9 million jobs; save consumers nearly $1,000 a year; and reduce total US greenhouse gas emissions by 21% before 2030 and by 63% by 2050. We have the ultimate opportunity to develop a carbon-neutral economy that creates jobs.

In my final 30 seconds I wish to focus on graphene. It was developed by British scientists, but it is the Chinese and Americans who are forging ahead with it. Of the patents on it, 24% come from either China or America. Only 1% comes from Britain. We must encourage our firms to ensure that when we make breakthroughs such as that, they have every opportunity to develop them for commercial purposes. That is the point that I really want to make to the Government.

15:22

[David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)]

In the light of the disgraceful and shocking attacks in Paris, there have been calls from our constituents and from Members for the Government to spend more money on policing and security. Those calls are perfectly understandable. As someone who has spent nine years working as a special constable in the United Kingdom, I have enormous respect for the work of the police and for the role that they play in combating terrorism. None the less, it would be a huge mistake to think that we can increase our security on the back of borrowed money. The lessons of history tell us, over and again, that that would be a mistake.

Let us look back at a few examples in recent history. A nation that has an unsound economy is unable to project itself militarily, to guarantee its own existence and to guarantee the security of its borders. Suez is perhaps seen as the last military defeat for the United Kingdom. However, it was not a military defeat at all, but an economic defeat. We were unable to continue in Suez—I make no comment as to whether we were right or wrong to be there—because our nation, already mired in debt as a result of the second world war, could not secure further borrowing from the IMF, as the Americans were threatening to devalue our economy.

The history of the DDR— Deutsche Demokratische Republik—is something that has always been of interest to me, because of my wife’s eastern European nationality. The writing was on the wall for the Communist bloc and for East Germany in the early 1980s, although nobody saw it coming, when the East Germans had to go off and negotiate emergency borrowing from their competitors and their apparent enemy, West Germany. Anyone could have seen what was eventually going to happen as a result of that.

A few years ago, when I was on the Council of Europe with my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch and Upminster (Dame Angela Watkinson), I went to visit Greece and was shocked by the state of the economy and the impact that it had had on its border control. It has lost complete and utter control of its borders, because its economy is in ruins. I am sure that I do not need to remind the Government of that. It is vital that we continue in the direction that we are going to reduce our dependency on borrowed money. When we came into power, we were borrowing £160 billion. As we know, that figure is down to about £70 billion. It is still too high but it is going in the right direction. I very much hope that, despite the challenges that we face, we will be able to protect police funding to as great an extent as possible.

I very much welcome the Government’s announcement that there will be thousands of extra people recruited into the intelligence agencies. I know that the Government understand the pressures that the police are under and that they will be looking at how we can get more police officers on the streets without spending extra money. I am talking about cutting bureaucracy around things such as the stop and search forms. I would be very happy to give a few suggestions of my own as well.

The fact of the matter is that our long-term economic plan is not just about raising living standards for people in this country or controlling inflation and increasing growth, but about underpinning the long-term security of everyone in this nation.

15:25

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is always a hilarious pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies). I am very sorry that the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin), who is so brightly coloured in her UKIP blazer, has left the Chamber after giving her black and white comedy speech. A part of that speech was about how Labour has caused the problems and misery of the current day, but that is completely false. In fact, in the 10 years to 2008 under Labour, the economy grew by 40%, which is why we could double the size of the health service and the education service and lift millions of people out of poverty.

In 2008, we saw the financial crisis caused by the bankers and the sub-prime debt crisis. The then Labour Government under Gordon Brown along with Barack Obama provided a fiscal stimulus that got us back to growth by 2010. The key strategic issue in this debate is the balance between growth and cuts to get down the deficit. Labour errs on the side of growth, and George Osborne, when he arrived in 2010, decided to revert to cuts—I am talking about half a million job cuts. People stopped spending and we have had flatlining growth until relatively recently. What that has meant is that, while we have had more jobs, the overall production per job has gone down.

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

Does the hon. Gentleman not recognise that, in 2008, the UK was in the deepest recession that it had been in since the second world war, and that we are now the fastest growing economy in the G7? Will he acknowledge those facts today?

[Geraint Davies]

The fact that I do recognise is that, when we left office in 2010, debt as a percentage of GDP was 55%, and now it is 80%. The Labour party borrowed less in 13 years than the Conservatives have in five years. There has been a complete failure to invest in strategic growth, productivity, and wealth creation. Instead, debt has been used as a cover to attack the welfare state and public services, which are part of the public-private partnership on which Britain relies.

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

I do not know what planet the hon. Gentleman is on. I was a mortgage broker who was running a business leading up to the crunch. I can safely say that the Financial Services Authority, which was created by Gordon Brown in May 1997, completely and utterly failed to regulate the banks. He cannot just walk away from responsibility. Labour has massive culpability for the unsustainable nature of the boom that led up to the massive crash in 2008.

[Geraint Davies]

The Labour party’s spending plans were all agreed to by the Conservatives. We introduced regulation through the FSA and greater freedom for the Bank of England. The Conservatives opposed greater regulation, yet the lack of regulation led to the awful situation we are in now.

Returning to the current, ridiculous attempt to reduce the deficit and the debt by cutting tax credits, the fact is that, in simple terms, poor people spend all their money in the economy, whereas rich people tend to save it, often offshore. Robbing 3 million people of £1,300 to try to balance the books will therefore massively undermine regional economies, when we already have regional imbalances. Taking money from people who would spend it and giving it to those who will not, through changes to inheritance tax, is economically loopy and, in my view, quite wrong morally. Rather than lifting millions of people out of poverty, we are thrusting millions into poverty, in particular the extra 400,000 children who will be put into poverty.

Tax credits are an American instrument to encourage people to work. They are targeted at working families, so that people with children, who have greater needs, can afford to work. If you ran a business, Madam Deputy Speaker, and you could only afford to pay £10,000 to employ someone and make it viable, and if they needed £15,000 and the difference was made up by the Government, we would end up with a job and a viable business. If we withdraw tax credits, we destroy small businesses, destroy incomes, impoverish families and generate inter-generational poverty. It is disgraceful and quite wrong.

The situation with housing benefit is also ridiculous. Seventy per cent of the growth in housing benefit has been paid into private sector rents. Why? It is because the Government have not built enough social housing. Instead of building more social housing, they are basically selling it off to give the right to buy in housing associations. That is not the way forward.

As for procurement, with HS2 construction we are giving something like a £50 billion contract to the Chinese. If a British consortium had, for example, a £55 billion contract, it would pay corporation tax, income tax and national insurance and would have local supply chains and build capacity in Britain—our steel would be going into the construction, rather than Chinese steel. Why have the Government failed to demand carbon tariffs on the cheap steel coming from China, which is produced more cheaply because China does not have the environmental controls that we demand in Britain?

We need more investment in city regions such as Swansea Bay city region, where the local authorities, industry and universities are working together. If we are going to have a national tax hub for Wales, which I am against, why is it being put in Cardiff, which can look after itself? It should be in Swansea Bay city region, a more deprived area. In terms of the trade deficit—[Interruption.] The point is that, as with the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency put in Swansea, if the Government can use the investment as an instrument of economic power, they should do so to help relatively deprived areas, not just London and the south-east.

The trade deficit is a massive 5%. We need to think more about emerging massive markets, such as China and India, whose middle classes are approaching 20%. Why are we not actively engaging to unite the creative and manufacturing industries to provide high-value products that we can sell in those markets, rather than moaning that we cannot produce spoons any more?

We also need to have an eye towards the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership—obviously people will have heard of the free trade agreement with America—as well as the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement with Canada, CETA, which is coming immediately. People are barricading the front door because of TTIP, while CETA is going through the back door—and will give companies powers to fine democratically elected Governments if we pass laws that impact on their future profits. We need to sort that out, but we also need to ensure that TTIP works towards a sustainable future for the world. My hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans) mentioned global warming, and unless we embrace the need to ensure human rights, workers’ rights and sustainable development within the constraints of TTIP, which will be the blueprint for global trading, we will not have a sustainable world or a sustainable economy.

We need to think more clearly about growth in a focused way, rather than always looking to cut things. As a constituent in Swansea said to me, if a company is making a loss, it has two options: sack the workers and sell the tools, or invest in growth, productivity and products. That is the focus of the Labour party.

15:33

[Suella Fernandes (Fareham) (Con)]

There are three main points that I wish to make about the motion. First, it is frankly absurd and reflects an Opposition who are totally out of step with the vast majority of the British people. I say that because its principles were robustly tested at the last general election in May and unequivocally rejected by the British people. The Labour party lacked all credibility on managing the economy and its proposals in May failed to persuade the country otherwise. Today we are simply seeing a defiant continuation of those principles and that attitude. Nothing has changed. Labour Members do not seem to have learned anything from the result in May. Instead, their approach has become increasingly intransigent.

The British people’s lack of confidence in Labour reflects the economic situation it left the country in 2010, including a record budget deficit. At 10.2% of GDP, public sector borrowing was at its highest since records began—£1 in every £4 spent by Government was borrowed. On welfare, Labour left us with a benefits system that was so complicated that some people saw no point in working, because they would lose more in benefits than they would earn in work. Who pays the bill for welfare spending? It is the hard-working men and women of Britain. In Labour’s last term in office, unemployment increased by about 1 million. The number of households with no one in work almost doubled. That is a shameful record for a party called Labour. That is the past and those are the facts, and that is why the British public did not trust Labour with the economy.

The motion has no substance. The picture it paints is simply not backed up by the evidence. This Government have a proud record so far. The deficit has been cut by more than a half as a share of national income. Income tax has been cut for more than 27 million people, and 3 million people have been taken out of tax altogether. In my constituency of Fareham, the jobseeker’s allowance claimant count has fallen by about 100 in the past 12 months and by about 60% in the past five years. Unemployment in this country is lower than that in Italy, France, Ireland and Spain. Productivity is rising and hundreds of thousands of people have the chance to own their own home.

Those are the statistics and numbers, but this is about our values as a country. This Government’s economic record reflects the values of the country that we want to be. It is about taking the difficult decisions so that we can safeguard our long-term security, and reinstating the relationship between effort and reward, work and dignity, and endeavour and aspiration. It is about the belief that people can get on in life through hard work, diligence and enterprise, and about making it easier for them to start their own business. Ours is an attitude of optimism and prudence. That is the country we want to build. The Conservative party gets that and we are delivering on that aim.

15:37

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

I accept that the Government have done a number of things right for the economy, and the fact that they were elected indicates that many people across the United Kingdom take that view. That is not to say, however, that there are no flaws or faults in their current strategy.

The hon. Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk) accused us of saying that economic growth has been anaemic. The growth rate is as good as, and possibly better than, most other developed countries in western Europe. However, it is fragile growth. The Government and the Chancellor promised us that growth would be export-led, but that has not been the case. In fact, our exports have dropped dramatically. He promised that we would not go back to the days of boom and bust, with high consumer borrowing, and yet most of the growth is determined by consumer spending based on borrowing. The Government cannot be complacent. There must be recognition that there are difficulties ahead and that there is a fragility to the improvements in the economy.

I want to make two points. As the shadow spokesman said, this debate is a prelude to what we want to hear in the autumn statement next week. First, there must be an element of fairness in the difficult decisions that need to be taken because of the economic problems that we still face. I implore the Minister to take back the message that has come not only from the Opposition Benches, but increasingly from his own Back Benchers, that the burden cannot be placed on the shoulders of the working poor. There have to be substantial changes to the proposals made for the tax credit regime. The proposals will be contradictory anyhow, because for many people the Government’s aim of making work pay will not be realised.

Secondly, when we talk about borrowing, we have to distinguish between borrowing for the kind of spending that the TaxPayers Alliance has highlighted in the past couple of weeks, which is wasteful, and spending which is productive and gives a return. Spending on infrastructure and on science and technology has fallen by 14%, yet it has been proved we are one of the countries with the most effective spending on science and technology and on research and development. Why do we not concentrate on borrowing for those purposes?

On infrastructure, I think of my constituency. One road costing £46 million has removed almost entirely the traffic jams that cost local businesses millions of pounds a year. The development at The Gobbins has attracted thousands of tourists and bed and breakfast bookings have helped the local economy. There has been a good return on those investments. If the Government are looking for ways of spending money and if there is to be borrowing, let us make sure that it is for such infrastructure investments, which will increase productivity, give a return, improve our competitiveness, contribute to the export-led growth that we want to see, and give us strong growth for the future.

15:41

[Jeremy Quin (Horsham) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the thoughtful speech of the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson). He referred at the outset to the growth that we are currently achieving and I take his comments about that. The Office for Budget Responsibility suggests that we will have growth higher than 2.4% for each year in this Parliament. As has been said by many hon. Members, that puts us in the best cohort among all those in the G7. It is not a jobless recovery. We have 2 million more people in employment—that is, 1,000 extra per day. As the Minister said from the Dispatch Box, finally average wages are increasing in real terms, a trend that is extended by the national living wage introduced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor.

That is a remarkable performance for any Government, but it is particularly remarkable in the context of what we inherited back in 2010. Here I respectfully draw a distinction between myself and the remarks of the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell). We can all remember wise people saying back in 2010 that if anybody came in to take the actions required to sort out our economy, they would be out in opposition for a generation; that if people came in to tackle the problems that our country faced back in 2010—the legacy that we were taking on—that would be politically impossible. Those wise people underestimated the British people and the Government. They did not underestimate the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington, whose comments suggested that austerity was a political choice to sort out the deficit. It was not a political choice; at the time it was economic necessity.

[Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)]

I have heard from the hon. Gentleman and many others on the Government Benches today about the hundreds of thousands of new jobs, the increase in wages, and this road that leads to economic prosperity. Can he answer one simple question? Why is it, then, that under this Government half a million more children have been pushed into absolute poverty?

[Jeremy Quin]

In relative terms, there are fewer children in poverty than ever before, and I am delighted that half a million children have adults in their families who are working. That is the route to success and long-term prosperity.

I take issue with the suggestion made by the hon. Members for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) and for Hayes and Harlington that our fiscal problems resulted solely from the recession. It is easy to forget the golden legacy bequeathed by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke). When the Labour party came into government, it had the third best structural position of any country in the OECD. When it left government—in fact, before that, on the eve of the financial crisis—it had the fourth worst. The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington cited Gordon Brown. I have no confidence that the same sort of pattern would not emerge if Labour Members were ever again to grace the Treasury Bench. Despite the huge work being done and the pressure that is being exerted by the Government, we are still increasing our deficit by £3,300 a year per household, and still spending £1 billion a week to service that debt. That is why we need a Government who are going to continue to get this under control.

The motion before the House is very long—I counted nearly 300 words—but it does not seem to contain any ideas as to how we should be cutting the deficit. It does, though, contain a couple of aspects that I would like to mention, one of which was referred to by the hon. Member for East Antrim: spend on research and development. It is a pleasure to be able to remind the House that with 1% of the world’s population, we are responsible for 3% of R and D spend and 16% of the most important research; he was absolutely right about that. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Lucy Frazer) mentioned the report by the Royal Society, and the hon. Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans) raised the old bugbear of the inability to get our universities and our businesses working together. We seem to be getting on top of that. We are supposedly now fourth best in the world at getting that linkage, as well as being the second-best economy in the world in terms of global innovation. I welcome what the Government are doing through the global challenge fund in preserving the capital budget for R and D spending at, for example, the International Centre for Advanced Materials in Manchester.

[James Cartlidge]

Ultimately, my hon. Friend is talking about the importance of investment. It is necessary to reduce the deficit, and therefore eventually the long-term debt, in order to build an economic policy that is credible to outside investors and gives them the confidence to invest in this country. That is the key reason.

[Jeremy Quin]

I thank my hon. Friend, who is absolutely right. He is not the only wise person to make such remarks; the head of the CBI did so only recently. That fiscal rule gives companies the confidence they need that they can invest in this country and will continue to see long-term progress being delivered by this country.

The hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie) talked about the need to have export-led growth. One of the problems we have with our balance of trade—I mentioned it in an intervention on the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington—is that we are growing while our major markets are shrinking or teetering on the edge of recession. That is the sad aspect of the position we are in. While I am delighted that we have one of the best rates of growth of any country in the G7, it would be a lot easier if the whole of Europe were growing at the same pace. Whereas other countries are taking strong dividends out of this country from the investments they have made—dividends have gone up by 30% in the UK economy since 2010—we are not getting the same capital returns from the investments that we are making overseas. Nor are they in a position to buy the goods that we are manufacturing. There are many good stories to be told about our export business, particularly in the automotive sector, but if our customers cannot afford to buy our goods, that will inevitably come through in the statistics.

The answer is that we should be investing more and expending more effort on the growth markets of the world. I have to say to the hon. Member for Dundee East, and to other hon. Members, that we see the growth in China and in India, and we know how important they are. One would have needed the sleeping prowess of a Rip Van Winkle not to have noticed the efforts that the Government are making in India and in China to ensure that we are opening up those markets for our exports in future. I oppose the motion.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)]

Order. I am sorry to say that I have to reduce the time limit for speeches to three minutes for the final Back-Bench speakers. I would be grateful if interventions were kept to zero or were very short.

15:50

[George Kerevan (East Lothian) (SNP)]

Where does growth come from? Government Members have made much of their claim to fame of having delivered growth, but if we want growth to be sustainable, where does it come from? Does it come from investment? There has been only a slight uptake in investment in the UK in the past 18 months. It will certainly not be the driver of growth, looking to the future. Does growth come from trade? Many speakers have said that trade has not added to growth since 2010, if not since 2008, when the recession began. In fact, trade in goods and services has been a negative—a drawback on growth—because imports have increased faster than exports. The Office for Budget Responsibility predicts that that will continue through the spending period to 2020. We have not rebalanced the economy—the Chancellor’s claim in his emergency Budget in 2010 and at the beginning of this year—towards manufacturing exports. That has not happened and will not happen until, if we are lucky, the mid-2020s. That is the Government’s palpable failure.

So where has growth come from? It has come from shifting public debt on to private debt, and from a growth in consumer spending, which is unsustainable because, the moment interest rates go up, it will turn into a huge negative as consumer debt piles up and consumers stop spending. The Government have created growth, but it is short term and unsustainable. The moment America starts to put up interest rates, we are in trouble.

Let us contrast that with the response to the previous recession in 1992. We had a devaluation in 1992, which boosted trade. We do not have that now. We need a real, not a paper focus—not rhetoric—on economic development, industrial investment and boosting our trade pattern. We should not cut science spending, which has happened, or subsidy and support for industrial investment. We need a real industrial plan and we do not have that. I predict that we will come back in a few years when interest rates start to go up and the drive from consumers that underpins growth goes, and the Government will be smiling on the other side of their face.

15:52

[Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)]

I want to speak briefly about the reference in the motion to 85% of the money saved from tax and benefit changes coming out of the pockets of women. Women and children are hit especially hard by the choices that the Government have made. With 4.1 million children now living in absolute poverty—an increase of 500,000 since 2009-10—and the Resolution Foundation projecting that a further 200,000 families will fall into poverty by 2020, it is clear that those who are paying the price of the economic crash in 2008 are not those who caused it.

My hon. Friends have pointed out that working families will be, on average, £1,300 a year worse off because of the tax credit changes. Young workers are also paying a high price. The so-called living wage does not kick in until someone is 25. Does it cost those who are under 25 less to buy a loaf of bread or a pint of milk? Does a landlord charge less rent because someone is under 25? A living wage should be enough to live on, and people under 25 have many of same living costs as those of us who are over 25. A worker who is under 25, has one child and works a 35-hour week on the national minimum wage will not get the £910 a year pay increase next April, but will still lose £1,754.20 because of the tax credit changes. Housing benefit is no longer paid until people are 21, and with one in four homeless people being lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender, that is hitting hardest those who identify as LGBT.

According to today’s figures from the Office for National Statistics, the gender pay gap has fallen by 0.2% to 9.4% in the full-time median gender pay gap category. I welcome that fall, but progress is painfully slow. We are looking at another 50 years before we achieve gender pay equality. Our pay gap is well above the European average. That has to do with many things—the segregated workforce, women working predominately in part-time jobs, women balancing caring responsibilities and the fact that maternity discrimination costs women £1,200 for an employment tribunal. It was not women, children or young people who caused the financial crisis, but they are absolutely paying the price for it.

The Chancellor has not closed the deficit, as he said he would. Borrowing is £200 billion higher than he planned in 2010, the productivity gap is widening and housing investment is falling. It gives me great pleasure to support the motion.

15:55

[Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)]

I acknowledge all the speeches made during our debate on the Government’s record on the economy. Among Conservative Members, the hon. Members for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk), for Eastleigh (Mims Davies), for Fareham (Suella Fernandes) and for Dudley South (Mike Wood) all have more than 3,000 families in their constituencies currently receiving working tax credits who will not have been reassured by their contributions today.

The hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie) raised a range of issues about the unfairness of tax credits. My hon. Friend the Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson) spoke about the Chancellor changing his mind on his own fiscal target and the slowest recovery on record, as well as about concerns expressed by the business community. We heard a very passionate speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Tom Blenkinsop) on the devastating impact on families—thousands of jobs have been lost—of the Government’s lack of support for the steel industry and their lack of response to the steel industry’s five asks.

The hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) talked about the impact of the Government’s policies on Wales. My hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans) spoke about the demise of the green industry. My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) talked very eloquently about the business case for our economy of stronger investment in Britain. In the final Back-Bench speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith) spoke about the impact of the Government’s policies on women and young people.

This has been an important debate, as we move into the final week before the publication of the spending review and the autumn statement. Given the repeated calls from the police, the shadow Chancellor, the shadow Home Secretary and the Leader of the Opposition warning about the scale of potential cuts to the police service and the impact of those cuts at this time, it is a shame that the Chancellor has so far not committed to funding the policing we need, including the community policing that generates vital intelligence on the frontline.

What we have seen from the Chancellor is a record of failure in building the productive economy that we need. He has failed to meet his own deficit target, borrowing £200 billion more than he planned in the last Parliament. He has failed on productivity, with the gap between UK productivity per hour worked and that of the rest of the G7 being 20 percentage points last year, the widest productivity gap since 1991. He has failed on infrastructure investment, about which the British Chambers of Commerce recently stated:

“Britain’s infrastructure investment remains woefully inadequate”.

Progress on the Chancellor’s flagship infrastructure pipeline has stalled, with just 9% of its projects having started.

We know that British businesses still cannot access the finances that they need, with lending having fallen in nearly every month since 2011 and the latest figures showing an annual fall in lending to SMEs of 0.9%. Manufacturing is struggling, and Britain’s export market share is falling relentlessly. The Government’s target of doubling exports to £1 trillion by 2020 is now being met with ridicule. There is no better example of the Chancellor’s failure to support manufacturing than his inaction on the British steel industry. That high-tech, high-skill, high-paid industry is now in crisis, with thousands of jobs already lost and tens of thousands at risk.

We have seen that public services are not safe in the Government’s hands. In the NHS, waiting lists have increased by almost 1 million on their watch. The impending care crisis will heap even further pressure on our hospitals. The Government have failed to address the housing crisis. Local government is set to see a new wave of cuts to local services, leading to the closure of children’s services and putting social care under huge pressure. The proposed public health cuts could mean cuts to school nurses, sexual health services and other essential services—the vital prevention work that saves so much through early intervention.

The Chancellor’s policies are hurting not helping Britain’s businesses and working families. The tax credit cuts are yet another example of the Chancellor making the wrong choices. He is hurting not helping the people of Britain and holding back the British economy instead of building a better future. Last weekend, Labour campaigners went out across the country campaigning for a full and fair reversal of the Chancellor’s proposed tax credit cuts; standing up for the working families in their constituencies; and spreading the word that the Tories’ plans will make working families poorer, while making a few thousand families richer by cutting inheritance tax for the most wealthy.

It is not just those working families who will lose out. Millions of pounds will be lost to local economies as that money is sucked out from next April. That is cash that local people need to pay their rent or mortgages and their fuel and food bills. The Trussell Trust has warned today that the tax credit cuts will lead to a substantial rise in food bank use.

The hon. Member for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland), who last week boycotted a meeting in his constituency with a Tory Treasury Minister because the Minister thought it would be okay to turn up and refuse to discuss the burning issue of tax credits, has shown, through the publication of House of Commons figures, that child tax credits will be cut for many families—something that the Prime Minister denied at the time of the election. Only last week, the distinguished Financial Times columnist Martin Wolf said that this was “bad policy, dishonestly presented.”

In his 2011 Budget, the Chancellor promised to rebalance our economy. What has happened? Manufacturing employment has decreased by 10% since he has been Chancellor. He is hurting not helping our renewable energy industries. The Chancellor’s Britain is out of touch with other nations. This is the only country cutting the support for renewables in favour of non-renewables. The Chancellor is hurting not helping Britain by cutting research and development investment. The last Labour Government had a target to increase private and public sector R and D to 2.5% of GDP by 2014. The latest official figures show that it is at 1.67%, which is behind the OECD and EU averages.

Even the British Chambers of Commerce is calling on the Chancellor to change his latest fiscal charter and deficit target so that spending on infrastructure is not included. A wide range of economists are starting to speak up against the Chancellor’s economic choices, saying why they are wrong for Britain.

Labour’s starting point is that we need to do much more to ensure that there is a prosperous and secure future, with a fair deal for everyone and a chance for all to get on. That means the state working in partnership with the private sector to invest for the growth and jobs of the future. If people are to be able to access those jobs, we must get our education system right. Schools should not be struggling to recruit and retain teachers, and we must recognise that cuts in further education are a false economy because people leave education even less equipped to succeed. The best way to build jobs for the future, rebalance our economy and spread prosperity is to invest in skills, infrastructure and technology. We must invest in the support that companies need to take a good idea from being local to being global. That is the kind of economic ambition that Britain needs, backed up by practical help to make British people more prosperous and secure.

The Labour party is committed to balancing the books, but to doing so in a fair way by building a bigger and stronger economy based on investing in our future. Creating better skilled, better paid jobs is good for British workers and, when they spend their money, good for British businesses. It also means higher tax receipts for the Treasury. The Chancellor’s interventions may appear to be good politics, but all too often they turn out to be wrong economics. His policies are hurting, not helping Britain’s businesses and working families, and his short-term cuts will prove a false economy for British taxpayers. Labour will offer a real alternative, with positive choices to support Britain’s businesses and workers and equip people for the jobs of the future. The Chancellor’s short-term choices will leave our economy more vulnerable. There is an alternative, in the long-term interests of Britain, and I urge hon. Members to vote with us in the Aye Lobby today.

16:05

[The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Damian Hinds)]

Protecting the economic security of working people in Britain is precisely what we set about doing in 2010, it is what we fought the general election on earlier this year, and it is what the British electorate asked us to continue to do following the decisive result at the May election, as we were reminded of by my hon. Friends the Members for Dudley South (Mike Wood) and for Fareham (Suella Fernandes) and, graciously, by the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson), who speaks for the DUP.

Our programme for working Britain stands on four interlocked pillars. The first is a stable economy, backed by a credible long-term economic plan. Low inflation and low interest rates support productive investment. The second is to back business. It is firms that give people jobs and families economic security, and it is innovation that generates economic growth. We know that only business can create the wealth that affords us the quality public services we all value so much. The third is the right incentives to work and the support to do so as we strive towards our goal of full employment. The fourth is a fiscal plan to eliminate our deficit and face up to the challenges of this generation, in this generation, instead of leaving an even bigger mountain of debt to our children and their children, as we were reminded by my hon. Friend the Member for Thornbury and Yate (Luke Hall).

We have made important strides on all these fronts. We are cutting the jobs tax, cutting red tape for business and creating record numbers of apprenticeships—my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mims Davies) talked about the apprenticeship revolution. Since 2010, the private sector has created almost 2.5 million jobs. We have record levels of employment—indeed, more employment growth in the UK since 2010 than in the rest of the EU put together—and more women in work than before. Real wages have risen by almost 3% on the year, and we are leaving more cash where it belongs—in the pockets of hard-working people. Through our increases in the personal allowance, we are making the typical basic rate taxpayer £905 a year better off. We extended childcare support, and are doing so again, with tax-free childcare extensions under universal credit and free entitlement for pre-schoolers worth £5,000 per child per year. We have also set out a path for sustainable but solid deficit elimination so that we can live within our means and start paying down the debt.

[Geraint Davies]

What would the Minister say to Ben Bernanke, the former chairman of the US Federal Reserve, who has basically said he disagrees with the primary legislation that states we should always run a budget surplus because it provides no flexibility to respond to another crisis? In other words, is it inept?

[Damian Hinds]

At the present time, I have no particular message for the former head of the Federal Reserve, except to say that we inherited the most enormous deficit. We will continue to bring it down, which the British people gave us a mandate to do, and we will pay down the debt, because if we do not do that in the good times, when will we ever?

My hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk) reminded us that when the financial crisis hit, the cupboard was bare, because of the structural deficit the Labour Government allowed to build up. In 2010, we immediately began the programme to bring that down. Since then, despite the oil price spike and the eurozone crisis, we have made great progress and have halved the deficit, but much more remains to be done. We set out what that would entail before the election and in the summer Budget: a combination of departmental spending reductions, tax measures and reductions to the welfare bill. Importantly, however, we are maintaining our commitment to the institutions on which Britons most rely: our schools and our world-leading national health service.

Elsewhere, however, we need to make savings, and next week, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will set out the remaining detail in the autumn statement, alongside an updated fiscal forecast from the Office for Budget Responsibility. I know that right hon. and hon. Members will not expect me to pre-empt what my right hon. Friend will say next week.

We have set out a new settlement for working Britain. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh enumerated some of what we have been doing to help hard-working families, including the increase in the personal allowance. The introduction of the national living wage will directly benefit 2.7 million workers on low wages, and up to 7 million people in total, and it is a measure that will disproportionately benefit women. We are doubling the free childcare offered to working families with three and four-year-olds, we have frozen council tax and fuel duty and we have capped payday loans—all actions that the Government have taken to support working families.

In the little time available I want to respond to some of the important points that have been raised. The hon. Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Tom Blenkinsop) spoke powerfully—as he always does—on behalf of his constituents. He reminded us, as we know all too well, that economic growth does not take place evenly everywhere, and that some places and sectors face significant difficulties. This is a difficult and uncertain time for many people who have been affected by the issues that he raised. As he knows, the Government cannot control the world price of steel, and we cannot cover that entire complex subject in this debate. It is right, however, that the multi-million pound package has been put in place for Redcar and Scunthorpe, and my right hon. Friend the Business Secretary is fully engaged on that issue.

[Tom Blenkinsop]

rose—

[Damian Hinds]

I am so sorry, but I cannot give way because of time.

Many other Members have made important and interesting speeches. My hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Jeremy Quin) took us back to the golden legacy that the Labour Government inherited, and he reminded us of the key role of work in escaping poverty. My hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies) reminded us that if we are not strong financially we cannot be strong militarily or in our national security.

The hon. Members for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson) and for East Antrim spoke correctly about the importance of investment in driving forward the next phases of our economic growth, and the Government have committed to spending £100 billion in this Parliament on economic and social infrastructure. With the reforms to vehicle excise duty, we will have the strategic roads fund for England. Despite fiscal consolidation, investment as a share of GDP will on average be higher this decade than under the last Labour Government. The hon. Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans) spoke about the importance of ensuring that we fully exploit in this country the innovations we make in this country. That is improving in some of the ways listed by my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham, but we must focus on it constantly.

Being in government brings with it responsibilities, but every difficult decision that we have taken to get this country back on track was opposed by the Labour party. Those decisions were right, and they have put us firmly on a path to a fundamental strengthening of our nation’s prospects. We have got to the stage where the economy is turning the corner. The deficit is down by more than a half, a record number of people are in work, living standards are rising, and low inflation is keeping household bills under control. But, of course, the job is not yet done. Complacency and losing focus and fiscal discipline almost led our country to disaster in 2008, and that would be the worst thing that we could do now for the economic security of Britain.

Balancing the books is not a question of dry economics; it is a moral imperative and vital to our long-term economic security. It is the foundation behind the security of every family in Britain. Only through this Government’s long-term economic plan can we deliver the continued prosperity that Britain deserves, and I urge the House to reject the motion.

Question put.

16:14

Division 127

Ayes: 249

---

Labour: 196
Scottish National Party: 41
Democratic Unionist Party: 5
Plaid Cymru: 3
Social Democratic & Labour Party: 2
Ulster Unionist Party: 2
Independent: 1
Green Party: 1

Noes: 298

---

Conservative: 295
Liberal Democrat: 2

Further Education

Wednesday 18th November 2015 Commons Chamber

16:27

[Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I beg to move,

That this House believes that a 21st century economy cannot be built on falling investment in education; notes that the 16-19 education budget fell by 14 per cent in real terms over the last Parliament, and that many colleges are reporting severe financial difficulties, including no longer offering courses in subjects key to our country’s competitiveness; further notes that over 100 chairs of further education colleges have warned that further cuts to 16-19 funding will tip their colleges over the precipice, and risk the nation’s productivity; believes that, given that the participation age has now risen to 18 years old, it makes no sense for the post-16 education budget to be treated with less importance than the 5-16 schools budget; further believes there should be a joined-up approach to education across departments; and calls on the Government to protect the education budget in real terms, from the early years through to 19 years old.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

“A good education shouldn’t be a luxury—the preserve of those living within a certain postcode or those who can afford it. It should be something everyone in this country can get…if we don’t educate the next generation properly, we will not secure Britain’s future.”

Those are not my words; they are the words of the Prime Minister just before the election, and I wholeheartedly agree with them. Indeed, I am sure that every parent and member of the public would agree that the route to success for a country lies in ensuring the best possible education for our children. Education is a down payment on the future success of our economy. I do not doubt that the Secretary of State for Education agrees with me, too. Yet as we approach the comprehensive spending review next week, I am concerned that she is losing the argument with her Treasury colleagues. That is why we have called this debate: to give her a bit of moral support in her battle to stop further, damaging wrong-headed cuts to the education budget.

In all honesty, I am perplexed that we are having to have this debate at all today. Conservative rhetoric at the election may have fooled many parents that the whole education budget was being protected, when we all know that the reality is far from that. If the principle exists that education is so important that we should shield schools’ budgets—and we absolutely should—why does the principle stop at GCSEs and not extend to A-levels and other post-16 qualifications? That is the central question, and I hope that we shall hear a real answer from the Secretary of State today. Why do the Government ascribe less value to the education of 16 to 19-year-olds?

[Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)]

Why does the hon. Lady think that, during a period of economic growth, her party presided over rising numbers of people who were not in education, employment or training and rising levels of youth unemployment? By contrast, the number of NEETs under this Government, both in my constituency and throughout the country, is the lowest for 15 years.

[Lucy Powell]

Well, we are not seeing the biggest investment in post-16 education; and we shall see what happens to those budgets in the forthcoming comprehensive spending review.

Let us look at the context. Over the last Parliament, 16-to-19 funding fell by 14% in real terms, and many efficiencies have already been delivered. Moreover, children must now remain in education or training until they are 18. We want young people to go on to study A-levels or take up high-quality apprenticeships, we want to raise attainment in literacy and numeracy, and we want to deliver a new curriculum. In that context, how does the Secretary of State imagine that school sixth forms, sixth-form colleges and further education colleges will be able to make further cuts of between 25% and 40% over the current Parliament?

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

Earlier this month, I was delighted to visit Central Sussex College, which is expanding its STEM subjects facility. Its new building will enable it to provide many more courses for local people. Does the hon. Lady not welcome that?

[Lucy Powell]

Absolutely, but it sounds like an exception to what is happening in many other parts of the country.

[Paul Farrelly (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)]

Like my hon. Friend, I have received a letter from more than 120 chairs of further education colleges. As well as presenting the picture of funding cuts and increased responsibilities that my hon. Friend is painting, the letter laments sudden funding reductions which have taken place not once but twice this year, and which have made it impossible to plan. Does my hon. Friend agree that this is no way to run a whelk stall, let alone a further education sector?

[Lucy Powell]

I entirely agree with that very well-made point. Not just FE colleges but sixth-form colleges—some excellent institutions in this country—would say the same.

[Mr Geoffrey Robinson (Coventry North West) (Lab)]

The scale of these cuts is huge. Two FE colleges in Coventry have written to me in the wake of the letter to the Secretary of State from, I think, 147 colleges. They speak of cuts of up to 40% in their budgets, 1,000 redundancies, and the elimination of whole courses—important courses for apprentices and courses in English for non-English-speaking students, which we desperately need. It is the scale of the cuts that is unprecedented and unmanageable.

[Lucy Powell]

Absolutely, and I shall say more about that shortly.

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

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Lucy Powell]

I shall make some progress before I give way again.

Cuts of between 25% and 40% over this Parliament would have a devastating impact on the opportunities that sixth forms and colleges offer young people, and on our ability to build a high-wage, highly skilled, productive economy. If the principle that education spending is critical to the future prospects of the country is right, that principle should reflect the whole education journey. All the evidence shows not only that investment in 16-to-19 education is right, but that it reaps economic dividends.

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Lucy Powell]

No. I am going to make some progress.

High-wage, highly skilled and more productive economies have high levels of attainment and investment in 16-to-19 education. International evidence tells us that investing in the literacy and numeracy of students in post-16 education is directly linked to higher productivity, and research shows that the economic returns from investing in 16-to-19 education exceed £20 for every £1 spent.

[John Redwood]

What did the hon. Lady learn from the very high levels of youth unemployment that we saw in 2009-10, when Labour left office, and why were people unable to secure apprenticeships then? [Interruption.]

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Mr Sam Gyimah)]

Answer the question.

[Lucy Powell]

Give me a chance!

The right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) will remember that when Labour left office, we were in the middle of a very difficult global recession, but for the vast majority of our time in office, our record on youth attainment and educational achievement was excellent.

[Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)]

I am sure my hon. Friend will remember the landmark future jobs fund that was set up by Labour in government, in stark contrast to the Conservatives who when they came in in 2010 cut it off and cut off access to technician training, as they are doing for another generation of young people in 2015.

[Lucy Powell]

Absolutely.

I know we will hear from the Conservatives that these spending decisions are all necessary to deliver what they like to refer to—I hope this will get me some brownie points—as their long-term economic plan—[Hon. Members: “Hooray.”]—and a strong economy, but, as the Prime Minister agrees, investing in education and skills helps our economy to grow and reduces the deficit. Indeed, the reverse is also true: slashing and burning education, whether in schools, sixth-forms or further education, will lead to greater reliance on the state for unqualified young people and lower tax returns for those in lower paid jobs. Cutting education spending at the altar of deficit reduction is a false choice, and it is economic stupidity.

[Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making some very important points about the impact on the economy of short-sighted cuts to the post-16 education budget. In the north, of course, we have our part to play in delivering the Chancellor’s northern powerhouse—[Hon. Members: “Hooray.”]—brownie points, again. What does my hon. Friend think the impact will be on progressing the northern powerhouse if we cut back significantly on the investments we need to see in productivity in places like Barnsley in south Yorkshire?

[Lucy Powell]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. If we speak to anybody overseeing some of the big infrastructure projects under way at the moment, they will say their biggest problem is bridging the skills gap they face in delivering those infrastructure projects, so this is a very serious issue.

If the Conservative party, from the Prime Minister down, truly believes in the principle that education is a public good, it is baffling why provision for 16 to 19-year-olds is wholly unprotected and facing further massive reductions.

Let us look now in more detail at what is really happening on the ground and the potential impact of the forthcoming comprehensive spending review.

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

Will the hon. Lady join me in condemning the Labour Welsh Government’s 6% cuts in this year’s 2015-16 Welsh FE budgets— I speak as a former director of an FE college—and the likely loss of 1,000 jobs, which is leading to industrial action this week in Wales? This is no way to run a whelk stall, let alone a country.

[Lucy Powell]

Well, there are going to be devastating things coming further down the track, as the Barnett formula will have impacts for Wales, and for Scotland as well.

Let us look at the context. First, with the budget for provision for 16 to 19-year-olds down by 14% in real terms over the last Parliament, post-16 education is at breaking point. Principals are desperate to maintain provision and parents are worried about the narrowing opportunities for their children, and this is filtering down to our young people who feel this Government do not value their education. This is not scaremongering. As has already been said, 139 chairs of FE institutions wrote to the Chancellor recently warning that further Government cuts threaten the viability of their colleges.

Already we are hearing that sixth-form colleges and FE colleges are dropping courses and reducing classes and teaching hours, and it is not beauty courses or fashion courses that are going first, as many Conservative Members want to think; it is the expensive A-level courses such as science, maths and modern foreign languages. Let us repeat that for Conservative Members: we have a Government who are overseeing the loss of A-level courses in science and modern foreign languages. What modern-day Government have ever done that?

Secondly, the raising of the participation age to 18, which we legislated for and continue to support, comes with extra pressure on institutions, with an increase in student numbers. New requirements on compulsory resits and a new A-level curriculum also further increase expectations on sixth-forms and FE colleges. During a period of such significant change, we would expect the Government to support teachers in the transition to a new system. In New South Wales and Ontario, where the minimum school leaving age was increased recently, additional resources were provided to deal effectively with the extra numbers; instead, changes in our country are taking place in the context of significant reductions, with more severe cuts on the way. That will lead to poorer outcomes through fewer teaching hours and less support.

A recent report has found that, from next year, A-level students face the prospect of being taught for 15 hours a week—just three hours a day—because of the fall in funding since 2011. And that is before we have heard the announcements in next week’s comprehensive spending review. In Shanghai, Singapore and other high-performing education systems that the Secretary of State likes to talk about, sixth-formers are taught for more than 30 hours a week. This Government are downgrading our education system to part time, leaving our young people behind their counterparts abroad in the global economic race. I think I get brownie points for mentioning the global economic race, too.

The Government’s area reviews also threaten the viability of some high-performing institutions in a sector that the Education Secretary herself has described as fragile. Yes, there are opportunities for joint working and efficiencies, but it is impossible for the area reviews not to be seen in the context of cuts to the sector, which further undermines the viability of those institutions. What is more, it is simply ridiculous to look at only half the provision and to ignore the many institutions that are in the greatest peril. Studio schools, school sixth forms, new free school sixth forms and university technical colleges are not included in the area reviews. They are the institutions that are most likely to be in danger of losing their viability, yet they are out of the mix. At the same time, the Government are content to put many high-performing and excellent colleges at risk. Our sixth-form colleges are outstanding providers of 16-to-19 education. They offer fantastic value for money by delivering strong outcomes for young people at a lower cost to the public purse than school and academy sixth forms.

[Damian Green (Ashford) (Con)]

How much more money does the hon. Lady want to spend, and where is it going to come from?

[Lucy Powell]

The question we should be asking is: what will be the cost of these cuts? People will be getting lower-paid, lower-skilled jobs and drawing down on the state for longer periods of time.

There is excellent sixth-form provision in Greater Manchester, my own area, which is currently undergoing an area review. Winstanley College in Wigan and Loreto College in Manchester provide some of the best value-added in the country, and they outperform schools in getting kids from all backgrounds the highest grades in A-levels. I am sure that Conservative Members would be appalled to think their local sixth-form colleges could be under threat, but this is the reality in other parts of the country. Further massive reductions in funding will result in good sixth-form colleges and good school sixth forms closing. The 25% cut that the Chancellor has asked the Secretary of State’s Department to find is equivalent to the loss of half of all sixth-form colleges and one third of FE colleges.

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

Does my hon. Friend agree that FE colleges are further disadvantaged in that they have to pay VAT, whereas free schools and sixth forms do not?

[Lucy Powell]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point; she is absolutely right.

[Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)]

South Devon College in my constituency is just such an example of a fantastic sixth-form college doing amazing work in the further education sector. Everyone in the House hopes that the Chancellor will be as generous as possible to further education, but another challenge that these institutions face is that they need multi-annual settlements so that they can make forward plans. Will the hon. Lady join me in asking for such a measure to be introduced?

[Lucy Powell]

Absolutely. That is a very sensible suggestion, and I hope that those on the hon. Lady’s Front Bench will listen to it. The problem is not just the nature of the cuts but the fact that they are coming so late in the cycle.

On the figures that I have just outlined, sixth forms will no longer be the proud beacons of success that they are now, and Conservative Members will need to get their heads out of the sand if they do not want to see some of these valued institutions go to the wall.

[David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Lucy Powell]

I am not going to take any more interventions—oh, go on then! I will take one more.

[David Rutley]

I thank the hon. Lady, my near neighbour, for her generosity. It is much appreciated. She has talked repeatedly about the importance of budgets, and of course they make a contribution, but does she agree that more innovative practices need to be adopted, including forging stronger links with businesses and the community, to ensure relevance and the best possible outcomes for young people? Will she talk about that, too?

[Lucy Powell]

Absolutely. There is some really good best practice in this area, but as was suggested in previous comments, it is hard to innovate with such short budget settlement timelines—for only a few months later—in a difficult funding climate. We need to look at how we can ensure that innovation happens in the sector.

[Joan Ryan (Enfield North) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend has referred to international experience. I am sure she is aware that investing in the literacy and numeracy of students post-16 is linked to higher productivity in their working lives. Does she therefore agree that the wrong-headed policy of the Government towards further education is threatening our economic success?

[Lucy Powell]

Absolutely. Raising productivity is the key challenge that our economy faces, and I do not understand a Government who say that the principle is right on protecting education spending up to 16, but not on doing so up to 18 and 19, given that such attendance is now compulsory. I do not understand that logic, and I hope that the Secretary of State can explain it to us today.

[Dr Murrison]

rose—

[Lucy Powell]

I am not giving way as I want to make some progress.

In conclusion, I think we can all agree that investment in education is a good thing. I hope the Secretary of State can explain how further education and sixth-form colleges are to deal with further significant reductions, on top of the efficiencies they have already delivered. I hope she is fighting a rearguard action against the Treasury, and in that she has my full support. I hope she will join us in supporting this motion, which recognises that an education journey for every child now continues up to 19. Good and outstanding sixth forms and FE colleges are under threat. Expensive courses such as A-levels in science and languages are being dropped. Teaching hours are half of those in our competitor countries. That is the reality of 16-to-19 education today. As a parent, it gives me a huge cause for concern, but as a politician I believe that cuts on this scale are a false economy which will damage our productivity, our economy and our ability to pay down the deficit. I commend the motion to the House.

16:47

[The Secretary of State for Education (Nicky Morgan)]

I thought at one point in the speech made by the hon. Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell) that we were in danger of having cross-party consensus break out, but she veered away from that when confronted by good news stories about the post-16 sector. I also liked the way she mentioned the long-term economic plan, even though she probably did so through gritted teeth.

It is a pleasure to respond to this debate on such an important area—we can genuinely all agree on that. A vibrant post-16 education sector gives young people the skills they need to succeed in life, and it is a key part of this Government’s commitment to governing as one nation and extending opportunity throughout the country. I am sad to say, however, that it seems to be becoming an unfortunate habit of the hon. Lady to use all her public appearances to talk down the significant achievements and good things that are happening in our education system: first, we had the undermining of the achievements of academies, including one in her constituency; secondly, we had the scaremongering on teacher recruitment; and now the Opposition are trying to create a sense of panic in the post-16 sector. Yet again, an Opposition day motion reveals that, as we heard from the Labour leader at Prime Minister’ questions, they still believe in the existence of the Labour party’s magic money tree.

[Angela Smith]

I speak as somebody who got to university from FE as a mature student and who worked for 10 years as a lecturer in FE. Barnsley college in my constituency is outstanding—it is an excellent institution. Given what the Secretary of State has just said, can she guarantee that the services that it provides for local people will not be damaged in any way by Government cuts to the institution over the forthcoming period?

[Nicky Morgan]

The hon. Lady was doing a great and valiant job of talking about the excellence of a college in her constituency, but then immediately tipped off into the word “cuts”. She ought to wait to see what is in next week’s spending review.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Nicky Morgan]

Let me make some arguments with which the Opposition can take issue, and then I will happily accept some interventions.

The shadow Secretary of State asked why, under this Government and the coalition Government, we have prioritised spending on five-to-16 education. The answer is extremely simple, and we have debated it before in this House. One in three children was leaving primary school unable to read, write and add up properly and, in this difficult economic climate, we decided that that was where we should put our education investment. If a child is not literate or numerate by the time they leave primary school, they are far less likely to get good GCSEs, and to progress into higher education, an apprenticeship or the world of work.

[Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby) (Lab)]

By taking away the funding now, the Government are damaging the children who do not have those skills and who rely on FE to achieve those level 1 and 2 qualifications.

[Nicky Morgan]

The reason why those children do not have those skills is that they were educated under a Labour Government.

[Paul Farrelly]

The Secretary of State said that the comprehensive spending review has not been announced yet, but it is not just magicked out of the ether, so can we cut to the chase? Will she tell the House what cuts she has said she will accept to the post-16 budget, and how she squares that with the treatment of funding for education up to 16?

[Nicky Morgan]

Nice try! That would be like the hon. Gentleman sending his election campaign leaflets to the opposition and saying, “These are the arguments I am going to make.” He will know that, in any negotiation, no person reveals their hand before the final announcement, which, in this case, is next week.

[Mr Geoffrey Robinson]

rose—

[Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)]

rose—

[Nicky Morgan]

Let me make some progress, and then I will take further interventions.

The shadow Secretary of State asked why we prioritised spending on five to 16 rather than 16 to 19. I wonder whether she has checked out what her own party did when they were last in Government. What is interesting to note is that per pupil student funding increased twice as fast for those aged five to 16 between 2005-06 and 2010-11 as it did for those in 16-to-19 education. That is the very thing that she accuses us of doing.

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

Has my right hon. Friend any information that will enable us to judge whether more children are now in a good or outstanding school, and what achievements are being made as a result of that vital investment put in at a very difficult time by the previous Government?

[Nicky Morgan]

My hon. and learned Friend looks at the achievements and the positives, which is important. I am delighted to say that 82% of schools across England and Wales are now rated good or outstanding. That is a significant increase since 2010. We have more students studying maths A-level, more students doing the EBacc and the core academic subjects, more students learning to read well and confidently by the end of the first stage of primary school, and more students doing better at the key stage 2 test at the end of primary school leading into secondary school. Clearly, despite the difficult economic climate of the previous Parliament, some really, really good progress has been made.

[John Redwood]

The Opposition were making the case that our colleges are not giving enough contact hours to students, which was a surprising criticism. Will the Secretary of State confirm that, when students undertake advanced level studies, they need time for private reading, research, writing and problem solving as well as time with teachers? I presume that that is what our colleges are doing.

[Nicky Morgan]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. Young people, post-16, will have a mixture of face-to-face tuition, study in smaller groups, study in larger groups and their own study time, which prepares them for the next stage. The funding that colleges receive is for 600 hours, which enables them to teach a number of A-levels or technical qualifications.

[Paula Sherriff (Dewsbury) (Lab)]

How does the Secretary of State respond to the suggestion of Professor Alison Wolf that Britain’s supply of skilled workers may vanish into history if looming cuts to further education go ahead?

[Nicky Morgan]

What I would say to the hon. Lady is that we helpfully had the support of Professor Alison Wolf in the last Parliament in getting rid of 3,000 qualifications that did not prepare our young people for the world of work at all. The EBacc subjects that I have been talking about—the core subjects of science, technology, engineering and maths: just what we need for the future of our country—are exactly what our education system is rightly focusing on.

[The Minister for Skills (Nick Boles)]

She is on our panel that we announced last week.

[Nicky Morgan]

As my hon. Friend says, Professor Alison Wolf is also on our panel looking at technical and professional education.

I want to remind the House that the reason we spend almost the same amount on servicing our debt as we do on the entire schools budget is the financial mismanagement of the Labour party. Its recklessness means that we have been forced to make difficult decisions to balance the books and live within our means, because if we had not, our education system would have fallen into the chaos that we have seen in countries that have failed to balance the books—thousands of schools closed in Greece; teacher and lecturer pay slashed in Greece, Ireland, Portugal and Spain; an exodus of talent.

[John Howell (Henley) (Con)]

Is my right hon. Friend surprised that nobody has yet mentioned our ambition to have 3 million apprenticeships by 2020? There has already been a significant increase in my constituency.

[Nicky Morgan]

My hon. Friend is pre-empting what I am coming to. I would like to say that I am surprised that Labour Members have not so far mentioned apprenticeships, but they would not want to bring attention to our track record in the last Parliament of delivering double the number of apprenticeship starts than that delivered by the last Labour Government.

[Joan Ryan]

rose—

[Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)]

rose—

[Nicky Morgan]

I am going to make some progress.

We heard from an Opposition Member about youth unemployment. In 2010, youth unemployment had risen by a staggering 40%, under the last Labour Government. That was the legacy of the Labour party when it comes to young people’s life chances—a legacy that I am pleased to say we have painstakingly reversed, to the extent that we now have the lowest proportion of 16 to 18-year-old NEETs on record and the lowest NEET rate for 16 to 24-year-olds in a decade. Having seen the nonsense, back-of-a-fag-packet calculations about the spending review that the hon. Member for Manchester Central attempted to brief out last week, I am more relieved than ever that her hands are nowhere near the public finances. We have protected the schools budget because we know that education is the best investment we can make in the future of our country. Our analysis, backed—

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Nicky Morgan]

I am not going to take any interventions for a while. I am going to make some more arguments and then Labour Members can come back and try to justify their track record in government, which is woeful.

Our analysis, backed by the Institute for Fiscal Studies, shows that the boost in the number of pupils getting good GCSE grades in England since 2010 is estimated to add around £1.3 billion to the country’s economy. Pupils who achieve five or more good GCSEs including England and maths as their highest qualification will each add on average around £100,000 more to the economy over their lifetimes than someone with below level 2 or no qualifications.

Had the Opposition chosen this business for the week after next, we could have had an informed debate about the post-16 settlement for the next four years, but they did not choose that. They chose to have an opportunistic, scaremongering debate today.

[Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)]

rose—

[Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)]

rose—

[Christian Matheson]

rose—

[Nicky Morgan]

I have said that I am not going to take any more interventions until I have made some more arguments.

As hon. Members decided not to do that, we cannot have a sensible debate—[Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. The debate has so far been well behaved. I was about to say that we are not in a sixth-form college, but my goodness, a sixth-form college would be better behaved than this. The right hon. Lady must be heard; otherwise no one will be able to argue against her.

[Nicky Morgan]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

I want to start by recognising the enormous success, despite the financial constraints, of the post-16 sector in the last Parliament—2.4 million apprenticeship starts and more young people than ever going to university; 97% of young people now studying English and maths at 16 to 19 who did not achieve good passes at the age of 16; new gold-standard qualifications such as tech levels, rather than thousands of worthless courses such as marzipan modelling and balloon artistry. That is the legacy of the last five years of this Government’s approach to growth and skills, and it is a record I am proud to defend. Ensuring that our young people have the skills they need to succeed in an increasingly globalised labour market is vital to driving up national productivity.

Our plans for 16-to-19 education lie at the heart of our productivity drive. The plan published at the start of this Parliament by my right hon. Friends the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills enshrines the role of an improved 16-plus skills system in driving up our nation’s productivity. With rapid technological progress and greater global competition, the skills we give the next generation are fundamental to the UK’s future growth.

[Damian Green]

On 16-to-19 skills, if the Education Secretary would like to see physical, palpable evidence that gives the lie to the Opposition’s case that it is all going wrong, I invite her—and, indeed, the shadow Education Secretary—to Ashford, where, after years of delay, a new further education college is being built in the centre of town. It will open in 2017 and will provide precisely the kinds of skills that all our young children will need for the next generation. It was planned under the previous Government and it will be built under this Government.

[Nicky Morgan]

I am delighted to hear that. Only last week, I opened the newly refurbished sixth form at Loughborough college in my own constituency.

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

If the Secretary of State is not prepared to talk about the forthcoming spending review, perhaps she could talk about some of the cuts that have already taken place. Lambeth college, which serves many of my constituents, has entirely stopped teaching English for speakers of other languages because of an in-year cut it did not know it was going to have to accommodate. It has stopped teaching ESOL to students who are mandated by Jobcentre Plus to take ESOL courses. Does the Secretary of State agree that this is an entirely false economy? It is preventing students—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. The hon. Lady is not making a speech; she is making an intervention. The Secretary of State has got the gist of it.

[Nicky Morgan]

The hon. Lady speaks with great passion. She is talking about the adult skills budget, but what we are debating today is 16-to-19 education. If she looks at the detail of that contract, she will see that it was not performing as well as expected. I think she would agree that every single pound of taxpayers’ money spent by Government should work as hard and as effectively as possible.

[Catherine West]

rose—

[Mr Geoffrey Robinson]

rose—

[Nicky Morgan]

I am going to make some progress.

Throughout the globe, nations are investing in high-quality technical and professional skills, and reaping the rewards through higher productivity and living standards. This Government’s ambition is to develop a world-leading system to deliver the skills that the economy needs not just for today, but for the future. We will deliver a post-16 skills system that provides young people with clear and high-quality routes to skilled employment, either directly or via higher education. Apprentices are a key part of some of the most successful skills systems across the world.

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

My constituency of Aldridge-Brownhills has some great examples of apprenticeship schemes, which are run by a neighbouring college and by businesses and other providers. Will my right hon. Friend join me in thanking all those organisations for the fantastic job they are doing in creating apprenticeships, which are helping us to deliver the skills that we need for this country’s productivity—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. It is not a speech.

[Nicky Morgan]

My hon. Friend speaks with passion and eloquence about her constituency. She is absolutely right to say that the 2.4 million apprenticeship starts in the last Parliament and the 3 million we have committed to in this Parliament are transforming the opportunities available to young people and employers.

[Catherine West]

rose—

[Mr Geoffrey Robinson]

rose—

[Nicky Morgan]

I am not going to take any further interventions for the moment.

Around the world, apprenticeships have long been recognised as a crucial way to develop the skills wanted by employers. We have committed to a significant increase in the quantity and quality of apprenticeships in England for 3 million starts in this Parliament, putting control of funding in the hands of employers. That step change in the scale of the programme needs a step change in funding. We will therefore introduce a levy on large employers to fund the new apprenticeships, ensuring that they invest in their future workforce. That follows examples of levies to fund training that are already in place in Germany, France, Denmark and more than 50 other countries, often supporting high-quality apprenticeship systems.

As Professor Alison Wolf, who has already been mentioned, set out in a recent report, it is now time for the UK to do that as well. We want young people to see apprenticeships as a high-quality and prestigious path to successful careers, and for those opportunities to be available across all sectors of the economy and at all levels.

[Catherine West]

rose—

[Nicky Morgan]

The hon. Lady has been so persistent that I will give way to her.

[Catherine West]

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving me the opportunity to intervene. I am aware of an apprenticeship offer that involves going into a sandwich shop for two or three days a week to learn how to use a cash register. Does the Secretary of State consider that to be a high-quality apprenticeship?

[Nicky Morgan]

First, I do not think the hon. Lady should be undermining those who do that sort of work. They are serving our economy very well. More importantly, those are the sort of apprenticeships that happened under her party when in government. We have reformed the framework, the incentives, the quality and the demands for training. That is why we have launched the trailblazer apprenticeships. Rather than knocking the start given to young people by apprenticeships, she should be talking them up.

Our reforms are leading to employer-led trailblazers, designing quality apprenticeships that provide exactly the skills, knowledge and behaviours required by the workforce of the future. In the previous Parliament we swept away the panoply of vocational qualifications that allowed politicians to trumpet ever-higher grades, but which were not respected by employers and did not lead to a job. Now we will go further, across both apprenticeships and classroom-based technical and professional education.

We will simplify the currently over-complex system, working in direct partnership with employers to ensure that the new system provides the skills most needed for the 21st-century economy. Up to 20 specific new professional and technical routes will be created, leading to employment or degree-level study, which will be as easy to understand as academic routes.

[Mr Geoffrey Robinson]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Nicky Morgan]

No. I am not giving way further.

These new routes will take young people from compulsory schooling into employment and the highest levels of technical competence, which for many will mean moving on to apprenticeships as quickly as possible. Young people taking one of these routes will be able to specialise over time in their chosen field, gain a work placement while in college, and then move into an apprenticeship when they are ready.

To deliver the reforms, we are delighted that we can work closely with an independent expert panel. I am sure that even the hon. Member for Manchester Central can bring herself to welcome it, as it is headed by Lord Sainsbury, former Minister for science and innovation in the Labour Government. We are grateful to the panel members, including, as we have heard, Professor Alison Wolf, Simon Blagden and Bev Robinson. The Government will work with the panel to improve technical and professional education, making sure that all young people follow a programme of study that allows them to see clearly how it leads to the world of work.

For many young people, an academic path will be the clear choice, so we are reforming A-levels. Giving universities a greater role in how A-levels are developed has been an important part of the Government’s plans to reform the qualifications. Their involvement will ensure that A-levels provide the appropriate foundation for degree-level study. We have introduced linear A-levels, making sure that young people spend less time in exams and more time learning and studying. The new qualifications will return the A-level to the gold standard international status that it used to enjoy, undoing years of grade inflation and dumbing-down presided over by the Labour party.

All these reforms represent a major opportunity for post-16 institutions. The sector has the opportunity to seize hold of the agenda and shape its own future. Apprenticeships growth alone will represent a huge potential income stream for colleges.

[Paul Farrelly]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Nicky Morgan]

No. I said that I would not give way anymore.

Some colleges are already leading the charge, with up to 44% of their income coming from apprenticeships. Those post-16 institutions which do this and take control of the future of the system will be strong and resilient, and to support institutions to do this, we have announced a series of area reviews.

[Paul Farrelly]

On that point, Secretary of State.

[Nicky Morgan]

I said that I am not going to give way. The hon. Gentleman has already made one intervention, and he probably regretted that one.

We are protecting our post-16 sector, not just for today, but for years into the future. Area reviews will be driven by local leadership and will support collaboration and strengthen local partnerships, all to the benefit of the young people in these institutions. Throughout the provider base, these reviews will lead to improved engagement, with better incentives to share resources and achieve economies of scale. They will help to generate efficiency savings and put the sector on a stable financial footing for the long term. We have already begun several area reviews, and we are working closely with representatives of the sector to take them forward in a positive and collaborative way. We are grateful for the constructive engagement with a wide range of stakeholders and look forward to continued close joint working as we complete all reviews by March 2017.

I am proud to defend the work of the previous Government in improving the 16-plus skills system, but now we will go even further, ignoring the siren calls and doom and gloom from the Opposition. Whereas their plans for the economy would have wrecked our education and skills system, we will make it the envy of the world. Be it academic, professional or technical education, we will make sure it gives each and every student the chance to realise their full potential and be all that they can be. Post-16 education is fundamental to our aim to govern as one nation, extending opportunity and realising the full potential of every young person. We will ensure that all young people can get the best start in life, through the opportunity that high-quality education and training provides. I therefore ask the House to reject the motion.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. It will be obvious to the House that a great many people wish to speak, and there is limited time available. Therefore, after the next speaker, who is the SNP spokesman, I will have to impose a time limit of six minutes.

17:09

[Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)]

I do not think that anyone in this House would dispute the fact that colleges play a crucial role in providing employability skills for our young people. The cuts in funding for 16 to 19-year-olds’ education are leading to cuts in courses that are key to productivity. That is a serious issue that must be addressed. This sector must be appropriately funded.

This morning I met Chris Keates from the NASUWT, and she painted a disturbing picture of post-16 education in England. She told me of her concern that the sector has been entirely unprotected and was specifically targeted for cuts in the 2010 comprehensive spending review, that 72% of sixth-form colleges have been forced to drop key courses as a result of the cuts to date, and that the area reviews are causing distress and disillusionment to staff in colleges.

[Paul Farrelly]

Of course, the Secretary of State has pre-empted the comprehensive spending review with her rapid area reviews. Does the hon. Lady agree that choice and competition often drive standards, and that therefore any enforced closures for budgetary reasons under the slash-and-burn approach may be detrimental to standards for post-16 education in future?

[Carol Monaghan]

I agree that a slash-and-burn approach is not the correct way to go, and that competition is healthy for our young people when they are making choices.

[Dr Murrison]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Carol Monaghan]

Not at the moment.

House of Commons Library research suggests that £1.6 billion could be wiped off the total FE budget next year if the proposed cuts are pushed through.

Over the past few months, I have met representatives from the Association of Colleges, representing sixth-form and FE colleges in England, and Members from both sides of this House, all of whom are concerned about the current state of FE in England and want to hear about what Scotland is doing. [Interruption.]

[Dr Murrison]

Will the hon. Lady give way on that point?

[Carol Monaghan]

I am not going to give way just now. [Interruption.]

I have told all those people the same thing: colleges in Scotland are about providing access, pathways and employment.

[Nick Boles]

rose—

[Carol Monaghan]

Finally the Minister decides to stand; it seemed as though he wanted to intervene from a sedentary position.

[Nick Boles]

Does the hon. Lady not accept, first, that this whole area of policy is entirely devolved and therefore what the Scottish Government decide is entirely for them; and secondly, that her Government, whom she claims to represent, have closed colleges, which we have not done?

[Carol Monaghan]

First, education is devolved—[Interruption.] I think this House could possibly pay attention. Members from the Minister’s own party have come to ask me what Scotland is doing—they are looking for advice and a new way of doing things.

[Wes Streeting]

I certainly agree with the hon. Lady that the Minister is not in a position to dish out lectures, but surely she has to look with some humility at the SNP’s record, which is staff cuts of 10%, funding cuts of 12%, 100,000 fewer students and 10 million fewer hours of learning. That is a record she should be ashamed of.

[Carol Monaghan]

In Scotland a well-publicised restructuring of the college sector has taken place over the past few years. We hear about these supposed cuts to places and hours, but what has been cut is short leisure courses of under five hours that do not lead to progression. In fact, in one area, college numbers were being made up from pupils at a local primary school who were subscribing to do a first aid course. These are not real college numbers. Let us look at the numbers involved and the hours spent on these short courses: 142 hours of those short courses account for one full-time place. These students are not real students; they do not exist. Short courses that lead to progression have continued to be maintained and are still delivered in our colleges.

[Dr Murrison]

May I say that I welcome the hon. Lady’s interest in English post-16 education? It is very generous of her to interest herself in such affairs. Will she, however, respond to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) about the number of people not in education, employment or training post-16 in this country, which is of course at an all-time low? Does she welcome that and share my disappointment that the hon. Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell) did not touch on it?

[Carol Monaghan]

The number of young people not in education, employment or training in Scotland is even lower still.

There have been challenges in the college sector in Scotland. That was necessary to produce a sector that focuses on employability. In the past, courses were over-subscribed. Young people subsequently flooded the jobs market searching for positions that simply did not exist. We do not want to serve our young people badly by allowing them to waste several years of study only to be thrown on the scrapheap at the end of their course.

[Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that a lot of good work is done by colleges in Scotland in cases of mass redundancies? Under PACE—Partnership Action for Continuing Employment, the Scottish Government’s partnership on access and employability—Scottish colleges play an important role and are mandated to do such work on employability and retraining.

[Carol Monaghan]

Absolutely. I agree 100% that colleges in Scotland serve not just young people, but a wide sector of society.

The Scottish Government are determined that young people should leave college with the skills that employers want, so the right thing to do is to prioritise full-time courses for recognised qualifications to match true market need. In 2013-14, there were nearly 120,000 full-time equivalent college places in Scotland, exceeding every target since 2011.

[Marion Fellows]

Does my hon. Friend agree that further education provides a valuable second chance for adult returners, especially women, who did not achieve at school?

[Carol Monaghan]

Absolutely. Since 2006, we have seen an increase in the number of full-time students under 25.

[Nick Boles]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I ask for your advice about the debate on a matter that is entirely devolved? SNP Members are welcome to contribute to that debate, but they need to talk about the subject of that debate, which is further education—16-to-19 education—in England.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. I am listening very carefully to what the hon. Lady is saying. So far, my interpretation of what she is saying is that she hopes to inform the House about matters in Scotland that might be helpful when considering similar matters in England. However, I am quite certain that she will bear in mind the fact that the motion is specifically about further education in England, and that she will appreciate that a lot of Members whose constituents are affected by the subject of the motion are waiting to speak.

[Carol Monaghan]

I will of course do so, Madam Deputy Speaker. As hon. Members from both sides of the House—and colleges—have sought my advice, it might be worth their taking account of what I have to say.

To ensure access to and inclusion in colleges, the Scottish Government have provided an additional £6.6 million for part-time places. Further education students can get bursaries of up to £93 a week. The Scottish Government have retained the education maintenance allowance to enable more young people to stay in education. Colleges offer our young people pathways. In August, I visited Glasgow Clyde college to see the range and quality of courses on offer. The new purpose-built facility was bursting with students engaged in their studies. Local employers are working with the college—

[Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Carol Monaghan]

No, I will not give way because I have been encouraged by Madam Deputy Speaker to be quick, so I will be.

Local employers such as BAE—[Interruption.] Perhaps the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson), who is making interventions from the Bench, could learn something from the picture in Scotland. Local employers such as BAE are working with the college, doing day releases with apprentices. There is a nursery on site for students with caring responsibilities. The number of women on full-time courses has increased. There is also a programme for students with additional support needs that prepares them for the world of work.

Certain school pupils benefit from attending local colleges for two or three afternoons a week. I am sure that the situation is similar in England. That allows them to follow vocational courses that the school cannot provide. Often, these are disaffected or challenging students for whom academic routes are not working. I keep hearing about how colleges provide routes for students to do their A-levels. Some students follow vocational routes and get vocational qualifications, and those must be viewed as the equals of academic subjects.

One challenge that colleges experience is the way in which they are perceived by society. It is important that we, as legislators, recognise the vital role that they play in providing positive destinations. A few years ago, I had a student whose parents were very keen for him to go to university, but he was not emotionally or academically ready. When he saw what the college had on offer, he decided to sign up. He has flourished and now has two job offers for when he finishes in June, but he also has the option of entering the third year at university.

Colleges provide an excellent educational opportunity for our young people. Their role in providing routes to employment must be recognised and appropriately funded. It is no coincidence that Scotland has a higher rate of positive destinations and a higher rate of youth employment than the UK as a whole.

17:22

[Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to speak in this debate because I have a long-standing interest in the FE sector. As Chair of the Education Committee, I am interested in ensuring that we drive through the apprenticeship programme, making sure that people have choices post-16 and tackling the productivity challenge in this country during this Parliament.

I am pleased to say that my Committee and the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee held a successful conference on productivity, which identified the need for an innovative FE sector. That is at the core of this discussion: we need to encourage innovation in the FE sector and to ensure that it is of a scale and scope that matches the demands of employers and professions. “Technical, professional and higher” is a good way of describing the FE sector that we need for tomorrow. I will make my contribution with that theme in mind.

We must ensure that apprenticeships have traction and that they have parity with academic learning. It seems to me that the gold standard award approach is absolutely right. The Government should extend that to make it a national apprenticeship award so that there is consistency across the field and a recognition that quality is the hallmark of a good apprenticeship scheme. We should encourage the FE sector to engage in that.

We need to think carefully about sixth-form colleges. The shadow Secretary of State suggested that UTCs and other things were excluded from the area reviews, but, actually, through the regional schools commissioner mechanism, they are not. There will be engagement. I think it would be extremely advantageous were we to allow sixth-form colleges to become academies and part of multi-academy trusts.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

I am pleased the hon. Gentleman has mentioned sixth-form colleges. As chair of the all-party group on sixth-form colleges and governor of a sixth-form college, I consider them to be the most brilliant institutions in the country. Will he use his influence to get the Government to create more of them?

[Neil Carmichael]

I am keen to use my influence, as Chair of the Education Committee, for a lot of things, and that is certainly one direction of travel in which I am sure we will be going.

We must ensure greater employer engagement, which can and should come through governance, and we have already seen changes bringing that about, but something else needs to happen: the education sector needs to engage more effectively and readily with the world of work. I mean not just businesses, but the professional sectors, such as the care sector. It is critical that we know how many people there are with the types of skills that are needed. We need to know more about how the labour market works, and the education system needs to know more about how skills and the labour market are developing. That interface is crucial, and I see it coming through in various changes in the FE sector.

We have a good example of that in my constituency, where Stroud and Filton colleges merged to create an innovative college structure with characteristics that colleges need to think about when going through the area review. The first characteristic is precise, strong and courageous leadership. It is critical that we articulate a vision about where our colleges should go, and that is best done by a leadership with the capacity and willingness to do exactly that.

[Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)]

St Helens college has shown good, strong and innovative leadership, but it gets funding now only where there are job opportunities and training. Teachers from my college went to the Liverpool docks, to Dock Road, to provide education, at 7 o’clock in the morning, to some 200 Chinese speakers who did not speak English. It was a huge success. There are no bounds to what that college does. It has the inside of a plane to train people in flight hospitality—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. It might be a valid point, but it is not a speech.

[Neil Carmichael]

I nearly made an intervention myself. I listened to the thrust, however, and obviously I agree that strong leadership should be combined with the good management of resources.

The second characteristic is an ability to embrace other mechanisms and other types of FE colleges within the wider framework of an overarching body. It is important to note here the success of UTCs being run in conjunction with an FE college. This is going to happen in my own constituency. We have a UTC, with a training centre making use of a decommissioned nuclear power station, that is bringing together the kind of training we need, specifically for renewable and nuclear energy. So we have to be more innovative in how we structure these things.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I agree entirely that we need to plan education to meet the economy’s needs, yet sixth-form colleges have been under such financial pressure that one quarter have had to cut STEM courses. Is that not a tragic mistake?

[Neil Carmichael]

It is absolutely right that we need to increase the number of STEM courses, as is happening in mainstream education. We need more young people taking STEM subjects, as it is central to our long-term goal of increasing productivity.

Is it wise to allow students and pupils to stop taking maths post-16? We must put that critical question on the table. There is an argument to be made about a post-16 national baccalaureate that contains maths, English, and either technical or further academic study, and it would help the FE sector generally if that option were brought to the table. As a country we have a big problem with maths, because we do not have enough people who are capable in that subject.

[Marion Fellows]

On comparators and looking abroad and at other places, does the hon. Gentleman agree that as a member of the Education Committee I can help by providing information and background on further education and other education sectors?

[Neil Carmichael]

I am often acquainted with the Scottish view. It has its merits, but I will not address that issue further because I have only 58 seconds left. The National Numeracy charity is rightly concerned that we have a problem with numeracy in the adult population, 78% of whom scarcely reach level 2. That is not a good commentary on our situation, and we must improve it. It is right that the FE sector tackles maths, but it is worth asking whether that should be done through repeated attempts at GCSE retakes or through some other form of numeracy measurement. In short, we need an innovative FE sector that is clearly and properly led, that engages with the world of work, and that considers new ways of delivering the courses, assessments and awards that are so necessary for our young people today.

17:31

[Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)]

Of all 650 constituencies in the country, Bristol South sends the second lowest number of its young people to university. More than 5,500 people in my constituency attend a college, and around 3,500 of those attend City of Bristol college, part of which is located in my constituency.

Further education is crucial for the life chances of young people in my constituency, and the problems in the sector have been mentioned often and were recently discussed in the Public Accounts Committee on 19 October—the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) is also a member of that Committee. The Skills Funding Agency also participated, and highlighted the fact that around 70 colleges could be rated as “financially inadequate” by the end of this financial year. Financially inadequate means that a college is unable to fulfil its contractual arrangements, and the number of colleges operating a deficit by the end of the year will be much higher at about 110.

The Committee discussed the process for area reviews, and a great deal of uncertainty about those reviews remains. In my constituency, I understand that the area review will take place at the beginning of 2016 in the west of England, and will include City of Bristol college, Bath college, Weston college, the Filton campus of South Gloucestershire and Stroud college—that was mentioned by the hon. Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael)—as well as St Brendan’s sixth-form college. Now, however, it seems that it will not include sixth forms, or Bristol technology and engineering academy, which educates 14 to 18-year-olds, or private providers. Far from being a comprehensive picture of post-16 education across the west of England, it seems as if the area review will miss that opportunity.

I would like to be positive about the Government’s review because it will be externally provided, based on evidence, and will consider all colleges. That is to be welcomed, as is the fact that it covers a good geographical patch. However, no money is attached for reviews of colleges, and I urge the Government to consider trying to support colleges in the onerous task of involving themselves in those area reviews. As independent organisations, colleges will not be made to implement the review’s recommendations.

The West of England partnership has produced its own bid for devolution to manage all post-16 skills funding. I support that approach because I think it will help to integrate some of the post-16 skills, but I am concerned that further uncertainty around that aspect for colleges will further impede opportunities for my constituents to have a clear pathway post-16. The two things together may create further confusion, and I would like the Government to look at bringing some of those strands together.

This has become a critical issue for Bristol South, because every time I canvassed before the election I heard from parents and grandparents of young people who are now finding it almost impossible to navigate through the choices and pathways post-16. This part of the west of England has a skills deficit, especially for people with NVQ 1s, and I suggest that the process needs more cohesion and accountability in the future.

17:35

[Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bristol South (Karin Smyth). I must first declare an interest as an advisory governor of Eastleigh college, a brilliant general FE college and one of the leading providers of apprenticeships in the area. I can say that with proper knowledge, as the business admin apprentice in my office attended the college one day a week. As the Secretary of State will appreciate, it is a leading champion in ensuring a good charge towards apprenticeships in the area.

As we have heard from the Chairman of the Education Committee, we and BIS are working together on productivity and it was great to hear from apprentices at the seminar held a few weeks ago how they were enjoying and benefiting from the training that they were getting on the job. It was worrying to hear from them, however, that they were not learning about apprenticeships in schools. In many cases, apprentices are themselves the best advocates for apprenticeships, but we need to find a way to get them into schools to talk about what they are doing and to give others the opportunity to follow in their footsteps.

[Mr Jackson]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the very best FE institutions not only discharge their responsibilities for apprenticeships and even sponsor university technical colleges, but work with bodies such as Jobcentre Plus to help youngsters with work-readiness, so that they are ready with their skills to start employment after they have concluded their studies?

[Caroline Nokes]

My hon. Friend is of course right. The best colleges are working with business and schools to make sure that when young people go into the world of work they are ready for it.

My constituency has no 16 to 19 provision in the state sector, which means that every single teenager is exported somewhere else to go to college. But that is great, because it gives me an opportunity to talk to college principals across the region. I may stray on to the territory of some of my neighbours today, but I have a broad perspective from many college leaders across the south of Hampshire. We are lucky: we have great sixth-form and FE colleges that have worked over the years to make sure that they are as efficient as possible. In many cases, they are as large as possible—they have worked hard to get more students through their doors—but big is not always best. What is crucial is that we have a range of colleges that provide different offers. The transition from school to college can be difficult for some young people, and we should not assume that just because a college is large, efficient and getting great results it will give the best outcomes for every student.

Peter Symonds college, which I was lucky enough to attend—a few years ago now—and Barton Peveril, two of the biggest colleges in the area, have brilliant academic records. They are some of the best in the country, but we also have Richard Taunton college in Southampton on the edge of my constituency, which is far smaller. It has only 1,250 students and it has specialised in attracting a broad and diverse range of students, many of whom have come from other institutions and found their home in a much smaller college, taking three years to complete their A-level education.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I am listening with interest to what the hon. Lady says about the size of colleges. Does she agree that one of the advantages of large—but not too large—colleges is that they give students a maximum choice of A-level subjects as well as unusual combinations of subjects that might best suit their needs?

[Caroline Nokes]

Of course what economies of scale and large colleges also provide are fantastic enrichment programmes, additional courses and provision that goes so far to prepare young people for the world of work—experiences such as volunteering in different parts of the world, the Combined Cadet Force and a wide range of sports. We desperately want young people not to drop off in their participation in sport at 16, but to carry on and make sure that they are fit and healthy for life. It is those enrichment programmes that I worry might start to fall by the wayside, but they are the very programmes that make sure that young people from the state sector have the same opportunities and chances when filling in their personal statements for university that we see in the independent sector. That sector has been great at ensuring that its young people have every advantage and are given a broad curriculum as well as experiences and activities. It is critical to keep ensuring that there is wider access to higher education, and it is imperative that students from the great sixth forms we have in Hampshire, which have a brilliant track record of getting pupils into Oxbridge, have exactly the same advantages when they are filling in their personal statements as those from the independent sector.

The area-based review under way in south Hampshire—the Solent-based review—has won an exclusion which, to my mind and to those of college principals, is significant: it does not include the in-school sixth forms. Way back in the 1970s, Hampshire introduced the tertiary model of education, but a few school sixth forms have lingered on, and indeed there have been some new ones. The area-based review will not look at those schools, and the principals of the colleges feel, probably rightly, aggrieved about that. They do not think it is fair. They already pay VAT, yet the schools do not. They do not have the opportunity to cross-subsidise. We all know that the funding for years 7 to 11 is protected and significantly more generous than the funding for 16-to-19 education. Within a school setting, it is possible to use the funding for years 7 to 11 to assist in the provision of A-level education, but the colleges do not have that choice. They are paying VAT, cannot cross-subsidise and now face this situation, about which they understandably feel pretty cross, because it is unfair on them, as they tell me.

We know from the Sixth Form Colleges Association that sixth-form colleges are out-performing school sixth forms. We know that they are helping higher numbers of more disadvantaged students, and we know that they are getting better results. In Hampshire, the colleges have consistently delivered high-quality education cost-effectively.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I strongly agree with the hon. Lady. In Luton, we have a relatively disadvantaged population, but simply because of the sixth-form college we have above the national average number of young people going to university.

[Caroline Nokes]

I commend the hon. Gentleman’s work as chairman of the all-party parliamentary group for sixth-form colleges.

To conclude, we all know that the average funding for 14 to 16-year-olds is £5,600 a year, but that it drops to £3,600 after 16. That means a reduction in contact time with teachers. That might work for young people preparing for university and learning about independent study, gaining skills that they are going to use in higher education, but it will not work for those with special educational needs or those who require additional support. It will not necessarily work for the students at Brockenhurst college in the New Forest, which has worked so hard to increase access to further education and keep young people with special educational needs in college and in education. For them, unsupervised study is simply not a realistic prospect.

I know that the Minister has probably heard more than enough from me, and will be preparing to respond with facts on funding and by telling us that we all have to learn to live within our means. I get that, I really do. I am not opposed to the area-based reviews, and having seen the issues at Totton college just outside my constituency, I know how important it is that young people have confidence in their college’s ability to provide them with a qualification at the end of their course, provided that they have worked hard enough to get it. I know that there is logic in exploring whether stronger partnerships or collaborative and strategic thinking might further enhance the effectiveness of the college system. However, how about a more level playing field for colleges that are already doing an outstanding job providing strong programmes of study and preparing young people for university, for apprenticeships and for the world of work?

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. From now on, the speaking limit is five minutes.

17:43

[John Pugh (Southport) (LD)]

It is just as well that our Scottish nationalist colleagues have left us at this point and are no longer interested in the development of the debate.

One has to feel sorry for the FE sector in the UK. This is a country—Tomlinson notwithstanding—that does not really value technical education. Technical is normally seen as the opposite to academic, and being academic is not seen to require any technical skill. You are either a classicist or a plumber and you simply cannot be both. At the end of the day, the country is run by people who have received an academic education and who fundamentally have a patrician view. That is why it is so difficult to get parity in this field. It is almost the destiny of FE to be messed around again and again largely by those who neither understand nor rate it. I would suggest that that has happened in some form or another.

Most of the sector started life as local colleges training local students in local crafts and disciplines allied to them, and was strategically—and, I think, helpfully—controlled by local authorities. They then added to the mix general studies of wider cultural interest and opportunities to retake school-based exams. That is where they started, but successive Governments—I include the previous Government—weakened the local link and made them autonomous, with corporate providers alongside other providers outside the public sector. The colleges ended up chasing down perplexing streams of funding from an ever varying set of quangos and outside bodies. The theory, which I suppose is quite sound, was that it would make them sensitive to the needs of the market. It did not do that: it made them sensitive to student demand and funding streams. Frankly, much game-changing technical education bit the dust at that point, to be replaced by courses of lesser value. We had more performing arts, and less gas fitting and all the other things we really need.

Feeling that something was wrong, the previous Labour Government under Gordon Brown decided to endow the colleges with new buildings under the Building Schools for the Future programme, which, I think we can all recall, crashed and burned. It either left colleges with severe financial liabilities they had not expected—the National Audit Office report illustrates that—or severely disappointed, because promises were not delivered on. I have very vivid memories of watching Siôn Simon, the Minister at the time, sitting hollowed out, worn out and punch drunk in Portcullis House after the latest Adjournment debate in which Labour Members had tasked him with not having delivered what had been promised.

Under the coalition Government, I have to say that things did improve under the wise guidance of Vince Cable. Further education was charged to make up for the deficiencies of British industry by providing ever more apprenticeships, and to make up for the deficiencies of schools by giving people an opportunity to retake English and maths. Laudably, colleges were allowed to develop links with universities. All of that was done against a declining budgetary environment. Now, however, we are going to cull them to save money. I take that to be the basic premise of the area-based reviews. They have to reach a bottom line and that bottom line has to be less than the current bottom line.

I suggest that there is a better way forward. We need to integrate FE colleges better with local industry and business, integrate them better with local schools and communities, and give them a proper strategic role. That is not happening, or, if it is happening, it is not happening everywhere. Colleges, particularly on Merseyside, have no tools to intervene or assist downstream with school and academy failure, but they are expected to sweep up after them when children finish those schools without GCSEs in English and maths. Communities are not being empowered to address the skill deficiencies they face.

The Liverpool city region deal has recently been concluded. The councils bid for control over the skills budget but did not get it, owing, I would suggest, to resistance from the Minister’s Department. Nothing has been a more intractable problem for Liverpool and the Merseyside area than the skills gap and nothing would be more effective in addressing it than giving local power over the needs we have, but local further education colleges are not even on the skills committee of the local enterprise partnership. Their budgets are not devolved to the city region and they simply await the axe of the area review. They wonder why it is they, and not the academies and schools, that are in the frame.

17:48

[Michelle Donelan (Chippenham) (Con)]

I want to make two points in response to the motion. First, it is not quite as simple as just funding. Secondly, we need to have a plan to afford an increase in funding.

Wiltshire college recently invested £21 million in a new Chippenham campus, which will bring long-term local economic benefits. It is a fantastic space for students to learn in. It has an excellent reputation and I am sure it will go from strength to strength, but it needs more pupil funding. Sixth-form colleges in my constituency are also suffering, in particular Abbeyfield school, which I share with my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr Gray). Like countless others, it suffers from the burden of private finance initiative funding of its sixth-form building.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

May I make a brief intervention to say that my own further and higher education college, Bromley college, is in dire need of funding?

[Michelle Donelan]

I thank my hon. Friend for echoing my comments.

The school is also running a growing deficit, which is putting a real strain on its finances.

Spending on 16 and 17-year-olds is 22% lower than spending on 11 to 16-year-olds, and spending on 18-year-olds is a further 17.5% lower. I urge the Chancellor to address that in the spending review, and to ensure that funding for 16 to 18-year-olds is brought into line with the Department’s ring-fencing. It is a shame that the debate was not delayed until after the spending review, when we could have had a more productive and informed discussion.

We must bear it in mind, however—and I do not think this point has been stressed enough by Opposition Members—that a good FE offering is not just about funding We need to consider far broader issues in our education system, and think about its links with our national productivity. I therefore welcome the Government’s productivity plan. Increasing funds will not fix everything. Today’s debate only serves to highlight the fact that Labour seriously believes that simply throwing money at a problem will be a cure-all when it really will not. The truth is that we have a crisis in our career education system. We still have no tangible link between the education system and the workforce, because our school funding system is still a postcode lottery. The Government are trying to resolve deep-rooted, complex issues, and the topic of the debate is therefore far too simplistic.

Having spoken to local businesses throughout my constituency, I am well aware of the recruitment challenges that they face, given the lack of appropriate skills. According to a recent survey by the Institution of Engineering and Technology, six out of 10 companies said that skills shortage was a threat to their business in the United Kingdom. Simply pumping money into FE will not resolve the problem. It is true that courses have been removed because of a lack of funding, but because students may opt for other courses, they are not always financially viable. So what is the answer? Do we pump money into them to prop them up, or do we encourage our students to opt for the courses that will lead to jobs?

[Melanie Onn]

Might not guidance at an earlier stage, in the form of appropriate careers advice, help young people to make the right FE choices? I should remind the House that that service has been slashed, and now barely exists in any part of the country.

[Michelle Donelan]

I entirely agree. I think that career education is one of the key issues that we need to address, and that is one of the reasons why I became a member of the Education Committee.

Yes, we should ring-fence further education funding, but we also need to recognise the true utility of vocational courses. We need to stop pushing students towards the traditional academic routes, we need to start treating children as individuals rather than mass statistics, and we need to work to shift the stereotypes that are attached to jobs and courses. Otherwise, the true value of any money that is spent will never really be utilised.

I believe that the best way to reform further education is to bring together local businesses, further education colleges and universities, and enable them to shape curriculums to the needs of local economies. University technical colleges make that leap, and we need more of them, but we also need to apply the same approach to schools and further education colleges. If we are to do more to support businesses and build a workforce for tomorrow, we must reform education today, and I welcome the Department’s recognition of the need for such reform. I welcome the introduction of area reviews, and the move towards institutes of technology and specialisation in colleges.

No one would oppose more investment in our further education system, but the question the Opposition have yet to answer is, “Where will we get the money from?” Will we get it from the NHS, secondary or primary education, or the police? We cannot “magic” money, and we need to stop using the education system as a political football. I urge the Minister to do even more, and to explore creative opportunities that would enrich our educational offering by working with businesses and community consortiums to fund courses and resources, and, in particular, helping local economies with specific needs. Wiltshire, for instance, is crying out for more support for science, technology, engineering and maths subjects and design and technology. That would enable us to help with the supply and demand of our local labour markets and our education system.

Simply pumping money into a system is a very simplistic answer to a complex question. If we are to improve and better fund our education system, it is vital for us to improve the link with business and the stake that business has in the system, and we need to look for new ways to boost funding from that link. After all, business and the economy have the most to gain from a productive, highly educated and skilled workforce.

17:54

[Jo Cox (Batley and Spen) (Lab)]

There has been much consensus here today on education being the best down-payment a country can make to secure its economic future. There is much to agree on, and indeed a thriving FE sector is directly linked to a higher-wage, higher-skilled and more productive economy, yet sadly, as the Secretary of State has admitted, post-16 education is in a fragile state. Following funding cuts in the last Parliament, colleges are being forced to survive on starvation rations. As I discussed with Yorkshire businesses just this week, these cuts mean young people are leaving further education without the qualifications employers desperately require, and firms are unable to develop, expand and grow.

In Kirklees, our sixth-form colleges are doing some amazing work despite the funding constraints imposed on them. We have sixth-form colleges of high repute achieving great things academically and vocationally, and of course the FE sector also offers unique provision and is indeed sometimes a lifeline for some of the most vulnerable people in society—people who did not achieve their potential at school and for whom FE is a second or third chance. If we cut FE, these children and adults are in danger of being even more disengaged and excluded from education and society. However, this Government’s failure to protect FE funding has meant that, in west Yorkshire, for example, three colleges have had to accumulate a combined capital debt of over £100 million to provide the modern facilities employers and students deserve. As someone with friends and family working in the FE sector in west Yorkshire, I know at first hand that morale is at an all-time low and talented and committed professionals are leaving the profession in droves.

In addition, I share the concerns of many other Members here today about the narrowness of the Government’s proposed post-16 area reviews, which mean that FE providers are being asked to compete in a deeply unfair environment. In Kirklees, we are in the opening stages of our review, but ostensibly we will only consider sixth-form colleges. I am very worried that a review that does not take account of the provision that exists in secondary schools will be incomplete and therefore fundamentally flawed. Therefore, I believe the Government urgently need to re-examine these area reviews and include all current and proposed post-16 providers, and not simply colleges.

What will become of FE opportunities for post-16s is at best unclear at the moment—we obviously await next week’s announcements—but if we are demanding that young people remain in education beyond 16, we must ensure they have somewhere to go to study. The Government must stop treating post-16 education as if it is an add-on. Access to further education is shrinking for many at precisely the wrong time, just as demand for further education places starts to increase.

That is certainly the case in my neck of the woods. If we compare the number of schools with sixth-forms in Batley and Spen today with the number 10 years ago, we notice a stark difference: the provision has shrunk by more than half. There are seven secondary schools in my constituency; only two have sixth-forms. Incidentally, both are now academies. There is also now no sixth-form college provision in my constituency; the world renowned Batley art college is, sadly, no longer to be found in Batley. These days, the majority of post-16 education for young people from Batley and Spen is outside the constituency. That means many young people from my constituency have to travel in excess of two hours to the opposite end of the district to attend college. This is piecemeal provision in which access and locations are based not on the needs of students, but on financial considerations.

To conclude, the FE sector is in a parlous financial state and there is growing concern from the people in my neck of the woods who work in FE that further cuts will tip colleges over the precipice. FE provision has been disproportionately affected by Government cuts to the public sector and has not been afforded the same protection offered to schools over the last six years. The Government’s decisions regarding further education are too often influenced solely by financial considerations, not on what really matters: providing our young people with the very best and most accessible form of academic or vocational education. This is what we want. This is what the FE sector wants. This is what students want. It is what parents want. It is also what universities and employers want. I fully support the motion.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Because of all the interventions, I am going to have to drop the time limit down to four minutes in order to get everyone in. I do not want to have to drop it any further, so let us see if we can keep everything going.

17:59

[Lucy Frazer (South East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

Yesterday, I was at an all-day seminar with the Education Select Committee in Coventry, where we had the opportunity to meet the heads of primary and secondary schools, the regional schools commissioner and local government education officials. It was clear to me that our education providers understood the importance of working together and learning from one another and that they understood the link between education and jobs. I would therefore like to highlight one part of the motion before the House and to challenge it. The motion states that

“many colleges are…no longer offering courses in subjects key to our country’s competitiveness”.

I want to focus on that assumption, because I think it undermines the valuable work that our sixth-form colleges are doing.

I want to highlight three very different further education colleges that serve my constituency and that are doing extremely valuable work. First, we have the Cambridge regional college, which has more than 5,500 apprentices in training and works with more than 800 local employers to provide apprenticeships. Yesterday, it held a science, technology, engineering and maths—or STEM—seminar for year 10 and 11 students from the village colleges around my constituency. Secondly, we have the Cambridge university technical college, which opened in September 2014 and which specialises in biomedical and environmental science and technology. It teaches core GCSEs alongside technical qualifications. Thirdly, there is Hills Road, a highly academic sixth-form college that specialises in STEM subjects. In its A-level provision this year, it had 1,000 students in year 13, 92% of whom got grades between A* and C. For the 22nd successive year, it is at the head of the sixth-form college A-level league table for points per entry. The motion is therefore wrong to suggest that we are no longer offering courses that are key to our country’s competitiveness. In my area, we are offering precisely that.

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

The hon. and learned Lady has pointed out that the Cambridge regional college is very successful, but will she acknowledge that it took a big hit financially when the changes made by the UK Visas and Immigration service stopped it recruiting international students for a period? That cost the college some £1.5 million. Will she join me in making representations to the Home Secretary to ask her to sort this out?

[Lucy Frazer]

I must declare an interest in this matter. There is an issue with international students, which we need to address.

The hon. Gentleman and I share some fantastic colleges in our constituencies, and it is also wrong to suggest that the Government are not supporting education that leads to employment. They are undertaking a review of sixth-form education to ensure that it meets the needs of the regions it serves. They are also encouraging maths and physics through bursary schemes, and they are working to expand the apprenticeship programme, making £1.5 billion available for apprenticeships this year. Of course we can always do more. We should be encouraging not only teachers and businesses but students. The Government should look at ways to incentivise students to study the courses that will give them the right skills, so that we can continue to compete in the international markets in which our country operates.

18:04

[Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)]

It was a great honour, as a Minister, to be responsible for skills under Tony Blair’s Government and for universities under Gordon Brown. I learned two things in those two different posts. First, when I put out a press release challenging Oxford and Cambridge as to why more people from the London boroughs of Richmond and Barnet went to those universities than went there from the entirety of Scotland and Wales put together it reached all the headlines—everyone wanted to write about universities. Secondly, when I wanted to talk about skills and FE, I struggled.

That is why this debate is so important and why we must focus on a couple of things. First, many deprived areas across the country—areas suffering different degrees of poverty and areas that would traditionally be described as working class—do not have particularly thriving sixth forms in school. What these areas have are sixth-form colleges and FE. This is often where the working-class children find themselves by virtue of history, and it is why this debate is important. Much has been made of the spending review, but it comes on top of a huge 16% cut in funding to the FE sector.

Secondly, the Minister said a lot about apprenticeship starts but very little about completions. She did not say that a lot of the growth in apprenticeships is in the over-35 age group. She did not talk about the quality of apprenticeships and where those apprenticeships are. In London, the increase in apprenticeships is in hairdressing. People can say, “What is wrong with hairdressing?”, but too often it is not her children who are going into those apprenticeships. That is why it is important that we get serious about what an apprenticeship is. Around the country, a lot of working-class kids are saying, “It is not worth the paper it is written on. I didn’t get a job after it. I cannot get the income I wanted.” That is the real discussion to have when FE budgets are cut.

My main point this evening, however, is that if we are to have a debate about FE, let us concentrate on the real collapse in FE in this country. The huge collapse is in adult learning. It is a disgrace and it is why our productivity is floundering. Bring back the night school. Where is it? When we get to this time of the evening, where is that thriving environment in our FE colleges across the country? It does not exist. On a Saturday and a Sunday, where can working people go? We have gaps in IT and green technology. We have huge new sectors of the economy, but how are working people to get access to jobs in them if the Government cut the funding and cut the central purpose of further education?

Our first night school was in Edinburgh in 1821, and we had wonderful working men’s colleges in our major cities. I remember films such as “Educating Rita” when I was growing up that looked at the context: professors and others who came alongside women and working people and got them into education. That has been cut under this Government and lost entirely in this country. That is why people are turning to parties such as the UK Independence party—they have nowhere else to go. Let us bring back night school and fund FE properly. It is a shame and an outrage that this is not being covered in a much bigger way across the country, because it is what people are talking about in local communities.

18:08

[Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)]

It is interesting to follow the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), who says we should bring back night school. I would like to know where he would get the funding for it. It has been gone for a long time in a lot of areas.

Mr Deputy Speaker, you missed being lectured for 15 minutes by the Scottish National party spokesperson in a debate that its Members did not even bother to sit around to participate in afterwards. That is a real shame, given that we have an Opposition day debate today. I feel sorry that we were lectured like that when they could not be bothered to stay to listen to the meat of the debate.

I want to focus on apprenticeships, because the motion says that this Government are risking the country’s prosperity, yet it leaves out apprenticeships. The right hon. Gentleman did refer to them, but I was disappointed to hear him say that they are not worth the paper they are written on. I have been working with my local college, Oaklands college, which has apprenticeship week in March; I met many providers who were encouraged to make sure that apprenticeships are worth while. That is why I wanted to speak in this debate. I cringed when I heard the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West) sneer—I can use no other word—about an apprenticeship; she seemed to be saying that using the till in a bakery was not worth while.

[Catherine West]

rose—

[Mrs Main]

I am not giving way to the hon. Lady, because she has plenty on her own side who wish to speak. Many young people, my own son included, want to go into an apprenticeship and they will be feeling today, “If I take up an apprenticeship at the lower level and learn some of the skills of interacting with other people, using the till, and learning to get up to get to work on time, to make myself presentable and to make myself work-ready, somehow I am not—

[Catherine West]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Is it possible to come back on a particular point?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

It is up to each Member to decide whether to give way.

[Mrs Main]

As I have said, I did try to intervene when this matter was under discussion. I want to speak on this because young people will feel that it is not worth learning some of the softer skills, such as how to deal with customers, how to be pleasant, how to be work ready, and how to turn up on time in the morning. I worry that we are going down a route of saying that being academic—I am sure that you absolutely were, Mr Deputy Speaker—is the only thing that is worth pursuing. I wish to speak up for the work that this Government have done in bringing up the value for everybody regardless of their educational attainment at school. I am talking about bringing up the value for those people who are learning to get into the job of work.

[Karin Smyth]

rose—

[Mrs Main]

No, I will not give way.

[Karin Smyth]

On that point—

[Mrs Main]

Okay, I will give way, but the hon. Lady is taking time from her own side.

[Karin Smyth]

The hon. Lady has misrepresented what was said. There was no attempt to degrade lower skilled jobs or say that they were not important, or that the people going into those jobs were not important, but those jobs are not what we think of as high-skilled apprenticeships. That was the point that my hon. Friend was trying to make, and she has been misrepresented.

[Mrs Main]

The hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West) made her point very clearly. Effectively, she was saying, “What was that worth?” I am saying that, for many young people, getting to work on time, being presentable, using soft skills, and learning how to use a till, particularly if they are not mathematically literate, are valuable. I have met young people with disabilities who find those opportunities valuable. We must stop degrading those opportunities by saying that they are not worth the paper they are written on—the right hon. Member for Tottenham said that. We have to ensure that apprenticeships are worth the paper they are written on. It is a different matter if they are not. I am not aware of any apprenticeships in my constituency that are not worth the paper they are written on, and I am seeing young people benefiting from them.

I pay tribute to the Minister for encouraging people. I wish to remove any sneering about people who do not have high academic attainment and say, “If you are serving me in my local Greggs in St Albans, I value you. I value the fact that you are engaging with me properly and that you are someone who has taken the trouble to skill up.” I would not like to see that young person being put off taking on any further education.

Let me mention Naomi. She was a young person who had not done well at school, who was not good at attending and who was not good in the world of work. She was picked up by Barclays, and she has become an absolute credit to it. It trained her up, got her work ready, got her studying qualifications alongside being trained up on the job. Now Naomi is a high achiever for Barclays. That first chance to get on the rung of an apprenticeship—our Government should be proud of what it is offering—is not just a throwaway that should not even be considered in the motion. It is something that is hugely valuable and sets many young people like Naomi on the right path into work and gets it into their head that there is something worth studying for. They realise that they can make something of their lives.

I value apprenticeships at all levels. For some young people, they click in a way that school did not. It is not always right to get everybody going into more education. Many can absorb a lot, learn a lot and change their lives by taking up some of those more modest offerings that the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green and others sneer about and refer to as not being worth the paper they are written on.

18:13

[Mr Geoffrey Robinson (Coventry North West) (Lab)]

May I draw Members’ attention to my declaration in the register? I do not intend to give way in view of the fact that so many Labour Members still wish to participate in this debate.

The central contention of the Opposition motion, which seems to have got lost in many of the speeches that we have heard, is that

“given that the participation age has now risen to 18 years old, it makes no sense for the post-16 education budget to be treated with less importance than the 5-16 schools budget”.

That is the central contention, to which we have not yet had an adequate reply from the Government. Indeed, the impression that they may have inadvertently given today and that they certainly have given over the preceding months if not years is that this matter is a poor relation. One of the leading principals of Coventry’s colleges has said that the Government do not treat post-16 education with the respect and priority that it deserves. Certainly, what we have heard today tends to enforce that unfortunate view.

I wish to talk briefly about Coventry, because we have two major FE colleges, City college and Henley college. In the case of City college, it is not a question of what will or will not come out of the spending review, which not just those involved in post-16 education but everybody is awaiting with trepidation. Rather, it is the fact that this year the Skills Funding Agency reviewed the college’s budget and promised it around £100,000 extra, against which it has committed resources and money to provide apprenticeships—the very area in which I know the Minister of State is most interested. The college looks like delivering and perhaps even over-delivering because of that increase in the budget, but because of the delays in the budgets and in approving them—not for future education spending, but for the current year—to which Members on both sides of the House have referred, the college still does not have any certainty. Can the Minister reply to City further education college in Coventry and let us know the situation?

The other major college—they both do tremendous work in Coventry—is Henley college. I want to quote the principal, who reinforces, I regret to say, the general impression that the Government have given. He speaks as someone who has been in further education for 38 years. He ends his letter to me by referring to the letter, which the Minister must have seen by now, from the principals of well over 100 colleges—I thought at one point it was 140—to the Government and his Secretary of State. After 38 years in the further education profession, the principal of Henley college says:

“I feel that the manner of this government’s treatment of local further education colleges shows a deep contempt and equally deep ignorance of the invaluable work they do to improve their communities”.

The cuts that FE colleges face and the cuts they are undergoing—14% in the last Parliament—bear that out. From somebody as deeply committed as the principal of Henley college in Coventry, that seems a very sad epitaph to the record of this Government and this Secretary of State and their attitude towards further education.

18:17

[Mr Adrian Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Lab/Co-op)]

I have been meeting black country FE college principals pretty regularly ever since I was elected, and in the last 18 months I have noticed a significant change in their approach. My previous meetings addressed their problems, some of which were to do with funding, but now there is an almost apocalyptic feeling about the representations they are making. They have been badly hit recently with the cuts to adult education funding. That has been compounded by the sudden withdrawal of funding for ESOL—English for speakers of other languages—which has had a significant effect on colleges with high ethnic minority populations. This is not just a party political issue; it comes from the college principals themselves and is recognised throughout the sector. The National Audit Office agrees, and so does Professor Wolf.

The second point I want to make is that if FE colleges are closed down and their numbers reduced, there will not just be implications for local education provision, but a profound impact on the Government’s stated long-term economic objectives. The Chancellor’s current mantra is the creation of a high-wage, high-productivity, skilled economy. What are the key elements of a high- wage, high-skilled economy? They are construction, manufacturing and engineering. Who are the education providers that provide the apprentices and, often, the intermediate education of those who take higher education in those areas? Why, it is the FE colleges. Over 50% of manufacturing and construction apprenticeships come through the FE colleges. If their numbers are reduced, the capacity to provide enough apprentices to strengthen those elements of our economy, which are vital to the creation of a high-wage, highly productive, export-led economy, will be degraded.

[Jo Churchill (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Bailey]

No, I will not give way, because there is not enough time.

Manufacturing is crucial to the future of our country, and FE colleges play a vital role in the supply of skills necessary to sustain it.

Finally, it is reasonable to expect area reviews to be based on consulting all concerned and understanding local skills issues and skills provision—including in-house sixth-form provision, which is excluded from the reviews—in order to see how best to meet the skills requirements through structures that will also minimise the costs involved. The exclusion of in-house sixth-form provision, UTCs and so on has left the FE sector feeling discriminated against and worried that there is a political objective behind it. That should be overcome. I support the suggestion of the Association of Colleges for outcome-based reviews involving consultation of both business and education right across the board.

18:21

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

I am beginning to wonder what this Government have got against young people. When I spoke in this Chamber yesterday I asked why on earth we should not give 16 and 17-year-olds the ability to vote in local elections, and today I am talking about cuts to post-16 education.

The Prime Minister said today that decisions we make now are not just for the present, but for the future and for our children and our children’s children. He should not have to say that—it is entirely self-evident—but the fact that he said it on the same day as this Opposition day debate on cuts to post-16 education funding is particularly ironic.

Hopwood Hall college in my constituency does not offer, and never has offered, courses in balloon artistry, yet the Secretary of State cites such courses. In so doing, she repeats the misinformation spread in March 2014 by the then Skills Minister, the right hon. Member for West Suffolk (Matthew Hancock), when he, too, claimed that courses such as balloon artistry would no longer be paid for by the taxpayer. The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills then revealed that such a course had never been listed for Government money anyway. It is disappointing in the extreme to hear the Secretary of State for Education incorporating such myths into her arguments. In this case I would suggest that she herself is guilty of scaremongering.

Hopwood Hall college is one of more than 100 colleges to write recently to the Prime Minister to urge a rethink of his Government’s proposals. They have highlighted many major problems with the current and planned system of funding, including repeated year-on-year cuts to adult funding, which now total about 40%; a significant reduction in funding for students aged 18; and large reductions in annual funding allocations being announced to colleges only weeks before a new academic year, severely harming their ability to plan and to invest in staff and resources. The letter was signed by the chair of Hopwood Hall college, Robert Clegg OBE, who is also a Tory councillor in Rochdale. I wonder whether the Secretary of State would accuse him of scaremongering.

The further education sector has taken a kicking over the past few years. I remember the sadness and anger in my constituency when the coalition Government withdrew the education maintenance allowance and poorer students were forced to withdraw from their courses as they simply could not afford to attend them anymore.

The principal of the college wrote to me last year, expressing his concerns about last year’s round of cuts and the detrimental effect they would have on the provision of adult further education. He said:

“Cuts of this magnitude could mean the end of this essential education in every city, town and community in England and the consequences will be felt by individuals and the economy for years to come.”

That was last year. Now it seems that FE and sixth-form colleges are staring another round of swingeing cuts in the face. There is a real fear that further funding cuts in the next comprehensive spending review will tip our sixth-form and FE colleges over the precipice. Colleges are asking that this Government give consistent and equitable funding to all 16 to 18-year-olds, and that this should be the same as that given to 14 to 16-year-olds. They want more certainty and predictability of funding to enable planning and investment to occur with certainty and confidence. I urge the Secretary of State to take seriously the problems stated in the letter signed by over 100 chairs of FE colleges and listen to their warnings—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order.

18:25

[Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)]

Today’s debate is particularly important to me as Salford city college and other further education institutions in my constituency have had to battle savage cuts over the past five years. The college is under review as part of the Government’s post-16 areas review policy. Indeed, Salford city college was one of the 129 colleges to sign the open letter sent to the Chancellor earlier this month. I wish to make clear my support for them.

In the previous Parliament the education budget for 16 to 19-year-olds fell by 14% in real terms. Funding for 18 and 19-year-olds was cut further, so provision for these students is 17.5% lower than for students aged 16 and 17. In July the National Audit Office reported that the

“financial health of the FE college sector had been declining since 2010”.

In addition, the Further Education Commissioner warned that over 55% of colleges will be in financial difficulty by the end of next year.

Despite these clear warnings, I fear that the Chancellor appears to be gearing up for another round of cuts to further education in the spending review next week. Let me be clear. Colleges in my constituency cannot cope with further cuts to their budgets. The city college has already had to lose teachers and support staff, make cuts in pastoral care and extracurricular activities, and drop a number of courses just to survive. These services were not a luxury. They were integral to ensuring that the young people of Salford participated and excelled in education. A person who comes from a poor background and whose family has suffered the savage effects of a lack of education and poor employment prospects for generations could be forgiven for feeling that aspiration was not for them, but only for a select few. Pastoral care and a wide range of courses are key to lifting these people out of poverty and breaking the cycle for their future children.

Without this support, how many young people will fall through the cracks of our education system? This is not just a bad thing in and of itself, but economically short-sighted. Education is critical for employment, especially in constituencies such as mine that have suffered from de-industrialisation and need both new jobs and a workforce equipped to do them. MediaCityUK, for example, is the hub of media creativity in the UK and is a fantastic asset to our city, but when it opened hardly anybody there came from Salford, and we have had to work hard and fight tooth and nail locally to ensure that we have educational courses to upskill our young people and make sure that they can be employed there. This is all under threat.

From the Conservative Government’s rhetoric, one would think that they support the institutions that allow people who work hard to get on, but the cuts already inflicted on further education services and the threat of more to come tell a completely different story. How do the Government expect people to improve their skills when the vehicle for doing so is breaking down? How do they expect these young people when they grow older to gain well-paid employment that will ensure that they do not have to depend on financial assistance from the Government? This is not long-term economic planning, as the Chancellor would have us believe, and it does not lend itself to a sustainable welfare system in the future.

18:28

[Julie Cooper (Burnley) (Lab)]

I support the motion. I have experience of an FE college. As someone who went to a school that did not have a sixth form and who benefited personally from FE, I know at first hand how useful that can be in getting on in life. I am also a former governor of the FE college in Burnley.

At the beginning of the debate, much was made by the Minister of the Labour Government’s legacy in education. Let me share with the House the education legacy in Burnley. Burnley has a brand-spanking-new FE college built by the previous Labour Government that is an inspiring learning environment. As a governor, I watched it go from strength to strength, providing excellent academic, vocational and educational training, and supporting local apprenticeships and the local economy. It had a 100% pass rate at A-level and it was judged by Ofsted to be “outstanding”. The principal tells me that this is all now at risk. Recent cuts—this is before we consider any that might be announced next week—mean that our college is struggling to continue that excellent work giving life opportunities to young people across the constituency from academic and other skilled backgrounds. All those opportunities will be denied if the college cannot be sustained.

I know that strictly speaking adult education provision is not the subject of this debate, but FE provides excellent opportunities to deliver it. In the current climate, where we are seeking to prevent radicalisation and extremism, it is extremely unhelpful when budgets to deliver English language training to those whose first language is not English are slashed, already, by 40%. The Minister seemed to think it was funny that we were all worrying about what funding cuts might be announced next week, but the institutions know what they have seen since 2010, so they are understandably very nervous.

Those cuts have been administered to the sixth-form and FE sector in a way that shows total disrespect to staff, governors and students. The short notice allows for no planning whatsoever for restructuring and long-term, effective savings. This year, funding cuts were announced in March, with a further round announced in July, for implementation in August. That shows absolutely outrageous disrespect to the sector.

This is not a case for political argument. People in all parts of the House have said today how much they support giving young people opportunities for apprenticeships, vocational training and academic training. The motion merely seeks to ensure that that provision is protected. The contribution of such training to our local and national economies cannot be overestimated. Funds invested in this sector are never wasted.

18:32

[Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)]

I will not go into funding, because we have heard much about that during this debate.

Earlier today, Members in this Chamber heard my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Tom Blenkinsop) read a list of hundreds of job losses additional to those caused by the devastating cessation of steel production. This country continues to de-industrialise, with manufacturing going to countries that subsidise such production. Generations of families in Middlesbrough will have worked in the British steel industry. Education and skills retraining will be necessary to assist them in searching for employment and in attracting alternative employment opportunities. My constituency has suffered the same experience, and I feel for those people. I also know of numerous success stories. Deep coal miners and glass workers have gone on to achieve degrees, including master’s degrees. Some have become entrepreneurs and some have set up businesses providing services.

I want to talk about adult education and training. The Workers Educational Association is under threat. It has been educating adults for over 100 years, and millions have benefited from the programmes and courses that it has provided. The WEA provides opportunities for many for whom school was not a positive experience, and that can be, and has been, a real and effective second chance. It is imperative to maintain the vital service provided by the WEA, and I sincerely hope that it survives the BIS review.

Sixth-form colleges are an educational success story. Sixth-form college associations representing colleges across England tell us of those that are outstanding providers of 16-to-19 education, outperforming academy sixth forms and educating more disadvantaged students, yet receiving less funding. Sixth-form colleges also offer superior value for money by delivering better outcomes than academies at a lower cost to the public purse. All that is achieved with a greater proportion of students eligible for free school meals: 11% of sixth-form college students are eligible for this benefit at the age of 15, compared with only 8% of students in academies.

The Government need to address the indefensible VAT anomaly from which sixth-form colleges suffer. I have listened to what further education colleges have said in condemnation of the previous Labour Government, but they funded the St Helens FE college. It is a wonderful piece of architecture and I invite hon. Members to come along to see it. This excellent college is innovative, providing education and training where and when it is needed. For instance, a course ran at 7 am in Dock Road, Liverpool and was paid for by employers for 200 Chinese-speaking adult pupils. However, the course did not meet the tight criteria set by this Government.

Flight Hospitality chartered a plane for the use of the college. However, like many FE colleges, the college struggles to hire maths and English tutors as it cannot compete with schools. The Government need to support FE colleges to recruit such tutors, rather than making further cuts to their budgets. Mr Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak.

18:36

[Jo Churchill (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)]

In the last Parliament, the Government committed themselves to and delivered quality and rigour in post-16 education by driving forward 2.4 million apprenticeships. I am dedicated to that scheme, and over the years I have enjoyed employing apprentices and seeing them thrive. I am keen to see the Minister for Skills get to 5 million apprenticeships by 2020, because that is a brilliant aspiration.

West Suffolk college in my constituency of Bury St Edmunds is an exemplar of what the Government are striving to achieve. It is a high-achieving, highly collaborative education forum that works with successful local businesses—Greene King and British Sugar among others—the local Suffolk chamber of commerce, which is embedded in the heart of the college, and, most importantly, the local enterprise partnership. Only recently, the LEP supported the college with £7 million for a STEM centre.

The college concentrates on student opportunities, in accordance with the Government’s drive, and it delivers hundreds of highly skilled apprentices in East Anglia. Jack, whom I have met there, is an apprentice on a welding course. His aspiration is to have his own business, which I applaud. Working with the apprenticeship trailblazers the Secretary of State mentioned earlier, the college offers a skills pipeline to empower young people and combat socioeconomic barriers in the region.

In its pursuit of the Government’s ambitious plans, that college in my constituency is flourishing, so much so—this is a plug—that it has ambitions to become an institute of technology, in recognition of its standards in apprenticeships and its professional sponsorship. However, West Suffolk college, like the Association of Colleges, is asking us to look carefully at how to move forward. It is asking for parity between schools and colleges. We have formed an academy with a sixth-form college, and it seems slightly ironic that the two funding models are not treated the same. I echo the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael) that we should look at a better entry level for maths and English because it is important to encourage people to move up to a higher level.

The college in my constituency wants to be able to plan for the future with confidence, and it is looking to the Government to allow a three-year funding packing, if possible, so that it can do so. Colleges such as mine are keen to help the Government to meet their ambitions for skills and productivity, and to deliver the Government’s commitment to have more apprenticeships. If the Government can give them certainty in further education funding, colleges will enable the Government to achieve the ambitions they want for our young people and others.

18:39

[Mr Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)]

The best of today’s debate has been the powerful advocacy we have heard from Members from all parts of the House for further education in their constituencies and colleges.

I praise in particular the Labour Members who have spoken. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol South (Karin Smyth) said that we were right to consider the devolution issues. My hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen (Jo Cox) gave practical examples of good work in her sixth forms and FE colleges.

There was a powerful speech from my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), who drew on his experience as a former skills Minister. He pointed out that the Government have said very little about the completion figures for apprenticeships and the calibre of apprenticeships. He also touched on the huge collapse in adult learning. Although that is not central to the motion, it is another symptom of the failure of the Government to address this issue holistically.

My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North West (Mr Robinson) talked about the funding uncertainties. My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey) talked about the almost apocalyptic feeling among many FE colleges. My hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton (Liz McInnes) cited the situation in her college and rightly shamed the Secretary of State for her reliance on scaremongering about balloon artistry in her speech. My hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey) asked how we can deal with the savage cuts to colleges. My hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Julie Cooper) said that FE had helped to transfer—[Interruption.] The Secretary of State chunters from a sedentary position. If she wants to claim that she did not refer to balloon artistry, she is welcome to do so.

[Nicky Morgan]

I am happy to say that I mentioned courses such as marzipan modelling and balloon artistry, which were funded by the Labour Government. Young people were led to think that they were gaining qualifications that would stand them in good stead in their education, but they did not.

[Mr Marsden]

If the Secretary of State checks the facts, she might find that they are rather different.

My hon. Friend the Member for St Helens South and Whiston (Marie Rimmer) is a powerful advocate for the role of FE in her empowering sixth-form colleges. As a former WEA tutor, I was pleased that she spoke about the importance of the WEA.

Regardless of her artistry, balloon or otherwise, I found the Secretary of State’s speech rather sad and waffly, with a dash of Europhobia thrown in. [Interruption.] I am sorry that Ministers do not like that, but it is true. The Secretary of State talked about not showing her hand before the spending review. The problem is that most of us do not believe that she had a hand to show in the first place. The way in which she talked about apprenticeships without mentioning any of the difficulties or complexities reminded me of the old sitcom, “Never Mind the Quality, Feel the Width”.

The Secretary of State did not look at the unsustainable division between school education, which has ring-fenced funding, and FE, which faces growing marginalisation and an ever-greater burden of cuts. The area review of local FE provision is adding to the instability in the sector and there is unclear information from the Government on funding applications. Further education for 16 to 19-year-olds was the most cut area of education in the last Parliament, with its funding falling by 14% in real terms. That was a combination of lower budgets to support 16 to 19-year-olds after the scrapping of the EMA and a direct funding cut to colleges of about 10% in real terms. This year, per-student funding in colleges and sixth forms has faced a real-terms cut and stands at £4,000.

It is a pity that the Secretary of State did not come out of her press release bubble a little more and talk about what other people in the sector are saying. Many Members referred to the open letter that warned about further funding cuts in the spending review, as was reported in Monday’s FE Week. Colleges and courses do not exist in silos. If there are funding cuts for 16 to 19-year-olds, it will have a knock-on effect on other age groups. Earlier in the week, the shadow Chancellor and I spoke to hundreds of FE staff in London. There was genuine fury not just because they will be less able to help students, but about the life chances that will go astray.

The National Audit Office rightly reported on the problems in FE earlier in the year. My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier), in her role as Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, described it as a “deeply alarming report”.

It is not just in Department for Education policy that the Government are failing to support the skills and growth that we need. There is a failure of joined-up thinking across the Departments and there is no acknowledgement of the impact that the Government ‘s cuts are having on post-school education. The Minister knows that business and the budget for further education are closely linked, but the new higher education Green Paper threatens to stack the deck against FE colleges that derive precious revenue from providing degree-level skills. If he plans to ensure that colleges that do not immediately meet the desired standards are supported to improve and bounce back, rather than starting on a cycle of decline, fair enough, but the Green Paper has no answers to that question.

The analysis by our shadow Education team showed just what the cuts would mean for 16 to 19-year-olds. Assuming the Department met the lower target of 25%, spending on 16-to-19 provision could fall by £1.6 billion a year by 2020. No wonder the alarm bells have been rung all across the sector. No wonder the Association of Employment and Learning Providers, in its spending review submission, said that funding for 16-to-18 education should be maintained. The Government need to realise that people from across the sector, including the Association of Colleges, which has spoken out strongly, and the University and College Union, which has said that colleges

“cater for the learning needs of a wide range of people, including many from vulnerable or disadvantaged groups”,

are saying that colleges should not lose out to schools but that the Government are in danger of allowing that to happen.

We have heard a lot from the sixth-form college sector. Research by the Sixth Form Colleges Association at the beginning of August painted a picture of a beleaguered sector under serious threat from three separate funding cuts since 2011—never mind what might come up next week. Only this week, the principal of my sixth-form college said to me:

“Last year 81.42% of our students progressed to HE, a further 12.21% to employment with training…and only 0.94% remained NEET… Another cut in funding threatens all this. Not only will the college have to seek significant savings in its day to day operation, we will also have to consider…reducing the curriculum offer…to students”

and

“removing key specialist subjects from our portfolio”.

He also said the college risks not meeting its work experience requirements or the local needs of the community. A paper from the Sixth Form Colleges Association has made the same point. The principal of the excellent Blackpool and The Fylde further education college, which teaches 3,000 under-18s, has said to me: “Given the attainment in schools in the locality, post-16 providers have to compensate for poor performance and need to be remunerated accordingly. I hope you will continue your support for the college in the forthcoming year, particularly by offering robust challenges to any further funding cuts in the autumn spending review.”

Even on their most clearly stated aims, the Government cannot help shooting themselves in the foot. Ministers proclaim that they protected schools from cuts by ring-fencing funding, but they do not recognise the effects of cuts on schools with a sixth-form attached, many of which use the secondary education budget to cover the huge cuts. Ministers have encouraged 169 new school sixth forms to open since 2010, but there are now 1,200 with fewer than 100 students. There are already indications that pressures on the sector mean that providers cannot offer the service our young people need, even in core areas such as maths. In answer to a parliamentary question, the Minister told me that 150 graduates would be offered bursaries to train this year, but that figure represents only about 3% of the current maths teaching force. Some 25% of experienced teachers are approaching retirement, and those older teachers are three times more likely to have a maths qualification than younger recruits.

Government Members who think that these FE cuts and area reviews will pass them by should listen to the warning given by the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) last week in Question Time, when he asked the Minister to assure him

“that the area reviews are not just a cover for further, unrealistic cuts that will threaten their viability altogether”.—[Official Report, 10 November 2015; Vol. 602, c. 213.]

The Government claim that they want to energise technical and professional skills, but then they fail to deliver level 4 work experience in schools. They claim they want to boost productivity, but then, in their area reviews, ignore the vital role that colleges and providers play. They claim they want to give everyone a proper chance, but then produce cuts with unforeseen consequences. They claim that they want to talk about equalities, but as we have heard, colleges and schools are short of funding, which often means that support for disabled young people is not forthcoming or co-ordinated. They do not understand—or they do not care to understand—the cumulative effects of those cuts, just as they did not understand the awful damage that was done by cutting the education maintenance allowance and aid for social mobility.

Further education must no longer be the whipping boy when the spending review is delivered. If the Government will the ends, they must will the means. Otherwise, meanness and lack of focus will leave thousands of young people at risk of having their life chances shredded by the ignorance or incompetence of this Government.

18:50

[The Minister for Skills (Nick Boles)]

It is, as always, a pleasure to debate in this House education for 16 to 19-year-olds, and particularly further education and sixth-form colleges. It is a subject on which I can bore for Britain. Unfortunately, the debate got off to a bad start, because the hon. Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan) detained the House for 13 minutes on a question that does not affect her constituents in any way.

[Carol Monaghan]

rose—

[Nick Boles]

I will not give way to the hon. Lady. We heard quite enough from her earlier on. She strangely failed to mention that her party’s Government in Edinburgh have slashed funding for further education and closed colleges in order to subsidise free university education for students who will go on to earn far more than many who graduate from further education colleges. She should be ashamed and keep quiet in our debate.

[Alex Salmond (Gordon) (SNP)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Nick Boles]

I will not give way to the right hon. Gentleman. [Interruption.] I will not give way.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. The right hon. Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond) knows that he cannot just remain standing. If the Minister wishes to give way, I am sure he will; if he does not, that is his choice.

[Nick Boles]

I might well have given way to the right hon. Gentleman if he had attended any of the debate apart from his own intervention.

[Alex Salmond]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am sure that the Minister—if he is that—did not mean to mislead the House, but if he checks the record, I think he will find that funding for further education in Scotland is immeasurably superior to funding for further education in England.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

The right hon. Gentleman has been here over many years. He is back, and I know that he will never ever forget what is, and what is not, a point of order. That was not.

[Nick Boles]

When any question is asked in this House, from the Government side we hear about reforms—reforms of institutions, standards, leadership and incentives. In this debate my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael), Chair of the Education Committee, made an extremely interesting proposal for sixth-form colleges to be allowed to convert to academy status, and I know that Ministers will have listened to that.

My hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) spoke about the economies of scale that large college groups can enjoy, and which enable them to support enrichment programmes. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill) spoke passionately about apprenticeships and applauded Jack’s ambition to set up his own business. I have no doubt that that ambition will be fulfilled. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Michelle Donelan), and I enjoyed visiting a college with her before she was elected. She made a good argument that we must encourage students to opt for courses that will help them to get good jobs, and that is exactly what the introduction of destination measures will achieve.

My hon. and learned Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Lucy Frazer) spoke of Cambridge regional college, which educates more than 5,000 apprentices. I point out to her and the House that colleges currently win only 37% of the funding for apprenticeship training, and there is no reason why they should not win more of that growing funding stream. Yesterday, I suggested to the Association of Colleges annual conference that we should work together with colleges to help them to achieve two thirds of the much larger budget for apprenticeship funding that will be in place once the apprenticeship levy has been introduced.

In what was without doubt the best speech of this debate, my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) rightly said that Opposition Members should be careful before they sneer at apprenticeships in hairdressing and retail. We know that level 2 and level 3 apprenticeships increase people’s incomes by, on average, 11% and 16%, and Conservative Members will not sneer at those people and their hard work.

From the Opposition side of the House, we hear about money. It is their stock answer to everything. Indeed, it is their only answer to anything. The shadow Secretary of State waved a bloody shroud based on nothing more than her wild speculation about the spending review. The hon. Member for Bristol South (Karin Smyth) made a reasonable point about the need for some funding to support the implementation of the conclusions of area reviews, and she will be aware that we already provide interim funding for colleges in financial difficulties. We are absolutely aware of the need to provide funding to support the implementation of area reviews.

[Melanie Onn]

Will the Minister give way?

[Nick Boles]

I am not going to give way to the hon. Lady.

The hon. Member for Batley and Spen (Jo Cox) seemed to regret the fact that colleges can borrow money to invest in new facilities, whereas that is a key freedom that I know colleges enjoy and make use of. The right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) decried cuts in adult learning budgets, but then criticised the inclusion of 35-year-olds in apprenticeships. I have to admit that I was confused by his argument. If apprenticeships are not right for adults, why is adult learning so much better?

The hon. Member for Coventry North West (Mr Robinson) said that Coventry City college, which is indeed a fine college, wants to bid for more apprenticeship funding this year. I can tell him that fortunately we will be able to meet some bids for growth funding for apprenticeships in the remainder of this financial year. I hope that the college has made such a bid. I cannot promise that it will be successful, but if the college is as good as he says it is, it has a very good chance. We heard further contributions from the hon. Members for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey), for Heywood and Middleton (Liz McInnes) and others.

This debate has distilled the essential difference between the Government and the Opposition. The Government stand for, and propose, reform—reform of institutions to make them stronger, and reform of technical and professional courses to make them more valuable. That is why I am so delighted that an excellent former Labour Minister, Lord Sainsbury, will chair our independent panel, along with Professor Alison Wolf and Bev Robinson, the principal from the local college of the hon. Member for Blackpool South (Mr Marsden), to ensure that we improve technical and professional courses. We propose reform of apprenticeships to increase their number, quality and impact on the future earnings of our constituents.

What the Opposition stand for, and propose, is money—from higher taxes, from higher borrowing and from higher debts that the next generation will have to pay. I will ask the House to reject the motion tonight because there is a clear choice. We will invest in the future generation and their capacity to earn money for themselves by investing in apprenticeships and making apprenticeships better, longer and more rigorous. The Opposition will load more debt on the next generation’s backs. The Opposition will ask future generations, the people who will attend these colleges that the Opposition want to support, to pay for their decisions now, and for their failure to get borrowing under control. We will not go down that path: we will invest in reform and improvement, and I therefore reject the motion.

Question put.

18:58

Division 128

Ayes: 203

---

Labour: 190
Liberal Democrat: 5
Democratic Unionist Party: 3
Plaid Cymru: 3
Social Democratic & Labour Party: 2
Ulster Unionist Party: 1

Noes: 292

---

Conservative: 292

Business without Debate

Wednesday 18th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

With the leave of the House, we shall take motions 3 and 4 together.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 119(11)),

European Union Documents

European Defence: Implementation Road Map

That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 11358/14, a Commission Report: A New Deal for European Defence: Implementation Roadmap for Communication COM(2013)542: Towards a more competitive and efficient defence and security sector; agrees that any further development of the Commission’s proposals in the defence sector must be in close cooperation with EU Member States; and shares the Government’s view that the focus for any Commission action should be on improving competitiveness and economic growth, while avoiding any activity that could constrain the UK’s ability to obtain the best capability for its Armed Forces, conflict with NATO, or otherwise impinge upon the UK’s national security interests.

Use of Genetically Modified Food and Feed

That this House takes note of European Union Documents No. 8344/15 and Addendum, a Commission Communication: Reviewing the decision-making process on genetically modified organisms (GMOs), and No. 8356/15, a Proposal for a Regulation amending Regulation (EC) No. 1829/2003 as regards the possibility for Member States to restrict or prohibit the use of genetically modified food and feed on their territory; and endorses the Government's approach not to support the proposal because of its negative implications for international trade, the single market and science based regulation.—(Margot James.)

Question agreed to.

Employee Pay (DWP)

Wednesday 18th November 2015 Commons Chamber

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Margot James.)

19:11

[Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)]

I wish to raise the important issue of the pay of employees in the Department for Work and Pensions—or, perhaps more accurately, the low pay of those employees.

As we know, pay throughout the public sector has been subject to restraint for a number of years, and the pay in the DWP is no exception. A TUC report published in 2014 showed that public sector workers were, on average, £2,245 worse off in real terms than they had been before the previous Government took office. However, the issue of low pay is felt particularly acutely in the DWP, as it is one of the lowest paid civil service Departments, and staff now struggle to make ends meet.

Some 87% of DWP staff—74,701 employees—now earn less than the UK mean average wage of £27,200 a year, and 47% of staff—39,526 employees—earn less than £20,000. The Public and Commercial Services Union estimates that thousands who are at the bottom of the DWP pay scale will not even earn the national living wage that was announced by the Chancellor in the Budget if their pay rises by only 1% a year until 2020. DWP pay increases have been heavily capped for the last six years, and in 2010 and 2011 there was a 0% increase for staff earning over £21,000.

[Alex Salmond (Gordon) (SNP)]

As my hon. Friend knows, in 2011, when we were in the very depths of the recession, the Scottish Government were able to introduce a living wage for all civil service staff in Scotland, along with a non-redundancy clause agreement. Why was such a move not possible for either the Labour Government or the coalition Government—or, for that matter, the present Conservative Government?

[Chris Stephens]

I do not know the reasons for that, but I think that it should have been possible. As my right hon. Friend will know, in Scotland those earning less than £21,000 a year have received a £250 pay rise over the last couple of years.

Between 2012 and 2015, all DWP staff received a 1% increase, and the Chancellor has announced his intention to limit civil service pay increases to 1% for the next four years.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

I am sure the hon. Gentleman agrees that, if inflation is taken into account, that 1% increase effectively amounts to a 6% or 7% wage cut, and women in particular are bearing the burden.

[Chris Stephens]

The hon. Gentleman is correct, and I will come on to the fact that it is estimated that what has taken place in the DWP is effectively a cut of £2,245.

There is also the issue of no pay progression within the Department. Since 2009 there has been no mechanism for DWP staff to move from the bottom towards the top of the pay range for their grade. This has meant staff have become frozen at the bottom of the pay range with no means of ever progressing further. Around 70% of DWP staff are in this position.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for bringing this matter to the House. The issue he has just mentioned is very important. Surely it is right to reward people as they progress and achieve goals and standards of knowledge and expertise, which is very important in the DWP, and move from one level to the next. Does he think that the Government should consider retraining people so that they can step up the wage scale?

[Chris Stephens]

I agree with that, because if there is a pay range and scale, there should be natural progression through experience and training.

With pay increases limited to 1% year on year, simply not enough money is available to create meaningful pay progression and give all staff some annual pay increase. The Treasury has consistently prescribed that any pay progression must be funded from the 1% increase and no additional funds have been made available. My first question to the Department is this: will the DWP change its attitude towards pay progression and allow employees to move up the pay grades and scales?

Let me turn to the increase in pensions and national insurance contributions. DWP staff are members of one of the civil service pension schemes and since 2010 members’ contributions to the pension schemes have been steadily increasing, averaging 3.2% by 2015. These increases have, effectively, eroded the value of the recent 1% pay rise. This has meant that DWP staff take-home pay now has hardly increased at all since 2012. DWP staff also expect to see an increase of around 1.4% in their national insurance contributions in 2016, when the new state pension comes into effect.

Some 40% of DWP staff are on tax credits. The DWP has told the PCS that 40% of DWP staff have to rely on tax credits to supplement their low rates of pay. This is clear evidence of how low pay rates are in the DWP. If the measures to reduce tax credits that were announced in the July Budget were ever to be implemented, there would be a significant impact on DWP staff.

The Government have made many public statements saying that employers should pay a living wage and not make their employees rely on tax credits to supplement low pay. It is ironic, therefore, that so many DWP employees are made to rely on tax credits because the Government will not pay their own staff a decent salary. Furthermore, the Government have justified tax credit cuts by declaring that when their employees lose their tax credits, employers will naturally pay higher wages. However, if the Government rely on tax credits to subsidise the low pay of their own workforce and they are unwilling to compensate these workers who stand to lose from changes to tax credits and the 1% pay cap, it is hard to see how other employers can be expected to practise anything different.

DWP pay is an equality issue. Some 69% of staff are female, predominantly employed in the lower grades.

[Mr Jim Cunningham]

There is a contradiction. On the one hand, Government policy is equal pay for women, but on the other hand they reduce women’s wages at the DWP and other Departments.

[Chris Stephens]

I entirely agree, and I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree with me that we are seeing an increase in the pay gap between male and female workers.

Low pay in the DWP therefore has a detrimental effect on women. As the highest paid grades in the DWP have a majority of male staff, this has created a significant gender pay gap in the DWP. My next question is this, therefore: what equality impact assessment has been carried out to ensure the DWP complies with the Equal Pay Act 1970 and is not at risk of equal pay claims?

There have been increased workloads and efficiency, but no reward. Time and again, Ministers and those running the Department thank DWP staff for their hard work in keeping the Department afloat and delivering welfare reform. Recognition is always welcome, but DWP staff feel that the thanks need to be translated from mere words into a form of recognition visible in their pay packets.

Furthermore, the DWP workforce has been cut by 30% since 2010, so the pressure on those remaining has increased. In March 2015, the Secretary of State told DWP staff that productivity had increased significantly. He cited record levels of employment, faster processing, fewer calls chasing progress, and an annual operating cost £2.5 billion lower than in 2009-10, yet none of those improvements in productivity has been reflected in increases in DWP pay.

The DWP is one of the lowest paid Departments in the civil service. Prior to civil service pay being delegated to individual Departments, all civil service grades were paid the same, irrespective of which Department they worked in. However, as a consequence of pay delegation, pay levels now vary greatly from one Department to another, and DWP pay is particularly low. There are now well over 100 pay bargaining units across the civil service, and the DWP, as the largest Department, does not do well compared with other civil service Departments.

This will be brought into sharp focus with the roll-out of universal credit, when 2,000 HMRC colleagues, earning considerably more than DWP staff, will transfer into the DWP and will be earning a lot more for doing the same work. For example, 40% of staff in the administrative officer grade in the DWP earn less than the HMRC administrative officer grade minimum. Anyone who joins HMRC on its administrative officer minimum will come in more than halfway up the DWP administrative officer pay scale at £18,415.

People who work in the private sector are better off. This Government seek to justify public sector pay restraint by spreading the myth that life in the public sector is altogether cosier than in the private sector, but the truth is that pay for those in the DWP is now so low that some people in the private sector employed on civil service contracts are leaving them behind. For example, in Steria, the company that won the contract for HR shared services, where some DWP workers saw their work privatised, members have just been awarded a 2.3% pay increase. In Maximus, another DWP contractor, members have recently accepted an offer that will give the majority of them increases of over 15%, with the lowest paid receiving an increase of nearly £5,000.

Increases for private sector workers on DWP contracts are therefore considerably in excess of the 1% awarded to DWP staff. Of course, those pay increases in private sector contracts are funded by the taxpayer every bit as much as DWP pay is funded by the taxpayer. We commend the pay increases for those staff, but we fail to see the logic of the 1% pay cap being so rigidly imposed on public sector workers when that is not the case for private sector workers delivering Government contracts.

We fear that there is discriminatory performance-related pay in the DWP. The Department also pays some staff a non-consolidated payment each year. This is worth 1.9% of the annual pay bill—around £44 million. The payments are distributed based on performance appraisal markings and grade. Staff who have received a “must improve” box marking—around 8% of DWP staff—receive no non-consolidated payment. Other non-consolidated payments vary from £450 for an administrative assistant to £1,750 for a grade 6 employee. These non-consolidated payments have been shown to be discriminatory in many ways. You are more likely to receive the higher award if you are full time, white and under 60, and more likely to receive no non-consolidated payment if you are over 60, BME or part time.

Terms and conditions are also diminishing. At the same time as pay increases in the DWP have been subject to central Government pay restraint and caps, DWP staff have seen a gradual erosion of other terms and conditions. This has taken the form of increased pension contributions and changes to pension entitlements, repeated attacks on the civil service compensation scheme, restricted access to flexitime, a draconian approach to attendance management, and cuts in staffing.

The sense of anger among DWP staff is high. When the 1% pay award was imposed on DWP staff in July, more than 5,700 protest letters were sent to the Secretary of State and the permanent secretary. The PCS receives constant feedback from its members on the impact of pay restraint. My next question therefore is: what assessment has been carried out to ensure that DWP staff reach the so-called living wage target? Or will steps be taken to ensure that this is delivered earlier? Some DWP staff reported regularly borrowing from credit cards to make up the shortfall in their wages and being unable to afford to tax their cars.

My last question is: do Ministers believe that the enormous improvements in productivity that DWP staff have achieved on their watch should be rewarded with an additional pay increase above the 1% cap?

19:25

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

I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) on securing this important Adjournment debate and all the other Members who have contributed in it. My office took particular interest in this one. I also congratulate him on his 25 years of work in public service, his role as vice-chair of the PCS parliamentary group, and his interest in DWP and its valuable work.

DWP is the largest Government Department, with a pay bill of £2.5 billion in 2015-16. The Department employs more than 84,000 staff, who work in various locations across the country and serve more than 22 million claimants and customers, some of whom are the most vulnerable in society. When I have spoken about that before, many of my colleagues have been surprised, because a lot of MPs are not aware of just how vast the organisation is and the diversity of work we do in job centre networks, benefit centres and the corporate services. For example, we support people to find work, develop policy, pay pensions and investigate fraud. The Department is delivering substantial welfare reform changes, including the roll-out of universal credit, the introduction of personal independent payment and pension reforms, while meeting our efficiency challenges.

We appreciate the professionalism and contribution of DWP employees in continuing to deliver those changes. The results of their efforts have included a new record high UK employment rate of 73.7%; unemployment at a seven-year low of 5.3%; an employment rate for young people who have left full-time education up at 74.3%, the highest in more than a decade; and a reduction in operating cost of £1.9 billion since 2009-10. I have made many trips around the country to meet those front-line DWP staff and to see the great work that they do, with great professionalism. Tomorrow I am off to Blackpool as part of my visits, when I am going to see the work being done on PIP. I am sure that hon. Members from all parts of the House will join me in acknowledging the hard work and contribution of the dedicated DWP staff.

In 2010, the country was facing tough economic challenges, and the Government had to make some difficult decisions in order to address the country’s huge budget deficit. As was the case across Europe, public sector pay restraint was part of the overall approach taken to reducing the deficit. That was not unique to the public sector; not only did many workers in the private sector also face pay freezes, but some faced pay cuts. As a Government Department, DWP has to comply with the Government public sector pay policy to set pay awards in line with Her Majesty’s Treasury and Cabinet Office guidelines.

Let me now deal specifically with our Department’s approach. Since 2010, DWP has focused on increasing the pay of its lowest paid. In the emergency Budget of 2010 the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced a two-year pay freeze for those in the civil service earning more than £21,000. But, crucially, for those earning under £21,000, DWP took advantage of the flexibility and opted to pay more than the minimum £250 flat-rate increase proposed in HMT guidance. DWP actually provided awards ranging from £400 to £540. In 2010, it also increased the base salary of the lowest grade by £890. The pay freeze was followed by an annual pay remit of 1% on consolidated pay increases for the remainder of the last Parliament. During that time, DWP pay negotiations included discussions on how best to distribute the available funding. DWP opted to pay the majority of its staff a 1% increase each year, but continued to focus on increasing the pay of its lowest paid through higher base salary increases—for example, 3% in 2014 and 2.5% in 2015.

In addition, Departments have flexibility over how they allocate their non-consolidated performance payments. DWP is the only large Department that pays this to the majority of its employees, distributing on the basis of grade and performance marking. This year, DWP allocated performance awards of between £450 to £750 to junior staff.

[Alex Salmond]

I am listening carefully to the Minister, but the reality is that the Government have been rumbled on tax credits. They have been rumbled on payments to junior doctors, and now they are going to be rumbled on the treatment of DWP staff. When will the Minister address the very specific questions that my hon. Friend asked him in this Adjournment debate?

[Justin Tomlinson]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but all good things come to those who wait patiently. I am only part way through my contribution, and I have already addressed some of the points, but more is to come.

Pay and allowances are part of the total reward package. Employees also benefit from a package including a staff discount scheme, generous annual leave entitlement and a defined benefit pension scheme.

On the point about equality, DWP has one of the lowest gender pay gaps in Whitehall. It currently stands at 3.4%. Typically, it is rated at 5%. If an organisation or body is below 5%, they are making progress. The Department is committed to improve that further through the introduction of a range of measures including name-blind recruitment and female representation on senior recruitment panels. This is something that we take very seriously, and we are proud to be leading as a Department in that area.

Let me turn now to the future. The Chancellor of the Exchequer announced in this year’s Budget that the Government will fund the public sector workforce for a pay award of 1% for the length of this Parliament. Each year, DWP negotiates with PCS and other unions on their pay awards and that will continue for future pay deals.

[Jim Shannon]

Very quickly on that, can the Minister give us some indication of the wastage among the staff—those who move on to other jobs? I do not expect an answer now, but could he give me a response later? I ask my question because the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) referred to the wage increase for those in similar jobs in different companies. The increase in their wages was significant. I was wondering whether the Minister’s Department was holding on to its staff. If it is not, what steps is he taking to address that?

[Justin Tomlinson]

I will have to come back on those specific details.

The Chancellor also announced in the Budget earlier this year the very welcome introduction of a statutory national living wage for those aged 25 plus from April 2016. Our Secretary of State has long championed the principle that, if people work hard, they should be rewarded. He welcomed the introduction of the national living wage as

“perhaps the most significant measure in all the Budgets that I have listened to during my many years in this House.”—[Official Report, 9 July 2015; Vol. 598, c. 482.]

[Chris Stephens]

Will the Minister also provide us with an assessment of DWP staff who are younger than 25 years of age, because they will not get access to that living wage? If there is a 1% pay increase year on year, DWP staff will be earning 36p more than that national living wage.

[Justin Tomlinson]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. My next bit will specifically address the under-25s. Our pledge is that the national living wage will go over £9 by 2020. From my recollection at the general election, the Scottish National party pledged to pay about £8.60 or £8.80, and Labour pledged £8. I think that we can all support our decision to get the figure to over £9 by 2020.

Crucially, on the point about the under-25s, DWP will meet its statutory requirement and pay the national living wage to all employees regardless of age. That will include those under the age of 25. All Members will welcome that.

DWP will raise the pay of around 600—0.7% of our staff—who will fall just below this level from April 2016. The Department is ensuring that our contracted staff will also be paid at the new national living wage from April 2016 onwards, as we are conscious that we have large supply chains and people with whom we have direct work. For the remainder of the Parliament, all increases in employees’ salaries will be in line with the guidance from Her Majesty’s Treasury.

[Mr Jim Cunningham]

Can the hon. Gentleman tell me how many agency people the Department employs, how many consultants it does business with and how much that costs?

[Justin Tomlinson]

I thank the hon. Gentleman; I will be providing a written update in answer to that very good question.

I was asked about pensions. As changes are made to pensions, we have made sure that the lowest paid see the smallest increase and that those paid more contribute more progressively, but it remains a good pension scheme, with a defined end. As for promotion through the pay scales, for those who can get promoted through the bands—there is typically a 10% difference between them—that remains in place.

[Chris Stephens]

The Minister is being very generous in giving way. Can I ask him about Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs staff coming into the DWP as part of the roll-out of universal credit? That will expose a lot of differences in civil service pay.

[Justin Tomlinson]

I cannot give a specific answer, but we are aware of that issue, which is something we continuously look at, because it is a significant point that has been raised.

In conclusion, while endeavouring to provide increases for all, the DWP has focused on its most junior grades, and that will remain our focus—again, I think we have cross-party support for that. We are proud that the DWP’s gender pay gap has consistently been one of the lowest in Whitehall and we are committed to continue to focus on this. I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising this very important debate.

Question put and agreed to.

19:35

House adjourned.

Draft Exclusivity Terms in Zero Hours Contracts (Redress) Regulations 2015

Wednesday 18th November 2015 General Committees

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chair: Mr Nigel Evans

† Adams, Nigel (Selby and Ainsty) (Con)

† Barclay, Stephen (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)

† Bebb, Guto (Aberconwy) (Con)

† Beckett, Margaret (Derby South) (Lab)

Boles, Nick (Minister for Skills)

† Brennan, Kevin (Cardiff West) (Lab)

† Danczuk, Simon (Rochdale) (Lab)

† Gray, Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)

† Harris, Carolyn (Swansea East) (Lab)

† Hart, Simon (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) (Con)

† Huddleston, Nigel (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)

† Knight, Julian (Solihull) (Con)

† Matheson, Christian (City of Chester) (Lab)

† Morden, Jessica (Newport East) (Lab)

† Pawsey, Mark (Rugby) (Con)

† Soames, Sir Nicholas (Mid Sussex) (Con)

† Tugendhat, Tom (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)

Clementine Brown, Kevin Maddison, Committee Clerks

† attended the Committee

The following also attended (Standing Order No. 118(2)):

Soubry, Anna (Minister for Small Business, Industry and Enterprise)

Second Delegated Legislation Committee

Wednesday 18 November 2015

[Mr Nigel Evans in the Chair]

Draft Exclusivity Terms in Zero Hours Contracts (Redress) Regulations 2015

14:30

Motion made, and Question proposed,

That the Committee has considered the draft Exclusivity Terms in Zero Hours Contracts (Redress) Regulations 2015.—(Stephen Barclay.)

[The Minister for Small Business, Industry and Enterprise (Anna Soubry)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Evans. It is particularly pleasant to say that because I have not said it before, and it is a great honour and a pleasure. I am sorry I am not my hon. Friend the Minister for Skills, who is unfortunately delayed on other business in the House.

Government and independent evidence have shown that zero-hours contracts have a place in today’s labour market. However, there is also evidence that the use of exclusivity clauses in zero-hours contracts is wrong. That is why the Government have banned them in such contracts. Provisions introduced by the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015 ensure that employers of people on zero-hours contracts cannot demand that their staff are exclusive only to them. It is right that no one should be prevented from boosting their income if they want to. The ban is simple. It means individuals can simply ignore exclusivity terms in their zero-hours contracts if their employer includes them. They do not even have to say anything to their employer. I am delighted that the inclusivity ban came into force on 26 May this year, and we are here today to discuss the next stage.

The purpose of the redress regulations is to allow individuals on a zero-hours contract whose employer still attempts to enforce an exclusivity clause to take action. They achieve that by creating a route of redress, allowing individuals to take their employer to an employment tribunal if they are dismissed or treated unfairly as a result of ignoring a ban and seeking work elsewhere. The redress regulations have been drafted as a result of a Government consultation last summer, in which 71% of respondents supported redress via an employment tribunal. The consensus view of those who responded to the consultation was that the regulations will provide an appropriate level of reassurance to affected individuals and will provide them with the confidence to take action against an employer if they are treated unfairly.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

How practical is it for most people on zero-hours contracts, given their likely level of pay and personal circumstances, to be able to afford to use the redress that the Minister proposes?

[Anna Soubry]

The reality is that complainants at a tribunal who are in receipt of universal credit, have less than £3,000 in savings and have gross annual earnings of less than £6,000 will automatically qualify for the full remission of fees. As with any other complaints admitted to an employment tribunal, anyone who feels that they cannot afford to pay the costs associated with making the complaint can apply for a fee remission and have the fees waived or reduced. An individual can apply for remission at the fee-paying stage so that they are not out of pocket. That seems very fair and I hope that it allays some of those fears.

[Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)]

Does the Minister share my concern that employers might be more cavalier in enforcing the exclusivity clauses if they know that it is not guaranteed that claimants will be able to achieve the discounts that she describes? As costs are still associated with the tribunal, and if the decision has to be taken at the time of the cost hearings, employers might still be keen to push forward with exclusivity.

[Anna Soubry]

The legislation stipulates that exclusivity clauses cannot be enforced. It applies when an employer goes over or above the existing powers available. If it is known there is a problem with fees, there is an automatic full remission of fees, so I am satisfied that this is the right and fair thing to do. People on such contracts should feel that they have the security that we would expect, so the measures are good.

Importantly—this may relate to the two questions that have been asked—the ability to go to a tribunal will create a deterrent for employers, making them think twice about ignoring the exclusivity ban. In the consultation, it was a strongly held view that employers should face consequences if they treat their zero-hours contract workers unfairly as a result of the ban. We will be laying an order that will ensure that those on zero-hours contracts will be subject to the early conciliation regime, which is important. If early conciliation does not resolve the issue, these regulations will allow the individual to bring their case to an employment tribunal in the same way as with any other issue. If successful, the tribunal will be able to set a level of compensation that reflects the detriment caused. With all those things borne in mind, there will be a real deterrent to employers abusing the system and thwarting the will of Parliament.

In conclusion, both Government and independent evidence have shown that zero-hours contracts have a place in today’s labour market. They support workplace flexibility, make it easier to hire new staff and provide pathways to employment for young people. Many young people like zero-hours contracts, particularly students, and I think we sometimes forget that. Zero-hours contracts allow businesses to adapt to changes in their circumstances. They can support business flexibility and make it easier to hire new staff, as well as provide pathways to employment for young people, retired people or those with caring responsibilities, who often welcome that flexibility. In fact, many people choose to work in this way. These contracts and other flexible arrangements give individuals more choice and the ability to combine work and other commitments.

Evidence has highlighted that the use of exclusivity clauses in zero-hours contracts is wrong, and that is why Government have banned them, and properly so. The regulations strengthen the ban on exclusivity clauses in the 2015 Act, adding another layer of protection for individuals and ensuring that employers cannot simply ignore the law. By creating a route of redress, individuals will have the right to make a complaint to an employment tribunal if they are dismissed or treated unfairly as a result of their employer attempting to demand exclusivity. The Government believe that the regulations are essential in strengthening the ban on exclusivity clauses, so I recommend the regulations to the Committee.

14:38

[Kevin Brennan]

I, too, am delighted to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr Evans. I thank the Minister for stepping in for her ministerial colleague in such an able way. We are here to discuss regulations on exclusivity in zero-hours contracts, as she rightly pointed out. I am sure that hon. Members will have had cases, as I have, of constituents on zero-hours contracts expressing concern about exclusivity clauses in their contracts, so action on the matter is welcome.

The Minister is right to point out that those on zero-hours contracts are often young people. The figures show that overwhelmingly younger workers tend to be affected. Parents have come to see me, concerned about the sorts of terms that young people are being expected to put up with in the workplace—often they are on zero-hours contracts—and about how they are being treated by employers. It is right that we should debate the Government’s proposals to provide some means of redress for workers who find themselves boxed in with zero-hours contracts with exclusivity clauses. Workers should have access to redress in such circumstances.

The debate highlights that what is going on in the so-called rebalancing of the UK economy is not what we all hoped for—that is, a rebalancing away from an over- dependence on financial services towards manufacturing and making things again. We are rather seeing a rebalancing of power between employers and employees and an increasing casualisation of the workforce in the UK. That is why we have this ever more insecure position for many workers who are required to work under a zero-hours contract. Obviously, there are many examples and plenty of evidence of people who welcome the opportunity to work flexibly under zero-hours contracts. However, there are other circumstances where it is the only kind of contract available for people who would prefer to have more secure hours, possibly part-time or full-time, in their chosen field of work.

Statistics published by the Office for National Statistics in September 2015 relate directly to our discussion today and show a 19% annual increase in individuals employed on zero-hours contracts. In April to June 2015, three quarters of a million people were employed on zero-hours contracts, so the regulations affect a great number of our constituents.

In relation to the ban on exclusivity in zero-hours contracts, as the Minister has pointed out, the 2015 Act introduced restrictions on the use of exclusivity clauses in zero-hours contracts. That means that individuals on such contracts would normally be prevented from working for another employer. The Act did not ban the use of such clauses, as the Minister suggested, but it did provide that they would no longer be enforceable by an employer. However, they still exist. Before today, individuals have had no particular right to compensation if they have been victimised by their employer for accepting work with another employer in contrast to the exclusivity clause in the contract.

The regulations provide individuals with the right to go to an employment tribunal, as the Minister correctly pointed out, if they suffer some sort of detriment in their employment, including dismissal. That is a welcome step in the right direction. It is good that some form of redress should be available. However, we have a number of reservations about whether the Government have gone far enough and whether they should be doing more.

In effect, the regulations will not provide workers with the level of protection that the Minister hopes and says they will. As we said earlier, despite what the Minister said about the ability to have fees remitted, the reality for many who might be considering taking a case to an employment tribunal is that excessive fees and the very limited compensation they would be likely to receive if they were successful mean that the regulations are unlikely to lead to a large number of cases. The exclusivity terms will impact on many people and their ability to exercise their right for redress.

There are other abuses around zero-hours contracts that are not met by the regulations. One of the reasons is that, since the election in May, the Government have chosen to take a narrower approach than the coalition Government, which took some time to get to grips with the issue but proposed some action towards the end of their term. They are using a narrower definition for zero-hours contracts than that used in the 2015 Act.

There was an indication in a Department for Business, Innovation and Skills consultation in March that the coalition Government were minded to extend the ban on exclusivity clauses to all workers earning under £20 an hour. The aim was to ensure that workers employed in vulnerable, insecure and lower-paid work could not be restricted to working for one employer, but could seek employment from a range of employers. Regrettably, since their election as an exclusively Conservative Government in May, the Government have not taken that approach. It would be helpful if the Minister could tell the Committee why the Government have taken a narrower approach than that proposed in the consultation in March 2015. That may well also impact on individuals on the false self-employment contracts that we see particularly in the construction industry, as has been effectively highlighted by many trade unions including the Union of Construction, Allied Trades and Technicians.

Our other concern, which I highlighted in my intervention on the Minister and which I mentioned earlier, is that most zero-hours workers will be deterred from making a claim under the regulations by excessive employment tribunal fees. Since the fees were introduced, the number of people taking cases to employment tribunals has fallen by between 60% and 70%. That may well have been the Government’s intention, because they felt that too many people were going to employment tribunals. However, I find it difficult to believe that that fall is due to the fact that all those 60% to 70% of cases were bogus or vexatious.

There is clear evidence that cost is becoming a real factor for people who seek fairness in employment tribunals following a case of unfair dismissal or unfair treatment by their employer. Many of our constituency cases involve young workers who come in with their parents, who just cannot believe that it is legal to treat workers in such a way, perhaps because they grew up with more stable forms of employment in an age in which such contracts were rare. Most of the people who come to see me with such cases do not have £1,200 in their pocket that they could use to stake their claim for unfair dismissal at an employment tribunal. I do not check their bank statements, but my judgment as a constituency MP is that they are not the kind of people who would have 1,200 quid spare to make a claim for unfair dismissal on a zero-hours contract. The very fact that they had been working on a zero-hours contract meant that, in many cases, they were pretty desperate for work to get any kind of money they could to keep their household finances together. Even the £390 that a detriment claim in an employment tribunal would cost them would be too much.

In effect, the Government are pricing those people—vulnerable people not on big money and in insecure employment on zero-hours contracts—out of justice. Why are the Government taking that approach, rather than seeking to provide more assistance to those who might benefit from the welcome small step in the right direction that the regulations represent?

In reality, workers’ compensation in such circumstances is not likely to be great. Someone employed on a zero-hours contract could not claim that they would have an ongoing or continuing employment relationship with their employer as a result of which they could be compensated at a higher level for the potential loss caused by the detriment they suffered from the zero-hours contract exclusivity clause. In other words, it will not be worth their while to seek redress, because the compensation that they might receive would probably not even cover the fee for going to the tribunal in the first place.

If the Government were more serious about the matter, they would make sure that zero-hours workers who have suffered detriment as a result of an exclusivity clause were entitled to a minimum of two weeks’ pay. Why has the Minister not introduced a provision of that kind so that if someone is successful in winning a case, they will be entitled at least to a minimum of two weeks’ pay? That might provide an incentive for workers to exercise their right of redress, which the Minister is introducing in a small but welcome way through the regulations. That would have been consistent with the Agency Workers Regulations 2010. I would be grateful if the Minister told us, before we conclude today, why the Government have chosen to reject that kind of approach.

There are wider abuses, beyond exclusivity clauses, that could have been included in relation to the use of zero-hours contracts. For example, there is a great deal of income insecurity. Probably about two out of five people on zero-hours contracts would welcome more hours from the employer. The need to remain available for work has an impact on family life, childcare and the care of elderly relatives. The lack of employment rights around zero-hours contracts means that most workers on them lose out on the basic workplace protections that we would all think workers should normally have if they have a fully-employed status.

Sometimes employers take advantage of the uncertain employment status to evade employment rights obligations for these workers. There are many cases of abuse where workers on zero-hours contracts are more vulnerable to mistreatment and exploitation at work than those on regular contracts. There is growing evidence of breaches of the national minimum wage in places such as the home care sector, where such contracts are extremely common and care workers are not paid for the time they spend travelling between jobs.

The variability in individuals’ earnings—we have all seen cases like this—makes it so difficult when dealing with the benefits agencies and various forms of social security because a person’s income varies so greatly. We all know how complicated things can become when our circumstances change. It is difficult for people in those circumstances to be able to access the levels of support that they are entitled to. That can lead to problems such as having to visit food banks.

Will the Minister consider introducing additional protections for workers? Those protections could include: the entitlement to a written statement of their terms and conditions on the first day of their employment under a zero-hours contract, including pay rates and expected hours of work; a minimum period of notice of any work and before any shift is cancelled; compensation for those who arrive at work and are then told the shift has been cancelled—a common abuse suffered by workers; and a right to pay for people who are on call for employers. We should ensure that legislation is introduced to provide workers in casual employment with the sort of basic employment rights we would expect, including the right to request flexible hours, and maternity and paternity leave.

There is scope for a wider package than what we are considering today. Although I have said that the regulations are a welcome small step forward, there remain a number of questions and I would be grateful if the Minister helped us with them.

14:53

[Christian Matheson]

I intend to speak very briefly, Mr Evans, which is a shame because under your chairmanship it would be a pleasure to speak all day. [Hon. Members: “Ah!”] Hon. Members have not heard that tribute to a Chair before; it is a new one in this House. I should say to the Minister that there was absolutely no need for her to announce herself as a substitute because she was a safe pair of hands, as always, and gave a clear introduction to the regulations. I pay tribute to her ability.

The Minister is right that zero-hours contracts work well for some people; we talked about students and parents with children who might want to juggle their hours around. However, it concerns me that there are people on zero-hours contracts who do not wish to be.

For example, I know an airline pilot who was flying for a well-known low-cost airline. He had an exclusivity clause—this was a little before the introduction of the regulations that the Minister spoke about earlier—and was not allowed any further work. After three weeks, he was given a job flying reserve out of Stockholm and had to pay for his own hotel in Stockholm, but he did not fly at all, so he was not paid. Obviously, at the end of the three or four weeks, he would not have had enough money to buy a cup of tea, let alone to pay the tribunal fees that my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West mentioned. He asked the company whether he could have some bar work, and it flatly refused. As the Minister has described, the regulations will, we hope, challenge such insecurity, but it still bothers me.

The Minister was very positive when she answered my genuine question, but again I float my slight concern about people with well-paid jobs who do not have enough work, for whatever reason. If they seek reduced or discounted tribunal fees and fail to get them, they will not be able to afford to pursue their cases and will go back to their employer in a much weaker position. All of a sudden, the employer will be in a much stronger position to enforce a somehow legitimised exclusivity deal, albeit that the deal is unlawful. Contesting that unlawfulness will be difficult or nigh on impossible.

Will the Minister look again at mitigation so that low-paid people can get better access to justice? An economy that continues to rely too much on zero-hours contracts is not one built on firm foundations. I hope the Government will take this opportunity to consider ways of eradicating zero-hours contracts that are not entered through choice, which would give real security in pay and work to hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people who do not necessarily want to remain on zero-hours contracts.

It is with great regret that I now cease speaking under your chairmanship, Mr Evans.

14:57

[Anna Soubry]

I think the spirit of last night’s football game has led to this outbreak of friendliness and camaraderie. A new entente cordiale is breaking out between the Government and the Opposition. This is all good stuff.

I could make a partisan point about how zero-hours contracts have been around for donkey’s years and how it took the coalition Government only three years to deal with them. Unfortunately, in 13 years, the last Labour Government did diddly squat to address the problem. We did the right thing, especially on exclusivity, and the regulations are delivering on the ban. There is no better way of dealing with things than when an employer knows that if they do not do the right thing, and if they continue to do the wrong thing, the full power and threat of an employment tribunal, with compensation, could come crashing down on them. That is a good example of deterrence being the final solution to this problem. That has been underestimated.

I will not get into the debate about whether the number of people going to employment tribunals has fallen because of the rise in fees. There is a very good argument—it is not always true, but it is valid—that sometimes the threat of high costs, as in most civil actions, is a good way of concentrating all minds to reach a sensible settlement, rather than charging off into something that might cost not only a lot of money but a lot of emotion, too.

Anything that brings people together to resolve a dispute is a good thing, and I suspect, in the absence of any evidence, that one of the reasons why fewer people are going to employment tribunals is that they are looking first at how to resolve their dispute. It is undoubtedly the case that some people are not taking forward claims that would otherwise have had no substance to them. Let us wait and see what the evidence tells us.

I have a couple of other points. The number of people working part-time because they cannot find full-time work has actually fallen to its lowest level in four years—just over 80,000 according to recent statistics. A number of other points were raised. Can I be subject to the usual rules, please, Mr Evans? If a Member has raised something that I have not responded to, I will, of course, write to them.

I should say that because someone is on a zero-hours contract, that does not mean that their rights as an employee are any less than anybody else’s. It is just the term of their contract that is different—they have a zero-hours as opposed to a 20-hour or 40-hour contract or whatever it may be. Their rights as an employee are exactly the same and therefore they are entitled, like all employees on a contract, to see the terms and conditions of the contract. I think there is a bit of a misunderstanding there.

[Kevin Brennan]

Of course, the rights are not the same because those people are not entitled to any hours of work.

[Anna Soubry]

That was not the point that was made. The point was that people should be able to get a copy of their contract, and so on. People on zero-hours contracts have all that because their rights as an employee are exactly the same; it is just the terms and conditions of their employment.

There is one point that I should put on the record. The reason why we have not done the two weeks is that that is only available to agency workers in certain circumstances who find their way into an employment tribunal. The employment tribunal has a discretion to go below the minimum of two weeks. Indeed, if anybody uses this route into a tribunal, the tribunal has discretion to apply whatever compensation it sees fit. I would urge against some sort of two-week idea for compensation. I think that is a bad idea—let us let the tribunal have discretion to apply whatever compensation it sees fit in all the circumstances of the case. That is a good idea, I suggest.

I thank hon. Members for their valuable contributions to this debate and their comments during it. The regulations will allow those who are treated unfairly by their employer with regard to the ban on exclusivity clauses to seek redress and be awarded compensation if appropriate. I think that we are agreed on that. If there are points I have not answered, I will do so by way of letter, but I urge everybody to vote for these regulations because they are a real step forward.

15:02

[Kevin Brennan]

As I hinted earlier, I will not ask my hon. Friends to vote against the regulations because they represent a welcome small step forward. I disagree with what the Minister said about employees—which is a very technical, legal term in this instance—having exactly the same rights as others if they are on a zero-hours contract, but now is not the time to debate that further. I also register a point of disagreement about the two weeks’ pay and the agency workers regulations. I think a minimum level of compensation would be a genuinely positive addition to these regulations.

[Anna Soubry]

indicated dissent.

[Kevin Brennan]

I see that the Minister will not give way on that at this point, but I ask her to give it some further consideration in the future. With that, Mr Evans, I will sit down.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the Committee has considered the draft Exclusivity Terms in Zero Hours Contracts (Redress) Regulations 2015.

15:04

Committee rose.

Petition

Wednesday 18th November 2015 Petitions

Wednesday 18 November 2015

Hunting Act 2004

Wednesday 18th November 2015 Petitions

The Humble Petition of MR ADRIAN PAUL MILES of WEDNESBURY, WEST MIDLANDS,

Declares that this Petition is a plea for our Government to indefinitely continue the Hunting Act 2004, to not to Repeal it at any time. Indeed, if it please be possible, also to extend its Remit.

The compassion of our Country is known and respected Worldwide.

As a Nation we have been known to be a compassionate people, a People who wish that no person should either be allowed nor forced to suffer unnatural distress, injury, death or bereavement.

Knowing that animals, like us, suffer from distress, pain and bereavement, as the vast majority of our Country's Citizens also wish, that no wild animals or birds, nor indeed any animals or birds, should ever be either allowed or forced to suffer unnecessary distress, and never suffer from cruel injury, violent death or sudden bereavement.

The Petitioner therefore submits that it is good and right that wild animals (foxes, deer, hares/rabbits, mink, etc.) are, and will continue to be, protected from unnecessary distress, cruel violence, death and bereavement.

The Petitioner humbly suggests that, where reduction of a wild animal population is deemed either necessary or essential, there are a number of humane alternatives to the violent hunting of wild animals. Indeed, there are scientific ways to reduce the breeding of animals, or, where that is not possible, to trap them and have them put them down painlessly by a suitably qualified and trained Veterinary Surgeon.

The Petitioner further submits that, given the generally high economic and social background of those who have Breached this Act, and those who may been inclined to Breach this Act in future, the current Fines and Penalties for Breaches of this Act are too low and the Penalties also somewhat lenient. The Petitioner therefore requests that the Fines and Penalties should be significantly increased.

Therefore, with all due Honour and Respect, Your Humble Petitioner Prays, Pleads and Requests that the House of Commons urges the Government to maintain the provisions of the Hunting Act 2004 and, furthermore, where possible, to extend its protection of all wild animals as much as possible, particularly in regard to penalising and punishing any Breachers of this Law.

Your Petitioner remains Your Fellow-Citizen and Fellow-Servant for the Commons Good of Our Country.

[P001556]

Westminster Hall

Wednesday 18th November 2015 Westminster Hall

Wednesday 18 November 2015

[Mr George Howarth in the Chair]

Women and Low Pay

Wednesday 18th November 2015 Westminster Hall

09:30

[Mr George Howarth (in the Chair)]

A digital debate has taken place on Twitter ahead of today’s debate on women and low pay, and Mr Speaker has granted a derogation to allow the use of electronic devices in the Public Gallery for the duration of the debate. Devices should, however, be silent, and no photos can be taken.

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered women and low pay.

The work that women do is crucial to the functioning of society, but their pay does not reflect that. Despite the fact that their qualifications are as good as, or better than, men’s, their skills are not rewarded to the same level as men’s, and their career progression is slower. We need to ensure equal pay for work of equal value.

This subject is vital for millions of women, and for their families and employers. Living on low pay means that women do not have enough money to give their children nutritious food, let them go on a school journey or take them on holiday. It means not being able to escape a violent relationship, losing much of their pay on the cost of fares to and from work, and not being able to save enough to cover even minor crises, such as the washing machine or car breaking down.

Forty-five years after Parliament passed the Equal Pay Act 1970, we are still to achieve equal pay. Forty-five years later, a 19% gender pay gap still exists. That is 3% higher than the EU average, despite the figure having reduced by a third under the last Labour Government.

When talking about women and pay, we often focus on high-paid jobs and the lack of women occupying positions in FTSE 100 company boardrooms. It is important to ensure that women have career progression, especially when the TUC has reported that the pay divide between men and women is nearly 55% among top earners.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this Adjournment debate. She is right: equal pay issues have been around for about 50 years—it is 45 years since the Act was introduced—and that is far too long in my book. More importantly, when women on zero-hours contracts apply for tax credits, they cannot get them, because they are not in steady employment. What does my hon. Friend think about that? Equally, women are discriminated against when it comes to pensions, because a lot of them spend most of their lives being housewives.

[Ruth Cadbury]

My hon. Friend is absolutely correct: this is about not just the low pay women receive, but the interconnection with zero-hours contracts, the benefits regime, tax credits and, of course, pensions, because a working life on low pay means a retirement on a low income.

Although the pay gap among top earners is nearly 55%, we also need to ensure, as my hon. Friend said, that we address women’s pay at the other end of the spectrum, among those who are stuck in low-paid minimum wage jobs, who are, too often, on a zero-hours contract. Indeed, the majority of low-paid workers are women, and three in five minimum wage jobs are held by women.

Every major piece of legislation that has improved the lives of women has been introduced by the Labour party. From the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 to the Equality Act 2010, Labour has always been at the forefront of the fight for equality. The Government certainly know how to talk the talk on equality, and the Prime Minister pledged to end the gender pay gap “within a generation”, but with 85% of Government tax and benefit cuts hitting women, Ministers are giving with one hand and taking from women with the other.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing the debate. She alluded to the Prime Minister’s comments about dealing with the issue within a generation. Does she agree that although successive Governments, including the Labour Government, have made marginal progress—some have made more significant progress than others—our ambition should be about much more than dealing with this issue within a generation? It should be dealt with immediately—within the lifetime of this Parliament.

[Ruth Cadbury]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: we need action, not words. One of those actions is the living wage—or should I call it the true living wage, so as not to confuse it with the rebranded minimum wage? The true living wage is an hourly rate set independently and accredited annually. It is calculated according to the basic cost of living, not median earnings, unlike the new national living wage. The current living wage is £8.25 an hour, with the London living wage at £9.40 an hour. Employers choose voluntarily to pay the living wage.

Labour local authorities are taking the lead in rolling out the living wage. I am proud of the role I played in Hounslow Council in implementing it for the staff of not only the council, but its contractors, many of whom are women. That is making a difference locally to many women’s lives and workplaces.

During the recent living wage week, my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green)—the shadow Women and Equalities Minister—highlighted the importance of fair pay for women on a visit to a group of school meal staff in Camden who had recently been awarded the London living wage. That pay rise was due to a sustained campaign by the Camden New Journal and Unison, which put pressure on the company that employed the women so that it would give them the living wage they deserved. On receiving her pay increase, one of the women was delighted. She said the extra few pounds a week meant she would be able to save a bit of money each month and eventually have enough to go on a family holiday—her first. That made such a difference to her.

That is good for not just the employees, but their employer, which has seen increased staff satisfaction, leading to higher retention rates. Indeed, it previously had high staff turnover, with 40 vacancies to fill last summer; this year, it had only two. That is the point: having a large section of our workforce on a low wage is bad for business and bad for the economy. The Government consultation on the gender pay gap discovered that equalising women’s productivity and employment with men’s could add almost £600 billion to the economy.

The Government have taken some lessons from the last Labour Government. One is that, for most women, childcare is a barrier to labour market participation, and that is even truer of women on low pay. The Sure Start initiative was introduced because Labour recognised that women were more likely to be in low-paid jobs and, therefore, that childcare needed to be subsidised to help them back into work.

It frustrates me that, to help women back into the workforce, there has to be recognition that women’s employment is, on average, less well paid and of less value. Although it is good to see more women able to participate in the labour market, TUC research has shown that more than half the job growth for women since 2010 has been in low-paying sectors. Why is women’s work less well paid? The work that women do is crucial to the functioning of society, but their pay does not reflect that.

Despite the fact that women’s qualifications are as good as, or better than, men’s, they are not rewarded. Women occupy 78% of jobs in health and social care—a sector where the average salary is £40 per week less than the UK economy average. By comparison, men account for 88% of those working in more lucrative sectors, such as science, technology and engineering.

It is harder for women to find good-quality jobs. Evidence suggests that women become “discouraged workers”, resulting in fewer of them working or actively seeking work. They are discouraged workers because they face real challenges in finding decent-quality work, and the work they traditionally carry out, such as catering, cleaning and caring, is too often low paid and undervalued.

[Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. Does she agree that, with 4.1 million children now living in poverty, tackling women’s low pay is a crucial part of improving the opportunities of those young people?

[Ruth Cadbury]

My hon. Friend is right. Children growing up in poverty do not have the same advantages and opportunities as many in their peer group. We cannot have a situation in which the adults of the future are not able to develop as they should in an equal, fair society.

Among examples discovered by the TUC of how brazen companies can be when they employ women was an advertisement in Wales for two seasonal roles—Santa Claus and Mrs Claus. Santa was to be paid a fair wage of £12 per hour, while Mrs Claus was paid the national minimum wage of £6.70 per hour. There was no difference in their job descriptions, and they both did the same amount of work, but the woman’s role was deemed to be of less value. That may seem like an interesting one-off, but it perfectly demonstrates how differently men’s and women’s work is valued 45 years after the implementation of the Equal Pay Act 1970.

Occupational segregation and the devaluing of work traditionally carried out by women, such as caring, directly contributes to the gender pay gap. That must be tackled and the Government must do more to diversify the labour market. As I have said, UK women earn on average 91% of what men earn. To put it another way, as of 9 November, just over a week ago, women are effectively working for free for the rest of the year. That is simply not acceptable in the 21st century. Progress has not been quick enough. Under Labour the gender pay gap reduced by a third—a trend that has, I admit, since continued; but while the gap has narrowed for full-time workers, it has widened for part-time workers and we must not be complacent.

[Mr Jim Cunningham]

My hon. Friend is very generous in giving way. It is difficult to see how Government policy can narrow the pay gap in the public sector when wage increases are held at 1%. Will my hon. Friend comment on that?

[Ruth Cadbury]

The public sector is in particular difficulties, but the reason for that is the incredibly tight constraints on its budgets. Having been a local authority lead member, I know the pressure and how difficult it is to juggle overdue pay increases and the need to retain jobs wherever possible, particularly in such vital sectors as social care.

The gender pay gap affects women from the day when they start work, and for the rest of their lives. Forty-five years after the passing of the Equal Pay Act 1970, we still have that gap. Earlier in the year Labour called for a new equal pay Act, acknowledging that the current one has simply not prevented inequality between genders. Indeed, the current Act puts responsibility for enforcing equal pay on women, by allowing a woman to take her employer to a tribunal, rather than making it a collective responsibility. Going to an employment tribunal is a difficult process, and it is now a costly one. First, the employee must be a member of a trade union if she cannot pay for a lawyer or represent herself, and many people are put off at that stage. However, if an employee is successful, the tribunal will instruct the company to do an equal pay audit; but how many women even get to that stage? Yesterday I participated in a Parliament outreach initiative on Twitter, and there was some debate. Women talked about their experiences, and many said they would not challenge an employer, even if they thought they were being paid less than their male counterparts. They feared being sacked. One woman said that equal pay audits might be useful, but that she feared many women would

“stay silent for fear of losing their jobs”.

The Government cannot simply point to the existing measures and say they are tackling the gender pay gap, when people do not have access to the tools that are provided. More needs to be done to make the tribunal process accessible, and to give women the confidence to challenge their employers about fair pay. There is also a need to move away from putting the responsibility on the employee to fight for equal pay, and towards collective responsibility. That is what Labour argued for at the beginning of the year. It is impossible for a woman to demand equal pay if she does not know what her male counterpart is earning. An equal pay audit should come at the beginning, not the end, of the process.

Where can we go next? In July, the Prime Minister proclaimed that he would end the gender pay gap in a generation. I welcome any efforts to address the hopeless situation we are in, but we need more attention paid to women on low pay, rather than simply focusing, as I fear the Prime Minister may have done, on women in highly paid jobs. I recognise recent efforts to address the pay gap between men and women, which are commendable. Legislating for companies that employ more than 250 people to publish the difference between men and women employees’ pay is a good way to push companies to pay men and women equally, to avoid embarrassment and public naming and shaming. However, traditional women’s employment in the five Cs—clerical, catering, caring, cashiering and cleaning—is often in smaller companies, which will not need to publish that information.

We must also acknowledge the need to address not simply the discrepancy between wages but the value of women’s work. The Government need a strategy to boost the esteem and pay of the jobs typically undertaken by women. Raising the minimum wage by the end of this Parliament and rebranding it does not fool me, or those women working for wages below the true living wage—the wage calculated as enough to live on. Cutting tax credits for millions of working families does not fool them either. The Government may talk the talk on equality but, while 85% of their tax and benefit changes fall on women, the cuts agenda compromises any chances of improvement for women on the lowest pay.

09:46

[Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) for securing this important debate. It provides an opportunity to discuss how low pay affects women’s lives. As we have heard, there are many reasons why women are more likely to receive low pay. They are likely to be paid less than a male colleague for doing the same job, and many women work in low-paid sectors. Of course, more women work part-time.

It is interesting to think about the impact of age on women’s pay. Women in their 60s earn nearly 14% less than men, and women in their 50s earn 18% less than men, which is the highest difference for any working-age group. That has a significant impact on women’s income during their working lives, but also on their income in retirement. That is what I want to talk about. Low pay means that fewer women can save for retirement. If they take time out to have children or care for close relatives and friends, that affects the contributions that they can make to a pension, which means that women face additional disadvantages with retirement income.

I have recently been working with the campaigning group Women Against State Pension Inequality, which campaigns against the way state pension age equalisation has been imposed on women born in the 1950s. For many women reaching retirement age, the state pension will be the main or only source of income. Until 1995, women who worked part time could not join their company pension schemes, or they did not qualify because of time taken out of the workforce for ill health or to fulfil caring responsibilities. Even when a court judgment in 2000 apparently meant that access to employers’ pension schemes was possible, legal technicalities meant that it was too late for thousands of women to benefit. Women who worked part time between 1976 and 1995 should have been allowed access to company pension schemes, but they needed to claim within six months of leaving a job, and many women left jobs without knowing that they could claim. Also, women who worked for less than two years for the same employer did not qualify.

Despite such unfairness continuing to 1995 and beyond, state pension equalisation was started with the Pensions Act 1995 and accelerated with the Pensions Act 2011. Women born in the 1950s have been hit particularly hard, and changes have been enacted without appropriate notification. Many women received little or no personal notification of the changes to the state pension age, so they were left with inadequate time to plan for the change in their financial circumstances. As I have said, older women are more likely than men to be in lower-paid, insecure or part-time work. I have met women in their 60s who are now struggling on zero-hours contracts or jobseeker’s allowance, when they had expected to be able to retire at the age of 60. I met a group of women campaigning about this on Saturday, and one woman told me how, at the age of 62, she had been placed on the Work programme. Some women and their families are now experiencing real hardship because of the changes.

Members of Women Against State Pension Inequality shared with me their experiences, which include partners being unable to retire together due to the changes. Others discussed how they have struggled financially because they have given up work to care but have no income with which to support themselves. It is also a struggle for women in their 60s who have been self-employed, as that is often work that comes and goes. In one case, a woman caring for her husband, who has a terminal cancer diagnosis, will not be entitled to his pension after his death, and will not receive her state pension for a further four years. She said:

“It’s disgraceful to get to this time of life with loads of worries ahead.”

It is unjust that so many women have had their retirement income altered significantly with such little notice, meaning there is not enough time to plan for the changes.

The date at which the changes take effect is also unfair. Those born on or after 6 April 1951 will now have to wait until a later age to claim their pension, whereas friends born just before that date are not affected, which can mean that there will be a number of years’ difference between when women who are born a few months apart—probably people who were in the same class at school—begin to receive their state pension.

It is worth making it clear that the campaign group WASPI is against not the equalisation of the pension age but how the changes have been enacted. Many of those women have already spent their working lives being disadvantaged in pay compared with their male counterparts. The way the changes to the state pension have been enacted is a major injustice for these women, who have already lived with and overcome significant barriers in the workplace and now face even more barriers in their 60s.

It is time we looked again at low pay, but it is also time we looked at the other barriers faced by women of all age groups, particularly the additional hardship faced by women born in the 1950s. That is almost entirely due to the Government making changes to the state pension age without offering transitional protections, which were promised by the Work and Pensions Secretary in the debate on the Pensions Act 2011 but have not materialised.

09:52

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

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth. I congratulate the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) on securing such an important debate.

Gender equality is not a dream, or at least it should not be. Often when we debate gender inequality in the workplace, we hear the usual apologist grumbles from Members. We are told that, in many ways, it is a fact of life; it is the way the world works and we cannot continue to complain because it will not change—“Life is unfair. Men are men and women are women. That’s it. Accept it and get on with it.” Well, I will not accept it. That response, which I have come to expect, is not only lazy but wrong, and it does not address the real issues women face. If we think along those lines, of course nothing will change. Inequality will continue. Women will continue to be discriminated against for having children. They will continue to be refused access to justice and will always be paid considerably less than men. We cannot, should not and must not allow that attitude to go unchallenged, because it is that attitude that put us in the position we are in today and it is that attitude that will keep us here.

On 9 November, we marked equal pay day, when women across the United Kingdom started working for free, while men continued earning—a day that we should be talking about in history lessons, not in the 21st century. Forty-five years after the passing of the Equal Pay Act, men still earn two months’ more wages than women every year. The gap between men and women stands at a staggering 19% in the UK, with women earning 81p for every £1 that a man earns. Even in professions dominated by women—hairdressing, catering and cleaning—the pay gap still exists, while women in skilled trades, including plumbing and mechanics, suffer the biggest pay gap, earning close to 30% less than their male counterparts. That is a damaging indictment of successive UK Governments, employers and industry, and it is something we should be collectively ashamed of.

In Scotland, the gender pay gap is substantially lower than across the UK, which is welcome, but it still exists and it should not. More work must be done across these islands. In my constituency, gender inequality has been at the heart of the political debate for years. In my own local authority, South Lanarkshire Council, hundreds of women have fought for equal pay for equal work, and many of them have now received a payout, totalling the massive amount of £70 million. However, just a few months ago, figures published for South Lanarkshire Council showed that the gender pay gap was a staggering 16%, and many more women continue to fight for equal pay, so we are not there yet. I say that not to play politics but to show that the gender pay gap still exists, particularly in the public sector.

Scotland is one of the leading countries in Europe for reducing female unemployment, and we have done it through practical policies such as expanding childcare for two, three and four-year-olds and paying all Government employees the real living wage. We continue to move closer to the goal of equality. Scotland’s First Minister has made the business of redressing inequality a priority for her Government. Labour market figures show that female employment in Scotland has reached a record high, while youth unemployment is at its lowest level in six years and the number of people in work continues to grow. That is a testament to the strong actions taken by the Scottish National party in government, with the economic powers it currently holds, but women should not have to wait another 45 years—or 70 years, as the UN has estimated—for equal pay in Britain.

We have heard from Members about the campaign group Women Against State Pension Inequality and the impact of this issue on the entire generation of women born in the 1950s. What do the Government intend to do to address the issue of those women’s pensions? How will they rectify that, to ensure that women do not continue to experience inequality?

[Barbara Keeley]

I am glad to hear the hon. Lady raise the same point I did. Is she aware how much it rankles with and angers the women affected that they have not received the transitional protection the Government promised them? It is very harsh to impose the change on people without the protection the Secretary of State promised.

[Angela Crawley]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Lady and thank her for that point. I hope the Minister will address that in his remarks.

This fight is not reserved to half of the population. We do not fight against injustice for one sex; we fight for everyone. No man wants his wife, daughter, sister or mother to earn less simply because they are women. We need to send a strong message to employers, Governments, local authorities and industry that there is simply no excuse for discrimination. As things stand, we are damaging families, diluting gender equality and doing no favours to the economy that is so important to this Government. Now is not the time for excuses; we have heard them all before. Let us take strong, decisive action and put gender inequality where it belongs: in the history books.

09:58

[Colleen Fletcher (Coventry North East) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) on securing this important debate on a subject that affects women in every constituency the length and breadth of the country, my own included. I intend to keep my contribution brief, focusing on low pay in Coventry and the impact on women locally.

Nearly one fifth of all jobs in Coventry, equivalent to 26,000 roles across the city, paid less than the living wage last year. The majority of those low-paid jobs are concentrated in sectors and roles within the labour market that are overwhelmingly dominated by women, such as care assistants, cleaners, caterers and those working in the leisure and service industry. Although we know those types of job are crucial and help to hold the fabric of society together, they are all too often part time and low skilled, with few progression opportunities.

[Mr Cunningham]

My hon. Friend will be as aware as I am that Coventry was one of the leading authorities in implementing the living wage. More importantly, she mentioned that carers are among the lowest paid. If a carer wants to go to a tribunal without trade union support—I have seen cases of this—on average it costs £1,200, and most carers cannot afford that. That is a direct result of this Government’s policies.

[Colleen Fletcher]

I agree with my hon. Friend on that point, which was also raised by our hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth.

As I was saying, although the types of job I describe are crucial and help to hold the fabric of society together, they are all too often part-time, low-skilled jobs with few progression opportunities, and are viewed and derogatively dismissed as “women’s work”. Consequently, they are undervalued and underpaid relative to comparable jobs in male-dominated sectors. As a result, low, unequal pay for work of equal value is the bleak reality for many of Coventry’s working women in this divided and divisive labour market.

[Margaret Greenwood]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the fact that women in their 50s earn 18% less than men not only is an injustice for those women, but really reflects a failure of our society to harness all the expertise and knowledge of those women? That shortcoming as a society has an impact on our economy.

[Colleen Fletcher]

I absolutely agree with my hon Friend. I have had experience of that, and constituents have written to me about those very things.

One of the clearest examples of this inequity is the widening gender pay gap in the city, which last year increased to 16.2%, up from 15% the previous year. It reached an astonishing 20.6% in my constituency. That means that on average, women in my local area took home just 79p for every £1 earned by a man. That rising inequality and resultant deterioration in the financial position of women across Coventry is extremely worrying and wholly unacceptable in equal measure, but of course the most fundamental and obvious problem facing women in these less valued and less well paid jobs is their inability to earn enough to provide themselves and their family with a decent standard of living, and in some circumstances even to keep their heads above water.

We know that low income as a result of reliance on low-paid work and in-work benefits limits access to adequate housing, education and other services or facilities, as well as to essentials such as food, fuel and clothing. That socio-economic disadvantage is inextricably linked to the significant health and social inequalities seen in Coventry and in my constituency, which impact upon some of the poorest and most vulnerable of my constituents. That is why we simply cannot continue to allow less valued and less well paid work to be the fate of generation after generation of women. We need fundamentally to tackle the undervaluation of so-called “women’s work”, while simultaneously challenging gender stereotyping within the labour market, expanding opportunities for quality flexible and part-time working, increasing affordable childcare provision, and raising pay across the board, particularly within traditionally feminised work sectors.

Coventry City Council has taken a lead on the issue locally by becoming a living wage employer—like my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth, I was directly involved in that as a councillor some time ago. Such a move ensures improved income levels for a substantial number of low-paid individuals, the majority of whom are women. In addition, the council has also implemented a social value policy, which includes payment of a living wage as one of the criteria that the council will consider in its procurement process. That will benefit all workers on low pay, but particularly women, as they make up the majority of those on low pay in my city.

10:04

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth. I congratulate the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) on securing this important Westminster Hall debate. I welcome her noteworthy and impressive contribution, as well as the contributions from other Members who have spoken.

The hon. Lady said that there has been a focus on high-paid jobs. It is important that women are given equal representation in high-paid jobs—and in boardrooms, political parties and Government Cabinets—so I can understand why she makes the point, but I think it is important that we focus on both high-paid and low-paid jobs. She highlighted the fact that three out of five jobs in minimum wage work are held by women. I have to admit that I was not aware of that startling figure, but I am glad that she raised it. That is why sorting equal pay claims from councils across the country is so important.

The hon. Lady highlighted the issue of the damaging branding of the Chancellor’s minimum wage premium as a national living wage. It is not national—it is only available to over-25s—and it is not a living wage; it falls way short of the Living Wage Foundation’s independently set living wage, which is calculated based on the cost of living. She mentioned that having a gender pay gap is bad for business. The statistic that she used to highlight that is absolutely correct and it is worth sharing it again: if we were to equalise the gender pay gap, we would boost productivity by an estimated £600 billion in this country. Frankly, that is astonishing. I thank her again for securing the debate.

The hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) raised a number of very important points about problems with pensions, particularly for women born in the 1950s. Those issues were discussed just yesterday in a Westminster Hall debate secured by my hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford). The hon. Member for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham) made very important points during that debate, as well as during this one. The hon. Lady, on behalf of the WASPI campaign group, made some very important points, which I welcome and which are supported by SNP Members.

My hon. Friend the Member for Lanark and Hamilton East (Angela Crawley) made a typically powerful speech. She made the point that gender equality is not a dream and should not be a dream. It needs to be a reality. She also said that women get paid two months short compared with their male counterparts.

[Margaret Greenwood]

Some years ago, I was fortunate enough to have a job teaching on a “women back to work” programme. The vast majority of the women were divorced. It was a really fantastic experience for me to see how quickly they improved their skills and educational base in a very short space of time. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is very important to provide training and educational opportunities for women—not just women in employment, but those who are unemployed, so that they can get back to work and generate the kind of economic activity that will boost their life chances?

[Neil Gray]

Absolutely. There is nothing that I can disagree with in that intervention, and I will come to some of those issues later in my speech.

Returning to the contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Lanark and Hamilton East, the gender pay gap still exists even in what would be traditionally or stereotypically described as “female jobs”. That is still wrong and needs to be addressed. No man wants to see his daughter suffering a gender pay gap—that is absolutely right. I speak as a the father of a one-year-old daughter who I hope will go on to employment where she will earn the same as her male counterparts, so I stand here today on that basis.

The hon. Member for Coventry North East (Colleen Fletcher) effectively highlighted the issues of gender inequality in her city of Coventry. Again, I highlight the contribution made by the hon. Member for Coventry South, who, as I said, also made noteworthy contributions to the debate on pensions yesterday.

It is disappointing that in 2015 we are still discussing matters of gender equality. Nevertheless, it is important to take cognisance of the fact that a real pay gap between men and women remains. Low pay affects women disproportionately. In 1999, the gender pay gap for full-time employees in Scotland stood at 16.7%, but by 2014 it had been reduced to 9%, and it is 9.4% in the rest of the UK. This year, the Scottish Government launched the Partnership for Change programme, wherein public, private and third-sector organisations make a voluntary commitment to work toward a 50:50 gender balance on their boards by 2020. As of 9 November, 160 organisations and businesses have signed up, which I am delighted to see, although more work is clearly needed. On this year’s equal pay day, 9 November, First Minister Nicola Sturgeon pledged to do everything she can to advance equal pay and gender equality in Scotland as part of the Fawcett Society’s pay gap pledge campaign. The First Minister has been leading the way on the issues, starting clearly and publicly with her 50:50 gender balanced Cabinet.

Many women shoulder a disproportionate amount of childcare or family responsibilities, and they are unable to take up promotion and other opportunities because they do not have alternative care arrangements. The Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014 provides further assistance to women and young families by providing that all three and four-year-olds and the most disadvantaged two year-olds are entitled to 600 hours of early learning and childcare. By the end of the next Parliament, the Scottish Government will have doubled the hours from 16 to 30 per week. Increasing childcare will not only improve outcomes for children, but support more women into work.

The Scottish Government have also provided Skills Development Scotland with additional funding as part of a wider £3 million allocation in 2014-15 to develop a range of equality activities, including tackling gender segregation. The Scottish Government are doing all they can with the tools on offer to provide tangible improvements.

[Angela Crawley]

Does my hon. Friend agree that providing Scotland with powers over the minimum wage and welfare, which still sit with this House, would allow Scotland to address needs and ensure that inequality is abolished in Scotland?

[Neil Gray]

Absolutely—I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend.

In Scotland, councils are now responsible for meeting legal obligations to their employees, including on equal pay, but clearly more work needs to be done. My hon. Friend highlighted the issues in South Lanarkshire. My constituency falls under North Lanarkshire Council’s jurisdiction. The council has been embroiled in a long-running and legally very costly equal pay dispute in which the council has dragged equal pay claims through the courts for several years. That is utterly shameful and needs to be addressed urgently. All equal pay cases need to be resolved with urgency and commitment, so that those affected receive their legal entitlement. Again, I am making the point not on a party political basis, but on the basis of doing what is right by our workers.

To conclude, despite the passage of the Equal Pay Act 45 years ago, more work needs to be done to address low pay. Although it is important to recognise that female employment in Scotland is at record levels, that the gap between male and female employment is at its smallest ever, and that the gender pay gap is smaller than in the rest of the UK, a great deal of work remains to be done to ensure women receive parity with their male colleagues. Low pay for women is both a symptom and a cause of gender inequality. We must do all we can to eradicate the gap between men and women to create a fairer and more prosperous society.

10:13

[Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Howarth. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) on securing this important debate, and I pay tribute to the many people on Twitter who are tweeting this morning on #WomenandLowPay, and are contributing to this debate as part of the digital opening up of Parliament.

We have heard this morning that the gender pay gap in the UK remains, and that women earn 81p for every pound that men earn. Many reasons have been given for that, including a system of occupational segregation in the UK; all too often, women find themselves in low-paid sectors such as retail, hospitality and care, and work part time because they have caring responsibilities. Women face barriers in going to employment tribunals because of maternity discrimination. They face barriers to training and development, including apprenticeships. Sadly, this Government have failed to build on Labour’s achievements, and their cuts are hitting women hardest.

My hon. Friend gave a good example of women’s work being valued less than men’s. She referred to a Father Christmas earning £12 an hour and a Mrs Claus earning the national minimum wage—half the hourly wage of Father Christmas. That got me thinking about a few things, including the message that sends to the children who visit that Father Christmas—that we value his work more than Mrs Claus’s. Frankly, I doubt whether Father Christmas could get round the world in one night without the support of a wife like Mrs Claus.

The majority of low-paid workers in this country are women. Three in five national minimum wage jobs are held by women, and over a quarter earn less than the living wage; the figure for men is one in six. Women are pushed into clerical, caring, catering, cashiering and cleaning occupations, as we have heard, and I will add another “C” to the list: classroom assistant. That brings me to my mother, who was born in the 1950s and works as a classroom assistant. With her union, she challenged her employer on equal pay legislation and on why classroom assistants were earning far less than men who were working for the council in similar jobs of equal worth.

My hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) referred to pensions discrimination. I call on the Minister to outline what transitional protection he will introduce for women who have been caught in that trap.

The Resolution Foundation estimates that care workers, 78% of whom are women, are collectively paid £130 million below the national minimum wage, because employers fail to pay for travel time between appointments, and make deductions for items necessary for their job, such as uniforms, mobile phones and petrol. Women are forced into work in which they are undervalued and low paid. For example, 63% of those in retail and customer service are women.

What are the Government doing to end gender segregation and undervaluation of women’s work? Will the Minister give a commitment to take action to encourage women to consider traditionally male-dominated jobs, especially in science, technology, engineering and maths—STEM careers—as well as encouraging men to consider, for example, the caring professions, to ensure that these careers are properly valued and paid at the rate they deserve? We should ask ourselves as a society why we do not value the work that women do to the same extent as that done by men. Some 42% of women are employed part time, but the average part-time hourly rate is less than a third of the full-time hourly wage.

[Angela Crawley]

Does the hon. Lady agree that zero-hours contracts only exacerbate inequality? Will she join me in calling on the Government to ban exploitative zero-hours contracts, particularly as we are coming up to Christmas, when the retail industry in particular exploits such contracts?

[Cat Smith]

The hon. Lady predicts where I am going. I agree that zero-hours contracts make it very difficult—for women, predominantly—to plan, especially at this time of year. Reference has been made to Father Christmas; this is an important time of year for families to come together. It can be an expensive time of year. Budgeting when on low pay is essential, but if someone does not know what wage they will take home at the end of the month, it is very difficult to budget at all.

What are the Government doing to create more well-paid jobs with reduced hours or flexibility? The TUC has researched the issue of single-parent families, who are twice as likely as couple-parent families to live in poverty, and 90% of single parents are women. Women’s low pay arises hugely from the fact that they are often a single parent in a household. Single mothers are more likely than mothers in couples to be in low-skilled work, reflecting the difficulties in finding well-paid work that fits around caring responsibilities.

Research from 2005 showed that 30,000 women were forced out of work through pregnancy discrimination, but 10 years later, that figure has almost doubled to 54,000. What are the Government doing to tackle maternity discrimination, and to ensure that women who are victims of such discrimination have access to justice?

As part of my research for the debate, I contacted the National Union of Students and asked it for the information that it has about apprenticeships as part of the work that it is doing. I pay tribute to Shelly Asquith, its vice-president, welfare, who provided me with the information. On average, young men earn 21% more than young women while doing an apprenticeship. According to the poll, female apprentices earn just £4.82 an hour, compared with £5.85 an hour for male apprentices. What steps are the Government taking to improve training opportunities for women, and to ensure that apprenticeships do not discriminate by gender?

My hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth set out Labour’s record on equality issues. The Equal Pay Act 1970, the minimum wage, the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 and the Equality Act 2010 were all introduced by a Labour Government. In government, we have also strengthened maternity and paternity rights. What we have seen from the current Government is a lot of job losses in the public sector. Of the local government job losses since 2010, 96,000 have fallen on men, while 141,000 have fallen on women. With the pay for low-paid work being 8% higher in the public sector than in the private sector, how many of these women are being forced out of their public sector jobs into equivalent private sector jobs and in effect receiving a pay cut?

Will the Minister commit to developing all tax and spending in a way that takes on board the likely impact on women’s equality? I ask that because 85% of the tax credit and benefit changes have fallen on women, and 70% of the savings made by cuts to tax credits have fallen on women. Will the Minister include in the new gender pay gap reporting regulations a requirement for employers to publish information on the earnings distribution of men and women in their workforce? I ask that because unless women know that they are receiving less pay for an equal-value job, it is very difficult for them ever to take any action to challenge that.

The full-time gender pay gap is 9.4%, but that masks the adverse experience of those working part time, where pay is typically lower, resulting in an overall gender pay gap of 19.1%. Indeed, the UK’s gender pay gap is above the EU average, and at the current rate of progress, it will take 50 years to close it. Although I am a young MP, I plan to be retired in 50 years’ time. I am not prepared to wait that long, and I am sure that the Minister is not, either. I therefore hope that he will have positive answers to my questions. I leave him with this thought: why do we value women’s work so much less than we value the work that men do?

10:23

[The Minister for Skills (Nick Boles)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth. I congratulate the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) on securing this important debate on an issue that concerns us all. I come from a family where the only thing controversial about gender equality was the suggestion that us men were anything other than inferior, so it has always been a mystery to me why the prejudices and discrimination against women, and indeed any other groups in society, persist, but sadly persist they do.

I suspect that the hon. Lady was not in the hall, but I am sure that she was pleased to hear my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, in one of the most effective and powerful passages in his party conference speech in October, say:

“I’m a dad of two daughters—opportunity won’t mean anything to them if they grow up in a country where they get paid less because of their gender rather than how good they are at their work.

The point is this: you can’t have true opportunity without real equality.”

As well as paying tribute to the Prime Minister’s leadership on this issue, I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), who, throughout her career in Parliament, in government and on repeated occasions as acting leader of the Labour party, has led the way on equality, including on women’s pay. All of us should salute her persistence and leadership on this issue.

The fact is that the pay gap, although smaller than it was, is too big, is unacceptable and must not be allowed to survive into the next generation. We can acknowledge that some progress has been made without in any way undermining the assertion that the gap as it remains is unacceptable. There has been some progress. The pay gap has decreased for full-time earners, but it is still too high at, I think, 6 and a bit per cent for full-time earners, and much less progress is being made for part-time workers and those in low-paid jobs. We can all agree that that position is not one that we should tolerate, so the question is what we can do to ensure not only that progress continues to be made, but that it is made more rapidly and made across the board, for part-time as well as full-time work.

I shall explain what the Government have long believed to be one of the most powerful tools in this respect. The laws were passed, as many hon. Members pointed out, by previous Labour Governments a long time ago, but once the necessary laws are passed, progress is often most rapidly achieved as a result of transparency—as a result of making it absolutely clear to everyone, not just the people who work for an employer but customers, partners or neighbours of the employer, what their record is on paying people equally. That is why we have decided to require employers of more than 250 people to publish information about the pay of men and women in their employ, so that they can demonstrate whether they are properly paying people equally. Driving through that transparency and adding to it, as we do with the enforcement of the national minimum wage, and a certain element of naming and shaming, whether formal or informal, both as MPs in respect of employers in our constituencies and as a Government in respect of larger employers nationally, will have a powerful impact on progress.

The second most powerful way to achieve change is to ensure a change in leadership. The Government’s focus on the representation of women on boards is not so much a result or a reflection of our interest in equality being greater in relation to high earnings than low earnings, although equality should be in place across the spectrum. It is more the fact that we are convinced that the more women there are on boards, the more voices there will be insisting that equality be achieved and not putting up with any persistence of inequality, however well disguised.

That is why we are delighted that we have more than met the original target set by Lord Davies of Abersoch to achieve 25% female representation on the boards of FTSE 100 companies. The figure is now at 26%. We now have more women on FTSE boards than ever before. I believe that there is not a single FTSE 100 company left that has no women on its board, but again, although that is welcome progress, it is not nearly enough, because many of the women who have been brought on to FTSE 100 and 250 boards are in non-executive roles. Our next challenge is to ensure that there is an equal increase in the representation of women in senior executive positions, because it is through the leadership roles in every employer that we will drive the change in employment practices down through all the employers in the country.

After leadership, the third most important step is to make it easier for women to get work, to stay in work and to return to work as soon as they choose to do so—it should always be their choice—after having children. That is why, at a time of very difficult decisions on the public finances, we have nevertheless made it a priority to invest in the provision of 30 hours of free childcare for three and four-year-olds for all families who work, because only when there is that significant number of hours of free childcare will we make it possible for more mothers of young children to go to work as soon as it is right for them to do so.

The final and most important measure is more broadly to increase the rate of pay, particularly in low-paid jobs. We have heard from many hon. Members that women unfortunately occupy more low-paid positions than men do. If we can increase pay in low-paid jobs, we will disproportionately help women. I understand the unwillingness of Opposition Members to acknowledge the substantial and significant step that the Government have taken by introducing the national living wage for people over the age of 25, and I accept that the Opposition want to continue to preserve the concept of a living wage as something distinct from our new national living wage. Leaving aside the nomenclature for a moment, the minimum wage that will be paid to every 25-year-old in the country, including in the great kingdom of Scotland, will go up by an amount far greater than any Opposition party suggested in the general election campaign.

[Barbara Keeley]

Will the Minister give way?

[Nick Boles]

I will not give way right now, but I will do so in a second. We have plenty of time, so the hon. Lady need not worry. The minimum wage will go up by an amount far greater than was recommended by the Low Pay Commission. We have strong evidence not only from internal Government estimates but from the Resolution Foundation that women over the age of 25 will disproportionately benefit from the increase in the minimum wage. For all that Opposition Members want to retain some scepticism about the brand that we are putting on the new, higher minimum wage, I hope that they will welcome that significant step in improving the pay of many women in this country.

[Barbara Keeley]

I do not think that the Minister needs to lecture the Opposition on the national minimum wage. Labour Members brought in the national minimum wage in the teeth of a fight from the Conservative party. I know that he was not in the House at the time, but he must know that. None of us needs to be lectured on that. Will he say whether he will address the issue that several Opposition Members have raised about transitional arrangements for the state pension age inequality for women born in the 1950s?

[Nick Boles]

I say gently to the hon. Lady that I was not lecturing her at all. I was resisting the suggestion that the national living wage—I accept that Opposition Members do not like its brand—is anything other than a dramatically positive step for low-paid workers, especially women, in this country. I did not hear a single member of any Opposition party welcome the increase that will happen in April for every worker over the age of 25 who is in a national minimum wage job. If the Opposition want the Government—for better or for worse, we are likely to be in government for the next four and a half years—to take on board some of their excellent suggestions for further progress, they should give us a little acknowledgement for that real achievement. It absolutely builds on the national minimum wage, which the Labour party introduced, and I am always happy to acknowledge, as I did earlier, the Labour party’s role in the Equal Pay Act 1970, but acknowledgement of each other’s achievements is a two-way street. It would be good for Opposition Members to acknowledge our achievement.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Nick Boles]

I will answer the other point made by the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) before I give way again. She asked an important question on a subject that was also raised by the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith). As I have said, I come from a family that is entirely dominated by women, and two of my sisters are in the age bracket that the hon. Ladies referred to. I have also had some pretty difficult conversations in my constituency surgery with many women who are affected.

The equal pension age is being introduced at the same time as the new state pension, which, compared with the current two-tier state pension, improves the amount of state pension for many women whose national insurance records are incomplete as a result of career breaks or a great deal of part-time work. I am not implying that it makes up all the loss, but there is a countervailing improvement. I am advised by the Department for Work and Pensions that there will be a review of the state pension age. The Pensions Act 2014 provides for a six-yearly review to take into account up-to-date life expectancy data and the findings of an independently led review. The first review will conclude by May 2017 and will consider, among a number of other factors, the impact of the state pension age change on women. That will be an opportunity to consider the issues that the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South raises.

[Barbara Keeley]

I would like to repeat what the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions said in 2011 on Second Reading of the Pensions Bill:

“Let me simply repeat what I said earlier…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.]

There were no transitional arrangements. Women who now do not get their pensions until 66 get nothing—no pensioner benefits or bus passes—and, as I have said, many of them are on jobseeker’s allowance or employment and support allowance. Some are even being forced, at the age of 62, on to the Work programme. That injustice will keep coming back. The Secretary of State in that debate promised transitional arrangements.

[Nick Boles]

I do not want to get into a discussion about what another Minister said in a debate that I was not part of, but the quote that the hon. Lady read out indicated that the Secretary of State would consider transitional arrangements. It did not sound to me like a clear pledge to bring in any particular transitional arrangement. I have described the position and the fact that there will be a further review in 2017, which will allow those issues to be revisited.

[Margaret Greenwood]

What analysis has the Minister made of the impact of the cuts to local authorities that the Government are considering on low-paid women working in councils up and down the country?

[Nick Boles]

As the hon. Lady is aware, all decisions, legislation and regulations are subject to equality impact assessments, in which all those things are considered. Her intervention leads me neatly to my conclusion. For all that the steps that I described—transparency, leadership, childcare provision and increasing the national minimum wage through the introduction of the national living wage—are powerful, the most important source of opportunity to improve the pay of women and close the pay gap is a strong economy that creates lots of new jobs. Those new jobs and employment opportunities give women the opportunity to go out and command better wages.

Although I understand that the hon. Lady opposes public spending cuts, it is nevertheless the case that as a result of the consistent policy of slow but steady deficit reduction, this economy has created more jobs than any other country in Europe, and more women are in work than ever before. It might have been possible for Opposition Members, while properly opposing the Government on specifics, to give some acknowledgement of the fundamental achievement of creating jobs, which create opportunities, including the opportunity for women to improve the wages that they earn.

[Cat Smith]

Will the Minister give way?

[Nick Boles]

I have concluded.

10:38

[Ruth Cadbury]

Thank you, Mr Howarth, for chairing the debate and for your understanding. This is the first Westminster Hall debate that I have secured, and my speech was the first I have made in which I have not been severely time-constrained. Like many new Members, I am still getting used to the procedures and practices in this place, so I thank you for your generosity and your support. I have been particularly pleased to serve under your chairmanship.

In concluding the debate, I thank those who helped me in the preparation of my speech, in particular the TUC, the staff of the Women and Equalities Committee, Oxfam and Age UK. They all provided useful, informative material. I thank fellow Members who have contributed to the debate. I notice that there has been only one contributor from the Conservative party—the Minister. I regret that there have not been more contributions from Members of the governing party, as I know that they all represent large numbers of women in their constituencies, many of whom will be affected by the issue of low pay.

My hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) eloquently described the impact of a working life on low pay, and what that means for then being a pensioner on low pay. She specifically mentioned the women, born only a few years earlier than me, who had planned for retirement at a particular age but have now had their plans ruined and cannot properly budget for their retirement because of the change in their pension arrangements. Transitional protection is vital for them. Those women will have to work for low pay for longer, and they will be very vulnerable in the workplace over the next few years.

I thank the hon. Member for Lanark and Hamilton East (Angela Crawley), with whom I serve on the Women and Equalities Committee. She outlined the public sector challenges and some of the issues for women in Scotland, particularly in her constituency. My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North East (Colleen Fletcher) eloquently described what low pay means in the city of Coventry, particularly in her constituency, where the gap between men’s and women’s pay is even higher than the national average. That just shows how dependent the women of that city are on low-paid work. She and other Members also mentioned how zero-hours contracts affect low pay.

I do not have daughters. I have two sons. All the work that they have done to date has been on the minimum wage and on zero-hours contracts. It is all right for them, because they live with us. We always have food in the fridge and there is always a washing machine for them to use—occasionally, admittedly. They would like to earn more. However, the women they work with are trying to pay rent, feed children and run a family, and they cannot do so on the minimum wage, particularly where we live in outer west London.

The hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Neil Gray) pointed out that the new national minimum wage applies only to people who are 25 and over. That might not affect as much young people who still live in the family home where a number of people are bringing in money, but many young people under 25 live on their own and have to pay rent and household bills. Why should they be left out of the new national minimum wage, which is effectively a rebadged minimum wage?

[Cat Smith]

Is my hon. Friend aware of any shops that will sell a loaf of bread or a pint of milk for less money to someone under the age of 25 than to someone over the age of 25? Should not a living wage be enough to live off? When living costs are equal, we should have equality in the living wage as well.

[Ruth Cadbury]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is why the Living Wage Foundation carefully researches what a living wage should be. A living wage should be enough to live on, which is why the living wage is fully researched and accredited, and why it is higher in London than in the rest of the country.

[Barbara Keeley]

The Minister said that the Opposition have not welcomed the changes to the national minimum wage, so I would like to say something about it. Before the spending review next week, there is a real fear that the £1.7 billion cost could bring down the care sector. If the Minister still has a chance to lobby the Chancellor before next week, he might like to make that point to him. There are real fears about that. In fact, when I asked the Community and Social Care Minister about it yesterday in Health questions, he actually asked me where the funding was coming from. In response to the Minister, the reason people have concerns is because of things like that.

[Mr George Howarth (in the Chair)]

Order. The hon. Lady is making a very tenuous link. I hope that Ruth Cadbury will not be led down that particular primrose path.

[Ruth Cadbury]

If that is your wish, Mr Howarth, I will not.

I return to the contribution of the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts, who spoke of his hopes for his baby daughter and her working future. Let us all hope that when she joins the workplace, she will be able to earn the same as the young men of her age, whatever sector she goes into and at whatever level. We all hope for that for our children and grandchildren, and those of our constituents.

The hon. Gentleman outlined the work done in Scotland by the Scottish Parliament and by local authorities. That is to be commended. As he said, low pay is a symptom and a cause of inequality, and Labour Members all have sympathy with that point.

My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith) said much that was absolutely appropriate and added much to the debate. She particularly captured the issue of discrimination by picking up on my true anecdote about the recruitment for the position of Santa Claus at a Christmas grotto in a local store in Wales, where Mrs Claus was to be paid half the amount that Santa Claus would receive. She pointed out that Santa would not be Santa without Mrs Claus supporting him and working with him. She is absolutely right. That might be a funny story but it happens day in, day out in workplaces across the country.

[Mr George Howarth (in the Chair)]

Order. I point out to the hon. Lady that the story is less funny than the first time she told it.

[Ruth Cadbury]

I do apologise, Mr Howarth.

My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood also pointed out that we should be talking not about five C’s, but about six. Her mother’s experience as a classroom assistant is absolutely true, and I would say that well over 90% of classroom assistants are women and are on low pay. It is right that they are paid adequately and are recognised for the valuable work that they do supporting our children.

The Minister comes from a women-dominated family, as many people would say I do, but we are not here to speak for ourselves and our immediate families. We are speaking for the women we represent, which is why we are in this place and why we believe that this debate is vital. As I said, I am sorry that there are not more Members from the Minister’s party here. He was right to pay tribute to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) for the contribution that she has made in this place over many years.

I commend the Government for the efforts that they have made so far in recognising that there is a wage gap and an issue of low pay, and that childcare is a major issue, particularly for women.

Although the Minister initially concentrated on board pay and high-level executive pay, he finally got on to the issue of low pay. As many colleagues have said, there is an awful lot more that the Government could and should be doing. As I said in my opening speech, and as others also said, it will take time to implement the new national minimum wage. We will not even have a review for two years, and it will not be fully implemented until the end of this Parliament, which is too long for women in this country to wait. It is worth repeating that 85% of the Government’s benefit and tax credit cuts will hit women. The Government are giving with one hand and taking with the other.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered women and low pay.

10:51

Sitting suspended.

Road Infrastructure (Shropshire)

Wednesday 18th November 2015 Westminster Hall

11:00

[Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered road infrastructure in Shropshire.

It is a great pleasure to have this debate about road investment in Shropshire under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth.

Shrewsbury is growing rapidly and we are earmarked for a very large number of new homes. I see congestion in the town as the single biggest threat to its future prosperity. In the past 10 years, while I have been an MP, I have seen the levels of traffic in Shrewsbury increase significantly. A relatively small town, we have got to the stage where there is considerable congestion, which is starting to affect the ability of commuters not only to get around the town but to get across Shropshire by traversing the Shrewsbury area.

We have a ring road around Shrewsbury, but it is only three-quarters complete; the last quarter has never been finished. This morning, I spoke to one of my councillors, Councillor Peter Adams, and he told me that the idea of a north-west relief road was first mooted in 1948, and we have been going round and round the Wrekin, as we say in Shropshire, on this particular issue and putting forward proposals for the completion of the north-west relief road ever since. We were almost there and the council had the project “oven-ready”—ready for Government investment—but the financial crisis led to the reduction of investment in such projects and the work never went ahead. Now that the economy is picking up, I very much hope that the Government will take a real interest in the project.

In all my communications with the Secretary of State for Transport, he has led me to believe that a road of this kind would be the responsibility of the local enterprise partnership. It is for the LEP to prioritise as the body that has been tasked with negotiating with the Government on major infrastructure projects that will affect prosperity and employment in Shropshire. I understand this new relationship that the Government have devised, whereby funding and setting priorities will be, to some degree, under the jurisdiction of the LEP, and that is why I have engaged significantly with the LEP in my area during the last few years to highlight to it the priority that I attach to this project. However, I am very pleased that I have the opportunity today to flag it up with the Minister and I look forward to hearing from him about his understanding of where this project is and what additional support the Government can give to the LEP.

Interestingly the benefit-cost ratio, which is a Government statistical tool, of the proposed route is 5:4. A BCR of more than four is classified as very high, making the proposal very good value for money according to the Government’s own criteria. Indeed, the project matches the Government criteria perfectly; it meets the test for value for money that the Government themselves have set.

The proposed road would provide the missing river crossing between the western and northern parts of Shrewsbury, significantly reducing the traffic that at the moment crosses through the town centre unnecessarily, and reducing congestion on the town’s western and northern approaches. It would also slash journey times between the west and north of Shrewsbury by two thirds, from 19.1 minutes to just 6.6 minutes. I am sure the Minister can appreciate just how important the project is for me and Shrewsbury residents.

We have huge support from Shrewsbury Business Chamber, the local chamber of commerce, our local council, which is a unitary authority, and many residents associations. At a public meeting, I asked members of the Shrewsbury Town Centre Residents Association who was in favour of this road project and the people there overwhelmingly—about 95% of them—were very supportive. That is simply because they can see the congestion affecting people’s ability to get into Shrewsbury.

We really depend on visitors. Shrewsbury has more listed buildings than any other town in England. We trade on the fact that we are a very historic town and tourism is our No. 1 income generator. If people are struggling to get into Shrewsbury to appreciate its beauty and all it offers, including the unique shopping experience, they will bypass our town and go to other parts of Shropshire, or to Chester and beyond. That is why this issue is so critical to the prosperity of Shrewsbury, and indeed to the prosperity of Shropshire and mid-Wales.

As the Minister knows, the Oxon link road is the embryo of the north-west relief road. I have already discussed this road project with him and I look forward to hearing from him that the Oxon link road is live, and that the planning and finance for it are coming forward for this first chink, or first part, of the north-west relief road. I am very pleased about that, but I look forward to hearing from him today about his understanding of how that first part will lead to the completion of the whole road.

Of course, I also invite the Minister to come to Shrewsbury. If he can come on a Friday afternoon, that would be best, because everyone will be collecting their children and he can see the type of traffic mayhem that takes place in Shrewsbury. He can come and speak to us in my constituency, but he can also see that traffic mayhem. If he can do that, it would be wonderful.

The A5 is another very important road in my constituency and that of my right hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson). The A5 is part of a trans-European network that runs from Holyhead all the way to Felixstowe. It is a major trans-European network, and the part of it that runs through Shropshire is the only part that does not have dualling. My right hon. Friend and I went to see the Secretary of State recently, to highlight our concerns about the number of accidents and deaths on this road. We had a very productive meeting and we specifically asked him to initiate work that will give us an understanding of the costings involved in dualling this stretch of the A5. We very much look forward to seeing the result of that work.

[Mr Owen Paterson (North Shropshire) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Daniel Kawczynski]

I will give way shortly.

The stretch of the A5 that runs north from Shrewsbury through north Shropshire links up with the A483, which goes into north Wales. As I have said, it is the last stretch of the trans-European transport network from Felixstowe to Holyhead to be dualled. It is inadequate for the volume of traffic coming from Ireland and the industrial areas of north-east Wales, and it is frequently the cause of congestion, disruption and danger. That is why I wanted to raise this issue with the Minister.

I give way to my right hon. Friend, who has been campaigning assiduously on this issue since he became an MP in 1997.

[Mr Paterson]

I am most grateful to my hon. Friend and neighbour for raising this very important issue, and for giving way to me. He is quite right to cite the terrible damage that the lack of a dual carriageway on this stretch of road has caused. Between 1991 and 2015, this single-track road between Shrewsbury and Chirk has killed 48 people. There have been 48 fatal casualties, as well as 308 serious casualties and 1,081 slight casualties.

My hon. Friend is quite right to cite the pressure of traffic. Traffic has increased by 33% since 1993, from 36,807 vehicles in a 24-hour period to 49,045 vehicles. The only solution to the problem is to dual the road. We had a most satisfactory and constructive meeting with the Secretary of State, who promised to come to Shrewsbury, and I endorse the invitation that my hon. Friend has made to the Minister today. I also ask the Minister to come and see how we can co-operate in the closest possible way with the road investment strategy 2.

Another neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies), is in Westminster Hall today. We also raised the issue of the A483 Pant to Llanymynech bypass, which is the subject of the UK’s longest-running bypass campaign, because 90% of the damage resulting from the lack of a bypass falls in my constituency whereas 90% of the benefits of the A483 go to Wales.

[Daniel Kawczynski]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for raising those points. I would like the Minister to know that my constituents and I have followed just how doggedly and passionately my right hon. Friend has lobbied on the issue. Someone going from Shrewsbury to Oswestry, particularly during the summer months when many tourists are using the A5, would be shocked that this trans-European network route is so congested and is not dualled. Interestingly, someone trying to get on to the A5 from some Shropshire villages—I must get this point across—has to wait for a gap in the traffic. That is to get on to a trans-European highway, and that is causing some problems.

The A49 runs from Ludlow to Shrewsbury. In anticipation of this debate, I asked my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr Dunne) whether he wanted to contribute. He is not able to be here, but he stated that his constituency is the sixth largest in the country and does not have a single metre of dualling anywhere. That lack of dualling is prevalent throughout Shropshire. The A49 has a huge amount of freight traffic coming from Herefordshire, Gloucestershire and parts of Wales and going all the way past Shrewsbury. That traffic winds through a lot of small Salopian villages, and its speed on narrow roads is a significant cause of concern for many local residents. I have spent many years campaigning on pedestrian crossings in some of the small rural villages that the A49 runs through. We have had some wonderful successes, particularly in the village of Dorrington, where we have secured an important pedestrian crossing, but nevertheless more needs to be done on that road.

I have mentioned the north-west relief road, the A5 and the A49, and those are the roads I would like the Minister to focus on.

[Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)]

I simply want to raise some issues with Shropshire roads that my hon. Friend has probably only mentioned in passing. Shropshire is the gateway to mid-Wales, particularly in terms of transport, because alternative transport routes are absent. The cross-border scheme between Pant and Llanymynech on the A483 and the Middletown scheme on the A458 are crucial to the economy of Wales. I hope the Minister will allow me to join him when he comes for tea in Shrewsbury, so that I can explain how crucial those two developments are. The devolution complexities have made them far less likely to go ahead, and we need to liaise to ensure that they happen.

[Daniel Kawczynski]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. He will of course receive an invite to join us in Shrewsbury and put his case when the Minister visits our town.

I would like to say something positive to the Minister. The M54, which comes into Shropshire, has been incredibly well resurfaced. Highways Agency staff get a lot of flak when road building improvements take a long time, but they have worked tirelessly night and day on the M54, and the surface and the standard of the M54 are probably the best that I have known over the past 15 years. I pay tribute and extend my thanks to them. I would, however, like to see a reclassification of the road, because the M54 stops at the Wellington junction and continues as the A52 to Shrewsbury. Those last few miles represent a very short distance, and we would like them to be reclassified because that would put Shrewsbury on the motorway network. There are some differences, but the A52 looks almost identical to the motorway. The business community is passionate about that reclassification and wants to convey that to the Minister. When a company, particularly a foreign investor, is looking to invest in a factory or a new plant, they will always look at a map of the motorway network in the United Kingdom. For us not to be on that network puts us at a disadvantage, so I would like the Minister to look at that matter.

We have received pinch point funding of nearly £4 million to improve the Emstrey island and the Preston Boats island. Those are two massive roundabouts where the A5 comes into Shrewsbury, and the work carried out has been superb. I thank the Government for the investment.

Tourism, as I have already indicated, is the No. 1 income generator for Shrewsbury and Shropshire. We need to ensure that people find it as easy as possible to come to our beautiful county on holiday and to see Shrewsbury and other places of interest throughout the county. Working together as Salopian MPs, we have secured a direct train service from London to Shrewsbury, and I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire is trying to get an extension to north Shropshire. That link to London has been critical. The volume of traffic coming on Virgin Trains to Shrewsbury as a result of our campaign is superb, and Virgin is pleased with the initial results. We want to replicate what we have done on rail connectivity and investment for Shropshire with our roads system, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.

11:16

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

First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) on securing the debate. I am aware that he is a long-standing campaigner on transport issues in his county and constituency. I thank him for his invitation, which I would be delighted to take up. It sounds like it will be a jolly tea party. Shropshire is one of my favourite parts of our country, and I like the idea very much.

I hope to address some of the points that have been raised, but I start by setting out what we are already doing in the area. Shropshire has a resident population of more than 300,000 people. My hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies) made a point about it being a gateway into mid-Wales, but it is also at the heart of the UK. The nationally important M54, A5, A49 and A458 run through the county, and the transport network provides vital access and connectivity for local people and businesses.

I am sure everyone is aware of this, but the Government are committed to a long-term economic plan and to delivering infrastructure investment, because, as has been made so compellingly clear in this debate, transport investment is key in driving economic growth. We are committed to delivering a step change in investment in transport infrastructure. That was made clear in the road investment strategy, which was announced last December. It is the biggest road investment programme since the 1970s, with £15 billion of investment across the motorway and A-road network by 2021, and it includes 127 major enhancements. As part of the strategy, we created five ring-fenced funds totalling £900 million to enable actions beyond Highways England’s business as usual. Some of the outcomes we expect Highways England to secure through the funds may be relevant for roads in and around Shropshire, including a safer, integrated and more accessible strategic road network for cyclists and vulnerable users.

Although no major Highways England schemes in the county are listed in the RIS, Shropshire may benefit from one scheme, which is the M54 to M6/M6 toll link road scheme. There have been other areas of investment in recent years, including smaller schemes. The Highways Agency’s national pinch point programme offered the benefits of improved safety, reduced congestion and the tackling of delays. My hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham mentioned some of the schemes, but there have been five works along the A5, at Preston Boats, Edgebold, Emstrey, Mile End and Churncote. He was generous in his comments on the quality of the work by Highways England, and I will pass those kind comments back.

My right hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson) and my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham have been long-term campaigners for investment in the A5 and A483. I know they met my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport last month. The A5 provides an important strategic route that has implications not only for the local economy but on a broader, national basis. The points that have been made about its role in the tourism sector are beyond question. Safety issues on the road have been made clear, and safety is a key pillar of our road investment strategy.

We are developing a second road investment strategy to run directly after the current strategy finishes. Highways England is due to start the next round of route strategies, revisiting the entire English strategic road network to help inform the preparation of RIS2. Highways England will use the route strategies to identify current and future constraints on economic growth that the performance of the strategic road network potentially causes, and will identify how future delivery and investment plans can address them and unlock the opportunity for growth.

Where there are specific investment proposals, there will of course need to be a strong and clear business case to support them. As we develop RIS2, I want to see greater input from local economic bodies such as LEPs, councils or combined authorities. I also want to see nominations from colleagues here. I want the process to be wide. As we narrow down the filter, we will look at all the requests we have for capital and then come up with a clear plan to run smoothly from this road investment strategy into the next. The aim is to have continuity of delivery and to break out of the stop-start approach to investment in transport, especially roads, which has held our country back for a long time. I will be happy to work alongside colleagues from all over the country to help develop schemes for consideration in the second road investment strategy. The points that have been made about how we can unlock economic development and improve safety are key criteria that will be used in our assessment for the second road investment strategy.

Highways England plans to publish route strategies by the end of 2016-17. I am keen that we use the data so that colleagues, LEPs, combined authorities or whoever it might be can contribute. I will certainly ensure that the reclassification that has been requested will be considered as part of that process as well.

I am acutely aware of the importance of local roads, infrastructure and transport to local communities. They are of course the responsibility of the local highways authority, Shropshire Council. 1 know that the condition of local roads is of concern to my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham, but the Government are taking action and providing the tools and funding to help local highways authorities, including Shropshire, maintain the roads for which they are responsible.

Shropshire is receiving more than £86 million to help fix and maintain the local highway assets that it is responsible for between now and 2021. It can also receive up to a further £10.5 million, depending on where it is within the highways maintenance incentive element that is being introduced next year. That funding is intended to incentivise authorities to take proactive management of their assets, understand their assets and encourage collaboration, and to ensure that they are spending taxpayers’ money in the most efficient manner possible.

I have already mentioned some of the ways in which the Government are investing in Shropshire, but there are others. At a local level, The Marches local enterprise partnership was awarded £75.3 million in the growth deal in July last year and a further £7.7 million in January this year. That funding will support important transport schemes such as the Shrewsbury integrated transport package.

My hon. Friend explained his support for a new relief road in Shrewsbury. The Oxon link road is in its first phase. That £12 million scheme is under way, with a £4 million contribution from the Department for Transport. The local growth fund is the primary funding route for Government funding of local transport infrastructure schemes. Following the spending review next week, we will know a little more about that, but he was absolutely right to raise the issue with the local enterprise partnership, which will be the vehicle for the decision making. We will provide support, but it will be a local decision. Having looked at the proposals on a map—I will see them at first hand when I come to visit—I can see much merit in them. It is quite a difficult scheme, with river crossings and railways, so it is not straightforward to deliver the scheme. However, the significant local support is positive.

It might be worth contacting Midlands Connect, the potential sub-national transport body. That is not a particularly catchy phrase—but such bodies are effectively combined new bodies that will decide local transport strategies and develop transport plans for their areas. A new clause has been added to the Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill, which is progressing through the House at the moment, to put the sub-national transport bodies on a statutory basis. They will set priorities for transport investment and will be big bodies. This is not about taking powers away from highways authorities—they will be left intact—but about decision-making stuff that is currently handled in Whitehall being handled locally. Contact with Midlands Connect will be very important in assessing transport priorities.

Midlands Connect has a £5 million Government grant to help it develop a midlands-wide transport strategy. The opportunity for the midlands to speak to Government with one voice and to make transport planning on a local basis is a huge opportunity. I expect transport bodies to develop across the country. Transport for the North will be the first, but it is already acting in a voluntary capacity. Putting such bodies on a statutory basis will increase their powers and give everybody the chance to plan on a much longer-term basis. Working with the LEP and with Midlands Connect is the way forward in establishing transport need in the area. I will make sure that Highways England is aware of the work that Midlands Connect is doing.

The debate has been helpful and constructive. I hope I have made it clear that the Government are committed to modernising and investing in transport infrastructure across the country, most certainly within Shropshire, as a key part of our long-term economic plan. My right hon. and hon. Friends have made compelling cases for investment in their area, and the fact that we have significant local support and that progress has been made in developing plans is an encouraging basis from which to build. I look forward to working with colleagues and helping to develop business cases.

It is in the second road investment strategy that the opportunity to make a big step change on key strategic roads will lie. That is where the opportunity and the budget will lie. We will launch the process for the second road investment strategy within weeks, and I very much look forward to working with colleagues on that.

Question put and agreed to.

11:29

Sitting suspended.

Personal Injury Fraud

Wednesday 18th November 2015 Westminster Hall

[Phil Wilson in the Chair]

14:30

[Karl MᶜCartney (Lincoln) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered personal injury fraud.

Mr Wilson, thank you for presiding over this debate, which I feel fortunate to have secured. It is and will always be a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship.

I declare an interest as both a justice of the peace and one of the 30 million-plus drivers in our country. I am also a freeman of the City of London, and since securing this debate I have been contacted by various claims management companies, solicitors and insurers, big and small, who have offered information and briefings to assist my contribution. I explicitly thank the Industry and Parliament Trust and Liverpool Victoria, or LV=; I spent Monday with various of their personnel who deal daily with fraudulent personal injury claims, claimants and the companies that are farming information—or vishing, as I learned—to generate moneys for themselves. Ultimately, anyone with an insurance policy is paying for this immoral action through rising insurance premium costs.

[Karen Lumley (Redditch) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend for securing this important debate. Does he agree that this constant telephone badgering of people is extremely upsetting, especially for people with serious mental health issues?

[Karl MᶜCartney]

I entirely concur with my hon. Friend. Indeed, I will cover that issue later in my speech.

Before I had the luck, honour and privilege to become a Member of Parliament in 2010, I was the victim of a car insurance scam, having previously suffered twice after uninsured drivers caused accidents involving my family’s vehicles. In 2009, at a roundabout near Cheshire Oaks, a car purposely stopped in front of me for no reason. The ensuing collision slightly damaged my bumper—well, in fact it was the front bumper of my father’s three-week-old 700 series BMW. Despite the low speed and very minimal damage to just his bumper, a claim was made with my insurers for some £16,500.

The court threw out the claim—after a protracted, three-year-long case—as, among other things, the car owner claimed £1,000 for a vehicle recovery charge from a company owned by his cousin in St Albans, when actually he drove the vehicle away. The two circa 21-year-olds in the vehicle were, he claimed, actually his father, who used the vehicle in his work as a driving instructor. As the case progressed, it turned out that the driver of the vehicle with which I collided was not the driver who attended court.

After the hearing, it was revealed that the same scammers had attempted, with success, similar claims on six previous occasions in just a few years, with the vehicle registered at the same address. My experience was a classic example of an induced motor accident—a “crash for cash” scam—but what happened to the fraudsters? The judge was very good in his summing up, but admitted that even though he wanted the police to investigate the perpetrators, there was little likelihood that that would occur. Taxpayers, who fund the court system, find that they pay not only higher insurance premiums, but in a secondary way, through the valuable court time taken up with disputing and proving that fraudulent claims are being made.

During my time with Liverpool Victoria on Monday I was shown various examples of fraudulent personal injury claims in which judges really did not get it. Refreshingly, though, there is some evidence that rare individual judges are taking positive steps to halt the onward and upward march of fraudulent claims, which cost the Government and the population of our country considerable sum each year—and all power to them. I trust that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Jeremy Wright), my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon (Robert Buckland), and my right hon. Friends the Members for Derbyshire Dales (Mr McLoughlin), for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove) and for Tatton (Mr Osborne), along with their ministerial colleagues, will take note if passed details of this debate.

The list of most eminent places and their elected representatives that I have just elucidated helps to crystallise part of the problem we have in dealing with this issue: it cuts across a number of Government Departments. But that should not be a problem, now that it has been clearly identified; we just need someone, and their civil servants, to want to proactively take control and deal with it. I am sure that the good Minister, who represents Gosport, will have noted my plea, along with our other colleagues, and will pass it on to open ears in the corridors of power.

According to the insurance company Aviva, as well as Enterprise Rent-A-Car, City of London Police, Keoghs, Liverpool Victoria and many others who have contacted me and operate in the transport, insurance and judiciary sectors, a minor personal injury—mainly whiplash—claim adds at least £93 to the average annual motor premium. It is a £2.5 billion per annum problem, and around half of the costs relate to very minor injuries which require little or no proof of injury.

It would seem that we in this country have the weakest necks in the world—certainly in the parts of the country that are hotspots for such claims. Funnily enough, as a geographer, the correlation seems to be phonetic: most of the places begin with B—but I digress. It is such a serious issue that Volvo engineers from Sweden are most interested in our seeming propensity for whiplash injuries, especially as for some years their cars have been designed and engineered to minimise such neck complaints in minor and low-speed bumps and scrapes. Later in my speech I will return to how we compare to other nations in our likelihood to suffer from so-called whiplash injuries.

The culture of personal injury fraud is often fuelled and overseen by organised crime, and there are many examples of opportunistic claims that put innocent motorists’ safety at risk and inflate their premiums. Many fraudulent claims stem from nuisance calls made by some, but definitely not all, claims management companies, and—perhaps more worrying—by so-called marketing companies acting directly at the behest of some infamous and certainly not morally superior solicitors and law firms.

The so-called marketing companies are directly providing leads to claimant solicitors, underlining the fact that there is still too much cash in the system, despite the changes made in the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, known colloquially as LASPO. How are these solicitors and law firms and their partners in crime, the marketing companies, securing the supposedly outlawed trade in personal data—our email addresses, home and mobile phone numbers through which we receive unwarranted and unwanted emails, calls and texts exhorting us to make claims, as there is “£3,000 to £4,000” just waiting for each person who makes a personal injury claim? That is the nub of the problem.

We need to stamp out the cold calling, and quickly. I have suffered, as have many of my constituents and those of other colleagues present, and, indeed, those of colleagues who could not attend, such as the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn), who offered his support but is engaged elsewhere in the House. I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp) will speak about cold calling and its relationship to the myriad fraudulent claims in the country as a whole later in the debate.

Personal injury insurance fraud can be summed up as manifesting itself in a number of ways, and some aspects are easier to detect than others.

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

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. Does he agree that one way forward might be for the insurance companies to provide a detailed dossier of information to the Solicitors Regulation Authority? It is clear from what he is saying that there is a systemic problem of which that authority should be fully aware of and perhaps look into.

[Karl MᶜCartney]

I agree entirely with my hon. and learned Friend. In fact, some insurance companies are now acting more coherently, shall we say, and working with each other rather than always acting in competition. They have realised that the problem is not going to go away and has in fact got a lot worse.

The three most common strands of third-party fraud are: accidents fabricated or deliberately staged purely with a view to submitting false claims for compensation; fabricated personal injury claims where a genuine accident has occurred; and genuine accidents and injuries, but with aspects of the claim being fabricated or exaggerated.

[Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate. Does he agree that not only are the fraudulent claims he describes made at the cost of law-abiding motorists, but they cause a great deal of distress to the innocent victims, who see escalating charges and escalating amounts being claimed against them?

[Karl MᶜCartney]

Indeed. I concur with my hon. Friend; she is entirely correct. Later in my speech I will describe the various other aspects that cost the nation, the taxpayer, the Government and organisations involved in this sector.

Fraudulent injury claims cause increasing costs in car insurance for consumers and businesses. The UK now sees more compensation claims for whiplash per car accident than any other western European country. As I have already said, we are known as having weakest necks in Europe. Efforts by the Government have had limited effect, and personal injury claims are now at a record high. In the first quarter of 2015, the number of personal injury claims made through the Ministry of Justice claims portal was the highest on record, with 13% more than in the same period for 2011-12, before LASPO was introduced. Claims data for 2015 so far show that, for some companies, 80% of all personal injury claims received were related to whiplash.

Liverpool Victoria estimates that, in 2015, at least 11% of the average car insurance premiums it provides can be attributed to paying for whiplash claims. That is a significant and unnecessary cost for consumers—our constituents. At Liverpool Victoria, 10% of claims handlers are employed purely to tackle fraudulent claims, at an annual cost to the business of £4.5 million to run the team. Those costs are ultimately paid for by customers, further increasing the cost of car insurance for individuals. Businesses are also affected by rising commercial insurance premiums for company vehicles. For small businesses in particular it is an unwelcome and unnecessary cost.

The Information Commissioner’s Office received 180,000 complaints about nuisance calls or texts in 2014-15—a 12% increase on the previous year. According to research that Liverpool Victoria commissioned in July 2015, each British person—importantly and unfortunately, this includes children—receives an average of 468 nuisance calls and text messages every year. We waste six and a half hours a year dodging calls, deleting texts and listening to phone messages that none of us wanted to receive. One in three reported receiving more nuisance calls and texts than calls from friends and family, and more than 80% of those who receive personal injury calls have never even been involved in an accident for which they could, if they wanted, have made a claim.

Fraudulent claims also have a cost for our GPs and the NHS as a whole. This is an area of great concern, as fraudulent claims are putting additional pressure on an already-strained NHS. Liverpool Victoria research carried out with GPs shows that GPs now see 116,000 people every month that they suspect are inventing or exaggerating an injury to claim compensation, which equates to nearly 1 million wasted GP hours every year. At this point, I will depart from my written speech and say that I may include the Secretary of State for Health in the list of eminent persons I read out earlier, because this is a serious issue for the NHS.

Claims farming generated by rogue solicitor firms and claims management companies is creating high volumes of fraudulent and exaggerated personal injury claims. Aged claims farming is the new norm, and it has increased since LASPO was introduced. Insurance firms have seen a significant increase in claims farming—the practice by which a claimant solicitor or a claims management company targets individuals with nuisance calls and texts to encourage them to make a personal injury claim. It now represents between 20% and 28% of all claims received by some companies each month. In January 2013, before the introduction of LASPO, the figure was 13% or below.

A high volume of farmed personal injury claims are being generated by just a few rogue solicitor firms. Despite evidence being passed to the Solicitors Regulation Authority, this behaviour has not been challenged, but it should be. Although the practice of claims farming is widespread, a minority of law firms are driving the problem: Liverpool Victoria’s analysis shows that more than 41% of suspected farmed claims that it received in 2015 were submitted by just 10 law firms.

Let me turn to the issue of cold calling and vishing. There is clear evidence, as my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Karen Lumley) said, that claims management companies and solicitor firms that cold call and text people are targeting vulnerable individuals. Claims management companies target individuals by calling directly from purchased marketing lists. The practice is widespread. Research conducted by Liverpool Victoria in June 2015 shows that the UK public collectively receive more than 60 million nuisance calls and texts every day—equivalent to 43,000 a minute. A significant proportion of the approaches are from lawyers or claims management companies trying to encourage individuals to make a personal injury claim.

Worryingly, the number of claims being made without the knowledge or consent of the claimant is increasing. A range of unlawful tactics are used to obtain and verify the data. In such cases, claims management companies act without formal instruction and the claimant does not sign any documents. Some claims management firms have even forged claimants’ signatures. The practice of vishing insurance companies is rife. As I heard on Monday, the number of vishing calls that London Victoria’s staff receive is rising: in just this year to October, it received more than 3,000 vishing calls.

I believe that the Government need to address the root cause of motor insurance fraud and customer harassment: the excessive cash in the system that creates unwarranted incentives. To deal with the problem, the Government should, first, introduce a minimum threshold for simple whiplash claims and replace cash compensation with rehabilitation, which would deal a fatal blow to those making nuisance calls and the “cash for crash” industry.

Secondly, the Government should ensure that magistrates, district judges and Crown court judges are aware of the cost of fraudulent claims to the nation and the need to take affirmative action, including dealing with uninsured drivers with parity. Why would somebody get insurance if they need to be caught and fined four times in a year to equal the cost of insuring their vehicle?

Thirdly, the Government should remove the civil court aspect of chasing a fraudulent claimant. We need to stamp out this pernicious crime. Only by instructing the Crown Prosecution Service to go after fraudulent claimants actively, backed up by the police, will we do so.

The real kicker of those three simple undertakings is that the vast majority of the voting public—certainly, 100% of law-abiding, insurance premium-paying drivers—would be utterly joyous and would commend us for doing some good in this place and making their lives easier and, ultimately, cheaper.

The challenge is that, as the Association of British Insurers’ premium tracker shows, the average motor premium for the second quarter of 2015 is £367, and it is increasing. Similarly, the number of whiplash claims is showing worrying signs of rising again. The Ministry of Justice’s claims portal shows that it has increased by 6% in the past nine months. There remains excessive cash in the system, which continues to fuel exaggerated and fraudulent personal injury claims, putting upward pressure on motor premiums. Organised and opportunistic crimes such as “cash for crash” continue to put motorists’ personal safety at risk while inflating all of our insurance premiums. Nuisance calls encourage fraudulent behaviour, leave law-abiding drivers vulnerable and mean that the staff of our insurance companies are encouraged—hounded, even—to breach data rules. Bogus data management companies and similar organisations, such as some data marketing companies and claimant solicitors, continue to plague motorists with texts and calls. They need to be regulated as a whole while the compensation culture and the opportunities remain.

According to the ABI, almost 130,000 cases of claims fraud were detected in 2014, totalling more than £1.3 billion—a 4% increase in value compared with 2013. In addition, there were 212,000 cases of application fraud. Between 2009 and 2014, the overall value of fraud detected rose by 57%. The insurance industry detects fraud in less than 2% of claims, but one in nine whiplash claims are fraudulent. The average cost of a bodily injury claim is £10,680, and the overall average for all claims is £2,649. Bodily injury claims make up 9% of the total number of claims, yet represent 51% of the total value of claims.

Many insurers have made it clear to me that they are taking action. Between 2005 and 2013, the number of UK motor accidents fell by 30%, but the number of whiplash claims increased by 62%, a large number of which are believed by the insurance industry to be fraudulent or grossly exaggerated. During that time, the average cost of a bodily injury claim increased by 73%. Indeed, one of Enterprise Rent-A-Car’s largest ongoing costs is the impact of personal injury claims as a result of accidents involving its vehicles. It is its third highest expense after fleet acquisition and personnel costs. Its fleet liability costs have been significantly impacted in recent years by the huge increase in personal injury claims. The growth is driven by low-value claims for soft tissue injuries.

We have a compensation culture problem that has not been dealt with and is not shared by many other European countries. According to Frontier Economics’ whiplash report, whiplash claims in France comprise only 3% of personal injury claims, in comparison with 94% in the UK. In Germany, the number of bodily injury claims has dropped in line with the fall in road traffic accidents. In Norway, most minor injury claims are handled without the involvement of a solicitor. In Sweden, a de minimis threshold means that symptoms must appear and be assessed within three to four days of the accident.

What can we learn from those examples? Whiplash claims are not as significant in other European countries, due to the much more stringent conditions that must be met before a victim can successfully claim compensation for a whiplash injury. In April 2013, 70% of personal injury claims following road accidents in the UK were for whiplash, compared with 30% in France and Denmark, 31% in Spain, 35% in the Netherlands and 68% in Italy.

Certain European countries have implemented a variety of measures to reduce the frequency of claims. In France, the diagnosis of a whiplash claim requires objective proof, based on more rigorous medical testing. Claimants are made to pay for an initial report on the injury. France also requires medical practitioners diagnosing whiplash to be specially trained in bodily injury diagnosis. Its small claims limit, which is greater than the UK’s, allows more claims to be settled without solicitors. I am also sure that it would not allow medical examinations to take place in Pakistan via Skype.

In Germany, a severity scale is used to assess the extent of the disability caused to a claimant by their injury, and compensation is awarded accordingly. Emphasis is placed on having a high level of proof of the injury when a claim is made following a low-speed collision, and injuries are diagnosed using clear objective criteria. Finally, contingency fees are permitted only in cases where the claimant cannot afford to hire a lawyer, meaning that lawyers are less incentivised to pursue cases.

In Sweden, claims for whiplash injuries can be made only if symptoms appear and are assessed within three to four days of the road traffic accident. There is a table of predictable damages, as used in the UK for workplace personal injuries and in Norway, meaning that claims are limited to the type of injury caused, increasing the efficiency and transparency of the handling of claims. Spain also uses a table of predictable damages, and it requires medical practitioners diagnosing whiplash claims to have specific qualifications, like in France.

Some companies and organisations believe that establishing an objective test for whiplash is imperative in reaching the core of the current problems surrounding insurance fraud. That would filter exaggerated and fraudulent claims out of the claims process, ensuring a reduction in the number of whiplash claims. At the same time, it would ensure that those who have genuine claims were not prevented from making them.

I want to go a bit further than Europe and refer to a taskforce report from Quebec, which is in Canada, for those whose geography might be a bit rusty. It was produced in 2001 and provided an objective basis for diagnosing whiplash. It is a little bit old, but it has since been endorsed by several other Canadian provinces. The task force divided whiplash-associated disorders into five grades. At grade 0, no neck pain, stiffness or any physical signs are noticed. Grade 1 involves complaints of neck pain, stiffness or tenderness only, but no physical signs are noted by the examining physician. Grade 2 disorders indicate neck complaints, and the examining physician will find a decreased range of motion and point tenderness in the neck. Grade 3 encompasses neck complaints, plus neurological signs such as decreased deep tendon reflexes, weakness and sensory deficits. At grade 4, people may suffer neck complaints and fracture or dislocation, or injury to the spinal cord. As I said, severity scales are also used in Germany, where the number of bodily injury claims has dropped in line with the fall in road accidents.

I recognise that the Government of which I am a part have taken and are taking steps to address such matters. I welcome, for example, their insurance fraud taskforce, set up by my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) in his former role, and I look forward to it reporting next month. I also welcome the fact that Her Majesty’s Treasury and the Ministry of Justice have commissioned a fundamental review of the regulation of claims management companies following concerns that CMCs fuel speculative unmeritorious claims for compensation and create a significant social nuisance through unsolicited calls and texts, misleading marketing and high charges.

However—I will state this clearly for the record—CMCs are only the tip of this fraudulent iceberg. The dodgy solicitors and law firms, some from the other side of the world, need to be investigated and shamed too. The consultation on the taskforce’s review closed last Friday, and I hope that its report will focus on customer outcomes, with fewer nuisance calls, and on having a new, more stringent and encompassing regulator, like the Financial Conduct Authority, to ensure consistency across the entire financial world and its markets.

I commend the City of London police’s model. The insurance fraud enforcement department was established in January 2012, when insurance fraud was reported to be costing £2 billion and the coalition Government were reducing police force budgets. It is a specialist police unit operated by City of London police and funded by the Association of British Insurers. Since its establishment, IFED has been responsible for more than 1,300 arrests and interviews under police caution, 172 convictions, 256 police cautions and 150 people being on bail to court or police, and 325 investigations are in progress, with new cases coming in every week. An example of IFED’s work was the bringing to justice of a Keighley pair, who were jailed for creating an insurance web of deception worth thousands of pounds. I will briefly summarise their deception. Those two fraudsters created insurance policies for people who did not exist and then submitted 300 false personal injury referrals worth £167,000 for made-up road accidents. Both have been jailed for four and half years

However, loopholes remain in the current personal injury referral fee ban and inducement laws. The regulation should include the data marketing companies, claimant solicitors and law firms, which are well known and easily identifiable, that are under the radar of the current regulator. We should outlaw insurance payments for whiplash injuries before proper medical examinations have taken place and concrete proof is provided. The key issue in the personal injury market is the level of financial incentives that still exist, despite the referral fee ban and the reduction in legal costs. It is still far too easy to make a claim for whiplash, and the rewards for doing so in terms of damages and legal costs have created and maintained the adverse behaviours that have prevailed since 1999 when no win, no fee was introduced in the UK. The small claims track for personal injury claims has been left unchanged for 16 years despite all other track limits increasing.

There is simply too much cash in the personal injury system, which is borne out by the continuing menace of the nuisance calls that we and our constituents receive and the fraudulent activity of some CMCs, so-called data marketing companies and some solicitor and law firms. Recent increases, which are way above current inflation rates, in the Judicial College’s suggested awards for minor injuries will just make matters worse. We need a more stringent and proportionate legal and regulatory regime that addresses the financial incentives in personal injury, cuts out the nuisance calls and ensures that all benefiting parties are regulated.

Although I am grateful to the Government for the steps they have taken to date, and to the Minister for taking the time to be here today to respond to this important debate, further reform is needed to keep insurance premiums for law-abiding motorists down. In addition to introducing a minimum threshold for simple whiplash claims and replacing cash compensation with rehabilitation, I would like to see, as a minimum, a ban on nuisance calls and better regulation of those who farm data, such as some solicitors, law firms, CMCs and marketing companies; the removal of all referral fees from the claims process; a limit of £5,000 on personal injury claims; a reduction in the limitation period for bringing minor whiplash claims from three years to 12 months after the accident; and the introduction of a table of predictive damages linked to a percentage of severity or disability to cut down unnecessary legal arguments. I note that France, Spain and Norway have fixed damages tariffs for whiplash-type injuries.

Once again, I thank the Minister and other colleagues for attending the debate, and I urge her to do everything that she can to deal with and limit fraudulent personal injury claims and to support the law-abiding motorists of Lincoln and the 30 million-plus drivers across the country. I believe that I have managed to outline a fair few potential processes that could be undertaken to reduce this blot on our road transport landscape. I hope the Minister and our friends in Government and the good offices of Whitehall will feel the same to a great degree.

14:57

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Karl MᶜCartney) on securing today’s debate. I was keen to speak today because of a personal experience. A year or two ago, my wife and I were involved in a relatively minor road traffic accident on the M5. The car had some damage, but there was certainly no question of any personal injury. Despite that, my wife and I were bombarded on a more-than-weekly basis with phone calls and text messages that continue to this day.

I was annoyed and upset, not by the pestering, but by the person on the other end of the phone trying to coerce me into pretending that I, my wife or my children, who were also in the car, had suffered some form of personal injury when we had not. No matter how often I said, “We’re all absolutely fine. None of us has suffered any injury,” they would say things like, “I’m sure that you must have suffered some slight injury,” or, “You must feel a bit unwell,” or, “All you have to do is say you have a slight neck pain and I can get you £3,000.” I was being incited to commit blatant fraud. I am not alone in that experience. In fact, several other Members of Parliament have had similar experiences, as have friends and family outside the House.

I am appalled and outraged that in this country in 2015, companies encourage our citizens to commit fraud, and that so many of our citizens are going along with it because the system makes it easy, and pays them £3,000, £4,000 or £5,000. The first reason why I find the practice so objectionable is that it is morally corrosive. It encourages law-abiding citizens to commit a criminal offence. My hon. Friend touched on many of the other reasons why it is a terrible practice, and I want to reinforce one or two of them.

Most importantly, each and every one of our constituents, many of whom are hard-pressed financially, are paying almost £100 a year in extra insurance premiums because of this fraudulent activity. Families can ill afford that sort of money, in particular people on lower incomes. It is striking that despite the number of road traffic accidents having gone down by 30% in the past 10 years, injury claims have gone up by a staggering 62%—an extraordinary explosion. The total cost is £2.5 billion a year, which is a significant sum. Many honest businesses, such as Enterprise Rent-A-Car, which my hon. Friend mentioned, are struggling; its business model is under genuine threat, because car rental businesses have such a big cost imposed on them as a result of fraudulent claims that are damaging honest, law-abiding businesses.

The case for urgent reform is clear. I have six specific proposals for the Minister and will be grateful for her response. I am delighted to see that my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Secretary of State for Justice, is present. I hope that he will pass some of our comments on to the Secretary of State.

My first recommendation or request echoes something my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln said; it is for a complete ban on outbound calling to solicit personal injury claims, and on the use of information obtained from such calls. Work has been done to regulate that more carefully over the past five or 10 years, but I respectfully suggest that it has not so far had the desired effect. The only way to fix the problem is to have an outright ban on outbound calls, and on solicitors’ firms using the output from the calls; conceivably, someone could make a call from Bermuda, but sell the information to a law firm in Manchester.

I also echo my hon. Friend with my second request, which is that we pursue with criminal charges any claims management firm, solicitor or member of the public found to be making a fraudulent claim. In the hierarchy of criminal activity there are more important things for the CPS and the police to focus on, but the abuse is so widespread and £2.5 billion a year is such a large sum that we should actively pursue people through the criminal justice system. Until criminal sanctions are applied to the activity, there is no disincentive, and people will keep on trying to do this.

My third recommendation or request is that, for injuries to be compensated, there should be evidence that the alleged victim went to a doctor or sought medical advice within, say, a week of the injury being sustained. People turning up a year later and saying that their neck hurts is ludicrous if, when the accident happened, they did not seek medical assistance immediately. That would be a good way to cut out almost all such claims. If the claimant did not see a doctor within a week of the accident, I suggest that the claim simply be disregarded.

My fourth suggestion is that we use the system adopted in Germany and Canada, which have firm and objective sets of criteria. At the moment claims are being satisfied without someone having to produce any evidence except to say, “My neck hurts a bit.” Without further evidence, no cash compensation should be paid—no evidence, no compensation.

My fifth suggestion again echoes something my hon. Friend said—we seem to think alike on the topic—and that is that the claim limit be 12 months, rather than the current three years. My sixth and, as I am sure the Minister will be pleased to hear, final suggestion is that the limit for lawyers getting involved on a no win, no fee basis be increased from £1,000 per claim to £5,000. It has been at the £1,000 level for 16 years, and an increase is long overdue.

I am grateful for having had the opportunity to speak. I again thank my hon. Friend for the debate. I thank the Minister for listening attentively, and I will be grateful to hear her response to my six points.

15:04

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I apologise, Mr Wilson, for being a wee bit late; I had a Committee to attend, but I rushed down straight away. I hope to return to it later, so I also apologise in advance if I have to leave before the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter), and the Minister speak.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Lincoln (Karl MᶜCartney) on securing the debate. It is good for subjects that concern us all throughout the United Kingdom to be brought before the House. Every time there is a fraudulent insurance claim, we—those who do not do such things—pay for it. We have to highlight the issue. It is good to see the shadow Minister and the Minister in their places; I always look forward to the response, and I do so today.

Precise levels of fraud are unknown, but the Association of British Insurers recently published figures showing that 59,900 dishonest motor insurance claims were uncovered in 2013. I am sorry if that statistic has been reported already, but if not, I hope that it adds to the debate. That figure for claims was an increase of 34% on 2012 and represented a value of £811 million, itself up 32% on 2012. Those are staggering figures, given their effect on insurance. Dishonest claims comprise about 8% of all motor claims registered with the compensation recovery unit in 2013.

The real victims of insurance fraud are the hard-working, everyday people who have to pay inflated premiums because of the selfish actions of selfish individuals, who far too often get away with their criminal actions. Of all motor claims registered, 8% or nearly one in 10 is fraudulent. That is staggering—and that is only those claims that have been discovered to be dishonest. I am not saying that every claim is dishonest—I cannot say that, because I have no evidence for it—but that figure might be only the tip of the iceberg.

Around 775,000 motor personal injury claims were registered with the Department for Work and Pensions compensation recovery unit in 2013-14, compared with about 520,000 claims in 2006-07, only seven years earlier. That is an increase of almost 30%. My figures are different from those of others, who say there has been an increase of about 50% in claims. The increase has coincided with a 23% decrease in the number of road traffic accidents reported to the police. The stats prove the need for this debate.

We do not need to be rocket scientists to work out that something about the scale of that increase is suspicious, especially given the trend in road traffic accidents. That all adds to the evidence for my suggestion that the 8% of claims that have been found to be dishonest are, with respect, only the tip of the iceberg. If the trends continue, even higher premiums will result for law-abiding, hard-working people. Our role as parliamentarians is to ensure that we protect innocent people from the selfish criminals who make fraudulent claims for their own gain.

On 27 May I asked a question of the Secretary of State about personal injury compensation and what steps had been taken. To be fair to the Government—let us give credit where credit is due—they have responded and taken a number of steps. They have fixed the cost of medical reports and ensured that the provider of a report should have no direct link to the claimant. That might seem to be a small matter, but it is an emphatic and strong step to take. Also, since 1 June, solicitors have been carrying out a previous claims check on claimants before pursuing a personal injury claim. I am often reminded of “Only Fools and Horses” on television, when Uncle Albert falls down the hole where the beer kegs go in—but he has made a similar claim six or seven times before. The check will stop people making claims six or seven times, because the records will be consulted to ensure that it does not happen.

Another step taken is that, since 6 April, medical reports for claims have to be submitted through the new MedCo portal. Again, a process has been tightened up; it is another step in the right direction. Also, referral fees paid between lawyers, insurance companies and claims management firms are now banned—a clear step in the right direction, to ensure that things go the right way. Furthermore, from January 2016 there will be a new accreditation scheme for the medical experts who provide the medical reports. All those Government actions before and since my parliamentary question are excellent steps in the right direction.

I welcome the opportunity to discuss what is truly an epidemic, with an impact on each and every one of our constituents. I hope that it is something we can work together on, and that we can come up with a more robust and bipartisan solution that will see those selfish criminals dealt with appropriately. Regulations already exist, and the hon. Members for Lincoln and for Croydon South (Chris Philp) have indicated other steps they wish to be taken, which would help the Minister to tighten the screws a wee bit more. We need to do something about the massive increases in claims, but the regulations in place may not be as robust as we would like. The question is whether we need to create additional legislation or should simply push for more rigorous enforcement of current legislation. I do not know the answer, but I am sure the Minister can tell us.

I hope my contribution has been helpful, but I do know one thing: my constituents pay the highest insurance premiums in the whole United Kingdom. We do not have the special offers that appear on TV—on the bottom of the screen, it always says, “Northern Ireland not part of the deal”—and we get a wee bit narked about insurance premiums. We therefore need to step down hard on those who make fraudulent claims. If we can stop them, the premiums for everyone else will be lower.

15:10

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Wilson. I congratulate the hon. Member for Lincoln (Karl MᶜCartney) not only on securing this important debate but on his continued pursuit of the issue of insurance fraud during his time in the House. That included a parliamentary question in April last year to the Secretary of State for Justice regarding a judgment in the Supreme Court in a work-related injury case.

I recognise that, as hon. Gentleman said, the UK has the highest rate of fraudulent claims in Europe, which means that 11% of car insurance premiums are attributed to whiplash. I also recognise the role that nuisance calls play in inciting and inviting fraudulent claims. That is not to mention the cost to the NHS, which we across these islands want to protect and maintain.

I welcome the remarks by the hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), with whom I have not had the pleasure of debating before. He spoke of his harrowing experience and of being invited to claim, which was probably not at the forefront of his mind at the time. I also welcome the comments of the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who recognised that hard-working people pay the most as a result of the effect on premiums.

The Summers v. Fairclough Homes case in 2012 created the precedent that exaggerated or fabricated personal injury claims might be struck out in exceptional cases. The Government then proposed measures in 2014, which they said would mean that people would no longer be able to profit from exaggerated or fraudulent compensation claims, while victims with genuine cases could still get the help they deserved. However, as we have heard today, those measures have not gone far enough. Personal injury fraud remains an issue for our constituents.

We can define personal injury fraud broadly as any act intended to cause an insurance company to compensate for an injury that is non-existent, exaggerated or unrelated to an accident claimed for under a policy. More than 3 million people are injured in accidents each year—that experience is harrowing enough—be it in their home, in their car, at work or outdoors. In many cases, someone else is at fault, and the victims have the right to claim compensation.

As has been highlighted in the debate, however, there are many examples of injuries being overstated so that people can make a more lucrative claim, and we must clamp down on such actions. Statistics from the Association of British Insurers estimate that 59,900 out of 775,000 personal injury insurance claims related to road traffic accidents in 2013 were dishonest. If those figures are correct, it means that about 8% of claims were fraudulent.

Filing a fraudulent personal injury claim can have serious repercussions. Insurance companies can deny claims or drop coverage. Claimants can be liable to insurance companies for any money paid and for the costs involved in investigating the fraud. Criminal charges can, of course, also be brought against fraudulent claimants. Perhaps, however, that is not really tackling all the problems.

The effects of fraud are felt not just by those committing it on the off-chance they are caught out. The Association of Chief Police Officers estimates that fraud represents a £20 billion annual loss to the UK—the equivalent of £330 for every person in the country.

[Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Lady for giving way. She is making a sound case and an interesting argument. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Karl MᶜCartney) on securing the debate.

Perhaps the hon. Lady would be interested in the example of Sweden, which has found that the cost of whiplash injuries to insurers, and therefore the public, can be limited by restricting—time-barring, effectively—the time within which a claim can be put in to three to four days after the accident. Perhaps a week or two weeks would be a better proposal for time-barring people in the UK.

[Angela Crawley]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s comments. I recognise what he says about a limit on the length of time for making claims, but not every person might be able to claim within two weeks of experiencing an accident. We must consider such issues, but I do welcome the point that other European countries have imposed all manner of limits, sanctions and bans that have resulted in fewer claims.

As I was saying, the cost of fraud is equivalent to £330 for every person in the country, which is an astronomical figure that we should not impose on our constituents. However, in taking action against fraudulent claims, we must make sure we tread carefully.

Between 2008 and 2011, 1.9 million motor injury claims were made in England. In the same period, 75,000 claims were made in Scotland. That amounts to 25 times more claims being made in England than in Scotland. Given my legal experience, I acknowledge that protections must exist for individuals who have experienced accidents, and they should have the right to seek damages.

The current law does allow for some effective sanctions. Harsh judgments against those found to have claimed fraudulently act as a deterrent to others. Lower damages can be awarded for the non-fraudulent part of the claim, an action routinely imposed for punitive and deterrent reasons. Adverse costs orders can be applied in most cases, wiping out or even exceeding the value of any award. Contempt of court applications can be brought, leading to imprisonment. Criminal proceedings can be brought against those who bring fraudulent cases, leading to heavy fines or imprisonment. Those deterrents against personal injury fraud mean that our court systems already have the power to punish and deter fraudulent claims. We must make sure that any change to legislation does not impede fair settlements, access to justice or the efficient functioning of our courts.

15:18

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Lincoln (Karl MᶜCartney) on securing the debate. The subject is not totally unfamiliar; indeed, it was debated quite a lot in the last Parliament. I refreshed my memory earlier about a debate we had almost exactly two years ago—on 7 November 2013—entitled “Motor Insurance (Whiplash)”. I spoke for 30 minutes in that debate, and I refer hon. Members to that speech to spare them from having me repeat the whole of it now. Much of it is still relevant, which is sad in a way, and that might be an indictment of the Government for not having done more. Perhaps we can blame that on the coalition, which was a completely different organisation—there are no Liberal Democrats around to protest any more, so we can always blame them.

I dealt with this issue for five years, and I thought I had finally got rid of it, but my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner), who is responsible for dealing with it, is away somewhere, so I am reprising the subject. The last time we debated it, the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Mr Vara), had just taken over the brief, and now the current Minister is acquainting herself with it. It is an interesting subject, and perhaps I may say without any disrespect to the hon. Member for Lincoln that there was good and bad in what he said. I was with him for much of his speech, until at the end he drew conclusions that did not all perfectly derive from the facts at his disposal. One of the problems is that we do not always have the facts that we need on this issue.

I think we all detest cold calls, because we believe they are parasitical, and they are severely irritating. As far as I am aware, cold calls from law firms are already banned. Many of the cold calls that we receive come from call centres run outside the UK, which have become an industry in themselves. I do not think a single Member of the House, or indeed member of the public, would not want a crackdown on them, and want them to be banned and excluded. The problem is that it is difficult to do that, but I hope that the Minister will be able to say what the Government intend to do along those lines.

[Chris Philp]

Even if one cannot ban calls emanating from outside the UK, there could certainly be a ban on any UK organisation, including law firms, using information derived from such extraterritorial calls. Will the hon. Gentleman join me in calling on the Government to institute such a ban?

[Andy Slaughter]

As I have said, I believe that calls made in that way are banned. I will come on to say a bit more about law firms in a moment, but I think that would be the case for any such form of abuse.

The other area where I am entirely at one with the hon. Member for Lincoln is on referral fees. Again, the previous Government came to the issue late in the day. There were late amendments—on Report, I think—to the Bill that became the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, banning referral fees. We thought that that did not go far enough and would have liked them to be criminalised. I am afraid that the implementation by the Ministry of Justice was rather cack-handed and amateur for a while. That is getting better, and there has been a crackdown on claims management companies, which I welcome, as well as an extension of the ban on referral fees. Referral fees do not have any place in the British legal system. Those are the key ways of stopping such abuse.

The percentage of personal injury claims being made for whiplash has fallen, but Members are right to ask why the number of personal injury claims is increasing while the number of motor accidents is falling. One reason, undoubtedly, is greater use of advertisement, which encourages more people to claim. That does not necessarily mean that the claims are fraudulent, but it does mean that there is an industry encouraging the making of claims.

Thus far, so good, but the hon. Gentleman suddenly shoehorned into the end of his speech the conclusion that the small claims limit for personal injury should be extended to £5,000, the limitation period should be 12 months, and the quantum in such cases should be rigidly enforceable. I am afraid I cannot agree with him on that. It would be to attack a basic principle of English law—the principle of the courts’ discretion.

We already have clear Judicial Studies Board guidelines on quantum. There are reasons for the relatively short limitation period of three years. The hon. Member for Lanark and Hamilton East (Angela Crawley) mentioned that injuries are not always immediately evident. As for the old chestnut about raising the small claims limit to £5,000, I am entirely in agreement that after 16 years, if that is how long it has been, it is right to raise the limit proportionally by whatever the inflation rate has been during that time. It might mean taking the limit up to £2,000 or something of that order. Raising it to £5,000, however, would exclude 90% of all personal injury claims. For someone on a low income in particular, £5,000 is a substantial amount of money, and it is wrong for people in that situation not to have the benefit of legal advice. I see an ABI agenda there—that is what it always wants. Insurance companies are particularly keen on effectively taking lawyers out of the personal injury process, so that the relationship is between the victim and the insurer.

[Julian Knight]

Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that it is not just about an ABI agenda but about trying to reduce the cost of insurance to the public? The personal injury claim blight means that hard-working families must pay extra for their insurance.

[Andy Slaughter]

That is an opportune intervention, because that was to be my next point.

[Karl MᶜCartney]

Before the hon. Gentleman moves on to that next point, may I stay with the previous point and say that I am no apologist for lawyers and solicitors or their firms, or for the ABI or any insurance company? In fact, I am no friend of any insurance company. I am here, as are many other hon. Members, because our constituents’ premiums rise every year. Unfortunately, no harm comes to insurance companies when premiums go up to pay for fraudulent claims, because they just pass on the costs in their turnover figures to the little people at the bottom of the scale. I see where the hon. Gentleman is coming from, but I was trying to say that we need to root out the lawyers, solicitors and claims management firms that use the moneys available in the system to feather their nest.

[Andy Slaughter]

I entirely accept what the hon. Gentleman says, but I am perhaps slightly more sceptical about insurance companies’ use of data. There is an idea that whenever premiums fall, as they have recently, that is because firms are cracking down on fraud, and when they rise it is because of an increase in fraud. The reality of finances, insurance companies’ activities and fraud is far more complicated. For many years, the figure for fraud that was often given was 7%. I do not know whether it has changed—I think the figure of 11% was quoted in the debate in relation to one insurer—but 7% is a high figure for fraud. Of course, that still means that insurance companies estimate that 93% of claims are non-fraudulent and come from genuine victims. However, I have heard the figure for the percentage of claims that are partly or wholly fraudulent put as low as 1%; I have also heard it put much higher than 7%.

[Karl MᶜCartney]

I need to clarify those statistics, because the percentages relate to identifiable fraud. That is not to say that all claims are fraudulent—far from it. None of us minds people who have really been injured receiving their just compensation. Fraud that is easily identifiable, which the insurance companies chase down, is at the level the hon. Gentleman is talking about, but that is not to say that the 93%, or any other residual percentage, represents bona fide claims. There might well be other fraudulent claims within those percentages.

[Andy Slaughter]

I do not want to argue about statistics endlessly, given that part of my argument is that the statistics are not robust. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman looked at the briefing for the debate by the Law Society, which is of course the professional body for solicitors. There are concerns that insurers use figures about levels of fraud as it suits them.

The point that concerns me is that the remedies that insurers resort to are, in some cases, more likely to encourage fraud. The principal one is third-party capture. There is an increasing trend for insurers to contact victims directly, offer a settlement and discourage them from contacting solicitors—and, if they have contacted them, to ask for information about that. They are not entitled to that information, but rather in the manner of claims managers who, as we have heard, use bullying behaviour to try to substantiate fraudulent claims or exaggerate claims, I am afraid insurance companies increasingly approach people in the same way, to try to get a quick, early settlement without medical reporting or professional advice. That may well minimise the value of the claim—I have no doubt that that is the intention—so someone who has a genuine and possibly quite serious injury may settle for a relatively trivial sum of money. However, it may also encourage fraud, because if there is no medical report or lawyer to act as an arbiter of whether a claim is genuine, the insurer, for commercial reasons, might settle a claim that could well be fraudulent. We should be worried about the growth of third-party capture, which would undoubtedly be massively encouraged if small claims were lifted disproportionately.

I am not saying that there is not bad practice by law firms, because there certainly is. I am talking not even about dubious practice, but about sharp practice in marketing skills. However, as one would expect, the overwhelming majority of solicitors act in a proper and professional manner. They have the ability, through the askCUE system, to determine whether someone who comes to them with a claim has claimed previously, and they are encouraged to make such checks to see if that is happening.

I sound a note of caution not because I think that anything raised by the hon. Member for Lincoln is inappropriate. It is just that, as in many things, there is a balance to strike. I was glad to hear the hon. Member for Lanark and Hamilton East speak about victims. Let us not forget them in this case. Political parties often speak up for victims of crime, but victims of accidents are also victims. I would not want to throw the baby out with the bathwater and say that genuine victims of accidents should not get access to justice or be properly remunerated.

I baulk at the constant refrain about a compensation culture. Time and time again it has been shown, including by the Government’s own experts, that no such culture exists in this country. On the contrary, recent consumer surveys have shown that only 17% of people say that their default position would be to seek compensation after receiving poor treatment. I do not think it is naturally British to think that, as a consequence of poor treatment or customer service or even an injury, the first thing one would do is immediately go to claim compensation.

[Chris Philp]

The hon. Gentleman may well be correct, but the problem is that ordinary, law-abiding citizens are being harassed and incited by claims management companies to invent claims—I stand here today because I am one such person. That is why the Government need to go beyond the action they have taken already. I hope that he agrees, given that he used to practise personal injury law.

[Andy Slaughter]

I did indeed practise personal injury law, but, for the avoidance of doubt, I should say that 90% of my practice was for insurers, so I do not think I can be accused of parti pris. I can see it from both sides of the fence, and if I am talking about claimants and victims, that is just to give a bit of balance to the debate.

I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman, and I hope that, when we hear from the Minister, we will hear what is being done specifically to crack down on those calls. I do not want to put the hon. Gentleman on the spot about whether, in his case, he was able to report to either the MOJ or the police that he was being suborned in such a way, but I hope that people do that. If there were a couple of high-profile cases, perhaps instigated by Members of Parliament, in which pestilential claims management companies and cold callers were held to account, that would be a tonic for reducing the practice substantially. If the Minister can shed any light on what the Government can do on enforcement, I will be pleased to hear that.

We must look at both sides of the argument. We have to take action based on evidence, and we have to realise that there are many vested interests. Yes, the claims management companies have interests and we must be on guard against fraud, but we must also be aware of the interests of the insurance industry, which are not always at one with those of the motorist or consumer. It does not always follow that what the industry asks for is beneficial not just to victims or potential victims, but to motorists as a whole. I hope that we can crack down on fraud and relieve the consumer of the burden of calls—I get them myself on many issues—but I also hope that, on this as on other matters, we will bear in mind that the interests of victims and those with meritorious claims for personal injury should be respected.

15:35

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Women and Equalities and Family Justice (Caroline Dinenage)]

May I say what a delight it is to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Wilson? I add my praise to that already heaped on my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Karl MᶜCartney) for securing this important debate on personal injury fraud and its impact on individuals and motor insurance premiums. He has been a dedicated and tenacious campaigner on this important issue.

I will state at the beginning that I am not the Minister with responsibility for this matter in the Ministry of Justice. That honour falls to my colleague, Lord Faulks. I will of course make sure that all the points made today that I am unable to cover are responded to by my noble and learned Friend, and that he is well aware of all the suggestions made by hon. Members from across the House.

My hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln has a number of concerns about personal injury fraud and nuisance calls in particular, which both he and my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp) mentioned. Those pernicious calls cause annoyance and distress to many people, particularly the elderly and vulnerable. I will address that in due course. First, I would like to say a few words about some of the measures and initiatives introduced by this and the previous coalition Government.

We have been, and continue to be, committed to tackling the problems in this market. There have been some real challenges for the Government in trying to put right the imbalances that have led to the disproportionate growth in personal injury claims. We know, as many Members have articulated, that reported road traffic accidents fell from approximately 190,000 in 2006 to about 140,000 in 2013, when the previous Government began to introduce their reforms. That is a reduction of more than 20%, yet at the same time the number of road traffic personal injury claims rose from about 520,000 in 2006 to 760,000 last year—an increase of about 50%. That is a clear indication, if one was needed, that there is a problem and that the Government should consider further reforms to combat this distasteful culture, which we believe is in part being driven by the constant barrage of phone calls and texts messages that my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South so powerfully described.

The Government accept that many personal injury claims are genuine, but it is also clear that many speculative, exaggerated and fraudulent claims are being made. Sometimes it is difficult to tell the difference between the two, but it is not right that people who try to cheat the system should be allowed to get away with it and, as so many Members have said, thereby force up the price of motor insurance for honest, law-abiding motorists. There are considerable costs in dealing with such claims, which have a significant impact on the cost of premiums. According to the ABI, the annual cost to the industry from whiplash claims is £2 billion, which, as has been said, adds some £90 to the average motor insurance premium.

I will pause there and go back in time to set the scene. My hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln is a long-standing member of the Select Committee on Transport and he will be aware that just over five years have passed since Lord Justice Jackson published his review of the cost of civil litigation. That may seem quite a long time ago now, but the previous Government and this one have been busy ever since with a substantial programme of reform.

The Jackson reforms, introduced through the implementation of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, were a key achievement in addressing bad behaviours in the personal injury sector. The reforms introduced a ban on the referral fees that many lawyers, solicitors and claims management companies used to buy and sell claims. We agreed that the system of no win, no fee arrangements was not fit for purpose—that, in fact, it had the perverse effect of encouraging litigation—and so reformed the system to return balance to it, making sure that costs were no longer all heaped on defendants and that claimants had a financial stake in their claim. Our reforms were explicitly aimed at controlling costs and discouraging unmeritorious claims, while enabling genuine cases to be pursued, although of course at lower cost than before, which is why we also put in place measures to encourage earlier settlement.

Speculative and unnecessary whiplash claims are some of the most unmeritorious of all claims, as many Members mentioned. Following a Downing Street summit in February 2012, the Government committed to introducing reforms to tackle the number and cost of whiplash claims. In response to that commitment, the Ministry of Justice has worked with stakeholders to produce a wide-ranging set of reforms to introduce much-needed independence to, and improve the quality of, the medical evidence used in such cases.

[Andy Slaughter]

The Minister has mentioned the notorious insurers’ summit, when the Prime Minister invited the major insurance companies to 10 Downing Street, but no one representing the claimants’ side. Does she think that that might have been a mistake? Does she agree that the Government should listen to both claimants and defendants?

[Caroline Dinenage]

We can dwell on the past, but the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that we need to listen to all sides in the argument. As the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) pointed out, important steps have since been taken on medical reports. The first phase of the reforms included measures to reduce and fix the cost of initial whiplash medical reports at £180, to allow defendants to give their account to the expert for the first time, to discourage insurers from making pre-medical offers to settle, and to ban experts who write the medical reports from also treating the claimant.

[Andy Slaughter]

I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, but she is tempting me. She just mentioned third-party capture, but if the Government really want to stop it, why should it not be banned? I think she is about to mention MedCo. That has been a disaster, which is why we are having a full review only a few months after its introduction.

[Caroline Dinenage]

If the hon. Gentleman will hold his horses for just a moment, I will move on to some of those issues. MedCo has introduced a robust new accreditation scheme for medical experts, who need to attain accreditation by 2016 or they will be removed from the system. We hope that that will begin to take effect, but a further reform to control fraudulent claims at source was implemented on 1 June 2015, as he will know. Claimant lawyers were given access to insurance industry data and must now check the number of claims their potential client has made before accepting the claim.

The Government are particularly pleased that stakeholders put aside their differences to develop a consensus on sharing data and improving medical evidence. Such a consensus can only be positive for all involved and we look forward to continuing to work closely with stakeholders. The Government have also taken firm action to ban both lawyers and claims management companies from offering claimants inducements to bring frivolous claims. Although it is still early days in terms of monitoring the impact of the reforms, Government figures show that the number of whiplash claims has gone down by around 70,000 since 2011-12. That is a good start, but we remain concerned about the number of claims made and their impact on the cost of motor insurance premiums. Too many claims are still being brought inappropriately, often because people are encouraged and pressured to do so by unscrupulous lawyers or CMCs.

On 2 December 2014, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the then Justice Secretary jointly announced a new insurance fraud taskforce. The taskforce will make recommendations to reduce all types of insurance fraud, to lower costs and to protect the interests of consumers. The Government are committed to tackling the perception that insurance fraud is a victimless crime. It is vital that people understand that making a fraudulent claim is not a legitimate way to make money. The taskforce is currently considering its recommendations, which the Government will consider carefully with a view to taking firm action.

My hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln mentioned the practice of “cash for crash”. The insurance fraud enforcement department is a City of London Police unit set up to tackle insurance fraud nationally. The £3 million annual cost of the unit is funded by ABI members through an industry-led compulsory levy. The unit is leading the fight against “cash for crash” gangs, and has caught and prosecuted many perpetrators of that distasteful scam over the past three years. It will continue in that work.

The Government have also been serious in our commitment to driving out bad practices by claims management companies, as is clearly demonstrated by the recent package of reforms to protect consumers who use the services of a CMC or who are subjected to its marketing practices. The reforms will also help organisations that are on the receiving end of high volumes of calls or fraudulent or unsubstantiated claims. The measures are transforming how the MOJ’s claims management regulation unit does its job. Members will be interested to hear that in the last year, 93 CMCs were investigated, 105 CMCs had their licences removed, 296 were issued warnings and 454 audits were conducted. Tackling fraud and unauthorised activity in the claims management industry has been, and will remain, a key priority for this Government.

The CMR unit works closely in partnership with both industry fraud bodies and the police to identify and deal with CMCs engaged in insurance fraud. That work has been instrumental in the successful prosecution of criminal organisations. My hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln rightly identified nuisance calls as a well known route for spurious claims farming. The CMR unit makes sure that CMCs offering claims services do so legally. That is why we introduced tough new rules in October last year to put in place a stronger requirement to make sure claims are properly substantiated before being pursued.

We also strengthened the CMR unit’s enforcement tools in December last year with a new power to impose fines on CMCs. So far, three companies have been fined more than £800,000 for unlawful unsolicited marketing and coercing clients into signing contracts before taking unauthorised payments. That sends the powerful message to unscrupulous fraudsters that the Government take this issue seriously and will take firm action against them.

The claims industry is a fast-moving market. Practices continue to evolve, and the Government will monitor the market and respond with further reforms, as necessary, to provide better protection for consumers and the public. The Government are also looking to build on the work of the CMR unit by undertaking a fundamental review to consider what powers and resources are required for a tougher CMC regulatory regime. The review is due to be completed in early 2016.

I will now answer the very useful six points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South, as some of them will be included in that review. He talked about banning of outbound calling and the use of personal injury claims data gathered from those calls. We need to strike a balance between ensuring that consumers are adequately protected and ensuring that a direct marketing industry can continue, as—although this was not necessarily the case in his experience—it is a legitimate activity when done properly. We need to focus on the companies that are breaking the rules rather than penalise legitimate businesses, and to make sure that companies comply with the regulations. We have made it easier for the Financial Conduct Authority to take action against some of those companies, but we will continue to look at that, particularly in the light of what he has outlined today.

[Chris Philp]

I understand that the Government have taken action to regulate outbound calls more carefully. My fear is that that regulation unfortunately has not had the intended effect and that cases like mine are continuing to occur. I suggested an outright ban because I feel it is the only way that we will be able to stamp out a terrible practice that I myself directly experienced.

[Caroline Dinenage]

My hon. Friend is very persuasive, and I will definitely ensure his thoughts are passed on when the review is conducted.

My hon. Friend talked about criminal pursuit of anyone making fraudulent claims. That measure was introduced earlier this year in the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015, which requires the court to dismiss in its entirety any claim where the claimant has been fundamentally dishonest. That means dishonest claimants can now no longer receive a payout if they have been fundamentally dishonest, even if a small part of their claim is in fact genuine. Insurers then have the option of pursuing a criminal prosecution for fraud.

My hon. Friend said medical advice should be taken within a week of an accident. In 2004, the Government considered including such changes to the civil procedure rules to ensure that medical examinations and reports were completed before a claim was produced. We have introduced the rules I have spoken about to discourage such behaviour, but we will keep the matter under review and continue to work with key stakeholders. We need to look at how we can tackle the issue effectively.

My hon. Friend asked whether there should be an objective evidence base. The Government remain concerned about the number of claims made and have done much in that area, but we accept that more can be done. We are open to any suggestions put forward by interested stakeholders and will consider all the points he has raised.

Finally, my hon. Friend talked about the 12-month claim limit and the no win, no fee limit of £6,000. We understand that both those issues will be considered by the insurance fraud taskforce, which will be reporting shortly. We look forward to seeing its recommendations and will respond accordingly.

[Andy Slaughter]

The Minister talked about a £6,000 limit. If she is talking about the possible £5,000 limit for small claims in PI cases, the Government have already looked at that two or three times. They have had very strong advice, including from the Transport Committee, that that is not the way to go. Is she saying that that matter is going to be revived?

[Caroline Dinenage]

As I say, the taskforce has been set up to look at all the issues, and I believe it may be considering that limit, but I will write to the hon. Gentleman with clarification if that is not correct.

The Chancellor announced proposals in the July Budget to introduce a cap on the charges that CMCs can apply to consumers. We are looking in particular at restricting bulk PPI claims to more proportionate levels and will consult on how that will work in practice later this year. A cap on charges will, we believe, help to reduce incentives for CMCs to collect marketing leads, resulting in a reduction in the number of speculative calls made.

I would like to draw Members’ attention briefly to other measures taken by the Government to tackle the issue of nuisance calls. In March 2014, the Government launched an action plan to tackle the problem, asking the consumer organisation Which? to lead a taskforce on consent and lead generation in the direct marketing industry. The taskforce made a number of recommendations, including giving the Information Commissioner’s Office powers to hold to account senior executives who fail to comply with the rules on marketing. The Government are currently considering those recommendations.

The Government have made it clear that it must be easier for the ICO to take action. The ICO no longer has to prove substantial damage or substantial distress caused by a company before action can be taken. Since 2011, it has had the power to issue penalty notices of up to £500,000, and in September 2015 it issued a penalty of £200,000 against a company that made more than 6 million automated calls to consumers—the highest penalty ever issued for nuisance calls. The ICO has also issued a penalty of £75,000 against an organisation that claimed to offer a nuisance call blocking service but was instead making unsolicited live marketing calls to members of the public—the mind boggles. The ICO continues to take its enforcement responsibilities seriously and has 66 cases currently under investigation.

The Government are also exploring options to provide call-blocking devices to vulnerable customers, and we will consult shortly on legislation to require all direct marketing callers to identify themselves. That will enable consumers to determine who is calling and to report unwanted calls to the regulator. I ought to make it clear that the Government have not ruled out further reform to this market.

[Karl MᶜCartney]

Before my hon. Friend the Minister finishes her remarks, may I say that I welcome the courteous and informative comments she and everyone else who has taken part in the debate have made, including even my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick)? He does not to get to say anything in his role as Parliamentary Private Secretary, but it was good to see him here, providing very useful information.

The Minister mentioned that some of these companies are fined. Unfortunately, the directors behind the companies often have what are known as “phoenix companies” waiting in the wings. The Government need to take direct action on the individuals who are at fault for carrying out these pernicious acts with regard to cold calling. I make that plea as a final comment in this debate.

[Caroline Dinenage]

That is a valid point. These individuals need to be named and shamed for what they are and, indeed, what they are doing; my hon. Friend is absolutely right.

We have not ruled out further reforms to this market. I hope I have reassured hon. Members today that the Government take this subject very seriously. We remain committed to continuing the reform process to the benefit of all and we want to work with all stakeholders to achieve that.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered personal injury fraud.

15:56

Sitting suspended.

Electrical Shore Supplies (Nuclear-powered Submarines)

Wednesday 18th November 2015 Westminster Hall

[Ms Karen Buck in the Chair]

16:00

[Brendan O'Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered restoration of electrical shore supplies to nuclear-powered submarines.

It is a pleasure to have this debate under your chairmanship, Ms Buck—and to have secured it, but I say that rather guardedly, because it was never my intention to bring this issue forward for debate in this place. My intention from the outset was simply to ask a series of questions of the Ministry of Defence on behalf of my constituents, who approached me with serious concerns about the changes to nuclear safety procedures at Her Majesty’s Naval Base Clyde at Faslane. It was not until the MOD replied, or perhaps I should say did not reply, to my questions that I felt the need to bring the matter to this Chamber.

Last month, as the constituency Member of Parliament for Argyll and Bute, which takes in Faslane and Coulport, I was approached by workers at Faslane who had learned of proposed changes to the long-standing work practices relating to the restoration of shore power to nuclear-powered submarines. They had already raised their concerns with their employer, Babcock, but with no success, and unable to glean what they considered to be an adequate response, they turned to me as their local MP, in the hope that I would be able to secure answers from the Ministry of Defence on their behalf.

I then tabled a series of very specific questions relating to the extension of the limit of restoration of electrical shore supplies to nuclear submarines at Her Majesty’s Naval Base Clyde from the existing 20 minutes up to a maximum of three hours. Rather than answering my questions, the Ministry simply grouped all my detailed and specific questions together and responded to them using a single standard response—a response that I believe hid behind national security, although my questions were specifically about health and safety. I believe that the Ministry of Defence, by dismissing those questions in that manner, has shown me and my constituents a great discourtesy. I am firmly of the opinion that safety at nuclear establishments, and the safety of nuclear materials, is not just a matter for the MOD or Babcock; it is of the most serious concern to my constituents who live beside Faslane, whose concerns cannot be dismissed in such a high-handed fashion.

For far too long, the Ministry of Defence has relied on the stock answer of “Move along; there is nothing to see here,” in the hope of avoiding scrutiny, accountability and transparency—and in many ways it has got away with it. That is unacceptable, and frankly it will not wash any more with me or my constituents, who refuse to be fobbed off with such an answer.

I will give a little background on what has been happening at Faslane, and on the situation that led my constituents to approach me with their concerns. As I understand it, in October 2014 Babcock entered into a contractual agreement with the Ministry of Defence to provide a range of support services at Faslane and Coulport for a period of five years. Part of that arrangement called for a reduction in costs totalling £77.5 million over the lifetime of that contract. No department, including the nuclear operations department, was to be exempt from the cuts.

Prior to that agreement and the swingeing cuts of £77.5 million being announced, a working group comprising management and the trade unions was established to study shift patterns in the nuclear operations department. That working group, I am led to believe, identified a number of different shift options that were to be taken to Babcock management, and then presented to the workforce affected by the proposed changes for their consideration. It appears that the plans to negotiate shift patterns have been shelved, and that Babcock is instead pressing ahead with a radical and unilateral plan of changes to the working patterns in the nuclear operations department. The trade unions understand that the proposed changes will allow Babcock to reduce shift patterns by more than two thirds—a measure that will save around £4.5 million in staff wages, thereby contributing significantly to the £77.5 million of savings demanded in the new contract.

However, the new changes to shift patterns are not, in and of themselves, the problem. The major concern is that in order to facilitate the new shift patterns, Babcock will need to relax the long-standing safety principle of 20-minute restoration of electrical supplies to nuclear vessels alongside the jetties, extending that 20-minute period to a maximum of three hours. I should point out that the 20-minute restoration limit and the current manning levels for out-of-hours cover have been in place for decades; minimal changes have taken place in that time. Every time the 20-minute restoration period has been challenged in the past, it has been vigorously defended and change has been rejected. As I understand it, regular 20-minute training sessions and programmes are still carried out to prove that the 20-minute restoration can be accomplished by the nuclear operations department with existing staff levels.

There can be no doubt that the workers at Faslane are loyal and hard-working. They do a vital job and are not prone to alarmist talk, or flagging up problems when there are not genuine concerns. Their paramount concern and the overriding priority for them is safety: safety of the vessels, the base and, by extension, the entire community in the Helensburgh and Lomond area. When they, with their decades of experience in these matters, feel so marginalised that they are forced to approach their MP for help, we know that they have genuine concerns and serious worries. That is why, when they approached me a few weeks ago, I was only too happy to listen to their concerns and to seek answers from the Ministry of Defence.

I tabled a series of detailed questions that I believe focused on health and safety and on how the decision to extend the 20-minute limit to a maximum of three hours was reached. Unfortunately, my questions were grouped and summarily dismissed by the Ministry of Defence in a single, stock, off-the-shelf answer, which basically said, “We look after security and safety. There is nothing else you need to know; telling you anything further would prejudice the capability, effectiveness and security of our armed forces.” Does the Minister really think that that is an acceptable answer to hard-working, loyal employees, who have sought an answer from their employers to serious questions?

Questions were asked about: health and safety; why important changes to long-established safety routines are being proposed; who is driving the changes; the money that will be saved by implementing the changes; what studies have been made of the safety implications of the changes; and whether an independent nuclear safety assessment has been carried out. Can they really be dismissed with a reference to national security and the fear of undermining our armed forces? If that is the case, the Ministry of Defence is saying that absolutely nothing that goes on behind the gates of Faslane is open to scrutiny, or is in any way transparent—that it is, in fact, accountable to no one.

I remind the Minister that the MOD and Health and Safety Executive agreement states, on page 2, that the Ministry of Defence is

“a Crown body accountable to Parliament for Defence, including the activities of the Armed Forces.”

There has to be accountability and transparency. We recognise the importance of national security, but I believe that this issue has gone far beyond that. Had I been daft enough to ask for the position of the nuclear submarine fleet when it was out on patrol or for details of military training exercises, I could and should have been told by the Ministry of Defence that it would not answer such a question on the grounds that the information was likely to prejudice the capability, effectiveness or security of the armed forces. However, the questions I asked were about health and safety, not national security. For the Ministry to hide behind national security, and to claim that responding to my questions and the concerns of employees at Faslane would undermine the armed forces, is absurd and a public relations blunder of epic proportions.

The prevalent attitude that we have seen so often is, “There is nothing to see, so move on.” That cannot continue, because it simply breeds mistrust and suspicion. If nothing that goes on at Faslane is open to scrutiny, and if nothing is transparent, every denial from the Ministry of Defence will be accepted less and less by those on the civilian side of the fence.

On day one of my parliamentary career a few months ago, I raised the case of Able Seaman William McNeilly and his catalogue of alleged safety breaches aboard nuclear submarines and at Faslane. Within 48 hours, every one of those allegations had been dismissed as having absolutely no substance, and again we were advised, “There is nothing to see here, so move on.” This is history repeating itself.

There are plenty of other examples; a quick trawl through the parliamentary records reveals that on 28 October, my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Steven Paterson) asked

“what arrangements are in place to monitor Babcock’s performance and safety record”.

The response referred to “appropriate measures”. On 8 September, my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Owen Thompson) asked

“what notice is given to emergency services in advance of visits by nuclear convoys”.

The response was:

“Police forces may advise fire and rescue services…I am withholding specific information on the period of notice given to the emergency services as its disclosure would”—

this is classic—

“prejudice the capability, effectiveness and security of the Armed Forces.”

A question was asked in the House of Lords in June about what assessment the Ministry of Defence had made of the UK’s nuclear deterrent and its vulnerability to espionage, as we have no maritime patrol aircraft. The reply was that the Government continually conduct assessments but are not prepared to comment further.

The Ministry of Defence is acting like the boy who cried wolf in reverse. The situation is ridiculous, so I hope that the Minister will today end the policy of saying nothing, and recognise that the workforce at Faslane have genuine concerns. They are concerned about their future jobs, and about the safety of the vessels they are charged to look after. Will he reply, either today or in a full written answer, to the questions I submitted two weeks ago asking what discussions his Department has had with Babcock on the proposal to extend the limit of electrical shore supplies to nuclear submarines at Faslane? Will he also tell me whether his Department instructed Babcock to extend that time, or was that a customer-driven request—that is, did the Ministry of Defence ask for that, or did the idea emanate from Babcock?

16:14

Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.

16:24

On resuming—

[Brendan O’Hara]

Will the Minister tell me why, after decades of military, industrial and political consensus on the 20-minute limit, it is now felt necessary to make this change? Has his Department made an assessment of the financial saving accruing to Babcock? What analysis has he undertaken to ensure that the change is science-driven, not cost-driven? Can he enlighten me on what the Astute-class vessels’ procedures are, in terms of the 20-minute shutdown? Finally, will he tell me whether an independent nuclear safety assessment has been carried out? If so, what did the report say?

Let me be clear that this is not an old courtroom trick of asking questions to which one already knows the answers. These are genuine questions, and I am seeking helpful answers. As I said, I believe that nothing that I have said or asked is a threat to national security or could undermine our armed forces.

If the people of Helensburgh and Lomond and the workers at the base are to have faith in this facility, we have to be able to believe that those in charge will always make safety and security their top priority, and any suspicion that corners are being cut to save money has to be thoroughly investigated, but how can we have confidence when every single concern raised and brought to the attention of the authorities is met with the same standard response of “Move along; there is nothing to see here”? Confidence is further undermined when the concerns of a loyal and dedicated workforce are similarly dismissed.

I ask the Minister to seize this opportunity to show that transparency, accountability and appropriate public scrutiny are not alien concepts, and to restore the confidence of both employees at the base and my constituents that decisions are being taken in the correct manner and for the right reasons.

16:26

[The Minister for Defence Procurement (Mr Philip Dunne)]

Thank you for chairing these proceedings, Ms Buck. I congratulate the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O’Hara) on securing the debate, and I thank him for giving me an opportunity to address this issue, which I agree is important. It is appropriate that we have an opportunity to discuss it in the House.

I appreciate that the safety of nuclear-powered submarines has been and continues to be a subject of interest not just in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency in the immediate proximity of our submarine base, but to everyone in the United Kingdom. The Vanguard-class strategic ballistic missile submarines, along with the majority of the Royal Navy’s attack submarines, are based at Her Majesty’s Naval Base Clyde, in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, and the whole operating Royal Navy submarine fleet will be based there by 2020. Clyde is one of the largest employment sites in Scotland, with about 6,800 military and civilian jobs, which will increase to about 8,200 by 2022. I pay tribute to the hard-working people who man and maintain Her Majesty’s Naval Base Clyde to support the Royal Navy submarine fleet based there.

The hon. Gentleman expressed the concern that the workforce have about their jobs at the site. What I have just said reinforces the decisions taken under the previous Government. The primary threat to the jobs of those working at HMNB Clyde is from the proposals of the hon. Gentleman’s party and the Scottish Government, rather than from this Government and the work that we intend to place there. However, I listened carefully to his speech and will endeavour to address the points that he raised.

I am sure the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that, despite his suspicions to the contrary—I know he knows this privately—there are certain aspects of the operation of submarine nuclear reactors that I cannot discuss owing to security considerations. That is not a fig leaf; it is real. I am sure that no hon. Members would wish the security of the fleet to be compromised. Having said that, I will provide as full a response as I am able to on the issues that he raised. Before I do so, I would like briefly to set in context the Government’s policy for the safe and secure operation of nuclear-powered submarines.

The protection and defence of the whole of the United Kingdom and our dependent territories and citizens is the primary responsibility of Government. In a world that is becoming more uncertain, as we have seen in the actions of a resurgent Russia, the Government are committed to maintaining a strong and capable fleet of attack and strategic ballistic missile submarines and the continuous at-sea nuclear deterrence that provides the ultimate guarantee of our national security. In speaking today of our submarine fleet, I would like to take the opportunity—I am sure that all hon. Members would echo this, whatever their personal views on the merits of the nuclear deterrent—to thank the crews of all our submarines, their families and the wider community for their continued dedication and commitment to delivering the mission.

I turn to the points raised by the hon. Gentleman. I want to make it absolutely clear that safety is our priority. Although operating a nuclear reactor in the submarine environment provides unique challenges compared with doing so in the civil sector, the rigorous safety measures that we adopt ensure that submarine reactors remain safe at all times. The safety of reactors is rigorously assessed at every stage of their life, from design and build to operation and disposal. Safety is independently regulated in accordance with the law and by our own Ministry of Defence independent nuclear regulator. Together, those regulators impose robust controls that are at least as stringent as those in the civil sector. We are also held to account by external regulators and, ultimately, here in Parliament.

In Scotland, radioactive substances are regulated by the Scottish Environment Protection Agency. A memorandum of understanding between the Ministry of Defence and the SEPA includes provisions that enable the agency to carry out its regulatory role effectively while ensuring that sensitive information is properly protected. Similar arrangements are in place with the Office for Nuclear Regulation.

I trust that what I have said will reassure hon. Members that our submarine nuclear reactor operations are subject to independent, impartial and robust regulation. Any suggestion to the contrary is, quite frankly, wrong. As I have said, I am constrained by security considerations in the details that I can discuss, but I can say that the Ministry of Defence regularly and routinely reviews the procedures regulating the operation and maintenance of submarine nuclear reactors. That process naturally includes consultation with industry partners and regulators, but no change can be implemented until it is proved to be safe and, where applicable, has been approved by the relevant regulatory authorities.

Regarding the hon. Gentleman’s specific concern, it may be helpful if I explain that submarine reactors have a diverse range of cooling systems, including a dedicated system that is not dependent on electrical supplies. As I have previously informed the House in answer to a question from the right hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson), there have been only four events in the past 20 years involving the loss of electrical power to a submarine reactor cooling system when in port. In all four events, there was no disruption to reactor cooling as a result of the loss of electrical supplies.

That is the measure of the safety of our submarine nuclear reactors. It is simply not the case that a disruption of the electrical shore supply to a submarine will inevitably and rapidly lead to the submarine’s reactor becoming unsafe. It is quite wrong, and indeed alarmist, to suggest otherwise. Any proposals to change reactor operating procedures must be seen in that context. The Ministry of Defence would never propose a change that could lead to a reduction in reactor safety. Were we to do so, any such change would simply not pass regulatory scrutiny.

What I have said may raise in the minds of some hon. Members the question of why submarines require a shore electrical supply and why, if the loss of that supply poses no immediate threat to reactor safety, its restoration is subject to strict regulatory control. That question is simply answered. Once the reactor has shut down, the submarine continues to require a supply of electricity to operate its internal systems, such as lighting to allow sailors to get around the submarine. Although those requirements can be met from other sources, in the longer term a shore supply is required. As I have said, however, reactor cooling can rely on a diverse range of systems, not all of which depend on electrical supplies.

I fully understand that nuclear-powered submarines are a contentious issue for some hon. Members, and that they are likely to remain so. I want to address the question asked by the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute about whether the proposed changes have been inspired by Babcock, and in particular by the savings required in the company. My answer to that is we have made no assessment, in the review of procedures, of the impact on Babcock. This is a Royal Navy-initiated activity with the MOD’s support. Proposed changes to shift patterns have nothing to do with why we are undertaking this exercise. That was one of his concerns, and I hope that I have set it to rest.

[Brendan O'Hara]

I genuinely thank the Minister for his answers, but can he understand my frustration that all my previous questions were grouped together and given one stock answer? Does he agree with me that the Ministry does itself no favours by doing that, because it leads to suspicion and conjecture? Would it not have been an awful lot better if the MOD had answered each of my questions on merit, in which case we would not have needed this debate?

[Mr Dunne]

I can understand why the hon. Gentleman might have been somewhat frustrated by the reply that he got. I have to say that it is not unusual for Departments—across a range of activities, not purely the MOD—to find themselves not always capable of delivering the kinds of answers that the Members who pose them might like to receive. Many of the questions that the hon. Gentleman asked got into topics that were covered by security concerns, which was why he received the answers that he did. I hope that during this debate, I have managed to allay some of his concerns.

In closing, I can only reiterate that the Ministry of Defence operates its submarine nuclear reactors with the highest regard for safety. As in the civil sector, appropriate and targeted assessments of operating processes and procedures are undertaken to ensure that our robust arrangements remain valid. The process involves not only the independent regulator but our industry partners and independent nuclear safety advisers, who play a significant role in ensuring that those processes and procedures are as robust as they need to be to ensure the safe operation of our submarine nuclear reactors. Only when a positive consensus of advice has been reached to the effect that reactor safety will not be compromised, and that there is a clear benefit, are changes to operating processes and procedures undertaken. As I have said, the process includes our independent regulator and, where necessary, external regulators.

The Royal Navy’s attack and strategic ballistic missile submarines are an essential capability for the defence of the whole United Kingdom, and I hope that what I have said goes some way towards reassuring hon. Members that our submarines are operated with the highest regard for the safety of their crews and the public. Through our nuclear-powered submarine programme and the independent nuclear deterrent that it supports, we ultimately guarantee our national security and the freedoms that we continue to enjoy in a democratic society.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered restoration of electrical shore supplies to nuclear-powered submarines.

Deaths Abroad (Consular Assistance)

Wednesday 18th November 2015 Westminster Hall

16:38

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

I beg to move,

That this House has considered consular assistance for families of people who die abroad.

As the Minister is aware, the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs carried out an inquiry in 2013-14 into this very matter, and many of the people I will reference today contributed to that inquiry. The reason why I secured the debate is threefold. First, I want to look at what changes have been made and what assessment has been made of those changes. Secondly, I want to feed back the thoughts of those who called for the inquiry, some positive, some critical, but all, I suggest, constructive. Thirdly, I want to pay tribute to some brave and fearsome campaigners who have selflessly committed to fighting for better support, not for themselves but for people who find themselves in the dreadful position that I will describe.

I start by acknowledging that there are some people in this country who have had very recent experience of this: I refer to those caught up in the atrocities in Paris last Friday. The impact will have been felt not just by the victims and their families, but by the consular support staff at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. I do not envy them their task at a time when they may themselves be traumatised by events in the city in which they live and work.

I will set out why there was a call for the Foreign Affairs Committee to have this inquiry last year. What were the experiences of families whose loved ones died abroad that led to them putting their lives on hold and mounting campaigns to change the experience for others? Let us remember that it is hard enough when someone close to us dies in this country. For someone who is struggling to cope with their shock and grief, to have to find a way through the minefield of a country with which they are unfamiliar—perhaps they do not speak the language and the customs and laws are different to theirs—is an experience that I would not wish on anybody. Naturally, people in those circumstances will turn to their own country’s consular support services, but many have not found the support that they expected.

Support After Murder and Manslaughter Abroad is a charity that campaigns for improvements in Government policy, and provides telephone advice and peer support to people bereaved by homicide overseas. Eve Henderson is someone I do not know, but she represents SAMM Abroad and I believe she is here today. Other campaigners have urged me to pay tribute to her for her tireless campaigning since her husband was murdered overseas 17 years ago. I pay tribute to her strength and determination. I hope that, in some small way, people like me can take some of the burden from her shoulders.

In 2011, SAMM Abroad sent 150 families a questionnaire asking them to document their experience of dealing with the FCO, the police and coroners. Fifty families responded, and the vast majority of respondents were negative about the service provided by the FCO. When asked whether the FCO was helpful 56% said, “not at all”, 38% said, “not very”, and the remaining 6% said, “quite helpful”. No one said that the FCO was “very helpful” and, as Members can see, 94% felt that they had not got the help that they wanted.

The evidence in the Foreign Affairs Committee report reflected similar findings. I recognise and applaud that Committee in the previous Parliament for doing much of the work required to ensure that the families of those who die abroad are treated justly and with dignity by officials. The inquiry spoke to one mother who found that most of the advice she was offered was of less use than the advice available on websites. Others spoke of calls going unreturned, wrong advice being given and, most disturbingly, being encouraged to have their loved one cremated abroad without being advised that that could mean that there would be no coroner’s report back in the UK.

I should say at this juncture that, until recently, Scots or those who lived in Scotland who died abroad were not afforded an inquiry. Thanks to the work of Death Abroad—You’re Not Alone, otherwise known as DAYNA, and Julie Love, who spearheads its campaigns and who I will say more of later, the Scottish Government have now made steady progress in improving the treatment of such families. The Inquiries into Fatal Accidents and Sudden Deaths etc. (Scotland) Bill proposes to bring in discretionary fatal accident inquiries for those who have died overseas and have been repatriated to Scotland. That is a welcome step forward and builds upon Lord Cullen’s review which reported in 2009.

Another welcome measure is the increased accountability for families. Where the Lord Advocate decides not to hold a fatal accident inquiry he or she—it may be a she in the future—will have to justify the reason for that in writing to the family on request. I say all this primarily to pay tribute to DAYNA, but also to highlight the fact that there are distinctive elements of the Scottish legal system that directly affect the families of those who have died overseas. That must be borne in mind by the FCO and in the new training it offers consular staff.

The most disturbing and compelling evidence was from people who, like the bereaved mother highlighted in the report, found that consular support staff showed callous disregard for what they were going through. In her words,

“I found them completely without empathy at a time in my life when I really needed them.”

Although the report found that there was sometimes an unreasonably high expectation of the support that the FCO could provide, nobody would argue that people could not expect some common decency—a human response to a human tragedy—and yet they were not getting it. That was not an isolated case, and I will give more examples later. Nobody expects consular staff to offer counselling services—they are not the Samaritans—but the dismissive attitude and cold responses many have experienced are just unacceptable. If any of my caseworkers were to treat constituents in the same way, they would not last very long in my employ. I notice that they are sitting here today, so I will quickly add that I have absolute confidence in every one of them before they stage a walkout.

That is a basic summary of why groups such as SAMM Abroad and DAYNA urged that this inquiry be conducted. I will return to some of this in more detail by examining the three reasons I have called for the debate, but first let me share the story of Julie Love, mother of Colin Love and founder of DAYNA. Julie lives in Glasgow. She is an ordinary woman who has been through an extraordinarily traumatic time and has done something extraordinary as a result. Let me read out some of her words:

“My son Colin Love drowned in the sea close to Margarita Island, Venezuela, whilst on a Caribbean cruise in January 2009. He was 23 years old. He was an excellent swimmer. The beach was recommended to him by the cruise company despite the water being notorious for riptides and undertow. There were no warning signs and no lifeguards…it was easy to make contact with the Foreign & Commonwealth Office in the UK. My first contact…was at approximately 2am on 30th January 2009, several hours after receiving news of Colin’s death from his friend. I spoke to a member of the Global Response Team who was very empathetic but unable to assist as the FCO had not yet received notification of the death. He told me he would leave a message with the South American desk to ensure I would be contacted as soon as the information was received the following morning. I never received that call. I contacted them at approx. 12 noon the following day. I had not slept. I’d just found out my son had died on the other side of the world and I was frantic. I spoke to a female at the desk who curtly responded, ‘We deal with thousands of Brits dying abroad every year. I don’t have a message to call you back’. I was appalled.”

I am certain that there is nobody here who would not be appalled by that. Julie continued:

“She reluctantly took my details and said she’d call back. I am still waiting on that call. After contacting the HQ of the cruise company in Miami I was able to ascertain the telephone number of the British Honorary Consul on Margarita Island and made direct contact by telephone. His spoken English was very poor but we were eventually able to communicate by email.”

Should it really be that hard? Should she really have had to go to all that trouble?

Julie Love says:

“As I have since discovered has been the experience of many families I was advised to have my son cremated, not to travel to Margarita Island, that the cremation could be arranged on the island and they’d return my son’s ashes. How appalling! What mother wants to be told that she cannot hold her child ever again, especially when it’s possible that she can? I was adamant my son was going to be repatriated to Scotland and that I would go to the island to bring him home. I was advised not to as it would delay his repatriation. Reluctantly I did not travel…and it still took 4 weeks for my son’s body to be repatriated. I was advised four different dates and had church services…booked only to have to re-arrange. I had family and friends travelling to Scotland from all over the world and some of them had to return home...and were unable to pay respects at my son’s funeral because of the date changes.”

Julie mentions other problems, a number of which she, I and all campaigners accept are not down to the FCO; they are down to other people. For example, Colin Love’s friend was told that he had to return to the liner because he was not a relative. The liner docked in Aruba the following day, and the friend travelled from Aruba to Miami, Miami to London, and London to Glasgow. He had very thoughtfully brought back Colin’s luggage. He was charged for excess baggage every step of the way. Julie said in her submission to the inquiry:

“So in answer to the questions—No, I was not offered accurate advice and certainly given no guidance. I feel that the FCO handled my case abhorrently and without sensitivity to my feelings or to my son’s dignity. I was later to find out that my son’s body remained on the beach (uncovered) for approx. 12 hours.”

She discovered that because a British newspaper printed a picture of it—again, something that none of us would ever want to associate ourselves with. I happen to know that Julie Love ran up a phone bill of more than £1,000 trying to resolve the issue—money that she just does not have—but there was no help available.

I have three reasons for securing this debate. The first, of course, is to ask what changes have been made and what assessment has been made of those changes. I welcome the progress the FCO has made and the undertakings it gave in response to the Foreign Affairs Committee’s report, which include a recognition that the manner in which families were dealt with did, in some cases, fall far below the level of service that British citizens should have been able to expect. One response from the Government was to provide training for consular support staff in dealing with non-suspicious deaths. After the murders on the Tunisian beach in July this year, the Foreign Secretary said that training would be given to all consular advice staff to improve sensitivity and effectiveness in casework. I am keen to hear an update on that training and a timetable for ensuring that everyone has received it—I assume that not everyone has yet received the training. When can we expect the training’s effectiveness to be reviewed?

[Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind)]

I am reluctant to intervene on the hon. Lady, but I am deeply touched by what she has put on record today. As the Member representing a young honeymooning couple who died in a terrible drowning accident six days after their marriage—they died on 23 October—my experience of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has been brilliant. The global response team acted during the night, and the sensitivity that it showed to both families was enormously courteous and helpful in tragic circumstances.

[Anne McLaughlin]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. I was coming on to this, but I will say it now. There may be consular support staff listening to this debate who feel quite hurt by what I am saying, but obviously I am not referring to those who deal with such situations properly. I will give more evidence for why I know that Julie Love’s experience is not a one-off and why it is so important that we follow this up, but the hon. Lady is right: we hear about the terrible experiences. We have to accept that the majority of experiences may well be good, but I have not heard much about them.

Following the work of the Foreign Affairs Committee and the FCO’s response, one area that is still of concern to families is deaths that are not identified as murder or manslaughter but are classed as suspicious. In some cases, the coroners have returned the equivalent of open verdicts; in others, the family suspect foul play. Will the Minister comment on the FCO’s role in supporting family campaigns for justice, especially where the local inquiry is ineffective or where there are problems with the coroner’s report? I appreciate that the FCO handles all cases individually, but there will inevitably be cases where there has been malpractice in the local investigations. When do the British Government step in to support British families in such cases? When the access to justice unit was set up, it was going to review the policy on suspicious deaths and consider whether it could offer similar levels of support in some instances where there has been a suspicious death. I hope the Minister can update us on that. Has the review taken place? If so, when will we get the details? If not, what is the timetable? What support is being offered to those families?

We can agree that all cases will be different, but it would be beneficial if the system was structured so that all families know what support they can expect as a minimum. Paragraph 15 of the Government’s response to the Foreign Affairs Committee’s report stated that they would begin gathering evidence on the handling of deaths on an ongoing basis from May 2015; the evidence would be collected by independent research partners from a representative selection of all FCO customers and published in the annual report. It would be useful to know whether anything has been gleaned from that research so far.

The second reason for securing this debate is to feed back the thoughts of some of those who called for the inquiry. As I said, some are positive and some not so positive, but all seek to be constructive. SAMM Abroad says that, over the past three years, the FCO has improved the support it provides to bereaved families—all of us here will welcome that—but although the initiatives are welcome, families are still reporting significant issues with the consistency of the service provided. SAMM Abroad contends that the current practice of putting families in contact with desk officers is failing. Although there are notable exceptions, as we have heard, they are, in SAMM Abroad’s view, precisely that: exceptions. Desk officers lack proper training in dealing with traumatised families, which can lead to families feeling greater trauma after their contact with the FCO. I know that training has been suggested and agreed to, but we have yet to hear what stage it is at. There are frequent complaints that desk officers fail to keep families informed of developments or mishandle important information.

SAMM Abroad says that another significant shortcoming of using desk officers is that they move frequently and rarely stay the duration of an investigation. Most cases will not come to trial within two years, and many take longer, which means that families continually have to retell their story to new colleagues, which causes frustration and distress and can lead to poor case management. Although SAMM Abroad accepts that it is unrealistic to expect desk officers to remain in post for extended periods, their continual movement has another significant impact: a loss of institutional expertise. Frequent movement not only disrupts contact with families but disrupts relationships with local organisations and services that could provide support to families.

SAMM Abroad has come up with an excellent suggestion that I would apply across the board for the families of anyone who dies abroad, not just for the families of those who are murdered, although obviously such families face additional difficulties. SAMM Abroad suggests a small, centralised unit within the FCO with specially trained staff to act as the principal point of contact for families. The unit would be responsible for dealing with the desk officers and extracting information for the families. That would have a number of advantages: families would not be not upset or traumatised by having to retell their story after desk officers move; it would allow liaison with other agencies to be more effective, because staff would have immediate access to case files and other information; and the development of FCO policy could become more effective, as the unit would be able to observe recurrent issues and spot failings more immediately. If the Minister cannot commit to the establishment of such a unit today, and I suspect that he cannot, will he commit to considering it in more detail and perhaps meeting me and other campaigners, or at the very least accepting information from us on this suggestion? I think the creation of such a unit is an excellent suggestion that could resolve a lot of problems.

Suspicious deaths are the second issue that campaigners feel still has not been fully addressed. The report talks of families whose loved ones were murdered, but for those whose loved ones suffered a suspicious death, the agony seems to be never-ending. Take the case of the man who was murdered almost seven years ago: the trial of those who murdered him ended 18 months ago, and still the family is unable to have a funeral for him. I recently met someone—I am not naming anyone because I have not asked if I can do so—whose mother died in France more than two years ago, and she is still waiting to bury her. Any right-thinking person will agree that those situations are horrific. There are various stages of grief, but these families are stuck at the start of that process because they cannot lay their loved ones to rest. How can they be expected to grieve, or to continue any semblance of a normal life?

I am sure the Minister is aware of and is as horrified as I am by the cases where bodies have been returned minus internal organs. It is like something out of a horror film, and the families must play out that horror film in their head day in, day out, night after night. We must surely be able to intervene to put a stop to all that and to find a way to let those families move on. There are also questions about the appeal processes after a conviction and the way in which families are advised when the perpetrator of a crime committed against their loved one is due to be, or is, released from prison.

As the Minister will know, one of the big overarching criticisms in the report was the lack of consistency. Julie Love has asked me to raise something that exemplifies what was meant by that finding, and it relates to the constituents of the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) who died so tragically in October.

As I have said, Julie’s son, Colin, died while swimming. The beach he was on is noted for its dangerous riptides, but nobody—neither the travel company nor the FCO advice—told him about those riptides. He had thoroughly researched where he was going. Julie Love suggested to the inquiry—it was documented in the report and she understood that this suggestion was being taken up—that the FCO website’s travel advice should include information about anywhere with particularly unpredictable or potentially dangerous waters. I appreciate that the FCO is working with travel companies to improve the information provided—that is good; that is progress—but Julie’s clear understanding was that the FCO would also provide this information. People are more likely to take seriously what their Government tell them than what a travel company tells them, so this is important.

The advice now appears on the information about Venezuela, where Colin died. It also appears on the Dubai page, but apparently it only appeared there after a British citizen died in a swimming accident similar to the one that killed Colin. Moreover, when the young honeymooning couple from Northern Ireland died so tragically earlier this year while swimming in South Africa, Julie was told that it was not the FCO’s practice to give that kind of advice. Well, either the FCO gives that advice or it does not give it, but it must be consistent. People will understand that Julie was particularly disturbed by this incident, and of course anyone’s heart will go out to the honeymooning couple and their families, but in her communications with the FCO Julie had specifically noted the beaches of South Africa as danger spots. Who knows if the couple would have read such advice if it had been provided, and who knows if they would have taken note of it? However, surely the point is that it is our duty to do all we can to alert people and then allow them to make their own decisions, and that cannot be done only after an event. Provision must be consistent. I would be really grateful to the Minister if he could commit to ensuring that that happens. It is quite important that it does happen and, as I said, I think it has already been agreed that it would happen.

Regarding the overarching problem of how consular staff deal with grieving families, people listening to this debate may believe that because the families are grieving everything becomes magnified and perhaps things are not quite as bad as they say, but I can tell the Minister that I know what these families say is correct. Of course, as I have already said, there will be great advisers out there, who put their heart and soul into supporting people, and I want them to know that I am not talking to them. However, I know that the things that I am talking about do happen, and that when they happen it is crushing. I know, because a few years ago my brother Stephen died very suddenly in a foreign country. I will not go into detail, because I am certain beyond doubt that my family do not want to read about it in the newspapers again; it is too raw and it is too personal. Nevertheless, I feel that I have to tell the Minister that I was one of those family members and I experienced exactly what all of those other families describe. I have heard them describe the experience of dealing with the FCO as being like suffering a bereavement all over again, and it is true. It is hard to hear, it is hard to say, but it is true.

I was stunned to have an adviser from the consular support team shout down the phone at me. There was no reason for it; I was too weak and too confused to have given him any reason to shout at me. He was clearly just having a bad day, but the lack of compassion astounded me. In addition, I was given advice that I later regretted taking: “Have him cremated.” I did. The “support” that I got was a list of preferred cremation providers, all of whom wanted four times as much money as I ended up paying. The FCO staff did not care that we could not afford their expensive recommendations; it was of no consequence to them that we did not speak the language and they did. Worst of all, they did not do anything to help us to get the answers that we were so desperately seeking. Had it not been for a friend of mine who happened to live in that city, I do not know how we would have got through the experience. If it happened now, we would have the comfort of a fatal accident inquiry, but then we were more or less dismissed as if we did not matter—as if he did not matter.

When I speak of the distress that these families feel, my family have felt it too. When I speak of the coldness with which they are treated, I was cold-shouldered too. As others have said, when I really needed someone to have a bit of compassion, there was not an ounce of it. That is why I know what strength it must take for someone to put aside their grief and to get out there and fight for others. I really pay tribute to those who have done that—Eve Henderson and many more people who I do not have permission to name, but they know who they are. Julie Love has been a tireless advocate for the families.

[Lady Hermon]

Would the hon. Lady like me to intervene?

[Anne McLaughlin]

Yes, please.

[Lady Hermon]

It is very kind of the hon. Lady to allow me to intervene and I am very grateful to her for very kindly drawing the House’s attention, and the Minister’s attention, to the dreadful experience of the young honeymooning couple. They were in their mid-20s; they were inseparable in life; and tragically they ended up being inseparable in death as well. However, I repeat that the FCO and the consular staff were extraordinarily kind and compassionate to their families.

I do not want to delay the hon. Lady from concluding her contribution, which is deeply moving.

[Anne McLaughlin]

I very much thank the hon. Lady. I will try to continue.

I will end by saying that Julie Love has been a tireless advocate for the families of British citizens who have died abroad. People such as Julie and Eve do this work not for themselves—it is too late for them—but for others so that their grief is not compounded. Julie and Eve’s organisations support individuals and while there is always a role for the third sector to provide additional, supplementary or specialist support, it is clear that sometimes such organisations have to step into a gap left by the varying level of support offered by consular services.

The families and campaign groups have many more questions that they would like me to ask, but I think I should stop now and allow others to speak. I simply ask, finally, that the Minister agrees to receive information from us, and perhaps at a later stage to meet with us to discuss how we can ensure that we meet people’s needs and—where the FCO cannot do that—how we ensure that there is support for the organisations that can. After all, Minister, there is nobody better placed to tell you what was missing, what is still missing and what is really needed when someone you love dies overseas than my family, and people such as Eve Henderson and Julie Love, the mother of Colin Love.

[Ms Karen Buck (in the Chair)]

For the guidance of Members who wish to speak, I will point out that this debate has to finish at 5.40 pm and I intend to call the Front-Bench spokespersons at 5.20 pm, so we have 15 minutes. I hope that can be a guide for people wishing to make a contribution to the debate.

17:06

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

I begin by paying tribute to the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Anne McLaughlin). It is very rare in this House that we hear speeches that come from the heart and that can move people to tears, but listening to her speak about her experiences is one of those occasions. I thank her for sharing her experiences, and those of all the families who have sadly lost someone while they were abroad. The passion that she has brought to this debate underlines how important this issue is, which is why we are discussing it today.

Six months ago, this issue was brought home to me and to the close-knit community of Blackwood. An evil attack on innocent holidaymakers in Tunisia rocked the world and our country. One of our own was ripped away from her friends and family. I remember hearing the news and thinking, “This is the type of thing that happens to other people, and not to somebody from a close-knit south Wales valleys community.”

Trudy Jones devoted her life to looking after other people. Those who knew her described her as an angel, and she always put others before herself. She worked tirelessly for her family, friends and community. In the face of this act of evil, which has been brought back to the world’s focus by the events of the last few days in France, I am proud to say that our community—my community—in Blackwood came together in support and to offer condolences.

Nothing can ever bring back a lost loved one, but it is the duty of Government to provide any and all support when someone is lost, especially when their life is taken away in a brutal attack in another country. Families of victims rightly expect consular services to be there for them, and to act in a timely, understanding and competent manner. I will not speak about particular cases, as that would be unfair to the families involved. However, it is of great concern to me that, following the horrific attack in Tunisia, both those who survived and the families of those who did not survive reported significant failings in the initial Foreign Office response. One person even described Foreign Office staff as being both “rude and ignorant”.

Sadly, we saw consular staff in Tunisia react dismissively to worried family members who were attempting to find out information. I make it clear to the Minister that this evidence is anecdotal, but it is from families who have suffered a tragic loss. It appeared to those families that, far from helping them in any way possible, all too often FCO staff acted as though they did not want to talk to them when they were going through the most horrific of times.

I can only compare that response to the response from the Belgian embassy. The Belgian embassy staff arrived promptly after the attack; they wore jackets bearing the national flag; and they checked on the welfare of their nationals, briefed them on evacuation plans, and acted quickly to establish the identities of those who had lost their life. It took me a couple of hours to confirm through the FCO—by ringing it—that I had lost a constituent. In the end, it was a news organisation that confirmed the news to me as Trudy’s Member of Parliament. I am sure that UK consular staff often perform their duties well and effectively, but on this occasion they were found wanting.

I urge the Minister to instigate a review of what happened on that terrible day. Beyond the failings regarding the attack, many people were left in limbo, not knowing whether their loved ones were safe and fearing the worst. Questions must be asked about the travel advice. Why was it not changed following the suicide bombing in Sousse, which took place months before the horrific attack earlier this year? Tour operators continued to sell and publicise tickets to Sousse, despite a demonstrable increase in the threat of terrorism. Tour operators have a duty to make travellers aware of potential problems if they are selling tickets to such destinations. Most people rightly assume that places are safe if tour operators are promoting them.

However, it is not only tour operators that have a duty to ensure that people are informed. Decisions by private companies are naturally based on Government advice. Indeed, after the murder of innocent holidaymakers in Tunisia, the tour operator Thomson said that at all times it followed Foreign Office travel advice, which did not prohibit travel to Tunisia. I urge the Minister again to look at why advice was not changed, and to ensure that when there is a threat to the lives of British citizens, that is reflected in the activities of tour operators.

I began my speech by mentioning the evil murder of my constituent Trudy Jones. I end by once again stating that the entire community of Blackwood is still here for her family. I am here for her family. I watched with sadness the video her family produced in memory of her amazing life. Trudy truly was an inspiring individual. Nothing can ever bring her back, but we can ensure that if another of our citizens is ever taken away, the FCO and consular services provide the right support, with competency, efficiency and, most of all, compassion. Like the hon. Member for Glasgow North East, I pay tribute to all those who have campaigned to ensure that those who have lost loved ones abroad are treated with respect and, above all, dignity. I associate myself with her remarks about Julie Love.

17:11

[Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to take part in this debate. As the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Anne McLaughlin) will know, my experience of Foreign Office staff, particularly its consular staff, has been very positive, and I wanted to put that on the record. I am grateful to her for securing the debate and giving us all an opportunity to speak of our experiences.

On 23 October this year, two young constituents, John and Lynette Rodgers of Holywood in County Down, were on their honeymoon in South Africa. They had got married at First Holywood Presbyterian church just six days earlier. They were happy and they were in love. As I said in my intervention, they were inseparable in life. They were much loved by their families. Lynette’s mother, Eva Reilly, had been widowed some years ago. She has one son, Graham, but Lynette was her only daughter. Likewise, John Rodgers was the only son of his family, who come from Ballygowan. His mother and father, Billy and Johann, were deeply distressed by his tragic, untimely death in South Africa, as were John’s sisters, Gwen and Kathryn.

When the news came through late on the Friday evening, I went straight to the home of Eva Reilly. The Police Service of Northern Ireland had already visited to break the terrible, tragic news of the death of this young couple on honeymoon in South Africa. The global response team kept in touch with both families during that night, and the young lady on duty did not leave her desk at 9 o’clock, Saturday morning, before phoning both families to update them with the latest information about their loved ones.

The consular staff were absolutely outstanding, both in South Africa and here in London in the Foreign Office. I have nothing but the greatest admiration for the sensitivity with which they handled a tragedy for both families, the whole community of Holywood and the town of Ballygowan. The families were enormously dignified and courageous in the face of terrible tragedy, but their sorrow and grief was lessened by the updating by, and the sensitivity and intervention of, Foreign Office staff. The PSNI also appointed a single liaison officer for both families, which was an exceedingly good decision. The bodies of John and Lynette were brought home on the Friday following the accident. That was absolutely remarkable. I say again that that is full credit to the Foreign Office staff, who made the travel arrangements, liaised closely with the PSNI and with the families at all times, and kept the local MP informed.

At the joint funeral of those two young people, which took place in the church in which they were married, hymns were played that they had sung just a fortnight before at their wedding. I have attended far too many funerals in Northern Ireland, but I do not think I have ever seen printed on the back of an order of service a tribute of thanks to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the PSNI family liaison officer, mentioned by name. I thought that was a wonderful tribute. I have subsequently written to the Foreign Secretary and to consular staff to thank them personally for what they did to support and give great comfort to two families and a community at a time of real need, and I am full of admiration for that.

17:16

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to speak on this poignant issue. I commend all three speakers on their personal contributions. They told compassionate, heartrending stories, and every one of them resonated—one in particular: that of my colleague and hon. Friend, the Member for North Down (Lady Hermon). Lynette was one of her constituents for most of, if not all, her life. John Rodgers was one of my constituents. He married Lynette and moved to my hon. Friend’s constituency, so these issues resonate with us. Unfortunately, similar incidents have occurred with my constituents. On two different occasions, single ladies died while on holiday. I honestly have to say that the response from consular staff has always been good. I could not say otherwise, because that would be unfair and untrue. I am, however, mindful of the debate so far, which has outlined where improvements can be made, and I know the Minister will respond to those points.

Like my hon. Friend, I visited the home of the Rodgers family. John Rodgers’ mum, dad and sisters asked me to convey their thanks to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the consular staff for all that they did. I did that in writing and I do that publicly today, so that it is recorded in Hansard, which is important.

I am conscious that you have indicated the timings we need to work to, Ms Buck; I will keep to them. I want to raise with the Minister the point that it is not possible to register a death with the British authorities in a number of states, including Ascension Island, Australia, Bermuda, Canada, the Cayman Islands, Christmas Island, the Falkland Islands, Gibraltar, the Irish Republic, which is next to us, Nevis, New Zealand, St Helena, the Turks and Caicos Islands, the British Virgin Islands, and South Africa. While it may not have been possible to register the deaths with the British authorities, the consular staff came forward and worked compassionately and directly to ensure that it happened. The Minister’s staff are probably checking to make sure that list is correct. The way in which consular staff have kept in touch with families, particularly in the case of the death of John and Lynette, indicates that there is compassion and understanding. They went out of their way to ensure that things went in the right way.

My final point is on the two ladies who passed away on holiday. Consular staff did their bit, but the tour operators did not always respond in the proper way to the tragic deaths. Will the Minister indicate how consular staff work with the tour operators who book people into hotels, because, in my experience, they sometimes fail?

Thank you, Ms Buck, for the chance to speak. I thank the hon. Member for Glasgow North East for showing us all what needs to be done. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

17:20

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Buck. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East (Anne McLaughlin), who is my own MP, on securing the debate. She has clearly taken an interest in the issue for many years, including when she was in the Scottish Parliament. She has a strong personal interest, and I echo the comments that have been made about her moving testimony. I extend my sympathies and those of the Scottish National party to the families of all the individuals we have heard about this afternoon. The debate is particularly timely given the shocking events in Paris last week. I want to put on record my own shock and sadness at those atrocities. My thoughts and prayers are with all those affected.

My hon. Friend helpfully laid out the background to the debate in considerable detail. Figures from the Scottish Government released in answer to our parliamentary question a few years ago suggest that the number of deaths of people from Scotland occurring overseas and registered with the relevant local consulate is relatively small—between 40 and 60 a year. I imagine the UK-wide figures are a similar proportion of the overall population. Nevertheless, each of those cases represents unique circumstances and undoubted sorrow and difficulty for those left behind. Providing comfort and support for the bereaved is surely one of the most basic of human instincts. Indeed, at Prayers in the Chamber on Monday, we heard the Beatitudes, which include the message:

“Blessed are those who mourn; for they shall be comforted.”

I have personal experience of the need for consular assistance. About 18 months ago a good friend of mine was very seriously—thankfully, not fatally—injured in an accident on holiday. I know how traumatic the family found that situation and how important consular assistance can be, especially when there are language issues or considerable and costly distances involved. I do not doubt the sincerity and human sympathy with which most consular staff will react when responding to inquiries and requests for support from bereaved family and friends. However, as we have heard, sadly there are cases in which the support does not live up to expectations, or somehow falls short of the duties and responsibilities of consulates.

Perhaps there is a question around the management of expectations. I have read the guidance from the FCO on support for British nationals abroad. It is a thorough document that makes it clear what consulates can and cannot—or perhaps will and will not— do to support UK citizens overseas in different circumstances. But perhaps there is still a job of work to be done in making that information more widely available and more widely known. It is available online; perhaps it is available in consulates. Can the Minister tell us whether it is available in airports, from travel agents or on holiday booking websites? Is it available as an app or an e-book? There are different ways of making such information available nowadays.

Perhaps there is an opportunity for the Government to keep under review the services they can offer in these situations. Again, I accept that to a certain extent the role of consulates is defined by international conventions, and that the UK Government must accept the rule of law and relevant customs in particular countries; and it is also true that the services provided are funded not directly by the taxpayer but through a levy on the cost of passports. Nevertheless, if there is a demand for or expectation of different kinds of support, some of which we have heard about—perhaps more assistance with repatriation, easier access to funds and so on—perhaps the Government should consider that. Perhaps the Minister will tell us, in the light of this debate, what consideration they will give to that.

We also accept that there is no substitute for travel insurance, but again, perhaps there is a case for better public communication and awareness of what travel insurance can and cannot provide. That is equally true of the European health insurance card. In particular, it does not provide for repatriation of either injured or deceased persons.

There are particular issues to consider when a death overseas is not the result of natural causes. I welcome the recent review that was referred to and the consideration the Government have given to the role of consular assistance in cases of murder or manslaughter. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East said, it will be interesting to hear what progress is being made in taking that review and the recommendations forward.

In the case of a fatal accident, I welcome, as my hon. Friend did, the moves that the Scottish Government are taking on the Inquiries into Fatal Accidents and Sudden Deaths etc. (Scotland) Bill, which will allow for discretionary fatal accident inquiries into the deaths of Scots abroad where the body has been repatriated to Scotland. I pay tribute to the campaigners, especially Julie Love, who is a constituent of mine and has worked very hard on this alongside my colleague and constituent Bob Doris, who is a Member of the Scottish Parliament for Glasgow.

As we know from recent experiences, there are other circumstances to consider. Terrorism, pandemics and natural disasters can also lead to the deaths of citizens overseas, and it is right that those are dealt with on a case-by-case basis. I hope the Minister will assure us that the Scottish Government will be involved in such situations, particularly when Scottish residents are affected.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East once again on securing the debate, and I echo the questions that she has asked. The issues involved are sensitive and require a considered and humane response. I hope the Government will continue to engage constructively when particular situations arise or suggestions are made.

17:25

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Ms Buck. I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Anne McLaughlin) on securing the debate and highlighting this important issue. She spoke so powerfully and so sadly from personal experience, and she highlighted the many families who have campaigned for some years. She made an excellent speech and made specific points with which I agree, including asking the Minister to consider in detail whether a central unit to assist families might be the best way forward.

Sadly, many Members will have had constituents who died abroad. We know it is an awful experience for all those affected. The heartbreak of losing a friend or relative is often compounded by the stress of repatriating a body and navigating a foreign legal system. As we know, and as the hon. Member for Glasgow North East and the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) mentioned, consular assistance was required this weekend after the atrocities in Paris. I know all our sympathies are with everyone affected, including our consular and locally employed staff who are having to deal with the aftermath of that awful terrorist attack.

Sadly, there is a growing trend of British citizens being caught up in terrorist attacks abroad, including, as has already been mentioned, the attacks in Sousse in Tunisia in June, where more than 30 British citizens were killed, including my own constituent, Claire Windass, who was murdered while on holiday with her husband. In that case, the family told me that the consular assistance they were given was of a very high standard.

I note what the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) said about the very sad case of John and Lynette and how the consular assistance and support that was given to the families in very distressing circumstances was outstanding. I also note what the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said about the positive experiences that he had had over the years. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans) talked about the way in which families had been treated in the case of the Tunisian atrocity, so there is obviously a very mixed picture.

[Lady Hermon]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady and to everyone who has made a contribution. I am profoundly embarrassed by having to say that I have a commitment that means I have to leave the debate, but I did not want the hon. Lady to feel offended. I apologise to you, Ms Buck, and to the Minister and all colleagues for my leaving due to the pressure of a particular commitment that I simply cannot avoid attending. I apologise to the hon. Lady and thank her for offering sympathy to the families of the young honeymoon couple from my constituency who died. It is kind of her to do so.

[Diana Johnson]

I thank the hon. Lady for her comments and for her apologies for leaving.

I hope the Minister will be able to update the House on the work that the FCO is undertaking to ensure that embassies are prepared to deal with major incidents and terror attacks, because unfortunately we see more of them happening. As the number of staff employed at consulates is reduced, what is being done to be able to quickly increase capacity at times of acute need?

I want to raise a few issues arising from the Foreign Affairs Committee report. Like the hon. Member for Glasgow North East, I want to refer to recommendations that came out of that excellent report. I pay tribute to the members of the Committee and to everyone who was willing to give evidence. I read the very distressing accounts of what had happened to their loved ones and the difficulties that they experienced in accessing support from consular services.

The first issue raised by the Select Committee report that I want to emphasise is the need to ensure that the support offered to families is consistent. It is clear that although in a number of cases families and loved ones have received excellent support, many individuals have been let down. That appears to be partly because of the low minimum standards and inconsistent procedures for dealing with deaths abroad. I am glad that the Foreign Office has recognised that problem, and I welcome its commitment to increase the monitoring of feedback and use that to improve training. Will the Minister say a little more about what that actually means in practice?

The Select Committee raised particular concerns about the support offered to families who have suffered a bereavement due to murder or manslaughter. I agree with the Committee that the current minimum offer to such families is far short of what British citizens should expect to receive. I am glad that the FCO accepted that finding and I welcome the fact that the Government have conducted a review, but it sounds like that review is a work in progress. Numerous conclusions identify further work to be undertaken. For example, the review concludes:

“We are already reviewing training and development opportunities for staff”,

and goes on to say:

“We will ask the AJU to consider data protection rules and whether there may be ways of working more smartly within these”.

It also says:

“The AJU will consider how best to support relatives and friends beyond the immediate family”,

and continues:

“The AJU will explore what further measures can be taken at UK and foreign airports to reduce distress for families who are travelling.”

All those commitments and opportunities for review are welcome, but it would be good if the Minister could give us a final update on exactly what the outcomes are.

[Ms Karen Buck (in the Chair)]

Order. I know that the hon. Lady took an intervention, but we are going to have to move on to hear from the Minister in a moment.

[Diana Johnson]

Finally, next week is the comprehensive spending review, in which there are likely to be further cuts to the FCO budget. Will the Minister say what plans are in place to deal with a reduction in the number of consular staff? How will that play out in the light of the problems I identified earlier in my speech relating to terrorist attacks and the number of British citizens who, unfortunately, are at risk when they travel?

17:31

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (James Duddridge)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Anne McLaughlin) on securing this debate. She gave a heartfelt and very brave speech. Had I suffered the same personal circumstance, I am not sure that I would have been able to be quite so eloquent in the delivery of a large number of points. I have only seven or eight minutes to respond, so I want to say at the outset that I would like to meet the hon. Lady outside this debate—not literally outside, but perhaps at the Foreign Office—to discuss some of the points she raised in much more detail. We could either include outside organisations from the start, or discuss how we can liaise even more effectively with those organisations.

The hon. Lady mentioned three themes, which I would like to touch on. She asked what has changed since the Foreign Affairs Committee report. I will give my thoughts on some of the individual cases, because it is important that we learn from examples of where things have gone wrong. It is equally important that we learn from examples of where things have gone right. The debate has been very balanced, although it is easier in all walks of life to hear more about what goes wrong than what goes right. I suspect that the general view among the public, from reading national papers and so on, is slightly skewed. The front page of the Daily Mail has never been “Fabulous consular support offered in”—insert name of country. If only it was thus.

I pay tribute to a number of organisations. I am sure I would leave some out, so I will not attempt a list, but I pay particular tribute to the work of Julie Love, who lost her son in 2009. She has done a remarkable job setting up Death Abroad—You’re Not Alone, which seeks to support families. I also pay tribute to SAMM Abroad, another organisation to which the hon. Lady referred. The death of a loved one is always distressing, but a family’s grief can be compounded by not only the circumstance of that death but what happens afterwards. The British Government want to be part of ameliorating a bad process, rather than being part of any problem.

The hon. Members for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson), for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and, particularly, for North Down (Lady Hermon) outlined some really moving examples of where consular staff have got it right. Although there are sadly a large number of deaths, quite often, by the nature of there being only one or two people in post, it might be the first time that an individual staff member involved has dealt with a death. Everyone has their own experiences and concerns, and it is an emotional event for them. To put into context the work that is done, to date this year consular staff have been involved in 3,039 cases around the world. There have been 83 new murder cases so far this year, and 238 murder cases are ongoing and active.

I would like to draw colleagues’ attention to a document called “Guide for bereaved families”. Normally when there is a bereavement overseas, the initial point of contact is with a member of the police force who is in attendance, although in very rare cases a phone call is made. The other possibility is that an individual is contacted by the media. Notwithstanding that, a guide is given that goes into a lot of detail. Perhaps I will take the liberty of circulating it to the Members who are present and asking for feedback. It might also be worth circulating it more widely—the hon. Member for Glasgow North East mentioned case workers in particular.

In the two or three minutes I have remaining, I will try to canter through as many of the issues that have been raised as I can as a precursor to meeting the hon. Lady. On new training, we have changed things already, but the totality of new training has not yet been rolled out. That is ongoing.

The hon. Lady referred to a number of statistics from reports. The Foreign Office runs a survey, and from January to September 85% of people were satisfied with the level of service that they received. Nevertheless, I recognise that the data are likely to be skewed, in that those who report back to the Foreign Office are probably more likely to be happy, whereas I can imagine that those who report to support groups having looked first to the Foreign Office would be less likely to be satisfied. But to be frank, it is not acceptable for anyone to be unsatisfied, within reason.

Some really interesting ideas were mentioned relating to the use of desk officers. A specialist unit has been set up for cases of murder and manslaughter, so there will be the continuity that the hon. Lady sought. However, I gently suggest that there are advantages in using desk officers. They know the contacts in country, the language and the culture, which might not be the case with a centralised unit. I am happy to meet the hon. Lady to discuss and better understand the detail to see how that could be improved.

I do not have time to go into a lot of detail on travel advice, but I will review the disparities in the advice for South Africa. I am happy to discuss swimming conditions with the hon. Lady. The Foreign Office website discusses them in detail, but it is not always country-specific. In my experience of travel advice, more and more information can be added, but the risk is that people miss the bigger picture, such as in the case of advising, “Don’t travel to an entire area of the country because it is subject to terrorism.” So there is a case for not adding too much complexity, while also working more closely on travel advice.

The hon. Lady has indicated that I can take all the time available so that I can cover as many issues as possible.

[Anne McLaughlin]

indicated assent.

[James Duddridge]

A lot has been done in relation to Tunisia. The Prime Minister appointed the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), who suffered a loss when his brother was killed in the Bali bombings. He brought a lot of experience not only to how we assisted people in Tunisia but to how we followed up on that. We deployed experts and changed the travel advice as quickly as a possible, although there is a duty to be accurate as well as fast. We are looking at options for additional family support, and we still need to consider in detail a number of points in the Foreign Affairs Committee report.

Alas, there is not enough time for me to answer all the questions that have been asked, but I thank the hon. Member for Glasgow North East, who made a very brave and thoughtful speech. Good will come of her raising this matter in the House, and I look forward to working with her in more detail.

17:40

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

Written Statement

Wednesday 18th November 2015 Written Statements

Wednesday 18 November 2015

Energy and Climate Change Policy

Wednesday 18th November 2015 Written Statements

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

Today I am setting out my priorities for the UK’s energy and climate change policy for the coming Parliament and publishing the DECC autumn update which sets out our key priorities and the recent progress the Department has made against them.

Affordable, reliable clean energy is critical to our economy, our national security, and to family budgets. We need secure energy so people can get on with their lives and businesses can plan for the future. Affordable energy so the people that foot the bill get a good deal, and clean energy to safeguard our future economic security and ensure we can meet our climate change commitments.

I am confident the steps we have taken alongside National Grid and Ofgem will ensure the security of our electricity supply in the next few years. In the long-term, our vision is of markets characterised by rigorous competition to keep costs down. We want to see a competitive electricity market, with government out of the way as much as possible, by 2025.

New nuclear and gas will be central to our energy secure future and we are encouraging investment in our shale gas exploration so we can add new sources of home-grown supply to our real diversity of imports. Today I am launching a consultation on a strategy to maximise the economic recovery of the North Sea.

We are world leaders in offshore wind and globally we can make a lasting technological contribution. Today I will announce that we will make funding available for three auctions in this Parliament with the first taking place by the end of 2016. This support will be strictly conditional on the delivery of the cost reductions we have seen already accelerating. If that happens we could support up to 10GW of additional offshore wind in the 2020s. We have already seen the cost of solar come down by 35% in the last three years.

One of the greatest and most cost-effective contributions we can make to emission reductions in electricity is by replacing coal-fired power stations with gas. We will be launching a consultation in the spring on when to close all unabated coal-fired power stations. Our consultation will set out proposals to close coal by 2025—and restrict its use from 2023.

If we take this step, we will be one of the first developed countries to deliver on a commitment to take coal off the system.

We have to demonstrate that the low carbon transition can be cost-effective and will deliver growth for the economy and affordable energy prices for consumers. We are on track for our current and next carbon budgets but the fourth carbon budget is going to be tough to achieve. We will need action right across the economy: in transport; waste and buildings. We will be setting out our plans next year for meeting the fourth and fifth carbon budgets.

To reduce bills and carbon we will also work to cut energy use itself. Over the last five years, more than 1.2 million households are seeing lower bills due to energy efficiency improvements. We are committed to ensuring a million more get the same benefits by the end of this Parliament, and that support is concentrated on those in greatest need.

A fully smart energy system could help us to reduce costs further by tens of billions of pounds over the decades ahead. Smart meters are a key building block and every home and small business in Britain will get them by the end of 2020. Alongside the National Infrastructure Commission, we will work with National Grid, Ofgem and others to consider how to reform the current system operator model to make it more flexible, responsive and independent.

As well as taking action at home, we must work with others internationally. Climate change is a global problem, not a local one. This is why I am determined that we help restore the EU emissions trading system to full health and build stronger ties on energy within Europe, and why a global deal in Paris next month is so important. Paris must deliver that and help unleash the levels of private investment and local action needed.

DECC Autumn Update

Also today I am publishing the DECC autumn update which provides an overview of the Department’s priorities and includes a number of progress reports, updates and recent publications of interest. This will be available on the gov.uk website.

In particular these include the Green Deal and Energy Company Obligation (ECO) annual report for 2015 and the fourth DECC annual report on the roll-out of smart meters.

Green Deal and Energy Company Obligation (ECO) Annual Report

The Green Deal and Energy Company Obligation (ECO) annual report for 2015 covers the extent to which Green Deal plans and ECO have contributed to the carbon budgets. These schemes have helped install 1.6 million energy efficiency measures in 1.3 million homes since 2010.

Copies of the report will be made available in the House Library. The report will be available on the gov.uk website.

Fourth DECC Annual Report on the Roll-Out of Smart Meters

The report sets out progress made in 2015, and covers the work that Government and industry are undertaking to ensure that the smart metering roll-out delivers the expected benefits to households and small businesses by the end of 2020.

The programme is making good progress and consumers are already enjoying the control and convenience that smart metering brings, with over 1.7 million smart and advanced meters already operating in homes and businesses.

The annual report can be found at:

https://www.gov.uk/government/policies/helping-households-to-cut-their-energy-bills/supporting-pages/smart-meters.

[HCWS312]

House of Lords

Wednesday 18th November 2015 Lords Chamber

Wednesday, 18 November 2015.

15:00

Prayers—read by the Lord Bishop of Birmingham.

Royal Assent

Wednesday 18th November 2015 Lords Chamber

15:06

The following Act was given Royal Assent:

Finance (No. 2) Act.

Restorative Justice

Wednesday 18th November 2015 Lords Chamber

Question

15:07

Asked by

[Lord Blair of Boughton]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the effectiveness of restorative justice services in England and Wales.

[Lord Blair of Boughton (CB)]

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I draw attention to my interests as a former chair and a current trustee of the Thames Valley Partnership, which manages restorative justice in the Thames Valley Police area.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Faulks) (Con)]

My Lords, there has been no formal assessment to date. However, the Ministry of Justice is aware of the progress that police and crime commissioners are making in developing and delivering restorative justice services and is offering advice and guidance where necessary. The recently announced Justice Select Committee inquiry into restorative justice will help to provide a comprehensive picture of restorative justice across England and Wales.

[Lord Blair of Boughton]

I thank the Minister for that Answer, particularly in national Restorative Justice Week. I congratulate the Government on their interest in restorative justice and on the amount of money they have transmitted to police and crime commissioners for restorative justice services. As far as I know, restorative justice is the only criminal justice intervention which has been proved to be effective through random control trials, in the same way as medical research, in assisting victims to recover and reducing reoffending. However, there are persistent and widespread accounts of RJ services facing difficulties and delays in obtaining victim contact details from police and the courts. Without this, RJ simply cannot work. What are Her Majesty’s Government going to do to clear this blockage?

[Lord Faulks]

My Lords, to clear the blockage, apart from other steps, the new victims’ code, which was published two days ago, now requires the police to pass on victims’ details to RJ service providers unless asked not to do so—in other words, an opt-out. This is in line with the mechanism for referral for other victims’ services. We are working with the Association of Policing & Crime Chief Executives to ensure that its toolkit on information sharing is up to date and are making connections between areas where there is good restorative justice take-up and other areas where there is not such a good take-up.

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords, have the Government taken carefully into account the experience of Northern Ireland, where there have been some remarkable schemes over the last decade or more?

[Lord Faulks]

The Government are aware that there are a number of schemes, in not only Northern Ireland, but Australia, New Zealand and parts of North America. There is no standardised way of delivering restorative justice but the Government are committed to continuing this as a significant way of improving reoffending rates and providing victims with a reasonable involvement with the criminal justice system.

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)]

My Lords, the MoJ is to be congratulated on its action plan produced by the coalition Government and on promoting Restorative Justice Week. There is strong evidence that restorative justice programmes can be effective in prisons as well as in the community, and Sycamore Tree has been running programmes in 40 prisons. Will the new prisons built to replace existing outdated ones have the facilities necessary to run restorative justice programmes, and in surroundings that are sympathetic to victims, who are central to restorative justice?

[Lord Faulks]

The noble Lord is right that restorative justice is provided in a number of settings, including in prisons. Of course, the new prison plans are somewhat in their infancy at the moment but I am sure that the Secretary of State will have well in mind the desirability of maintaining this tradition.

[The Lord Bishop of Worcester]

My Lords, does the Minister accept that, whatever the statistics regarding effectiveness, for those who participate in it restorative justice is a profoundly affecting experience? I have witnessed the restorative justice programme in HM Prison Hewell in my diocese, and for all concerned—particularly for members of the community—it is a deeply affecting experience which is profoundly for the common good.

[Lord Faulks]

I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate for that contribution. The statistics show 85% overall victim satisfaction and a 14% reduction in reoffending. These things have to be approached very carefully because of course not all victims want to be involved in it and they must be allowed to pull out at the last moment if they so wish. However, the take-up is remarkable.

[Lord Ramsbotham (CB)]

My Lords, I once attended a restorative justice conference at a prison which was spoiled because, at the end of it, the prison governor admitted that he was unable to deliver any of the programme that had been outlined by the admirable police chairman of the commission. Can the Minister assure the House that prisons have been instructed that it is essential that they provide all the necessary support for restorative justice programmes to make certain that they are effective?

[Lord Faulks]

I will of course pass on that concern to the Prisons Minister. I assure the noble Lord that the standards for restorative justice are set out in the victims’ code, and the necessary trained facilitation and all the necessary support should be present.

[Lord Beecham (Lab)]

My Lords, it is some eight years, I think, since the publication of the last report validating the success of the restorative justice programme. Since that time, I believe that the Howard League for Penal Reform has made an annual award to schemes covering respectively adults and young offenders. Is it possible for the Government now to look at ways of supporting that kind of approach in order to promote the scheme and perhaps invest in it, given that the likelihood is that the development of restorative justice will cause savings to be made in the custodial system and indeed in the judicial system?

[Lord Faulks]

The Government are well aware of the advantages of restorative justice and in fact they have contributed to it very considerably, with £30 million having been made available to RJ services for victims over the last three years. Of course, the noble Lord is right to draw attention to the Howard League’s contribution. There have been contributions from all sorts of providers in different fields.

[Lord Elton (Con)]

My Lords, as I recall, the initial pioneering effort was made by the Thames Valley Police Authority, which deserved great credit for that. Do any police authorities not provide restorative justice services at present?

[Lord Faulks]

My noble friend is right to single out the Thames Valley Probation Service, and the noble Lord, Lord Blair, is intimately concerned with that. All police and crime commissioners have been provided with funds, although the take-up has varied between authorities. As I indicated in answer to an earlier question, it is important that best practice is shared among the various areas.

Human Rights: UK Application

Wednesday 18th November 2015 Lords Chamber

Question

15:14

Asked by

[Lord Lexden]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to ensure that fundamental rights apply equally in all parts of the United Kingdom.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Faulks) (Con)]

My Lords, the Government are committed to protecting human rights. There is already some variation across the United Kingdom, as the devolved Administrations have competence to legislate in respect of human rights in the policy areas devolved to them. The Government were elected with a mandate to reform the UK’s human rights framework. We will consider the implications for devolution of a Bill of Rights as we develop our proposals and will fully engage with the devolved Administrations.

[Lord Lexden (Con)]

Why should my gay friends in Belfast be denied the right to marry one another if they wish to do so, while my gay friends in London can exercise that right? The first civil partnership in the United Kingdom took place in Belfast, but a same-sex marriage is impossible there. Has the time not come to review the scope and extent of the so-called Sewel convention, under which this wholly unfair state of affairs has arisen? While we are about it, do we not need a new name for the convention?

[Lord Faulks]

I will gracefully decline to answer the last part of the noble Lord’s question. As to the first part, the position is that this Government, and indeed this Parliament, were pioneers in passing the same-sex marriage Act. Since then, the Republic of Ireland has followed suit, the American Supreme Court has accepted the argument, and the European Court of Human Rights has also. We can be proud that we have set the way. We also commended it to the Northern Ireland Executive, both before and after the passing of the legislation, but ultimately this is a question of devolution. The Northern Ireland Executive are capable of making that decision themselves. The matter is the subject of two judicial reviews. At the moment, there is no inclination on the part of the Northern Ireland Executive to take matters forward, and I hope that that changes.

[Baroness Whitaker (Lab)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that the human rights of Gypsies and Travellers are much better protected in Wales than in England because the Government have created an obligation on local authorities to provide sites? Why can we not do the same thing here?

[Lord Faulks]

The noble Baroness has particular expertise and knowledge of this area, and I defer to her knowledge, as it were, on the ground. The application of the law in relation to human rights should of course be common across England and Wales.

[Lord Trimble (Con)]

My Lords, I draw the Minister’s attention to the Dudgeon case, which concerned the legalisation of homosexuality. Mr Dudgeon was from Northern Ireland, where homosexuality was still an offence when it was not an offence elsewhere. He went to the European Court, which held that human rights must be uniform throughout the country. I think that that might be relevant here, too.

[Lord Faulks]

The question of uniformity is difficult. Although the European Court of Human Rights maintains certain core standards, it nevertheless acknowledges a margin of appreciation for all members of the Council of Europe. We may well feel that some countries respect these better than others, but unless there is a violation of a convention right, that is a matter for the individual country.

[Lord Dubs (Lab)]

My Lords, it is many years since the Good Friday agreement. Surely the British Government have an obligation as regards a Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland. Have not we dragged our heels for far too long? I know that there are difficulties among the parties, but surely the British Government should take the initiative.

[Lord Faulks]

Once again, the question is not exclusively for the British Government. While the British Government are anxious to see the protection of human rights here, in Northern Ireland and in Ireland as a whole, it is also a matter for others.

[Lord Lester of Herne Hill (LD)]

Will the Minister please confirm to the House that the Secretary of State has the power under Section 26 of the Northern Ireland Act to give direction to the devolved institutions in Northern Ireland to secure their compliance with the European Human Rights Convention? If he does confirm that, will he tell us whether the Secretary of State has thought about exercising that power so as—to take the example given already about marriage, or perhaps the example of defamation or blasphemy—to secure full compliance in the Province with the obligations under the convention?

[Lord Faulks]

I am extremely hesitant to answer a question of law from the Dispatch Box. That is a matter that I will consider and write to the noble Lord about. It is a matter of concern for the Secretary of State and I am sure that it will continue to be, as it is for the Ministry of Justice as a whole.

[Lord Bew (CB)]

My Lords, does the Minister acknowledge that public opinion in Northern Ireland on this matter is changing rapidly? A few months ago, the Assembly voted on it, and there was a narrow vote against change. Very recently, there was a narrow vote for, which fell on a technicality. There will be a general election shortly, which will change the composition of the Assembly. Does the Minister agree that it may be better to leave this for the normal process of public opinion in Northern Ireland, which is moving very much in the same direction as public opinion in the Republic? Might this not be better than at this point raising issues such as Article 14 of the Strasbourg convention, which drove reforms on this issue in the past in Northern Ireland and could do so again? At this point it might solve itself naturally.

[Lord Faulks]

I am very grateful to the noble Lord. I have followed and been told about the progress at the moment and the fact that it was by only a narrow vote that the matter did not progress further. I think there may be something in what the noble Lord says about allowing the matter to develop and hope the solution will come without the rather more draconian measures which have been suggested.

[Lord Goldsmith (Lab)]

My Lords—

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

My Lords—

[The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Stowell of Beeston) (Con)]

My Lords, I am sorry to intervene. As you know, at Question Time we try to apply a number of principles. It is the turn of the Conservative Benches, but I think on this occasion the House is calling for the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, so we will go to him, and then we will, I hope, have time for a Conservative.

[Lord Goldsmith]

It is good to hear from the noble Lord the commitments to human rights and also, particularly, what he said in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Lexden. There is a more basic problem, as the noble Lord will know, even more so than that of same-sex marriages, which is the criminalisation of homosexuality in certain parts of the world. What can the Minister say about the British Government’s persuasion of other countries, particularly Commonwealth countries, to get rid of the criminalisation of homosexuality and treat people decently in that respect?

[Lord Faulks]

The Government maintain their firm resolve to do all they can to protect human rights, both here and abroad. It is a tradition which precedes this Government; it was part of the coalition Government’s policies and, indeed, those of the previous Labour Government. Nothing about any changes we might wish to make to the domestic arrangements has in any way diminished our enthusiasm or determination in that area.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

My Lords, is my noble friend aware of the extraordinary proposals by the Scottish Government to require a state guardian to be appointed for every child born in Scotland in order to ensure that parents are adequately looking after their children? Could he tell us what happens when those families move south of the border? Will that continue?

[Lord Faulks]

I am afraid that I am not seized of that particular issue, but I do know that in Scotland there are a number of different interpretations of what needs to be done in order to respect individual human rights. Some of those approaches vary considerably from the approach that we might take in this country. That is a feature of devolution.

Turkey

Wednesday 18th November 2015 Lords Chamber

Question

15:23

Asked by

[Lord Maginnis of Drumglass]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what active moral and diplomatic support they have given to Turkey since the Middle East immigration crisis began.

[The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Anelay of St Johns)]

My Lords, Her Majesty’s Government commend the generosity of Turkey and the extraordinary efforts it is making to host more refugees fleeing conflicts in the Middle East than any other country. The UK has announced a new contribution of up to £275 million over the next two years to help Turkey address the consequences of the Syria conflict. This builds on the UK’s existing funding of £34 million to humanitarian projects in Turkey since the crisis began.

[Lord Maginnis of Drumglass (Ind UU)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her Answer, as far as it goes. While our hearts bleed for those in France who have been the victims of terrorism, is there any awareness that Turkey, our ally of more than 90 years, has, during the past four months, had something like 160 members of security forces and police and 185 civilians—a total of 345 citizens—murdered by terrorists? As well as those, almost 1,500 people have been injured. I am not suggesting that we have a volte-face like Mrs Merkel, but what are we doing to acknowledge the difficulties that Turkey has between the Peshmerga and, for example, the PKK? Are we discriminating in our support for those two organisations to try to ensure that Turkey, with its 2.5 million refugees, is not left very much on its own, as it appears to be?

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, I am very much aware of the close diplomatic support provided by our embassy and our staff, not only in the capital but elsewhere across Turkey. The UK condemns the PKK’s recent attacks on Turkey, as we condemn all terrorism. Our thoughts are with the families of those who have been killed. We have called on the PKK to cease this violence. We defend Turkey’s right to defend itself against PKK attacks. PKK violence must end. We support the resumption of the peace process in the interests of Turkey and those of the wider region. We stand ready to help in any way we can.

[Lord Harrison (Lab)]

My Lords, on his forthcoming visit to the island of Cyprus, will the Foreign Secretary consult both communities on the island about the contribution they can make to mitigating the migration crisis? Will he take the opportunity to use all influence that the United Kingdom can have in supporting what appears to be a coming-together of the two communities on the island in a forthcoming agreement?

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, the House will recognise that it would be inappropriate for me to forecast in advance the exact movements of the Foreign Secretary today and tomorrow as he makes those visits, but I can echo the sentiment behind what the noble Lord says. We welcome President Erdogan’s and Prime Minister Davutoglu’s continued support for a Cyprus settlement. It is important that we talk to both communities in Cyprus about the implications of recent arrivals there. We are working very closely with the authorities over what happens to those who seek asylum and those who do not, because, naturally, it is a very sensitive area. The noble Lord can be assured that we are working closely with both communities.

[Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)]

My Lords, can the Minister give some more information about reports of the proposed EU-Turkey summit, which has been called to encourage Turkey to do more to stem the flow of refugees into Europe—to act, in effect, as a border guard against refugees to Europe? Can she also say why there was very little reporting or mention of the attacks in Ankara on 10 October, when two suicide bombers blew up and killed more than 100 Turks, when we have talked about other atrocities attributed to Daesh? Can she not see that not mentioning atrocities that take place outside Europe causes bad feeling and a sense that their lives do not matter? Have the Government issued condolences on that?

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, we are sympathetic to all those who die as a result of violent acts of terrorism. Having spent four days last week in Iraq and a day in Turkey talking to the Syrian national coalition and people involved in humanitarian efforts, I was able to express appreciation of what the Turkish Government do. What is produced by way of media emphasis is a matter for the media, but, clearly, it is disappointing if there is not a focus on serious events such as those that the noble Baroness has described—it was a time, of course, when elections were under way throughout Turkey. On the EU-Turkey action plan, which I think is the matter to which the noble Baroness refers, we welcome that action plan, which sets out how the EU and Turkey can increase co-operation to ease the refugee burden on Turkey while preventing further uncontrolled migration to the EU. We work closely within that.

[Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)]

My Lords, does my noble friend accept that our bonds with Turkey go even wider than the refugee issues that were rightly raised by the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis? First, Turkey is seeking still to be a member of the European Union, but it is a kind of European Union that needs to be reformed and which is very much in line with our own aims—so we have much common ground there and I hope we are working together on that. Secondly, there is the Cyprus issue, which the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, rightly raised. There is real hope that, with the backing and help of Turkey, we can at last see movement on that issue, which has gone on for 50 years. Thirdly, there is a vast expansion of hydrocarbons in the eastern Mediterranean, in which Turkey has some interest. Again, bearing in mind the interests of the Republic of Cyprus, I think we can help with that. So there is a very big agenda of work to be done with Turkey and I hope it will be encouraged.

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, I think I can simply agree with my noble friend’s analysis.

[Lord Wright of Richmond (CB)]

My Lords, in discussing with our Turkish allies how to counter the threat of ISIS, will the Government take into account the fact that Turkey has very different objectives from the rest of us?

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, we are well aware that every country may have its own security and future interests at heart. Turkey has been a key colleague in the fight against Daesh/ISIL and we are grateful that it allows the use of its airbases in the strike against such an evil opponent.

Emergency Services: Central London

Wednesday 18th November 2015 Lords Chamber

Question

15:30

Asked by

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the availability of emergency services in central London, and what steps they are taking to reinforce them in the light of the attacks in Paris on 13 November.

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

My Lords, I draw attention to my entries in the register and beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Bates) (Con)]

My Lords, working across government the Home Office has developed a police-led capability to deal with large-scale firearms attacks. We are reviewing the attacks in Paris to see if there is anything further we can learn. Further communications will be made in due course.

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that Answer. No doubt he is aware that the London Ambulance Service has failed in virtually every London borough in every month to meet its emergency response targets, that the number of authorised firearms police officers has dropped by 760 since 2009 to below 5,000, and that the Police Federation says that the police would struggle to cope with an incident such as occurred in Paris if it were to happen here. Does the Home Secretary support the view of my honourable friend the shadow Chancellor that police emergency response teams and neighbourhood teams should be exempted from the worst of the Chancellor’s cuts to be announced next week?

[Lord Bates]

On the specifics, the noble Lord will realise that we will have to wait for the announcement to be made as a result of the spending review next week. On the points that he made, he will be aware that since the 7/7 attacks in the capital there has been a counterterrorism strategy. There are regular operations as a result of the coroner’s report into those attacks in London. She recommended that there should be much greater interoperability between the different services. That has happened. Only this summer we had Operation Strong Tower, which was a 1,000 personnel strong exercise, following which the Metropolitan Police Commissioner said that he believed we were ready to meet the challenge should such attacks happen in the capital. We want to maintain that at all costs.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, over the past decade there has been an approximately 60% reduction in the number of fires and yet the Government apparently accept the fire service’s argument that it needs to retain resilience for the very rare occasions when a large number of appliances are required. Can the Minister tell the House, when deciding on police budget cuts, what account the Government take of the need to ensure police resilience to deal with Paris-like incidents and the riots that we have seen in 2015?

[Lord Bates]

The noble Lord makes a good point about the relationship between the fire service and the police. At the present time we have out to consultation a proposal for greater collaboration between all the emergency services, but particularly between fire and police. That consultation is being undertaken by the Department for Communities and Local Government and will report shortly. That will have a bearing on our future ability to respond to emergencies in a more connected way.

[Lord Clinton-Davis (Lab)]

Is it not right that our own defences in this country need to be strengthened as a result of the tragic events in Paris? Is it not right that those appalling scenes vividly depict the need for community action? What are we doing in that respect?

[Lord Bates]

This is very important. If we are going to tackle these people who would threaten our liberties, we need to work with the communities. That is why we have put forward our counterterrorism strategy, which my noble friend Lord Ahmad is leading, and we will bring forward legislation on that. Louise Casey has been asked to look particularly at what can be done to improve community cohesion. I totally agree with the noble Lord that the police and everyone in these communities should be working together to tackle this scourge.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, while it is all very well for the Minister to say that he knows the value of community, the current Commissioner of the Met Police has said that three-quarters of intelligence, whether it is about drugs, trafficking in people or terrorism, actually comes from the community, and yet the Government are savagely cutting the police budget. How do we square that circle? I do not understand why, although we can see that community intelligence is of value, police on the beat are being reduced.

[Lord Bates]

The key point to make is that of course we are not doing that. Neighbourhood policing numbers have increased by around 6,000 since 2010, and that is the straight answer. However, I have to say that a bigger thing is happening here. The nature of crime is changing and therefore the nature of policing needs to change. That is what the Inspector of Constabulary has said and it is the reason why a greater proportion of the budget is now being directed at cybercrime, which is dealt with by the intelligence agencies. They can provide surveillance, which is crucial to intercepting many of the terrorist attacks that have been planned in this country.

[Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)]

My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the public worry particularly about security issues and riots? In 2011 we had riots in London, and according to the Met Police we barely managed to get by. Last week, the Home Secretary announced that police forces could soon be without their own firearms units and should instead be moving towards creating regional firearms units. Given some of the transport difficulties we have in London when getting from point A to point B, are these regional units going to be effective if we are hit by big riots or security issues?

[Lord Bates]

The armed side of things, a point referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, is something on which the national policing unit liaises with the various chief constables and police and crime commissioners to check that the provision is adequate. I understand that the number of trained firearms officers is something that the Metropolitan Police Commissioner is discussing specifically with the Home Office at this time, in response to the Paris attacks.

[Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton (Lab)]

My Lords, will the Minister agree to write to me explaining the precise use over, say, the past eight years, of the term “community police officer”? It is my understanding that he is comparing chalk with cheese and, inadvertently I am certain, misleading the House.

[Lord Bates]

I do not think that that is the case. Of course, the noble Baroness is absolutely right in that a number of terms are used here. We have neighbourhood policing teams, police and community support officers, and special constables. Increasingly, those eyes and ears do not necessarily need to be constabulary members, they can be people who are brought in from the community to support this work. If the noble Baroness would like me to set it out in writing, I am very happy to do so.

European Union Referendum Bill

Wednesday 18th November 2015 Lords Chamber

Report (1st Day)

15:38

Clause 1: The referendum

Amendment 1

Moved by

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom]

1: Clause 1, page 1, line 6, at end insert—
“( ) Regulations under subsection (2) must appoint a day at least 10 weeks from the day on which the regulations are made.
( ) A draft of regulations under subsection (2) must be laid before each House of Parliament at least 16 weeks before the day to be appointed thereby.”

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, the two amendments in my name in this group were put down in the five working days we have had since Committee and I tabled them just to ensure that they were on the Marshalled List. Since then, my noble friend the Minister has very much met the concerns of these amendments, particularly in terms of the 10-week period for the regulations to come out leading up to the referendum day itself.

I also accept that the period of six weeks previous to that for the other regulations that have to be approved has proved to be rather too complicated, so I am basically happy with what my noble friend has done and I thank her for the amendment that she has brought forward, which meets the concerns. They were, of course, that until we had this provision in the Bill, the Government had the ability to call a referendum with 28 days’ notice, but now this will not be possible since we will have the 10-week period enshrined in the Bill itself. That is an important modification as far as we are concerned, and again I thank my noble friend for what she has done. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, is in his place, but I am sure that he will be grateful to know that I am not going to speak any longer. I beg to move.

[The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Anelay of St Johns) (Con)]

My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I speak now. I have amendments in this group and I have spoken to noble Lords who have amendments in this group—apart from the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke. I apologise for not being able to mention the fact that I might intervene early to explain the Government’s position. It does not, of course, prevent me from answering questions later if noble Lords so wish.

In this group there are three areas on which the Government have carefully considered the views of Peers, as expressed in Committee, and have brought forward amendments in response. As my noble friend Lord Hamilton has kindly set out, we have sought where possible to respond entirely positively.

The Government’s position is that in order to ensure public confidence in the outcome of the referendum and an informed vote, it is essential that there is a referendum period of sufficient length to allow a full and thorough debate with appropriate controls on spending donations. It was never the Government’s intention to set a referendum period of less than 10 weeks. However, we listened very carefully to my noble friend Lord Hamilton, the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, and others around the House on this matter and we agree with noble Lords that a 10-week minimum referendum period should be set out on the face of the Bill. That is the effect of government Amendment 9. I stress that it is a minimum period of 10 weeks.

I hope that all noble Lords will appreciate that this should deliver the intent of Amendments 8 and 7B. It also, I hope, provides a little extra clarity over the referendum period itself by making it absolutely clear that the referendum period ends with the date of the poll itself. The amendments tabled by noble Lords did not make that clear.

Perhaps it is not right for me to rehearse the background to my noble friend Lord Hamilton’s amendment. He has been commendably brief, so perhaps I will follow his example in that regard. He has already made it clear that he accepts that Amendment 1 is unnecessary if the House were to accept the government amendment, which puts a minimum of a 10-week referendum period on the face of the Bill. My noble friend also said that he is content not to press ahead with the second part of his amendment, which would require regulations setting the date to be laid at least 16 weeks before the referendum can be held. Noble Lords will be aware that we have an established procedure for laying and making affirmative secondary legislation, and that will be followed in this regard. That takes some time in itself.

I very much thank my noble friend Lord Hamilton and others for their constructive engagement on these issues, and I hope that noble Lords will support government Amendment 9 and not press the other amendments related to these matters.

Amendment 10, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, relates to the time when the process of designating lead campaigners should begin. Under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, which provides the framework for national and regional referendums, the start date of the designation process is the first day of the referendum period. At the alternative vote referendum, where there was an 11-week referendum period, this caused some concern because it meant that lead campaigners were not designated until about five weeks before the referendum took place. Legislation for the Scottish independence referendum provided for a different approach whereby the lead campaigners were designated shortly before the referendum period.

While this does have the advantage of ensuring that the lead campaigners have sufficient time to use their benefits for any given date, it could restrict the time available for the referendum period, which is when the full controls on campaigning apply, or indeed could limit the choice of referendum dates. I know that that was not the intent of the noble Lord’s amendment—he is not seeking that technical route.

15:45

As the House is aware, until now the Government have not made a statement about the referendum period. We have not set the date of the referendum. We cannot say when the referendum period will start. Until we have completed negotiations and can indicate when a statutory instrument will be brought forward to invite both Houses to consider the date of the referendum, we are unable to get to that position. Setting the actual start date of the referendum period is therefore not something one can do now; we do not know when the referendum will be.

Accordingly, the Bill provides a degree of flexibility. As part of this, it decouples the start of the designation process from the first day of the referendum period. Instead, it is to be set by regulations. I hope that this is an advantage from the point of view of the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby. While the date and referendum period remain uncertain and we do not have to commit at this stage to a particular time period for the designation process to take place, it means that the process provides for the referendum period plus designation. Designation does not come out of that referendum period, which I know the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby, is trying to protect. Under his Amendment 10, the designation process could not start any later than six weeks before the start of the referendum period, which we think risks introducing unnecessary inflexibility, ruling out otherwise suitable dates. I do not think that is his intention; rather, I think he is trying to ensure that there is sufficient time, and I can assure him that that is exactly what is being achieved.

The Government’s approach ensures that the timing of the designation process can be responsive to the circumstances prevailing once those negotiations are complete, but there is still the parliamentary process, designation and then the referendum period. That will allow an appropriate balance to be found between regulating campaigners, providing sufficient time for campaigners to make their case and inform the debate, and, importantly, not unnecessarily delaying the time of the vote.

I turn to the next issue on which we have listened to noble Lords. Amendment 11, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, would allow the Electoral Commission to designate a lead campaigner on just one side. I wish immediately to signal the Government’s movement on this issue. I have spoken to the noble Lord, and the Government agree that this is an area where we need to consider amendments on Third Reading. The amendment addresses the concern, highlighted by the Constitution Committee, that under the current rules a campaigner on one side could deliberately not apply for designation in order to deprive the other side of the benefits of that status. This risk emerges because the current rules require the Electoral Commission to designate on both sides or neither side. The noble Lord tabled a similar amendment in Committee, which received support across the House. At that stage I committed that the Government would look into the proposals further.

The principle of the noble Lord’s amendment would certainly prevent gaming of the system. The difficulty is that, as drafted, it would introduce a new risk: one side may not be designated not by deliberate action, but because it fails to meet the statutory requirements the Electoral Commission must assess it against. The Government have looked carefully at these matters. Had everything been fine with the drafting of the amendment and the part of the Bill in which the noble Lord wants to place it, I would have liked to put my name to it and accept it. That would have been my first choice. Sadly, as I have explained to him, I am unable to do that because it has to be moved to a different part of the Bill and it has to take account of the extended risk. I have undertaken to return to this matter on Third Reading, and I will bring forward a government amendment. I very much welcome the opportunity to work with the noble Lord further on the shape of that amendment between now and Third Reading.

I now turn to government Amendments 23 and 24, which relate to the parliamentary process that will apply to the regulations that will set the start date of the process of designating lead campaigners. Again, this is a matter of the Government listening and responding, and bringing forward amendments to meet the points the House has made.

The Bill currently provides that the regulations setting the start of the designation process are subject to the negative procedure. Taken together, government Amendments 23 and 24 will mean that those regulations will now be subject to the affirmative procedure. These amendments give effect to the views of the House and to the recommendation of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. The Government are grateful to the committee for its careful consideration of the Bill and are happy to accept its recommendation. The committee also suggested that the House ask for a fuller explanation of the need to delegate this power to secondary legislation in any event. I hope I have dealt with that in responding to Amendment 10.

Naturally, I am ready to answer questions but I hope that noble Lords feel able to support the government amendments and will not press theirs.

[Lord Willoughby de Broke (UKIP)]

My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for her reply to my amendment, which would ensure that bodies need to be designated before the 10-week period. If the noble Baroness will repeat her assurance, I will be very happy to withdraw the amendment. I do not want to waste the House’s time. Everybody is well aware why designated bodies need as long a period as possible during which they are designated in order to campaign effectively, because of financial and other reasons. In the light of the noble Baroness’s remarks, I shall not press my amendment.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 11 and will respond to the Minister’s very full explanation of how the Government now intend to proceed. I express my gratitude to the Minister for listening carefully to our debate in Committee, when this amendment received support from all sides of the House, and for the courtesy with which she has consulted on the matter in advance of this debate. I am entirely happy to leave it in her hands, to be dealt with by a government amendment introduced at Third Reading. I hope that that amendment will cover not just gaming but pretty well any other happenstance that might occur. Heaven knows, it is probably an “unknown unknown” but the best way to ensure that it does not damage the referendum process is to make an amendment of this sort to the Bill.

I leave this issue in the hands of the Minister and the Government, confident that they will find a way to deal with it, in which case, of course, I doubt that the provision will ever need to be used. That would be very satisfactory, as it would be much better if there were two designated institutions slugging it out in what will be a vigorous national debate. However, we do need to make sure that this issue is addressed. With that, I state my intention not to press the amendment, and again thank the Minister for the efforts she has made so far and encourage her to go further down that road.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

My Lords, I add my thanks to my noble friend for the way in which she listened to the arguments put in Committee. I hate to rain on this parade at this stage but after reflecting on the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, I have one or two worries which I hope that my noble friend will consider before she brings forward an amendment at a later stage in the Bill. As I understand it, this amendment would mean that if there was only one designated campaign, it would still get access to broadcasting time and taxpayers’ money to carry out the campaign in circumstances where the Electoral Commission had designated only one campaign. I entirely understand the concern the noble Lord had, which was reflected in the legislation for the Scottish referendum. Suppose two competing organisations wished to be the lead campaign, and there was disillusion with the decision that had been taken by the Electoral Commission and that was subject to judicial review, and that we got into a position where there was no clarity about the position of an opposition and therefore no alternative campaign. It would then clearly be absurd to put a quango—an unelected, unaccountable body such as the Electoral Commission—in a position where it could effectively ensure that only one side was supported with taxpayers’ resources and the ability to go to the broadcasters. It is highly unlikely that this situation would arise but, as the noble Lord has pointed out, his own worries, which the amendment is designed to deal with, are also highly unlikely. Has my noble friend thought about that, and what is the answer to my concern?

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, I will refer first to the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke. He asked for further confirmation, just to be absolutely sure about the fact that the referendum period will be a minimum of 10 weeks and in advance of that is the designation period. The two cannot be conflated. I think that gives him the satisfaction he sought that there is no way of concertinaing it, if I can put it that way.

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, for his comments, but I recognise what he said about the importance of looking not just at gaming, although that will be at the basis of this. This leads neatly to the concerns rightly raised by my noble friend Lord Forsyth. As soon as one enables single-sided designation, one has to consider very carefully the inequity that may follow. That is why I was not able to put my name to the text of the amendment, even if it had been in the right place in the Bill. That is what I commit to look at between now and Third Reading.

My noble friend is absolutely right to point out that only the designated lead campaigners are entitled to a referendum broadcast. Where there is only one designated campaigner, it would indeed raise questions of partiality rather than impartiality if only one person had access to that. These are matters on which the Government have already been reflecting since Committee, and need to reflect on further. Designated lead campaigners are entitled to an equal grant of up to £600,000. It is not immediately clear how that would operate with just one lead campaigner. The Government have been reflecting and will reflect further and consider the views of noble Lords, but we need to consider how to incorporate or otherwise these benefits into a system where it will end up being possible for only one lead campaigner to be designated.

My noble friend has raised an important matter. In the light of my response to that and my commitment to work further with noble Lords before Third Reading, I hope that when the government amendments are called the House will feel able to support them, and that noble Lords will not press their amendments.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom]

I think I have made it quite clear already that I am more than happy to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 1 withdrawn.

Clause 2: Entitlement to vote in the referendum

Amendment 2

Moved by

[Lord Green of Deddington]

2: Clause 2, page 2, line 9, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—
“(a) if the day appointed under section 1(2) is before 1 January 2017, the persons who, on the date of the referendum, would be entitled to vote as electors at a parliamentary election in any constituency, or(aa) if the day appointed under section 1(2) is 1 January 2017 or later, the persons who, on the date of the referendum, would be entitled to vote as electors at a parliamentary election in any constituency by virtue of being a citizen of the Republic of Ireland or, under the British Nationality Acts 1981 and 1983 or the British Overseas Territories Act 2002, a British citizen, a British overseas territories citizen, a British National (Overseas), a British Overseas citizen or a British subject,”

[Lord Green of Deddington (CB)]

My Lords, Amendment 2 concerns just over 1 million potential voters. Its purpose is to establish a clear principle for the franchise at what most people agree is a historic turning point. At the same time, it would bring us into line with all our EU partners and all Commonwealth countries except New Zealand. I will speak very briefly, first to comment on the Government’s response in Committee; then to explain the changes that I have made since then; and, finally, to summarise the case for the amendment.

In response to my amendments in Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, said that,

“the purpose of these two amendments is to restrict the franchise for the EU referendum so as to prevent Commonwealth citizens … and Irish citizens who are resident in the UK, from voting”.—[Official Report, 28/10/15; col. 1269.]

That is not quite the case. Let me stress again that these amendments apply only to Commonwealth citizens who have not become British citizens, roughly 1 million people of voting age. Those who are British citizens—roughly 2 million—would be entitled to vote, which is a vital distinction. I have since added in the Irish citizens, which I will explain in a moment.

16:00

The Minister also prayed in aid historical connections with the Commonwealth, which might indeed have relevance to a general election although only a handful of Commonwealth countries reciprocate. But this is not a bog-standard election, if I may call if that, whose results can be reversed five years later. It may be, as the Prime Minister put it last week, the most important decision that we will make in our lifetimes. The public may therefore be forgiven for questioning why more than 1 million people who have decided not to become British citizens, or who have not yet qualified to do so, should be able to vote in this historic decision.

Secondly, on the changes that I have made, I listened carefully to your Lordships in Committee and have revised my amendments in two important respects. In Amendment 2, I have included the Irish in the electorate lest there be any conflict with the Belfast agreement, a matter raised by the noble Lords, Lord Davies of Stamford, Lord Kerr and Lord Hannay. The other change stems from an intervention by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire. He pointed out, correctly, that the present electoral register flags up EU citizens but does not indicate which voters are Commonwealth citizens nor which of those have become British citizens. That practical difficulty could be dealt with quite easily in the coming year in the annual revision of the register that takes place between August and November. My revised amendment to Clause 2 therefore proposes that that change be brought into effect on 1 January 2017 —a sunrise clause, so to speak. Of course, if the referendum is held before that date it would have to be conducted on the basis of the present register.

This second change, the postponement until 1 January 2017, has the added advantage of being consistent with the spirit of the proposal of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, in 2008. He suggested that the right of Commonwealth citizens to vote in general elections should be phased out. Clearly, we cannot phase out a vote for the referendum but this timing would give the opportunity to Commonwealth citizens who have not yet become British citizens to do so, if they so decided. As I mentioned in Committee, the noble and learned Lord kindly authorised me to say that he supported these amendments. These amendments would not affect Gibraltar, as my Amendment 5 makes clear, but they have two specific advantages. One is that they would remove the anomaly whereby Malta and Cyprus would be able to vote, whereas other EU nationals would not. Secondly, they would remove the absurdity whereby Commonwealth citizens could vote in this referendum within weeks of arrival.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab)]

Could the noble Lord explain the position of citizens of the Falkland Islands and other dependent territories?

[Lord Green of Deddington]

They would have to be resident in the UK, of course, in which case they would have the right to vote. That is buried in the reference to the British Nationality Act.

Finally, on the case for change, the effect of these amendments would be to establish a clear principle for the franchise, namely that only British and Irish citizens who have become British citizens would continue to be able to vote in the referendum, as would 340,000 Irish citizens. What is clear, as I mentioned in Committee—where I think there was no disagreement about it—is that whatever the result of this referendum, there will be deep unhappiness on the part of those who consider that they have lost it. A period of reconciliation will be needed so it is absolutely vital that the arrangements for the referendum, especially the franchise, should be above reproach, as the Minister himself made clear.

This matter seems to have slipped through the cracks in the other place. Very few Members of Parliament will have realised that the adoption of the franchise for the general election would include something like a million potential voters who are not British citizens, nearly all of them from countries that do not allow our citizens to vote in their general elections, let alone in their referenda—this when our referendum is so critical for our future. Indeed, the matter was barely mentioned, let alone discussed.

It is surely the duty of this House as a revising Chamber to adopt these amendments and invite the other place to give this important question the consideration that it deserves but has not yet received.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

I am sorry to interrupt again, but the noble Lord needs to make clear which countries he is referring to. Could he spell out the number from each country and the countries in which we do not have a reciprocal right? Unless we have that information from him, we may not understand why he is moving the amendment.

[Lord Green of Deddington]

Yes. The number is of the order of a million—it is actually 1.2 million—who are Commonwealth citizens resident in the UK but are not British citizens. Their nationalities vary—I do not think there is any information on which nationalities they are—but they are the ones who have not become British citizens.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

The noble Lord has a lot of experience in these matters. Surely he could give us an indication of the number, in rough terms, from each country—from India, from Pakistan, from Australia and from Canada. It would be helpful if he could.

[Lord Green of Deddington]

That would be possible—you can take that information from the Labour Force Survey—but it is not relevant to the purpose of the amendment. The purpose of the amendment is that only British citizens shall be entitled to vote in a British referendum. It does not matter to me what their citizenship happens to be, nor does that affect the principle.

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Brougham and Vaux) (Con)]

My Lords, I must advise the House that if this amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments 3 or 4 due to pre-emption.

[Lord Goldsmith (Lab)]

My Lords, first, I apologise to the House that I was not here in Committee. I was overseas and therefore unable to speak to the amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Green, is quite right: I indicated to him that I was sympathetic in principle to his amendment, and I will explain why. I preface that by making clear that my personal position about the EU is that I very much hope that everyone will vote to stay in, but that is for another day.

After I had left office, I was asked to produce a report on citizenship by the then Prime Minister, the right honourable Gordon Brown. It became clear to me as I did that, with the assistance of people in government, that the concept of citizenship today is very blurred. That is because rights that once upon a time belonged to citizens only now belong to others, and because we have few ways to distinguish citizens in the way that some other countries do. In a report that dealt with a number of recommendations, I looked at whether there were reasons to be clearer as to what being a UK citizen meant.

In saying that, I want to make clear that one thing that came across to me was that, despite that lack of clarity, many people were enormously proud of the fact that they were UK citizens, particularly those who had become UK citizens. I attended a number of citizenship ceremonies, and it was very moving to see how proud people were of the fact that they had become British. I tried to hold a ceremony at Wembley Stadium, which was a great success but for the fact that, apparently, rights to pictures of the stadium itself had been sold to commercial enterprises, so we had to keep the curtains closed during the ceremony.

It is for that reason—it is a matter of considerable importance in principle—that we should be clear about what are the rights and responsibilities of our citizens, and that I recommended we should phase out some of the anomalies that enabled people who are not UK citizens to vote in general elections.

I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Green, has dealt with the question of Irish citizens, because that was one qualification that I made in my report, and that his amendment, as it now stands, also has a form of phasing out, because that was also a recommendation that I made. But the principle remains right, and I am sorry that no Government have yet taken it up; this may turn out not to be the occasion for it to happen. But it is right that we should look at our citizenship regime and look at what being a citizen means so that people can feel not just proud but inclusive, not just because they have a closeness to this country but because they belong and are a part of it. At the time of the tragedies that took place in Paris—and we have seen similar things—nothing could be more important than that people feel a very strong affinity to their country.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom]

Would the noble and learned Lord agree that, if the next amendment were to be passed, it would change the franchise so that 16 and 17 year-olds, probably permanently, were entitled to vote in general elections as well as this referendum? Are we not saying that this is as good a moment as any to change the franchise on this one as well?

[Lord Goldsmith]

The noble Lord and other noble Lords will have their own views on the next amendment, which I support, but I do not think it affects the principle of what I have been saying.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

Could the noble and learned Lord confirm my own impression from reading the report he wrote and to which he referred, that the phasing-out approach that he took bears no relation at all to the phasing out in the amendment before the House now, which is not a phasing out but a guillotine at the beginning of 2017? If I remember rightly—he will correct me if I am wrong—he proposed that those Commonwealth citizens who currently have the vote from this country should not have it removed from them. That is a very different proposition indeed.

[Lord Goldsmith]

The noble Lord is right about that. Mind you, if the recommendation had been taken up in 2008 when I wrote the report, who knows where we would be today?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, since the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington, mentioned our conversation, perhaps I may say one or two things. We all recognise that our current franchise and our concept of citizenship are a mess and need attention. We are about to debate under some of the following amendments how much attention we should give to tidying up our franchise now, or whether it should be addressed more broadly later. On citizenship, I am very struck by the extent to which dual citizenship extends across Britain and elsewhere. I asked several times when in government how many dual citizens there were scattered around the world, and the answer was always that we do not know. I recall a visit to northern Cyprus in which my driver told me that he was a British citizen, a Turkish citizen, a Greek-Cypriot citizen and a Turkish-Cypriot citizen, and he enjoyed choosing between them as he travelled as to which passport he might take. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, said, the question of citizenship is extremely fuzzy.

The question of when we would have the referendum is addressed in the amendment. I hope we have it before 1 January 2017. I have some doubts as to how far we should address this broader issue now, in this specific case, although we will address it again under further amendments.

Finally, I congratulate the noble Lord on his argument that we should use this as an example of where we might harmonise with other member states. I assume that that comes from his commitment to ever-closer union.

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)]

My Lords, it was my privilege to participate in presenting to your Lordships’ House the citizenship Bill in 1982, so I am sorry to think that it is all in a mess—but these things happen sometimes. I was inclined to think that, in principle, this was a sound amendment, as it would be right that only British citizens should have a vote in this referendum. That is my position in principle, and I am glad to hear that there is some way in which that can be met. However, my difficulty now is that, in a sense, the franchise will depend on the date on which the referendum is called, which is an unfortunate consequence of the practical need for the changes. Therefore, I am very willing to listen to my noble friend when he explains why I should not support this amendment.

16:15

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My Lords, I, too, congratulate my noble and learned friend Lord Goldsmith on raising his excellent report. It will help us in future debates because not only did he touch on this subject, but he went through all the definitions of citizenship. The issue has arisen over a number of years because there was a separation between being a British passport holder and having the right to reside in Britain. That complication grew historically from our imperial past. The issue here is that we have a report that recommends something in principle that most of us would agree with but, as the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, said, that is not what this amendment is attempting to do. In his report, my noble and learned friend made it clear that there should be transitional arrangements. Simply put, people residing here should not have the vote taken away. This amendment will, in effect, say to people who reside here and have the right to vote here that they will no longer have the right to vote in a referendum because of the date of the referendum. We cannot accept this amendment, even though there may be principles in it that are worth consideration, because it would be wrong. Someone mentioned extending the franchise. This is about not extending the franchise but taking it away from people who already have it. That is why we cannot possibly support it.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Faulks) (Con)]

My Lords, this has been a short but informative debate. This is the first of a number of amendments concerned with the franchise, the majority of which are concerned with extending it. This amendment is concerned with restricting the franchise. It was considered in a different form, but it is in principle the same and is about whether Commonwealth citizens should be excluded from the franchise. I take the qualification of the noble Lord, Lord Green, that it would be if those Commonwealth citizens are not British citizens. In this amendment he has specified that should the referendum be held on or after 1 January 2017, Commonwealth citizens who are resident should not be eligible to vote, so if the referendum takes place before then, the existing Westminster franchise should pertain. The amendment would have the same effect for Commonwealth citizens in Gibraltar.

Noble Lords will be aware that the franchise for this referendum is based on that used for parliamentary elections, but I reiterate that it includes Commonwealth citizens who are citizens of a country mentioned in Schedule 3 to the British Nationality Act 1981—there is quite a number of countries—so long as they are resident in the United Kingdom. It is worth emphasising those words. As I have emphasised in previous debates, the Government think this is fair and consistent with the precedents taken from previous referendums. This franchise was used in the alternative vote referendum in 2011, and it is the franchise that was set out in the European Union Act of that year. Noble Lords will remember that a referendum would have been triggered in the event of the transfer of powers or competence to the European Union.

As I have said to the House before, “Commonwealth citizen” is a broad term. It is set out in Section 37 of the British Nationality Act. It includes British citizens as well as those who hold other types of British nationality, including British overseas territories citizens, British subjects and citizens of those countries listed in Schedule 3 to the Act. In order to be entitled to be registered in the register of parliamentary electors, Commonwealth citizens must have leave to enter the UK or to remain under the Immigration Act 1971 or must not require such leave. While in many democratic countries eligibility to vote is based on citizenship, I set out in Committee that it is our historical ties with Commonwealth countries that justify this approach.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, addressed your Lordships’ House with reference to his report, which was indeed cited in Committee. He assisted the House by explaining that he was asked to review the difficult question of British citizenship, and that the quotation perfectly reasonably relied upon by the noble Lord, Lord Green, had to be seen in the context of a general review of what it meant to be a citizen and what, if anything, we should do to clarify the nature of citizenship or to record it. It is correct, as was elucidated during his remarks to the House, that he suggested that if the franchise were to be restricted to British citizens then those with an existing right to vote should have that phased out. I respectfully adopt the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, that what is contained in the amendment is really not a phasing out; it is effectively a guillotine, albeit a somewhat delayed one—a sword of Damocles, as it were.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom]

Does the Minister intend to do anything about the report by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, or is it just going to gather dust?

[Lord Faulks]

I would like to be able to assist my noble friend and say that there are specific plans—I am sure that at this time the question of citizenship above all else will be a matter well in the mind of the Government—but I cannot pretend that there are any immediate plans that I am aware of to implement the suggestions made by the noble and learned Lord.

I should add that on occasions when Parliament has considered the issue of Commonwealth citizens’ voting rights, it has taken the view that the situation should remain as it is at present. We consider that this referendum is not the place to address the franchise issue again. While the amendment rightly acknowledges that it would take time to implement a change to the franchise by stating that this would apply only if the referendum were to be held on or after 1 January 2017, I am sure noble Lords will agree that Commonwealth voting rights ought to be considered as a matter of principle, not merely as a happenstance of date, to answer the point made by my noble and learned friend.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

On the point about the happenstance of date, does the Minister think it reasonable that someone could just have arrived in this country and after as long as it took them to get on the register, which would be a matter of days, they would then be entitled to vote in a referendum that is of such crucial importance to our country?

[Lord Faulks]

If they are resident in this country then they are entitled to vote. Of course in an extreme example, which I think is probably unlikely to happen, someone could arrive and then immediately attempt to register, however long that might take. However, I respectfully suggest that we cannot require those who are entitled to vote to remain in this country for a specific time before they become entitled to vote in the way that Parliament has hitherto always decided that they should be allowed to. I respectfully suggest that this is not the moment to change that franchise. Whatever may or may not be considered appropriate to do by changing the nature of citizenship or endorsing the importance of it, this amendment is not an appropriate vehicle to bring that about, nor to change the franchise. In those circumstances, I urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Green of Deddington]

My Lords, this matter has now had an airing and a response. I am grateful to those noble Lords who have contributed to that, especially to the noble and learned Lords, Lord Goldsmith and Lord Mackay of Clashfern. The only point that I would challenge in what has been said is the question of the guillotine, or of taking away something that people have. That would be the eventual effect but let us be clear that they would have a year in which to become British citizens, so it would be their decision not to become British citizens that would mean they could not vote. However, I think we have had the debate. It is now clear that all three parties are opposed to these amendments, and there are other matters to be pursued. Accordingly, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 2 withdrawn.

Amendment 3

Moved by

[Baroness Morgan of Ely]

3: Clause 2, page 2, line 10, at end insert “and persons who would be so entitled except for the fact that they will be aged 16 or 17 on the date on which the referendum is to be held,”

[Baroness Morgan of Ely (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendment 3 stands in my name and in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Tyler, Lord Hannay and Lord Tugendhat.

The Labour Party agrees with the principle of allowing 16 and 17 year-olds to vote in the EU referendum and in elections more generally. Who can forget the enthusiasm and intelligence with which the 16 and 17 year-olds in Scotland engaged with that referendum debate? More 16 and 17 year-olds voted in that referendum than 18 to 24 year-olds, and evidence from Austria and Norway, which also have votes for 16 to 18 year-olds, suggests that they are more likely to continue to vote if they start at a younger age.

At 16 and 17, many young people still live at home. They are a part of the community, have their family around them and have a sense of belonging to that society. We know that now civic education has been introduced into every school in the United Kingdom. Any noble Lords who have children or grandchildren will know that at that age they are constantly looking at some kind of screen and have access to information in a way that no previous generation has had.

It is important for us to understand that young people are and can be enthusiastic citizens who take that responsibility seriously. At 16, they are taking life-changing decisions on the future direction of their lives, deciding which A-levels to take or which vocational courses to follow, and if they find someone they want to marry, they can even do that. If they are responsible enough to deal with that, why should they not have a say in the future of their nation? I therefore hope that it is clear that we agree with the principle of allowing 16 and 17 year-olds to vote. However, the question is then: is this the right place to introduce it?

We have already discussed the issue of franchise, and it is clear that this needs and merits a much broader discussion. We therefore propose an amendment just to this referendum. This is a very exceptional situation, because it is a once-in-a-generation opportunity for them to vote on this significant issue. It is different from other elections, because within two years’ time they will be able to take a position on who they want to run their country; in this instance, they will possibly never again get a say on their country’s future relationship with the EU. However, they will have to live with the consequences of that decision for longer than any of us. With the current system there is also a danger that we are sending mixed messages to young voters in different part of the country, which is of course particularly true for Scotland, where they have had this opportunity to vote before.

There have been suggestions that introducing this amendment would force a postponement of the EU referendum vote. I will refute that and will address some of the technical issues relating to this amendment. Many have deliberately misinterpreted the fact that the Electoral Commission pointed out that this exercise took a year in Scotland. However, at no point did it suggest that it would need to take that long. It has confirmed that this is a matter for Parliament. We accept that there would be a need for some lead time to register these young people, who are not currently on the register. However, the Electoral Commission has stated that other options are available to help get as many voters on the register in the available timeframe. John Turner, the chief executive of the Association of Electoral Administrators, has said that while it would be difficult to do this within a shorter timeframe, it would be possible, given adequate resources, to undertake this registration by September. Let us be clear: it would not be the struggle—

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

Is the noble Baroness aware that, in Scotland, the reason it took so long was because it was necessary to have a separate register, which included 14 and 15 year-olds and which had to be kept separate from the main register for reasons of confidentiality and child protection? Is she suggesting that it would be a quick job to register every 14, 15 and 16 year-old on a new, separate register for this purpose?

16:30

[Baroness Morgan of Ely]

I was coming on to that, but I absolutely accept that it is imperative that data protection measures are put in place to ensure that people under the age of 18 are protected.

I think that we would need to introduce a separate register. I have spoken to electoral registration officers, who suggest that this would not be a problem. They say that in fact that kind of system is already in place to an extent for what they call “attainers”—those who are likely to reach voting age in the next few years. It would mean expanding the current registration system with the creation of a separate system. It is also important to recognise that it would not be the struggle that many people have made it out to be. Once Royal Assent had been granted, electoral registration officers could simply get on with the job.

I shall outline the current situation regarding the registration of 16 and 17 year-olds. Electoral registration officers in every county have been given additional grants this year to drive the move towards individual voter registration. Sixteen and 17 year-olds are already sent an inquiry form in recognition of the fact that they will come of age in the next few years, so most of them are already on a system. The task would therefore be to follow that up with a registration form and then to focus on getting 14 and 15 year-olds to register—those who may reach the age of 16 in the next year, known as attainers. We would need a separate registration initiative—which Scotland more or less already has—and a more comprehensive strategy in England, Northern Ireland and Wales.

We have a huge advantage here, which is that we know exactly where these young people are—they are in school. Most schools have their own data controls, and the Government could easily request that electoral registration officers should be given access to this information. Of course, data protection measures would need to be in place. We would need a separate electoral registration form for 16 to 18 year-olds, which would not be made public. It is true that we may have missed the annual canvass—

[Viscount Ridley (Con)]

I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for allowing me to intervene. This is a question that may reveal great ignorance—if so, I apologise—but is there an issue with individual registration requiring social security numbers? I believe that they are required. I have just reregistered myself and had to produce my social security number. I do not believe that most 14 and 15 year-olds have a social security number. Would they need a number to be issued in advance of registration?

[Baroness Morgan of Ely]

It is correct that they would need to be provided with national insurance numbers, but I understand that that is also possible. None of this is rocket science or difficult, and we have a period of time within which to do it. My understanding from the Association of Electoral Administrators is that it is possible to do so within the timeframe that we foresee.

[Lord Green of Deddington]

Is the noble Baroness aware that 16 and 17 year-olds amount to 1.5 million people? If you add in the attainers, you are probably talking about another 1.5 million people. That amounts to 3 million. Is she perhaps making light of what is involved in this registration process?

[Baroness Morgan of Ely]

I am absolutely not making light of it. In fact, I have spoken directly to electoral registration officers within some of the counties where this would have to be done. They recognise that an increase in resource would be needed, but it is not impossible to do. We know where these people are and we would have their names, so the process of identifying them would not be difficult. It would be different from, for example, trying to find British citizens in the EU who are over the age of 15. That would be a difficult process. This is not a difficult process—we know exactly where these people are.

[Baroness O'Cathain (Con)]

Will the noble Baroness please tell me how many people this affected at the time of the Scottish referendum? How many millions, thousands or hundreds were there? How does that compare with the 1.5 million who would have to be included this time?

[Baroness Morgan of Ely]

It was not millions in Scotland —there is no question about that—it was thousands, and they were able to do it in the timeframe that they were given. It is important for us to understand that it is possible to do this. We know where these people are. The electoral registration officials have said that this is a possibility, and we should accept their say.

[Baroness O'Cathain]

With the leave of the House, may I pursue this question? The noble Baroness said it was probably thousands. But how many thousands? Was it 99,000, 3,000 or 5,000? I just want to get this straight in my mind.

[Baroness Morgan of Ely]

It was proportionately exactly the same as it would be in Britain. There are about 5 million Scottish voters and in the UK there are 60 million voters. The noble Baroness is probably better at maths than I am, but if we know that it is 1.5 million for the UK then we can work out what that would be as a percentage of the 5 million voters in Scotland.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

I can tell the noble Baroness that the number in Scotland was 121,497.

[Baroness Morgan of Ely]

What a great relief—no need for me to use my maths.

We have to understand that this is not a static process but a rolling register. Let us not forget also that the timetable for the referendum was not one of our making. During the discussion on the Private Member’s Bill, we warned the Government of the difficulties of holding a referendum in 2017 due to French and German elections and the UK presidency. It is the Government who have backed themselves into a corner and are trapped in a very narrow window for when they can realistically hold a referendum. That is a situation that we did not create.

We believe that the Prime Minister would like to go for an early referendum vote, but he cannot put the referendum wheels in motion until he has finished the negotiation on UK membership, and that has only just started. It is clear that member states will be distracted by the rather more urgent task of keeping their citizens safe. So the probability of us coming to any agreement in December is, I suggest, extremely thin.

We know that the Government have agreed to a four-month minimum period from setting the date in regulations to the vote. Therefore, if the electoral registration officials could get started as soon as Royal Assent were granted, that would allow them plenty of time to get ready for September.

It is also worth drawing the attention of the House to the fact that noble Lords have previously supported a similar amendment on reducing the voting age to 16 in the context of the local government Bill before the summer. The principle of changing the franchise for the European referendum from the Westminster franchise has already been breached. The Government have allowed Peers, residents of Gibraltar and Commonwealth citizens of Gibraltar to have the right to vote.

I urge the Minister to take note of the strength of feeling on this issue, not just in this House but in the country more generally. I respectfully suggest that it is time to allow these young people—

[Lord Spicer (Con)]

I do not quite see why the noble Baroness stops at age 16. What is wrong with including those who are 14 and 13? There is a very real question as to why she defines the limit at that point.

[Baroness Morgan of Ely]

I will tell the noble Lord why we should start at 16: civic education finishes at the age of 16. By the age of 16, young people have been equipped to deal with these measures; that education has not finished by the time that they are 14 or 15. There are also several examples of them taking responsible decisions at that age, such as being able to get married, choosing their vocation and choosing their A-levels. Those are responsibilities that they take seriously, and that is why we would introduce it at 16 and not at a younger age.

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

Does the noble Baroness believe that 16 year-olds should be allowed to drink, drive and smoke?

[Baroness Morgan of Ely]

I am not getting into this debate now. There is a much broader discussion. I think that what 16 to 18 year-olds are allowed to do is a dog’s breakfast, frankly—the fact that you can have sex but not watch sex is completely ridiculous. Obviously, we need a broader debate on these issues. I do not think this is the place to have that. Let us take note of what the people in this House are thinking, take note of what the people in the country are thinking and take note of the fact that young people in this country, if given the responsibility, will take it seriously. It is time to give them their opportunity to have a say in the future of their country and the future of this country’s relationship with the European Union.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

The noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, said that we should not get involved in wider issues. I think that is one thing we should be getting involved in because this is clearly going to move effortlessly and seamlessly into a general election. We are talking about changing the franchise in general elections as well. This, I believe, needs a much wider debate than just latching it on to a European referendum Bill. I do not think we should allow this through like this because it will change our franchise altogether on a permanent basis, and that is something which should be discussed at some length.

My noble friend Lord Cormack makes the point that people are not allowed to smoke and drink and so forth at the age of 16 but they can vote. There are a lot of complicated issues here. I also have a slight suspicion, seeing the names of the people who tabled this amendment, that it is designed to improve the position of those people who want to stay in the EU.

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom]

I hear people saying no. Let us suppose that an opinion poll came out on 16 and 17 year-olds that was 70:30 in favour of pulling out of the EU. Would we be looking at this amendment now? I can tell you we would not. Let us not fool ourselves. This is all part of trying to tilt the playing field even more in the direction of those who want to stay in the EU. It is already tilted because the Government have the option of choosing the day the referendum will be held, and this is clearly an effort to tilt it even further.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

Is this not a case of the pot calling the kettle black?

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom]

The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, will have to tell me what amendment I put my name to which tries to tilt the playing field the other way. All we have ever tried to do is keep it level. My God, that is an effort in a House like this, I can tell you.

[The Earl of Listowel (CB)]

My Lords, the noble Lord is not alone in his opinion about finding a coherent solution to this age of responsibility. He kindly provided me with the Hansard Society’s submission of evidence to the report conducted by the Youth Select Committee last year, in which it said that,

“a wider debate about the age of maturity”

with a view to addressing the largely ad hoc nature of the decisions that have been taken in this area in the past,

“ to reach a coherent settlement rooted in principle”

is necessary. That is very much along the lines of what the noble Lord has said.

I spoke on this in Committee and when this issue has been raised in the past. I feel it is a very important debate, with strong merit on both sides. I thought the noble Baroness put the case very well. It is really important that young people are encouraged to vote and that they get engaged in voting because there is the hope, at least, that politicians will pay more attention to issues important to young people if young people are voting. There is a lot of merit to what the noble Baroness and others are arguing for. However, I also have serious concerns which have not yet been answered. I am grateful to the noble Lord for the paper that he sent me, but the concerns that I have raised on a number of occasions have still not been answered, and I really would like those to be addressed. I will put them quickly as we are on Report.

16:45

My questions are principally about increasing the vulnerability of young people and the risk that legislation that is intended to protect young people may be eroded if we lower the age of voting to 16. On vulnerability, we know from what we have learned about the sexual exploitation of children and young people that the internet can be adeptly used by adults to persuade them to do certain things. The noble Baroness referred to young people being at their screens much of the time nowadays, so that unscrupulous people who wish to influence the way they might vote can access them fairly easily. I am told that, during the last election, there was a caricature of the leader of the Opposition with a pair of donkey’s ears behind his head which was very popular. That sort of approach by an unscrupulous politician might have more influence on a 16 or 17 year-old than on an 18 or 19 year-old.

We are talking about these matters in a context in which nationalism is on the rise across Europe. There was a meeting with the ambassador from Hungary a couple of weeks ago. He spoke about events last summer, when there was such concern in his country about the rate of immigration that there was a risk of the right wing coming to power. We know that there are serious worries at present about immigration pressures and about terrorism. We have found in the past that these sorts of things have opened doors to extremist politicians. For instance, in the 1930s, Hitler came to power in a much more extreme economic climate. We are in difficult times and one can see the rise of unscrupulous politicians who can reach towards young people—one thinks of the Hitler Youth in Hitler’s time and, in China, of the way in which young people were targeted during the Cultural Revolution by those who were able to influence them easily. We now have this wonderful tool, the internet, for such people, so we have to be really careful to think about those issues.

Your Lordships have worked long and hard to increase protections for vulnerable young people over many years, during the Labour Government and the previous Government. The most recent example is the protection of 17 year-olds in police custody. To prevent them being held in police cells over the weekend, they now have to be put in children’s homes. So a lot of work has been done to protect young people. In his evidence to the report that the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, gave me, Professor Russell said that if young people of 16 or 17 become homeless there are certain duties on local authorities to protect them. Should those protections continue if we lowered the voting age to 16?

We need to think very carefully about these concerns. Neither of them has been addressed so far and I would appreciate it if those who are advocating this measure would do so. Therefore, I am afraid that I cannot support the amendment before us today. I worry that there is a project here to lower the franchise—it is not just about the specifics of this referendum; there is a project to expand the franchise and it needs more thought.

[Lord Taverne (LD)]

The noble Earl referred to previous considerations of this matter. Three commissions have looked at it. They disagreed about whether the age should be lowered, but they all agreed that there was a great gap in the evidence as to whether young people would be sufficiently responsible in weighing up their vote to take care to be informed about the issues. But is not the evidence now clear, because we have had the Scottish referendum where all those questions were answered?

[Lord Allen of Kensington (Lab)]

My Lords, I support the amendment. As a Scot involved in the Better Together campaign last year, I saw first-hand 16 and 17 year-olds taking this responsibility very seriously. I had robust debates probably more with 16 and 17 year- olds than with their parents. They were not necessarily on our side, so this is not about manipulating the position. They were one of the most knowledgeable groups because they had literally done their homework. As your Lordships have heard, more of them voted. The facts are that 75% of them turned out and voted compared to 54% of 18 to 24 year-olds.

We often criticise young people for not getting involved in the political process but I think, having spent many years in television, that we, too, were part of that problem. We could not get young people to engage in the political process but now we have a great opportunity. However, surely we are putting out mixed messages. We want them to engage but we do not want to give them the vote.

The Scottish referendum showed that young people are knowledgeable and can be trusted with the vote. They take this new responsibility seriously. This House has already decided to lower the voting age for local government elections to 16; 16 and 17 year-olds will be given the vote in the Scottish Parliament and I believe that Wales will follow suit. Do we really want to say to 16 and 17 year-olds that they are old enough to be involved in the debate but not old enough to be involved in the election. These elections will have more impact on them than they will on any of us.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, perhaps I may step into the lion’s den and say that I strenuously oppose these amendments and believe that we should stick with the current age of majority of 18.

Two arguments have been advanced by the proponents of 16. The first is that this decision may last for another 40 years and will affect a whole generation of young people. That is true. However, in that case, should we not push the age down so that people younger than 16 and 17 can vote, because it will also greatly affect 15 year-olds, 14 year-olds, 13 year-olds and 12 year-olds? There is an argument that it could go down to as low as 10. I am not suggesting that it should, but if one adopts the logic that this decision affects young people disproportionately and that young people should have a say, at 10 years old they have reached the age of criminal responsibility and, if we can assume that from that age onwards they have that reasoning ability, there may be no reason why they should not be able to vote. Logic dictates that there is nothing magical about lowering the age to 16 and sticking at 16.

The second argument is that young people are much more mature these days: they are more sophisticated; they understand politics and the world; and they would be enthusiastic voters. I do not deny their enthusiasm but that is not a good enough ground per se for extending the franchise. If we change the voting age based on maturity, I suspect all the behavioural experts would give the vote to girls at age 10 and to boys at age 25. Making a judgment on who is mature enough to vote is more subjective than picking an arbitrary age.

However, my main objection is that everything we have done in Parliament over recent years has involved raising the age at which young people can do things because we, in this House and in the other place, have concluded that under 18 year-olds cannot be trusted to do things on their own and do not have the maturity to make decisions. With the assistance of our wonderful Library, I have looked at the minimum ages we have set for young people to do certain things. This is in accordance with English law, I stress. Those who favourably quote Scotland should be aware that Scots law has traditionally permitted young people to do some things at an earlier age, such as marry without parental consent. That is perhaps one reason why lowering the voting age in Scotland was not such a big issue.

We know that young people under 18 can marry in England only with parental consent.

[Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)]

Perhaps I may ask the noble Lord one simple question: what arguments and rationale is he going to use when explaining to the young people of Scotland aged between 16 and 17 that they are not going to be able to vote in this referendum, when they have voted previously? I would like to hear the persuasive arguments he is going to use with these young people.

[Lord Blencathra]

They did not have the right to vote in a referendum previously. They may have the right to vote in Scottish elections but this is a United Kingdom referendum. I would be quite happy to explain to young Scots that while they may have the right to vote in Scotland, it does not automatically follow that they have the right to vote in a United Kingdom election.

No one under the age of 18 can gamble: we passed that law in 1934. No one under 18 can get a tattoo: we passed that law in 1969. No one under 18 can serve on a jury—a 1974 Act. No one under 18 can watch a violent or pornographic film—a 1984 Act. In 1985 we banned anyone under 18 from buying solvents. No one under 18 can buy alcohol. Interestingly, the Scottish NHS and Government have been trying to push the age up to 21. They tried that in 2008 and are keen to do so again.

Under a 1987 law, no one under the age of 18 can sign a property agreement. In 1996 my noble friend Lord Howard of Lympne and I increased the age at which one can buy a knife from 16 to 18. In 2003 we banned anyone aged under 18 from buying paint stripper, and in 2005 we banned anyone aged under 18 from possessing fireworks in a public place. In 2007 we raised the age at which someone can buy tobacco to 18, while in 2010 we banned anyone under the age of 18 from using a sunbed.

[Lord Blair of Boughton (CB)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Everything he has mentioned concerns banning people from doing something. This amendment is about permitting people to do something. I do not think that the analogy works.

[Lord Blencathra]

I beg to differ with the noble Lord. I have almost concluded my remarks on the timescale on which we ban things and I am trying to show that, over the years, this House and the other place have been raising the age at which young people are permitted to do things. It is quite incongruous to suggest that, as we raise the age bar every year because we do not trust the ability of young people to make certain decisions, we should suddenly say that we will lower to 16 the age at which people have the right to vote in this referendum.

On 21 July this year we banned anyone under the age of 18 from buying fireworks. Without listing all the other legislation through which we have prohibited under 18 year-olds from doing things like opening a bank account, making a will or appearing in an adult court, the trend is pretty obvious. Rather than Parliament acknowledging that young people are growing up faster and can be trusted with decisions, rightly or wrongly, we have been going in the opposite direction. Almost every year we have been raising from 16 to 18 the age at which young people can do things. I simply say that we cannot have it both ways, as the proponents of this amendment are arguing. We cannot say that young people should be permitted to vote at the age of 16 because they are more aware and mature—and then push the age up to 18 for almost everything else.

I conclude by saying that if under 18 year-olds are not fit to serve on a jury and judge the fate of an individual human being, I submit that they are not fit to decide the fate of a nation.

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

My Lords, I tabled a detailed amendment in Committee to make this provision, but I am very happy indeed to support the amendment moved by the noble Baroness.

Against the background of the constitutional referendum in Scotland last year, it strikes me that a principle has been established that we as a House and the Westminster Parliament are willing to consider, at the very least, that in constitutional matters, this may be appropriate. The rationale as I understand it in Scotland was that the decision was so far-reaching with regard to the future of Scotland that everyone who could make a reasonable contribution to that decision should be encouraged to do so, and that 16 and 17 year-olds were seen in that context. Surely the decision we are about to take with regard to the future of the United Kingdom, inside or outside the European Union, is equally far-reaching. It is going to affect those young people and people of all ages for the rest of their lives.

Of course we have to draw a line somewhere, but saying that it is all right for people aged 16 and 17 to vote does not mean that we must then necessarily say, “What about 15, 14 and 13 year-olds?”. That reduces the argument ad absurdum. The principle has been acknowledged, not only in Scotland but also in Wales with regard to some of the changes to the powers of the Assembly that we may make. How on earth can we say that it is all right for young people in Scotland and Wales to vote, but not for young people in the context of the United Kingdom? Is the relationship of the United Kingdom with the European Union going to be seen as something that looks to the past and to a type of Britain that some people might identify with, but I suspect that the majority, both in this Chamber and certainly in these islands, might not? If we are looking forward, if we are outward-looking and positive and if we want our young people to play a role in that sort of community, surely we should trust them with regard to this vote. I hope very much that this Chamber will give them that opportunity.

17:00

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

My Lords, I do not know what I think about this issue any more. I was trying to think of the phrase and the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, helped me out as always. What is it about consistency? Consistency is the hallmark of small minds. I should like to say that I have been completely consistent on this matter. When the Government decided in their wisdom to allow the Scottish Parliament to introduce votes for 16 year-olds, I argued against it on the grounds that it would set a precedent and we would end up having to have votes for 16 year-olds in general elections and every other thing and that we should not go about these matters in a piecemeal manner.

When the Government decided to allow 16 year-olds to have the vote, not in Welsh elections but in a referendum in Wales to decide if the Assembly should have tax-raising powers, I argued that there was no consistency in this matter and asked why they were making a distinction. I have consistently argued that these matters—the matters of the age of majority—should be looked at as a whole and not on the basis of piecemeal changes. Here we are again with the amendment of the noble Baroness seeking to make another piecemeal change.

I do not want to repeat the brilliant arguments that were put by my noble friend Lord Blencathra—

[Noble Lords]

Hear, hear.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

Well, I will repeat them if you like.

The best argument I have seen in support of not changing the law for 16 year-olds can be found in the article that was written by the leader of the Liberal Democrats in the papers this morning, in which he argues that it is hypocrisy to argue against votes for 16-year-olds. He says that you are able to fight in the Army when you are 16—not true. He says you can marry when you are 16—not true. He says that anyone who pays tax should be able to vote. Noble Lords opposite all laughed when my noble friend said, “Why not 13 and 14 year-olds?” Every seven year-old pays tax when they buy a bag of sweets or an ice cream. It is VAT.

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

Well, it is an argument. I am not surprised that the Liberal Democrat Benches are wincing because that argument was put forward by their leader this very day.

Then we have had the argument about Scotland. We are told that Scotland has led the way in this revolution, recognising the rights and responsibilities of 16 year-olds. Well, in April Scotland will introduce legislation that requires every child in Scotland from ages nought to 18 to have a state guardian to check up on whether their parents are looking after them. So, the state guardian will need to make sure that 16 year- olds, presumably in exercising their votes, are being properly dealt with. How can we have a state guardian to protect you from your parents and at the same time argue that you are able to vote? We all know why the SNP wanted 16 year-olds to have the vote. It is true that they came out very enthusiastically and voted for independence.

[Noble Lords]

No!

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

They did indeed. Those noble Lords who are saying they did not did not spend much time campaigning in Scotland.

The turnout was certainly higher: 75% of 16 and 17 year-olds voted in the referendum of Scotland; only 54% of 18 to 24 year-olds voted. The funny thing about 16 year-olds is that they turn into 18 year-olds. Is it not extraordinary that the turnout fell to 54% as against 92% of people who are over 55, and 85% of 35 to 54 year-olds?

[Viscount Ridley]

In the spirit of bipartisan compromise, a suggestion in the previous amendment was that perhaps one should delay voting. Perhaps we should say that 16 year-olds can indeed have the vote but delay it for two years?

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

I like my noble friend’s idea of what constitutes a compromise. The Scottish position arose out of sheer opportunism by the SNP. We can argue whether or not it worked for that party, but that is why it wanted to give votes to 16 year-olds.

Having said that, the Government are all over the place on this. The Prime Minister gave an undertaking to the First Minister that he will do all he can to ensure that 16 and 17 year-olds can vote in the next Holyrood elections. Indeed, he has been as good as his word: 16 year-olds will be able to vote in the Holyrood elections in May, just as they voted in the referendum. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, who is in her place, is right that this is a rather embarrassing thing to deal with in Scotland—to explain why they could vote in the referendum on independence and will in the Scottish elections, but they will not in the referendum on our membership of the European Union. I agree that it is embarrassing, but it was the party opposite who decided to grant devolution and to devolve these powers. We are discussing a United Kingdom issue. It is very embarrassing that every 16, 17 and 18 year-old in Scotland will have a state guardian, unlike people in England. That is the consequence of devolution, which the parties opposite supported with so much enthusiasm.

My answer to the 16 year-old who says, “Why do I not have a vote in Scotland on this matter?”, would be, “Because we have gone through an idiotic period of piecemeal constitutional reform”. The proper thing to do is to consider all the issues that have been mentioned. Why can you not—

[Lord Griffiths of Burry Port (Lab)]

Will the noble Lord give way?

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

I will give way in a moment. Why can you not buy a packet of cigarettes and do all the things that my noble friend mentioned? We need to look at the age of majority and make it as consistent as possible throughout the United Kingdom in respect of every area of activity, and not to say, “Wouldn’t it be a good idea to add to the confusion by making a change in a Bill of this nature?”.

[Lord Griffiths of Burry Port]

My Lords, I am very happy to have waited that moment—more than one moment—to ask about the noble Lord’s use of the word “piecemeal”. I find it very ironic, coming from the Benches opposite and from a Government who have consistently refused attempts to get a constitutional convention together to look at a non-piecemeal way of effecting constitutional change, that in this instance and on this matter “piecemeal” is what he is afraid of, when his Government have consistently—that word again; a small mind—been throwing piecemeal constitutional change at us, expecting us to toe his line.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

If the noble Lord were a more frequent attender at this House he would know that I harry the Government almost every day on the issue of not having piecemeal reform and that I support the idea of a constitutional convention. I certainly am speaking not for the Government, but for those of us who believe that we should not make constitutional changes. Indeed, the noble Lord makes his own point. The Labour Party’s position is that we should have a constitutional convention to sort all these matters out, but here it is doing the opposite of what it says that it wants and making a piecemeal change. If I may say so, the noble Lord has made a point that has come back to hit him like a boomerang.

Interestingly, in moving her amendment the noble Baroness said in her defence that it would apply only to these elections and that she was not making a general change to the franchise. I did not really understand that. She also said that we need a broader debate. Presumably she was trying to cover this point about the constitutional convention and the need to look at these things as a whole. I am sure the noble Baroness will forgive me for pointing out that she elided the issue of 16 to 18 year-olds. Only four countries in the world allow 16 year-olds a vote in general elections. They are Austria, Nicaragua, Brazil—where it is voluntary for 16 year-olds and compulsory for older voters—and Cuba. I do not think that Castro is a great symbol of democracy—although with the current leadership of the Labour Party I can see the attraction.

I have a serious point to make. In an article, the leader of the Liberal Democrats had a real go at my colleague in the other place David Nuttall. He said in a mocking way that people who are against votes for 16 year-olds even suggest that somehow it could result in sexual exploitation. To be fair to the noble Baroness, she accepted the point that a register of young people which will allow 16 year-olds to vote has to be a carefully drawn-up, separate and confidential register. I listened to all the arguments about how all this could be done very quickly and wondered whether these were the same people who, not a matter of weeks ago, were telling us that individual registration could not be done in a year because it was too difficult and there was not enough time to get people on the register. Can these be the same people? Suddenly, we are told that it is all very different. When my noble friend Lord Ridley made his point about national insurance, they said, “We will just give everybody a national insurance number”. That is the most extraordinary statement. How much will all this cost, and for what purpose?

[A noble Lord]

Democracy.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

Someone is saying “democracy”. Democracy involves having a consistent and well-thought-through attitude towards the franchise. It does not consist of giving young people the vote and dressing it up as some kind of liberty for them, when actually the reason some want to give 16 year-olds the vote is because they are hoping they will vote for them. That is what is behind all this and it is no way in which to determine our franchise. Therefore, I have to say, I am not in favour of this amendment.

[Baroness Young of Old Scone]

Will the noble Lord let me try again on this? I recognise that he finds it very embarrassing to have to explain his stance to the 16 year-olds of Scotland, but will he give it a go and tell us how he will do so? I am not sure that they will be taken with the arguments that he has given us at length over the last 10 minutes, because they have voted willingly and in numbers. I think that they will take a pretty dim view of those arguments. Will the noble Lord tell us the argument he will use with the 16 year-olds—not the ones we have heard because I do not think they will cut a lot of ice with them?

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

Do you know what? I have often had difficulty getting people in Scotland to accept some of my arguments, and that is not just limited to 16 year-olds.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard]

I am very concerned about the public image of the Conservative Party in Scotland after the tartan obscurantism of two or three noble Lords sitting close to me. It is important to remember the official position of the Conservative Party in Scotland. Ms Ruth Davidson, the leader of that Conservative Party, is strongly in favour of this amendment. She argues:

“We deem 16 year olds adult enough to join the army … get married, leave home and work full-time. The evidence of the referendum suggests that, clearly, they are old enough to vote too”.

That was the deduction I drew from the Scottish referendum. It had lots of very unpleasant aspects but the one really good thing was the engagement of so many young people in politics. They got interested and involved. That is a strong argument for this amendment. There is a small Scottish argument for it as well. The question that flummoxed the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, which I thought also sort of flummoxed the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, is: how do you explain to the Scots young people that Holyrood was prepared to give them a vote but Westminster is not? I think we all know what deduction Scots young people would draw from that, and it is unhelpful to those of us like me who favour the union.

[Lord Morgan (Lab)]

My Lords, I had not intended to participate in this debate but the arguments I have heard are interesting and in some cases bizarre. I have just come back from Paris and the reaction of people, including young people, to the terrible atrocities there has in my view a bearing on what I want to say. The arguments we have heard are quite interesting to a historian—namely, that some people in our society need protection, perhaps because of their immaturity or lack of public awareness. To my mind, many of them had a strong ring of the arguments presented strongly in this House against giving the franchise to women a long time ago, and many of the same patronising and ill-informed observations about categories of our society have re-emerged.

17:15

I was fascinated by the speech of a noble Lord who I greatly respect for his expertise, the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, who spoke against this amendment. His line was that young people needed protection, and that this is recognised in a variety of ways, because they were vulnerable to particular kinds of ideas, including racial and cultural extremism. My own view is that in key areas young people need rather less protection than their seniors—rather less protection, I venture to observe, than some noble Lords who have participated in this debate. There is every indication in countries across Europe that young people, while necessarily having a brief experience of life, are less prey to religious and racial extremism, and that they have a more outward-looking view towards the cultural admixture of society, the aspects of society concerned with immigration, and so on. It could be argued that, far from being in need of protection, they might serve as an example to others.

The various racialist movements that have emerged in continental Europe are broadly groups or bodies of opinion which appeal most strongly to older people. It is older people who supply the bulk of support for the Front National and a variety of national and extremist groups. My conclusion, therefore, is that young people would be more likely to look at these matters rationally and dispassionately.

Finally, the terrible events in France of course have provoked an enormous public debate. What seems to be emerging is that younger people are more inclined to take a broad view of these atrocities—not simply to indulge in an instant response of a punitive kind but to see the broader relationship between these terrible events and the social and other inequalities that have inured in France in this period. Comparatively, we have every basis for having faith in young people, not dismissing them—not using the fact that, as many noble Lords have rightly said, the law is inconsistent and perverse and treats categories of our society in different ways; as my noble friend behind me observed, so does our constitution, which is similarly fragmented. It would be in every way an educative and civilised thing if we supported this amendment.

[Lord Cormack]

My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Lord, Lord Morgan, but I cannot agree with him. I am one of those who hope that we will have a referendum with an emphatic result in favour of remaining within the European Union. Unless there are some extraordinary events between now and holding the referendum, I believe that I shall be campaigning—I hope vigorously—on that front.

Last year, my 16 year-old grand-daughter, who will be 18 tomorrow, voted—with my encouragement—for Scotland to remain within the United Kingdom. I was delighted that she did. She and her classmates took an intelligent and very sensible approach to the whole issue. But the fact that they considered it carefully does not, I believe, give your Lordships’ House the freedom to indulge in what my noble friend Lord Forsyth very persuasively called piecemeal change. As the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, pointed out, this House recently decided—on his initiative, and I gave him my strong support— that 17 year-olds should not be detained in police custody overnight. He made a quietly passionate speech in that sense and I was delighted to make a brief speech supporting him.

We are all over the shop on this one. It is not coherent or sensible to argue that on the one hand you cannot smoke or drink, or do all those things that my noble friend Lord Blencathra set out in his very amusing speech, but on the other that you can vote. We need to look at two issues and this Bill is not the occasion for so doing. We need to look at the age of maturity—what one can and should be able to do at the age of 16 or 18. Have we got it right? Have we been sensible in creating more and more impediments, as my noble friend Lord Blencathra pointed out, or have we been wrong? We also have to look very sensibly and coherently at the franchise.

[Lord Kinnock (Lab)]

My Lords—

[Lord Cormack]

Perhaps I may just finish, then of course I will give way. The Bill takes the UK franchise as it is, which seems to be an entirely logical and sensible thing to do. I give way to my old friend.

[Lord Kinnock]

I am grateful to my old friend, the noble Lord, for giving way; I would expect nothing less. I also applaud him for introducing to the debate a specific instance in the case of his grand-daughter to illustrate that fact that youngsters in Scotland voted with great responsibility and not a little insight in casting their vote in the referendum there. His grand-daughter may not be as grateful as I am to him for introducing her into this debate. Nevertheless, I am sure that she is a very grown-up young woman. Can he tell us what arguments he would deploy in convincing an 18 year-old who voted when she was 16 in the Scottish referendum, in good conscience and with good judgment, that she should not now be able to exercise the same right to vote in this referendum—presuming, of course, that she had not reached the age of majority at that time? What argument would he have used, say, on the day before her 16th birthday when she would have been entitled to vote? Can he impart those arguments to us now?

[Lord Cormack]

As I have already said, my grand-daughter is 18 tomorrow and she will be entirely free to vote, as I hope she will, in this referendum and every other election, and at every other opportunity when she can vote.

There was nothing inconsistent—the saying of course refers to foolish consistency as the hobgoblin of small minds, not the hallmark—in saying as I did at the time of the referendum, “You have been given this responsibility; I hope that you will exercise it responsibly; but I do not believe in general that what is being done is right”. I argued that in this House when we discussed the matter. No one who was present when I argued on these things before would be at all surprised by what I am saying. My noble friend Lord Tyler—I still call him that—and I clashed several times on this issue when we were talking about the Scottish referendum and other things. The fact is that it is perfectly possible to say, “If you have been given this responsibility, exercise it, but I do not believe that we are wise”. I certainly did not believe that the Prime Minister was wise to concede this in the case of the Scottish referendum, any more than I think that he was wise recently to say what he did about 16 and 17 year-olds voting in the Scottish general election. One wonders whether they will have to be accompanied by guardians—but that is another matter entirely.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

I am most grateful to my noble friend for giving way. I am getting bids for alternatives, and the latest is that consistency is the bugbear of a mediocre mind. Perhaps I can help my noble friend with his grand-daughter. Surely the point is that his grand-daughter would have been able to vote in the Scottish referendum but not in the general election that we have just had.

[Lord Cormack]

Yes, indeed: she thought that was inconsistent, and I agreed with her; of course it was. I do not think that one needs to prolong this argument. We should be getting the Bill on to the statute book as soon as possible. I hope that we will have a referendum in which I will be able to campaign for membership of the European Union by the middle of next year. This thing is dragging on far too long. We should look separately at the question of the franchise and the question of maturity and decide whether we have got it right.

[Lord Tyler (LD)]

My Lords, I am a signatory to Amendment 3, in common with not only the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Ely, but Members on the Conservative Benches and Cross-Benchers. It is genuinely across the House that we now feel that this moment has arrived. Having deployed the argument for this extension of the franchise so often in the past, as the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, so kindly said, I can be very brief. I certainly do not need to repeat the noble Baroness’s excellent exposition of the advice we have now had from the Electoral Commission and the Association of Electoral Administrators about the practicalities.

In Committee, I thought that the most persuasive contribution of many was from the Conservative Benches, from the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, who said:

“So the question I am struggling with is: how can it be right to allow 16 and 17 year-olds to vote in a referendum on Scotland but not in a referendum on Europe? There has to be some sort of consistency”.

We are back there again, as the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, has so admirably emphasised. The noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, went on to rubbish the official explanation that somehow the extension of the franchise in the Scottish independence referendum did not originate with Conservative Ministers. He said,

“although the coalition Government and the Prime Minister did not specifically approve votes for 16 year-olds, they did acquiesce in votes for 16 year-olds”.—[Official Report, 28/10/15; cols.1227-8.]

He and others, notably now an increasing number of Conservative MPs, have warned that we simply cannot pretend that Scottish young people are somehow more mature, well-informed, responsible or capable of exercising common sense than their English, Welsh and Northern Irish counterparts. Several colleagues from this side of the House have challenged anybody from the other side to produce that argument, without any success.

The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, referred to the United Kingdom. He is right: in the long term, we have to address the consistency of the franchise, the bedrock of our representative democracy across the United Kingdom, but we have a particular issue at the moment. We have a Bill. We have a referendum coming. It is on that issue that we need specific consistency. That was very much the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, and he had no problem whatever with my quoting his contribution in Committee. As an avid fan of both versions of his “House of Cards”, I am very disappointed that he is not able to be here today. I do not know whether I am being as cynical or conspiratorial as some of the characters in those great productions, but I wonder whether there has been some encouragement for him not to be here today. I wonder whether the Government Whips may have encouraged him to stay away, reassuring him that nothing controversial was to be discussed or decided.

One of the key lessons of the Scottish referendum was that the 16 and 17 year-old age group registered—well over 100,000 of them—and voted in larger numbers than those aged 18 to 24. Why? It is very interesting. The reason why that has been identified is that the younger cohort were often still at school and in their local, family environment, where they had much more encouragement to take the issues seriously. When they got away from home to their first job or further or higher education, they lost touch with some of the issues and concerns that might otherwise been part of their consideration.

There is hard evidence—looked at very carefully by Bite the Ballot and others—that there is a good case for a direct link between citizenship courses and electoral registration. Indeed, as the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, said, there has been a successful pilot in Northern Ireland in that regard.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

On the numbers, it is certainly true that 75% of 16 year-olds voted—of course, it was a novelty—but that is not very different from the figure for 25 to 34 year-olds, which was 72%. It is true that there was a fall-off for voters aged between 18 and 24, but then a lot of those people had gone off to university and were not able to vote. So there is no evidence whatever that somehow or other, this increases participation in elections.

17:30

[Lord Tyler]

That is simply not true. I have worked with the Electoral Commission over the years and there is good evidence that, once you start voting, you tend to continue to vote. The cohort that is missing out at the moment is very much the 18 to 24 year-olds. The turnout for them was down to 54%—it dropped dramatically. Therefore, the noble Lord is simply wrong on that point.

I wonder whether the Minister has come armed with the same wholly inadequate response that was employed in Committee, when I moved a similar amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Faulks, then extracted a very short quote from the advice given by the Electoral Commission:

“The Commission’s view is that any changes to the franchise for the referendum on the UK’s membership of the European Union should be clear in sufficient time to enable all those who are eligible, to register and participate in the referendum”.

Today we have some additional advice from the Electoral Commission:

“Recent media reports have indicated that the Commission believes there must be 12 months between legislation passing through Parliament to change the franchise and the first electoral event to which this applies. This is not the case”.

It then says, in heavy type:

“The Commission has been consistently clear that a change to the franchise is a matter for Parliament, and that we will advise on the practical implications of any such change”.

I hope that the Minister will not now pray in aid the commission.

I have worked with the Electoral Commission for some years, and it is very careful in the words that it uses in advising Parliament. It is responsible to us—to Parliament, not to government—and its advice is to Parliament. It is a statutory commission, with very considerable responsibility. Noble Lords should note that clarity of intention is what it is worrying about, not whether Royal Assent has actually been granted. It can start preparing for this change, as the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, mentioned earlier. In other words, this is an argument not for doing nothing with this change to the franchise, but for getting on with it as soon as possible.

On the evening before the day in Committee to which I referred, the Minister’s ministerial colleague systematically rubbished the Electoral Commission and all the advice given to us, in the context of the Government’s acceleration of the electoral registration change. We should be absolutely clear now that there is no practical objection to this extension of the franchise, assuming that the referendum is not held before June 2016. For all the other reasons that have already been explained in Committee and today, it is very unlikely that the Government would contemplate a referendum before that date. Six months is acknowledged to be an adequate minimum period for the preparatory work, based on the Scottish experience. So for Ministers to drag their feet while so many in both Houses are urging them to recognise the strength of the case would be irresponsible, frankly. Indeed, trying to postpone it for as long as possible in the hope that that will make the change more problematic would be a failure of good governance.

[Lord Lawson of Blaby (Con)]

What the noble Lord is saying, as others have said, is that the decision to reduce the voting age for the Scottish referendum is a precedent that has to be followed for all elections of all kinds. That makes it a very important matter indeed, which clearly the Westminster Parliament as a whole needs to pronounce on. Can he remind us by what majority the Westminster Parliament decided that this should happen in Scotland?

[Lord Tyler]

My Lords, it did not—but I quoted specifically the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, who identified precisely that the Cabinet of the previous Government actually agreed with that change.

I am not arguing today for the extension of the franchise in all parts of our electoral system. That is not what is on the Order Paper. What we are debating is very specific. I have an expert witness—I will come to him in a moment—who says that this is an exceptional circumstance in which it should be done.

I simply do not understand on what basis the Government, without a principled or practical objection, are continuing to resist—assuming that they are.

[Viscount Ridley]

The noble Lord said that the Electoral Commission’s advice is based on the experience of Scotland. Does he accept that when the franchise was extended to 16 and 17 year-olds in Scotland, we still had household registration without the requirement, as I said earlier, for national insurance numbers and so on, and that the process would be much more complex now?

[Lord Tyler]

I have had that discussion with the Electoral Commission. It does not regard that as a particular obstacle in this case. I am grateful to the noble Viscount for helping me in that respect.

Any reference to the disadvantages of piecemeal constitutional change is frankly absurd, particularly from that side of the House. When female suffrage was extended, that is exactly what we had: piecemeal changes. I used to be a historian. It was Disraeli who started this process. The Conservatives have been at it ever since. They always tell us that they want change on an incremental basis. That is constantly what we are told. It was the same with female suffrage. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Morgan, who said that he heard some of the arguments we have been hearing today before, at the time of the extension of female suffrage. My wife and I went to see the excellent film about that subject, and there were occasions when I thought I was listening to the present-day House of Lords.

[Lord Trimble (Con)]

I have been reflecting on this issue and the piecemeal way it has been done. Presumably when David Cameron decided that he wanted to make sure that people aged between 16 and 18 did not have a vote, it must have been because he considered, or feared, that most of them would vote to leave.

[Lord Tyler]

I do not follow that because I do not think that at this stage the Conservative Party has collectively made up its mind. It will be very interesting to see what happens, because a large number of Conservative Members take the view that this is an inevitable change. That was reflected in the contributions of a number of Conservative Members in the Bill Committee.

The evolution of our constitution has always been piecemeal. Indeed, down the other end, the Government are currently changing the constitution, through English votes for English laws—EVEL, or evil, as some would prefer it— on a piecemeal basis. It may be that before Christmas, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, will come forward with another piecemeal change to our constitution. Are noble Lords going to be against that? Some may be, but I do not think that others will be. It is frankly absurd to argue that we cannot make a change because it is piecemeal and ad hoc.

I have a great deal of sympathy with those who say that we should in the longer term have a constitutional convention. I have no problem with that—I have always thought that—but here and now we have a Bill before your Lordships’ House, and we have to deal with the franchise. We have already agreed some changes to the franchise, not least to include your Lordships in the electorate for this referendum.

I do not understand the argument that somehow, it is not the right time. That was what they said about female suffrage before the First World War, and some went on saying it after the First World War. We have a Bill before us and a big decision for the citizens of this country to take in the near future. Those young people who will be so affected by the outcome—just like their colleagues and compatriots were in Scotland a year ago—should be given the opportunity to participate in the choice about their future.

I was challenged earlier about why this situation is exceptional. I have an expert witness. Last week, David Cameron described this vote as,

“a huge decision for our country, perhaps the biggest we will make in our lifetimes. And it will be the final decision”.

That is the strongest argument I have heard for extending the franchise to this particular group. The Prime Minister is absolutely right, and it must surely follow that this group of our fellow citizens cannot be denied a say in that decision.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch (UKIP)]

My Lords, I wonder if I could set out on a very brief quest which I fear most of your Lordships will regard as hopeless. That quest is to prick the conscience of Liberal Democrat Members of your Lordships’ House if they are thinking of supporting this amendment and thus voting it through. I do so by reminding them of their policy before the last election of appointing Peers to your Lordships’ House in accordance with the votes cast in the previous general election. I take the opportunity of reminding the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, and his colleagues that the percentage of their votes in the last general election was 7.9% of the votes cast. That would give them 43 Peers in this House whereas at the moment they have 112—69 more Peers than they ought to.

We have heard much from the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, and Liberal Democrat Peers about democratic legitimacy and all the rest of it, but I recall our debate on 15 September about the future of your Lordships’ House. I have to say to the Liberal Democrat Peers that if they are thinking of using their hugely unconstitutional and undemocratic position in this House to vote the amendment through, I remind them that the Bill has already been through the House of Commons and has the approval of that House.

I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, with Labour and with others that we need a constitutional convention to restore our democracy because not only is the position of the Liberal Democrat party in your Lordships’ House absurd but so is that of the Labour Party—and indeed that of the Government in the House of Commons, where the Government of the day, the Conservative Party, got a mere 24% of the electorate, 37% of the votes cast, yet that gave them 330 seats and an outright majority. I am sure that your Lordships would be disappointed if I did not compare that performance to the UKIP result in the House of Commons, where we got a big percentage of the electorate—one-third of the electorate of the Government of the day, 12.6% of the votes cast—but that gave us just one Member of Parliament. Still, I do not want to labour that point now. I simply say to the Liberal Democrats: are they wise if they are going to use this position to vote through the amendment? Otherwise, I agree with the noble Lords, Lord Hamilton and Lord Forsyth, who say that this is a transparent attempt to rig the referendum in favour of those who may wish to stay in the EU. As for the amendment itself, I oppose it and I hope it fails.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords—

[Noble Lords]

Minister.

[Lord Lansley]

I will be brief, not least because I agreed with much of what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Tyler. That might surprise some of my noble friends. I cannot agree that it is right to argue that the giving of access to rights and civic rights to young people is analogous to the age at which we protect them from harm and abuse. They are different things, and the noble Lord, Lord Blair, was quite right in making the point that he did. We should not construct this vote, on this issue, on this Bill as determining or seeking to determine the franchise for general elections.

My personal view has been for some time that 16 and 17 year-olds should be able to vote in local government elections but not yet in general elections. I think that what this comes down to—and I have not yet heard this point expressed—is that this is not just a singular election, as the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, said by reference to the Prime Minister’s view about the singular nature of the referendum as an occasion upon which votes are taking place, but it is singular in terms of its impact on those young people. Of course that would be true for younger people, but we have to make a judgment where we can. The noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, was right to say that we know from recent experience in Scotland that we have young people who are well equipped to take a decision on an issue of this kind in a debate of this kind, so in my view we should support them in doing that.

The singular nature of this is that these 16 and 17 year-olds of whom we are speaking will be able to vote at the next general election—but at the next general election they will not be able to change the outcome of the referendum. So often in the past, one of the reasons that has been adduced for not extending the franchise to 16 and 17 year-olds is that, “You will access your civic rights and will have your chance to vote, and at subsequent general elections you will have the chance to change the Government if you don’t like it”. On this referendum they will not have that subsequent chance. If they do not like it, I am afraid they are stuck with it. In the course of what I hope will be next year’s extensive debate about the future of the country in which they have to live, I, for one, would not want to argue to 16 and 17 year-olds that they should not participate in that election.

17:45

[Lord Faulks]

My Lords, Amendment 3, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, would extend the referendum franchise to 16 and 17 year-olds in the United Kingdom. As I think a number of noble Lords will appreciate, the amendment is incomplete, because it would not enfranchise 16 and 17 year-olds in Gibraltar and does not make provision for the technical legislation and time-consuming operational work that would be required to register these young electors. The question of principle, however, has been roundly debated in Committee and here today. There has not been a great deal of agreement, but I hope that there may be some agreement about the House that it is essential that this referendum should be seen to be fair—and that it should be fair. We should avoid any action that could be seen as some attempt to push towards a particular outcome. That is a significant reason why, with the small changes to enfranchise Gibraltar electors and Peers, both of whom are already entitled to vote in certain elections, the Bill adopts the parliamentary franchise. We want to avoid any allegations of interference and we fear that changing the franchise, including this particular change, could be seen as doing exactly that and could seriously undermine the legitimacy of the referendum.

Much mention has been made of the Scottish independence referendum: how that came about, whether it was opportunism by the SNP, or whether the Conservative Government were somewhat asleep on the job. It took place, and noble Lords have pointed to it and suggested that we should learn a great deal from it. However, just as the franchise used in Scotland was a matter for the Scottish Parliament to determine, I suggest that the franchise for elections and referendums that affect the whole of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is a matter for this Parliament to decide. As I am sure noble Lords would accept, a decision of the Scottish Parliament does not and should not prevent this Parliament taking a different approach; the example of Scottish guardians is a particularly vivid illustration.

During the course of this debate there was an interesting use of the concept of a precedent. It is said that this referendum is exceptional, and in one sense it is. However, at the same time the argument seems to be that the decisions of the Scottish Parliament after a referendum involving 16 and 17 year-olds provide a clear precedent and indicate that the franchise should be lowered for this referendum. Yet apparently, as I understand it, the Labour Party will not argue that this will therefore lead to any proposed change in the franchise for a general election. This sits rather uneasily with the argument in Committee, which was, essentially, that the genie was out of the bottle and that once you had allowed 16 year-olds to vote in the Scottish Parliament, the argument was all over. I suggest that we need to look at the argument carefully to consider whether it is right for this country.

Noble Lords have pointed to the difference, but surely, devolution by its very nature gives rise to the possibility of difference. It does not mean that we should necessarily harmonise. The fact that people may do certain things in Scotland aged 16—get married without parental consent, formally change their name, access their birth records if adopted—does not mean that the same rules must or should apply across the United Kingdom.

It is said, correctly, that the poll is exceptional and will affect 16 and 17 year-olds for longer. Noble Lords have suggested that, because the vote will—or should, in view of what the Prime Minister has said—affect everybody in this country for the rest of their lives, that means that 16 and 17 year-olds ought to have a say. But of course, without being frivolous in any way, it follows that 14 and 15 year-olds will have to live with the outcome for longer, and no one is seriously suggesting, except in order to illustrate the argument, that they should be allowed to vote.

We heard about the response of most democracies to the voting age. It is 18 in all the countries in the European Union except Austria. I leave aside Cuba and other interesting examples of democracies. It is also the voting age that has been applied in other exceptional circumstances. In 2011, when the public voted in a referendum with similarly lasting constitutional significance—namely, the voting system used to elect Members of the other place—where was the cry for 16 year-olds then?

Does the decision that we will make with this referendum outweigh in importance all other decisions that Parliament comes to? I suggest that the answer is: not necessarily. For example, there is the decision that in England all those under 18 must be in education or training, yet we do not allow individuals under 18 years of age to participate in parliamentary elections. We have to draw a line somewhere where the voting age is concerned, and I accept that there is always an element of arbitrariness about it. However, arbitrary though it is, it is one that hitherto has generally received approval.

It is said that young people have shown signs of engagement and political activity—for example, in the Scottish referendum—and that this indicates their readiness to vote. However, recent YouGov polling suggested that only 56% of 16 year-olds said that they would like to be able to vote, and that figure decreased to 42% of 17 year-olds and 36% of 18 year-olds. Using democratic engagement and the burst of enthusiasm that there seems to have been, or the lack of it, as the basis for giving or denying the vote would set a very odd precedent. There are of course many 50 year-olds who are not politically engaged, but that does not mean that we are going to disfranchise them. Simply lowering the voting age will not necessarily increase levels of democratic engagement among all young people.

I turn now to the complexity associated with the age of majority and the need to draw a line. Scientific study of the adolescent brain has yet to identify an obvious point at which we can distinguish between adolescents and adults. There is a considerably held view that it is not until the age of 25 that the adult brain reaches its ultimate state of maturity, so we look at the broader framework. A number of noble Lords, including my noble friends Lord Ridley and Lord Blencathra, did not think that at 16 young people were ready to vote. The noble Earl, Lord Listowel—few have more concern about and knowledge of 16 and 17 year-olds—also took that view.

We should not underestimate the gravity of voting. One can say that it is all great fun, we can join in and it is good to enthuse, but it is a huge responsibility. It is a momentous occasion for every individual, and of course a 16 year-old, given the chance to vote, will and should take it very seriously. However, we have to ask ourselves whether, in our desire to enthuse 16 and 17 year-olds, we may be in danger of placing too great a responsibility on them.

[Lord Morgan (Lab)]

My Lords, is it not extraordinarily patronising to young people to suggest that they will somehow regard voting as being like a university rag and not a serious intellectual and civil responsibility?

[Lord Faulks]

That is precisely the point that I am not making. The point I am making is that they will not, and should not, regard it trivially. The question is whether it is appropriate for us to burden them with a responsibility which they will no doubt take seriously. It is not a question of simply saying, “This is a good thing for them to do. Therefore, we should grant them that right”.

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

A person’s mental ability has never been taken into account when considering their right to vote, so is the noble Lord getting on to dangerous ground here? People who lack mental ability still have the right to vote. Surely he is not saying that they should not have the right to vote because they may not have that maturity.

[Lord Faulks]

The noble Baroness is right in the sense that we do not assess mental capacity before deciding whether somebody might vote. That is correct. However, when we take the difficult decision on where to draw the line—on whether the voting age should be 18, 16 or 21—we are entitled to inform ourselves generally about individuals’ state of development to see generally what a typical adolescent might be like.

[Lord Tyler]

Will the noble Lord tell us whether he has seen the film “Suffragette”? The argument that he has just been advancing was the argument for not giving women the vote until after the First World War and then for not extending it to those under the age of 28. Those arguments were deployed by his contemporaries, as it were, of that period.

[Lord Faulks]

I am afraid that I have not had enough time to see the film, but any argument about where you draw a line could be simply dismissed as one that has been used hitherto in different circumstances. I am concerned about whether giving these particular young people the vote is appropriate.

[Lord Lester of Herne Hill (LD)]

I am sure that the noble Lord does not wish to be offensive but the last time I heard arguments about brains and capacity was in Jackson, Mississippi, with the Ku Klux Klan showing me charts of the average Negro brain compared with a white brain. Does he not realise that arguments of that kind are deeply offensive?

[Lord Faulks]

I resent the noble Lord’s suggestion. We are engaging in an argument about whether to lower the voting age. Seeking comparisons with the Ku Klux Klan is entirely inappropriate and I reject it.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

On the point about suffragettes, would it be worth reminding the Benches opposite that it was Asquith and Lloyd George who consistently denied women the vote, the reason being that they thought it would upset the men and lose votes. That was exactly the kind of opportunism that we are seeing here today from the Liberal Benches.

[Lord Faulks]

I said at the beginning of my remarks that I did not think it was appropriate to try to guess how 16 and 17 year-olds would vote. In fact, it would probably be a mistake even to begin to speculate—we would probably be wrong about it. Although I am grateful for the interruption, that is not the issue that I am trying to engage upon.

[Baroness Crawley (Lab)]

Does the noble Lord accept as fact that this cohort of 16 and 17 year-olds is extremely mature and culturally aware? More than 45% of young people in this cohort will go to university or on to further education, whereas 60 years ago 5% of them did so. We have an extremely developed and mature 16 and 17 year-old cohort.

[Lord Faulks]

I am afraid that I cannot accept facts baldly stated—engagingly stated though they are. The answer is that many more people than before are being educated, and it is a different debate as to whether this is appropriate—

[Baroness Crawley]

My Lords—

[Lord Faulks]

Perhaps I could have a chance to answer the question first.

[Baroness Crawley]

Would the noble Lord accept the facts from the House of Commons Library?

[Lord Faulks]

I am not sure that it is going to enlighten the House very much if we try to decide how well educated or not well educated these young people are. One of the arguments was that young people spend a great deal of time on the internet or go travelling. The answer is that some 16 and 17 year-olds are extremely intelligent and well informed; others are not. The bigger point is whether, looking at them as a cohort, they have changed radically since, for example, Parliament considered this matter in the round in debating the Representation of the People Bill.

[Lord Blunkett (Lab)]

This is my first ever intervention and I ought to explain to the House that I am a convert to the idea of 16 and 17 year-olds being able to vote. The great benefit regarding this particular cohort is that at least many of them, although not as many as I would wish, will have benefited from citizenship education in school, which is more than can be said for the vast majority of the population.

[Lord Faulks]

I am honoured to have been intervened on by the noble Lord, and I hear what he says.

I was endeavouring to address the House on the Representation of the People Act 1969, which was brought in by the party opposite when it was in power. At that stage, the question was whether to lower the voting age from 21 to 18. The debates in this House ranged over the issues that one would expect. Often, amendments were put forward suggesting that it be lowered only to the age of 20. There was no suggestion that it should be lowered to the age of 16. What has changed so fundamentally about adolescence between then and now?

18:00

[Baroness Young of Old Scone]

I can tell the Minister what the difference is between then and now. The difference is that, now, we have a well-fed, well-educated set of 16 and 17 year-olds who are vastly more mature than I was at that age, and that was 40 years ago. Let us get on with the present.

[Lord Faulks]

Let me turn to something that may excite the party opposite slightly less, which is the question of what may happen in practical terms if there is a change of franchise. The noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, said that with a fair wind these matters could easily be accommodated—I hope that she will forgive me if I summarise what she said. The noble Lord, Lord Tyler, was, I think, suggesting that I had in some way misquoted the Electoral Commission, but I do not think that that is a fair accusation. Let me make entirely clear what the Electoral Commission said in its publication yesterday. The commission states that it is not the case that there must be a 12-month period between a change to the franchise and the referendum, or indeed any fixed period. Reports in the media that refer to the 12-month period are incorrect.

I ask the House’s indulgence while I quote accurately one paragraph from that publication:

“It is important that Parliament is aware that if the annual canvass does not fall before the electoral event that a franchise change applies to, a key opportunity is missed to get the new group of voters registered. This does not mean, however, that other options are not available to help get as many voters as possible on the register in the available timeframe. Although the scale of the challenge presented by some of these options should not be underestimated—and it must be borne in mind that every voter is now required to register themselves individually—this does not mean that steps cannot be taken to reduce the risks presented by them with proper planning and funding”.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)]

I just want to ask a factual question. Can the noble Lord say whether or not the annual canvass could be brought forward? I have no idea.

[Lord Faulks]

I have no idea of the answer to that question. The Electoral Commission will no doubt do its best, as I said in Committee, to follow what Parliament decides should be the franchise. It is also the case that, once the Bill receives Royal Assent, there are things that can be done, notwithstanding that there are various steps necessary to implement the legislation; for example, setting the referendum date and the start date. It is a very considerable undertaking involving a great many people.

I echo the point made my noble friend Lord Forsyth that being left off the register is considered a matter of considerable importance. Although there can be a campaign to increase awareness, there is a real risk that this matter would not be achieved in a satisfactory way, notwithstanding the willingness of the Electoral Commission to assist.

Legislation as momentous as this must command consensus in both Houses and the country as a whole. Reference was made to a recent amendment voted on in this House to the Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill to allow 16 year-olds to vote: that was reversed by the House of Commons yesterday by a substantial majority.

A change of this sort needs substantial legislation; it is a very important change. We have decided that the appropriate franchise is the one that has pertained satisfactorily in previous referenda and general elections, one that pertains in every country in the EU except Austria. There may come a time for change, when we lower the age to 16. There may be a debate to be had. This is not the moment for that debate.

[Baroness Morgan of Ely]

I thank noble Lords for participating in this debate. I have listened very carefully to the arguments put forward by the Minister and by others.

The one thing that we can all agree on is the need for us, at some point, to generally tidy up the inconsistencies around when young people are considered legally responsible for various aspects of their lives. But that is not the point of this amendment. Young people are the future of this nation. This is their one chance to have a say in this country’s relationship with the European Union. It is an exceptional case. They will have to live with the consequences of the result for longer than anyone. Let us show them that we have confidence in them, and that we respect them and their opinions. Let us give them a vote in the EU referendum.

I am not convinced by the arguments put forward by the Minister. Therefore, I would like to test the opinion of the House.

18:06

Division 1

Ayes: 293

---

Labour: 151
Liberal Democrat: 89
Crossbench: 37
Independent: 7
Green Party: 1
Conservative: 1
Plaid Cymru: 1

Noes: 211

---

Conservative: 171
Crossbench: 29
Independent: 3
Democratic Unionist Party: 2
UK Independence Party: 2
Bishops: 1
Labour: 1

Northern Ireland

Wednesday 18th November 2015 Lords Chamber

Statement

18:22

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scotland Office (Lord Dunlop) (Con)]

My Lords, with permission, I will repeat an Answer to an Urgent Question asked by Sir Gerald Howarth MP in the House of Commons earlier today. The Statement is as follows:

“As part of an ongoing investigation by the Police Service of Northern Ireland into the events surrounding Bloody Sunday in Londonderry in 1972, a former soldier was arrested for questioning on 10 November 2015. He was subsequently released on bail.

Criminal investigations and prosecutions are a matter for the police and prosecuting authorities, who act independently of government. The Government cannot therefore comment on an individual case.

This Government are committed to the rule of law. Where there is evidence of wrongdoing, it is right that it should be investigated.

We remain unstinting in our admiration and support for the men and women of the police and Armed Forces whose sacrifice ensured that terrorism would never succeed in Northern Ireland and that its future would only ever be determined by democracy and consent.

Whether the current investigations will lead to criminal prosecution is a matter for the police and prosecuting authorities in Northern Ireland. The overwhelming majority of armed services personnel carried out their duties with courage, professionalism and integrity. This Government will never forget the debt of gratitude that we owe to them”.

18:24

[Lord McAvoy (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Answer given in the other place. As my honourable friend Vernon Coaker said there, it is only right and proper at this time to pay tribute to our Armed Forces, who are at this very moment engaged in defending our freedoms and are in harm’s way. They operate to the very highest standards and we should always remember the difficult circumstances in which they serve. That is why it is always difficult to criticise our Armed Forces if they fall below these high standards, but we cannot and must not fail to do so if evidence of wrongdoing should exist. The Saville inquiry of 2010 was clear. As the Prime Minister said at that time in his Statement to the House,

“there is no doubt; there is nothing equivocal; there are no ambiguities. What happened on Bloody Sunday was both unjustified and unjustifiable. It was wrong”.—[Official Report, Commons, 15/6/10; col. 739.]

He also apologised on behalf of the British Government. The whole report makes very uncomfortable reading for all of us, and none of us should ever forget the victims and families of those who were killed both on Bloody Sunday and throughout Northern Ireland on so many other occasions.

Can the Minister confirm that evidence given at the Saville inquiry is precluded from being used in any court proceedings against a particular individual? Can he confirm that the arrest of Soldier J was based on evidence gathered since January 2014 by the PSNI, which has announced a new investigation? The PSNI has said that there will be no further arrests until the results of a judicial review brought by other affected soldiers has concluded. Can the Minister tell us when he expects this judicial review to be concluded? Can he also tell us what work the Northern Ireland Office is undertaking pending the outcome of that judicial review?

[Lord Dunlop]

I thank the noble Lord for his words and will take each of his points in turn. Yes, I can confirm that evidence given to Saville cannot be used to incriminate the person who gives it; the evidence is protected. On the specific case, it would not be appropriate for me to comment; it is a subject of an ongoing criminal investigation and the question of arrest is a matter for the PSNI. With regard to the ongoing legal proceedings, again, I do not think that it would be appropriate for me to comment, but I understand that the PSNI is committed to not making any further arrests in relation to Bloody Sunday until the outcome of those legal proceedings.

[Lord Glentoran (Con)]

I have two points to make, First, I had a private meeting with Martin McGuinness soon after the Prime Minister’s apology to find out how the apology had gone down in Londonderry. He assured me that it had been very welcome and had been accepted. Secondly, Bloody Sunday—I was living there at the time—was very early in what we loosely call the Troubled times. There had not been much time for training and briefing of soldiers. The Paras are briefed and trained as an aggressive attack force. It was just very unfortunate that they were committed to Bloody Sunday.

[Lord Dunlop]

I thank my noble friend. When the Prime Minister made his Statement, I think that it was widely welcomed for the tone that it struck. I very much note my noble friend’s other point.

[Lord Alderdice (LD)]

My Lords, while it is of course important in any case to follow the evidence wherever it takes the authorities, and even though the mills of justice often grind exceeding slow—in this case, we are talking about events of almost 50 years ago—does the Minister agree that it is extremely important in these circumstances for the police, the press and people generally to understand that an arrest is not a conviction? We have the experience in recent times of a whole series of arrests by the PSNI which led to a political crisis we are still trying to find our way through in Northern Ireland, and all of those arrested have been released without charge. Is it not important to point out that the same is the case in respect of this soldier—that an arrest is not a conviction and assumptions should not be built on it until the proper processes are proceeded with?

[Lord Dunlop]

I very much agree with the noble Lord. I absolutely agree that an investigation is not the same as a prosecution. Indeed, an investigation is also an opportunity for someone to clear their name.

[Lord Trimble (Con)]

My Lords, I draw the Minister’s attention to a potential anomaly. I am not talking about this individual’s case. If, out of all of the proceedings of the Saville inquiry, any charges are brought and a conviction obtained, the person convicted will not be able to apply for early release under the terms of the Belfast agreement. I do not know why the authorities, in drafting that scheme, put a starting date of after 30 January 1972. It was never a matter of discussion and I was not aware of it until long after the agreement. However, it is there and I am making this point because, if this anomaly arises, steps should be taken to ensure that the person is treated in the same way as other persons convicted of criminal offences during the Troubles. It would be wrong to treat people in similar cases to this person’s case in a worse way.

[Lord Dunlop]

I thank my noble friend and note what he says. I will ensure that his views are reflected to the appropriate people.

[Lord King of Bridgwater (Con)]

My Lords, I endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, said. One other aspect worries me. I understand that the witnesses to the Saville inquiry were promised anonymity. On this occasion, three police cars turned up at this man’s house in Antrim to arrest someone who had indicated that he was willing to go to the police station of his own accord and give evidence. I hope that this matter is taken up because it is obviously worrying and may be extremely dangerous for him and his family.

[Lord Dunlop]

I note what my noble friend has said. His point was also raised in the other place earlier today and the Minister said that if there were concerns about the way in which the arrest happened, the matter should be taken up with the chief constable.

[Lord Hay of Ballyore (DUP)]

My Lords, as a Member of this House from Londonderry who lived through some of the difficult years in that city, it is important to say that we have now moved on to a better place. Sometimes when an atrocity such as this once again raises its ugly head, we forget where we have come from. I believe that in the city of Londonderry we have moved on from issues that were difficult many years ago. I agree that we should never forget the sacrifices of the security forces in protecting the people of Northern Ireland through a bloody terrorist campaign.

There was a clear belief when the Prime Minister apologised to the families of the victims of Bloody Sunday that that would more or less draw a line under it and we could all move on. Obviously that has not happened. I agree that no one should be above the law and that the police should be allowed to do their job irrespective of who the person may be.

Does the Minister agree that the new Stormont agreement announced yesterday is an important turning point for Northern Ireland? There have been five attempts to resolve the legacy issues of the past but, for whatever reason, all political parties in Northern Ireland are finding it difficult to get a resolution to the past. While we cannot get that resolution at this minute in time, it creates problems in legacy cases such as this and in dealing with the past. Will the Government and the parties continue to try to resolve this issue because, if we can, we can move Northern Ireland forward to a better place?

[Lord Dunlop]

The agreement that was reached yesterday was a significant achievement. I am sure the whole House will wish to congratulate all the Northern Ireland parties on reaching that deal. It has broken an impasse and created the opportunity to develop devolved institutions that work for the people in Northern Ireland. As the Minister in the other place said, it is a matter of regret that legacy was not part of the deal. We must find ways to take these matters forward and give victims and their families closure and see justice served. The Government stand ready to play their part in that process.

European Union Referendum Bill

Wednesday 18th November 2015 Lords Chamber

Report (1st Day) (Continued)

18:34

Amendments 4 and 5 not moved.

Amendment 6

Moved by

[Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer]

6: Clause 2, page 2, line 25, at end insert—
“(d) the persons who fall within subsection (4).”

[Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD)]

My Lords, these amendments seek to extend the Westminster franchise to those British citizens who have lived in the EU for more than 15 years. This extension to the franchise is an exception in the same way that the Bill allows for Members of your Lordships’ House to vote in the referendum.

In Committee, we heard many examples of why these British citizens should be enabled to vote in the referendum. I will not repeat all of them but simply remind the House that many in this currently excluded group have spent the whole of their working lives working for Britain. Many receive government pensions as they were soldiers, nurses or civil servants and so they pay UK taxes. In Committee, one of the points made—which was conceded even by those who seem to oppose this amendment—was that there should be no taxation without representation.

Many other people working in the EU are there because they are flying the flag for Britain. They have been encouraged by successive Governments of this country to expand their careers and look to the EU. For some this started when they were at university, with the Erasmus scheme getting them to spend time at EU universities, and for others it is because the UK has developed partnerships with firms such as Airbus. So Governments have encouraged British citizens to look on the whole of the EU as a place to study, work and live, and they cannot now pull the rug from under their feet. They should at least give them a say in whether that rug is pulled.

In Committee, some noble Lords could not understand why being a British expat in the EU is different from being an expat in, say, Singapore or Australia. As the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Swansea, put it so succinctly, it is because of the network of arrangements upon which our citizens relied when they made their choice to live and work in the EU.

When I reflected on the Government’s response in Committee, I could not understand why they are not keen to enfranchise this group of citizens. I am glad to see the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, in her place because she asked a very important question. If the Government believe it is right for British citizens to vote in future general elections, as announced in their manifesto, why is it not right to give these people a vote in a referendum that will have a greater impact on their lives than a general election? The noble Lord, Lord Lexden, rightly said that it will be incomprehensible to our fellow citizens living abroad that a manifesto commitment cannot be implemented, by one means or another, to participate in a vote of such overwhelming importance.

When I reread the proceedings of the Committee stage, the only arguments I could find were from the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, who said that the Electoral Commission would not know where the expats lived or who they were. However, the answer is that if you want to enfranchise them, they will apply for a franchise—they have passport numbers, national insurance numbers and fixed addresses—and, after all, those who have lived in the EU for 14, 13 or 12 years can register. It is only those above 15 years who cannot. Surely the Government would not deny such people the right to vote simply on that basis. It cannot be that difficult.

The noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Ely, seemed to be against this exceptional franchise because she does not want to set a precedent for votes for life, which her party is against. I say to her that this enfranchisement is exceptional and should not set a precedent. The noble Baroness used the phrase about those working in the EU flying the flag for their country. I am sure she believes that and I wonder whether she might soften her position.

In replying for the Government, when it came down to not wishing to agree with the amendment, the Minister said that he was simply concerned with legitimacy. He wanted no sense that there had been an attempt to skew the result. He felt that the “safest way” to do this was to stick with the Westminster franchise. We should be looking not at safety but at the fairest way. In any case, we are not sticking with the Westminster franchise because we have already made a couple of exceptions. The Government have accepted them and they are in the Bill.

All I am asking for here is that those who have lived in the EU for more than 15 years can join with those who have lived there for a shorter time, and that for the referendum they may exceptionally have the right to vote on a really important matter for this country and for them. I beg to move.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords, I rise to support the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer. We had a good debate about this in Committee and I think we established rather clearly that there is in fact no difference of principle on this matter between those who supported the amendment and the Minister who opposed it. His party has a manifesto commitment, which I am sure it is going to fulfil, to introduce legislation in this Parliament to give the vote to precisely the people we are talking about; that is, people who have been living abroad for more than 15 years. Admittedly, he is going to do that erga omnes and not just for those in the European Union, but there seems to me to be no difference of principle between us.

Nor does this amendment cross in any sense the line that has been frequently prayed in aid in previous debates—that this is a referendum which British people should be deciding. These people are British. They hold British passports and they are our citizens. The reason to give them the vote is that we are having a referendum which could fundamentally affect a large amount of the way in which they live. It could affect their healthcare arrangements, their ability to travel freely, their social coverage, their jobs and the way their children are treated. This is a huge range of things that could and will be affected if by any chance—mischance, in my view—the electorate votes to withdraw from the European Union. Yet the Government, who want these people to have the vote and believe that they are rightly going to be given the vote under their own proposals to be brought forward later in this Parliament, feel that they should not have it in the one vote which they really mind about. They are probably not all that interested in voting in our parliamentary, municipal and other elections, but they jolly well are interested in this referendum because their interests are at stake.

It would be really good if the Government could take a deep breath and say, “Yes, we agree that these people should have the vote because that is what our manifesto says, and we agree that this referendum vote matters more to them than anything else”. The Government have been saying for years now that the people must have their say. Did they really mean to exclude British citizens living elsewhere in the EU from having their say when their interests will be affected? I hope that we can move ahead with the amendment. Not only does it have logic and consistency on its side—two qualities which were given a rather hard time in the previous debate—it has common sense on its side as well.

[Lord Scott of Foscote (CB)]

My Lords, I rise to support this amendment as strenuously as I can, very much for the reasons already given by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay. I have a personal interest which I must declare. I have a daughter who lives in Spain with her English husband. Both were born in England and are English through and through. They have both always held English passports. They met in Spain, married and have two sons, both of whom hold British passports. All those members of my family are British, but they live in Spain under the arrangements made whereby the citizens of one EU country have the right to live anywhere in the EU. They have been in Spain for well over 15 years. The eldest of my grandsons is now 18 and at university, not in Spain but in the Netherlands, for reasons I do not quite understand. At any rate, they have been living in Spain for more than 15 years on the footing that they have the right to do so.

If the referendum required this country to leave the EU, that would create the problem that I am referring to, but to say that they should not have the right to vote in the referendum, given the interest and importance to them of this country remaining in the EU, seems quite unacceptable. I therefore wholeheartedly support this amendment.

18:45

[Lord Lexden (Con)]

My Lords, I should like to return briefly to two points from among those I made in Committee. First, if our fellow countrymen and women who have lived overseas for more than 15 years are deprived of the vote in this all-important referendum, it will be because of a preventable accident of timing. As we have heard, the Conservative Party is committed to enfranchising them, but the promised Bill to do so has not appeared. The right thing to do, and this is a Government who pride themselves on doing the right thing, is to make provision for them to take part in the referendum through this Bill.

Secondly, I say again, as I did in Committee, that we should put ourselves in the shoes of our fellow countrymen and women who have been living in other EU countries for more than 15 years. How would we like it if we were deprived of the vote in a momentous referendum which will touch our present livelihoods and future prospects so intimately and directly, when we knew that at the next parliamentary election a vote would be ours? I take the view that the Bill should be returned to the other place incorporating this amendment. The issue was discussed hurriedly and incompletely during the earlier debates on the Bill there. Let the elected Chamber be asked to make a carefully considered decision on this issue. If we do that, we will have discharged our proper constitutional duty in relation to this part of the Bill.

[Lord Lester of Herne Hill (LD)]

My Lords, I regret that I was not able to speak at the Committee stage, but I want to make one brief point. It is extremely important for us, through the Government and Parliament, to recognise the service given by our fellow citizens when they serve in the European institutions. I have made the point in the past so far as judges are concerned. It is vital to get good British judges to serve in Europe. But exactly the same applies elsewhere in the European public service.

The example that comes to my mind is that of an admirable civil servant, now retired, called Simon Palmer. He has lived in France for more than 15 years. He lives there because during the whole of that time he served the Council of Europe as a member of the European civil service. He takes his holidays in England and he is thoroughly British, but he has brought up his family in Europe. I see no good reason why he should suffer the penalty of being disqualified from the referendum simply because he has lived there for the wrong side of 15 years. His connection with this country is no weaker, and it is very important that through this debate and what comes of it, we should recognise the vital public service given by people like him by giving them the ability to vote in this crucial referendum.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)]

My Lords, I too, support this amendment, to which I have added my name. There are many people living all over the European Union who, as the noble Lord has said, have done fine service for our country and who are still receiving pensions from this country and paying tax in this country, and they deserve a voice. This is one of the most important votes that will have happened in their lifetime, and they certainly deserve a voice, as I say.

I respect the coherent position of my own party, although I disagree with it, but I do not understand the incoherent position of the party opposite, as was said by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, and other noble Lords. The Conservative Party has, I believe quite rightly, said that it will extend the franchise. This is the most important vote for many of those people to whom the franchise will be extended, so why cannot it be extended now? Why cannot that legislation be brought forward before we have the referendum? That is a simple question, and I believe it is the proper one to ask.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, why do I smell another rat here? It seems to me that this is once again trying to slew the whole playing field, which we have desperately been trying to keep level, in favour of those who want to keep us in the EU. It has been quite established for some time. There is the argument that it is very unfair for these people who have been abroad for more than X number of years that they cannot vote in the referendum. But they cannot vote in general elections either. It is quite extraordinary that we seem to be determined all the time to bring in amendments that will make it more likely that we will stay in the EU than leave it.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

Does the noble Lord believe that the Conservative manifesto commitment to raise the 15-year cap in the future is also an attempt to fix the electorate?

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom]

A large number of commitments have been made in manifestos that have not been brought in. That is rather like, by the same token, arguing that this is the moment to change the electoral mandate for 16 and 17 year-olds. Are we going to bring all these changes in on the back of a referendum Bill? Like my noble friend Lord Forsyth, I believe that we should have a constitutional convention to look into all these things. The whole thing is becoming more messy and piecemeal as it goes along, and I certainly do not approve of that at all.

All the time, amendments are being brought forward that are designed to make it more likely that the electoral register will be slewed in such a way that more people will vote to stay in than to leave.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

I wonder whether the noble Lord would agree that voting for this amendment will make the electorate less piecemeal, not more piecemeal. It is the exclusion of people who are British citizens that is piecemeal and which his party, which he seems to treat with contempt, proposes to remedy. This is really quite an odd thing for him to do. It would be much more logical if they were included.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom]

All the time, we seem to be trying to change the existing electoral register in favour of those who are more likely to vote to stay in than they are to leave. This is quite clearly changing the whole thing in favour of those who want to stay in the EU. I do not know why the noble Lord actually denies this. Does he really think that people living in the EU for more than 15 years will vote to come out? It is extremely unlikely. He knows that as well as anybody else. We have established that there is an electoral register and now we are starting to mess about with it. Once it includes the 16 and 17 year-olds, a whole host of other people can be put in. That moves totally away from the original register on which we were having this referendum.

If everybody wants to hold a referendum in this country which is narrowly won by those who say we should stay in the EU when there is all the gerrymandering that has been going on, do noble Lords really think that that decision will be accepted by the country when it is obvious that the whole thing has been slewed in favour of those who want to stay in the EU?

[Lord Green of Deddington (CB)]

I can help the noble Lord. He will not be surprised to hear numbers from me, or that I am repeating them. We are talking about 1.3 million people, according to the UN Population Division. Some of those will be minors because that figure does not distinguish between minors and adults, and some will have been in Europe for fewer than 15 years. There are no statistics and no way of knowing exactly how many people would be covered by this amendment, and I am not suggesting that there is. However, if we start with that 1.3 million, probably 0.3 million of them are minors, so we are left with 1 million, of which—who knows?—maybe 0.5 million or 0.3 million have been in Europe for more than 15 years. Whichever way we look at it, the noble Lord is quite right that this is a significant number of people, running into hundreds of thousands. We should be aware of that when we consider the amendment.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom]

I am grateful to the noble Lord, and it is very helpful to have a few statistics to bring everything more vividly to light. I give way to the noble Lord.

[Lord Howie of Troon (Lab)]

I did not intend to interrupt the noble Lord; I thought he had finished.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom]

In which case I will sit down and listen to the noble Lord.

[Lord Howie of Troon]

So, the noble Lord has finished. I want to add no more than a pennyweight to this debate. It is based on personal experience, in that I have been excluded from no fewer than three referendums in recent years—two on the question of devolution in Scotland and one on the question of Scottish independence.

In my maiden speech in this House in 1978, I spoke about those who were Scots by birth or upbringing, or like me having a Scottish title, who because we had lived in London or England for some time were excluded from that referendum. All I wish to say is that, like those who live abroad and yet retain their allegiance to the United Kingdom, I living in England—and opposing independence, let it be said—retain an affection and loyalty to Scotland. Therefore, having been excluded from those referenda, I have a continuing feeling of resentment and annoyance. Those who, like the civil servant in Brussels mentioned earlier, are excluded from this referendum will quite rightly have a feeling of resentment and undue exclusion. I support the amendment.

[Lord Bowness (Con)]

My Lords, I had my name to a similar amendment that was tabled in Committee. I have to say to my noble friend Lord Hamilton of Epsom that for me it is an issue of fairness. With great respect to him, we will not get very far if we throw words such as “gerrymandering” at each other. I suppose that those of us who want to see a positive vote in favour of remaining in the European Union could say that to exclude tax-paying British citizens—a group who have committed their lives and made decisions about their lives and who live in Europe—is also gerrymandering in trying to skew it in another direction. I do not think that that gets us very far.

I believe that the amendment is one of fairness. As I said in Committee, these are people, many of whom if not all, will not be outside the reach of Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs. The fact that you are non-resident does not mean that you are non-resident for tax purposes. HMRC will keep its fingers on you if you have property, family or a whole lot of various matters where you are judged not to have broken your connection totally with the United Kingdom.

The advice from the Electoral Commission in respect of this amendment—which, indeed, I support—says:

“It is not clear how such proof could be provided and verified by EROs”.

I am rather surprised at that advice from the Electoral Commission, because I should have thought that the vast majority of people about whom we are talking are people who will be resident in one particular place. They will have evidence of employment and evidence of that residency, and they will have the same papers that the rest of us have in connection with bills, credit cards and bank accounts, which will be the kind of evidence that they would be able to present to an electoral registration officer. While I have great respect for the Electoral Commission and its advice, although it says that it is not clear how such proof could be provided, I am not clear in my mind why it is so difficult to find suitable items to prove that you are entitled to a vote in the circumstances that this amendment envisages. I support the amendment.

19:00

[Baroness Morgan of Ely (Lab)]

My Lords, many noble Lords believe in the principle of votes for life for British citizens, irrespective of where they now live or how long they have lived there for. Others have argued that this is a one-off, exceptional situation relating to the fact that this is an EU referendum— that UK citizens living in the EU will be directly impacted and they should therefore be given the vote. These are different arguments and we disagree with both.

I am clear that if we were to leave the EU there would be an immediate and direct impact on UK citizens living in other EU member states. Their status in the country would at the very least be reviewed. Will their qualifications be recognised? Will their pensions be uprated? Will they be able to access member states’ medical services? There is a deafening silence from the Government on these issues, but it does not mean that they should be given special status in this referendum because of the possible impact on their lives.

In Committee, my noble friend Lord Grocott eloquently inquired why we allow some expats in some countries in Europe, such as Sweden, to vote, while preventing others in countries such as Norway from voting. He also suggested that we would be getting into difficult territory if we allowed only those affected to vote. If we start down that route we will get into difficulty.

Then there is the practical issue of registering these people. Who are they? How do we find them? What if we extend the franchise to 16 to 18 year-olds? The Minister suggested that if all citizens around the world were invited to register there could be about 5 million of them. That is not what the amendment says; it says, “Let’s restrict this to the EU”. That is 1.3 million citizens. We have just heard some very clear statistics, but they actually were not that clear. That is the problem. We have no idea how many there are. It will be very difficult to trace them in a short space of time. This is very different from 16 to 17 year-olds voting. We know exactly where they are: in school. These people are spread throughout the continent. We would not know where to start, not within the nine-month timeframe.

Many UK citizens overseas have been invited to register in the past, but as the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, pointed out in Committee, fewer than 20,000 British expats in the European Union have taken up that right to vote, despite all the efforts and funding that has been given to advertising by the Government and to get them involved.

[Lord Lexden]

The noble Baroness underestimates the figure. It is not 20,000, but more than 100,000 registered to vote at the last general election.

[Baroness Morgan of Ely]

That is even fewer. That makes my point more eloquently. The point is, there was a huge drive to get these people to sign up and they did not take it up, although I think every one of those 100,000 has emailed me in the past few weeks to ask for this vote in the EU referendum.

The issue of citizenship and the responsibilities of citizens that my noble and learned friend Lord Goldsmith talked about earlier should be taken into account. In this country we have said time and again that we want to encourage people to integrate into their communities, to be a part of this society. It would therefore be inconsistent for us to suggest that, after 15 years in a country, they should not also be encouraged to become part of that society and to establish roots in their adopted lands.

There must be no question about the legitimacy of this referendum. We believe that there should be a cut-off point when people should lose their entitlement to vote if they have made their home abroad. We think that the current cut-off point of 15 years is about right. However, let me make it absolutely clear that there is no inconsistency in Labour’s position on this. The Conservative Government have said clearly that they want to see this extended. It is in their manifesto. They want British citizens who move abroad to be able to vote for ever. We do not believe that. When that Bill comes before this House we will oppose it.

I hope noble Lords will agree that there is, at least, a degree of consistency in the Labour Party’s position on this issue. We do not want to see this franchise extended beyond 15 years.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Faulks) (Con)]

My Lords, the purpose of these amendments is to allow British citizens resident in other EU member states to vote in the EU referendum, regardless of the time they have been resident overseas. They would, therefore, lift the 15-year time limit on voting rights in the referendum for British citizens resident overseas, but only for those Britons resident in the EU. I have listened to the arguments put forward today and in Committee. I fear that, as with all the proposed changes to the franchise, the Government’s position remains the same.

I am, of course, sympathetic to the case. Indeed, as has been referred to, the Government are committed to getting rid of the 15-year time limit and have committed to bringing forward a stand-alone, dedicated Bill to provide for votes for life in due course. On the principle of removing the 15-year rule, therefore, I have no argument with the amendments. I can also understand the desire of British citizens who have been abroad for more than 15 years—whether they live in the EU, or within Europe in Oslo, in the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Grocott—to participate in the referendum. I appreciate that some will feel frustrated that they will not be able to participate. The other part of the 100,000 obviously sent their emails to me, rather than to the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan. They can argue that they might be affected by the vote, but I fear that that does not change the Government’s position on the franchise as a whole.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

My Lords, there seems to be a perhaps excessive interest in the probably not very large numbers of British citizens who live in Norway. It might be worth recalling that, whatever the result of the referendum, they will not be affected. They live in a country in the European Economic Area, which is part of the single market. All their rights and privileges, and all the advantages they get from that, will remain with them whichever way we vote. That is what makes them different from British citizens in EU countries.

[Lord Faulks]

I am grateful for that interruption. The Government’s commitment is to votes for life for everybody, whether they live in the EU or elsewhere. The point is not in terms of their direct association with the EU, but whether they are British citizens who live abroad. Therefore, the point that I understood the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, to be making, which had some force, was that it is mere happenstance whether an individual lives in a country in the European Union or outside of it.

Removing the 15-year rule will be a complex and important constitutional change. It is not something that we suggest should in any way be rushed by way of a single amendment. It needs a whole Bill to be implemented properly—a Bill that plainly will be opposed by the party opposite. There are decisions to be taken. The media and the public should have a chance to scrutinise these changes. That is something of an echo of the argument I advanced unsuccessfully on the previous amendment. We will need to consider questions of potential fraud and how we should update the registration system. It is not something that should in any way be rushed through. This is just a small sample of the decisions that would need to be taken and implemented. Changing the franchise in this way is no small task. Giving effect to such a change would take a significant amount of time and resources in central government and in local authorities.

In many ways this is the most complex change to the franchise being proposed today. The group of people in question are almost by definition not known to us, as British citizens do not need to register when they move abroad. There are many, like the relations of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott, who will be well known and easily identifiable, but for many others it is difficult to have an adequate canvass. We could hardly go door to door, as electoral registration officials can in the UK. I entirely accept the contribution that many who live in the EU have made over a long period to Great Britain, as the noble Lord, Lord Lester, pointed out, although they have not hitherto taken part in general elections if they are outside the Westminster franchise. Verifying identities for others is a complicated task where a person has been away for at least a decade. For example, it might be difficult to prove that they have been previously resident in the UK.

These changes have to be made judiciously and carefully to ensure that the system remains transparent. My noble friend Lord Lexden said in Committee and again today that the Government should have started the process of the votes for life, which would, of course, incorporate this amendment. I know that is an issue close to his heart. I assure him and the House that the Government are committed to this change, but without knowing the date of the referendum I cannot, of course, guarantee that the change will be implemented in time. As I said, the decisions are complex.

I return finally to the point that I have made before. Indeed, I think it is one of the areas of common ground between this party and the party opposite at least. This process must be seen to be fair. There is clearly a view taken, as exemplified by the contribution of my noble friend Lord Hamilton, that a change of this sort may have an ulterior motive. I do not presume to guess how anybody is going to vote, whether they live outside the United Kingdom, outside the EU or whether they are under 18 or not. However, it is important that this should not in any way be seen to be some form of specially amended franchise so as to achieve a certain outcome. Nothing should undermine its legitimacy. The public might ask why we have made this change now just in time for the referendum. Should it not have been done as a much more careful stand-alone vote?

[Lord Liddle (Lab)]

I am a simple-minded chap but the Government are making a special change to the Westminster franchise to include citizens of Gibraltar to give them a vote in the British referendum. Presumably, the argument for that is that they are deeply affected by the result, as, indeed, they would be because their position in relation to Spain would become much more difficult were we to withdraw. But what about British citizens who have lived in the EU for a long time? The reason a lot of these people have gone to live there is because they were taking advantage of our EU membership. They see themselves as EU citizens as well as British citizens. What is the logic of excluding them if we are including the Gibraltarians?

[Lord Faulks]

The position is that British citizens are not able to vote in referenda in other European countries. This minor exception, which includes Peers and Gibraltarians who are members of the Commonwealth, is a very minor change to reflect that fact rather than to reflect the fact that Gibraltar happens to be in Europe and is part of the south-west area. I do not think it follows therefore that there should be an automatic change to the whole approach.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

Before the noble Lord sits down—I think he is winding up—I do think it is a bit bizarre that we have got as far as the housemaid’s baby now. It is a very small baby—it does not matter very much. It is a change. However, the Ministry of Justice seems to be singularly ignorant of the role that British embassies, consulates and other diplomatic missions in the EU play. They have a duty of care to British citizens living in those countries. They know where a lot of them live—not, I am sure, all of them—and they have a duty of care. If those citizens are accused of a crime, they have to try to help them. So it is no good simply saying, “We don’t know where they all are. It’s a huge problem”. That is not actually the truth.

[Lord Faulks]

I would not dream of underestimating the role of British embassies and consulates around the world. They play an extremely valuable and continuing role. Nevertheless, it is asking a great deal of them—even of the most conscientious embassy—to be conscious of the whereabouts of all the various citizens living in countries outside the United Kingdom.

[Lord Lester of Herne Hill]

In a previous debate, the noble Lord talked about the mental capacity of adolescents to take part in elections and suggested that they might be mentally in some way less capable, or something like that. I hope that I do not put it too crudely. As regards the particular group we are discussing, is the problem that they are rather well informed because they have lived in other parts of Europe and have great experience? I have no idea how they will vote but at least they will be better informed than many Members of this House.

[Lord Faulks]

The noble Lord makes an entirely false point. The argument that I advanced in relation to an earlier group of amendments had nothing to do with mental capacity. In fact, I eschewed any reliance on mental capacity. I simply said that we draw an arbitrary line where adolescents are concerned—whether it is 16 or 18—and part of informing ourselves whether it is appropriate that they should vote involves looking at the development of the adolescent mind, without impugning in any way their capacity. I hope that I have made that position clear. As regards the capacity of those who are disfranchised by the current state of affairs, I do not at all wish to impugn their capacity or the level of their information or their ability to take a decision.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

I thank the noble Lord for giving way. I quite agree with him about the difficulties of drawing a line. Why draw a line, then, at 15 years?

[Lord Faulks]

Fifteen years is the line drawn by a previous Government, who thought that was a reasonable assessment of somebody who had a sufficient or recent connection with the country. Any line, whether it is 16 years or 14 years, is going to be arbitrary. Sympathetic though the Government are to the general tone of these amendments, for the reasons I have given I respectfully ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer]

My Lords, I am very sorry that the Government have not followed the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, drawn a deep breath and thought again about this. I am afraid that there is no logic to the position laid out by the Minister. He admits that the line is arbitrary. He says that any change has to be considered and that more time should be taken over adopting it. In that case, the Government could have made the votes for life Bill a priority at the beginning of this Session. That is what they should have done if they believe in it. I am afraid that a lot of the EU expats listening to this debate will conclude that it is humbug as they will be disfranchised.

The noble Lord, Lord Bowness, put his finger on the matter when he said that it was about fairness. That is what it is. It is very unfair that the people we are discussing have been led to understand throughout their lives that being in the EU means being part of a network to which Britain belongs. Now, when Britain may make a choice to leave it, they have no say in that whatever. That position is unfair and, as the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, said, it is an accident of timing. This is an unfairness that the Government could have rectified. I will certainly not withdraw the amendment. I wish to test the opinion of the House.

19:17

Division 2

Ayes: 116

---

Liberal Democrat: 83
Crossbench: 16
Conservative: 5
Labour: 4
Independent: 3
Bishops: 1
Plaid Cymru: 1

Noes: 214

---

Conservative: 159
Labour: 37
Crossbench: 12
Democratic Unionist Party: 2
Independent: 2
UK Independence Party: 1

19:29

Amendment 7 not moved.

Amendment 7A

Moved by

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom]

7A: Clause 2, page 2, line 32, at end insert—
“( ) Regulations under section 1(2) may not be laid before either House of Parliament unless the Electoral Commission has certified that any persons in the United Kingdom who would not be entitled to vote as electors at a parliamentary election in any constituency but are entitled to vote in the referendum by virtue of this section have had sufficient time to register to vote (the meaning of “sufficient time” having been determined by the Electoral Commission).”

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom]

My Lords, I hope that we are now moving into slightly calmer waters. I tabled this amendment in anticipation that the House might vote to enfranchise 16 and 17 year-olds. I do not think there can really be too much opposition in the House to my amendment because we have to ensure that the new franchise actually happens. The amendment enfranchising 16 and 17 year-olds passed by a very big majority in your Lordships’ House and it may well be that it never comes back from the Commons, either. There are a number of different reasons why the other place might actually accept the amendment, so there may well be no future opportunity to amend it.

The whole point of my amendment is to ensure that we do not enfranchise 16 and 17 year-olds with one hand and disenfranchise them with the other. We have heard different stories from the Electoral Commission. The noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, said that she had been assured by people at the Electoral Commission that it would be possible to get all this through by September. But we are in uncharted waters and we really do not know how long it is going to take to get the new register drawn up; it is completely new territory. All these people have to be individually registered, which may take a quite serious amount of time.

All my amendment does, which I am sure must be acceptable to the House, is to say that the Electoral Commission must be able to tick the box for the Government and say, “Yes, we have got a decent number of 16 and 17 year-olds on the electoral roll”—I am not saying it should come back and say that it has got 100% of them—and that should be acceptable to everybody. We do not want to end up with a whole lot of 16 and 17 year-olds going round saying, “I was told that I had a vote but I never got on the electoral roll”— because the process was only half completed, or whatever. So is it really too much to leave it to the Electoral Commission to tell the Government or whoever is deciding on the date of the referendum when the new register has been drawn up and everything is in place?

I do not pretend to know how long the process is going to take. At one stage the Electoral Commission was telling us that it would take up to 12 months. It is now reining back from that and saying that perhaps it will be quicker. But that is not really where I come from. It does not matter how long it takes. If it takes three months, fine. If the Electoral Commission can come back in three months and say that the job is done, that is absolutely fine and the referendum can be held after that. But it is very important to ensure that we do not, as I say, give enfranchisement to 16 and 17 year-olds with one hand and then, by having a very early referendum, ignore all those who are not on the electoral roll and take it away with the other. That is the point of my amendment. I beg to move.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, if I had heard the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton of Epsom, arguing against this I would think it a blatant attempt to bias the level playing field of which he is so fond by delaying the referendum. This amendment is simply unnecessary because the Electoral Commission will of course vouch for when the process has reached an appropriate stage. We therefore do not need to write this into the Bill. While I am on my feet, in his last speech during Committee the noble Lord referred to our friends and enemies within the European Union but did not specify which Governments he thought were our enemies within it. If he is going to reply, it would perhaps be helpful if he said whether they are the German Government, the French Government or others, because that would help us in understanding where he is coming from in the various amendments he has tabled.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom]

That is a particularly silly point from the Liberal Benches. I was merely making the point that we have people who are on our side in certain negotiations, and people who are against us. That was the rather loose way in which I used the term “enemies”. To go back to the noble Lord’s earlier point, the fact is that the Electoral Commission’s job is to advise the Government, who do not have to take its advice. The Government could say, “There is a wonderful opportunity now to win this referendum” and hold it after three months, when only a handful of 16 or 17 year-olds would be on the register.

[Viscount Ridley (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly in support of my noble friend Lord Hamilton’s amendment. The key point was that in discussing the amendment on 16 and 17 year-olds, it was clearly said to us that it did not allow sufficient time to ensure that we get the electoral register right. We also heard that the Electoral Commission thought that there was an issue with individual registration being different from household registration. We may well see a specific issue in Scotland, in that people who got on the register for the Scottish referendum may now find that it is not so easy to get on the register for this one, given the amendment we have just passed, because they have not gone through the individual registration process. There has to be clarity and time to get the electoral register right.

I come back to the point I made in Committee and which has been made here. The crucial thing is to make sure that this is as fair and final a referendum as we can manage, so as to settle the issue once and for all. It would be a great mistake—

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness (LD)]

Does the noble Viscount accept that the Scottish Parliament has now brought forward legislation to enfranchise 16 and 17 year-olds for the Scottish parliamentary and local government elections, the former taking place next May? I appreciate his concern about 16 and 17 year-old Scots, but the issue does not really arise because they will already be on the register by virtue of legislation passed by the Scottish Parliament.

[Viscount Ridley]

That is good news but there are a lot of other people in this country as well as Scots, and we have to ensure that they are properly registered. The next canvass begins, as we have heard, in July 2016. I do not quite understand how that interacts with this business of registering people for the referendum, but I beg my noble friend the Minister to take my noble friend Lord Hamilton’s amendment seriously.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, I do not believe that this amendment is necessary. It is very reassuring to know that noble Lords opposite, who were opposing votes for 16 and 17 year-olds a few minutes ago, are now so concerned to ensure that those people who may now have the vote—

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom]

Does the noble Baroness not accept that those people who believe in democracy accept a democratic vote?

[Baroness Smith of Newnham]

My Lords, I am very pleased to hear that. We have all talked about making sure that this is a level playing field, so I am delighted to know that noble Lords are keen to ensure that people who will be entitled to vote can be registered. However, the issues are whether this needs to be in the Bill and whether we need to wait until the annual register, which starts in July 2016. We have a rolling electoral register. Can the Minister say whether it would be possible to look at registration at an earlier stage? Lest anyone think that I am trying to skew things by looking for a quick referendum at a later or earlier date, we do not know the date, so we have the veil of ignorance. However, we will know relatively soon when we shall have Royal Assent for the Bill. Could the Electoral Commission not set in train the process of registration as soon as Royal Assent is granted?

[Lord Stoddart of Swindon (Ind Lab)]

My Lords, it seems to me that the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, is trying to be helpful, and I am surprised that he should be opposed from the Liberal Benches. I did not agree with one thing he said: that we should abide by a democratic vote. The vote in this House is not and has not been democratic. The vote will be democratic only if the House of Commons agrees. It is rather an impertinence that this House should have carried the amendment on the franchise when it knows perfectly well that the House of Commons opposed such an amendment by quite a large majority—51, I think.

The noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, is being treated very badly, because he has tried to be helpful, bearing in mind that he has a different view from that held on the Liberal Benches. While I am talking about the Liberal Benches and democracy, I have to say that they came out in huge numbers to vote for the amendment on the franchise, yet they have only eight MPs in the House of Commons. That is an absolute disgrace. It is a disgrace that they should use their undemocratic power in this House to overrule the democratic House—another place.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham]

My Lords, I certainly have no intention of doing down the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton. We have had a vote in your Lordships’ House. The Members of the other place will have the opportunity to either accept votes at 16 and 17 or to vote it down, and we will reach a point of ping-pong. The elected or unelected nature of this House is for another debate—

[The Earl of Courtown (Con)]

Order. I think we are now clearly in breach of the Companion. I have been really relaxed, trying to let the debate flow, but we will want to get on with this. I suggest that during the dinner hour, noble Lords just go to page 151 of the Companion and take a rest.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

I just wanted to intervene very briefly to say that it is absolutely extraordinary that the Liberals should have pitched their tent on the 16 year-old thing. There was an article by the leader of the Liberals in the paper this morning. They have brought their troops here to vote, most of whom have not been here throughout the proceedings on the Bill. Now they seem to be arguing against my noble friend’s amendment, which would simply ensure that all 16 year-olds have the opportunity to cast their votes. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness— I am seeing two Lord Wallaces —is normally very sharp. He rebukes my noble friend Lord Ridley and says, “Of course, in Scotland, we’ve got it all fixed”. Yes, we have got it all fixed, but it took more than a year to produce the separate register for the Scottish referendum elections.

The Liberals and the Labour Party have been vociferous in arguing that individual registration would take far too long. The Government have been regularly harried about not giving enough time for people to register, and about some people being left off the vote. When my noble friend comes along with an amendment which says that it should be done in a proper manner attested by the Electoral Commission, they say that that is unnecessary and the commission does it anyway. If it is unnecessary and it does it anyway, what possible objection can there be to giving those 16 year-olds who do not live in Scotland the security of knowing that they will have exactly the same opportunity as the Scots got by having a properly conducted register? I support my noble friend’s amendment.

19:45

[Baroness Morgan of Ely]

My Lords, of course we want proper registration to take place. We know that it will take a bit of time, and that exercise is now, to an extent, in the hands of the Government. They could start that process now. They could already indicate the direction in which they would like to go. Whether the referendum will be held up or not is therefore in their hands.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom]

Is the noble Baroness saying that the process of registration should start tomorrow? Surely it can start only after the Bill is granted Royal Assent.

[Baroness Morgan of Ely]

Of course I understand that we have to wait for Royal Assent, but people could start to gear up: they could be given an indication that this is on its way. It is in the hands of the Government to determine whether that happens. We could gain a couple of months if the Government got on with the job right now, now that we have had a clear indication from this House of the way we want to go

Of course we want proper registration. We have spoken to the Electoral Commission, which has made it clear that it thinks it can do this within a nine-month time frame. The electoral administration authorities have said the same thing. Electoral registration officers at local authority level, given resources, can also deliver it. We now have a rolling registration process. There is no cut-off date, as in the past. None of us knows the timing of the referendum. None of us knows whether the Prime Minister will be able to convince other member states of the merits of his reforms.

I agree that we need to make sure that there is sufficient time. I do not know how long that is, and I would like to know what the Electoral Commission thinks is sufficient time before agreeing to the amendment. Given the earlier vote and the clear indication from this House, I suggest that the Minister look seriously at what needs practically to be put in place, but the amendment is unnecessary.

[Lord Willoughby de Broke (UKIP)]

The noble Baroness made light of the Electoral Commission’s recommendations. In the last paragraph on page 4 of its briefing, on registration, it states:

“This would need to be reinforced by significant public awareness activity at both the national and local level. Political literacy initiatives may also be needed, as were targeted working schools and other educational institutions to help get the message out to these groups quickly. Additional funding would also be needed to make sure that these activities could be delivered by EROs, the Commission and other relevant bodies”.

It is not a matter of snapping your fingers, waving a stick and saying, “It’s done”. It will take a long time, and I am sure that the right thing is to accept the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton. I hope that the House will agree with him.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Faulks) (Con)]

My Lords, the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Hamilton of Epsom applies to individuals in the United Kingdom who are eligible to vote in the referendum but would not be eligible to vote in a parliamentary election. The amendment means that the Government would be unable to table draft regulations that set the date of the referendum until the Electoral Commission has certified that that group of eligible voters had received sufficient time to register to vote.

As my noble friend made clear, he was somewhat anticipating the result of the vote in this House in relation to 16 and 17 year-olds, and plainly had them in mind. I do not impugn his motives in tabling the amendment, although it is a rather late amendment—a starred amendment. As a result, the Electoral Commission has not had an opportunity to review it or to express an opinion. I question whether the commission would either welcome this suggestion or think it necessary. The commission’s role in referendums is set out in the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. It is to help to deliver and regulate certain conduct in the referendum. In the most recent briefing referred to in the House, the Electoral Commission once again made it clear that a change in the franchise is a matter for Parliament and that the commission’s role is to,

“advise on the practical indications of any such change”.

This amendment would fundamentally change the relationship that the Government enjoy with the Electoral Commission, giving the commission unprecedented power. Determination of who can participate in the referendum, and when it is to be held, is a matter for the Government and Parliament, and not a matter that should be transferred, directly or indirectly, to the commission, or indeed any other body.

As noble Lords will be aware, the regulations that will set the date of the referendum will be subject to the affirmative procedure. This is a safeguard that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee has deemed appropriate. To prevent Parliament from even considering the date of the poll until all newly eligible electors have had sufficient opportunity to register to vote is unnecessary. This is a process that can happen in parallel.

I think it entirely possible that this amendment could be read simply as an attempt to delay the referendum poll—that was the subtext of one of the contributions—but perhaps that is not fair. It is a poll that this Government have committed to holding before the end of 2017. There seems to be a suggestion that the Government should be getting on with it now, notwithstanding that this Bill has not gone through the normal parliamentary stages. Unfair though it may be, the Liberal Democrats are not quite as well represented at the other end of the corridor as they are at this end—so the result of the next round of this saga is not something that one can anticipate. I am sure that it is not seriously suggested that the Electoral Commission should be tasked to get on now with what may not be necessary, depending on the ultimate outcome of this Bill.

I have made it clear that the Government firmly believe that the franchise used for the referendum should be based on the parliamentary franchise; subject to further developments, there is to be a qualification on that, having regard to the vote that we had this afternoon. Once the legislation that will govern the referendum has been passed, the Government will then begin working with the Electoral Commission and local administrators straightaway. If a change to the franchise is to be made, we would need to ensure that newly eligible voters were aware of their right to vote and could register to do so. The Electoral Commission, as has rightly been pointed out, made it clear that there is no fixed period for implementation of a change. I corrected under the previous group of amendments the suggestion that 12 months must pass between legislation passing through Parliament to change the franchise, and the referendum itself.

The question is what should happen, and when, in relation to Royal Assent. If the referendum franchise is changed, the Government can start work after Royal Assent, rather than wait until the secondary legislation is in place—because, of course, there are various steps that have to follow Royal Assent. First, the referendum date has to be set; then the start date of the designation process has to be set; then the referendum period—the regulated period leading up to the poll—must be set; and the detailed conduct rules governing how the poll will be administered must be set. Then the designation process can take place. Under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act, that is a six-week process, with four weeks for applications, and two weeks for the Electoral Commission to make a decision. The referendum period will also need to occur.

Once the legislation has been passed, work can be done. If a change to the franchise were to be made, we would need to ensure that newly eligible voters were aware of their right, as has been pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke. As the Electoral Commission makes clear, the media and others will be expected to play a significant role in informing any newly enfranchised group of their rights, with 16 and 17 year-olds being at the moment those that may be enfranchised. It is a significant piece of work that has to be done; the Electoral Commission has a duty to discharge its role, and I respectfully say that it is not helpful to put it in the Bill or, indeed, to tell the Electoral Commission how to discharge its duty.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

I have just been reflecting on what my noble friend seemed to imply—that there might be some tactical reason for the amendment. He did imply that, but he might just like to note that the people who have spoken in favour of this amendment all voted against extending the franchise and that, whether the Electoral Commission or the Government are required to do this, none of us would for a moment imagine that the Government would try to rush this process. Surely he would not want to imply that there were any tactics behind that.

[Lord Faulks]

I accept the gentle rebuke from my noble friend. If I seemed to imply that, I would like to disabuse him. The central message that I wish to convey is that there is no point in the Government trying to second-guess the motives behind amendments, nor indeed to try to anticipate how individuals will vote in the event of a restriction or extension of the franchise. The question is whether the amendment is something that helps the Bill, and whether it is a reasonable amendment to incorporate in the Bill. We take the view that it is the Electoral Commission that should advise us how best to achieve what we must achieve, depending on what the legislation ends up telling us to do. It would not be appropriate to give the commission effectively a form of veto over the Government and Parliament’s decision as to whether a referendum should be held. I respectfully say that this Government, working with the commission, electoral registration officers and civil society will do all that they can to allow any newly enfranchised voter to have the opportunity to register. However, I am grateful to noble Lords for discussing an important fact—that there will need to be some work done to respond to any change in the franchise, and it will be challenging work. The Electoral Commission will do what it is supposed to do. But I respectfully ask my noble friend, without in any way impugning his motives, to withdraw his amendment, in the reassurance that its duties will be discharged, if it becomes necessary.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom]

I am very disappointed in my noble friend, because he is basically saying that the advice of the Electoral Commission could be overridden. If he is not saying that, it is quite difficult to see why he is rejecting my amendment. I think that people will find it very difficult to understand how, on the one hand, you enfranchise 16 and 17 year-olds and then, on the other, leave the Government free to hold the referendum in three months when only one-quarter of the 16 and 17 year-olds are on the register. That is the illogicality of the position that he is in. However, I am incredibly heartened by the advice that he received from the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, because she told him that he should go away and think again about this—and I seriously echo that sentiment. I shall withdraw the amendment now, but I want him to think very carefully about this, so I shall resubmit it at Third Reading. In the mean time, he can give some serious thought as to how the problem can actually be dealt with.

Amendment 7A withdrawn.

Schedule 1: Campaigning and financial controls

Amendments 7B and 8 not moved.

Amendment 9

Moved by

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

9: Schedule 1, page 8, line 7, at end insert—
“( ) The period prescribed under this paragraph must be a period which—
(a) is at least 10 weeks, and(b) ends with the date of the referendum.”

Amendment 9 agreed.

Amendments 10 and 11 not moved.

Consideration on Report adjourned until not before 8.59 pm.

National Stroke Strategy

Wednesday 18th November 2015 Lords Chamber

Question for Short Debate

20:00

Asked by

[Baroness Wheeler]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to improve stroke services, care and support, and to update the national stroke strategy to commence implementation in 2017 when the existing 10-year plan ends.

[Baroness Wheeler (Lab)]

My Lords, I am delighted to be leading this debate today. Over the past eight years, as a result of the national stroke strategy, which was brought in by my Government and carried forward by the previous Government, there have been huge improvements in stroke outcomes. Stroke is now treated as a medical emergency, patients are getting specialist treatment from specialist staff, fewer people are dying as a result of stroke, fewer people end up with a disability after stroke because they are treated in time and the public are now much more aware of stroke, how to spot it and what to do, thanks to the excellent Act FAST national advertising campaigns. Stroke mortality has almost halved and today most areas have a hospital with a dedicated stroke unit. The number of strokes in the UK has decreased from 88,000 in 1990 to 40,000 in 2013, and incidence rates decreased by 19% over a 10-year period. The welcome reduction in the prevalence and severity of disability that stroke survivors are left with is largely because of Act FAST.

These outcomes have happened because the national stroke strategy drove the reorganisation of acute care in hospitals and ensured that ambulance and emergency care staff knew the key actions to take as soon as they reached the patient, and because more families, carers and members of the public were aware that some form of stroke had occurred when they rang 999 and that they had to act fast. The early periods of the strategy between 2006 and 2009 also saw the number of stroke consultant sessions double and the increase of stroke specialisms in multidisciplinary teams. These are all key elements that have saved lives and, in the process, millions of pounds for the NHS.

The national strategy, and the equivalent national strategies in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, aimed at providing national leadership and drive from the centre to improve stroke outcomes. Today’s NHS in England is very different from the NHS in 2007 when the strategy was introduced. The changes have been enormous. As the current strategy draws to a close, the evidence shows not only the progress but just how much more needs to be done. There is wide and unacceptable variation in standards of care between and even within geographical areas. For example, in the north of England, 94% of stroke patients at North Tyneside General Hospital were assessed by an occupational therapist within 72 hours, but eight miles away at South Tyneside District Hospital, the figure was only 51%.

There are also still too many smaller hospital stroke units unable to offer 24/7 stroke care. The London and Manchester models of streamlining services in centres of excellence have helped save lives, reduce disability and save money. The NHS Five Year Forward View recognises stroke as a key area where concentration of care brings substantial improvements in the quality of care and outcomes. However, the 2015 stroke national audit programme—SSNAP—shows that, although stroke healthcare has improved overall, there are several hospitals not only underperforming but performing worse now than they were in the previous year. Nearly a quarter of patients admitted to hospital are placed in wards deemed unacceptable for dealing with stroke.

Since I put in for this debate, I understand that the Public Health Minister in another place has expressed reservations about the continuing need for a national strategy for stroke—this when stroke is still one of the top three causes of death in England, is the largest cause of adult disability in England and is costing the NHS more than £3 billion a year and society as a whole three times that, and also when CCGs’ record so far on commissioning stroke care, from prevention to long-term care, is so poor. Localised services that are accountable and sensitive to the needs of the communities they serve still need the leadership and direction of the national strategy, and I hope we will hear reassurances from the Minister today that the Government fully recognise this, because if they do not the progress made to date is in serious danger of being lost, and we will start to go backwards. The All-Party Parliamentary Group on Stoke, of which I am a vice-chair, has underlined the vital importance of the strategy continuing into the future.

The praise in NHS Five Year Forward View for the concentration of stroke care and the improvements to stroke outcomes will be just that without the framework of the national strategy. We know that most hospitals or CCGs will struggle to do this without direction and leadership from the centre, particularly in the face of huge financial pressures and cutbacks. Currently one in four commissioning bodies does not have an allocated lead for stroke services and only 56% have a commissioning group for stroke. Only 27% of CCGs, for example, commission vocational rehabilitation services which help stroke recoverers return to paid work, which is a major lost opportunity. How will the Government address these huge variations in quality and standards without an overarching national strategy to ensure that local service providers implement coherent stroke services from prevention to longer-term care?

The new strategy needs to set clear guidance on future reconfigurations of services to replicate the success of the London and Manchester stroke services and other models of care that have improved stroke outcomes. Reorganising and centralising stroke care has been proven to work, and this needs to be firmly set in the context of the forward view and the urgent need to reduce the number of people who are having strokes that could be avoided. For example, we heard in our recent debate on atrial fibrillation that better screening, diagnosis and treatment, including early detection of AF with an anticoagulant, would result in the prevention of more than 4,500 strokes a year and 3,000 deaths. Untreated AF is a contributing factor in 20% of strokes.

There are, of course, other key areas that the new stroke strategy needs to address, including the chronic underfunding of research into AF and stroke treatment and care compared with other killer diseases such as cancer and heart disease. The new strategy will also need to reflect the impact that new medicines, treatments and technologies, such as thrombectomy and anti-clot disrupting or retrieval treatment, could have on future care. More spending on research into the unmet needs of children who have strokes is particularly urgent. Childhood stroke affects around five out of every 100,000 children a year in the UK. People do not think that children have strokes, but they do, as the families of children who have had major strokes in the womb before birth, in early childhood or later in their teenage years know all too well. It is a key message for the awareness-raising campaign that is needed among health professionals, parents and the general public. What action do the Government intend to take to increase research funding into the unmet needs of childhood stroke, particularly into rapid diagnosis and treatment and whole-family support and advice, about which so little is currently known or understood?

Above all, the national strategy is needed to address the main area in which serious gaps in stroke care remain: post-acute care. There are around 1.2 million stroke survivors in the UK. Half of them have a long-term disability and require ongoing support. A seamless transition from hospital to home with domiciliary support, physio and occupational and speech therapy services in place is all too often the exception rather than the rule. As the carer of my partner, who had a major stroke eight years ago, I meet many stroke survivors and their carers, and their stories are frequently of a month or more waiting at home while services, adaptations and, particularly, therapies are arranged. This has to change if the five-year view of integrating care and shifting the focus into the community has any chance of being achieved.

Finally, I underline the everyday importance of being part of the stroke community to stroke survivors, their carers and their families. This is particularly important as today is carers’ rights day. In my area, we are very fortunate in having a very active stroke group just down the road run by the Stroke Association and an amazing local charity called TALK to support stroke survivors with speech, memory and communication difficulties. They are both run by volunteers. Other areas are not so lucky. Many people suffering severe strokes lose their speech altogether, but speech therapy, physical rehabilitation and occupational therapy sessions are hard to come by unless you pay or spend a long time waiting for precious NHS appointments to come free. Only 45% of NHS trusts commission outpatient therapy, which is hardly the strong support needed to get people out of hospital and able to have a good quality of life and independence in the community.

The SNAPP survey sums it up as follows:

“A portfolio of services is required to provide comprehensive post-acute stroke care ... including early supported discharge, longer term neurological rehabilitation, vocational rehabilitation, exercise programmes, vascular risk reduction advice and support, and longer term follow-up and intervention for patients whose functional ability deteriorates. There is widespread variation nationally in commissioning a portfolio of post-stroke services, with too many areas failing to commission comprehensive care”.

I hope I rest my case on why it is imperative that the national stroke strategy should be updated and continue into the future. It must push the reorganisation of acute care, tackle the unacceptable variation in after-stroke care and drive new advances in prevention, treatment and research. Without a national strategy, reflective of a radically different NHS, local commissioners will continue to neglect the needs of stroke survivors, improvements in stroke care will stall, and outcomes for stroke survivors will get worse.

20:09

[Lord Colwyn (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler, for raising this important issue. I have read the report of her debate just over a year ago when she drew our attention to the incidence of stroke in children, and I reread her contribution to the debate on atrial fibrillation on 4 November, which set the scene for our debate today. I congratulate the noble Baroness on the brilliant way in which she and my noble friend Lord Black have stimulated interest in the national stroke strategy. They have organised demonstrations of the walk-in clinics with Anti- Coagulation Europe and have had discussions with the all-party groups for stroke and atrial fibrillation—both of which I am a member of—about what might be the likely successor to the strategy in 2017.

I shall confine my few remarks to the need for a focus on prevention, particularly in relation to atrial fibrillation. I declare an interest in that I have atrial fibrillation myself, which is anticoagulated. Since the strategy was published in 2007, there have been significant advances in the prevention of AF-related stroke, including the introduction of new clinical guidelines and treatment options, but there is still more for the NHS to do and it is essential that preventing AF-related stroke is at the forefront of any new stroke strategy.

In 2014-15, there were 14,979 strokes in people with known AF and 8,831 strokes in people with known AF who were not on anticoagulation. Some 25 % of people with AF who were not anticoagulated before their stroke died, and a further 11% were severely disabled, bed-bound and in need of constant nursing care and attention. Ensuring that patients with AF are identified and anticoagulated in line with NICE guidelines could save lives, prevent disability and save the NHS money.

On average, the healthcare costs associated with an AF-related stroke are £11,900 in the first year of care alone, and the overall cost to the NHS of AF and AF-related illness has been estimated at £2.2 billion each year. I am sure we all agree that there is an urgent need for an improvement in the diagnosis of AF. Estimates suggest that about half of people with AF are undiagnosed, and therefore are not anticoagulated and are at risk of having a stroke.

The diagnosis of AF could be improved through the introduction of a national screening programme for AF in people over 65 and the introduction of pulse checks for older people at seasonal flu clinics and other settings, such as the dental surgery, where most patients are examined for problems that are likely to show up in future. Dental check-ups are unique in that patients who are well arrange appointments to see if anything is wrong and could be prevented. Screening for AF is not currently recommended by the UK National Screening Committee. Would the Minister urge the committee to reconsider the evidence for the introduction of a national screening programme for people aged over 65?

There are now four non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants, called NOACs, recommended by NICE for the prevention of AF-related stroke. The NOACs were specifically designed to overcome the limitations of warfarin. They provide predictable, stable and reliable levels of anticoagulation and do not require routine monitoring, ongoing dose changes or dietary restrictions. All patients with AF should have access to the full range of NICE-recommended treatment options, and should have the opportunity to choose the treatment that is right for them in consultation with their doctor. At present, though, about 31% of eligible patients with AF receive no anticoagulation at all, and only 11% of anticoagulants prescribed are NOACs.

Will the Minister provide further information on what action the Government are taking to ensure that patients have access to the full range of NICE-recommended treatments? Would she consider providing specific support for clinical commissioning groups with the lowest rate of NOAC use to ensure that patients in those areas have better access to treatment?

20:14

[Lord Kakkar (CB)]

My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler, on having secured this important debate, and I thank her for it. In so doing, I declare my own interests as chairman of University College London Partners and my own specific research interests in the area of cardiovascular disease, including those of stroke.

We have heard already in this important debate that stroke represents a substantial burden of disease. It is still the fourth commonest cause of death in our country, with an increase in prevalence of some 26% over recent years. This is because we have a growing and ageing population who are living as a result of successes in other areas in the practice of medicine, and are therefore susceptible to cardiovascular diseases. The lifestyle of much of our population, with increasing obesity, diabetes and other important cardiovascular risk factors, also heightens the risk of stroke. That means within the coming five years we would expect to see an increase in the number of deaths attributable to stroke in our country to some 22,000 extra deaths a year by 2020. This is an important increase in the burden of the disease.

Beyond the physical burden, of course, there is the economic burden. The management of stroke costs us some £9 billion a year. Half that sum is due to health and social care costs and the remainder to informal care costs, costs associated with the loss of productivity in the economy and of course the benefits that need to be paid to those who, regrettably, have sustained a stroke.

Of course there is good news. We have heard from the noble Baroness about the success of the national stroke strategy, an important development in the mid-2000s, which has resulted in increased awareness among the public about the importance of understanding the symptoms of stroke and responding to them early, thereby improving early attendance at hospital. Over the period of time of the stroke strategy, we have also seen that now, at some point in the course of the management of their illness, some 95% of patients who suffer a stroke are managed in a dedicated stroke unit.

However, while we have seen from the Sentinel Stroke National Audit Programme some interesting and exciting data on improvements in practice, we have also seen some very serious variations in practice. For instance, the audit shows us that when process and outcomes relating to practice in stroke units are graded, some two-thirds of them get the lowest possible grades, grade D or E, with only 2% of units achieving the highest grade, grade A. We see important variation in the most important feature of acute stroke management: timely intervention by way of radiological assessment of the nature of stroke, and intervention with regard to thrombolytic therapy to dissolve the blood clot responsible for the stroke or indeed more advanced interventions such as thrombectomy to remove the clot itself using interventional radiological techniques. The reality of that situation is that, although 60% of patients suffering a stroke are transferred from A&E to a stroke unit within four hours, the variation is from around 20% of patients in some hospitals to over 80% in others. That fourfold variation is clearly not appropriate, so we have to do more to improve acute stroke management.

I remind noble Lords of my declaration as chairman of University College London Partners. Our academic health science system has been at the forefront of moving forward the stroke treatment strategy in London, along with the other academic health science centres. This particular model has landed upon the development of eight hyper-acute stroke units in London that bring together expertise in radiology and acute intervention. Patients are taken directly by ambulance to the hyper-acute stroke unit, managed there for 72 hours and then transferred to one of 24 stroke units in London for their further management. That model has been shown to save 96 lives per year in London, providing a saving to the NHS in London of some £5 million a year in treatment costs. What plans are there to ensure that the experience in London, now extended to Manchester, can be assessed for its value and utility in other urban areas in our country? Clearly it may not be suitable for all rural areas.

Indeed, how will the national stroke strategy be built on in future to address questions of better prevention, better identification of high-risk populations and the further extension of successful models at scale and pace to improve clinical outcomes?

20:19

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I join other noble Lords in thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler, for securing this debate and for the chance for me, early in my opportunity to contribute to debates in this House, to talk about an issue that is close to my heart.

The noble Baroness and some Members of the House may recall that I was chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Stroke for seven years, before the 2010 election. The noble Baroness is quite right—it was a very important time for the development of stroke services, and Members of both Houses, as well as the Stroke Association, can take some credit for keeping a consistent focus on the treatment of stroke as a medical emergency. It has dramatically shifted over that decade from being thought of as a condition which people suffered—they had a stroke and then nothing much happened—to something that was treated as an emergency. Now, increasingly, we are beginning to see the development of more effective pathways for treatment that follow the acute emergency care, which is very important. It all goes back to the National Audit Office report back in 2005—so much of it flowed from that. We should not forget the critical role that should be played by the constructive but critical scrutiny that can be placed upon the service.

We have done a great deal but, as they say, there is more to do. We now know from the evidence, which the noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, eloquently set out, that a significant proportion of patients who are admitted as a medical emergency can benefit from acute care for ischemic stroke. One day I hope that the research will enable us to do something for patients who suffer a haemorrhagic stroke. However, the point is that making that very early diagnosis is absolutely critical to get patients on the right path.

We know that if patients are admitted to a specialist stroke unit rapidly, receive intensive therapy in the early stages after their stroke, and are discharged relatively early with support, all of those actions will have a significant impact upon their outcomes and, as a consequence, from the health service’s point of view, will be a major benefit as regards the reduction of long-term disability. The NHS, I hope—that was my intention—should be focused on outcomes and focused for the benefit of patients on reducing the disability consequences of stroke. We will have more patients with stroke to deal with—the noble Lord is quite right about that—but that does not mean that we should not be relentlessly focused on trying to increase consistently the proportion of those patients who suffer a stroke but who avoid mortality in the 30 days after that stroke and whose long-term level of disability is reduced. I should declare an interest as a stroke survivor myself. I had my stroke 23 years ago or so, in a very different age. We can do much more for stroke patients today.

There is a need in the midst of that for the department to act as steward of the system. For the NHS, through NHS England and the commissioners, there is a responsibility to secure the best possible outcomes. There is a need to commission for the best care to meet those quality standards; I was privileged to launch the first quality standards that NICE produced, which were on stroke. However, through the stewardship of the system, the Department of Health and Ministers are able to tie together the public health activity, and we here can hold the system to account. In his reference to screening for AF my noble friend made it clear how there is a public health benefit and activity to be determined there. The social care support that follows discharge of patients in the long term is of critical importance, as, of course, is the research activity. There is now ample evidence that more research activity on stroke can pay enormous dividends as regards securing the best pathway for treatment.

In the midst of that, I will make a plea. The better care fund is a large NHS fund, whose purpose is to enable patients to leave hospital and be looked after in the community with their social care much better adapted in the future, relieving burdens on the social care system in the long run using NHS resources. There would be no better place to focus some of this better care fund than on the support of stroke patients to receive early supported discharge after they have had a stroke.

20:24

[Baroness Masham of Ilton (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler, for securing this important debate.

It is said that when stroke strikes, it affects everyone who loves that person. How true this is. Every three and a half minutes someone in the UK has a stroke. Some time ago my late husband had a stroke while sitting in his armchair watching cricket on the TV. I was in the room on the telephone and I noticed immediately what was happening. When the ambulance came he did not want to be disturbed from the cricket. I followed in my car, and when I got to the hospital I was left in his room with a young student nurse from South Africa. The questions on the admission form were so inappropriate that she gave up trying to fill it in. The student nurse and I undressed him, and as soon as we got his pyjamas on, we had to change them. I had to show the nurse how to roll him, as he was a big man. When I left his room I found a charge nurse and a female chatting at the nurses’ station. Why the male nurse did not come to help remains a mystery to this day. My husband was admitted in the middle of the morning; by evening he had not been seen by a consultant and no treatment had been given, nor had he had a scan. In desperation I telephoned the chairman of the hospital, who I knew, and she got the consultant, who was in his house, to visit.

That experience is why it is so important to have a national stroke strategy and to update it in 2017, when the present 10-year plan ends. I am pleased that owing to the strategy, treatment has got better, but it is still patchy across the country. Some stroke treatment is excellent but some can still be improved. Stroke is one of the top three causes of death and the largest cause of adult disability in England, costing the NHS over £3 billion. My noble friend Lord Kakkar said that it is £9 billion, so perhaps it has risen. Some people do not know that young people and even babies also have strokes.

Prevention is so important. Atrial fibrillation can cause strokes. Automatic arrhythmia detection loop monitors will greatly improve the detection of AF. At a screening last week for AF, several of your Lordships were picked up as having AF, which shows how important screening is.

When someone has a stroke, you must act fast. At the debate on AF in your Lordships’ House recently I stressed that there is a need to have first aid taught in schools so that many lives can be saved by people who know and have confidence to help save lives in threatening circumstances. Little did I know that there is currently a Bill in another place on first aid in schools, presented by Teresa Pearce MP. I hope that it succeeds.

The streamlining of specialist services with specially trained staff, which has saved lives and money, needs to continue as we build upon the improvements in acute care. This can only be pushed through at a national level.

Post-acute care, where the most serious problems persist, is where many survivors and their families are not getting the help that they need. This has to be improved. Some people do not have family support and have to rely on carers and a variety of help. It is worrying that, with the cuts to local authorities, services such as Meals on Wheels are being reduced or cut. All those providing care services, including volunteers, should work in collaboration. We must improve the service.

20:29

[Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con)]

My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Baroness for bringing forward this debate on a subject that is all too often overlooked. Strokes are devastating—they not only kill but cruelly maim. I have seen it personally. My father, aunt and mother-in-law all had strokes, so I know only too well about the terrible suffering and anguish that they cause. For some, it will be the end of their normal functioning lives, and even those who return to independent living often feel very vulnerable and suffer from depression.

Sadly, strokes are all too common. In the UK around 150,000 people suffer a stroke every year and, as we have heard, it is one of the largest causes of death. Even when not fatal, strokes can be desperately debilitating. My aunt changed from being an energetic, lively and outgoing person to being paralysed down one side and unable to speak. Even the mildest strokes tend to leave a mark.

Despite all that, there is a concerning lack of awareness of the symptoms, of the fact that, as we have heard, people of any age, including children, are susceptible, of the risk being greater among those of Asian or African origin, and, perhaps more importantly, of the fact that so-called mini-strokes are often a precursor to a much larger, more threatening stroke. It is estimated that if mini-strokes were properly identified and treated, around 10,000 major strokes could be prevented each year.

The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, highlighted very well how prevention is crucial, and many strokes are preventable. Much can be done to reduce the risks: diets, alcohol consumption and levels of exercise can all play a key role. Underlying conditions such as high blood pressure need controlling where possible. As we heard from my noble friend Lord Colwyn, less well known is the fact that atrial fibrillation can also be a serious risk factor.

The national stroke strategy, which was introduced in 2007 and to which many have alluded, has sought to develop and implement a comprehensive way of treating strokes. A further milestone was the set of quality standards focusing on clinical aspects developed in 2010. The National Audit Office has found that these have not only improved outcomes but saved the National Health Service an estimated £456 million since 2007. Where research leads to the development of new, improved treatments, it is important that these are adopted because, although they may be initially more expensive, in the long term they will improve lives and thus will equate to further financial savings.

More needs to be done so that people recognise when someone is having a stroke, as outcomes for stroke patients are intrinsically linked to response speed. The acronym FAST—face, arms, speech, time—is now the standard for identifying stroke symptoms. For strokes caused by clots, there is a maximum three-hour window to administer clot-busting drugs that will minimise damage. After that, it is too late. However, according to the Stroke Association, 60% of stroke emergency attendees at A&E arrive out of time. Rapid response from ambulance services is crucial, particularly in rural areas, where hospitals with the necessary expertise may be a long way away. Therefore, I ask the Minister whether monitoring is in place to ensure that all those who call for an ambulance in response to a stroke receive timely treatment, wherever they live.

I understand that nearly half of all stroke patients are scanned within an hour of reaching hospital, and 90% within 12 hours, but what about the 50% who are not scanned within one hour? How many of them could have been helped had they been? And are patients who need speech therapy or physiotherapy now given enough to enable them to make as good a recovery as possible? My aunt, some years ago, was offered speech therapy once a week when she actually needed it several times a day in short bursts if she was ever going to speak again. Consequently, she never did. Can I have an assurance from the Minister that older patients are given the best possible treatment? Anecdotally, I have heard of cases where those over the age of 75 are less bothered with. Much more attention also needs to be given to rehabilitation, as in a survey of stroke survivors 43% said that they wanted more therapy support once discharged home.

I, too, hope that the national stroke strategy will be revisited at the end of its current implementation period in 2017. Consultation with a wide range of healthcare professionals, stroke sufferers, carers and voluntary organisations will ensure that a revised strategy builds on the gains and adopts the latest research and treatment.

To conclude, I hope that the Government will ensure that stroke medicine across the country is adequately provided for and funded, including prevention measures, timely access to specialist services and necessary aftercare support and therapy, including psychological support. This, in turn, will mean better outcomes, healthier lives and a lower overall cost to the taxpayer.

20:35

[Lord Lisvane (CB)]

My Lords, I should preface my remarks with a declaration: I am the patron of Herefordshire Headway, which provides services to adults who have a head injury or an acquired brain injury. It does marvellous work through its day centre, offering a range of activities and therapies led by specialists.

I warmly endorse the view of the noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler, that there needs to be a continuing national strategy, and I suggest that an important emphasis must be on increased resources for rehabilitation. I was delighted to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Lansley —I hope that, in view of our former happy and close working relationship, I may on this occasion call him my noble friend—said about funding at the point of discharge and thereafter.

In terms of rehabilitation, there needs to be greater availability of physiotherapy. Frequently, that is only 30 minutes or so a week, which clearly is simply not enough. Repetitive movement of affected limbs may well help the development of new brain pathways and connections. The improvement of robotic machines to help in this will play an important part, but once again resources are key. It is a real challenge for people to do the hard slog of rehabilitation on their own. Group support can make a real difference. Here again rehabilitation centres where that group support is available have an important part to play. There is a lot of scope for much greater joint working between the NHS and rehabilitation centres such as Headway, and for joint funding between health and social care. Rehabilitation after stroke helps people rebuild their lives, and the lives of their families. That in itself should be a strong argument for it to be a spending priority. But also it is the wider community that benefits, and faster and more effective rehabilitation leads to savings in other areas as well, as my noble friend Lord Kakkar pointed out a few minutes ago.

Point 7 in the original strategy’s 10-point plan for action is spot-on in seeking to ensure that,

“health, social care and voluntary services together provide the long-term support people need”.

It asks:

“Is commissioning and planning integrated across the whole care pathway in your area?”.

Spot-on indeed, but has it really happened?

If availability of longer-term support through the charities, with their low overheads and costs per hour, could be built into the national stroke pathway then CCGs would be encouraged to commission the most appropriate providers in their area. I am confident that we would thereby get more for less.

20:39

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, I start by congratulating all those who lobbied for the 10-year national strategy and all those who have made it work so well. If it had not been for the vision behind its establishment, and the hard work and co-operation of all those who have made it work, many more people would have died of stroke and many more survivors would have struggled with inadequate services.

Clearly, the additional specialist services and the community stroke teams have been a great success. However, every plan of this nature, especially those starting from a low base, has to be seen as a work in progress. The national stroke strategy is one of those for several reasons.

Medical research has, of course, moved on over the eight years of the strategy so far, and new ways of preventing stroke and treating and supporting people who have a stroke have emerged. In addition, because of the lowered mortality rate, there are now more people living with the consequences of stroke, and they require support. Add to that the changes in the structure of the NHS and commissioning since the strategy began, and the further pressures on the NHS which we have debated many times in your Lordships’ House, and we find ourselves looking at a strategy that needs updating, even though it has not yet reached its nominal sell-by date. So I am most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler, for giving us this opportunity to take a long, hard look at it.

It is clear from the briefings we have received that the scope of the strategy needs to be wider to include vascular dementia, a set of conditions that are closely linked to what we normally think of as stroke because they affect the delivery of blood to the brain. It is also clear to me that we need to invest in the wonderful new methods of prevention that have been mentioned.

Many of today’s speakers will, like me, have attended the walk-in briefing and testing session about atrial fibrillation last week—I was delighted to get a big green tick. I was impressed by the modest cost and ease of use of the kit, which can identify atrial fibrillation, and its potential for preventing strokes before they happen. I look forward to the analysis of the pilot scheme, which is putting 200 units into GP practices. Prevention is always better than cure, especially when action can be taken to prevent a serious condition such as stroke. I hope that the Minister’s department will look carefully at the cost-effectiveness of this initiative. Combine this screening with access to the NOAC drugs mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, and we have a formula for saving lives and saving money.

We know that strokes kill about a quarter of sufferers outright, as I know from personal experience in my family. When I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, I thought, “Well, if you’re going to have a stroke, the best place to have it is in London”. But 20 years ago, when my late husband had a massive stroke, it was in Brussels. He was picked up by an ambulance in minutes, and within half an hour of collapsing in our hotel room was in a scanner being screened. That is why I think that four hours is an awfully long time.

We know a great deal about the lifestyle changes that can help to prevent strokes, but successive Governments have struggled to persuade the population to take these known preventive measures. Perhaps we need another public information campaign. I think that the public still lack knowledge of how to recognise when someone is having a stroke, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, outlined. Having taken an interest in the matter, I think that I know what to look for, but many people do not. Go out on to the street and ask people—despite the public information campaigns that we have already had, I think at least half of people would not know what to look for. We have to keep on telling them.

Given that successful outcomes depend a great deal on rapid diagnosis and access to treatment, it is vital that we have regular public information campaigns as part of the new stroke strategy. I suggest that such campaigns combine information on how to avoid having a stroke yourself alongside the messages about how to recognise it in others. If those around you recognise that you are having a stroke and call for help quickly, you have a much better chance of survival—and survival without serious disability.

The other thing that has been criticised in the briefings and by some noble Lords tonight is the patchiness of services for stroke survivors. This can only get worse, unless local commissioners are on the ball. We have learned from the briefings about the economic and lifestyle benefits of speech and language assessment and therapies for stroke patients, but not all patients have access to adequate amounts of these. They are clearly services which need to move seamlessly from hospital into the community, but they vary a lot from place to place. As a lay person, I have long been aware of the need for physiotherapy for legs and arms that have been damaged by stroke and for help with speech problems, but I was not aware, before I read the briefing, of how widespread swallowing difficulties are. Apparently, 40% of stroke victims have difficulty swallowing and a third have communication problems. What can the department can do to ensure, first, that there is an adequate supply of speech and language therapists—I believe there is a shortage—and, secondly, that CCGs are aware of the benefits of providing the services that have been discussed this evening?

Finally, do we really have to wait another two years to amend the national stroke strategy? The evidence is there. Why can we not start now?

20:45

[Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler, for initiating this debate. As so often with these short debates, this was of a high standard, and I only wish we had longer to discuss the issues. Stroke is one of England’s biggest killers and is the largest single cause of serious adult disability in this country. Its effects can be devastating, both for those who have a stroke and for their families and loved ones. However, good progress on stroke has been made in recent years—the mortality rate has fallen by almost 12% since 2010—but we know more needs to be done.

Both the noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler, and my noble friend Lord Lansley spoke about the national stroke strategy and asked whether we are going to carry it on. There are no current plans to do so. The reason for this decision is that the NHS Five-Year Forward View recognises that quality of care, including stroke care, can be variable and that patients’ needs are changing and new treatment options are emerging. The Five-Year Forward View sets out high-level objectives to address these issues. Initiatives include ongoing work in virtually all parts of the country to organise acute stroke care to ensure that all stroke patients have access to high-quality specialist care, regardless of where they live or what time of day or day of the week they have their stroke.

The Cardiovascular Disease Outcome Strategy, published in 2013, includes many stroke-specific strategic ambitions. Alongside this, a CVD expert forum hosted by NHS England will co-ordinate delivery of the work initiated in the CVD Outcome Strategy. Also, NHS England’s National Clinical Director for Stroke works with the strategic clinical networks, voluntary agencies and individual providers to support best commissioning and provision of stroke care. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler, I want to pay tribute to the Stroke Association, the Carers Trust and the Princess Royal Trust for Carers, which do so much to help stroke victims.

Alongside initiatives being put into place when the national strategy comes to an end in 2017 is the Clinical Commissioning Group Outcomes Indicator Set, known as the CCGOIS. These are indicators for improving recovery from stroke. People who have had a stroke who are admitted to a stroke unit within four hours of arrival in hospital receive thrombolysis following an acute stroke, are discharged from hospital with a joint health and social care plan, receive a follow-up assessment between four to eight months after initial admission, and spend 90% or more of their stay on an acute stroke unit. These indicators are being monitored by the Sentinel Stroke Audit Programme.

I want to touch on prevention, which is so important if we are to see fewer stroke victims in our hospitals. First, we know that obesity and high salt intake greatly increase the risk of stroke. Tackling obesity, particularly in children, is one of our key priorities. We will put forward our plans for action in our childhood obesity strategy in the new year. Alongside this, the UK salt reduction programme is world leading, with the population’s average salt intake being reduced by 15%. Major retailers, manufacturers and caterers are working to meet these targets by December 2017.

Secondly, simple lifestyle changes can help reduce the risk of stroke, as we all know. Public Health England is working with a range of public sector and commercial partners to promote healthy behaviour across the course of life. These include encouraging greater physical activity, highlighting the harms of smoking and drinking and urging older people to make sure that they take action on the signs and symptoms of stroke.

Thirdly, the noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler, mentioned the treatment of atrial fibrillation, as did the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, and the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley. We covered most of the issues in our recent debate, but it is a high priority in NHS England’s Five Year Forward View. As we know, AF is a major cause of stroke. I want to mention NHS Improving Quality, which has developed GRASP-AF, an audit tool to identify patients with AF who are not receiving treatment. There are also the quality and outcomes framework indicators on the use of anticoagulation therapy for AF patients to incentivise good practice in prescribing anticoagulants in primary care. Screening for AF will be discussed at a meeting on 2 December—in which I think the noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler, will take part with my noble friend Lord Prior—where more will come out about what the plans are for such screening.

Improving awareness of signs and symptoms of stroke is key to improving outcomes. The hugely successful Act FAST campaign, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, has helped 40,000 people to receive the immediate treatment they require, resulting in an estimated 4,600 fewer people becoming disabled as a result of a stroke since the campaign began in 2009. There are certainly no plans to stop this campaign. All ambulance trusts are now asked to use this treatment facility when they are triaging patients in an ambulance.

Diagnosis and treatment has improved over the years. Access to immediate brain scanning has improved, with 46% of patients being scanned within one hour of hospital arrival and 90% within 12 hours. Clot-busting drugs give a certain cohort of stroke patients a better chance of regaining their independence. Twelve per cent of all stroke patients admitted to hospital receive these drugs, which is a rate higher than most other developed countries.

We are aware that stroke patients do better when they are treated on stroke units. Some 83% of stroke patients now spend more than 90% of their time in hospital on a stroke unit.

As was mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler, the academic science networks and strategic clinical networks work at local level to help improve services. They work with local commissioners and providers on the configuration of stroke services. As we know, there have been problems in various areas.

We know that there have been issues in the past with stroke patients experiencing a poorer level of care at weekends and evenings than they might experience during weekdays. Ninety-nine per cent of hospitals are now providing a 24-hour, seven-day-a-week thrombolysis service, either themselves or through a formal arrangement with a neighbouring trust. Two-thirds of hospitals admitting acute stroke patients are operating seven-day-a-week consultant ward rounds.

The noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, mentioned the success of the London model, which is very true. Good practice is taking place in other places, too—indeed, the noble Lord mentioned how such practice had been set out in Manchester. Certainly, the Royal London, Tower Hamlets and Wandsworth are providing high-quality responses, seven-day in-patient rehab and early supported discharge. The Society of Chartered Physiotherapy highlights the good work of the North Devon Healthcare Trust stroke therapy team, which provides stroke rehabilitation services, including early supported discharge, across a rurally dispersed population. Not only does it give high-quality specialist integrated services but it delivers improved outcomes. It has reduced length of stay by six days, saving almost £900,000. We accept that there are areas where support can be improved, but some excellent work is definitely going on.

Following on from prevention, diagnosis and treatment, it is critical for stroke patients to receive good aftercare. That is why the NHS Outcomes Framework and our mandate to the NHS both set out improving recovery from stroke as a key area where progress is expected. There has been growth in availability of services such as early supported discharge and community neuro-rehabilitation teams over recent years. For example, recent data show that 74% of hospitals had access to stroke-specific early supported discharge and 72% to specialist community rehabilitation teams.

Transparency in information and data about the quality of the services provided will drive improvements. It worked in cardiac surgery and we are beginning to see the benefits of this approach in other services such as stroke.

Also incredibly important in all stroke care is joined-up care. My noble friend Lord Lansley mentioned the Better Care Fund. Some 84% of stroke patients on discharge have a joint health and social care plan, and 89% of patients are given a named contact on discharge in case there are issues they wish to discuss once at home. Whether it be speech, language therapists for aphasia, which is such a distressing side-effect for stroke suffers, or physiotherapy to improve mobility, joined-up care is absolutely vital as far as stroke rehabilitation is concerned.

Joined-up care must also include psychological support, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, mentioned. The CVD outcomes strategy and national stroke strategy both recognise that stroke services which incorporate psychological care deliver the best outcomes for people who have had a stroke. NHS England is exploring how to improve the existing resources to ensure that stroke patients receive the psychological and emotional support they need.

Noble Lords may be aware of an improving access to the psychological therapies programme, known as IAPT. This is an NHS programme rolling out services across England, offering interventions for people with depression and anxiety disorders. Many areas now have an IAPT service. Some IAPT services have developed psychological support skills through enhancing the training of nurses and therapists, and some have employed counsellors to support people with stroke in the community.

Clearly, ambulance times are paramount in rural communities, and where extra time is taken in travelling this will be made up as quickly as possible when they reach hospital. For example, in Northumbria, a new hospital is taking all acute stroke patients who previously went to three hospitals. This has shortened the time taken for patients to receive clot-busting drugs after arriving in hospital from over an hour to 30 minutes. A couple of trials are going on involving paramedics. In one, paramedics are recruited to help trial a rapid response treatment for stroke patients, whereby medicated skin patches that lower blood pressure quickly after a suspected stroke are administered in the ambulance. In the other, paramedics can request a brain scan and transfer the patient directly to the scan room on arrival, which can reduce the waiting time for thrombolysis.

I am running out of time, which always seems to happen on these occasions. I have not been able to mention much about childhood stroke, but spend on research for all types of stroke by NIHR increased from £20 million in 2011-12 to £26 million in 2014-15. However, I would like to get back to the noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler, on the specific research into childhood strokes, which is so important.

I hope that I have given some reassurance—although I feel that I have only touched on many issues—but if there are points I have not managed to deal with, I ask noble Lords to get in touch with me so that I can make sure they get the proper answers they want. As always with these debates, some fascinating issues have been brought up which we need to take further. Once again, I thank all speakers for their participation.

European Union Referendum Bill

Wednesday 18th November 2015 Lords Chamber

Report (1st Day) (Continued)

20:59

Amendment 12

Moved by

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

12: Schedule 1, page 17, line 1, leave out sub-paragraph (2) and insert—
“(2) Paragraph 1 of that Schedule (limits in relation to referendums held throughout United Kingdom) has effect for the purposes of the referendum as if for sub-paragraphs (2) to (5) there were substituted—
“(2) The Electoral Commission shall by order set a limit on the total permitted referendum expenses for those campaigning to remain a member of the European Union, and for those campaigning to leave the European Union.(3) The limit set under sub-paragraph (2) shall be the same for both campaigns.(4) For each campaign, the limit set under sub-paragraph (2) shall apply to the sum of—(a) expenditure by the designated organisation for that campaign, and(b) expenditure by any registered party in support of that campaign.(5) An order under sub-paragraph (2) may specify, within the overall limit, a sub-limit for the designated organisation for a campaign, and sub-limits for specified registered parties supporting that campaign.(6) An order under sub-paragraph (2) must be made by statutory instrument, which must not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.””

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

My Lords, I raised this issue in Committee, but in the debate it was made pretty clear that my previous effort did not work because it had the effect of preventing political parties from spending any money at all. I do not want to repeat the arguments that we had in Committee, but what this is about is tackling the basic unfairness which the Bill creates for spending limits between the two camps—the leave and the stay camps. As the Bill is currently drafted, it will mean in practice that those who wish to campaign to stay in the European Union will have more than twice the funds to spend of those who wish to campaign to leave. Perhaps I am a bit naive, but I thought that the whole point of having expenditure limits was to ensure fairness so that no party, whichever side it is on, is able to outspend the other unfairly. Yet what the Bill does is to enshrine in legislation as an absolute fact the ability of the stay campaign to spend more than twice what the leave campaign can spend.

This arises because, although the Bill provides for equal expenditure for the two designated campaigns, the political parties are able to spend money at similar levels according to the share of the vote that they got at the last general election. I just do not understand why the amount that the political parties can spend on the referendum campaign should be related to the votes they got at the last general election. In the case of the Conservative Party, many of the people who voted Conservative will have wanted to leave the European Union. To be fair to the Conservative Party, it has decided that it will be neutral during the course of the campaign.

I suppose it could be argued that the Labour and Liberal Democrat parties have no money because they have been bankrupted by their efforts in the election campaign and therefore that this is not something to be too concerned about. But that does not stop people giving money to those parties in order to support the campaign that wishes to stay in the European Union. This seems to go to the heart of what these limits are about. My first question for the Minister is: if we cannot devise a way in which the limits ensure that both campaigns are treated fairly and are able to spend the same amount, what is the point of having the limits at all? Further, why should these limits be related to the vote at the last general election?

I noted that the Electoral Commission sent out a missive to us all suggesting that it could not support this amendment. I had a word on the telephone with the nice lady who sent out the press release and asked her to explain why the Electoral Commission was not concerned about the issue of fairness. She said that it was a matter for the political parties and not something that the commission could concern itself with. I asked her to send me a brief indicating what the position of the commission is on these issues, but I have to say that it has not come in time to discuss the amendment—which I suppose could be because the commission is short of resources. It does actually cost as much as half the cost of the Royal Family; it is a very expensive quango indeed, and I would have thought that it would have been able to find the resource to think of a way to ensure that there is fairness in the funding of these campaigns. Rather naively, I thought that the reason we are spending £25 million or £26 million of taxpayers’ money every year on the Electoral Commission is so that it can ensure that elections and referenda are fair. But apparently the commission cannot think of anything and it is not its job to do that, it is up to the Government.

At an earlier stage my noble friend said that it was quite difficult to make this work. I did not draft the legislation and I did not suggest the limits. I cannot for the life of me understand why we should have limits which have the perverse effect of creating a great unfairness. Earlier in our consideration of amendments today, my noble friend Lord Faulks made a really important point. He said that it was very important at the end of the day that everyone accepted the result of the referendum and that no one could cry unfairness. I do not know how, if it turns out that one side is able to spend two and a half times or 2.3 times as much as the other, it will be possible for the Government to avoid the accusation of unfairness.

Some people say, “Actually, how much you spend does not have much of an influence”—in which case, why have spending limits? The perverse effect of this legislation, as it stands, is that it will limit the amount that those of us who wish to leave the European Union can spend, simply because the political parties have taken a particular view. In the case of my own party, where the leadership has a particular view that seems to be towards staying in the European Union, the vast majority of the members would take the opposite view. It could be argued—I do not want to tread into the dangerous territory of suggesting that there is some kind of operation going on here—that the decision to make the Conservative Party neutral was to avoid the embarrassment of finding that the money which it could spend, some £7 million, might have gone to the leave campaign.

I know that my amendment may not be perfect. I know that the Electoral Commission cannot possibly take on this role because it does not have the resources even to explain why it cannot take on the role, or how it could ensure fairness if it did take it on. I think that my noble friend needs to think about this from the point of view of ensuring that we have a fair campaign and that we do not have all kinds of abuses happening. We can see, for example, that people might be tempted to fund the political parties that wish to stay as a way of getting round the limitations that are put on expenditure that would otherwise be available to the campaigns.

I apologise for raising the issue again, but I have produced a different amendment which approaches it in a different way. I am not as clever as my noble friend and I certainly do not have the resources of the Electoral Commission, so I cannot believe that between them they could not devise a way to ensure that we have a limit on expenditure that is fair to all parties. I beg to move.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

I very much support my noble friend Lord Forsyth in his amendment. He mentions that, because we have this completely disparate allocation of funds, we may have a rather ridiculous situation. Let us suppose that a Conservative donor wants to donate towards staying in. He cannot donate to the Tory party because it is neutral and is not allocating funds in either direction, so he may end up giving funds to the rather bankrupt Liberal Democrats as a way of getting his funds into supporting the staying-in campaign.

The real problem with all this is that the results of the last election are completely immaterial. Why should somebody who is Labour vote to stay in? I can tell noble Lords that hosts of Labour supporters will vote to come out. Even some members of UKIP will vote to stay in. This will break in every direction. The Liberal Democrats are these fanatical pro-Europeans. Their supporters, who I know well down in the West Country, are not fanatical pro-Europeans. Many of them were extremely tempted to vote for UKIP in the last election. The reasons are: they are chapel, anti-establishment and do not terribly like the major parties either way round. The Liberal Democrats know that well but they have a leadership in the country that is completely unrepresentative of their members and voters all around.

This is the problem: all parties will break in different directions, so what on earth are we doing basing the financing of an in or an out campaign on the results of the last election? It is completely irrelevant because everybody will vote in different directions. They will be influenced by a lot of different factors. It is inconceivable how we could have dreamed up this extraordinary funding system, which allocates a lot more money to the “stay in” campaign than it does to those who want to pull out. We know the figures: £7 million for each— £7 million for the Labour Party because it seems to be pretending that all its members want to stay in. Then the Liberal Democrats get £3 million; the CBI and the SNP will allocate their funds for staying in. That comes to more than £11 million. What have we got on the other side? We have £7 million for the allocated body, then we have £4 million for UKIP, which makes £11 million, so you have £11 million against £18 million. This is supposed to be a fair, level playing field but the financing of it is completely skewed. Everyone will say that money was used to completely skew the result.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

It is £11 million to £18 million only because the Conservative Party is remaining neutral.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom]

My noble friend is absolutely right. If the Conservative Party had decided to support the “staying in” campaign it would have been £25 million to £11 million, which is extraordinarily disproportionate in the circumstances.

I do not know what the thinking is behind this. I cannot understand where everybody is coming from. This is a referendum on whether we stay in the EU or whether we leave. It is nothing to do with how we all voted in the last election. How can the whole basis of financing be based on that? It is quite beyond me.

[Lord Stoddart of Swindon (Ind Lab)]

My Lords, I support the amendment because it is absolutely necessary. I support it very much because I took part in the last referendum in 1975. The claim that those of us who wanted to come out at that stage have always been able to make—of course, some, like myself, remain of the opinion that we should come out as soon as possible—was that we were on the outside, outgunned in finance by £20 million to £1 million. That was why the in side was able to convince the people that they should remain—by money, not by any other means. In spite of that, 33% of the voting population voted to come out, so there is all to play for when we get to the referendum.

It is important that we get balance. The system that has just been outlined, where the funding is dependent on the votes cast in the last election, is absurd. What is even more absurd is that the Conservative Party, which would get about £9 million, I think, is not going to use it. I have never had much respect for the thinking of the Tory party, but this really takes the biscuit. We have a party led by a Prime Minister, who is negotiating with his partners in Europe and is apparently agreeing with his party that it should be outspent by the other parties. That seems absolutely crazy. I would have thought that the Tory party would be up in arms about it, sending in resolutions, demonstrating outside the headquarters and all that sort of thing so that we could have a bit of fairness.

So I agree with this amendment and for other reasons, too. In 1975 the Tory party campaigned to stay in Europe, as of course did the Liberals—I think they were called the Liberals then, not the Lib Dems—and big business. I well remember that Sir Donald Stokes, who later became Lord Stokes, wrote to all my former constituents in Swindon, because there was a BLMC factory there, warning them that if they voted to come out their jobs would be at stake. That, of course, was a lie because at that time we had a surplus in car exports to the continent. However, by 1975, we were in deficit. That deficit had grown to a huge figure of £69 billion overall per annum. My constituents were told not only by Sir Donald Stokes but by those running other big businesses in Swindon and elsewhere that coming out would harm their prospects. Of course, that is where the big money came from—big business.

It is essential that there should be fairness between the campaigns. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, would ensure that that happens, or at least go a long way to do so. If it does not, once again we will hear the losing side say, “We were outgunned by the others on finance”. Therefore, I hope that the Government will accept the amendment. The Tory party may be able to exert influence over the Government by saying to them, “Look here, you have this opportunity. You really must take it so that there is a proper balance between the parties during the referendum”.

21:15

[Lord Willoughby de Broke (UKIP)]

My Lords, I support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth. I declare my interests as a member of UKIP and a dedicated “outer”. I am not sure which members of UKIP the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, thinks will vote to stay in. I hope he was not referring to my noble friend Lord Pearson. I assure the noble Lord that he definitely wants us to get out. I cannot imagine that a UKIP member would vote to stay in the EU.

Leaving that aside, on all the previous amendments the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, rightly made the point that this referendum needed to be seen to be fair. He has said that on several occasions today and in Committee. However, regardless of who wins or loses, the referendum will be seen to be manifestly unfair if one campaign, whether in or out, is preponderantly better financed than the other. I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, who seemed to imply that just because an organisation has less money, it will lose. That is not necessarily the case at all. Even if we have a few pounds less than the “stay in” campaign, we will still win. However, it would be much nicer and better, and would be seen to be fairer, if the campaigns had equality of financing.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom]

Surely the real problem is that if the “stay ins” win the referendum by a very narrow margin, and they are seen to have been financed much more heavily than those who want to leave, those who want to leave will cry foul and say that the others won because they had more money. Whether that does the trick at the end of the day is debatable, but the fact is that it would be used as a reason to say that the referendum was completely slanted in the direction of the people who wanted to stay in.

[Lord Willoughby de Broke]

The noble Lord is absolutely right. I do not disagree with him, but it reinforces the point of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, that we need equality of financing, however that may be achieved. That is up to the Government, I hope, in spite of the Electoral Commission’s worst efforts. We do not seem to be getting anywhere with the Electoral Commission so the Government ought to take this amendment seriously and look at how they can reallocate the financing arrangements so that both the ins and the outs have the same amount of money to spend. It is not, as they say, rocket science. It is actually quite simple to do. That will eliminate the concerns that the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, expressed, that either side may have cause for complaint at the end of the referendum. There has to be equality of financing so I very much support the noble Lord’s amendment.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I am going to repeat some of the arguments I made in Committee because I think that this amendment is basically doing the same thing.

There is an assumption behind the contributions we have heard so far that we are dealing with a pot of money. We are not. We are dealing with a spending limit. We are not dealing with an allocation of funds that should be distributed fairly. Perhaps we could do that. I have not heard many noble Lords opposite support state funding of political parties, but that is the only way to guarantee fairness.

I am really surprised by the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke. Let us say the leave campaign got all the money in, spent the upper limit and then it was discovered that UKIP spent more than the limit. UKIP would then have to give all its money back. That is the reality. You are trying to set a limit when you do not even know who is going to be participating in the campaign.

First, it is not a pot of money to be spent. Secondly, this referendum is not going to be fought by just two sides. Political parties, civil society, trade unions, churches and other groups that have an opinion will not keep their mouths shut simply because the Conservative Party is unsure of what position it will take as a whole. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, is correct that this whole thing about registration and the Conservative Party not registering is more to do with the state of the Conservative Party than the rights and wrongs of how the referendum campaign should be conducted.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

I do not know whether the noble Lord has had a chance to read my amendment, which is completely different from that which he made a speech about in Committee. But I am following his argument so would I be right in deducing that he would be quite happy to have no limits at all?

[Lord Collins of Highbury]

No, I would not because the Electoral Commission is trying to address quite a complex situation. A referendum is not a usual situation. Political activity in this country is predominantly, although not wholly, through political parties, and PPERA sets out all kinds of constraints and limitations on donations. It has created an environment of transparency, and spending limits.

My view is that spending limits are not particularly effective in establishing a level playing field, particularly when they are set so high and no one can ever reach them. That is why we have quite big imbalances in general elections. That is why the Conservative Party regularly outspends the Labour Party: it has at least 300 people who can give more than £50,000 a year to the party, which I suspect is why the party has in the past supported a cap of £50,000 on donations. Personally, I think the smaller the cap the fairer it becomes. You would then have to look at how to replace that money and what mechanisms to use to ensure that there is an allocation of public funds on a fair basis—hence, I suspect, why the Electoral Commission is using that methodology.

The fact is that spending limits are not the whole picture. What the Electoral Commission is trying to say to us is that the “remain” and “leave” campaigns are not the only participants. We are not going to silence everyone else in this referendum. We are not going to say to civil society, “You have no right to speak”, and we are certainly not going to say to UKIP, “By the way, you will have no right to spend money in this campaign unless it is through the official ‘leave’ campaign”. I do not think that it would tolerate that or accept it—I would not—but that would be the effect of the noble Lord’s amendment. We cannot be certain of what other people will be spending and we do not know the number of participants.

The rules should not be used to reduce the number of participants. That would be unfair and not democratic. I do not want to bang on too much about this, as I have given sufficient reasons why we will not be supporting this amendment, but it is clear that the amount of money available will not be determined by rules set out in the Bill. It will be determined by people donating and raising money. I do not think that even the Conservative Party, if it said that it would register, could put its hands on £20 million that easily. I certainly know that the Labour Party cannot put its hands on £9 million that easily. We have to understand that these are mechanisms to ensure transparency and accountability but they will not necessarily deliver fairness because the campaign is not designed that way.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom]

The noble Lord says that the Labour Party cannot lay its hands on £9 million to fight the referendum. Why does he take this depressing view? Are there not a very large number of business people out there who are passionate to stay in the EU? They would be more than happy to finance the Labour Party, even if they are not Labour supporters. As long as the money goes into the “stay in” campaign, they would not care what label it comes under. Why is the noble Lord taking this despondent view that the Labour Party will not be able to raise the money?

[Lord Collins of Highbury]

I am not taking a despondent view. The Labour Party will no doubt raise a lot of money through a lot of individuals, as it does at every general election, and it will account for that. For me, the most important element of this referendum campaign is about who is donating—to have transparency on how much—not the idea that we should limit the campaign. This amendment would in effect limit the number of participants. I repeat the point about UKIP: if the “leave” campaign spends the limit laid out in this amendment, what is left for UKIP to spend? What if it has already spent it? Does it then have to hand all the money back?

The fact of the matter is that this campaign will be about a range of voices. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, talked about the 1975 campaign. I was a participant in that campaign and there were a lot of different voices in it. There were certainly voices that did not share the same platform; I think that will be true of this referendum campaign. The policy of the Labour Party and its views about the future of the European Union are not necessarily those of the Prime Minister and the Conservative Party. There will be different views and expressions of what they hope for the future, and we have to make sure that this referendum campaign is able to hear those different views. We should not have rules that limit it.

21:30

[The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Anelay of St Johns) (Con)]

My Lords, my noble friend’s Amendment 12 would introduce an overall cap on referendum spending by political parties and the designated lead organisations that will campaign for each outcome: either leave or remain. As my noble friend explained, it arises from his concern that the rules as they stand create great unfairness and that the remain side will be able to spend more than the leave side.

Amendment 12 would unpick one of the fundamental principles in the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, which provides a framework for this as for other referendums since its passage. My noble friend Lord Forsyth asked why we have limits and why are they linked to the results of the general election. My noble friend Lord Hamilton asked how we arrived at the provisions. We arrived at them after an exhaustive and exhausting parliamentary method of having draft legislation scrutinised carefully by Members of both Houses. After draft legislation, a Bill was drawn up that reflected the submissions that had been made. In particular, the Fifth Report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Neill of Bladen, provided recommendations that led to PPERA being passed. These provisions have been in place for 15 years. I was in the House 15 years ago. I did not take part in discussions on the Bill—at the time I was on the Front Bench carrying another brief—but I recall that much careful attention was paid to the Bill.

Having said that, I appreciate that there are concerns about unfairness. In this particular case, the concern appears to be that particular parties may support particular sides of the referendum. That is as may be. The report produced by the Committee on Standards in Public Life considered an overall cap for all campaigners on each side of the argument. The noble Lord, Lord Neill, concluded:

“The administrative apparatus required would resemble one of Heath Robinson’s most outlandish contraptions—and would almost certainly not work”.

Those are his words, not mine. As well as being administratively impractical, the report further noted that such a cap,

“would, or at least might, impose an unwarranted restriction on freedom of speech”.

I appreciate that my noble friend has tried to avoid some of the pitfalls of his earlier amendment in devising this one by focusing purely on certain categories of potential campaigners—the political parties and the designated organisations. However, as others, including the noble Lord, Lord Collins of Highbury, said, if one is a Conservative and finds that one’s national party is taking a neutral position, there are still places where one can put one’s money if one wants to bet on the outcome of the referendum. Political parties will not be the only campaigners at the referendum—far from it.

Although I know that my noble friend has tried to take great care to narrow down his amendment and focus it more, it still will not deliver what he might intend. The amendment provides that the Electoral Commission must set an overall spending limit and can then apportion this between the political parties and lead campaigners on each side. We believe that the spending limits are a matter for Parliament. They were decided by Parliament in legislation, on the basis that changes would also be made by legislation. The spending limits which apply to the EU referendum are therefore in the Act and, as I said, have been in operation for 15 years.

There is no guarantee that each of the campaigners within the umbrella cap will be able to raise the funds necessary to hit the spending limits. One or two noble Lords have referred to that, perhaps with some feeling of regret. We will have to see what happens. Perhaps to avoid the risk of restricting freedom of speech, the amendment does not deal with the other committed participants, each of whom will be able to spend up to £700,000. So the referendum will not only feature campaigning by political parties and the lead campaigners; there will be interest, and lots of voices, on both sides. But I would say that it is highly unlikely that exactly the same number of committed participants will register on each side of the argument. One can imagine that it would take an imbalance of only 10 campaigners on one side or the other to create a £7 million difference in overall potential spending.

These are the kind of vagaries with which this House and another place had to struggle when the initial Bill was considered and became an Act. Indeed, I note that when the draft Bill was published, the spending limits for political parties were the same—but it was then challenged during the course of the scrutiny of the Bill, particularly by the Committee on Standards in Public Life, which questioned whether it was right that political parties were subject to the same limits regardless of their respective number of MPs. So the sliding scale that we see now in PPERA was introduced in response to consultation on the Bill back in 2000. Therefore, we are not seeking to amend that basic framework.

These matters have been of concern before and I recognise my noble friend’s concerns, but they were considered carefully when the legislation was under consideration here, both in draft form and on the Floor of the House. Certainly, it is the case that the approach taken in this Bill by applying PPERA is that those who seek to spend modest amounts—that is, no more than £10,000, which I know some people reading this debate in Hansard may consider is by no means modest, but in the context of elections it is—can decide not to register and so be subject only to a relatively light-touch regulatory regime. Meanwhile, to prevent wealthy campaigners having an undue influence, there are individual spending caps for those who register.

What we see in the Bill is a well-established approach which is practicable and enforceable and, most importantly, encourages participation. So although I understand my noble friend’s concerns, I hope that, with that explanation, he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

Oh dear. I have to say to my noble friend that, although I understand the practical difficulties, she has not addressed the point. The reason why we have spending limits is to create fairness. People will be able to provide funding through political parties and other organisations. Some may say that people could set up 10 organisations to compensate for a political party’s spending, but a political party will have an organisation on the ground. It is not about the quantity of money; it is also about how it is spent, the organisation and the machine behind it.

Throughout the conduct of this Bill, my noble friend has been extremely patient and helpful and I pay tribute to the way in which she has handled the Bill, but this just will not do, because the Government’s declared policy is that there should be seen to be a level playing field.

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, I am not trying to address the overall point of fairness. In each and every referendum, the perception of what is fair will vary according to the position taken by the groups, as my noble friend has pointed out in his amendment, and according to the nature of the event. I am saying that these matters were considered carefully by this House and another place in drafting the legislation used for referendums. It is only on that basis that I am explaining that there is statutory provision for how we address the matter of donations. I am not seeking to put the world to rights in this case, in the way that I know my noble friend would like to put it to rights, as he sees it. I am saying that there is a statutory basis on which this system has to rely.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

But my noble friend is the Government. It is not necessary to rely on the provisions in the PPERA legislation. It would be perfectly possible to put in place arrangements with regard to expenditure that ensured fairness. Once this legislation is in place, if it remains as it is, throughout the whole campaign I certainly will be arguing that it has been rigged in a way that gives an advantage to people who wish to stay in the European Union. I can understand why the Labour Party may feel at the moment that it may not be able to get lots of funding from people, but there will be people who will see this as an opportunity to provide more resource for what they believe to be an appropriate decision for the country. If we end up with limits that have the perverse effect of giving one side more funds than the other, it will be a source of grievance throughout the campaign—and if we end up with a close result, as has already been pointed out, people will argue that the result was bought and that it was unfair.

I understand the difficulties from the Government’s point of view, but to argue that legislation that was passed in 2000, which was thinking of referenda where, by their very nature, political parties would be divided, as opposed to this European issue where the first referendum was about sorting out the problems in a divided Labour Party—

[Lord Collins of Highbury]

Now it is your turn.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

I do not think the noble Lord is in a very good position to talk about divided political parties at the moment. If I were him, I would keep my head down on that subject.

It is very disappointing that my noble friend is not able to respond, and I hope that she may give further thought to this and that the vastly expensive Electoral Commission with its vast resources may be able to be a little more constructive than saying that it is all a political problem for which it has no responsibility. I will reluctantly withdraw the amendment because I do not think that if I divided the House at present it would be much appreciated by my noble friends or anyone else, but the response is very unsatisfactory and I think it will be a source of grievance unless it is addressed before this Bill reaches the statute book. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 12 withdrawn.

Amendment 13

Moved by

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom]

13: Schedule 1, page 17, line 19, at end insert—
“Restrictions on campaigning by the EU institutionsFor the purposes of the referendum, the following is to be treated as inserted after section 119 of the 2000 Act—
“119A Restrictions on the EU institutions
(1) Notwithstanding the European Communities Act 1972, during the referendum period, an EU institution must not incur referendum expenses or do anything else for referendum purposes.
(2) Notwithstanding the European Communities Act 1972, a permitted participant must not accept a donation from an EU institution.
(3) In this section, “EU institution” has the same meaning as in Article 13(1) of the Treaty on European Union.
(4) In this section, “for referendum purposes” and “referendum expenses” have the same meaning as in section 111 of this Act.””

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom]

My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendment 18. Amendment 13 is to do with the EU Commission and the EU generally in terms of financing, by one means or another, this referendum. We were reassured in Committee that there are two reasons why we should not worry about this. The first was that an undertaking had been made by the EU Commission not to interfere in this referendum and the second was that John Penrose had said in another place that the EU is not so stupid as to get involved in a UK referendum.

I agree with him on one thing: the EU is not stupid. Just to give an idea of how much it is intending not to interfere, it has an EU task force to do with the UK referendum which is made up of six administrators and two assistants. In 2014, the EU spent €560 million on self-promotion. The reason why it is not stupid is because it has spent money before interfering in other people’s referenda with enormous success. It spent €1.5 million to persuade the Irish to vote for the Lisbon treaty and €3.8 million over three years to persuade Croatia that it was a good idea to join the EU.

If you judge the EU, and the EU Commission particularly, on what they do rather than on what they say, the answer is that they have moved into the former offices of the Conservative Party in Smith Square. I have no doubt that there is a very large number of people sitting there, and do we really imagine that they are going to be sitting on their hands doing nothing during a referendum on whether the United Kingdom should leave the EU saying “It’s nothing to do with us. We’re completely neutral on all this. We’re just going to sit here and answer emails and provide information where it is requested”? Come on—let us live in the real world. In Ireland it went so far as to spend a very large sum of money on issuing 1.1 million pamphlets to the Irish about why the EU was such a good idea. The problem with all this is that the EU has set itself up so that it can interfere in our referendum, and because of the total lack of democratic accountability—

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords—

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom]

I will give way in a moment. We cannot actually stop the EU interfering in our referendum because it is written into its treaties that it is allowed to spill out information at will and there is nothing we can do to stop it.

21:45

[Baroness Smith of Newnham]

My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, may be conflating two different things. The first is the period of renegotiation that Her Majesty’s Government are undertaking at present and the second is the referendum. My understanding is that the task force is actually to deal with the renegotiation, which is at the request of the Government, not an initiative of the European Union, and therefore is not an interference in the referendum. I also believe that such interference would be misguided; it would not be right for the EU institutions to be involved.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom]

At the end of the day, the EU thinks that it is free to issue information. Information can take many different forms, and I do not see that there is anything that can be done. The Minister has already said that we cannot actually stop the EU financing activities because they are all done in the name of information—and what is the difference between information and propaganda?

[Lord Liddle (Lab)]

Is the noble Lord a regular reader of the Daily Express and the Daily Mail? Does he think that they provide objective, truthful information about the European Union?

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom]

I have to say that that is an entirely different issue.

[Lord Liddle]

My Lords—

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom]

The noble Lord has intervened so let me answer his question. I think that the Daily Mail and the Daily Express have their own views, as do the Guardian and the Independent. We have a free press; it is up to them what they do. We are talking here about what the EU does to finance activities during this referendum.

[Lord Liddle]

My Lords, does the noble Lord believe it is wrong for the EU to provide factual information about what it does when in large sections of our press, which are foreign owned, lies are printed about the EU virtually every day?

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom]

As the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, will know well, factual information from the EU amounts to it advertising that it is spending inordinate amounts of money on different interest groups of one sort or another around the UK, as if this were all manna from heaven: “Gosh, you’re lucky, the EU has decided to spend some money on you”. What it does not bother to tell people is that it is their own money.

The great problem that Lord Joseph had when he was in the Thatcher Government was to persuade Ministers to talk not about “public money” that they were being so generous with, but about “taxpayers’ money”. He managed to hold that line for a time with the Conservative Cabinet, but quite quickly it drifted off and we got back to Ministers constantly talking about how incredibly generous they were being with “government money”, as if all this stuff came from heaven. Of course, half the government money that we have now is borrowed anyway. It is an absurd mentality to think that people can be generous with other people’s money and get credit for it. Why should they, when it is actually the money that they have taken off the people of this country? We must live in the real world.

Amendment 18 is about purdah. The problem with purdah, as we all know, is that the Government are arguing that they have to allow the normal functions of government to continue. Obviously that is quite justifiable, but the point of my amendment is to restrict what can be done with regard to purdah. To return once more to my noble friend Lord Forsyth’s argument that this has to be seen to be a fair referendum, our worry is that we should not, as we did in the Scottish referendum on independence, suddenly have an enormous initiative from the Government to try to swing the vote because the polls are going the wrong way. We do not want some great initiative from the EU saying how incredibly generous or wonderful it has been in order to try to swing the vote here.

[Lord Liddle]

I moved an amendment on this in Committee, partly in jest. If the noble Lord wants a fair referendum, why does he not persuade his friends in the Conservative newspapers to give equal space to people who are in favour of our membership and people who are against?

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch (UKIP)]

My Lords—

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom]

I think that was for me. I am confused by the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, because he always produces these amendments in jest. I remember another one that said that the referendum should be delayed until 2019. That was tongue in cheek, was it not? The fact is that the Government do not control a free press in this country. You either have a free press or you do not, and if it is free it can take whatever line it wants to take. Perhaps we should be controlling the Guardian, with its attitudes to all this. This is absurd. We have a free press, which takes different sides on different things, and that is not a responsibility of the Government. Does the noble Lord want me to give way again? No, he does not.

[The Earl of Courtown (Con)]

I remind the House that before the dinner break I suggested that noble Lords should read page 151 of the Companion. I will repeat it, because obviously noble Lords have not been able to remember it:

“On report no member may speak more than once to an amendment, except the mover of the amendment in reply or a member who has obtained leave of the House, which may only be granted to: a member to explain himself in some material point of his speech, no new matter being introduced”.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

My Lords—

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom]

I am very grateful to my noble friend for that; can I now give way to the noble Lord, Lord Pearson?

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

My Lords, I think this is the only time I have spoken on this amendment, and with the permission of the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, and your Lordships, I will do so. I would add the BBC to the list of media outlets that my noble friend has been good enough to name. I ask the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, whether he has read the News-watch website about the BBC’s behaviour in this matter and whether he hopes that the BBC—

[The Earl of Courtown]

Order. The noble Lord has not yet moved his amendment.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom]

I am afraid that the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, has slightly confused things, because he was intervening on the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, on me. Therefore this adds to the confusion. However, I do not think we will revert to talking about the free press and the fact that different newspapers have different views on things—I am not sure how productive that is. What we were talking about—or what I was talking about—was purdah and the fact that there is a concern, which I hope the Minister will address, that there will be some last-minute intervention, if the polls indicate that the country wants to pull out, to try to swing the vote with some bit of propaganda from the EU. Clearly, business has to continue to be done with the EU, but at the same time we do not want to see the whole referendum slewed by a last-minute intervention where the EU is being inordinately generous with other people’s money and doing something to try to swing the vote. That is what my Amendment 18 is about. I beg to move.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

My Lords, I certainly support my noble friend, but I will speak to Amendment 21 in this group, which is in my name. We have had a lot of discussion, and my noble friend Lord Hamilton has emphasised the importance of having rules on purdah. I have to say to the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, that he needs to distinguish the difference between public and private money. The Daily Mail and other newspapers are not spending taxpayers’ money, while the EU is. My noble friend is concerned that money that is provided by the taxpayer should not be used for a political purpose. That is a very important principle. I know that he is so enthusiastic about the European Union that he sometimes finds it difficult to see the distinction, but that is what we are talking about, and that is why we have these rules on purdah.

It was with some dismay and utter disbelief that I discovered that if people break these rules on purdah—the Scottish Government, the British Government or some other public agency—there is no sanction or penalty for doing so. It is true that people can seek judicial review at vast expense and then get a judgment after the event. I think it very unlikely that any court would say, “You’ve got to rerun the referendum because a public body spent money which was prohibited by purdah”. Therefore, with this amendment I am seeking to create some kind of sanction.

In Committee, I suggested that we bring back the old thing that applied in local government. Very spectacularly, Dame Shirley Porter ended up getting a bill for £20 million for having transgressed in terms of her abilities to operate under statute. I understand that that system of surcharging councillors has now disappeared. In Committee, I suggested a system of surcharging but it was dismissed on the grounds that it was inappropriate. My friends in the Electoral Commission said that it would be wrong to hold individuals to account. I do not really understand that. I think that if people are responsible for spending public money in a way that is ultra vires, they should be held responsible for it. If no one is responsible then no one is going to make sure that the rules are obeyed.

Having found that that suggestion did not find favour with my noble friend the Minister, I have had another go. This amendment suggests that we create a system where a fine is imposed on whoever is responsible and that it should be not less than the amount of taxpayers’ money which they have had cause to spend in breach of the purdah rules. This may not be the ideal solution, but in Committee my noble friend was kind enough to indicate that she recognised that there was a problem and she said that she would think about what could be done by way of a sanction. I am hopeful that she might consider Amendment 21 to be the answer to this problem but, if it is not, that she herself will have an answer. If there is no effective sanction, it rather begs the question: what is the point of having the rules on purdah if they can be breached?

I anticipate that somewhere in her file my noble friend will have a note saying that it would be very embarrassing for any public institution to breach the purdah rules and that it would be disadvantageous to it in the campaign. All I can say is that, having experienced the Scottish referendum campaign, I would not put much trust or hope in that limiting the kind of misuse of public funds which my noble friend Lord Hamilton has talked about.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom]

Does my noble friend agree that, if it comes to the difference between winning a referendum and losing it, a bit of embarrassment can be lived with?

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

I am sure that, like me, my noble friend would want always to strictly obey the law and the rules and that he would not be tempted to stray from the true path by the prospect of winning or losing. However, I am rather concerned that that might not be true of Governments. Individuals are not held responsible for the actions of Governments, which is why I am proposing this amendment.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

My Lords, if I am free to talk to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, there is perhaps a way in which we can penalise the European Commission if it cheats in this matter, as I assure your Lordships it will. We could withhold from our contribution to the corrupt coffers of Brussels an amount which would make the Commission think again before it behaved in a manner in which it certainly will. In the background, we have the gross figure that we pay to Brussels every year. According to the 2014 Pink Book, which has just come out, the figure was £19.994 billion, of which Brussels was graciously pleased to give us back £7.66 billion. That leaves £12.329 billion, which we pay net into the coffers of Brussels every year for it to waste on matters which do nothing in our national interest. I suggest to the Minister that the Government think about this. I ventilated this idea in Committee and repeat it now: if it behaves in the way that it certainly will, and if it knows that it is going to suffer a financial penalty, perhaps that will make it not worth its while doing so.

22:00

[Viscount Ridley (Con)]

My Lords, I would like to speak briefly in support of the amendments from both my noble friends.

As my noble friend Lord Hamilton said, the Commission’s denial that it will campaign is belied by the evidence. We cannot take that promise on trust. Jonathan Faull stated in a letter dated 4 September that:

“The Commission will play the role that it is given by the treaties, notably to promote the general interest of the EU”.

That could be interpreted as campaigning or it could be seen as being more innocent than that. On 2 October, Jean Claude Juncker said that the European Commission would have,

“input into information activities in the run-up to the UK referendum”.

As my noble friend Lord Hamilton said, in the Irish referendum in 2009 and the Croatian referendum in 2012, it was very clear that the European Commission did use finance to, in the case of Croatia, foster an,

“increased level of public and political support to the EU”.

The EU institutions have budgets worth £3.1 billion, which include clauses allowing promotion of the EU.

In this country, the European Communities Act 1972 allows EU institutions to engage in activities that are authorised by EU law. To the extent that they are operating under EU law, EU institutions are exempt from UK campaign controls. The Electoral Commission says that it has no regulatory powers that could be used directly against these institutions if they do undertake such activity. That question needs to be addressed.

On Amendment 21, from my noble friend Lord Forsyth, I agree that judicial review is clearly a nuclear option that is not going to do much good if these rules are transgressed. If purdah is to be taken seriously, a more effective, prompter enforcement mechanism must be found.

[Lord Stoddart of Swindon]

My Lords, I do not want to say too much at this time of night but I want to make a couple of points.

First, on the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, the Commission can interfere, as he said, in all sorts of ways. One of the ways—this has some relationship to the alterations that were made earlier to the franchise—is through its entry into primary and secondary schools with what some of us would term propaganda material. The Education Act 1996 makes it clear in Clauses 406 and 407 that there should be balance. In spite of that, the Government, according to their Answers to my Written Questions, seem not to be very concerned with this and will do nothing to ensure that schools and head teachers make sure that there is balance on the question of Britain’s membership of the European Union.

Even now, the EU is seeking to advertise itself in our countryside. It wants farmers to put up huge advertising boards, saying, “You are getting all this money from the EU; you should be grateful and should therefore advertise the fact that this money is coming from the EU”. Not many farmers are going to be fooled by that, because they will know that, for every pound we get, we have first to give the EU three, so the grants to farmers are in fact some of our own money coming back. The rest of it, or much of it, goes to other farmers to subsidise their much less well-farmed areas.

There are all sorts of ways in which the EU can intervene in our affairs. It does so and it will continue do so. One way or another, by hook or by crook, the EU will interfere in the referendum when it comes.

[Lord Willoughby de Broke]

My Lords, I want to pick up on the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart. As a farmer—I declare my interest as a farmer—I remember getting this directive that we must advertise that we are getting money from the EU through the single farm payment, or what now is the basic payment scheme. Of course, my noble friend Lord Pearson made the point it is not EU money at all. It is money that is given to the EU by the British taxpayer—mulcted from the British taxpayer—and recycled through Brussels, who tell us what to do with it. It seems completely absurd that we have to put up a big sign on our fields saying how generous it is of the EU to give us this money. It is not. I, of course, alter those signs slightly to put a different twist on them.

On the broader point of the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton—he made the case, I will not repeat it—it is essential that this provision be included in the Bill. Of course, the EU Commission has form when it comes to referendums, as we have heard, and I will not repeat the point. It is essential that Mr Jonathan Faull’s letter not be taken as gospel and that is the end of the story. Again, it is about fairness and the referendum’s being seen to be fair. It will not be seen to be fair if the EU Commission starts chucking its weight about, which it has always done and wishes to do in this case.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, I regret that some Members of this House appear to regard the European Commission as a malign force that is out to do down the United Kingdom. Jonathan Faull is head of the task force sent by the Commission to negotiate the renegotiation with the United Kingdom, which is an entirely legitimate and useful thing to do. I have no doubt that our free press will be very watchful if the Commission does anything in the referendum that is seen by the Telegraph or the Mail as overstepping the mark.

I want to say something that links this amendment with the one we will be coming to next, which is about impermissible external funds. I am very conscious that the Russian Government are supporting a number of right-wing parties in other countries in western Europe, and that Russia is the only major state which is thoroughly in favour of Britain’s leaving the European Union. I am not in any sense suggesting that funds have begun to pass in any direction to anyone. However, when I was in government and involved in the Transparency of Lobbying Bill, we were much concerned about funds from other countries—from right-wing sources in the United States, for example—coming to various campaigning bodies in this country. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Jay, touches on that issue.

Of course, we have to be concerned that this is a British debate and a British campaign, and that applies to all external actors. I think all of us agree that the Commission needs act extremely carefully. On the other hand, other Governments within the European Union will have their say, because they have national interests which they will wish to express. Therefore, the question of how we play this game—whether we would regard an intervention by the German Chancellor or the Dutch Prime Minister as untoward—is the sort of issue we will no doubt discuss. On the finances, we will wish to police this very carefully, but let us not go over the top. The noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, sometimes gives the impression that the enemy lies in Brussels and threatens to subvert our national sovereignty.

[Lord Collins of Highbury]

I think the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, hit the nail on the head when he said that transparency is key here. Obviously, the European Commission is acutely aware that any perception of interference in this referendum will have the opposite effect to what it intends.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom]

The EU intervened on the Lisbon treaty referendum in Ireland, and the Irish passed it. The EU intervened for three years on trying to get Croatia into the EU, and Croatia came into the EU. It intervened in those two cases very successfully. Why should it change its spots and not intervene in this one?

[Lord Collins of Highbury]

Precisely because of the point that I make: I suspect that such intervention will have completely the opposite effect, whereas in Ireland perhaps it even encouraged people. I do not think that that will be the case here. If there is seen to be interference, people will see it that way and will not be very happy.

I am grateful to the Minister for circulating the correspondence on this, including the commitment by the Commission. Obviously, it states that it will carry out its treaty obligations, but in no way will it be involved in anything that could be perceived as interference in a matter that is strictly for the British people and the British Government—I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, on that.

Turning to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, I think that there is a legitimate point here that needs to be properly addressed—he should not look so surprised that I agree with him; I suspect that we agree on a lot of things. The point is that we have an offence where the sanction is in a way paid by the victim, which does not make sense. The Electoral Commission does not agree with the formulation because it does not want to accept such a responsibility. In Committee, I referred to sanctions other than judicial review that could be considered in relation to individuals. In all walks of life, people are subject to such sanctions. In the case of public office and civil servants, there is the Ministerial Code and the Civil Service Code. I would be keen to hear from the noble Baroness whether she has given any thought since Committee to how we can have a regime where, if an offence is committed, the perpetrator pays the cost and not the victim.

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, Amendment 13, tabled by my noble friend Lord Hamilton, relates to the role of the EU institutions during the referendum. It follows the wording of a similar amendment that my noble friend tabled in Committee. The concern that he and other noble friends have expressed is that EU institutions may have an undue influence on the outcome of the referendum.

Although there are differing views on that, it is no doubt a legitimate concern and certainly one which the Government share. This is a referendum to be held on Britain’s membership of the European Union. It is therefore clear that the impression of outside interference or direct campaigning by overseas bodies with a vested interest would undermine public trust in the outcome. It would also be completely counterproductive; I think that people would see through it.

That is why the Government have ensured that sensible controls will apply on who can spend money to influence the referendum and how they can be funded. Some 44 of the Bill’s 62 pages relate to exactly these issues.

Campaigners at the referendum can accept money only from individuals or bodies who have a sufficient connection to the UK or to Gibraltar. In Committee, I went through in detail issues relating to permitted donors and permitted participants—I think that it would be wrong if I tried to go through that again on Report.

As the EU institutions are not eligible donors, a permitted participant would be committing an offence if they accepted money from the EU institutions to campaign. I should re-emphasise that permitted participants cannot accept donations of more than £500 from EU institutions. In part, therefore, my noble friend’s amendment is unnecessary.

The amendment has another arm to it, which applies directly to the EU institutions and would prevent them actively engaging in campaigning.

[Lord Stoddart of Swindon]

My Lords—

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, I wonder whether I might address my noble friend’s point, because we are on Report and I am trying to give an answer to questions put by him in speaking to his amendments.

Specifically on that point, in the letter that the European Commission wrote—I refer to the letter that was circulated—the last part states that,

“the referendum itself and the related campaigns are a matter for the British government and the British people in which the Commission, in view of its institutional role, cannot and will not take an active part”.

I gave an undertaking, which the Government have fulfilled and will continue to fulfil, that we will engage at a diplomatic level with the European Commission to ensure that that is observed in spirit as well as in the letter.

[Lord Stoddart of Swindon]

On the question of EU institutions that broke the rules, what sanctions could be used against them?

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

I am saying that we are working with the European institutions and they should not break the rules. That, of course, is a matter of interstate agreement.

Where the institutions are operating in their official capacity within our jurisdiction they are afforded immunities and privileges under EU law. I know that the noble Lord has previously referred to that. However, as the Government have already made clear, the best way to prevent EU institutions from influencing the outcome of the referendum is through the process of constructive dialogue. That is what we have been doing and will firmly continue to do. That is why I circulated the letters. Indeed, I note that a written question was put in the summer or the spring—I suppose you could call it autumn in parliamentary terms; I always wonder what the seasons are—and on 4 September an answer was given by President Juncker on behalf of the Commission. He simply said that the Commission does not campaign in national referendums. We will hold him to that, and that is exactly the point.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom]

My noble friend has referred to constructive dialogue. Does she think that there was constructive dialogue between the Irish Government and the EU when they put out 1.1 million leaflets, at a cost of €139,000, during the Lisbon referendum? Presumably the Irish Government were quite happy that the leaflet should go out, but it upset the people who did not want to accept the Lisbon treaty.

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, the Government would not be happy with any such move and the European Commission is clearly aware of that. We are not the Irish Government and this is a referendum on a different matter.

I understand and recognise the legitimate concerns about these matters and that is exactly why the Government are putting so much effort into trying to address them. It is not a matter of taking our eye off the ball: we will continue working on these issues.

My noble friend Lord Hamilton has tabled two amendments, Amendments 18 and 19, to Clause 6. The clause provides a power for the Minister to make regulations modifying Section 125 for the purposes of the EU referendum. However, I repeat the assurance that I made in Committee that the Government have no plans to use the regulation-making power under Clause 6. I tried to make that as clear as I could. I appreciate though that my noble friend seeks to limit the power so that Ministers can make regulations only where they have reasonable grounds to consider that regulations are necessary to secure the continuing function of the Government or the safety of the public or a section of the public.

This follows on from our discussion in Committee when noble Lords were trying to get me to posit the future—to look into a crystal ball and say, “This is what may happen”. The very nature of why Clause 6 was inserted in another place was because this would be something that people could not foretell. Not one voice in the other place was raised against Clause 6 going into the Bill. We ought to bear that in mind because, having given the undertaking that we have no plans, we cannot foresee the future. We have to have a care for the safety and security of this country and it would be unfortunate for this House to consider constraining the ability of the Government properly to be able to respond.

The reason, I suspect, why not a voice was raised in another place is that safeguards requested by the other place were put into the use of this power before the amendments were brought forward. These state that regulations would need to be made at least four months ahead of the poll following consultation with the Electoral Commission—and of course that would be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure in both Houses.

As I say, although there are no plans to use the power, there may be exceptional circumstances which would require the Government to lay regulations before Parliament on this issue. No doubt we would all be rather surprised if that were to happen, because, as I say, we have no plans to do so at the moment. However, a responsible Government should be able to keep the power available.

My noble friend also tabled an amendment to remove Clause 6(8) because he is worried that it might ensure that the Government cannot disapply the restrictions in Section 125 under the power in Clause 4. What I hope to be able to do is give my noble friend a reassurance that his concerns are misplaced in this respect. I can assure him that Clause 4(1)(c) as currently drafted simply would not allow the Government to disapply in regulations the restrictions in Section 125 for the EU referendum; we could not do it. Like Clause 6, it could be used to modify aspects of Section 125, although we do not have plans to do so. But we consider that Clause 6(8) is necessary for a rather technical reason. It ensures that the power to amend Section 125 in Clause 6 does not in any way call into question the general regulation-making power in Clause 4 to make modifications to PPERA for the purpose of the EU referendum. The general regulation-making power is essential for aspects of the published conduct rules; it is not about the purdah enshrined in Section 125, about which I know and understand why some noble Lords have concerns. In this case, it could be used if we identify other issues with the PPERA provisions. I can give my noble friend an assurance that, like Clause 6, the power in Clause 4 can be used only following consultation with the Electoral Commission and will of course be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.

Finally, I come to the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Forsyth, proposing a penalty for a breach of Section 125. Interesting questions have been raised about the whole issue of how one holds people to account. My noble friend is seeking to impose a monetary penalty on a person who breaches the restrictions in Section 125. The Electoral Commission has no role in the enforcement of Section 125, and has said in its response that it is not clear how this significant change to its role and powers would work in practice. That is the issue; it is not what the commission was set up to do and it would change its role.

We believe that the current arrangements are appropriate and that they work. Those within the scope of Section 125 will be legally obliged to comply with it. Like other legal obligations on public authorities across the statute book, it can be enforced through judicial review. That is the purpose of judicial review: to ensure that public authorities comply with the law. I know that my noble friend has concerns that this may be a paper tiger, but he has been an admirable Secretary of State in difficult times. He will know how difficult it is for a Government to face judicial review; he will know about the inconvenience and the cost. I would expect that others would be mindful of that as well. Judicial review is something that this Government seek to avoid having to incur, and I am sure that other public bodies take the same approach.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

The point is that judicial review is closing the stable door after the horse has bolted.

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, with due respect, given the legal system of this country—in which I should declare an interest because my husband is a barrister—I would say that if a prosecution were to be brought in a civil case, or indeed in a criminal case, I doubt whether it would be resolved before the referendum had taken place. However, my noble friend has raised a justifiable concern about how we deal with these punitive matters. If we had the luxury of a separate piece of legislation to look at how all these matters are to be resolved, consideration could be given in relation to that. However, I think that that is a long way off at the moment. Of course, as a politician at the Dispatch Box, “long” to me can be a matter of just a few weeks because they can seem like a long time, too—particularly if I have breathing down my ear on my right-hand side a Chief Whip who has had an overfull session already, so I shall not try to offer extra legislation. I want to get out alive.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

I do not know whether the noble Baroness is coming to the end of her peroration, but I have not yet heard her answer the question that I asked. Perhaps she will do so, in which case I will sit down and wait for the answer. I suggested in Committee, and again this evening, that because we are dealing not so much with the leopard that does not change its spots but with a corrupt octopus that cannot do anything else but extend its tentacles around every morsel of our democracy which comes within its reach, it is entirely possible that the Commission will break the rules. My noble friend Lord Hamilton mentioned Ireland and Croatia. I would mention Denmark and France—which voted clearly against the constitution that came back in the shape of the Lisbon treaty and it was persuaded to vote in favour of it.

We are dealing with a fundamentally dishonest, corrupt and failed body, which is bound to try one way or another to make sure that the British people do not vote to leave its clutches. I repeat again: why do we not make it clear to the Commission that if it breaks the rules and we catch it at it, we will fine it by a multiple of the amount of money it has spent? We have £12.329 billion at our disposal. Surely we should be able to make that clear to it.

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, this Government are not corrupt. This Government have strong leadership. This Government have given their word to work with all our colleagues across Europe to ensure that this referendum is as fair as it can be—and this Government will deliver. I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom]

My Lords, the amendments I tabled by necessity were probing for the simple reason that we cannot stop the EU getting involved in our referendum. All we can rely on is the voluntary statements that it has made. We need to have an act of faith over this. We have to presuppose that if this referendum runs and it is getting very tight up to referendum day, and it is debatable whether the country will vote to stay in our pull out, somehow the EU will stand back and not do anything when it has the power to do it—to actually influence that final result.

Some people will believe that the EU will be totally honourable to its word on this. Others will say that it had such success in Denmark, Ireland and Croatia, so why should it not try it here? The great argument is that it will not do it because it would be counter- productive. I do not quite understand that argument. It was not counterproductive in Denmark. It was not counterproductive in Croatia. It was not counterproductive in Ireland. Why should it be counterproductive here?

But as I say, these are probing amendments. There is nothing the Government can do to constrain the EU. I suspect that the idea of the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, that we should fine it is out of order completely, so there is nothing that we can do in this Bill to stop the EU interfering. If it does not, in my opinion it will be a miracle. But I am happy to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 13 withdrawn.

22:30

Amendment 14

Moved by

[Lord Jay of Ewelme]

14: Schedule 1, page 22, line 34, at end insert—
“Prohibition on use of impermissible funds to meet referendum expensesFor the purposes of the referendum, the following section is to be treated as inserted after section 119 of the 2000 Act (control of donations to permitted participants)—
“119A Prohibition on use of impermissible funds to meet referendum expenses
(1) Any money or other property received by any individual or other body, at any time, from a person who is not at the time of its receipt a permissible donor falling within section 52(2) or a person falling within paragraph 6(1A) of Schedule 15, must not be used to meet any referendum expenses.
(2) Any person who allows the use of such money or property as set out in subsection (1) to meet referendum expenses shall be guilty of an offence.
(3) Where a person is charged with an offence under subsection (2), it shall be a defence to prove that the person was unaware that the money or property was not received from a permissible donor.””

[Lord Jay of Ewelme (CB)]

My Lords, Amendment 14 is a technical and—as I reassured the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, in advance—neutral amendment, but nevertheless an important one. Its effect would be to clarify that funds from an impermissible source, whenever received, should not be spent on referendum campaigning.

The amendment is supported—indeed, encouraged —by the Electoral Commission, which has identified a clarification that is needed in the provisions designed to stop donations from foreign sources being spent on the referendum. My amendment is designed to address this.

As background, the Electoral Commission has come to the view that the controls in the Bill, which flow from the usual PPERA regime and which prevent campaigners accepting donations from foreign sources, come into effect only at the point the campaigner registers with the commission to be a permitted participant in the referendum. In practice, this means that there may be no control on the sources of funding a campaigner receives before it registers with the Electoral Commission, even if those funds are then used for campaigning during the referendum.

My amendment is designed to make clear that a campaigner cannot use any money for its referendum campaign from a source that would otherwise be impermissible under the PPERA regime. That, of course, includes donations from foreign sources. Without this clarification it would be possible for a campaign organisation to receive significant donations from foreign sources before it registered as a permitted participant. That money could then be spent in its entirety on campaigning during the referendum period. As I said, the amendment is designed to remove that risk.

This is a technical, neutral but important amendment that will help reduce the risk of accusations after the referendum that one side or the other has behaved improperly. I beg to move.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

My Lords, this seems a very sensible amendment. I was going to try to save time by asking the noble Lord before he sat down whether “foreign sources” includes the European Commission and the European Union. I will give way to the noble Lord so that he can intervene and tell me the answer.

[Lord Jay of Ewelme]

It may do—the Minister will be able to answer that question when she comes to sum up the debate.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

Because it seems to me that if it did not include the European Union and the European Commission, it would make something of a nonsense of the argument that he put forward. Perhaps my noble friend could indicate what the position is.

[Lord Collins of Highbury]

I have one brief question relating to Gibraltar. Political parties currently are not permitted to accept donations from Gibraltar, but when the Bill becomes enforceable they will be if it is for the purposes of the referendum. I want to understand how the amendment will impact in particular on the changes relating to Gibraltar.

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, Amendment 14, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Jay, relates to the controls that apply to donations received by campaigners. I was asked about the European Commission. As I explained in Committee, one of the technical issues is that permitted participants in these matters are individuals and bodies that intend to spend more than £10,000 on campaigning during the referendum period and so register with the Electoral Commission. The European Commission cannot be a permitted participant. If it were to spend money outside the campaign and in Europe, there are controls over where it can give that money and how it can give it. For example, there is a prohibition on accepting donations of more than £500 from an ineligible source, so people cannot accept money from it.

I was going to try to reduce the amount that I would read out at this late hour, but it looks as though I am being sucked back into doing exactly that. Perhaps I ought to try to address more closely Amendment 14 itself.

In considering the amendment, two questions have to be asked: is there a problem, and, if yes, does the amendment provide the solution? To the first question the answer is not straightforward, which is why the noble Lord tabled the amendment. He has done so after discussion with the Electoral Commission. It may come as a bit of a surprise to see this briefing from the Electoral Commission at such a late stage, particularly because I notice that my noble friend Lord Forsyth has been trying to get other information and has not been given the opportunity to obtain that. All I can say is that this briefing from the Electoral Commission that we have all seen arrived at about quarter to 12 in noble Lords’ in-boxes yesterday. The Electoral Commission has suggested that the rules are unclear. As I remarked earlier, it is 15 years since PPERA became an Act. Over that period, all the conditions which the Electoral Commission now calls into doubt have been operating. Therefore, it is rather a surprise that these matters have been raised at this stage, but there you go.

The conditions in PPERA applied for the AV referendum and were replicated, through an Act of the Scottish Parliament, for the Scottish independence referendum, and nobody called them into question then. Indeed, at that stage, guidance from the Electoral Commission itself clearly and accurately explained the rules to campaigners in Scotland. Furthermore, the commission’s own report on the Scottish independence referendum noted that it provided,

“a model that can be built on for any future referendums”.

Despite that, as noble Lords will note, the Electoral Commission’s briefing supports this amendment because the commission now has concerns about the rules. We have to take those concerns seriously because that is the whole point of trying to have rules upon which a fair referendum is to be based. The concerns relate to the fact that PPERA does not prevent campaigners accepting donations before they register as permitted participants, if the donation would have been impermissible after registration. If noble Lords consider that this is a problem, it must then be asked: is Amendment 14 the solution? Here the answer is clearly no for three reasons. First, it goes too far. The amendment would apply to donations received by any individual or organisation, regardless of whether or not they are, or later become, a permitted participant. At any point prior to the referendum, anyone, regardless of the size of the donation or the amount they will spend, could commit this new criminal offence. This really would be a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

Secondly, the amendment is unworkable. It would create an offence of allowing the use of money received from an impermissible source to meet referendum expenses. Currently, the rules do not require campaigners to track what each pound received is spent on. This is for a good reason, as attempting to do so would be a herculean task in administrative time. It would only ever create an arbitrary link between money in and money out. I find it difficult to imagine how that might be accurately assessed. How would anyone be able to prove that the £1,000 a campaigner received from a particular source was the exact same £1,000 spent on referendum expenses several months later? How could it work for charities and other organisations that receive donations from all over the world for different reasons? Clearly, that matter would have to be looked at if the amendment is to be put right but, as the amendment stands, it does not work.

The fundamental changes that Amendment 14 would introduce would begin to unstitch the fundamental principles that apply in PPERA, in particular the purposes of having a referendum period and permitted participants. These are all concepts which, to date, have been accepted by Parliament and endorsed by the Electoral Commission, and have provided the framework for well-controlled referendums in the UK.

The Government had questioned the whole issue of the potential for concern over donations received prior to registration. That is the kind of questioning one has to do. That is why we have required reporting ahead of the poll in the Bill, following the approach taken at the Scottish independence referendum. Where PPERA provides only for permitted participants to report on donations after the poll, the Bill also requires them to report publicly before the poll on donations received. That has two benefits. First, registered campaigners must be transparent about the sources of their funding before the vote takes place. More significantly in this context, the reports must detail reportable donations received during a set reporting period, even if received prior to that campaigner becoming a permitted participant—because you can change from being a campaigner to being a permitted participant—provided the donation was for the purposes of meeting referendum expenses during the referendum period.

This gives a flavour of how complicated this issue is. This approach works within the existing framework and maintains a proportionate approach to controlling campaign funding. Given the concern over the influence of overseas funding, we believe that having to report all these matters immediately prior to the referendum would act as a deterrent in most cases, even though the rules do not seek to regulate everybody at all times. It does mean that if you become a permitted participant, money received prior to that point from a source that would be impermissible once you had registered would have to be publicly declared before the referendum took place.

I come back to the underlying principle that it is important to ensure that there is transparency and that the transparency requirements imposed by pre-poll reporting are as effective as they can be. In the light of the noble Lord’s concerns, I give an undertaking that the Government will look again at how the controls on pre-poll reporting work to deliver the appropriate level of transparency, balanced with a sensible compliance burden. We will consider these matters but they are complicated and technical. I cannot promise to come back with something that actually works but we will do our best.

In coming up with its proposals, the Electoral Commission has diagnosed what it now sees to be a problem but has not found the solution in its amendment. I therefore hope that at this stage, with the commitment I have given to look at this very closely, the noble Lord, Lord Jay, will withdraw his amendment. Of course, I undertake to work with him between now and Third Reading to see what can be achieved on these matters.

[Lord Jay of Ewelme]

I am very grateful to the Minister. I think there is an issue here but I am grateful for her commitment to look into it and particularly to focus on the need for transparency. In the light of that commitment, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 14 withdrawn.

Clause 4: Conduct regulations, etc

Amendment 15

Moved by

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

15: Clause 4, page 3, line 9, after “enactment” insert “(other than this Act)”

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 15, I will speak also to government Amendments 16 and 17. These are technical amendments required to implement one of the recommendations of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. They are to Clause 4, which provides that the Minister may make regulations about, among other things, the combination of the referendum poll with other polls taking place on the same day. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee raised concerns about the scope of the power to make combination regulations set out in Clause 4(2), as currently drafted. The committee’s concern was that the power to amend what will become the European Union Referendum Act itself was too broad.

I begin by saying that the Government have no intention of combining this poll with any other planned election, as I made clear at earlier stages. The Bill already prevents the referendum from being held on days in May 2016 or May 2017 when elections are already planned. So this power is very much a contingency one.

We have considered carefully the committee’s recommendation and the amendments we have tabled narrow the power contained in Clause 4(2) to amend or modify the Act. Under the amendments, the power would apply only to those parts of the Act that may need to be amended or modified in the event of the combination of the referendum with another poll. The relevant parts of the Act are: the definition of “counting officer” in Clause 9(1); Clause 9(2), which defines the voting areas to be used for the referendum; and Schedule 3, which makes further provision about the referendum. The power may not be used to amend any other part of the Act.

I am grateful for the work carried out by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, as I said on the first day in Committee. I am pleased that the Government were able to respond by agreeing to all the committee’s recommendations. I beg to move.

Amendment 15 agreed.

Amendments 16 and 17

Moved by

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

16: Clause 4, page 3, line 16, leave out “this Act or any other” and insert “any”

17: Clause 4, page 3, line 18, at end insert—
“( ) The reference in subsection (2) to any enactment includes—
(a) the definition of “counting officer” in section 9(1), (b) section 9(2), and(c) Schedule 3,but does not include any other provision of this Act.”

Amendments 16 and 17 agreed.

Clause 6: Power to modify section 125 of the 2000 Act

Amendments 18 and 19 not moved.

Amendment 20 had been retabled as Amendment 7B.

Amendments 21 and 22 not moved.

Clause 7: Regulations

Amendments 23 and 24

Moved by

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

23: Clause 7, page 4, line 42, leave out paragraph (b)

24: Clause 7, page 5, line 2, leave out subsection (5)

Amendments 23 and 24 agreed.

Consideration on Report adjourned.

House adjourned at 10.46 pm.