House of Commons
(8 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(8 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(8 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)
1. What fiscal steps he is taking to support businesses.
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
11. What fiscal steps he is taking to support businesses.
The First Secretary of State and Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr George Osborne)
This Government know there cannot be a successful economy without support for business and enterprise. That is why we are cutting corporation tax, increasing the employment allowance and setting a permanently higher investment allowance. It is also why last week we increased our support for industrial policy, including a boost for science, and announced that we had doubled small business rate relief again next year, helping 600,000 small businesses.
Jack Lopresti
How will my right hon. Friend help small businesses compete with the de facto subsidy that businesses with complex overseas tax structures get, which result in their paying no, or very low, tax in the UK, particularly given that Small Business Saturday is coming up this weekend?
Mr Osborne
Small Business Saturday is an incredibly important initiative that everyone in this House should, and I am sure will, support on Saturday. My hon. Friend makes a good point about the international tax rules. The good news is that they have started to change. We have an agreement in the OECD, and Britain is among the countries implementing those changes first. The best example of that is the diverted profits tax, which is already raising revenue and tackling the big multinationals that do not pay their fair share of tax in the UK. At the same time we are cutting taxes for small businesses, for example by increasing the employment allowance.
Rehman Chishti
Thanks to the Government’s long-term economic plans, we have seen a record number of company registrations in my constituency, with 202 companies registered in Gillingham in the first quarter. One company, MEMS, which the Chancellor visited with me, has asked me to ask him to clarify the Government’s position on the annual investment allowance for businesses. Will the Chancellor do that?
Mr Osborne
It is fantastic to hear the good news coming from Gillingham, and to hear about the new companies being registered and the jobs being created there thanks to the strong economy, the long-term economic plan that my hon. Friend refers to, and a strong Member of Parliament making sure that the infrastructure comes to that part of Kent. The annual investment allowance will now be set at £200,000, a permanent rate much higher than the one we inherited from the last Government. It will help companies like the fantastic MEMS business, which I visited with my hon. Friend, to continue to grow and expand.
Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)
The Chancellor announced some significant tax rises for business in his spending review, and also cut quite a lot of business grants through his spending settlement for the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, but will he give an explanation of table 3.7 of the Office for Budget Responsibility Blue Book? It downgrades productivity for the UK economy—productivity per hour is due to fall from the OBR’s previous forecast for 2016 and 2017 and 2018. What is the reason for that?
Mr Osborne
The OBR has made its assessment, but what it shows is that productivity growth picks up through this Parliament. The hon. Gentleman and I have had many discussions about this, and I think we are actually in agreement that productivity is a long-term challenge for the UK and has been a challenge for many decades. We are trying to solve that by measures like the apprenticeship levy which will be one of those so-called taxes he describes. It is not a tax in that people get their money back if they have enough apprentices, so it is a levy, and it is the kind of thing we need to try to deal with the productivity challenges in the UK.
Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP)
As part of his look at fiscal steps to support businesses, will the Chancellor give favourable consideration to the extension of the rural fuel rebate scheme to regions that have not already been considered?
Mr Osborne
I am very happy to give consideration to that. We are operating within the maximum flexibility that we believe the European Union rules allows us on this. Any postcode that possibly qualified we put forward for the scheme we introduced in the last Parliament, but I am happy to look at specific cases in Northern Ireland to see if they qualify, too.
Mr Andrew Tyrie (Chichester) (Con)
The Chancellor said the apprenticeship levy is a levy, but of course what many businesses see is a 0.5% tax on employment collected through PAYE. Does the Chancellor think that is compatible with the tax lock? While he is answering that question, will he also say what estimate he has made of the cost of the apprenticeship levy to the public sector, which I cannot find anywhere in the Red Book?
Mr Osborne
The fact that the apprenticeships levy is set up in such a way that a large company employing high-quality apprentices will be able to receive back from the Government more than it puts in sets it aside from classic payroll taxes. Indeed, it has been broadly welcomed by the business community, even though it accepts the additional burden it represents. That is going to be very important. We made the calculations for the impact on the public sector in our public finance projections, and I am happy to write to my right hon. Friend with the precise numbers.
Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)
Will the Chancellor confirm that in addition to the 17% cut to the funding of the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, the autumn statement did, as other Members have said, add £11 billion to the tax bill of businesses, in the area of business growth and skills, and mainly driven by the apprenticeship levy?
Mr Osborne
I would have thought and hoped that the Scottish National party supported an apprenticeships levy whereby we use the money to create 3 million apprenticeships in this part of the United Kingdom and make sure that there are arrangements to pass the money to the Scottish Government so that they can improve skills in Scotland. But of course if one looks closely at the record of the SNP Government, one sees that they have been cutting further education places in Scotland. As usual, the SNP says one thing here and does something different in Scotland.
Stewart Hosie
The question was of course about the £11 billion extra tax cost for business and the cut to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills—something the Chancellor does not want to talk about. Given that there was no increase in retail sales in the last quarter, that the CBI industrial trends survey is down, that consumer confidence is down, that the deficit in the trade in goods is a colossal £134 billion and that manufacturing output is down, why does this political Chancellor think that cutting BIS by 17% and adding £11 billion to business costs over the spending review period is even remotely sensible?
Mr Osborne
Because we do not equate the health of the business sector with the size of the Business Department. We have increased the money going into innovation by raising the budget for the catapult centres, and we have boosted the budget for science, one of the great UK strengths, which would be undermined if Scotland became independent. I would make a further point. The hon. Gentleman asked about economic projections, but in the independent OBR forecast growth is up, jobs are up, living standards are up and wages are up. That is all part of a successful economic plan which is delivering the goods for the whole United Kingdom.
Ben Howlett (Bath) (Con)
16. As my right hon. Friend will know, the tech economy in the west of England is one of the fastest-growing anywhere in the UK, and start-up businesses such as Claritize in my constituency have been set up because of the Government’s investment. Does he agree that such businesses will help to lead our economic recovery, creating jobs and increasing our productivity in the west of England?
Mr Osborne
I certainly pay tribute to the very successful and thriving tech businesses in Bath and across the west country. There is an opportunity now, with the investment in cyber-security at GCHQ, not too far from Bath, in Cheltenham, to help create a culture of small start-up businesses and make sure that on the back of our national security we have commercial success and commercially successful companies building those sorts of businesses in the west country.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the Chancellor outline what measures he introduced in the autumn statement to support the UK’s renewable energy businesses?
Mr Osborne
We committed to double the investment in renewable energy over the next five years.
Seema Malhotra
What did we actually get from this Chancellor last week? The £1 billion to develop carbon capture and storage was cut; feed-in tariff subsidies for solar panels were cut by 87%; we heard not a mention of national projects such as the Swansea Bay tidal lagoon; and we had Britain at the bottom of the European league for renewables. Does he agree with companies such as Tesco, IKEA, Vodafone and Unilever that his renewable energy cutbacks now pose a risk to UK businesses and undermine confidence in investment?
Mr Osborne
We should all be proud of the fact that in this country jobs are being created and the economy is growing yet our carbon emissions fell by 8% in the past year. We are doubling our investment in renewable energy and at the same time putting investment into things such as low-carbon nuclear power and small modular reactors, which will be of real benefit to South Yorkshire and the north-west of England. My broader point is that we do not believe that the way to help save the Earth is by piling costs on people’s electricity bills, so we have also taken action to ensure that our home efficiency scheme is more efficient, so people’s household energy bills will go down by £30 as well.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
2. What estimate his Department made of the potential cost to the public purse of a HM Revenue and Customs regional hub being based at (a) Leeds and (b) Bradford.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)
HMRC announced the planned locations of its future regional centres based on a number of key principles that will enable it to deliver more for less. In addition to cost, HMRC has taken account of the quality of local transport links, the local labour market and future workforce supply and the need to retain the staff and skills it needs to continue its transformation. The changes will reduce HMRC’s estates costs by around £100 million a year by 2025.
Philip Davies
Does the Minister accept that basing the HMRC regional hub in Bradford would be cheaper for the taxpayer, that there is a suitable location available in Bradford but not in Leeds, and that an effective northern powerhouse does not mean basing everything in West Yorkshire, in Leeds? Will he think again about that matter?
Mr Gauke
My hon. Friend is, as ever, a doughty advocate for the interests of his constituents. The point I would make to him is that this is a regional centre for the whole of the Yorkshire and Humber area. To retain as many members of staff as possible and reduce redundancy costs, HMRC’s assessment is that Leeds is a better location for those working in York, Sheffield and Hull from where there is a direct train service to Leeds.
Mr Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman is a very illustrious fellow and a distinguished philosopher, but for the purposes of this question he is on the wrong side of the Pennines.
Jo Cox (Batley and Spen) (Lab)
3. What steps his Department is taking to enable councils to retain receipts from business rates.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)
The Government have announced a radical reshaping of the state. By the end of the Parliament, local government will retain 100% of business rates to fund local services. The Government will shortly begin consultation on those reforms.
Jo Cox
My local authority, Kirklees, estimates that it will lose in excess of £30 million a year as a result of this policy and the changes to the local government grant. By comparison, Westminster Council’s income will increase tenfold. When will the Government provide clarity for councils such as mine on the redistributive element that will mean it will be able to plug that very significant shortfall in funding?
Mr Gauke
The devolution of business rates will retain the system of top-ups and tariffs that currently exist, so there will be no immediate loss to any local authority as a consequence of devolution. The point is that it devolves power to local authorities so that they have stronger incentives to boost growth. Local authorities that grasp that opportunity will see their business rates revenue increase.
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the point about last week’s announcement was that it was a defining moment for local authorities? Those local authorities that accept the principle of devolution of business rates can incentivise strong local business growth, and secure a local economy that is strong and that has jobs for its constituents. That is the key point.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
What consideration has been given to doing something about business rates to support the steel industry in line with the outcomes agreed at the steel summit, which was chaired by the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills?
Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)
4. What assessment he has made of the potential effect of the national living wage on wage growth.
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Harriett Baldwin)
The national living wage will mean that a full-time minimum wage worker will earn more than £4,700 more by 2020—a 40% pay rise. Additionally, owing to the ripple effect of higher wages, up to a quarter of workers will see some benefit. Economy-wide wages are expected to be, on average, 0.4% higher in 2020.
Glyn Davies
There has been a widespread welcome for the Chancellor’s national minimum wage announcement. Inevitably, the minimum wage has a major effect on traditionally low-wage sectors, especially social and residential care. Does my hon. Friend accept that the Government and local councils must be mindful of the fact that fees will need to be adjusted to ensure the viability of these hugely important services?
Harriett Baldwin
My hon. Friend is right that many of the 900,000 workers in the social care sector will benefit from the new national living wage, including many working in residential care. That is why last week in the autumn statement we made an announcement that councils will have the power over the course of this Parliament to access money that they may need to increase the amount that they pay for social and residential care, with new revenue streams for social care worth up to £3.5 billion by 2020.
Peter Kyle (Hove) (Lab)
As the Minister will be aware, the national living wage does not apply to people who are self-employed, whose wages have been stagnating and whose pension contributions have fallen every year for the past five years. Why were self-employed people not mentioned once in the productivity plan, and what does she intend to do to tackle low pay and conditions among the self-employed?
Harriett Baldwin
The hon. Gentleman speaks powerfully of the importance of the self-employed to our economy. We pay tribute to the excellent work that so many self-employed people, including many in my family, do to generate economic growth in this country. He is right that, as wages across the economy grow and as we put more spending power into budgets for social and residential care, we expect that to be passed on to those who are self-employed.
Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)
5. What assessment he has made of the potential effect on public finances of halving the disabilities employment gap.
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Greg Hands)
The Government are committed to halving the disability employment gap, which on current figures would mean helping about 1 million extra people to find work. The impact of meeting that on the public finances depends on factors that we cannot predict, such as what people are likely to be paid. However, this is about more than the fiscal impact. The Government want to help disabled people benefit from the security of employment, which is why we have announced a real-terms funding increase to help people with disabilities and health conditions to find work.
Jonathan Reynolds
I am pleased to say that a delegation of young people with autism is visiting Parliament today to discuss how we can improve the transition from school to work for people with autism. Does the Chief Secretary agree that improving the routes into work for young people with autism and other disabilities will be a great thing for our national finances but also for the young people themselves, allowing them to participate in the workforce and lead the independent lives that they want?
Greg Hands
I join the hon. Gentleman in welcoming so many disabled people to Parliament today, and I agree with him about the importance of doing more to help disabled people into work. That is why we extended the access to work scheme and launched the Disability Confident scheme, to ensure that employers better understand the benefits of recruiting and retaining disabled workers, the specialist employability support and the Work and Health programme, which we launched this year.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
Will the Minister confirm that about 3.2 million people with disabilities are in work now, and that the Government are looking to see that number increase dramatically over the next few years?
Greg Hands
My hon. Friend is right. This is one of the most important aspects of the Government’s work. He is correct to say that disability employment is now up to 3.2 million, which is an increase of 340,000 since 2013, up 74% on the year. We are increasing real-terms spending on disability employment by around 15% by the end of this Parliament.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
6. What assessment he has made of the effect on local economies of reduced funding for local government.
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Greg Hands)
Total local government spending will be higher in cash terms in 2019-20 than it is this year. The Government are also devolving 100% of business rates, meaning that, for the first time since 1990, local areas will see the full benefits of local business rate growth in their budgets. When it comes to local economies, I am sure that the hon. Lady will join me in welcoming the fact that unemployment has fallen by more than 25% in the past year in her constituency.
Diana Johnson
Hull City Council has lost a third of its budget from Government funding since 2010, while wealthier areas have increased their budgets in some areas. The business rate proposal the Government are putting forward will again benefit wealthier areas, so can the Chief Secretary say to my constituents how taking tens of millions of pounds out of the local economy will assist the Chancellor’s plan for the northern powerhouse for cities like Hull?
Greg Hands
To be precise, local government funding is being protected in cash terms. The £6.1 billion reduction in central Government grants is more than offset by a £6.3 billion increase in other sources of income. The hon. Lady mentions the northern powerhouse. The Chancellor announced yesterday the appointment of John Cridland as chairman of Transport for the North. We have also announced £200 million for Transport for the North over this Parliament to transform transport connectivity in the region, to introduce Oyster-style ticketing and to make sure the northern powerhouse becomes a reality.
Peter Heaton-Jones (North Devon) (Con)
I very much welcome the measures announced last week by the Chancellor to allow local government to keep receipts from business rates. My local authority, North Devon council, is one of the smaller ones so the receipts, actual and potential, will always be slightly less. Can my right hon. Friend give me an assurance that smaller local authorities such as mine will see the benefit from this measure?
Greg Hands
Yes. A consultation on changes to the local government finance system will be launched shortly, to be implemented in financial year 2016-17. We ought to be clear that the 2% increase in the precept to fund adult social care will be across the board, including rural areas, for councils that are meeting social care pressures.
Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
The Prime Minister eloquently set out the difficulties facing public services as a result of the Chancellor’s cuts with reference to his own local authority. In the light of the lucky Chancellor’s £27 billion windfall, why is he still pursuing £12 billion in social security cuts and a 5% cut to the Scottish Government’s budget?
Greg Hands
The hon. Gentleman mentions the Scottish Government budget, which I am not sure is entirely within the scope of the question, but I will try to answer. The Scottish Government budget has done relatively well. There is a 14% real-terms increase in capital spending over the course of this Parliament, and the reduction in resource spending is only in real terms and is far less than that of a lot of UK Government Departments.
Marcus Fysh (Yeovil) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that local economies such as mine in Somerset have an exceptional opportunity to benefit from the devolution of business rates and all the infrastructure spending that this Government are going to conduct there?
Greg Hands
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is why it is so important that local authorities are able to keep the proceeds of growing their local business rates, if that is what they are capable of doing. I am sure my hon. Friend will play his full part in attracting more business to his constituency.
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)
Commenting on the Chancellor’s proposal to allow local authorities to raise council tax by up to 2% in order to fund social care, the Conservative vice-chair of the Local Government Association referred to the creation of a “postcode lottery”, stating:
“If you are in one of those areas with a very low council tax base, what you are likely to be saying is that, unless you are someone who physically cannot get out of bed . . . you are not going to get any help at all.”
What equalisation measures will the Chancellor take to ensure that there is no disparity between local authorities in the funding they receive and the resultant quality of service they can provide?
Greg Hands
One of the other announcements that the hon. Lady might have missed was the extra £1.5 billion going into an improved better care fund, thanks to this Government. She quotes the vice-chair of the LGA, but she could have quoted the LGA chairman, also a Conservative, who said:
“The LGA has long called for further flexibility in the setting of council tax and it is right that Greg Clark and Greg Hands have listened to the concerns set out by local government.”
Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)
7. What steps the Government are taking to support (a) people with savings and (b) home ownership.
Mrs Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)
8. What steps he is taking to help first-time home buyers.
The First Secretary of State and Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr George Osborne)
This Government back saving and home ownership. That support is exemplified by the Help to Buy ISA that becomes available today. This new ISA provides direct Government support to anyone saving for the deposit on their first home. For every £200 they save in the ISA, the Government will help them with another £50. Add it up and the Government will give them up to £3,000 towards their first home—all part of a plan to help working people in this country.
Christopher Pincher
One of the best ways to help people build up their savings so that they can get a Help to Buy ISA and buy their own home is to make sure that they have good jobs with good wages. What steps will my right hon. Friend take to drive employment in my constituency, which has historically low unemployment, and across the midlands engine?
Mr Osborne
I was in the west midlands yesterday seeing the fantastic investment that Jaguar Land Rover is making there, with Government help. Alongside that we are investing in the west midlands infrastructure. We have just signed an agreement with the authorities of the west midlands, across the political parties, to put more than £1 billion into the region over the next couple of decades. There is a long-term commitment to the midlands engine and the jobs in my hon. Friend’s constituency.
Mrs Sheryll Murray
It was reported in one of my local papers last month that some areas in Cornwall have seen a 15% rise in house prices over the past year. Will my right hon. Friend outline what additional action is being taken to assist first-time buyers in beautiful parts of the country, such as Cornwall, that are popular with second-home owners? What difference will the increase in stamp duty make?
Mr Osborne
My hon. Friend always speaks passionately on behalf of her constituents—in this case, those seeking to buy their first home. The Help to Buy ISA is, of course, available in Cornwall and will help her constituents buy their first home. The new stamp duty charge on second homes and buy-to-lets will raise money, and a portion of that will be given to local authorities and areas such as Cornwall, where there are quite a lot of second homes.
Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)
Low interest rates have meant that many people have had to look at other savings vehicles such as buy-to-let. Measures in the Budget will deeply affect the buy-to-let market, as the Chancellor will be aware. What measures is he taking to help elderly people looking for better savings returns?
Mr Osborne
There is general agreement across the House that there should be a level playing field, so that people trying to buy their first home are not disadvantaged by people trying to buy a second home or a buy-to-let property. The changes that we have introduced help to do that. Alongside that, we have made the ISA more generous and have created new pension flexibility, so that people can get the most out of their pension savings. The low interest rates, decided independently by our central bank, are part of the vital support for our economy going forward.
Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)
20. I acknowledge the work that the Chancellor has done on tackling the bias towards buy-to-let in the housing market, but would he consider extending that by cutting further the tax relief on buy-to-let properties? We simply have to widen the space for first-time buyers so that they can get into the market, particularly in London.
Mr Osborne
I welcome the support that the hon. Lady gives; of course, the problems of getting on to the housing ladder are particularly acute for first-time buyers in London. In the summer Budget, we announced changes to mortgage tax relief for the buy-to-let market so that those on higher rates of tax, with larger incomes, will see that relief scaled back over the coming years. What we have set out now, with the extra stamp duty and the changes in the summer Budget, represents a fair and balanced package for homeowners—those buying a buy-to-let property, but above all those buying their first home.
Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con)
Will the Chancellor explain how first-time homebuyers will benefit from his blueprint “A better deal”—what the Daily Mail calls a “blitz on rip-off” monopolies?
Mr Osborne
I am glad that my hon. Friend has read the document. Part of what we are doing is making sure that mortgage fees are more transparent. Alongside that, we are ensuring that utility bills are more competitive for families and cutting the electricity tariffs that we talked about earlier. We are also making sure that people can get a better deal from their water company. This is all part of driving down costs for families and helping the working people of Britain.
Rob Marris (Wolverhampton South West) (Lab)
What will really support people with home ownership is massively increasing the supply of new homes—not, as the autumn statement does, simply subsidising people to bid up the prices of existing homes. After five and a half years in office, it is time that the Chancellor took some responsibility. He has a woeful record on house building, exacerbating the market failure that has led to restricted supply and consequently high prices. When will the Government increase supply very markedly by starting a real programme of mass house building—of homes for rent as well as to buy?
Mr Osborne
Over the course of this decade we will have built more social homes than in the entire period when the Labour party was in office. Affordable housing should also be housing that people can afford to buy, as well as rent, and we are doubling the housing budget and undertaking the biggest house building programme since the 1970s. It is a shame that the hon. Gentleman was not with me in Wolverhampton yesterday seeing the new jobs being created at the Jaguar Land Rover engine plant as we make sure that we build homes for the people working at that plant.
Danny Kinahan (South Antrim) (UUP)
9. What steps he is taking to assist women born between 1953 and 1955 affected by recent changes in pension age qualification.
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Greg Hands)
As we remove gender inequality, women born between 1953 and 1955 will receive their state pension at the same age as men, or earlier. The Government have written to all those affected by increases to the state pension age and have acted to ease the timetable, at the cost of £1 billion, ensuring that 81% of all women affected see a rise of a year or less under the Pensions Act 2011. As the Chancellor announced last week, the basic state pension will rise next year by £3.35 to £119.30 a week—the largest real-terms increase for 15 years.
Danny Kinahan
It is very good to see the pension going up. However, research by the Pensions Policy Institute and Age UK shows that a third of women in work are ineligible for automatic enrolment into a workplace pension, leaving them at risk of not having a decent income later in life. What research has the Minister or the Department for Work and Pensions carried out in order to understand what difficulties they will have in future?
Greg Hands
This continues a process that has been going on since the mid-’90s to equalise the state pension age and the process begun in 2011 to increase the state pension to make sure that it can be more affordable overall in terms of its ability to meet our commitments under the triple lock and the big increase I mentioned earlier. I did not hear all of the hon. Gentleman’s question precisely, but I think he mentioned Age UK. The charity director of Age UK said that this big concession is
“a significant financial commitment from the Government at a difficult time. This will give a much needed 6 month respite to all the women who would have had to work an extra two years.”
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
10. What progress he has made on his long-term economic plan.
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Damian Hinds)
The long-term economic plan is securing the UK’s recovery. We were the fastest growing G7 country in 2014 and 2013 and we are joint fastest this year. The deficit has more than halved and the national debt as a share of GDP is set to fall this year. However, the job is not yet done, and the Government will continue working through the plan to ensure Britain’s long-term economic security.
Steve Brine
In the autumn statement last week, it was great to hear the Chancellor talk about rehabilitating our prisoners. Does the Minister agree that the sale of old Victorian prisons is a prime example of how economic and social reform can go hand in hand, bringing sales to the Exchequer, working positively with prisoners in these prisons, and creating new places for homes in our cities?
Damian Hinds
I know that my hon. Friend has campaigned consistently on these issues since 2010. The justice reforms are an exemplary element of the long-term economic plan, combining savings with social reform and delivering economic dividends from improved employability to sites for 3,000 new homes. It is because of the strength of the economy, thanks to the long-term plan, that we can invest £1 billion to build nine modern prisons and close the old ones.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
Last night I launched the all-party group on adult education in recognition of the fact that at a time when we are all living longer, having many different jobs and even careers, and whole industries are being allowed to die, our long-term economic security depends on investing in adult education. The Chancellor was persuaded not to slash the further education budget. Will he now acknowledge that investing in further education is vital for the future?
Damian Hinds
The hon. Lady rightly identifies the importance of continuing in further education and the fact that in the modern economy more and more people will have multiple careers through their lives, which means that the availability of retraining is very important. That is why I welcome the protection of this budget and the availability of loans, for example, for part-time students.
Rishi Sunak (Richmond (Yorks)) (Con)
The Government’s economic plan rightly prioritises infrastructure, and I welcome yesterday’s announcement of a new chairman for Transport for the North. Does my hon. Friend agree that continued investment in Yorkshire and the north is vital to rebalancing our national economy?
Damian Hinds
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Of course, that is at the heart of the enterprise zones in the north, the city deals and the whole concept of the northern powerhouse—making sure that the cities of the north add up to something that is more than the sum of their parts—and Transport for the North, which he mentioned, is a vital part of that.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
What assessment has the Minister made of the impact on the long-term economic plan to grow the economy of the promises made and the policies put forward at the green junket in Paris this week in the mistaken belief that piling pounds on to power bills can somehow change the world’s climate?
Damian Hinds
We of course recognise the challenges that come with energy costs, but it is true that the green sector supports a number of jobs in this country. It is very important that we seek to lead on research and development, and the autumn statement was another important step towards that.
Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con)
12. What plans he has to raise the personal allowance during this Parliament.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)
The Government are committed to raising the income tax personal allowance from £10,600 to £12,500 by the end of this Parliament. This is alongside our commitment to raise the higher rate threshold to £50,000. More than 30 million individuals will benefit from these changes. The summer Budget 2015 confirmed that the personal allowance will increase to £11,000 in 2016-17, and to £11,200 in 2017-18.
Sir David Amess
In the light of what my hon. Friend has said, will he reassure me that, as the economy continues to recover and grow, the Government will follow the sound Conservative principle of allowing people to keep more of the money they earn to spend as they wish?
Nigel Adams (Selby and Ainsty) (Con)
13. What assessment he has made of recent trends in the level of employment.
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Damian Hinds)
With an employment level of 31.2 million, there are more people in work than ever before. Over the past year, employment growth has been driven by full-time employees and by high and medium-skill occupations, showing that we are now moving into the next phase of our recovery, with high-quality employment helping to boost productivity and raise living standards across the country.
Nigel Adams
Against the backdrop of redundancies and potential redundancies in the mining and power sector in my constituency, will the Minister tell the House what support is available to businesses of all sizes in Selby and Ainsty to ensure that the trend of rising employment since 2010 continues?
Damian Hinds
I commend my hon. Friend for his personal endeavours, including the annual Selby district jobs fair. He mentioned energy-intensive industries. We of course recognise the particular challenges that some businesses in those sectors face. We cannot change world price levels, but we will bring forward compensation and legislate to exempt EIIs from renewables policy costs, helping with cash flow and providing greater business certainty. Businesses will of course also benefit from the further cuts to corporation tax and the higher permanent level of the investment allowance.
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
I have been approached by constituents excited to get their first 15 hours a week job, hoping that it will lead to full-time employment. In retail in particular, however, the trend more than two years later is for more part-time employees to be recruited, but no full-time jobs to be given to those in post. Will the Minister look into this matter, and make sure that there are no perverse incentives for employers to create lots of small, part-time jobs without the opportunity for such people to progress?
Damian Hinds
The hon. Lady raises an important point. In fact, full-time workers account for almost three quarters of the employment growth since 2010. The crucial reform in the welfare and social security system is of course universal credit, which specifically seeks to get over the spikes found in the hours scale so that it always pays to move from being out of work into work and, crucially, to move up the hours scale.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
14. What recent estimate he has made of the level of household debt.
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Harriett Baldwin)
Since the financial crisis, households’ financial positions have improved. Household debt as a proportion of income has fallen to 144% in the second quarter of 2015, down from a peak of 168% in the first quarter of 2008.
Mrs Lewell-Buck
I thank the Minister for her response, but a large number of my constituents have been alarmed that mistaken overpayments of working tax credits made by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs have been recovered, without warning, from their child tax credit entitlements. Is the Department’s policy now to push people into poverty and debt by punishing them for HMRC’s mistakes?
Harriett Baldwin
The hon. Lady might remember the terrible roll-out of working tax credits that occurred when the Labour Government were in power. I can assure her that we will continue to improve the administration of tax credits. When her party was in power, people could have a £25,000 change in their income without it affecting their tax credits. We have brought the figure down to £2,500.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
The hon. Member for Havant (Mr Mak) looks animated and contented. Let’s hear from the fellow.
Mr Alan Mak (Havant) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. Household debt will be kept low, thanks to the Government’s support for savers, including the Help to Buy ISA that was launched today. Will the Minister join me in encouraging first-time buyers and young savers to take advantage of this new Government support, which is part of the Government’s long-term economic plan?
Harriett Baldwin
I am delighted that, on behalf of his constituents in Havant, my hon. Friend has noticed that the Help to Buy ISA scheme launches today. Fourteen financial institutions are already offering this exciting new opportunity to save for a home, and I hope that many of his constituents will take advantage of it.
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)
22. Citizens Advice has noted that household bills are now the chief source of the problem debt that people are seeking its help with. What will the Government do to ensure that guarantor and logbook loans are properly regulated, so that they do not simply replace payday loans as a source of poorly regulated credit that exploits the low-paid and the vulnerable?
Harriett Baldwin
I am sure the hon. Lady will welcome the fact that, in the last Parliament, we took steps to bring credit under the regulation of the Financial Conduct Authority. As a result of that, payday lending has dropped sharply. We are also backing credit unions in many different ways in this country, and we want to ensure that people have an opportunity to save through their workplace credit union. If she will work with me, I can assure her that we will continue to ensure that households that have the lowest proportion of debt at the moment in their repayments will continue to see their financial positions—
Mr Speaker
Order. We are enormously grateful to the Minister. We could not be more grateful.
Mr Ranil Jayawardena (North East Hampshire) (Con)
15. What fiscal steps he is taking to help people to keep more of the money they earn.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)
The Government have committed to raise the personal allowance to £12,500 and the higher-rate threshold to £50,000 by the end of this Parliament. In the summer Budget, the Government took the first steps towards meeting those commitments by increasing the personal allowance to £11,000 and raising the higher-rate threshold to £43,000. In 2016-17, 29 million people will pay less tax after those changes, and 570,000 will be taken out of income tax altogether.
Mr Jayawardena
Will the Minister outline what measures have already been taken to help married couples to keep more of what they earn? Would he consider helping stay-at-home parents further by increasing the marriage allowance for all taxpayers?
Mr Gauke
Since 2015-16, married couples and civil partners have been able to transfer 10% of their personal allowance to their spouse. The Government expect this to benefit up to 4 million couples by up to £212. This will increase in proportion to any increases in the personal allowance, which the Government have committed to raise to £12,500.
Philip Boswell (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Given that the ratio of savings to household debt has gone down from 11.8% in the first quarter of 2010 to less than 5% today, and that the downward trend appears likely to continue, why are the Government not taking steps to reverse that trend?
Mr Gauke
The Government are delivering one of the biggest increases in living standards that we have seen for many years. We have record levels of employment, we are providing economic security and we are one of the strongest growing economies in the G7. That is helping household finances up and down the country.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
19. Will the Minister tell us what measures will be taken to ensure that parents in my constituency and up and down the country who are returning to work do not have to spend every penny they earn on childcare?
Mr Gauke
My hon. Friend makes an important point. From September 2017, the Government are doubling the free childcare entitlement from 15 hours to 30 hours a week for working families with three and four-year-olds. That will be worth up to £5,000 per child. From early 2017, tax-free childcare will also be introduced, providing support worth up to £2,000 a year per child for working parents.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.
The First Secretary of State and Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr George Osborne)
The core purpose of the Treasury is to ensure the stability and prosperity of the UK economy. Today I can tell the House that the date of the Budget next year will be Wednesday 16 March.
Bob Blackman
My right hon. Friend has announced that the closure of the compensation scheme for Equitable Life policyholders will be at the end of this month. We will then know exactly how many claimants there are. Has he any plans to extend the amount of money that is being given to the victims of this scam?
Mr Osborne
I am, of course, always happy to listen to representations from my hon. Friend and others, but we have put a substantial sum of taxpayers’ money into compensating the people who lost out through Equitable Life. We have also ensured, through our payment system, that those payments have been made. That is why the scheme is coming to a close.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
The Chancellor bowed to Labour pressure last week and made a U-turn on tax credits. Although tax credits will not be cut in the new year, as planned, the cuts to universal credit are going ahead in full, so he has not reversed his cuts to family incomes, but just delayed them. I am sure that he has looked at the impact of the changes in detail, so will he tell the House how much a single parent with one child who works part time on the so-called national living wage will lose as a result of his planned changes to universal credit?
Mr Osborne
First, let me say that I did not feel a huge amount of Labour pressure last week, but I am happy to see the hon. Gentleman at the Dispatch Box. With universal credit, we are introducing a fundamental improvement to our benefits system. Anyone on tax credits, including in the case that he refers to, who is moved on to universal credit by the Department for Work and Pensions from next year will have their cash awards protected.
John McDonnell
Let me explain to the Chancellor exactly what a single parent with one child who works part time on the national living wage will lose. They will lose an average of £2,800 a year as a result of the cuts to universal credit. This was not an autumn statement that supported families, but one that punished them because 2.6 million families will still be worse off by £1,600 on average.
Let me offer the Chancellor another way out. If he reversed the tax giveaways to the wealthy that he announced in his summer Budget, he could reverse fully these cuts to family incomes, while still achieving his fiscal mandate. Will he now address the threat to these families?
Mr Osborne
Universal credit is a new benefit where it will always pay to work and it will always pay to expand the number of hours that are worked. It will get rid of a complex series of benefits. That will help working families. Let me make this point, since the gang of four on the other side of the House are chuntering away. The hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon), who is a shadow Treasury Minister, has not bothered to turn up today because he is marching on the Labour party’s headquarters on a Stop the War march. The truth is that until the shadow Treasury team get their act together in this Chamber, their cases will not be listened to seriously.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
T2. Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the 60% reduction in unemployment in my constituency since 2010, the 100% rise in house building since 2014 and the fact that Helmsley won best market town in yesterday’s—
Mr Speaker
Order. I am sorry and I do not wish to be unkind, particularly to new Members, but we do not have time for these lists. What we need is single sentence questions.
Kevin Hollinrake
My apologies, Mr Speaker. The A64 is still a bottleneck to investment and a traffic blackspot. Will the Chancellor look again at further investment in that important route, which would unlock further investment and economic progress for the northern powerhouse?
Mr Osborne
We certainly want to hear the good news about what is going on in Yorkshire. On the A64, we have committed billions of pounds to improvements to the road network of Yorkshire and, specifically, we have created a £475 million pot for local major roads. This is the sort of bid that should be put in.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
T5. As the Chancellor was on his feet last week, the Department of Energy and Climate Change quietly issued a statement to the stock exchange on the removal of £1 billion of funding for carbon capture and storage. That was a breach not only of the Tory party manifesto, which is not surprising, I suppose, but of a promise to the people of Scotland during the referendum campaign. How can he justify that decision, which jeopardises 600 jobs in Peterhead?
Mr Osborne
We are doubling investment in renewable electricity and energy, and much of that is going into Scotland. We also increased the capital budget for the Scottish Government, so instead of lobbying us for capital projects, they now have the resources to pay for such things themselves.
Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con)
T3. I recently attended the skills show in Birmingham, which was an incredible example of the opportunities on offer in Britain for young people, including jobs, training and apprenticeships. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the levy he announced in the autumn statement is an excellent further step to ensure that young people in the UK are earning and learning— or preferably both—as that is the route towards a more productive workforce that is ready for jobs in the 21st century?
Mr Speaker
The hon. Gentleman is a celebrated denizen of the House and he should provide a better example to his new colleagues. Questions from both sides of the House are just too long—good, but too long.
Mr Osborne
I was very excited, Mr Speaker, to hear about the skills show in Birmingham. My hon. Friend is right: by investing in apprenticeships and creating 3 million apprentices we address one of the great weaknesses of the British economy that has emerged over many decades, which is the low skill base.
Mr Speaker
Unfortunately, the Chancellor’s excitement is of no interest to the Chair. What is of interest is pithiness and progress, and everybody ought to be able to grasp that point.
Pat Glass (North West Durham) (Lab)
T8. The Chancellor is a leading member of the Cabinet’s economic Sub-Committee that is considering airport expansion. The outcomes of that Committee are vital to growth in the north, and we were promised a response to it by Christmas. When can we expect that response?
Mr Osborne
I completely understand the hon. Lady’s interest in this subject, and the matter arouses a lot of interest across the House and the country. I am afraid she will have to be patient and wait for the Government’s response to that important report.
David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)
T4. I congratulate my right hon. Friend on this autumn statement, which continues to make science a clear priority. Does he agree that the new Cheshire science corridor enterprise zone will play an invaluable role not only in the local economy, but nationally as well, and particularly for the northern powerhouse?
Mr Osborne
My hon. Friend and constituency neighbour is right. Support for Cheshire science goes across the county, and it particularly supports the brilliant work being done in Macclesfield and Alderley Park not just by AstraZeneca but by many new companies that have come to that estate. It is something that I know he champions.
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)
T10. When does the Chancellor expect the UK to regain its triple A credit rating?
Mr Osborne
As the hon. Lady knows—she has asked me about this before—we have a triple A credit rating with one credit rating agency, and we will let the others make their own decisions.
Dr Tania Mathias (Twickenham) (Con)
T6. Train services from Twickenham are inadequate and need to be faster and more frequent. Will the Chancellor look into what funding he can provide to improve services today, as well as for tomorrow with Crossrail 2?
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Greg Hands)
I thank my hon. Friend and near neighbour for that question, and Crossrail 2 is also scheduled to go through my constituency. She will know that the Government have already committed money to feasibility studies in this Parliament. The National Infrastructure Commission has been tasked with reviewing further investment in London, and it will report back to the Government before the 2016 Budget.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (SNP)
What recent assessment has the Chancellor made of the performance of the UK Guarantees scheme? When it was launched, the Treasury said in a press release that it would
“dramatically accelerate major infrastructure investment”.
The only thing that has dramatically accelerated since then is the national debt under a Tory Chancellor who has missed every target that he set himself. Will he please acknowledge at least one of his failures?
Greg Hands
The UK Guarantees scheme has already been approved for eight projects, including the Mersey Gateway bridge, the northern line extension, and Hinkley Point C nuclear power station. It has not always been necessary, and a further 18 projects worth almost £9 billion have been supported without the need for a guarantee.
Craig Tracey (North Warwickshire) (Con)
T7. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on women and enterprise, I welcome the fact that more women than ever are working in Britain today. One of the barriers to forming a cohesive forward strategy for creating more female business owners is a lack of reliable data on how many there currently are. Will my hon. Friend meet me to discuss that issue and consider possible solutions such as the collection of data on HMRC returns?
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Harriett Baldwin)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on his appointment to the APPG, and I look forward to working closely with him to provide the data that he seeks.
Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
By what date do the Government expect to pay the national living wage to all their employees and all the contractors they employ?
Mr Osborne
The national living wage is coming in next April, so of course we will comply with it.
Lucy Frazer (South East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
T9. I welcome the Chancellor’s spending review last week, boosting the science budget and supporting silicon fen. Does he agree that the only way to continue to attract international investment to the region is good infrastructure, and now is the time to upgrade the A10 from Cambridge to Ely?
Mr Osborne
We have put a huge amount of investment into Cambridge, including of course the renovation of the famous Cavendish Laboratory, and I congratulate my hon. Friend on the strong start she has made in recent months in championing her constituency. That has been continued today with a big bid for the A10, which I will take a close look at.
Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
The Chancellor promised twice—at the Scottish referendum and in his manifesto—to have carbon capture and storage at Peterhead. Why has he broken that promise?
Mr Osborne
As I have said, investment in renewables will double over the next five years, and much of that investment will go into Scotland—[Interruption.] Look, the Scottish nationalists have a choice now. They have got some extra money and increased capital spending, and if they want to invest in carbon capture and storage in Scotland they can do so. It is called devolution.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
Every three weeks, British taxpayers send more than £1 billion to Brussels. If the British people vote to come out of the EU, can the excellent Chancellor tell us how much earlier we would eliminate the deficit?
Mr Osborne
I will not get into the debate about our membership of the European Union, but what I would say is that—thanks to the hard negotiating of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister—we have cut the EU budget.
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
By some mistake, there does not seem to be any question on the deficit on the Order Paper—[Interruption]—apart from the very interesting question we have just had. Can I ask the Chancellor the question he would not answer in response to the autumn statement: does he believe that by the time he leaves the Treasury for the last time, he will have finally dealt with our country’s deficit?
Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con)
The Rushden Lakes development at Skew Bridge and Primark’s new warehouse at Islip are bringing thousands of new jobs to east Northamptonshire. Is not the added bonus that under the new business rates regime the local authority will be able to keep the windfall that will arise?
Mr Osborne
My hon. Friend has been a powerful advocate of the Skew Bridge project, and we have discussed it on several occasions. Of course, the devolution of business rates will help that project not only succeed, but make a big contribution to the local economy.
Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)
Given the answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern) and given that the Chancellor has not met a single one of his own targets on economic performance, is he intending to go on and on, to the delight of the Home Secretary and the Mayor of London?
Mr Osborne
We promised to turn the British economy around and that is exactly what we have done. I know that the hon. Gentleman is out of sorts with the cultural revolution that is taking place on his Front Bench at the moment, but I just hope that in the modern Labour party they
“let a hundred flowers bloom”.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)
Entrepreneurs’ relief is a costly relief—and the Chancellor was right to reform it earlier this year—but it is an important way to incentivise our entrepreneurs to invest in businesses and to create jobs. Can he reassure our entrepreneurs that he remains committed to that relief and will take it forward in the years to come?
Mr Osborne
Of course we want entrepreneurs’ relief to be directed at entrepreneurs, and that is why we made the changes earlier this year, but during our time in office Conservative members of the Treasury team have doubled and redoubled that relief. We very much support that help for our enterprise economy.
Mr Speaker
Last, but not least—and with commendable brevity, I feel sure—I call Mr Mulholland.
Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
British pubs currently have 0.5% of British turnover, but pay 2.8% of business rates. Will the Chancellor meet me and officers of the save the pub APPG to discuss how we can better support pubs in the taxation system?
Mr Osborne
Of course, the pub industry has been supported by the reduction in beer duty, the increase in employment allowance, which is of huge benefit to many pubs, and the extension of small business rates relief, which we announced last week. I am happy to see what more we can do to support the great British pub industry, and I look forward to hearing the hon. Gentleman’s ideas.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. I am most grateful to the Chancellor and colleagues. Treasury questions always bust the box office records, as far more people want to take part than there is time to accommodate, so I hope that colleagues will understand.
School Funding Model
(8 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for a verbosity that one does not usually associate with you. I am also grateful to colleagues who have filled in the time after this unexpected collapse of business.
I am grateful for the time we have been given to present petitions calling for fair school funding from more than 100 constituencies right across England and the House. The current funding system is arbitrary and unfair. It penalises urban and rural alike, affecting both Labour and Conservative constituencies. We welcome the announcement of the new national funding formula for schools that the Chancellor mentioned in the comprehensive spending review last week, and we will continue, across the House, to make the case for reform, as the Government consult on their proposals. I will read out the full text of the petition, but, as you have said, Madam Deputy Speaker, other Members need not do so.
In addition to presenting a petition on behalf of 2,287 people in Beverley and Holderness, I am also presenting petitions from the constituencies of Aylesbury, Bethnal Green and Bow, Buckingham, Central Devon, Chelsea and Fulham, East Devon, Forest of Dean, Grantham and Stamford, Haltemprice and Howden, Kingston upon Hull North, Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle, Ipswich, Lewisham, Deptford, Loughborough, Meon Valley, New Forest West, Newton Abbot, Oxford East, Penrith and The Border, South Holland and The Deepings, North Swindon, South Swindon, Tatton, Thornbury and Yate, Wantage, West Suffolk, Wimbledon and York Central. In addition, I am presenting a petition on behalf of the shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), who gave me his petition earlier. He was unable to be here, but would have liked to have been. I thank all those who have signed from across the country.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of Beverley and Holderness,
Declares that the petitioners believe the existing school funding model in England is arbitrary and unfair; further declares that the ten best funded areas of England have on average received grants of £6,300 per pupil this year, compared to an average of £4,200 per pupil in the ten most poorly funded areas of England; and further declares that the petitioners welcome the Government’s commitment to introduce fairer school funding.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons supports the earliest possible introduction of a new National Funding Formula for schools in England.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P001559]
Mrs Caroline Spelman (Meriden) (Con)
I rise to present a petition on behalf of 649 of my constituents in Meriden in the same terms as presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness. Madam Deputy Speaker, may we express our thanks through you to the Clerk of Public Petitions in the Journal Office of the House of Commons?
The Petition of the residents of Meriden.
[P001554]
Sir Edward Garnier (Harborough) (Con)
I wish to present a petition on behalf of many hundreds of residents of my Harborough constituency in exactly the same terms as my right hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs Spelman) and my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness. Leicestershire has always been at the very bottom, if not penultimate, in the Whitehall funding system. We hope this petition will move the Government to improve things.
The Petition of the residents of Harborough.
[P001557]
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)
I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to present a petition of approximately 2,000 signatures on behalf of my constituents in The Cotswolds. That demonstrates the strength of feeling in my constituency that the current funding mechanism is inequitable. I hope the petition will change the situation.
The Petition of the residents of The Cotswolds.
[P001563]
Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)
I rise to present a petition on behalf of many hundreds of people in Warrington North in the same terms as the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness.
The Petition of the residents of Warrington North.
[P001564]
Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)
I rise to present a petition on behalf of the residents of Taunton Deane in the same terms as my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness, which 1,387 highly concerned residents have signed.
The Petition of the residents of Taunton Deane.
[P001565]
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
I present a petition on behalf of the residents of the Henley constituency, 592 of whom have signed it, in the same terms as my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness.
The Petition of the residents of Henley.
[P001567]
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)
I rise to present a petition on behalf of constituents in South Dorset and also in West Dorset. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness for his huge effort to get fair funding for Dorset, which has been at the bottom of the pile for far too long.
The Petition of the residents of South Dorset.
[P001568]
David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)
I rise to present a petition on behalf of 2,916 constituents in Warrington South in the same terms as my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness.
The Petition of the residents of Warrington South.
[P001569]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
I call Mr Christopher Chope. [Interruption.] Now that is very unusual: Mr Christopher Chope is not present.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
I rise to present a petition on behalf of my constituents in North West Leicestershire asking for fairer school funding. Leicestershire has for many years been the second-lowest funded of all areas in the UK, receiving some £500 per pupil less than pupils in Leicester and an amazing £1,000 per year per pupil less than pupils in Birmingham. The petition is signed by 664 of my constituents and is in the same terms as that presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness.
The Petition of the residents of North West Leicestershire.
[P001575]
James Heappey (Wells) (Con)
I rise to present a petition on behalf of the pupils, parents and teachers of schools from across the Wells constituency in the same terms as my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness.
The Petition of the residents of Wells.
[P001576]
Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)
I rise to present a petition on behalf of very many of my Tewkesbury constituents to campaign against unfair education funding in the same terms as those expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness.
The Petition of the residents of Tewkesbury.
[P001577]
Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)
I rise to present a petition on behalf of many residents of Mid Dorset and North Poole in the same terms as my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness. If necessary, I declare an interest as a school governor—and my delight in this result.
The Petition of the residents of Mid Dorset and North Poole.
[P001578]
David Warburton (Somerton and Frome) (Con)
I rise to present a petition on behalf of many hundreds of residents of Somerton and Frome in exactly the same terms as those expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness.
The Petition of the residents of Somerton and Frome.
[P001580]
Karl MᶜCartney (Lincoln) (Con)
I rise to present a petition on behalf a number of my constituents in Lincoln in the same terms as my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness. I declare an interest, in that I have been a school governor for many years. I am a board member and former chairman of the Priory city academy “Career Ready” scheme and I have two sons who attend school in the rural county of Lincolnshire.
The Petition of the residents of Lincoln.
[P001585]
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
I rise to present a petition on behalf of the residents of the Stafford constituency in the same terms as my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness.
The Petition of the residents of Stafford.
[P001582]
Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)
I rise to present a petition on behalf of the residents of Mid Derbyshire in the same terms as my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness.
The Petition of the residents of Mid Derbyshire.
[P001583]
Victoria Prentis (Banbury) (Con)
I rise to present this petition on behalf of many of the residents of Banbury in the same terms as was set out by my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness.
The Petition of the residents of Banbury.
[P001584]
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
I rise to present this petition on behalf of many of the residents—indeed, over 750 of them—in the same terms as my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness.
The Petition of the residents of Crawley.
[P001586]
Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)
I rise to present this petition on behalf of many residents of Shrewsbury in the same terms as my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness.
The Petition of the residents of Shrewsbury and Atcham.
[P001587]
Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)
I rise to present this petition signed by some 2,000 of my Stroud constituents. This is a significant figure and shows the force of feeling in my patch. I do so in the same terms, of course, as my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness, who is also my predecessor as Chairman of the Education Committee.
The Petition of the residents of Stroud.
[P001588]
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
I rise to present my petition on behalf of the residents of Torbay, calling for fair funding for our schools, in the same terms as my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness.
The Petition of the residents of Torbay.
[P001589]
Gavin Williamson (South Staffordshire) (Con)
I rise on behalf of 1,705 of my constituents who are campaigning for a fairer deal for schools in Staffordshire. The petition is in the same terms as those of my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness.
The Petition of the residents of South Staffordshire.
[P001590]
Victoria Atkins (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)
I rise to present this petition in the same terms as my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness on behalf of the many residents in Louth and Horncastle who feel strongly about fairer funding for schools.
The Petition of the residents of Louth and Horncastle.
[P001591]
Stephen Phillips (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
I rise to present this petition on behalf of a gross of residents of the Sleaford and North Hykeham constituency in the same terms as the petition presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness.
The Petition of the residents of Sleaford and North Hykeham.
[P001592]
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
I rise to present this petition on behalf of 713 Brigg and Goole constituents in the great counties of East Riding of Yorkshire and North Lincolnshire. In so doing, I declare a relevant interest as chairman of the governors at Goole academy.
The Petition of the residents of Brigg and Goole.
[P001593]
Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)
I rise to present this petition on behalf of the residents of Faversham and Mid Kent, whose children are affected by the vagaries of the current funding system for schools. It is in the same terms as that presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness.
The Petition of the residents of Faversham and Mid Kent.
[P001594]
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
I rise to present this petition on behalf of the residents of the Congleton constituency, signed by over 620 of those residents, in the same terms as that presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness.
The Petition of the residents of Congleton.
[P001595]
Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)
I present this petition for fair school funding on behalf of 1,151 parents, teachers and school children in Cheltenham in the same terms as my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness. It is time for fair funding for Cheltenham.
The Petition of the residents of Cheltenham.
[P001597]
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
I rise to present this petition on behalf of the residents of South Suffolk in the same terms as my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness. There are so many signatures that I cannot even count them.
The Petition of the residents of South Suffolk.
[P001598]
William Wragg (Hazel Grove) (Con)
I rise to present this petition on behalf of the residents of the Hazel Grove constituency in the same terms as my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness. I declare a tenuous interest as a former teacher.
The Petition of the residents of Hazel Grove.
[P001599]
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
It is a great honour on this historic occasion to present this petition on behalf of the great county of Lincolnshire. It has some of the best schools in the country, but they are sadly underfunded. I present the petition in the same terms as my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness.
The Petition of the residents of Gainsborough.
[P001600]
Antoinette Sandbach (Eddisbury) (Con)
I rise to present this petition on behalf of hundreds of concerned residents from Eddisbury in the same terms as that presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness.
The Petition of the residents of Eddisbury.
[P001601]
Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con)
I rise to present this petition on behalf of many hundreds of residents in Solihull in the same terms as my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness.
The Petition of the residents of Solihull.
[P001604]
Peter Heaton-Jones (North Devon) (Con)
I rise to present this petition on behalf of many residents of North Devon. In doing so, I applaud this Government for pledging to put right this historic wrong. This petition is in the same terms as that of my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness.
The Petition of the residents of North Devon.
[P001602]
Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con)
I rise to present this petition on behalf of the residents of Boston and Skegness, completing the county of Lincolnshire—meaning that all Lincolnshire MPs have submitted this petition in the same terms as my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness.
The Petition of the residents of Boston and Skegness.
[P001603]
Marcus Fysh (Yeovil) (Con)
I rise to present a petition on behalf of 584 residents who are passionate about fair school funding in the Yeovil constituency, written in the same terms as that of my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness.
The Petition of the residents of Yeovil.
[P001610]
Dr Daniel Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)
I rise to present a petition for fairer school funding on behalf of my constituents, which is written in the same terms as that of my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness.
The Petition of the residents of Central Suffolk and North Ipswich.
[P001611]
Michelle Donelan (Chippenham) (Con)
I rise to present a petition on behalf of the many residents of my constituency, which is written in the same terms as that of my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness, to rectify the present ludicrous funding system.
The Petition of the residents of Chippenham.
[P001609]
Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)
I rise to present a petition on behalf of 535 residents of Wyre Forest. It also includes 20 signatures from the Christopher Whitehead Language academy in the constituency of my good and hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr Walker), and is written in the same terms as that of my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness.
The Petition of the residents of Wyre Forest.
[P001608]
Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)
I rise to present a petition on behalf of the residents of Chesham and Amersham against the existing school funding model in England. Of the 10 lowest-funded schools in the country, the seven lowest-funded are in Buckinghamshire, and the lowest-funded in the country is also in the county. The petition is in in the same vein as that of my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness.
The Petition of the residents of Chesham and Amersham.
[P001613]
Lucy Frazer (South East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
I rise to present a petition on behalf of the residents of South East Cambridgeshire, which is written in terms similar to those of the petition presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness.
The Petition of the residents of South East Cambridgeshire.
[P001614]
Rishi Sunak (Richmond (Yorks)) (Con)
I rise to present a petition on behalf of the residents of Richmond, North Yorkshire, which is written in the same terms as that presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness.
The Petition of the residents of Richmond (Yorks).
[P001621]
David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)
I rise to present a petition on behalf of the residents of Macclesfield, which is written in the same terms as that of my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness. I have a similar local petition, which has many signatures of constituents.
The Petition of the residents of Macclesfield.
[P001651]
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
I rise to present a petition on behalf of the electors of Wokingham, and, in particular, the signatories who constitute a majority of the members of our unitary council and local education authority, requesting fairer funding for our schools, which need it greatly. The basis of the petition is similar to those of the petitions that we have already heard.
The Petition of the residents of Wokingham.
[P001624]
Jo Churchill (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)
I rise to present a petition on behalf of the residents of Bury St Edmunds, which is written in the same terms as that of my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness.
The Petition of the residents of Bury St Edmunds.
[P001623]
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
The petition that I rise to present has been signed by 1,335 residents of the city of Gloucester, and is, I trust, supported by all who yearn for fairer funding for schools in the city. It is written in the same terms as that of my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness.
The Petition of the residents of Gloucester.
[P001647]
Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)
I rise to present a petition on behalf of the residents of North Herefordshire, which is written in the same terms as that of my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness.
The Petition of the residents of North Herefordshire.
[P001648]
Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)
I rise, as a fellow Yorkshire Member, to present a petition on behalf of many York Outer residents, which is written in the same terms as that of my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness, to deliver fairer school funding for all.
The Petition of the residents of York Outer.
[P001649]
Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
I apologise for having missed my place in the queue, Madam Deputy Speaker, but it gives me great pleasure to present a petition on behalf of residents of Christchurch. It is written in terms identical to those of the petition presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness. I know that my constituents are confident, as I am, that the Government will honour their commitment to introducing fairer school funding.
The Petition of the residents of Christchurch.
[P001656]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
I have been given no notice that any further petitions are about to be presented.
Kevin Hollinrake
Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise to present a petition on behalf of several hundred residents of the beautiful constituency of Thirsk and Malton, which is written in the same terms as that of my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness.
The Petition of the residents of Thirsk and Malton.
[P001656]
Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I know my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) was seeking to be present this evening for obvious reasons. Has the Deputy Speaker received any information regarding difficulties in accessing the estate due to the activities taking place outside?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
I have received information that there are a great many people outside and that it is possible that some people leaving this building—I have been particularly concerned about junior and female members of staff trying to get out of this building this evening—are having difficulty in doing so. I have heard that it could also be difficult to gain access to this building, which is a very great pity. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that point of order because when assiduous Members of Parliament are not in their places when they are expected to be, there is usually a very good reason for it.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I ask if during your time in this House there has ever been more mention of the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) and in more glorious a context?
Madam Deputy Speaker
I am very happy to tell the hon. Gentleman that I have never heard quite so much mention of the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness, and I am sure he has done a sterling piece of work—and it is just as well that the injury to his leg healed so he could run here from far away.
Business of the House
(8 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Leader of the House of Commons (Chris Grayling)
Mr Speaker, with your permission, I should like to make a short business statement about tomorrow’s business. The main business for tomorrow will now be a debate on a motion relating to ISIL in Syria and United Nations Security Council resolution 2249. The business for Thursday remains as previously announced: Second Reading of the Charities (Protection and Social Investment) Bill [Lords].
Members will wish to know that, subject to the House’s agreement later today, oral questions to the Cabinet Office and the Prime Minister will not be taken tomorrow. The oral questions rota will be republished, and Cabinet Office questions will take place on Wednesday 9 December. The results of the ballots for both Question Times will be retained, and Members will not need to resubmit their questions. I will make my usual business statement on Thursday.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
Last week, I warmly commended the Prime Minister for the way he had treated the House thus far on Syria, and I only wish I could say the same today. The truth is that the Government never really intended to proceed tomorrow with the business announced last Thursday. They always intended to make an emergency business statement today, to abandon tomorrow’s Opposition day and to hold the vote tomorrow. The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi), the Prime Minister’s apprenticeship adviser, blurted it out in yesterday’s debate. Why did the Leader of the House not come clean last Thursday, as I suggested?
Would it not have been better form to give MPs proper notice of the debate? Would it not be better form for the Government to abandon their own business, rather than Opposition business? Would it not have been better form to have told the House first? I confess that when I heard yesterday that the Prime Minister was going to make a statement on Syria, I innocently presumed he would make it to the House of Commons. “Oh no”, I was told by a Government Whip, “He’s in Paris. He can’t.” No he was not, Mr Speaker. At 8 pm last night, he announced, not to the House but on television, that the debate would be tomorrow, and he was not in Paris; he was all of 300 yards away, in the Cabinet room in Downing Street. He should have come here. His own ministerial code says that the most important announcements of Government policy must be made to the Commons first. The proper course of action would have been a supplementary business statement at 10 pm last night, and if he could not make it, the Leader of the House should have done so, and insisted on doing so, as the servant of this House, not just of the Government.
There is another problem. I gather that the motion has only just been tabled, meaning it will not be on the Order Paper until tomorrow. Yet again, that means the House will have to consider manuscript amendments. So on one of the most important issues we face—the security of our country, the safety of the people of Syria and our own armed forces—we are expected to frame our opinion on a motion we have not even seen yet. We asked for a two-day debate. I did so two weeks ago, and the Leader of the Opposition repeated that call yesterday. I recognise that the Government have tabled motions to allow a longer day than usual tomorrow, but what is the hurry?
Last week, 103 Members took part in the statement on Syria, and most will want to take part in tomorrow’s debate. Many of the 182 new Members will also want to lay out their reasons for supporting or not supporting the Government on a matter that is highly contested, and many will want to press the Prime Minister on his claims about the 70,000 Free Syria Army troops he says are standing ready to move into Raqqa. My own position on the substantive motion is on the record—I think we have to degrade and defeat ISIL—but I also said last week that the House would not take kindly to being bounced into the vote.
The Prime Minister himself said last week:
“I want us to consider this and to think it through. I do not want anyone to feel that a good process has not been followed, so that if people agree with the case being put, they can in all conscience vote to support it.”—[Official Report, 26 November 2015; Vol. 602, c. 1503.]
We will all be exercising our consciences tomorrow, but this is not a good process. We now have to abandon Cabinet Office and Prime Minister’s questions and an Opposition day on mental health and the effect of the autumn statement on women. We will consider a motion that will appear on the Order Paper only on the day that we are debating it and we may have to consider manuscript amendments.
All in all, surely to heavens, this is no way to treat the House, our voters or, indeed, our armed forces. Far from inspiring confidence in the Government’s judgment, shenanigans of this nature seriously undermine it.
Chris Grayling
I have to say that I cannot agree with the shadow Leader of the House’s analysis. Let us take this in turn.
The hon. Gentleman says that the Prime Minister announced tomorrow’s debate on TV yesterday. What I would say to the House is that the Cabinet discussed the matter this morning. What the Prime Minister said last night was that he would ask the Cabinet to consider a proposition. The Cabinet considered and discussed this matter this morning and reached a decision, and therefore brought the matter to the House as quickly as possible after the conclusion of that Cabinet decision.
Chris Grayling
The hon. Gentleman says from a sedentary position that it is not true. I can only say to him again that, in a Government that believe in Cabinet Government, it is right and proper that a decision of this magnitude should be taken and discussed around the Cabinet table, and that is what took place this morning.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the moving of the Opposition day. I absolutely accept the importance of the issue of mental health. We will, of course, re-provide that Opposition day at an early opportunity and the Opposition will be able to bring that important subject to the House, but I am sure he would not disagree that the matters tomorrow morning are of the utmost importance to this country and should be brought before this House at an early opportunity.
The hon. Gentleman talked about the opportunity for debate and discussion. I would simply say to him that, over the past week, we had a two-hour statement from the Prime Minister last Monday, a two-and-a-half-hour statement from the Prime Minister last Thursday— 78 people spoke in the first; 103 spoke in the second—and a Back-Bench debate yesterday for five hours, with 41 speeches. Tomorrow’s debate is the equivalent of two normal days’ debate in terms of length. As for the idea that we have been bounced into the vote, in total this matter will have been discussed in the House for 20 hours since last Monday.
The hon. Gentleman talked about the timing of the motion. We have taken care to ensure that in tabling the motion we have listened to views in all parts of the House. I make no apology for taking time to listen and consider those views and coming up with a motion that I believe reflects the views of the majority of Members of this House and that will, I believe and hope, command the support of the House tomorrow. I am absolutely confident that we are doing not only the right thing procedurally, but also, if we vote that way tomorrow, the right thing for this country.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Over the weekend the Foreign Secretary said that this was a very important matter and a matter of conscience, and he therefore called on the Labour party to provide a free vote. I take it we will not be having a free vote on this side of the House—I am not even going to press the Leader of the House on that, because I know the answer will be no—but he must know that it is not only on the Opposition Benches that people are agonising about this. There are many Conservative Members of Parliament who have very serious questions that they want to put tomorrow and, depending on the answers, they will not necessarily vote for the motion tomorrow. Could we therefore not extend the debate even further? Do we have to have the vote at seven? Could we not have it at 10?
If the answer is yes, I will be very happy with that, but how will manuscript amendments to the motion be published? If, say, a Back Bencher such as myself wanted to table a manuscript amendment on the basis of a proportionate response, how will it be published and debated, if at all?
Chris Grayling
First, the motion is available in the Table Office now; I would encourage my hon. Friend to take a look at that.
Chris Grayling
The motion was tabled a few minutes ago; it is available in the Table Office now.
What I would say to my hon. Friend is that we are providing time to go beyond 7 o’clock tomorrow, to 10 o’clock. We have sought to provide what is the equivalent of two days of debate. A 10-and-a-half-hour debate tomorrow is effectively equivalent to the time we would have if we held the debate over a two-day period, so I hope he will sense that we have given an adequate amount of time for this debate.
My hon. Friend has concerns, but he should realise that this is a matter of concern to every single Member of the House, and that a decision such as this is never taken lightly by any Member of Parliament. If he has concerns and wants further information, he can talk to me and colleagues in the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Defence afterwards—we would be happy to discuss the issue further.
Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)
There must be few, if any, Members who will not be agonising over how to vote, so it would be useful if everyone had a free vote. Does the Leader of the House recognise that unlike his Cabinet colleagues, he has a special responsibility to Members of this House? On such a crucial issue and however we vote on it, I imagine it must be difficult for people outside to understand why we are confining debate to one day, albeit with extended time. Why is it impossible for the House of Commons to provide at least two full days of debate? We could end up with a situation in which Members are desperate to speak, and a good number might not be able to express a view on behalf of themselves and their constituents. Those who are called in the final stages might be limited to three minutes. It is simply wrong to undertake debate in this way on such a crucial issue of war and peace.
Chris Grayling
I absolutely accept—the hon. Gentleman is right to say it—that this is a crucial issue of conscience for many Members. However, the timing of tomorrow’s debate is effectively the equivalent of the amount of time that would have been available if we had held a debate across Wednesday and Thursday on normal business days for this House. It provides one extended debate on a single day, which I think makes for a more coherent debate over that extended period. It will start earlier than normal and finish much later than normal. I hope that will give Members of all parties the opportunity to contribute.
Mr Speaker
We will deal with points of order at the end. I shall not forget the hon. Lady.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
Of course, all votes in the House of Commons are free, and Members will make up their own minds on this issue. I do not think a single Member will vote on the basis of what the Whips tell them.
The shadow Leader of the House has a point about the motion. We have not seen it, so how can anyone decide whether to vote for or against it. It is a shame that we are voting at a time so close to the publication of the motion. As I argued at business questions, we can have a compromise position between the Leader of the House who wants one day and the shadow Leader of the House who wants two days by having the debate tomorrow without putting on any time limit. Anyone should be able to speak for as long as they like and if that means having the vote at 2 o’clock in the morning, so be it. People out there would realise that we were taking this matter seriously. Will my right hon. Friend consider this point again?
Chris Grayling
On the issue of the motion, let me repeat to my hon. Friend that we have taken the time to consult Members on all sides to try to ensure that we have a motion to vote upon tomorrow that reflects the concerns that Members have raised. If we have done so and taken the time to deliver the right motion, I make no apology for that. On the matter of the length of tomorrow’s debate, I simply think that 10 and a half hours, combined with all the opportunities we have had over the last 10 days, is sufficient to get the decision taken and the vote done. If the decision of the country is to do what the Government recommend, we will give our armed forces the support they need to deliver that mandate.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
I thank the Leader of the House for announcing the short business statement this morning. We remain profoundly disappointed about the way in which the Government have progressed the matter of tomorrow’s business. It would have been so easy for the Leader of the House to announce last Thursday when this debate would happen in order to give us plenty of opportunity to consider a motion and have proper amendments put into it. The motion could have been debated, assessed and considered before we went into such an important vote tomorrow. This is not the Chancellor’s potholes; this is the country going to war and inflicting air strikes on another country. It is really important to get the opportunity to consider the issue properly.
I have a copy of the Government’s motion, which has just been presented, but it is not even in the Vote Office, so it is not available for Members to have a proper look at. This means that there will be no real opportunity to table amendments. Only manuscript amendments from right hon. and hon. Members will be possible. I see the Chief Whip shaking his head, but it is not in the Vote Office, so we cannot properly consider it.
I know that a number of right hon. and hon. Members wanted to table serious and considered amendments to the motion, but now they will only have the opportunity to table manuscript amendments. It is so disappointing that, once again, we do not have two days in which to discuss the issue properly—two days for which we have been asking for the past few weeks. We are trying to shoehorn two days into one, and abandoning Prime Minister’s questions so that the Leader of the House can do this. I ask him once more—please—to reconsider.
The motion on the Order Paper refers to “ISIL in Syria”, although this has nothing whatsoever to do with Islam. When will people get it into the Government’s head that we should use the word “Daesh” when referring to what is going on in Syria?
We in the Scottish National party will constitute an effective opposition to what the Government are to propose tomorrow. In view of that, will the Leader of the House be sure to keep us up to date and informed of any developments that take place in the next 24 hours?
Chris Grayling
Let me begin by setting out clearly what the Government propose that we should do. I must first take up the hon. Gentleman’s point about going to war. Britain has been carrying out air strikes in Iraq, with a mandate from the House, for a considerable time, and the motion simply allows us to extend that work so that we can degrade ISIL in the areas of Syria in which it is operating.
The motion was tabled in the Table Office after the opening of business today, in the normal way. As I said earlier, it was tabled today because we had taken time to consult Members, to listen to the concerns that were expressed in different parts of the House, and to ensure that we reflected those concerns in the final version of the motion.
The hon. Gentleman asked why I had not come to the House last Thursday. The answer is, very simply, that no decision had been made last Thursday. No final decision was made until the Cabinet met this morning. He also talked about the time that had been allocated. I repeat that we have allocated to one day, rather than two, the equivalent of the time that would have been available if we had operated normal days on Wednesday and Thursday. I believe that that has created a more sensible, single structure for a debate that can run consistently from end to end.
Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
My right hon. Friend has said twice that the motion was tabled today in the ordinary way, but a few minutes ago the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) said that it was not available. I think that I just saw him handing someone’s iPad back. I note that, at 12.33, the editor of PoliticsHome tweeted an image of a motion that appears to be “the motion”. May I ask my right hon. Friend to be crystal clear? At what time was the motion tabled, and might it not have been better if the hon. Member for Rhondda had been provided with a copy before the statement?
Chris Grayling
The motion was tabled in the Table Office shortly before midday, and it is currently available to Members there. Let us be absolutely clear about that. It is currently available to Members.
Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)
It is clear that many Members in all parts of the House will want to participate in the debate, and it is clear that, given the importance of the matter, it will be a travesty if Members are limited to very short speeches lasting three or four minutes. May I appeal to the Leader of the House—and, indeed, to the Government in general—to ensure that the Front-Bench speeches do not take an inordinately long time, as they sometimes do, especially in the light of the fact that the speech from the Opposition Front Bench will actually be an expression of personal views?
Chris Grayling
I think that we may hear two different sets of views from the Opposition Benches. However, the right hon. Gentleman has made a sensible point, and I will certainly communicate it to my colleagues. I do want Members to have an opportunity to contribute. Many will, of course, seek to do so by means of interventions, but I will convey the right hon. Gentleman’s point to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.
David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)
Is my right hon. Friend aware that we had a long and considered debate on the middle east yesterday, during which many Members on both sides of the House were able to make strong contributions on issues in Syria, but which was not very well attended by a certain section of the Opposition Benches?
Chris Grayling
My hon. Friend has made an important point. As I said earlier, by the end of tomorrow we shall have considered these matters for 20 hours since Monday last week, so I do not think that anyone viewing the House from outside could say that they have not been raised and discussed. The Prime Minister himself has taken questions for four and half hours during that period, and that is in addition to the contribution that he will make tomorrow. I think that Members have had plenty of opportunities to scrutinise the challenge that we face.
Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
The Leader of the House rose at 12.35 pm today. As we heard from the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker), the editor of PoliticsHome, having been briefed, issued the motion on Twitter at 12.33 pm. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the process—and I am still to make up my mind—does that not show that the House has not been given a full opportunity to consider this matter in detail, and that my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) should have had sight of the motion before he came to the House?
Chris Grayling
I do not accept that. I made a point of ensuring that no public statement was made by the Government, and no provision of the motion was made to the media, before the motion was tabled in the House, and I think that that was the right and proper thing to do.
Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con)
I managed to get hold of a copy of the motion—for which I commend the Government—with no difficulty. If it is possible to get hold of it so easily, it surely ought to be possible for others, including the shadow Leader of the House.
Chris Grayling
The versatility demonstrated by my hon. Friend may explain why we are sitting on the Government Benches, in government, and those on the other side are not.
Alex Salmond (Gordon) (SNP)
The Leader of the House needs to think about this issue again. Bringing issues of war and peace to the House for debate is a relatively recent innovation. In this instance, the Leader of the Opposition, the leader of the second largest Opposition party and, I suspect, the leaders of other parties have asked for a two-day debate. The issue of the two days is not just about the amount of time that is provided for debate, but about the amount of time that is provided for proper consideration of motions. If the Leader of the House does not concede that, he is creating a dangerous precedent, and a very unfortunate one.
There must be a reason for this. Is it the fact that the Prime Minister is more interested in dividing the Labour party than in uniting the country, or is there some other specific reason for his not wishing to be in the House on Thursday? Will the Leader of the House now answer that question honestly?
Chris Grayling
I know of no specific reason why the Prime Minister would not wish to be in the House on Thursday, but let me say this to the right hon. Gentleman. I have—sadly—sat through a number of debates on issues like this during my 15 years as a Member of Parliament, and I believe that the amount of time we are providing for this debate is absolutely in line with existing practice. In fact, it is more generous than the amount of time that was allowed when these matters were last debated in the House.
We have sought to create a single, coherent debate, started by the Prime Minister and finished by the Foreign Secretary, over an extended period which is, as I have said, equivalent to the amount of time that would have been available had we debated these matters over a normal Wednesday and Thursday. I think that we are providing an appropriate amount of time for the debate.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend and those on the Front Bench on the motion. I had no difficulty in getting hold of a copy of it a few minutes ago, and I suspect that the House will have little difficult in supporting it tomorrow.
On the subject of the allocation of time, does my right hon. Friend recall—as I certainly do—the events of 2003, when there was a very similar debate about the time that was available for a matter that was, of course, of far greater significance? That debate was about actually making war, whereas this is simply about extending to Syria the action that we are currently undertaking in Iraq.
Chris Grayling
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I remember that occasion as well. Let me also make the point that, in the last few days, the Prime Minister, my colleagues in the Government and officials have gone out of their way to provide briefings, to have discussions, to listen to the views expressed by Members in all parts of the House, and to try to come up with a motion that would reflect the concerns that they have raised. As I said at the outset, we are publishing the motion today not least because we have only just made the decision. We have tried to take time to listen to those concerns, to table a motion that encompasses the worries that have been expressed in different parts of the House, and to set out a strategy that encompasses not simply military action but developments, political solutions to the situation in Syria, and the rest. We are trying to do the right thing in an holistic way.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
The debate that took place in the House yesterday was about the United Kingdom’s role in the middle east, and it included lengthy speeches about countries such as Yemen, Israel and Palestine, and Iran. I think it unfair to say that Members were able to talk at length, and ask questions at length, about the extension of the bombing of ISIL. I listened to the whole of that debate from the Opposition Front Bench and, at 6.35 pm yesterday evening, the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi) referred to the debate that would take place on Wednesday this week.
I ask the Leader of the House to listen carefully to what Members in all parts of the House are saying—as they did in yesterday’s debate—about wanting opportunities to express their views, ask questions and speak in debates. I do not understand why the Government have set their face against a two-day debate. This is not normal business, and we ought to have the opportunity to take as long as we require to reach the right decision.
Chris Grayling
The hon. Lady is right that yesterday’s debate focused on more than simply the situation in Syria, but one of the reasons why we need to act against ISIL in Syria is the growing challenge we face from it around the middle east and in north Africa, and those issues were undoubtedly reflected in yesterday’s debate.
On the two-day debate issue, I simply repeat that we are providing an extended debate that is the equivalent of the amount of time that would have been available on a normal day’s business on Wednesday and Thursday, but we are doing it on one day over a very extended period to create a coherent single debate.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
If the Government genuinely want to build as broad a consensus as possible on what might be the most momentous decision of this Parliament, how are the public supposed to understand a time-limited debate on their specific motion to escalate bombing where fewer than perhaps a fifth of Members are able to take part?
Chris Grayling
What I would say to the public is that we in Parliament will have discussed these issues over a 20-hour period since Monday of last week. The Prime Minister has taken two extended sets of questions, has considered very carefully the issues raised by Members on both sides of the House, has produced a motion that in our view reflects those concerns and takes many of them into account, and then has provided a length of time for debate that is longer than any that has been provided for a similar decision in recent years. I think that is treating this House, and the public and their concern, in exactly the right way.
Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
We certainly do not have any agreement on the wisdom of bombing Syria, and now we do not have any agreement on the process by which that decision should be arrived at through Parliament. That is because the Government are bouncing Parliament. Why are they doing that? We have heard from my colleagues that the motion has not been published properly—it is not available in the Vote Office, but the press have it. This speaks again of the decision to go to war during the Blair spin times—a dash to war. Why are we doing this? Already 10 nations are bombing in Syria; what difference is adding two UK planes going to make? We also have, I think, the unprecedented step of Prime Minister’s questions being abandoned. The Government are doing this wrongly now. Why are they doing it wrongly? Why do they not even get this part of the process right?
Chris Grayling
I will say again that I really do not think we can be accused of bouncing anyone into a decision after what will have been 20 hours of debate, discussion and questions over a nine-day period. We tabled the motion this morning, before midday, and before it went to anybody in the media. It came to this House first, as is right and proper, but it came to this House after an extended period of discussion with Members on both sides of the House to try to make sure that the motion reflects the concerns raised by Members across this House, with a view to building as much consensus as possible. I accept that there will not be consensus across the whole House—we will not carry the support of every Member of this House—but it is in our national interest that we seek to bring forward a motion that will command as much support as possible from across this House.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
The Leader of the House’s position seems to be that as his Government have spent some time considering their motion, it does not matter that MPs will have so little time to consider it. But what about amendments? I will not be voting for air strikes, but there are many things I would like to vote for, such as building a comprehensive UN consensus or cutting off Daesh’s oil supplies. How are we supposed to vote for an alternative approach if amendments are only to be available on the day?
Chris Grayling
Those elements of the hon. Lady’s concern are already reflected in the motion. As I have said, in the motion we have sought to reflect the concerns in all parts of this House. I can only reiterate that this motion was tabled shortly after the opening of business today and all Members of this House can manage to access it—and indeed my hon. Friends behind me have already managed to do so.
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)
It appears that a real shambles is developing here. The Leader of the House is telling us that we are having 20 hours of debate, but that is not correct, because we are being given 10 hours to debate the motion. That is a substantive point. As Members have said, it is a motion that this House needs to reflect on and put down amendments to. Is it not the case that our constituents are very concerned about the consequences of this motion, and surely we should be having two days for debate so that Members can debate this properly? Why does the right hon. Gentleman not call the Prime Minister back from whatever engagements he may have on Thursday? Let us do this properly and treat the country with respect.
Chris Grayling
I can only say again that we discussed these matters for two hours last Monday, two and a half hours last Thursday, and five hours-plus in the debate yesterday, and we have a 10-and-a-half-hour debate tomorrow, and the debate tomorrow is for the equivalent amount of time as would have been available if we had run normal days on Wednesday and Thursday. I happen to think it is more coherent and logical for us to do this in one go, with one extended debate opened by the Prime Minister and wound up by the Foreign Secretary, and we will have had in total 20 hours to consider these matters since Monday of last week.
Points of Order
(8 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am not in the habit of raising needless points of order, but we have just heard many Members raise their concerns and what seems clear about the motion for tomorrow is that it was in the hands of the journalists before it was in our hands, as the Prime Minister made his statement to the BBC rather than to this House last night. We have heard what the Leader of the House has to say, Mr Speaker, and I would now like your view on what possible reform we can bring to change that approach.
Mr Speaker
I say in response to the hon. Lady that I am not sure that this is an occasion for pronouncing on a reform to the process, as she puts it. It is difficult for the Chair to give a ruling without certain knowledge of the facts, but what I would say at this stage is as follows—and I would welcome any clarification the Leader of the House can provide. The first point is that, as I understand it, it is the Government’s firm intention to ensure that the text of the motion is widely available today. Members can apparently consult it—I cannot say this for certain—now in the Table Office.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr Mark Harper)
indicated assent.
Mr Speaker
Nods of assent from the Government Chief Whip and the Leader of the House suggest that that is so. [Interruption.] Order; I am trying to help the House. If that is so, that is welcome.
On the subject of amendments, perhaps I can say to the House that if amendments are tabled today, presumably by Members who have seen the text of the motion, those amendments will be on the Order Paper tomorrow. Therefore, they will not be manuscript amendments. However, it is within the discretion of the Chair to consider manuscript amendments. Colleagues who have been in this House for any length of time will know that this Speaker has regularly done so, and if necessary I will be ready to do so again.
It is obviously desirable, not least in the light of what the Leader of the House said about having undertaken widespread consultation with a view to trying to put together a motion that would command widespread agreement, that the motion itself, when decided upon and its text finalised, should have been formally given at the very least to the official Opposition. I assume that was done. [Interruption.] Well, may I say that I think that it would be desirable for that to be done, and it would be entirely consistent with the words the Leader of the House uttered about widespread consultation? If it has not happened, may I say that it would now be desirable for it to happen?
Beyond that, all I can really say is this. The Leader of the House made the point that the one-day debate stretching over 10 and a half hours would represent a time allocation broadly equivalent to two full days on Wednesday and Thursday. I know some people like to be very precise about these matters, and my mental arithmetic tells me that if we have a full day’s debate on a Wednesday and a full day’s debate on a Thursday, and bearing in mind that we have business questions on a Thursday, that would amount to an allocation of time of I think 12 hours—10 and a half is being allocated—and that if it were a Monday and a Tuesday and there were two full days’ debate without interruption by urgent questions or statements, that would amount to 13 hours of debate. So to be absolutely correct about this, it is not two full days’ debate in one—that is not true—but it is considerably more than one and a half. It is also perfectly reasonable—this is a political point for the Leader of the House to make; it is not a matter for the Chair—to say that the time allocation is somewhat greater than has been the case in the past.
I am trying to be completely fair-minded about this. I respect what the Leader of the House has said, and there is some considerable agreement with what he has said, but I recognise that there is some unhappiness. I think the best thing at this stage on matters of procedure—we have the rest of the day available—is to try to maximise buy-in to the procedure and to minimise dissent. Let me try to look at it from the vantage point of members of the public. I think that is what responsible members of the public would expect responsible Members of Parliament to do. I hope that is helpful.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. You have been extremely reasonable, and we have to look at this from the point of view of members of the public. I know that you have no ability to extend debates, but let us suppose that by 7 o’clock this evening 100 people have put in to speak. I do not know whether we will be bound by a procedure motion at 11.30. Perhaps discussions could take place between your office and the Leader of the House’s office. There is no reason why the Government should not extend the debate until 11.30 tomorrow, for instance, which would enable perhaps a further 30 people to get in. I am sure we can look at this in a holistic and creative way.
Mr Speaker
The hon. Gentleman is ever helpful, and that is appreciated. It is not really a matter for my office to engage or collaborate with the Government on the subject of the allocation of time—that is something for the Government to come to a view about and for the House either to agree to or not, as the case may be. However, I heard what he said about the likely level of interest in contributing and I can say that my door is always open, as is that of the outer office in the Speaker’s Office, as colleagues will know. There is no secret about the number of people putting in to speak. As colleagues will know, the Leader of the House and I speak regularly, as do the Government Chief Whip and I, and the same is true for the shadow Leader of the House and the Opposition Chief Whip. Of course I am happy to keep them informed, along with any Member who asks me how many people have put in to speak.
The shadow Leader of the House said that the Leader of the House was a servant of the House. I am a servant of the House, too, and I intend to be in the Chair tomorrow, very fully, to chair the debate. I would be happy, if the House willed it, to sit up all night in the Chair to hear colleagues—it is a pleasure and it is my responsibility—but how much time is allocated is not a matter for me. The Leader of the House will have heard that there is some interest in having the maximum possible time allocated for this important purpose.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Item 6 on today’s Order Paper relates to the sitting of the House on 2 December, and we can talk all night on it, if necessary, in order to reach a conclusion. What I cannot find on the Order Paper is the extension of the moment of interruption, which has been referred to as and almost assumed to be 10 pm tomorrow. I assume the Leader of the House will table a motion tomorrow morning dealing with when the moment of interruption will occur. If that is the process, the Leader of the House has until tomorrow morning to make up his mind whether it is until 10 pm or 11.30 pm. Alternatively, does the motion have to be tabled tonight and, if so, could you advise the House as to whether it is amendable?
Mr Speaker
The short answer is that it does have to be tabled by the close of business tonight and, yes, that motion will be amendable. I hope that is helpful.
Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. First, for your information, let me say that the fleet-of-foot Scottish National party is already tabling an amendment to the motion. I have two points about order that I hope you can help me with. First, have Prime Minister’s questions been cancelled at such short notice before? Secondly, does such a step need the consent of the House?
Mr Speaker
The short answer to the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil)—I am advised by the right hon. Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond) that I have pronounced that correctly, and I would not dare argue with him on that matter—is that, yes, such a proposition from the Government of course requires the assent of the House and that motion 6 is before the House, so I think we are fairly clear about that. The hon. Gentleman asks me whether this has happened before. He is quite an experienced denizen of this House and he will know that there are precedents for most things. The short answer is that, yes, Prime Minister’s questions have been cancelled—relatively recently, in fact—at relatively short notice before. He can consult the record, but I think it related to marking the unsurpassed tenure of Her Majesty the Queen. That was the occasion, at least most recently; there are precedents for these things.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I am very grateful for what you said earlier about manuscript amendments. Many new Members have been asking me what they are. Of course, their name does not mean that they are hand-written, but it does mean that as long as things are in order when they are tabled you would be open to the possibility of amendments that do not get tabled until tomorrow morning. There has also been some confusion about the difference between the Table Office and the Vote Office. It is right to say that the motion has been available in the Table Office from the moment the Government tabled it, but it has not been available in the Vote Office. [Interruption.] Oh, grow up! Would it not on this occasion be a good idea for this to be published formally, so that it is available for all Members of the House in both the Vote Office and the Table Office?
Mr Speaker
I think it would be better if it were available in both. I am advised by he who knows, to whom I am grateful, that the motion has been available in the Vote Office since 12.56 pm.
Look, we are where we are. I genuinely thank the Leader of the House for what he has said, and his attempt to provide clarification here and there. It is so much better if we can proceed in a consensual manner on matters of procedure. We acknowledge the existence of differences of opinion on the substance—differences of opinion that will exist right across the country—but we must do our business in an efficient, orderly and, where possible in terms of procedure, consensual fashion. I think the point is made, and it should not need to be revisited on subsequent occasions.
Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. This relates to a different point. I wish to bring to the House’s attention, and seek your guidance about, what happened in the House of Lords last night. Owing to the disgraceful way the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills has backtracked on its clear commitment to this House to uphold the will of this House and to introduce the market rent only option for tied pubco licensees, our noble friends in the other place took it upon themselves to take the unprecedented step of introducing the same concept into a second Bill. There is confusion about what will now happen. May I seek your advice as to not only how we now proceed from a legislative point of view, but how we bring BIS Ministers to this House to get them to explain that they will actually respect the will of the House and do what they agreed to do at the Dispatch Box?
Mr Speaker
The short answer to the hon. Gentleman, whom I thank for his point of order, is twofold. First, I had no advance notice of it. I am not complaining about that, but I am simply saying that it makes it difficult for me to give any authoritative verdict from the Chair at this time. Secondly, I say to him that he is as dogged a terrier as any Back-Bench Member of this House—I hope he will take that in the positive spirit in which I intend it—and he will not let go of the issue. He has pursued it over a very long period with exemplary tenacity, from which other Members could learn, and I think that he will return to it.
I do not know whether the Government have any plan—I am not aware of it—to come to the House to explain their thinking or how they believe their conduct now is compatible with what had previously been said. I know where the hon. Gentleman sits and I know that he seeks to catch my eye, and I am always happy to try to facilitate his interrogating the Government on this and indeed other matters. I hope that he will hold his horses for now. If he wants to have a further conversation with me when I am more in the loop, I am happy to try to assist.
I thank the Leader of the House, the Chief Whip and the shadow Leader of the House for their interest and attendance, and if there are no further points of order, perhaps we can now move to the ten-minute rule motion.
Consumer Protection (Standards of Fire Resistance of Children’s Fancy Dress and Play Costumes Etc)
(8 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision about the standards of fire resistance, and relevant labelling requirements, in relation to children’s fancy dress and play costumes; and for connected purposes.
The past 20 years have seen a huge evolution in the way children play and dress up, and we need our legislation to catch up. When I was a child, dressing up meant raiding a box containing mum’s old clothes, hats and shoes, and going to parties meant wearing my best dress. However, what my era—the late 1950s and early 1960s—suffered from was dangerous flammable nightwear. Every year, up until 1964, many small children were admitted to hospital with horrific burns, and indeed many died. In 1964 the Daily Mail led a campaign for safer nightwear, and later that year this House decided to act. The nightwear standard became law and was updated in 1985.
Professor Richard Horrocks of Bolton University, who is an expert in textiles, said:
“We have over 50 years of experience during which time the fire statistics have shown that fire injuries to children are in low single figures per annum, and sometimes at zero.”
That is the result of the nightwear standard, yet despite the fantastic reduction in flame injuries, it took the EU until 2007 before it chose to adopt a similar nightwear standard. Since that era of the dressing-up box, a whole new multi-billion pound industry has grown up. As dress-up costumes are classed as toys by the EU, our children are less protected than if they were wearing nightwear. In his briefing to me, the chief fire officer for Bedfordshire fire and rescue service, Paul Fuller, said:
“Dressing up clothes are not always worn just for play but appear to be increasingly worn as nightwear or normal clothes. The use of naked flames is more prevalent, particularly candles at events such as Diwali, Christmas, Halloween, birthdays, barbecues etc.”
Toys are tested against the rate of spread of the flame, which is based on the ability of a child to drop or run away from a burning toy. In his “Watchdog” interview, Paul Fuller also said:
“These are toys they can’t drop, or walk away from. And so I think that the test ought to be at least the same as the test for children’s nightwear, which is much more stringent.”
I agree with him.
In the United States, a child’s dress-up garment offers a much higher level of protection: it must not catch fire for at least 3.5 seconds after exposure to a flame. Currently “toy” dress-up costumes in Europe and in the UK are tested under the toy safety directive EN71-2, which only offers protection at a burning rate of 3 cm per second. That is enormously fast on a small child. If that same child was wearing a nightdress in the UK with our BS 5722 standard, the rate allowable would be 3 cm in 2.5 seconds. That may be the difference between life and death.
It is hard to keep small children away from fire hazard. As Eunan Tiernan, consultant at Salisbury district hospital who deals with burns victims, said:
“The burns that you get from flames are often full thickness, which means that you need to have skin grafting...they can be life changing.”
The British Retail Consortium said:
“We do however believe that the flammability test EN71-2 is no longer fit for purpose. Since this test was introduced in 1979, the design of dress up outfits has got more complicated as has their popularity. The test has not kept pace with the outfit designs and no longer effectively assesses all the risks.”
We are failing our children with EU toy safety standards that are considered not fit for purpose by the BRC, so why does the UK not simply change the EU-wide toy classification? Well, if the UK wanted to prepare or amend an EU standard, it would have to inform the Commission and the standardisation bodies. All 28 countries would have to meet and consult, and only if they were all in agreement would they give their findings to a commission that would then transpose it into a directive for all member states. That is sclerotic, and while the snail-like process of the EU grinds on, our UK children are vulnerable to horrific burns.
In September, the Business Secretary requested that Trading Standards carry out nationwide spot checks on retailers selling fancy dress costumes in the UK. The costumes will only be subjected to flammability testing to assess whether they meet the current EU safety standards, which are the very same standards that the BRC has condemned as not fit for purpose. Media star Claudia Winkleman knows only too well from personal experience the horror of a child’s costume catching alight. I pay tribute to her high-profile awareness campaign, which has led to many of our high street stores voluntarily making their play clothes to the higher nightwear standard. However, as the standard is only voluntary, there will still be inferior products on the market. It is hard to sort out the good from the bad, as price is not an indicator of safety.
Good Housekeeping magazine recently tested some widely available Halloween costumes, all of which met the current EU standards. Interestingly, the cheapest in its flammability test was also the safest. The Aldi cat costume at £3.99 did not catch light at all, whereas Sainsbury’s fangtastic vampire costume at £13 took only five seconds to catch light. A Poundland “Frozen” Halloween dress at £4 took only five seconds to catch light, and a TK Maxx pumpkin costume at £12.99 took four seconds. Choosing a play costume is a minefield for consumers.
The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents figures for fire-related injuries show that in 2013, around Halloween time, there was a 37% increase on the 2012 figures, which means that things are getting worse. Regardless of Trading Standards findings, if the Government wanted to change the law quickly, they would have to do it through this Parliament. I wish to make it clear that I am asking not to change the designation of these toys to clothes, but to insist that the flammability level is the same standard as the nightwear designation. As Professor Richard Horrocks said:
“It’s a proven standard, and it works, and it’s well tried.”
What is more, it protects children.
I have consulted the House Library and found that
“reclassifying fancy dress costumes as clothes may not be the best way to achieving the objective of imposing tighter safety regulations on this sort of item.”
However, some types of clothing, such as nightwear, are subject to specific national regulations. That is domestic rather than EU legislation, and it provides a precedent for the UK legislating in this way without breaching EU law. It reflects the general principle that EU legislation sets minimum European-wide standards, which do not prevent member states from putting in place national legislation that goes beyond them—sometimes that is called gold-plating.
The most expedient thing that our Government could do is insert a statutory instrument in existing UK legislation, which would require any children’s dress-up costumes for sale in the UK to carry a higher British standard for flammability in addition to the current toy standard. Our gold-plated standard could be adopted in time throughout Europe, but the primary concern of our Government must be to protect children in the UK and to do it as quickly as possible. Too many young children are already living with the consequences of having highly flammable dress-up costumes.
The Chief Fire Officers Association is now calling for this classification to be changed, so that safety standards for fancy dress costumes are stepped up, and nightwear protection seems to be the way to go. I want our Government to lead the way in improving fire safety for our children in the way they did in 1964. We must not wait any longer, because more children will suffer the consequences of this failing, substandard toy directive. Europe can follow us if it wants to, but I want this Parliament to bring in, as quickly as possible, a statutory instrument to protect our children.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Mrs Anne Main, Nadine Dorries, Kelvin Hopkins, Paul Scully, Mr Philip Hollobone, Mrs Anne-Marie Trevelyan, Mr Graham Brady, Mr John Baron, Lady Hermon, Mr Stewart Jackson and Tim Loughton present the Bill.
Mrs Anne Main accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 11 March 2016 and to be printed (Bill 102).
Immigration Bill (Programme) (No. 2)
Ordered,
That the Order of 13 October 2015 (Immigration Bill (Programme)) be varied as follows:
(1) Paragraphs (4) and (5) of the Order shall be omitted.
(2) Proceedings on Consideration shall be taken in the order shown in the first column of the following Table.
(3) The proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the times specified in the second column of the Table.
Proceedings | Time for conclusion of proceedings |
|---|---|
New Clauses, new Schedules, amendments to Schedules relating to Part 1 or 2; new Clauses, new Schedules, amendments to Clauses and amendments to Schedules relating to immigration detention | Two hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion for this order |
New Clauses, new Schedules, amendments to Clauses and amendment to Schedules relating to asylum or support for certain categories of migrant; remaining proceedings on Consideration | 6.00pm on the day on which proceedings on Consideration are commenced |
(4) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 7.00pm on the day on which proceedings on Consideration are commenced.—(James Brokenshire.)
Immigration Bill
(8 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
15:28 - The House divided: - Ayes: 256 / Noes: 312 - Question accordingly negatived.
15:43 - The House divided: - Ayes: 257 / Noes: 309 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:01 - The House divided: - Ayes: 259 / Noes: 313 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:16 - The House divided: - Ayes: 260 / Noes: 304 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:59 - The House divided: - Ayes: 307 / Noes: 245 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Mr Speaker
I call the spokesperson for the Scottish National party. Mr Kerr?
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
Stuart McDonald, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker
Indeed. I am grateful. I had not received intelligence as to who was going to speak for the SNP, but the hon. Gentleman is here and he will be heard.
Mr Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 17—Residential Tenancies: repeal of provisions of the Immigration Act 2014—
‘(1) The Immigration Act 2014 is amended as follows.
(2) Omit sections 20-37, 74 (2)(a) and Schedule 3.”
Repeals the provisions of the Immigration Act 2014 in relation to the right to rent.
Amendment 18, in clause 1, page 1, line 9, at end insert—
‘(3A) The matters to which the Director must have regard in pursuance of his or her functions include the provision of assistance and support to victims of non-compliance in the labour market, as defined under subsection (3)(1).’
To ensure that the functions of the Director of Labour Market Enforcement are exercised for the purpose of protecting the victims of labour market exploitation and to make this explicit on the face of the Bill, mirroring section 41 of the Modern Slavery Act in respect of the Anti-Slavery Commissioner established by that Act.
Amendment 19, page 5, line 2, leave out clause 8.
To omit the clause on the new illegal working offence and maintain the status quo.
Amendment 20, in clause 8, page 5, line 9, after “if” insert “without reasonable cause”.
To provide for a defence against the offence of illegal working.
Amendment 33, in clause 9, page 7, line 11, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
“(1) In section 21 of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 (offence of knowingly employing illegal worker), leave out subsection (1) and substitute—
(1) A person commits an offence if he knowingly or recklessly employs an adult subject to immigration control, where—
(a) this adult has not been granted leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom, or
(b) this adult’s leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom—
(i) is invalid,
(ii) has ceased to have effect (whether by reason of curtailment, revocation, cancellation, passage of time or otherwise), or
(iii) is subject to a condition preventing him from accepting the employment.”
To restrict the criminal offence of “employing illegal worker” to where this has been done “knowingly or recklessly”.
Amendment 47, page 7, line 36, in clause 10, leave out “Scotland or”.
Removes the power for the Secretary of State to make regulations relating to illegal working extending to Scotland.
Amendment 48, page 7, leave out line 41.
Prevents the Secretary of State making regulations that confer functions on Scottish Ministers in relation to illegal working.
Amendment 49, page 8, line 5, leave out “an Act of the Scottish Parliament or”.
Definitional change for purposes of amendments 47 and 48.
Amendment 50, page 8, line 6, leave out “under such an Act or”.
Definitional change for the purposes of amendment 49.
Amendment 51, in clause 11, page 8, line 13, leave out “Scotland or”.
Removes the power for the Secretary of State to make regulations relating to illegal working in relation to private hire vehicles extend to Scotland.
Amendment 52, page 8, leave out line 18.
Prevents the Secretary of State making regulations that confer functions on Scottish Ministers in relation to illegal working relating to private hire vehicles.
Amendment 53, page 8, line 25, leave out paragraph (b).
Definitional change for purposes of amendments 51 and 52.
Amendment 35, page 9, line 4, leave out clauses 13 to 16.
Removes the extension of the right to rent legislation in the Bill.
Amendment 46, in clause 13, page 9, line 31, at end insert—
‘(5A) A landlord will not commit an offence under subsection (1) if—
(a) the landlord enters a residential tenancy agreement with an organisation or person who is supporting an adult mentioned in in subsection (2);
(b) the rental payment received by the landlord as a result of this tenancy does not significantly exceed the costs that are incurred by the landlord for having the adult occupy the premises.”.
Ensures that a landlord who has agreed by working with an organisation/charity to provide accommodation to support failed asylum seekers are exempt from committing an offence.
Amendment 22, page 10, line 4, at end insert—
‘(8A) A landlord does not commit an offence under this section during the period of 28 days specified in section 33D (4).”
To protect a landlord/landlady from prosecution for renting to a person without a right to rent during the period for which they are prohibited from evicting the tenant under section 33D(4).
Amendment 23, in clause 14, page 12, line 1, leave out subsection (2).
To remove the provisions providing for summary eviction.
Amendment 24, page 13, line 18, leave out “Sections 33D and” and substitute “Section”.
See explanatory note for amendment 23.
Amendment 25, page 13, leave out line 24.
See explanatory note for amendment 23.
Amendment 26, page 13, line 26, leave out subsections (5) to (7).
See explanatory note for amendment 23.
Amendment 54, in clause 16, page 17, line 7, leave out “, Scotland”.
Removes the power for the Secretary of State to make regulations in relation to the right to rent scheme extending to Scotland.
Amendment 55, page 17, line 10, leave out “, Scotland”.
See explanatory statement for amendment 54.
Amendment 56, page 17, leave out line 17.
Prevents the Secretary of State making regulations that confer functions on Scottish Ministers in relation to the right to rent scheme.
Amendment 57, page 17, line 27, leave out paragraph (c).
Definitional change for the purposes of amendments 55 and 56.
Amendment 41, in clause 57, page 50, line 4, at end insert—
“(7) Regulations made under—
(a) section 10;
(b) section 11; or
(c) section 16
of this Act shall not come into force in Scotland without the consent of the Scottish Parliament.”
Ensures regulations made under the relevant sections cannot extend to Scotland without the consent of the Scottish Parliament.
Amendment 21, in clause 58, page 50, line 9, at end insert—
‘(2A) Section 13 shall come into force subject to the conditions set out subsection (2B).
(2B) The Secretary of State must prepare and publish an evaluation of the national implementation of provisions contained in sections 20 to 37 and Schedule 3 to the Immigration Act 2014, and must lay a copy of the report before Parliament.
(2C) The report in subsection (2B) must include an assessment of the impact of those provisions on—
(a) individuals who have a protected characteristic as defined in Part 2, Chapter 1 of the Equality Act 2010, and
(b) British citizens who do not hold a passport or UK driving licence.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament an evaluation of the national roll out of the 2014 Right to Rent Scheme before the new offences in clause 13 come into force.
New clause 8—Detention of persons—exempted persons—
In paragraph 16 of Schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971, after subsection (4) insert—
“(5) A person may not be detained under this paragraph if they are—
(a) a woman who—
(i) states that she is pregnant, where this is confirmed to be the case or,
(ii) is reasonably suspected to be pregnant by an immigration officer;
(b) a person whose initial claim for asylum to the United Kingdom was based on being a victim of one of the following:
(i) human trafficking;
(ii) torture;
(iii) sexual violence;
(c) a member of any other group as may be prescribed in regulations by the Secretary of State.”
This amendment would provide that pregnant women, people who claimed asylum as victims of trafficking, torture or sexual violence, and any other group prescribed by the Secretary of State, may not be detained pending an examination or decision by an immigration officer.
New clause 9—Time limit on detention—
In paragraph 16 of Schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971 after subsection (4) insert—
“(5) Subject to subsection (6), no person shall be detained under this paragraph for more than 28 days.
(6) Subsection (5) shall not apply where the person detained under this paragraph has a criminal conviction with a sentence of imprisonment for three months or more.”
This amendment provides that people shall not be detained pending an examination/a decision by an immigration officer for more than 28 days, unless they have a criminal conviction.
New clause 13—Review of Immigration Detention—
“(1) Before the end of the period of three months beginning on the day on which subsection (1) of section 32 comes into force, the Secretary of State must commission a report on detention under paragraph 16 of Schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971 that addresses the following matters—
(a) the process for, and detail of, introducing a statutory maximum limit of 28 days on the length of time an individual can be detained under that paragraph;
(b) how to reduce the number of people detained under that paragraph;
(c) how to minimise the length of time an individual is detained under that paragraph;
(d) the effectiveness of detention in meeting the Secretary of State’s objectives; and
(e) the effectiveness of procedures to review decisions to detain and to continue to detain.
(2) The Report must be published by a panel appointed by the Secretary of State.
(3) The panel appointed under subsection (2) must be independently chaired.
(4) On completion of the report, the Chair of the panel must send it to the Secretary of State.
(5) The Secretary of State must lay before parliament a copy of the report received under subsection (4).”
Reflecting the unanimous agreement of the House of Commons to the recommendations of the joint APPG on Refugees and APPG on Migration inquiry into immigration detention, the new clause requires the Secretary of State to appoint an independently-chaired panel to consider the issues raised therein and report to Parliament within three months of Schedule 7 to the Bill coming into force.
Amendment 32, in schedule 7, page 97, line 22, at end insert—
“(2A) The Secretary of State must grant a person bail if a person is detained under a provision mentioned in sub-paragraph (1) after no later than the 28 day following that on which the person was detained.”
To introduce a 28 day time limit on the amount of time a person can be kept in immigration detention.
Stuart C. McDonald
I am unashamedly moving lots of amendments, and there are several others that we on these Benches support too, which I will come to in due course. The large number of changes that we want reflects our hostility to this Bill, which we oppose outright and will vote against this evening as ill-conceived and regressive, and which will do little to move the country towards the Government’s increasingly ludicrous-looking net migration target. If the Bill passes, perhaps one or two of these amendments might provide a little comfort in an otherwise bleak piece of legislation.
New clauses 16 and 17 seek to rectify two provisions that exemplify for us where fundamental problems lie with this Bill. New clause 16 would put in place some restriction on one of the many significant, inappropriate and untrammelled powers that the Bill passes to immigration officers and other officials. A large part of the Bill seems to be a wish list of powers from UK immigration staff, which the Government unquestioningly want to hand over to them.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
If I heard the hon. Gentleman correctly he does not like the Bill, and his amendments and new clauses might make it a little more likeable. If they were all passed, would he be in the Aye Lobby this evening?
Stuart C. McDonald
We have done our best to make the Bill slightly more palatable, but even with all our amendments I regret to say that we would still find the damage that the Bill will cause unacceptable. Regardless of what happens today, therefore, we will be voting against Third Reading.
New clause 17, would repeal the right-to-rent provisions introduced by the Immigration Act 2014, provisions which, like their successor provisions in this Bill, will have limited effect on the Government’s pretend net migration target, but are none the less deemed necessary to make the Government look tough on immigration. As I said on Second Reading, it is in reality immigration theatre—acting out the part of immigration enforcer. But while there is little evidence that it will achieve much in terms of immigration control, its consequences on cohesion could be significant.
Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman talks about looking tough and effective. Does he not agree that that is the challenge for the Government in the Bill? We want to see immigration measures that are effective, not that just appear to be tough.
Stuart C. McDonald
I agree that we need to enforce the immigration rules and laws that we have put in place, but the problem is that the resources and manpower are not being put in to do that. We do not need new powers and rules; we simply need resources to enforce the rules that already exist. I suggest that some of the rules already go far too far.
New clause 16 is a modest response to clause 13, which creates wide powers for immigration officials to close premises for 48 hours before any court involvement is required in certain cases of suspected illegal working. These could have very significant consequences, including for perfectly innocent workers whose place of work is closed for up to two days. Provision for statutory compensation, which our amendment would introduce, is designed to ensure that notices are not issued in an oppressive manner by immigration officials.
New clause 17 is without doubt the more significant of the two new clauses. It would remove the right-to-rent provisions in the 2014 Act. We have signed other amendments in relation to right to rent, starting with the crucial amendment 35, which would remove the criminal sanctions and what we regard as Dickensian eviction processes from the Bill. Amendment 46 is designed to prevent those letting out rooms on essentially a charitable basis from being criminalised. Finally amendments 54 to 57 remove powers for the Secretary of State to legislate by way of regulations for new Scottish right-to-rent provisions, with immense effect on devolved Scottish housing law.
We also support changes proposed by Labour Members such as amendment 22, which seems designed to fix what we can only presume to be a drafting anomaly under which a landlord or landlady would be guilty of an offence for renting to a person with no right to rent, even during the period of 28 days when they could not evict that person. We also fully back their amendments 23 to 26, which would remove the obscene proposals that would see landlords and landladies turned into not only immigration officers but High Court judges, and would see summary evictions without judicial oversight.
I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East (Anne McLaughlin) will have more—much more—to say on these dreadful and draconian measures if given the opportunity, Madam Deputy Speaker. Our view is essentially the same as it was on Second Reading. Right to rent is not evidence-based, but in fact flies in the face of the evidence provided by the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants, and indeed parts of the Government’s own pilot review. It is unfair to place these duties and now criminal sanctions on landlords, and it will lead to inadvertent discrimination or racism, with foreign nationals and even British citizens without documents at risk of being rejected from a tenancy whenever there is a safe and easy option of a British passport holder to rent to. It will push more families away from authorities and immigration control, making enforcement harder, not easier.
The one part of the Bill from which something useful might actually emerge is the first few clauses of part 1, and the provisions for a Director of Labour Market Enforcement, which we welcome. It is sad that its presence in an immigration Bill suggests that the new role might be seen as one primarily concerned with enforcing immigration laws, so we have joined our Labour colleagues in supporting amendment 18, which is designed to ensure that the functions of the director are exercised for the purpose of protecting the victims of labour market exploitation.
More fundamental is amendment 19, which seeks to remove the offence of illegal working. We share the widespread concerns that, like other offences, it will have little effect in terms of immigration control, but will have other significant adverse effects. In this case, the negative consequence is to undermine the decent work that the Government have been doing to tackle slavery and trafficking. The Bill will drive exploited, undocumented workers further underground, and leave them more at risk of exploitation, rather than less.
While on this issue, we know that James Ewins’ report on domestic workers is with the Government but as yet not available to Members. We question why that is the case, and when we will be able to see and debate it in order to inform what should happen with this Bill if it gets a Third Reading.
Finally, in relation to part 1 of the Act, amendment 33 seeks to ensure that employers who innocently and inadvertently employ a person without the right to work are not criminalised by the Bill. It does so by applying a threshold of “knowingly or recklessly” to the offence of employing an adult without permission to work, instead of merely requiring that they have “reasonable cause to believe” that the employee may be such a person. We are concerned that the current test might catch people who are not the intended target.
There are two further sets of amendments in this first grouping that I need to speak to. The first set relates to how a number of these provisions would be implemented in Scotland. Clauses 10, 11 and 16 all include what I am told are referred to as Henry VIII clauses—broad powers to legislate for Scotland, and indeed Northern Ireland and in one case Wales. Whereas provisions on licensed premises, private hire vehicles and right to rent are set out in significant detail in schedules to the Bill, and subject to full legislative scrutiny, that is not the case for Scotland. Instead, the Secretary of State is given the sweeping power to legislate in a similar way for Scotland by way of regulation. The power includes the ability to amend Acts of the Scottish Parliament, without any consideration of that Parliament’s view on the matter—and that is despite the fact that liquor licensing, private hire car licensing and housing are all devolved matters.
I understand that Parliament has long been hostile to Henry VIII clauses, and rightly so. These clauses are particularly pernicious for the reasons given, and so should be rejected. That can be done by supporting amendments 47 to 53, which would remove the power to regulate for Scotland in this way, thereby requiring primary legislation and the full scrutiny that that entails. Alternatively, amendment 41 requires that any such regulations would require the consent of the Scottish Parliament, again enabling proper scrutiny. That is surely only right and proper in the circumstances.
Finally, on new clause 13 and amendment 32, this House witnessed a powerful Backbench Business debate back in September, led by the hon. Members for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield), for Bedford (Richard Fuller) and for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes), who I know will all want, if they can, to speak on the issue again today. On that day there were strong speeches on all sides of the House as it united to tell the Government that immigration detention without a fixed and certain time limit was no longer acceptable. We are the only country in the EU without a time limit so it is inexcusable for this country not to operate one. We on the SNP Benches would prefer that we move straight to a position where immigration bail is granted after 28 days, as set out in amendment 32. Alternatively, we will support new clause 13 to see progress towards that goal.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
My hon. Friend will be aware that the immigration detention inquiry panel heard evidence from a consultant psychiatrist that those who are detained for more than 30 days suffer significantly more mental health problems than those detained for fewer than 30 days. Does my hon. Friend agree that this evidence reinforces the need for new clause 32?
Stuart C. McDonald
I agree entirely. That is one of a huge number of reasons that were highlighted during the Backbench Business debate earlier this year.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (SNP)
Does my hon. Friend share my concerns for the wellbeing of the migrants being detained—an experience described by one man as his three years in a cage? The conditions in which migrants are detained lack any shred of dignity. Does my hon. Friend concur with me that the Home Office seems to have forgotten that human rights are universal and not conditional upon immigration status?
Stuart C. McDonald
My hon. Friend makes her point powerfully. The issue is not just a time limit going forward, but conditions of detention and moving away from routine use of immigration detention to make it a rare exception, rather than almost the norm.
In conclusion, there is widespread demand for change, and perhaps if there is one— just one—piece of silver lining on the dark cloud represented by this Bill, it will be a time limit on detention.
Rebecca Harris (Castle Point) (Con)
As I have had cause to mention previously in the Chamber, immigration was the single most important issue for my constituents in Castle Point at the recent election and remains so. I am sure many hon. Members in all parts of the House find that to be the case. Having spent several weeks sitting on the Committee that considered the Bill, I fully support it as the Government have drafted it.
I shall speak in particular on new clauses 8 and 9, dealing with time limits on detention. Although I fully appreciate the thinking behind such amendments, I cannot support them because introducing a time limit on detention is, I believe, a poor approach to an important issue. I believe also that new clause 13 is premature as we await the results of several Government reviews of the whole system of detention.
The Home Office already has a policy to safeguard against unnecessary or arbitrary detention of individuals. Detention must be used sparingly and for the shortest period possible, and cases must be assessed on an individual basis.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
I am conscious that we are covering ground that we covered in Committee. The hon. Lady will recognise that although that is the principle of the Home Office, there is powerful evidence that the Home Office is failing to achieve those objectives, as shown by the fact that many people are detained for months, and some for years. A statutory limit could therefore bring a culture change in the approach to the issue.
Rebecca Harris
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but the Home Office is undertaking three separate reviews of the process, which makes the new clauses premature while we await the results of much more detailed work.
Richard Fuller
I appreciate my hon. Friend’s point about the need for those reviews to inform the debate. Does she share my disappointment that although the reviews have been pending for many months, we in this House do not have that information as we deliberate the amendment before us today?
Rebecca Harris
I recognise the frustration of my hon. Friend and others about that, but properly conducted reviews can take time and we have urgent business, which is to deal with many of the measures in the Bill. I feel confident that the Government will deal appropriately with the issue in due course.
In instances where an individual is detained while their case is being investigated, regular reviews can be undertaken to ensure that such detention remains lawful and proportionate. I feel sure that subsequent to the findings of those three reviews, any improvements that can be made will be made by the Government. In addition to this, detention is always a matter for the judiciary. Cases where an individual has been detained are rightly subject to scrutiny and oversight by the courts, which have the power to examine any case as they see fit. The judiciary is clear that factors such as risk to the public and an individual’s immigration history are key in deciding the appropriate timescale for detention. It is correct that judicial authority and experience should be the guiding principle in such cases, and not a random figure imposed by politicians in the Chamber today.
Imposing a maximum time limit of 28 days, for example, is not only arbitrary, but potentially dangerous and irresponsible. Such a limit risks allowing all sorts of individuals to effectively and maliciously subvert the rules. They can refuse to co-operate with the authorities, safe in the knowledge that in doing so they will be released after just four weeks. I need hardly remind the House of the consequences that such a rule would have in the case of someone such as Abu Qatada. This surely cannot be the intention of the House. Placing a time limit on the detention of individuals could be an irresponsible risk to our national security and, especially in the light of recent events around the world, I cannot support the amendments and I urge other Members to oppose them.
Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
I shall speak to the amendments in my name. I hope it will be helpful to the House if I indicate as I go through them which of those amendments I currently intend to press to a Division, so that the Minister will know.
I start with the labour market provisions and say at the outset that we on the Labour Benches support the establishment of a director of labour market enforcement. This will provide strategic leadership, which is much needed and very welcome. The real issues in relation to the director are resources and focus. In Committee we heard evidence from Professor Metcalf, who is chair of the Migration Advisory Committee. He said that he understood the issues of public finances, but he did not think the enforcement bodies had enough resources. He pointed to the fact that on the evidence in the report on low-skilled work, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs could be expected to visit any given premises once every 250 years and that there was the prospect of a prosecution every 1 million years.
I accept that any investigation would be intelligence-led and targeted, but those figures are stark and point to the problem of resourcing. As another example, the Gangmasters Licensing Authority investigations dropped from 134 in 2011 to 68 in 2014. Clearly, we cannot deal with resources here in this debate, but amendment 18 is intended to give a focus to the director, to ensure that the functions of the director are exercised for the purpose of protecting the victims of labour market exploitation and to make this explicit on the face of the Bill. This mirrors the way in which the Modern Slavery Act 2015 dealt with the functions of the Anti-Slavery Commissioner established by that Act.
There is therefore a good precedent for the amendment. It provides clarity and it avoids any misconception or temptation about this role, which is being introduced in an immigration Bill—namely, that it should be about labour market enforcement, not immigration control. The experience of other countries suggests that this is the right focus for this important role.
Amendment 19 would omit the proposed illegal working offence and maintain the status quo. Time and again in the House and elsewhere the point has been made about the exploitation of the vulnerable. The Migration Advisory Committee reported in 2014 that
“the combination of non-compliance and insufficient enforcement can lead to instances of severe exploitation, particularly of vulnerable groups such as migrants.”
The Committee said in the same report:
“We were struck on our visits around the country by the amount of concern that was expressed by virtually everyone we spoke to about the exploitation of migrants in low-skilled jobs.”
There is a great deal of other evidence to the same effect. What is desperately needed is more resources for inspections, a focus on exploitative employers and a mechanism to encourage employees to have the confidence to come forward. The new provision cuts across that.
Clause 8 is likely to ensure that the most exploited and vulnerable will become even more so; in effect, it will simply strengthen the hand of gangmasters over exploited workers. It also fails the test of necessity. There are already criminal provisions relating to those who have breached immigration rules and there is no need to introduce a new criminal offence for employees. We are talking about the most vulnerable and exploited people, who need the confidence to come forward if the director is to achieve the functions set out in the Bill. My current intention is to push amendment 19 to a vote, although obviously I will listen to what the Minister has to say.
I turn to amendment 20, which also relates to the offence of illegal working. It is a strict or stark offence: an employee who simply does not have the right immigration status commits an offence and has no defence at all. I shall give an example of the injustice likely to be caused. If an employee in good faith relies on his or her employer to sponsor him or her, but something wrong in the process means that as a matter of law, and unbeknown to them, they do not have the right immigration status, they automatically commit an offence and have no “reasonable excuse” defence. That cannot be right for a new criminal offence in this field. With all due respect to the Director of Public Prosecutions, it is not good enough to say that the prosecution must weed out those cases. There needs to be a defence in statute to cover cases of mistake and error that are not the employee’s fault.
I turn to the provisions on landlords and the right to rent. The background is important during this Report debate. The Immigration Act 2014 introduced a civil penalty scheme in relation to the right to rent. That was discussed in the House; there were concerns about the impact it would have in practice and in particular about whether there would be any discriminatory effects. Assurances were given about piloting and properly evaluating the civil penalty scheme before it was rolled out. This Bill, in 2015, proposes to extend the civil penalty scheme by introducing a criminal penalty before there has been a full and meaningful evaluation.
As was mentioned on Second Reading, the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants carried out an evaluation showing, alarmingly, that 42% of landlords said that the right to rent provisions made them less likely to consider accommodating someone who did not have a British passport. At that stage, we did not have the advantage of the Home Office evaluation, which was made available in Committee, as the Minister said it would be. That evaluation, however, was small and narrow. The Home Office itself said that it was not sure about the statistical significance of part of the evaluation and that the sample sizes were too small to draw any robust conclusions. We say that the assurance in relation to the civil penalty scheme has not been fulfilled and there is no warrant for extending the scheme to include a criminal sanction.
Amendment 22 deals with the position of landlords who, under the current provisions, would automatically commit a criminal offence the moment they were served notice that they had a tenant without the right to rent. They would be criminalised notwithstanding the period between receipt of that knowledge, normally by a notice, and their best prospect of getting anybody evicted. A reasonable, objective landlord who received a notice and acted on it immediately would still be criminalised during the process. There cannot be any sensible or compelling case for that state of affairs, which causes great concern to landlords and puts them in an impossible position. I understand that the Government may be considering the issue and obviously I shall listen carefully to what the Minister says. On the face of it, however, it is difficult to see that there could ever be a case for such a measure.
Amendments 23 to 26 all relate to the important issue of summary eviction. The Bill introduces a fast-track process—innovative in this field—in which a notice from a landlord stands as a court order, leading to provision for summary eviction. Some 30 or 40 years ago, the House set its face against summary evictions for a very good reason: there were too many examples of locks being changed and families literally being put out on to the street to sleep on the pavements. Everybody agreed that there should be due process before individuals and families, particularly families with children, were evicted. The Bill cuts through that protection for no good reason. In this country in the 21st century no group of individuals should—for whatever reason, and whether renting lawfully or not—be subject to summary eviction proceedings that, as I said, we turned our back on a long time ago.
I move on to immigration detention, which has already been touched on and is a matter of increasing concern to many in this House and beyond. The fact of immigration detention causes real distress and anxiety, particularly among vulnerable groups, and its indefinite nature adds to that. There is strong evidence of the impact on varying groups, particularly women. I think I am right in saying that the UK is the only country in Europe that does not have a time limit of any sort on immigration detention. That has been the subject of inquiry by the all-party groups on refugees and on migration. They concluded:
“We believe that the United Kingdom has a proud tradition of upholding justice and the right to liberty. However, the continued use of indefinite detention puts this proud tradition at risk.”
The reforms suggested by the cross-party joint APPG group were backed by the House of Commons when they were debated in September this year, and a motion supporting them was passed. The issue is one of increasing concern and justifying indefinite immigration detention is increasingly difficult. Amendment 32 is intended to deal with that by introducing a 28-day limit, which many people feel is the right one.
New clause 13 is intended to allow a review by an independently chaired panel to consider the issues and report to Parliament within three months; it is not premised on a fixed period. It is important that there is progress on these issues. Immigration detention is a real cause for concern and this is an opportunity to do something necessary.
The Minister for Immigration (James Brokenshire)
The hon. Gentleman just said that new clause 13 does not prescribe a particular length of time, yet paragraph (a) specifies a 28-day time limit. Will he confirm that that is his position?
Keir Starmer
I apologise. I meant that it proposes a review of the time limit rather than a time limit itself, and that therefore, given the nature of the review, it would be open to it to look at other options. There are shared concerns across the House about immigration detention and its indefinite nature. There will be disagreements as to the precise time limit, if there is to be one, and that can be discussed, but at this stage sitting back and simply accepting the status quo is not an acceptable way of proceeding. However, I will obviously listen to what the Minister has to say on this.
Richard Fuller
Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that one of the values of a time limit is that it provides the detained person with some certainty about what is happening while they are being detained? We heard evidence, and we know from our constituents, that the difficulty is that people are put in detention and do not know what is going to happen to them, with consequential mental health, and other, impacts.
Keir Starmer
I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman. There is the fact of detention in the first place, covering a wide range of individuals detained for different reasons, and then there is its indefinite nature, which adds to the anxiety, because most terms of detention are for a fixed period that allows the individual to know when they may regain their liberty.
As I say, there will be debates about what the precise time limit should be, but sustaining a position of indefinite detention is no longer acceptable in the 21st century. It is not the position in almost all other countries in Europe, and it should not be so in this country.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
As somebody who served with the hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) and others on the Bill Committee, there is a terrible sense of déjà vu, to put it politely, or “Groundhog Day”, not so politely, about this debate. We had a lot of these debates and discussions in Committee. I hope that those who did not join me in voting as I did in Committee would at least recognise that it was a very thoughtful process in which we went through the whole Bill in great depth and a great raft of amendments were tabled and debated. However, even the Opposition parties managed to run out of steam, allowing the usual channels to pull stumps some little time before the Committee stage was scheduled to finish. I hope that that in no way suggests that we cantered with unseemly haste through the important issues that the Bill seeks to address.
My hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Rebecca Harris), who is no longer in her place, hit the nail on the head, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith) in Committee. This is probably one of the most important issues that this House and this Parliament will deal with. If we get it right, we will engender a sense of an understanding of fair play and that this place “gets it”. If we get it wrong, we will seem to be even more disengaged from the communities that we seek to serve.
I am lucky to represent a predominantly rural constituency where even a casual glance at the census returns would suggest that immigration was not an issue that would be raised on the doorstep or in meetings. However, even in rural North Dorset, it has been, and continues to be, such an issue.
Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP)
I represent a constituency that has a significant proportion of people who have come from other countries, and immigration was raised with me on the doorstep once in the course of a year. Parties such as the United Kingdom Independence party tend to do well in areas where there are few immigrants, so it is perception that is causing people to have a problem with immigration rather than reality.
Simon Hoare
This is noteworthy for Hansard—the hon. Lady and I have found something on which we agree. What we are seeking to do—this sits at the kernel of the Bill—is to shoot UKIP’s fox: the idea that the country, the Government, Parliament, Westminster or Whitehall has become rather soft and flabby on this issue and needs to—
Simon Hoare
Let me address the hon. Lady’s first intervention and then I will be happy to give way to her again.
Although I represent North Dorset, I have the most enormous pleasure—the first prize in the lottery of life—to be a Welshman. I was hoping for some supportive comments there, but no. I come from Cardiff—a very mixed, culturally diverse city, which, thank God, has hitherto had very little tension between the communities. However, it was becoming an issue back in the 2010 election, and people are very keen, irrespective of the immigrant make-up of a community, to address it. That is what this Bill is all about, and what all these amendments—
Simon Hoare
Before I give way to my hon. Friend I must first take the intervention from the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Anne McLaughlin).
Anne McLaughlin
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that rather than shooting UKIP’s fox with this Bill, the Government are allowing the party that has one single MP in this place to make the rules and are pandering to what it calls for?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)
Order. We are venturing into much broader aspects of the principles of the Bill rather than the amendments before us. I am happy for the hon. Gentleman to respond to the hon. Lady’s point, but then I would be very grateful if we moved back on to the amendments.
Simon Hoare
I have fallen into my usual trap, Madam Deputy Speaker. I always like to set a backdrop to my remarks, and I am trying to explain the kernel of the Bill, why it has come about, and why the amendments and new clauses are, in my judgment, fundamentally wrong.
The hon. Member for Glasgow North East has taken me neatly on to my second point—the amendments in her name and the names of her hon. Friends. The position of the separatists is entirely disingenuous on this issue. The hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald) told us that they would be unable to support the Bill not only if new clause 16 were not passed, but if the whole raft of other SNP amendments were not passed as well. We should not be unduly surprised by that, because in Committee we were able to tease out from their questioning of our witnesses that Members representing Scottish seats in the SNP interest believe in uncontrolled and unfettered immigration—an open-door policy. Moreover, they seek, on behalf of their friends in the Scottish Parliament, to assume to themselves powers and privileges reserved to this House with regard to the control of immigration, and suddenly, via the back door, to see it as a new devolved power. Anybody with a strand of Unionism and common sense in their body should seek to resist that, and that is why I will vote against the amendments.
In essence, at the heart of these amendments, SNP Members are seeking to encourage further devolution—further separation—and to have a greater tension between the regions and the countries of the United Kingdom. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Glasgow North East says, with her customary self-deprecatory humour, “Us?” Yes, I do mean the SNP. Government Members will seek to resist the devolution of power over the control of immigration into, let us be frank, a small island with incredibly porous borders, given our coastal and island nature. It would be folly to open a Pandora’s box of devolution with regard to immigration issues. This affects the whole of the United Kingdom.
Stuart C. McDonald
I rather think the hon. Gentleman is missing the point about the amendments and new clauses. The Bill has very detailed provisions for England and Wales, and in some cases for Northern Ireland, but it just provides the Secretary of State with a broad, sweeping power to do the same for Scotland, without any scrutiny in Parliament or in the Scottish Parliament. Even if the hon. Gentleman does not agree with us about getting approval from the Scottish Parliament, he should at least agree about getting rid of the regulatory powers so that this would have to be done in primary legislation, with full scrutiny in this House, rather than by a Henry VIII clause.
Simon Hoare
I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. All I would say to him in reply is that the Bill has been brought forward in the United Kingdom Parliament and has had full and forensic discussion both on Second Reading and in Committee, as it will today on Report and, doubtless, on Third Reading. I suggest he should say to his friends holding ministerial office and other positions of power in Scotland and the Scottish Parliament that, when they are in effect carrying out duties passed to them under a devolved settlement, they should ensure that how they deliver such policies and put them in place on the ground always reflects the national law of the land.
When I gave way to the hon. Gentleman, I was simply concluding that if the new clauses and amendments, which would in effect devolve immigration to Holyrood, were agreed to, the United Kingdom Government would by definition need to find ways of controlling the movement of people from Scotland south into England, and very possibly people going from the south to the north as well. As I have said, we teased out in Committee—both in the evidence sessions and the other sittings—the SNP’s firm commitment to have an open-door policy and no fetters on immigration. My constituents in the south of England will be grossly alarmed by that.
Anne McLaughlin
Can the hon. Gentleman tell the House anything that any SNP Member said that leads him to believe we support an open-door, open-borders policy? I cannot think of anything, and I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) cannot do so. What is the hon. Gentleman referring to?
Simon Hoare
Unlike Lord Green, I had no difficulty understanding what she and the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands), who knows precisely what I am referring to, said at any time in Committee. However, the tone and the tenor, the winks and the nods, and the direction of travel of the questions and the amendments in Committee—and, indeed, of the amendments today—can only lead one to assume that SNP Members, for reasons that are entirely respectable for them to deploy, do not believe in having any control of immigration at all. That is the narrative arising from the heartland of the hon. Lady’s speeches. The hon. Gentleman, who was also a member of the Public Bill Committee, told us that nobody raised with him the issue of immigration on the doorstep during the election campaign.
Mims Davies
I want to go back to our thoughtful discussions in Committee, in which the issues were well debated. I agree with my hon. Friends the Members for Castle Point (Rebecca Harris), for Norwich North (Chloe Smith) and for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), who said that immigration was the No. 1 issue on the doorstep. In Eastleigh post the by-election—we were third, before moving into second place and then absolutely came first—we had to reflect that fact in our deliberations. It was disingenuous to hear about one lawyer who represented a freedom of movement blog. Immigration was the No. 1 issue, and the caseload left us by the Labour party—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)
Order. The hon. Lady is hoping to catch my eye later in the debate. I suggest that she saves her very full intervention for then.
Simon Hoare
The good folk of Eastleigh, many of whom I got to know during the by-election, will no doubt breathe a huge sigh of relief at having a doughty champion in the form of my hon. Friend. She absolutely gets the point that if we are to have a sensible, vibrant and vivacious debate about politics and public affairs in this country, it is absolutely right for this House to address such issues through legislation—hence the Bill introduced by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Immigration.
Richard Fuller
In defending the pivotal role of immigration detention centres, will my hon. Friend defend the detention of pregnant women or the victims of human trafficking, torture or sexual violence? If not, will he support my new clause 8?
Simon Hoare
To answer my hon. Friend’s questions in reverse order, no and yes. Whether or not a woman is pregnant is immaterial. The issue is about the environment in which people are detained and the care and attention they are given, rather than about their status. I know the proximity of Yarl’s Wood to my hon. Friend’s constituency—from memory, it is in his constituency—but I would tell him that I heard, both from staff and from those detained, that they had seen people destroy their papers or hide their child under the bed, where they cannot be touched, when an aeroplane was on the tarmac waiting to take off to take them away. In my judgment and experience, which is all I can speak from, the staff approach such problems with huge sensitivity, often in very difficult circumstances.
Richard Fuller
I, too, think that the people we ask to manage detention centres do a good job in general. On a point of clarification, my concern arises not from my constituency’s proximity to a detention centre, but from the proximity of the rules to my ethical code. My hon. Friend mentions that the issue is about the care of people in detention centres. Is he aware of the case of PA, a pregnant woman detained in Yarl’s Wood? The Home Office has recently had to admit that she was not given proper antenatal care. Is not the issue that if we detain pregnant women, mistakes will be made, and we therefore need to protect ourselves and our ethics from such mistakes by exempting those people from the rules?
Simon Hoare
I do not wish to test your patience, Madam Deputy Speaker, or indeed that of the House, by straying too far, but my hon. Friend has made a valid point. I certainly am aware of that case, but I never think it is right to build a policy on the basis of one incident. Terrible things happen when women are pregnant, whether they are detained or just going about their ordinary business. Medical negligence can happen even to those outside prisons or detention centres. Nasty, upsetting and tragic things happen. He is absolutely right to say that such things should raise questions, and right hon. and hon. Members should continually ensure that those detained can access a range of care that is wide, deep, qualitative and professional. My hon. Friend is absolutely right, but I do not believe that one isolated incident should force us to say that immigration removal centres and the principle of detention are inherently wrong or unethical. As a practising Christian, I find no difficulty in reconciling good quality care in detention with my faith and ethical basis.
Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)
My hon. Friend said that the Bill was about fair play. The question of fair play is also at the heart of the amendments relating to pregnant women. I shall cite not an individual case but the Home Office guidance, which states that pregnant women are normally considered to be suitable for detention only in very exceptional circumstances. The issue is whether that guidance is being properly applied or whether it needs further legislative attention. We are concerned about having proper fair play for those people. I am sure that my hon. Friend’s constituents, and mine, are concerned about fair play for those in detention centres as well as about controlling our borders.
Simon Hoare
My hon. Friend makes an apposite point. This must all be about fairness, about robust regulations, about proper ministerial oversight and about the scrutiny of ministerial duties by this place. That is absolutely the right chain of command. We all know that things go wrong, whether in the healthcare system, in education, in the police or in the armed forces. Regulations are not necessarily followed to the letter, but—this is a horrible phrase that we all trot out and it sounds frightfully trite—lessons will be learned. I do not say this to be sycophantic, but my right hon. Friend the Minister has humanity and compassion at his core, and he will always ensure that those regulations are fair and that they are applied fairly.
On the subject of fairness, I want to say a few words about workers, employees, employers, landlords and housing. The hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras and I have discussed the fact that a survey might produce results that suggest x, y and z, and that we can extrapolate data from that, however small or large the sample pool is. The rules and regulations that now govern access to the private rental property market—certainly those that apply to affordable housing—are pretty strict and robust. In conjunction with the clauses in the Bill that introduce new responsibilities for employees and employers, one is tempted to say, not as a cheap, knocking political point, that the quantum has become so large due to the rather shy—nay, potentially deleterious—attitude of Labour when in government.
The Government and their agencies cannot seek to solve all these problems. That is why it is perfectly proper to expect a landlord who is just about to enter into a rental agreement, and his or her agent, to carry out the most forensic tests possible to ensure the legitimacy and qualification of the individual or family seeking accommodation. That will not place a particular onus on them. In order to avoid the scenario that the hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras has raised, the advice given by the Residential Landlords Association to its members and the advice given to the residential letting agencies will have to make it clear what their duties are. It will be important to stress to both that they are helping the Government and the country by playing an important role in addressing this issue.
That takes me from the right of access to housing to the question of access to work, from the point of view of the employee and the employer. The Bill is absolutely right to address these issues, and the amendments are at best mischievous and at worst devious as they attempt fundamentally to undermine the provisions. I have little doubt that employers, whether large or small, usually seek to kick back from any new regulations or guidance under which they will have to operate, but that should not fetter our need to impose such regulations if we are convinced of their efficacy. I am convinced of the efficacy of the measures in the Bill, and I believe that the amendments would undermine them.
There is no point in hon. Members, irrespective of which side of the political divide they might fall, wringing their hands about trafficking, slavery or forced labour, if, when an opportunity arises to augment previous legislation such as the rules in the Act governing gangmasters, they then say, “Oh no, this is a step too far. This will place too great an onus on the employer. We must seek to resist this.” That sends a mixed and confusing message to those evil individuals who are now benefiting in labour and cash terms from forced and indentured labour. I stress that this is just my judgment of the matter, but if the Bill as amended in Committee does not prevail, it will be holed below the waterline. That is why, if and when the official Opposition or Scottish National party Members press any of their new clauses or amendments to a Division, I shall be trotting into the No Lobby, where I hope many of my hon. and right hon. Friends will join me.
Anne McLaughlin
I spent five long weeks on the Immigration Bill Committee. It was an interesting experience, but unfortunately I found very little I could agree with. My hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) and I, and hon. colleagues on the Labour Benches, did some pretty forensic questioning. The conclusion I certainly reached from the responses that we got was that the motivation behind much of the Bill was not as stated. It cannot be, because it is clear that much of it will not work, and that it will not do what it apparently sets out to do. What it will do, however, is impact negatively on anyone who does not look, sound or even seem to be British.
Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the right to rent is a good example of the problem that she is highlighting, in that landlords might be scared to rent to someone who might not seem to be British?
Anne McLaughlin
My hon. Friend has taken the words right out of my mouth. I was about to say that the right to rent is the perfect example of that.
The Residential Landlords Association has made it clear that its landlords are worried that fear of committing a criminal offence, by inadvertently renting to the wrong person, will lead to them behaving in a racist manner, because they will simply not take on as a tenant anyone about whom they have doubts—because they are not white, because their surname is not British sounding or because they do not have a passport. They will not take the risk. Making it harder for those people to get accommodation will put some of them in danger. They might have no choice about where they lay their head at night and, in some circumstances, with whom, or they could end up on the street. I do not want that for people who have the right to live here; nor do I want it for people who do not have that right. I do not want it for anyone.
If the Government were to write the script for a film, it would be a black and white one, in more ways than one. It would be very straightforward. In their mind, if someone is refused asylum and we squeeze the life out of them by forcing them on to the street and starving them, they will simply stroll up to UK Visas and Immigration one day and say, “Okay, I give in. You win. Send me home.” We never get to know what happens to them, but here in Britain, we all live happily ever after.
James Brokenshire
We discussed this matter in Committee. The hon. Lady refers to asylum seekers. Does she mean failed asylum seekers—in other words, people who have claimed asylum but whose claims have not been upheld—because obviously, those who are asylum seekers are supported through the system?
Anne McLaughlin
I thank the Minister for giving me the opportunity to make a point about the language that we use. He says “failed asylum seekers”; I say “refused asylum seekers”. Let us not forget that the majority of those who are refused—or failed—by this Government go on to win their appeal when it comes to court.
Kelly Tolhurst (Rochester and Strood) (Con)
The hon. Lady uses the phrase “asylum seekers”. Does she accept that the Bill focuses on a range of categories of people who are living here and may become illegal, and is not specifically targeted at asylum seekers?
Anne McLaughlin
I absolutely am aware of that, but we have limited time so I have to focus on the most important impact this part of the Bill will have on people. That is why I am talking about the most vulnerable people and they are the asylum seekers who have been refused.
Chris Heaton-Harris (Daventry) (Con)
Does the hon. Lady believe that any asylum seeker should be failed?
Anne McLaughlin
I would not use that language about anyone, but I understand that people come here seeking asylum who are not entitled to it. I made that clear in Committee, as did all members of the Committee. I am talking about asylum seekers who do need our help, who should be entitled to asylum and who tend to win their appeals. It is therefore accepted that they do require asylum and we need to give it to them.
Right to rent will not provide the Government’s desired “happy ever after”. It simply will not work, but it will increase discrimination and racism. It certainly should not be implemented in Scotland without seeking the permission of Members of the Scottish Parliament, to whom housing is devolved, among other things. It should be removed in its entirety from the Bill.
Chris Heaton-Harris
The hon. Lady’s party has often repeated the call for a more relaxed approach to asylum. In fact, it opposes the enforced removal of failed asylum seekers and pledged in its last manifesto to close the Dungavel detention centre, which is the only such centre in Scotland, making this very much an English problem.
Anne McLaughlin
There are a number of countries across the world, if the hon. Gentleman cares to read up on this, that do not make much use of detention, but use other ways of enabling people. Indeed, the family returns process in this country works very successfully to return a number of families when there is no other option for them. It is not essential to always detain people.
If our amendments to get rid of right to rent are unsuccessful, I ask the Government to accept amendment 46, which relates to something that I cannot believe is anything other than an oversight. In Committee, I asked for a bit more detail on when someone who provides a roof over a destitute person’s head becomes liable to criminal prosecution. There are many people who already do that as volunteers in an act of compassion or, if we want to bring the Christian faith into it, as other Members have done, as good Samaritans. I want clarity that those people will not find themselves facing court or even prison simply for showing kindness to another person.
I have received only partial reassurance from the Minister, thus amendment 46. Getting full reassurance on this matter is more important than it has ever been, because more people will need this kindness than ever before if the Bill goes through as it is. There will also be more people offering such support. One of the greatest reactions to the refugee crisis that escalated over the summer months was people, in their thousands, asking how they could help. Members on both sides of the House said how proud we were of those people. “Let them in,” they said, “and we will house them.” Thousands of people right across these islands offered to open their homes to house those in desperate need.
At that time, the offer was in response to the mainly Syrian refugees. Of course, refugees who have been granted leave to remain will not be affected—at least, not directly—by the Bill because accommodation will be provided for them. However, now that the debate has started, people are looking at the asylum seekers who are already in the UK with fresh eyes. Charities are saying to the people who offered help, “We have many refused asylum seekers who are currently destitute. Why not house them instead?” However, if they do so and the Bill goes through unamended, those kind, compassionate, generous people could be criminalised.
I said that the Minister has given me partial reassurance and I will explain why. If no money changes hands, there is no issue. People are allowed to let a refused asylum seeker—or failed asylum seeker, as Government Members like to say—stay at their home as long as no money is exchanged. That was welcome news to organisations in my city of Glasgow, such as Unity and Positive Action in Housing, which both do an incredible job in keeping vulnerable people off the streets with very little funding.
However, what if a householder cannot afford to do that? What if they are rich in compassion, but poor in finances? It costs money to let another person live in one’s home. There are heating costs, lighting costs and food costs. Even if it is not part of the agreement, people will hardly sit down to dinner knowing that another person under their roof is going hungry. Some charities therefore pay a nominal sum to the householder—not a profit-making amount or a commercial rent, but a nominal sum to cover their costs. I have had no reassurance about where those people stand. In response to that question, the Minister said that exemptions had been made for refuges that house victims of trafficking. Why not exempt anyone who houses a refused asylum seeker because otherwise they would have to live on the street? Are the Government really going to make criminals of those people, who are still volunteers because they are not making any money out of it? Will the Minister criminalise them for having the decency to share what they have with a stranger in trouble and for not being wealthy enough to cover the increased costs themselves?
What about the charities? There are charities, such as the Action Foundation in Newcastle, that seek out philanthropic landlords who will make the houses that they own available for refused asylum seekers to rent at a heavily discounted rate that is paid by the charity. Those philanthropic landlords will now be committing a criminal offence, but will the charities also be committing an offence? They need to know. Do the Government really intend for that to happen? Other groups, such as Abigail Housing in Leeds and Open Doors Hull, provide accommodation not in family homes, but in houses that are lent by their owners, empty vicarages and church buildings. Abigail Housing raises funds in order to pay a nominal rent, not a commercial rent. Nobody is making a profit.
Dozens of charities, individuals and church groups across these islands are carrying out this kind of work. Will they be committing an offence? It certainly seems that those who support their charitable aims by providing the accommodation will be. Are men and women of God to be prosecuted for doing as the Bible asks them to do and not turning the other cheek? Are the Government comfortable with potentially having to imprison faith leaders for up to five years? I urge the Government to think again, otherwise they are saying to the thousands of people who responded to the refugee crisis in a manner that we were all rightly proud of, “No, you can’t help. Yes, there is a need and we are going to increase that need by making more refused asylum seekers homeless, but if you dare to help, we will criminalise you.”
Simon Hoare
The hon. Lady makes her points with the same eloquence and passion that she showed in Committee. She asked me to evidence what I said about the open-door policy and what I perceive the SNP’s position to be, but she has effectively just done that. She is talking about refused asylum seekers, and those who have no right to be here, being allowed to stay for as long as they like, based on the philanthropy of individuals. Such philanthropy is to be championed and supported, but when people have gone through the whole process and their claim has been refused, surely she will admit that it is time for them to go home.
Anne McLaughlin
The hon. Gentleman, and his Government, know full well that some people simply cannot go home. Indeed, people in such circumstances are often sent not home but to detention centres, where they languish for a long time because they cannot be sent home. I am not talking about every asylum seeker, or about keeping people here indefinitely; I am saying that we should not criminalise people who open their homes to those in desperate need. To be clear, I oppose the right to rent in its entirety, and I question the British Government’s right to override the wishes of the Scottish Parliament. I hope that this particular topical issue will turn out to be simply an anomaly that the Government will put right.
Mr Burrowes
It is a pleasure to take part in this debate, and I will speak to the new clauses to which my name has been added. New clauses 8, 9, 13 and 32 are unique in that they have a cross-party feel, which should not go unnoticed. I have not had the pleasure of being involved in all stages of the Bill, but I think that cross-party support for these new clauses is a unique aspect to our deliberations; I do not think it has happened until now. As the Minister has noticed, there is cross-party concern about the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) about fair play. We are concerned to ensure that our immigration system stands up to scrutiny from beginning to end, and that fair play is imbued within it.
Fair play matters for those who shout loudest and campaign loudly—whether before elections or in other campaigns throughout the year—just as much as it matters for those who are relatively voiceless, or perhaps do not even have a vote. Fair play should be about “the other” and those who are not as loud, and we want to uphold the fundamental British values of fairness and due process. Indeed, one could refer back to Magna Carta when considering issues of detention, and the right and duty to detain people only after fair and due process, and not for administrative purposes alone. Although I concede that immigration detention is not the main purpose of the Bill, it will not surprise the Minister that these new clauses have been tabled.
When dealing with detention, it is important that we uphold principles that have stood this country well for many years. The rest of the world looks at how we handle detention and whether we do so with fairness, and when dealing with those who are detained for administrative reasons, the bar is set that much higher. We must be proportionate, reasonable, and do things in a limited way, so that a limited number of people are in detention for as short a time as possible. Regardless of whether the new clauses are accepted, we must ensure that that principle is applied.
Keir Starmer
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that what unites the parties is the principle that there should be some measure to limit and reduce the time spent in immigration detention?
Mr Burrowes
I agree, and I look forward to hearing from the Minister about that abiding principle. Home Office guidance states that detention should be used sparingly and as a last resort, and such guidance must be available for all to use and apply throughout the system. However people come to this country, and whether by fair means or foul, we must treat everyone fairly and with dignity when they are with us, all the way through to their possible removal. They may be with us voluntarily or by force, but at every stage we must show that we respect their human dignity.
Richard Fuller
To pick up on the point made by the hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), does my hon. Friend agree that, although it may be difficult for the Minister to talk about a limit on detention for any one person, the general principle in immigration of trying to limit and reduce the amount of time that people spend in detention is something different that it is possible to talk to?
Mr Burrowes
I agree, and it is important to get the first principles right. We can have lots of debates and discussions on time limits and setting a maximum— indeed, we had such a debate in the all-party inquiry in which I was proud to take part, along with the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) and others. I pay tribute to Sarah Teather who fought long and hard on this issue, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller) and other Members from across the House who were involved in that campaign.
It is important not to be wholly bound by the issue of the time limit. Some of us feel that we may return to the stage where we need a statutory time limit to ensure that there is movement, and so that everyone does all they can to limit time spent in detention. It is important that we listen to what the Minister has to say about the review being undertaken, and we must consider the measures in new clause 13, which I will come on to. We must consider how we want to achieve what we are all saying about the principles that have been outlined.
Work on immigration is taking place, and Stephen Shaw’s review into the conditions of detention is important. We wanted that review sooner, and the Home Affairs Committee—which I sit on—recommended that it be published before these discussions on the Bill. I recognise that the Government are considering that review carefully and want to treat it with the respect that it deserves. We look forward to it being published at a later stage, and it will no doubt inform deliberations in the other place. I welcome indications that a further comprehensive review will go to the heart of new clause 13, and particularly recommendations (b) to (e).
There is a danger that immigration detention will not get sufficient attention. We have done our best to consider it, but it is somewhat out of sight and out of mind. Over the year about 30,000 people are held in 11 immigration removal centres, and apart from campaigns and individual circumstances that sometimes lead to litigation, the issue does not get the attention that it needs. We need serious action one way or another to ensure that immigration detainees are much clearer about when they are likely to be released and have a clear expectation.
I am a criminal defence solicitor, and as I said in a debate scheduled by the Backbench Business Committee, the first question asked by every client once they have ended up in prison, and after they have challenged me about how I dealt with their case, is, “How long have I got? What is the earliest date of release?” We must be able to provide greater clarity and at least some expectation that various gatekeepers and review mechanisms have been put in place to ensure that everyone knows that there is no prospect of indefinite detention, and that there is a greater push and pull to ensure that the smallest number of people are detained for as limited a time as possible.
The new clauses are framed around the inquiry of the all-party group on refugees, which was able to report before the election, and then more substantively in a motion discussed in a Backbench Business debate. That achieved something that has not happened before, which is a unanimous resolution to support the principles and recommendations behind the inquiry. We are concerned about maximum time limits, but we are also concerned about outcomes, which cut across conditions and treatment and go to the numbers in detention and the time they spend there. We want to ensure that we see action. This is a complicated piece of work, as the Minister perhaps knows more than anyone, but new clause 9—in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford—recognises the issue of foreign national offenders and public protection. It needs to be addressed, and the fact that it is complex and difficult is no reason not to handle it. Given the consequences for public protection, we must be able to handle it better. A quarter of immigration detainees are foreign national offenders in one form or another, so it is not good enough to rely on the issues of public protection alone. We can and should do better.
My hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Rebecca Harris), who is no longer in her place, mentioned that “28 days” is an arbitrary figure. In one way, it is arbitrary to have an indefinite time in detention: it is an issue of fairness and due process. Cost is another driver, and a cost impact assessment has no doubt been done on the Bill. We have had the comprehensive spending review, and the Home Office is still looking at the issue of cost. The cost of holding one person in detention is more than £36,000 a year, and the overall cost is £164.4 million. There must be better ways to spend that money.
On new clause 8, it is important to look at the individual categories of people we are talking about, away from the statistics, because sometimes we can stereotype them in the wrong way. That goes to the heart of the issue and the concerns that the all-party group expressed. New clause 8 seeks to exempt pregnant women, and people who have been granted asylum as victims of trafficking, torture or sexual violence, from detention orders. My hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) mentioned this issue and, as I said in an intervention, that provision is already in the guidance, but we need to make sure that it happens and does not get lost in the guidance. Current Home Office guidance identifies vulnerable groups of people—the elderly, pregnant women, those suffering from serious mental illness, torture survivors, those with serious disabilities and victims of human trafficking. No one can suggest that it is immaterial if a woman is pregnant, as my hon. Friend seemed to do: it is material, and pregnant women should be subject to detention only in very exceptional circumstances.
Our inquiry heard that the guidance is not properly applied. Under the screening process, those protections are limited, and it is all too commonplace for victims of torture and trafficking to end up in detention centres for an intolerable time. They end up re-traumatised by what they go through.
In an oral evidence session, we heard from Penny, who was one among many. When she arrived at the IRC she was asked if she had gone through any trauma. Despite saying that she had been a victim of trafficking, her detention continued and she was told that she had fabricated her trafficking experiences. Since her release, she has received formal recognition as a victim of human trafficking. We need to recognise that the screening process does not do enough. It is not surprising, given the language issues. Also, when people who have been through trauma end up in detention, they are unlikely to speak freely and frankly about their experiences. New clause 8 seeks to challenge the Government and asks whether we are doing enough, and the issue will no doubt be informed by the Stephen Shaw recommendations.
We also heard about the Home Office’s failure to comply with its own guidance on detaining pregnant women only in exceptional circumstances. Hindpal Singh Bhui, a team inspector at HM prisons inspectorate, said in evidence that, when looking for evidence that pregnant women were detained only in the most exceptional circumstances,
“we haven’t found those exceptional circumstances in the paperwork to justify their detention in the first place.”
So the Home Office fails at almost the first hurdle. We need to do more because we are failing to protect the most vulnerable people. There must be fair play and they must be treated properly.
I sense that in the future we will look back at the numbers detained in so-called immigration removal centres—that is a bit of a misnomer—and wonder how we tolerated for so long so many people being detained who were victims of torture, trafficking, sexual violence or who were pregnant.
New clause 13 has received the most cross-party support because its provisions are very moderate. It follows the all-party group’s recommendations, the Backbench Business motion and the unanimous resolution of the House in September. I wait to hear from the Minister exactly how he will proceed. There is scope for us to really coalesce behind recommendations (a) to (e) in the new clause, if I can find it—[Interruption.] This is a “Blue Peter” moment—something I prepared earlier.
I want to hear from the Minister that we will look at
“how to reduce the number of people detained”—
and make sure that we put in place procedures, policies and guidance to find a way
“to minimise the length of time an individual is detained”.
We need to develop a more effective form of detention that meets the objectives already put into place by the Secretary of State, and ensure
“the effectiveness of procedures to review decisions to detain and to continue to detain.”
That is what we want to achieve. Some of us feel that we still need a statutory time limit and we want to hold the Government and the Minister to account. But let us see what the Minister says and how that time fits into the progress of the Bill in the other place and following the recommendations in the Stephen Shaw report. The Home Affairs Committee will also be listening to what the Minister says and I hope that we will have an update on the comprehensive review before we go too far down the line in the other place.
I hope that the Bill will mean that we have many fewer people in immigration detention, many fewer in detention for too long and many more people receiving fair play and respect for their human dignity.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
Before I speak to three of the amendments, I wish to make some brief points. The hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) and the hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) reminded the House that we should not go over the issues that were discussed in full in Committee. I gently say that I would have loved to serve on the Committee. I realise that no one can assuage my concerns this afternoon, but on an issue of such importance—and one that is reserved to this Parliament—it is important to re-emphasise the fact that we need regional representation on a Bill Committee, and that Northern Ireland should have a representative, whether from my party or any of the others, so that we can fully scrutinise the Bill and get involved in these important discussions.
I say, with tongue firmly in cheek, that I was delighted to see the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on the Front Bench earlier in the debate, because I hope to grab hold of him before we get to the second group of amendments.
Byron Davies (Gower) (Con)
Just for the record, I served in Committee as a Welsh Member.
Gavin Robinson
I am sure the people of Wales are delighted. Among the three main parties, whether or not SNP Members are present, there is representation of Scotland, England and Wales, and it is important that they were represented in the Committee, but my point was about Northern Ireland.
Anne McLaughlin
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the UK not only abolished slavery but took full advantage of the slave trade and benefited from it, and that we continue to benefit from its inheritance?
Gavin Robinson
I am focusing on anti-slavery because we have a proud tradition of standing against those who exploit others and for those who are exploited. The hon. Lady makes the point that it continues today; I am making the point that in today’s debate, as we focus on amendment 20, we should not lose sight of the compassion this country has shown, continues to show and should show. That is why I support the amendment.
The hon. Member for North Dorset referred to the Minister’s compassionate heart. I do not doubt he has such a heart, but I believe that the small insertion of a defence would be preferable to the suggestion in Committee to let the decision be solely at the discretion of the Director of Public Prosecutions. If we, as the supreme Parliament of this country, cannot insert a defence and ask the DPP to exercise discretion in certain circumstances, what direction should she take in doing so? It is our role as parliamentarians to say that if somebody is being, or has been, exploited or enslaved in this country, the DPP should consider what we intended the defence to be against the offence of illegal working. I do not consider that to be an onerous insertion or amendment for the Government to consider. Every response to date has indicated that, as we heard on Second Reading, discretion should be provided and that such defences exist already in the Modern Slavery Act. If, therefore, there is no resistance to the prospect of such a defence, why not make provision for it?
I look forward to contributing to the further tranche of amendments, but for now I have outlined where my party stands on the current group.
Richard Fuller
I wish to speak to the new clauses and amendments dealing with immigration detention. New clause 8, which stands in my name, would exempt certain persons from detention. New clause 9 and associated amendment 32, tabled by the Opposition, would provide for a time limit. New clause 13, which stands in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) and many others across the House, would provide for a review of the role of detention centres in our immigration control system.
Before turning to those new clauses and amendments, however, I want to make a brief comment about the amendments tabled by the SNP. Those amendments have nothing to do with separation, but come from an acute sense that the direction of travel in the Bill, which is to make it harder for people here illegally to stay in the country, pushes against not just things we all agree are wrong, such as exploitation, but against our compassion. SNP Members are absolutely right to ask whether we have got the balance right, and they made some strong points in Committee and today.
The amendments and new clauses focus on immigration detention because for so long now we have lacked control over our immigration detention system. We allowed a culture of disbelief to grow up within it such that the people caught up within the system had no way of managing their rights. It is right that we look for a fundamental change. Immigration detention has moved from being a part of the immigration system to being the substantive and default position. The focus is on looking tough rather than being effective. It would be nice to hear from the Minister that he gets that and that he is focusing on an effective way to achieve what the people of this country want: that we remove, effectively and compassionately, people with no right to be here, while standing up for things we want to protect—namely, our compassion and our values. If some of the amendments we are proposing today are not pressed or if we do not hear a sufficient response from the Minister, I fear that the true victims will continue to be the British sense of compassion and the British sense of justice when we manage immigration.
James Brokenshire
I thank my hon. Friend for his contribution, as well as my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) for his. I want to emphasise that that sense of efficiency and effectiveness is absolutely at the heart of the work we are undertaking and of the broad review currently under way. My hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller) makes some important points about vulnerability, and he knows that Stephen Shaw’s review will focus on that. We will come back to the House soon—before Committee stage in the House of Lords—to respond to the report and to allow, I hope, further detailed examination.
Richard Fuller
I am very pleased that the Shaw review will be available for their lordships to review in tabling amendments. I can assure the Minister that, should amendments come to this House to ensure that pregnant women and victims of torture and rape are exempted from our immigration detention estate, I will support those amendments at that time, if the Shaw review has not done a sufficient analysis.
There is no point going over our concerns again that the report has not been available to us in this House—we shall wait on their lordships—but I know that there will be women in Yarl’s Wood detention centre right now who have been victims of torture or rape. We also know that in the last year 100 pregnant women were put into Yarl’s Wood detention centre. This is not one or two cases; it is a significant part of what is happening, and that points to the reason behind new clause 8: the limits on the Minister’s ability to control the action on the ground. The procedures can look perfect on paper, but we know that in practice they are failing and falling down. That is why new clause 8 and the associated amendments aim to restrict the types of people who might fall foul of those processes.
Byron Davies
Is this not more about the integrity of the system and how it is supervised, rather than introducing a new clause?
Richard Fuller
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. Part of the evidence built up in this Parliament, in case after case after case, is that what the Home Office says is the case is patently not the case, and examples from Yarl’s Wood are front and centre of that. Not only have we had cases where the guards’ procedures in Yarl’s Wood should have been of a certain type and clearly were not—that has besmirched many people who work in immigration and removal centres who do a very good job—but we know that procedures for the provision of care for pregnant women in detention centres are not followed either. My hon. Friend is therefore quite right that there is an issue about procedures, and that is why we are waiting to hear what the Minister is likely to say.
I want to sit down so that the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield), a fellow member of the all-party group on migration, can contribute, but let me say first that I feel—and I hope—that the Minister has been listening to the work of the all-party group and the unanimous view of the House of Commons that change needs to be made along the lines of its recommendations. He has heard some eloquent speeches from the Scottish nationalists, from the Labour Benches and also from the Conservative Benches that reinforce that. I feel, however, that he is one step away from being able to reassure the House. I hope he will take that step—I alluded to that a moment ago. I understand that there are concerns about having time limits for individuals or even a category of people, but that is different from the intent behind the all-party group’s report, which seeks a recognition from the Home Office that the use of detention in immigration is overblown and to hear that he as Minister will seek to limit and reduce the overall amount of time in detention in this country. If we could hear that, hon. Members in all parts of the House would be reassured.
Paul Blomfield
I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller), whose contribution represents the cross-party consensus on this issue, as does the breadth of support from both sides of the House for new clause 13.
I will severely reduce the remarks I was going to make because I am keen that the Minister should have the full opportunity to respond, but I want to underline the breadth of support for engagement in the inquiry—which I was privileged to be vice-chair of and which Sarah Teather led—to which the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) referred. We had Members from all parties and from both Houses, with a depth of experience that was reflected in the involvement of a former Law Lord and a former chief inspector of prisons. We were unanimous, having heard evidence over eight months, that the introduction of a time limit on indefinite detention was overdue. That was reflected, as other Members have said, in the will of this House when we debated the matter on 10 September.
James Brokenshire
I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions on a range of issues, which have highlighted the concerns, passion and interest that so many people have shown throughout the consideration of this Bill. The debate we have had over the last hour and 50 minutes has again underlined that interest and focus, and it is important that the House has been able to debate in this way.
I want to start with the issue of immigration detention, which is one of the key elements of the debate. I want to underline at the outset the fact that the Home Office has a policy to safeguard against unnecessary or arbitrary detention. The presumption is in favour of liberty. Cases must be considered on their individual circumstances. Detention must be used sparingly and for the shortest period necessary. That goes to the heart of some of the elements in new clause 13, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes). This is about having a system that is efficient and effective, but that also treats those within it with dignity and respect.
James Brokenshire
If I may, I would like to finish this point and then take interventions. I want to set out the fact that the Home Office is conducting detailed analysis of the purposes behind that—in other words, moving towards the policy that I have underlined, including looking at the checks and balances in the systems to ensure that we have a more efficient and more effective process so that people are removed more swiftly and speedily. We also need to reflect on how that sits within an overall framework of removal.
I believe that it is accepted here that detention plays an important role in managing immigration and managing people towards removal, but it has to have removal as its focus. Yes, of course, for certain groups such as foreign national offenders or in certain national security cases, detention might be needed for a slightly longer period, but always with the focus on the realistic prospect of removal taking place. We will come back to this House in the new year—and we intend this to be before the Bill has passed through both Houses—setting out the much broader piece of work that we are undertaking.
Other amendments relate to the issues of vulnerability raised by Steven Shaw. As I have indicated, we intend to respond to it before the Bill has started its Committee in the House of Lords, and we shall also set out proposals for a new detained fast-track, which I suspended because I was not satisfied that the necessary safeguards were in place. It is the sense of how we construct an efficient and effective detention policy that goes to the heart of the issues I have highlighted—of considering cases on their merits, but using detention sparingly and for the shortest period necessary that is consistent with our policy, which must be upheld.
Keir Starmer
Does the Minister agree that the reviews he has summarised deal with the issues raised in paragraphs (b) through to (e) in new clause 13? Having set out the policy carefully, does he agree that it is consistent with the principle that we should seek to limit and reduce the time spent in immigration detention?
James Brokenshire
As I have said, the current Home Office policy is to use detention sparingly and for the shortest period necessary, which is why our work on ensuring a more efficient and effective system consistent with our obligation is absolutely consistent with the themes redolent in paragraphs (b) to (e) of new clause 13. The difference is that I believe that having a 28-day time period does not advance the cause. It is a blunt instrument that does not take account of the full range of different circumstances that are redolent here from foreign national offenders to those who might not be compliant with the requirements we put upon them or who abscond, so we need to look at the situation on a case-by-case basis. I repeat, however, that we are conducting our review in the light of our focus on efficiency and effectiveness, and we will revert to the House as I have outlined.
A number of other points, including about the right to rent, have been highlighted in the debate. The right-to-rent scheme restricts the access of illegal migrants to the private rented sector, stopping them setting down roots and building ties. The scheme, which has been rolled out to parts of the west midlands, has not proven difficult or burdensome for landlords, but it has led to illegal migrants being apprehended.
The scheme has been in place for one year and is working as intended. The Government published an extensive evaluation of the right-to-rent scheme’s first six months, and this found no hard evidence of discrimination or any new barriers to lawful residents accessing the private rented sector. Repealing the right-to-rent scheme would remove a significant part of the Government’s measures to deter illegal migration. The Bill’s provisions on residential tenancies are aimed to make it easier for the majority of reputable landlords to evict illegal migrant tenants and to crack down further on those rogue landlords who do so much to damage the sector.
The offences are framed to allow for the prosecution of those who are or who have knowingly rented to illegal migrants or who have or had reasonable cause to believe that they were renting to illegal migrants. We believe that that is the right approach, but a conviction will be possible only where the offence has been proven to the criminal threshold of beyond reasonable doubt. These offences are not designed to catch out a landlord who has made a genuine mistake, and it is difficult to foresee a situation in which it would be in the public interest to pursue a prosecution against a landlord making reasonable efforts to remove illegal migrants from their property.
There are concerns about people being evicted without adequate notice or without sufficient safeguards in place—and points were raised about these in the debate on some of the other amendments. However, safeguards already exist. The Secretary of State will serve notices only where she is satisfied that the migrant is here unlawfully and only after taking the migrant’s circumstances into consideration. Should there be recognised barriers to illegal migrants leaving the UK that are not of their own making, these will be taken into account.
The hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Anne McLaughlin) asked about measures relating to charities. Amendment 46 would create what we regard as a significant loophole in the right-to-rent provisions. It could lead to endless quibbling about what is meant by “significantly exceed the costs” and indeed about what constitutes “costs”. I responded in Committee to give an assurance on a number of different aspects, and said that many of the shelters would fall outside the provisions. Our concern is that rogue landlords would take advantage of the measures that the hon. Lady outlined, and we would not want to create such a loophole.
In the debate in Committee on the director of labour market enforcement, there was strong support on all sides for the creation of such a director, which has been reflected in today’s debate, too. The director’s role is already set out in the Bill. The director will set out the strategy for our enforcement bodies to stop exploitation and non-compliance across the spectrum, but there is a difference between the role of the director and that of the anti-slavery commissioner. If we look at all the different aspects of the labour market enforcement strategy, we judge that the provision is right, but we will obviously continue to reflect to ensure that it is appropriately framed.
On the issue of resources, we have recently announced that we will increase HMRC’s budget for 2015-16 by £4 million around the issue of the national minimum wage. The director will analyse the available funds across all the different aspects for which he or she would have responsibility.
Some have raised concerns about the offence. The Government would not want to prosecute those who have been forced to travel here and exploited for the profit of others, which goes to the heart of the matter. That is why the offence is not aimed at the victims of modern slavery. The statutory defence in section 45 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 will apply.
On some of the issues raised by SNP Members, we maintain that the heart of the issues that matter here are reserved, so it would not be appropriate to accept the proposed amendments. New clause 16 would amend the compensation arrangements for those experiencing financial detriment as a consequence of an illegal working closure notice, but we believe that these provisions are already covered in paragraph 15 of schedule 3 and related safeguards, which are, in our judgment, sufficient. As for James Ewins’s review of overseas domestic workers, it will shortly be published and will no doubt be subject to further consideration at that stage.
I reiterate to right hon. and hon. Members that we have given careful consideration to the Bill and have reflected on a number of the points raised. I hope that, with the assurances I have given, right hon. and hon. Members will be minded not to press their amendments and new clauses to the vote.
Stuart C. McDonald
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 8
Offence of illegal working
Amendment proposed: 19, page 5, line 2, leave out clause 8.—(Keir Starmer.)
To omit the clause on the new illegal working offence and maintain the status quo.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government new clause 4—Duty to provide information for the purposes of transfers of responsibility.
Government new clause 5—Request for transfer of responsibility for relevant children.
Government new clause 6—Scheme for transfer of responsibility for relevant children.
Government new clause 7—Extension to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.
New clause 1—Extended criteria for refugees joining refugee sponsors—
‘(1) Rules made by the Secretary of State under section 3 of the Immigration Act 1971, shall make provision for persons outside the United Kingdom to apply for family reunion with persons recognised as refugees in the United Kingdom, or granted humanitarian protection in the United Kingdom on or after 30 August 2005, who are their children, grandchildren, parents, grandparents, spouses, civil or unmarried partners or siblings.
(2) Rules made under subsection (1) may—
(a) make provision for dependants of the persons therein mentioned;
(b) make provision for a person who the Secretary of State is satisfied was a dependant of the refugee or person granted humanitarian protection or a member of their household at the time the refugee or person granted humanitarian protection left the country of his habitual residence;
(c) restrict provision for siblings applying to join family in the UK to those who have not formed their own independent family unit outside of the UK.
(3) Family members seeking leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom must—
(a) be applicants who would not be excluded from protection by virtue of article 1F of the United Nations Convention and Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees if he were to seek asylum in his own right;
(b) be applicants who would not be excluded from humanitarian protection for any reason in the immigration rules in the United Kingdom.’
This new clause would allow those separated from their family, and who have refugee or humanitarian protection status in the UK, to sponsor family members beyond spouses or under-18 children to join them. It would also remedy an anomaly that prevents children with refugee status in the UK from sponsoring their parents to join them.
New clause 11—Review of rules relating to refugee family reunion—
‘(1) The Secretary of State must undertake a review of the current rules on refugees or those granted humanitarian protection reuniting with close family members in the UK.
(2) The review under subsection (1) must consider—
(a) the failure to implement Dublin Convention III, which allows for spouses or children under 18 with refugee status or those granted humanitarian protection to be reunited with family members in the UK;
(b) options for allowing British citizens to sponsor close family members recognised as refugees or granted humanitarian protection; and
(c) options for extending the criteria for family reunion to include children, grandchildren, parents, grandparents, spouses, civil or unmarried partners or siblings who have refugee status or have been granted humanitarian protection and have close family members in the UK.
(3) This review under subsection (1) must be completed and a copy must be laid before Parliament within six months of this Act receiving Royal Assent.’
Amendment 29, page 40, line 14, leave out clause 37.
Government amendments 5 and 6.
Amendment 31, in schedule 8, page 109, line 29, leave out from “(6)” to end of line 30 and insert—
(none) “, for “section 4 or 95” substitute “section 95”;
(iii) in subsection (7) for “section 4 or 95” substitute “section 95 or 95A”.”
See explanatory statement for amendment 30.
Amendment 40, page 112, line, leave out sub-paragraph (5).
This amendment ensures that families with children under 18 receive section 95 support until they leave the country.
Amendment 30, page 113, line 13, at end insert—
‘(2A) If the Secretary of State decides not to provide support to a person or not to continue to provide support to them, under this section , the person may appeal to the First Tier Tribunal.’
To reinstate a right of appeal against Home Office decisions to provide support (under Section 95 or new 95A).
Amendment 2, page 119, line 21, at end insert—
‘(43A) The Immigration Act 1971 is amended as follows.
(43B) After section 3(9) (general provisions for regulation and control) insert—
“(10) In making rules under subsection (2), the Secretary of State must have regard to the following.
(11) Rules must provide for persons seeking asylum, within the meaning of the rules, to apply to the Secretary of State for permission to take up employment (including self-employment and voluntary work) and that permission must be granted if—
(a) a decision has not been taken on the applicant’s asylum application within six months of the date on which it was recorded, or
(b) an individual makes further submissions which raise asylum grounds and a decision on that fresh claim or to refuse to treat such further submissions as a fresh claim has not been taken within six months of the date on which they were recorded.
(12) Permission for a person seeking asylum to take up employment shall be on terms no less favourable than those upon which permission is granted to a person recognised as a refugee to take up employment.”’
Amendment 42, in schedule 9, page 121, line 26, leave out paragraph 2.
This amendment removes those provisions added by Schedule 9 that would prevent local authorities providing leaving care support under the Children Act 1989 to young people who are not asylum seekers and do not have leave to remain when they reach the age of 18 years.
Government amendment 7.
Amendment 43, page 122, leave out lines 16 to 34.
This amendment removes those provisions added by Schedule 9 to the Immigration Bill that would prevent local authorities providing leaving care support under the Children Act 1989 to young people who are not asylum seekers and do not have leave to remain when they reach the age of 18 years.
Amendment 44, page 122, line 46, at end insert
‘and,
(c) he entered the UK as an adult.’
This amendment enables local authorities to provide leaving care support under the Children Act 1989 to young people who do not have leave to remain and are not asylum seekers.
Government amendments 8 to 12.
Amendment 45, page 124, leave out from line 11 to line 13 on page 125 and insert—
‘10B The Secretary of State shall provide adequate funding to local authorities to enable them to meet their duties under the Children Act 1989 to persons who do not have leave to enter or remain and are not asylum seekers.’
This amendment provides for the Secretary of State to make funding available to local authorities, as the specialist agency responsible for care leavers, to meet the duties set out in the Children Act 1989 in relation to young people who do not have leave to remain and are not asylum seekers.
Government amendments 13 to17.
New clause 2—Automatic deportation under the UK Borders Act 2007—
‘(1) Section 32 of the UK Borders Act 2007 is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (2) substitute “12” for “6”.’
This new clause would require that non-British citizens who commit offences and are sentenced to 6 months in prison are deported automatically.
New clause 10—Offence of presence in the United Kingdom without legal authority—
‘(1) Any person who is present in the United Kingdom after 1 June 2016 without legal authority shall be guilty of an offence.
(2) Any person who after 1 June 2016 enters or attempts to enter the United Kingdom without legal authority shall be guilty of an offence.
(3) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (1) is liable on summary conviction—
(a) to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months;
(b) to a fine which in Scotland or Northern Ireland may not exceed £5,000, or to both.
(4) Any person who is convicted of an offence under subsection (1) shall be subject to a deportation order unless the Secretary of State deems such a deportation order to be against public interest.
(5) For the purposes of subsection (2) above, a deportation order shall be deemed to be in the public interest unless a certificate to the contrary has been submitted by the Secretary of State to the court.’
This new clause makes provision for criminal sanctions including deportation orders against those who have entered the United Kingdom illegally or who remain in the United Kingdom without legal authority. It adds to the existing offences under Section 24 of the Immigration Act 1971.
New clause 12—Right of residence: registration certificates—
‘(1) Section 7 of the Immigration Act 1988 is repealed.
(2) Notwithstanding the provisions of the European Communities Act 1972, or any other enactment, any non-UK citizen resident in the United Kingdom without authority to remain in the United Kingdom provided by a valid visa, visa waiver, residence permit or other official permission must apply for a registration certificate to confirm their right of residence in the United Kingdom.
(3) The Secretary of State shall by regulations prescribe the content of application forms for registration certificates and for the grounds on which an application made may be granted or refused and arrangements for appeals and final adjudications.
(4) The Secretary of State shall establish the registration certificate scheme, comprising the matters mentioned in subsection (3) and such other matters as he thinks necessary and expedient, by 30 November 2016.
(5) Any person present in the United Kingdom after 31st December 2016 without legal authority or without having applied on or before 31st December 2016 for a registration certificate under subsection (2) above shall be guilty of an offence.
(6) Any person who, after 31st December 2016, enters or attempts to enter the United Kingdom without legal authority shall be guilty of an offence.
(7) A person guilty of an offence under subsections (5) or (6) is liable on summary conviction—
(a) to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months; or
(b) to a fine which in Scotland or Northern Ireland may not exceed £5,000; or
(c) to both.
(8) Any person who is convicted of an offence under subsections (5) or (6) shall be subject to a deportation order unless the Secretary of State deems such a deportation order to be against the public interest.
(9) For the purposes of subsection (8) above, a deportation order shall be deemed to be in the public interest unless a certificate to the contrary has been submitted by the Secretary of State to the Court.
(10) Any power to make regulations under this section is exercisable by statutory instrument.
(11) A statutory instrument containing an order under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.’
New clause 14—Minimum income requirement for partner visas—
‘(1) The Secretary of State shall within six months after this Act receives Royal Assent amend the Immigration Rules regarding a person applying for entry clearance to, leave to remain in or indefinite leave to remain in the UK as the non-EEA national partner or dependent child of a person who is—
(a) a British citizen; or,
(b) present and settled in the UK; or
(c) in the UK with refugee leave or humanitarian protection
to make provision as set out in this section.
(2) The minimum annual income requirement—
(a) for the sponsor of the partner shall be the equivalent of one year’s full-time salary (net of tax and national insurance contributions, and allowing for four week’s holiday) at the rate of the National Minimum Wage as it applies to that individual;
(b) for the first child in addition to the partner the additional sum of £2,500;
(c) for each further child the additional sum of £2000.
(3) The minimum annual income requirement as specified in subsection (b) may include financial support from third parties.
(4) In this section “full-time” will mean 35 hours a week.’
New clause 15—Adult dependant relative visas—
‘(1) The Secretary of State shall within six months after this Act receives Royal Assent amend the Immigration Rules regarding Entry Clearance in respect of an adult dependant relative of a person who is—
(a) a British Citizen; or,
(b) a person settled in the UK; or
(c) in the UK with refugee leave or humanitarian protection
to make provision as set out in this section.
(2) The Immigration Rules for persons specified in subsection (a) must not require as condition for entry that in the country where they are living—
(a) the required level of care is not available;
(b) there is no person in that country who can reasonably provide the required level of care;
(c) the required level of care is not affordable.
(3) The applicant shall be adequately maintained, accommodated and cared for in the UK by the sponsor without recourse to public funds for five years.’
Amendment 39, in clause 20, page 25, line 18, at end insert—
‘(2A) In paragraph 2(2) after “examine” insert “at the point of entry into the United Kingdom.’
This amendment would end the practice of conducting speculative, in-country spot-checks and restrict the power to the point of entry into the UK.
Amendment 36, in clause 25, page 32, leave out lines 20 to 23.
This amendment removes proposed extension of powers of relevant officers—custody officers, prison officers or prisoner custody officers—to conduct strip searches of detainees for documents which “might” establish a person’s nationality or indicate “the place from which the person travelled to the UK or to which a person is proposing to go”.
Government amendments 3 and 4.
Amendment 27, page 39, line 6, leave out clause 34.
Amendment 28, in clause 34, page 39, line 19, at end insert—
‘(5A) After subsection (3) insert new subsection—
“(3A) Before a decision is taken to certify a human rights claim the Secretary of State must obtain a multi-agency best interests assessment in relation to any child whose human rights may be breached by the decision to certify.”’
To make sure that before a decision is made to certify any claim for out of country appeal, the best interests of any child affected by this decision must be considered.
Amendment 34, in clause 58, page 50, line 11, at end insert—
‘(3A) Part 7 shall not come into force in Scotland without the consent of the Scottish Parliament.’
To prevent language requirements on public sector workers applying in Scotland without the consent of the Scottish Parliament.
Amendment 1, in clause 59, page 50, line 18, leave out subsection (2).
Amendment 37, in schedule 7, page 97, line 9, at end insert—
‘( ) The following provisions apply if a person is detained under any provisions set out in paragraph (current paragraph 1(1))—
(a) the Secretary of State must arrange a reference to the First-tier Tribunal for it to determine whether the detained person should be released on bail;
(b) the Secretary of State must secure that a first reference to the First-tier Tribunal is made no later than the eighth day following that on which the detained person was detained;
(c) if the detained person remains in detention, the Secretary of State must secure that a second reference to the First-tier Tribunal or Commission is made no later than the thirty-sixth day following that on which the detained person was detained and every twenty-eighth day thereafter;
(d) the First-tier Tribunal hearing a case referred to it under this section must proceed as if the detained person had made an application to it for bail; and
(e) the First-tier Tribunal must determine the matter—
(i) on a first reference, before the tenth day following that on which the person concerned was detained; and
(ii) on a second and subsequent reference, before the thirty-eighth day following that on which he was detained.
( ) For the purposes of this paragraph, “First-tier Tribunal” means—
(a) if the detained person has brought an appeal under the Immigration Acts, the chamber of the First-tier Tribunal dealing with his appeal; and
(b) in any other case, such chamber of the First-tier Tribunal as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
( ) In the case of a detained person to whom section 3(2) of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act 1997 applies (jurisdiction in relation to bail for persons detained on grounds of national security) a reference under sub-paragraph (3)(a) above, shall be to the Commission and not to the First-tier Tribunal.
( ) Rules made by the Lord Chancellor under section 5 of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act 1997 may include provision made for the purposes of this paragraph.’
This amendment makes provision for automatic judicial oversight of detention after eight days, then after a further 28 days, and every 28 days for so long as detention lasts.
Amendment 38, page 102, line 9, leave out sub-paragraphs (1) to (3) and insert—
‘(1) The Secretary of State must provide, or arrange for the provision of, facilities for the accommodation of persons released on immigration bail.’
This amendment makes provision for an impecunious detainee to be furnished with an address to facilitate their applying for bail, without which they are unlikely to be granted bail.
James Brokenshire
In this part of the debate we turn to amendments and new clauses concerning the asylum system and the arrangements made for the support of failed asylum seekers who the courts have agreed do not need our protection.
The crisis in Syria and events in the middle east, north Africa and beyond have seen an unprecedented number of migrants and asylum seekers arriving in Europe. Some have gone on to reach the UK via northern France, including many unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. There are now nearly 1,000 unaccompanied asylum-seeking children in Kent County Council’s care, 300 of whom have had to be placed in other local authority areas. I would like to put on record my thanks to all those in Kent—all the officers and others—for the way in which they have responded to this challenge, but in our judgment a national response is required.
Additional funding has been made available to local authorities who take on responsibility for unaccompanied asylum-seeking children from Kent. We hope that the dispersal arrangements that have been put in place will remain voluntary. However, we have tabled new clauses 3 to 7 and Government amendments 5 and 6 to underpin the voluntary dispersal arrangement and, if necessary, enforce them, although we see this as a reserve backstop power. The amendments introduce a new power to facilitate the transfer of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children from one local authority to another; enable the Secretary of State to direct local authorities to provide information about their support to children in their care—this will inform new transfer arrangements; enable the Secretary of State to direct a local authority that refuses to comply with a request to accept an unaccompanied asylum-seeking child to provide written reasons; enable the Secretary of State to require local authorities to co-operate in respect of transfers; and enable the provisions to be extended across the UK by regulations, subject to the affirmative procedure and informed by further dialogue with the devolved Administrations.
Anne McLaughlin
Does the Minister agree that the children of parents who will not return—to my mind, mostly because they cannot—face genuine obstacles to returning, namely their parents, and that we should therefore support those children because they have absolutely no choice in the matter?
James Brokenshire
We had detailed and considered debate about this in Committee, to which the hon. Lady was party. The point I made there is that the family returns process engages with this so that we assist and work with families to bring about their return. She will recall our debates about the support that can still be made available by local authorities in respect of destitution cases. That support is potentially still available as we continue, as part of this process, to assist families in their entirety, with the appropriate safeguards, in seeing that they are returned if they do not have the right to remain in the UK.
The appeal statistics on asylum support do not give the full picture. In the year to August 2015, 37% of asylum support appeals were dismissed. Forty-one per cent. were allowed, but in many cases this was because the person provided only in their appeal the evidence required for support to be granted. Many of the remainder were remitted for reconsideration or withdrawn, in many cases also in the light of new evidence provided in the appeal. Few appeals related to the issue of whether there was a practical obstacle to departure from the UK. The previous independent chief inspector of borders and immigration found in his July 2014 report on asylum support that 89% of refusals were reasonably based on the evidence available at the time.
Amendments 42 to 45 would reverse the Bill’s reforms of support for adult migrant care leavers and require that they be provided with local authority support under leaving care legislation, even though all their applications and appeals to stay here have been refused. We believe that these changes are wrong in principle. Public money should not be used to support illegal migrants, including failed asylum seekers, who can leave the UK and should do so. The amendments would create obvious incentives for more unaccompanied children to come to the UK to make an unfounded asylum claim, often by using dangerous travel routes controlled by smugglers and traffickers. We are speaking of adults. If their asylum claim has been finally refused, automatic access to further support from the local authority should cease at that point. The Bill makes appropriate provision for their support before they leave the UK.
Amendment 2 would allow permission to work where an asylum claim has been outstanding after only six months, remove the caveat that any delay must not be of the asylum seeker’s own making, and lift all restrictions on the employment available. As we debated in Committee, we do not consider this to be sensible. We met our public commitments to decide all straightforward asylum claims lodged before April 2014 by 31 March 2015 and to decide all straightforward claims lodged from 1 April 2014 within six months. About 85% of cases are straightforward. We judge that this policy strikes the right balance. If an asylum claim remains undecided after 12 months, for reasons outside the person’s control, they can apply for permission to work in employment on the shortage occupation list. This is fair, reasonable and consistent with EU law.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
The Minister has talked about making regulations to extend provisions to Wales and about skills requirements. Does he agree that the Bill should recognise, in dealing with asylum claims, the distinct skills and immigration requirements of Wales, and enable the Welsh Government to provide input into Home Office immigration policy?
James Brokenshire
I am afraid that I do not, on the basis that immigration is a reserved matter. The hon. Lady may be aware that the Migration Advisory Committee analyses differences in this regard between the countries of the UK, as well as regional differences. For example, in Scotland there is a separate shortage occupation list, so there is an ability to reflect variations across the UK in assessing evidence and policy.
New clauses 1 and 11 would widen the scope for refugee family reunion. I am aware of the calls from the Refugee Council and others for that. We recognise that families may become fragmented because of the nature of conflict and persecution, and the speed and manner in which those seeking asylum often flee their country of origin. Our policy allows the immediate family members of a person with refugee leave or humanitarian protection —for example, a spouse or partner, and children under the age of 18 who formed part of the family unit before the sponsor fled their country—to be reunited with them in the UK. The immigration rules allow for the sponsorship of other family members. By contrast, some EU countries require up to two years’ lawful residence before a refugee becomes eligible and impose time restrictions on how quickly family members must apply once their sponsor becomes eligible.
We have granted over 21,000 family reunion visas over the past five years. In our judgment, widening the criteria for inclusion would not be practical or sustainable. It might be a significant additional factor in how the UK is viewed by those choosing where among the different jurisdictions to make their asylum claim, and it would undermine our wider asylum strategy. Some have asked whether we have fully implemented the Dublin regulations. In our judgment, we have. The challenge is to get family members to make claims in EU countries to establish the links that operate under the Dublin regulations. That is often the impediment standing in the way of those who are entitled to this, but who need to start by making their claim in an EU country.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
Does the Minister not accept that the definition of a family is drawn incredibly tightly and is very cruel, for example to those with siblings or children over the age of 18? He says that extending the criteria would not be efficient or effective, but it would actually be one of the most effective ways of granting refugee status to more people. Such people will not put great pressure on our services because they will largely be looked after by their families.
James Brokenshire
I recognise the manner in which the hon. Lady advances her point, but our judgment is that the policy strikes the right balance. Our family resettlement policy has rules, but equally, certain circumstances—for example, where there are older relatives, or issues relating to illness or medical need—allow for some greater flexibility within those existing rules. From our standpoint, the steps we are taking on resettlement are about an assessment of vulnerability. That is redolent of the approach we are taking in the camps, through the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, and how we are seeking to deal with resettlement.
James Brokenshire
I am delighted to give way to the right hon. Lady, who tabled new clause 1.
Yvette Cooper
May I press the Minister on the people who are currently excluded by the rules? For example, a case has been raised with me about a family of refugees from Syria. The parents are in this country with their younger children, but their 19-year-old daughter is still in Lebanon. She is unable to join them, even though she is also a refugee from Syria, because she is over 18, which is surely wrong. As a result, they are worried that they may have to pay people smugglers and traffickers to get her to Britain, which is a huge risk and would mean breaking the law.
James Brokenshire
As the right hon. Lady knows, the current regulations are framed in a way that allows the resettlement of children under the age of 18. Our judgment is that that is framed in the right way. Adults seeking protection can use the normal route of claiming asylum in other countries. We do not think that resettlement should be extended beyond the current framework. As I have said, there are exceptions to that, particularly in cases of older relatives who have an illness. The rules can operate in a way that allows entry clearance officers to take such factors into account. Clearly, the rules are examined case by case, including by looking at whether leave falling outside the rules may be appropriate in certain circumstances.
Yvette Cooper
What is the option for that 19-year-old and so many other similar cases? Where does she go—should she get a boat across to Greece and try to apply there? The Dublin III arrangements are not working for people arriving in Greece and Italy. There are huge numbers of examples of that. What does the Minister say to that 19-year-old?
James Brokenshire
We think that the Dublin arrangements are the right way to provide consistency of approach across the whole EU in dealing with what some have described as asylum shopping and with people’s ability to choose the jurisdiction in which they claim asylum. The key element is that we achieve a stable Syria, so that the people in those camps can see a stable future in which they will be supported there. Our response in relation to humanitarian protection, including the £1.1 billion that the Government have committed, absolutely matters. It is not simply about direct humanitarian protection; it is about education, about giving people a sense of hope and purpose and about ending up with a stable Syria to which people will be able to return as soon as possible.
Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend accept that, in 2013, the latest year for which I have statistics, there were only 72 convictions in magistrates and Crown courts for all the offences mentioned in section 24? Does he think the Government are taking the matter seriously enough?
James Brokenshire
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the way in which he has advanced these issues and underlined the need for us to remain focused on the removal of those who have no lawful authority to be here and to address those who have sought to come into the UK by clandestine means. The most effective way of dealing with those matters is to have an effective removal process, and that is why we are legislating in this way in the Bill. I also want to highlight the work that we discussed in our debate on the previous group of amendments. We are working to achieve a speedier and more efficient and effective use of detention and to determine how that plays into a more effective removal process more generally. The measures are already in place, but my hon. Friend’s points relate fundamentally to our achieving more efficient and effective removal, which is an aim I share.
Richard Fuller
May I take my right hon. Friend back to new clause 2, which relates to the deportation of non-British citizens who have committed offences here? I am persuaded by his response to the new clause, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes), but will he tell us a little more? I understand that there is a number of countries to which it is extremely difficult for us to deport people in these circumstances. Are moves such as we have seen in relation to Jamaican prisons relevant to this issue, and has any progress been made with those other countries?
James Brokenshire
My hon. Friend makes an important point. The issue of prison conditions is relevant, for example, as are prisoner transfer agreements and the bilateral arrangements that we have in place. Work is being done across Government on the return of foreign national offenders, which I know was a particular issue for my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate, not simply in the Home Office, but in the Foreign Office, the Ministry of Justice and elsewhere, to look at these issues in the round and see what measures and mechanisms are available to us to enhance the process. My hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller) was right to frame his point in that way. I assure him and my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate that we are taking a joined-up approach across Government to use the measures that are available to us to enhance our response in respect of returns.
New clause 12 seeks to create a system that requires non-UK nationals, including EU nationals, seeking leave to enter and remain in the UK to obtain legal authority to remain in the UK. I agree with much of the thinking of my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope), but new clause 12 essentially seeks to curtail the free movement of EU citizens to the UK under existing treaty rights. I am not sure that legislation is the right way to approach that.
The Immigration Act 2014 limits the factors that draw illegal migrants to the UK and introduces tough domestic reforms to ensure that our controls on access to benefits and services, including the NHS and social housing, are among the tightest in Europe. We believe that the way to bring about real change is through effective renegotiation with the European Union. My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch will be well aware of the letter the Prime Minister sent to Donald Tusk, the President of the European Council, to set out our approach and the broader stance we seek to take.
New clause 14 would require the Secretary of State to amend the minimum income threshold requirement for sponsoring a non-EEA national partner and any non-EEA national dependent children to settle in the UK. That would undermine the impact of the minimum income threshold, which the courts have agreed correctly reflects the public interest in controlling immigration to safeguard the UK’s economic wellbeing by preventing family migrants from becoming a burden on the taxpayer and by promoting their integration. A couple with income equivalent to the national minimum wage can still access income-related benefits and tax credits. A minimum income threshold set at that level would therefore not be sufficient to prevent burdens on the taxpayer once the migrant partner reached settlement and had full access to welfare benefits. It would also provide less support for the migrant partner’s integration in society. That is simply not an adequate basis for sustainable family migration and integration.
Stuart C. McDonald
Will the Minister clarify his position on the rules that prevent potential income from a non-EEA spouse from being taken into account? That income is not a burden on the UK taxpayer, so why is it still the Government’s position that it should be excluded?
James Brokenshire
As I have indicated, it is about creating a long-term stable position on what may be considered a burden. I underline that we continue to look at the specific rules on what is and what is not taken into account. I am happy to reflect further on the point that the hon. Gentleman has highlighted. The Government’s approach has been challenged in the courts and the relevant monetary threshold has been upheld. We will continue to analyse experience and evidence in respect of this matter, but our judgment is that the way in which we assess what is counted is right.
New clause 15 would require the Secretary of State to amend the entry clearance rules for non-EEA national adult dependent relatives to remove the current requirement that the personal care needs of that relative cannot be met in their country of origin. Again, that would represent a significant dilution of the reforms implemented in July 2012. The route for adult dependent relatives was reformed because of the significant NHS and social care costs that can be associated with these cases. The route now provides for those most in need of care, but not for those who would simply prefer to come to live in the UK. The family immigration rules that we reformed in the last Parliament are having the right impact and are helping to restore public confidence in this part of the immigration system. If personal care needs can be met in someone’s country of origin, it is not right to allow them to travel to the UK for that purpose.
James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)
Is it not the case that many of the frictions between immigrant and settled communities relate to fears about the abuse of the health and care system, and that having a clear framework that makes explicit the limits of what we will and will not accept will go a long way towards calming the nerves of the host communities in respect of the new entrants to their areas?
James Brokenshire
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. That is what we have done. We must also ensure public confidence more generally about where costs should lie, and ensure that understandable concerns about access to healthcare are framed rightly. That is why we introduced the immigration and health surcharge in the last Parliament.
Amendment 39 seeks to restrict the power of immigration officers to examine someone in-country. As my hon. and learned friend the Solicitor General—he is sitting alongside me—said in Committee, the power to examine someone in-country is essential, for example when immigration officers are questioning persons who have been seen climbing out of lorries on motorways or at service stations, and who are therefore suspected of having entered the UK illegally.
Officers working in immigration enforcement do not conduct speculative spot checks. To examine a person after the point of entry, an immigration officer must have information that causes them to question whether someone has the right to be in the UK, as set out in the 1987 case of Singh v. Hammond. Our published guidance reflects that judgment, and makes clear that when conducting an in-country examination, immigration officers must first have reasonable suspicion that a person is an immigration offender, and they must be able to justify that reasoning. If the power of examination is limited only to the point of entry, the ability to conduct in-country enforcement operations would either be severely hampered, or it could risk unnecessary arrests.
Government amendments 3 and 4 are minor and technical, and replace “strip search” with “full search” to allay concerns that the person is stripped completely naked during such a search when that is not the case. We judge that the term “full search” more appropriately reflects the nature of the power.
Amendment 36 seeks to remove the power to conduct such searches from detainee custody officers, prison officers and prisoner custody officers when they are searching for nationality documents. As the Solicitor General said in Committee, the reality of detention is such that items are often concealed below clothing. It may therefore be necessary in some cases to remove the detainee’s clothes to locate documentation and other items. Of course, such a power must be governed by appropriate safeguards, and used only when necessary, and it may not be exercised in the presence of another detained person or a person of the opposite sex. Removing altogether the ability to search in that way would create an easy way for detainees to thwart removal efforts.
Amendments 27 and 28 are to clause 34. Section 94B of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 allows human rights claims and deportation cases to be certified to require an appeal to be brought from outside the UK, where to do so would not cause serious irreversible harm or otherwise breach human rights. Clause 34 extends that power to apply to all human rights claims, but amendment 27 would remove that clause from the Bill. Extending such a power to all human rights claims is a Government manifesto commitment and builds on the success of section 94B, which was introduced by the Immigration Act 2014 and has resulted in more than 230 foreign national offenders being deported before their appeal.
The Court of Appeal recently considered two cases concerning the operation of that power. It held that the Government are generally entitled to proceed on the basis that an out-of-country appeal is a fair and effective remedy. The amendment would prevent the Government from meeting their manifesto commitment to extending that successful power, the operation of which has recently been endorsed by the Court of Appeal.
Amendment 28 relates to the best interests of children. It seeks to impose an obligation on the Secretary of State to conduct a multi-agency best-interest assessment for any child whose human rights may be breached by the decision to certify. The amendment is unnecessary because, before any decision to certify is made, the best interests of any child affected by that decision must already be considered. Section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009 imposes a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to consider the best interests of any child affected by a decision to certify. Where the person concerned makes the Secretary of State aware of the involvement of a child who may be affected by her decision, the Secretary of State will ensure that the best interest of that child is a primary consideration when deciding whether to certify. That consideration is supported by published guidance and will take into account all the circumstances of the case.
Keir Starmer
I start by confirming that we see the sense in the Government new clauses—I think they are new clauses 3 to 7—intended to help local authorities such as Kent deal with unaccompanied children, and we support them. But that is the extent of the agreement on this group of amendments.
Amendment 29 deals with the removal of support for certain categories of migrants. Such removal is wrong in principle and likely to be counterproductive. All the evidence is one way—support for families facing removal is the best means of ensuring that they leave. By support, I mean not only support in the terms set out in the Bill, but support by way of help with obstacles, documents and advice. It is the families that are supported in that broad way that are most likely to leave, and thus the objective is achieved by having the support in place. By contrast, withdrawing support has the opposite effect.
Let us call a spade a spade. Withdrawing support for this category of migrants is a threat of destitution as a means of enforcing immigration rules. All the evidence suggests that it is counterproductive. The Minister mentioned the 2005 pilot, confident—I think—that I would also mention it. It was a pilot of the proposition that withdrawing support—threatening destitution—was likely to encourage people to leave and to alter behaviour. The results of that pilot were evaluated in 2006, and they were stark. Of the 116 families in the pilot, one family left as a result of the withdrawal of support; 12 sought help with documents; 32 families went underground; and nine were removed from the scheme because on analysis it was found that their claims should not have been refused. The pilot was considered a complete failure.
The evidence is not only a pilot some 10 years ago: it is practice since then, with successive and different Governments accepting that destitution, or the threat of destitution, should not be used as a means of enforcing removal because—among other reasons—it is wholly counterproductive.
The Minister says that the situation now is different, and he put forward two reasons. The first is that, under the proposed arrangements, families would have to prove there was a genuine obstacle to removal. I am not sure how far that advances the argument. The idea seems to be that putting the onus on the family to prove a genuine obstacle will make them less likely to go underground if support is withdrawn, but there is no rational link between the two propositions. Secondly, he says the process will not be by way of correspondence, but carried out in a more engaged manner. It is hard to see how that change, welcome though it is, will make a difference to the stark results of the 2005 pilot. The withdrawal will cause hardship, distress and anxiety and will be wholly counterproductive. That is one the problems with the Bill: it does not meet its own objectives. The only basis on which the Government can advance these provisions is that they will make the UK appear to be a more hostile environment.
Destitution in the 21st century should not be a means of enforcing immigration rules, or any other rules, yet that is what lies behind the provisions. The whole House will accept that children should not be adversely impacted by the decisions of their parents, yet the Bill will visit those adverse impacts on them, because they will fall within the removal of support provisions. That led to great debate in Committee about whether this would simply transfer the burden from one Department to local authorities, which are not going to stand by and leave destitute children unassisted. The provision, therefore, is wrong in principle and counterproductive, and not one that in the 21st century we should have anything to do with.
Turning briefly to appeals, I will start with the narrow issue of appeals on the question of support. Amendments 31, 40 and 30 would reinstate the right of appeal against Home Office decisions on support. This is where the Home Office has made a decision on support but it is thought that the decision is wrong. At the moment, the error rate is very high. Those in the House who were not on the Committee will be astonished to hear that it is as high as 60% in some cases. Under the Bill, those decisions could not be put right on a simple appeal. In Committee, the Minister said that the long route of judicial review would remain as a remedy, but I failed to understand then, and I fail to do so now, how it can be sensible or cost-efficient to remove a simple right of appeal in cases for which there is a high rate of success and to rely on the much more expensive route of judicial review by different principles. With a 60% error rate, it is unacceptable to withdraw the right of appeal.
In relation to that error rate and others I will mention, the argument that some decisions that are changed are changed because an individual provides additional information is no answer. The rate of 60%, and of 40% to 42% for general appeals, is high in any event, and there is no evidence to suggest that in the majority of cases an individual has not provided the necessary information. In any event, whether or not they have been properly advised about what information to provide, they should not be punished by the withdrawal of support where inappropriate.
On the wider point of appeal, amendments 27 and 28 deal with the extension of appeals to the wider category of individuals who will be removed before they can appeal. There is a general point to make about such appeals, which is that although there may be court cases establishing that these provisions or their forerunners do not extinguish the rights of appeal, there is no question but that they materially inhibit the right of appeal. The success rate under the current arrangements, of between 40% and 42%, is instructive—these are the cases where individuals have been removed, only in the end to succeed in their appeals. I accept that some in that group may well have succeeded earlier had different or fuller information been made available to the authorities, but there is a variety of reasons why that may have happened, including the advice that those people had been given. Removing first, before appeal, materially inhibits rights of appeal and it should certainly not be expanded.
Amendments 27 and 28 are intended to ensure that before a decision is made to certify any claim for out-of-country appeal, the best interests of any child affected must be considered. These amendments propose a specific provision to deal with a real problem, rather than the general provision that is already in place, and that is materially important for the children who will be affected by the extension of the rules on appeal.
I want to spend just a few moments on the family reunification issues. Part 11 of the immigration rules are very narrowly drawn, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) has given a powerful example of the injustice that they can and do inflict. New clause 1 is intended to remedy that, and I am sympathetic to it, but we have tabled new clause 11, which proposes a wider review of the refugee family reunification rules. New clause 11 has the advantage of covering the failure to implement the Dublin III convention, the advantage of enabling the review to consider an option to allow British citizens to sponsor close family members recognised as refugees or granted humanitarian protection, and the advantage of looking at options for extending the criteria for family reunion in the way envisaged by new clause 1.
Mr Chope
I rise to speak to my two new clauses. In so doing, I want to thank the Minister for telling me all the reasons why he does not support them, although he was generous enough to say that he agrees with the principles that lie behind them.
The second of my new clauses, new clause 12, could well be a blueprint for what happens after the country decides to leave the European Union in the forthcoming referendum, because it sets out the way in which people who are already in this country would be able to obtain the right of residence here, as well as some of the associated rules to ensure that those without the right of residence would be the subject of criminal sanctions.
Before coming to that in more detail, I want to refer to new clause 10 and some of the background to it. New clause 10 is modelled very much on a private Member’s Bill that I have brought forward on a couple of occasions for debate in the House, the Illegal Immigrants (Criminal Sanctions) Bill. The Bill had the privilege of being the subject of an opinion poll, which was conducted by the noble Lord Ashcroft in June 2013. The findings were that some 86% of those polled supported the provisions of the Bill and only 9% were against them, so this is a new clause that strikes a chord with the British people.
The reason I have brought those provisions forward again is that, despite previous debates, it seems that the statistics on how many people are being prosecuted and/or convicted for offences under section 24A of the Immigration Act 1971 are going in the wrong direction. In 2009, the number of people proceeded against and convicted both in the magistrates courts and the Crown courts for offences against that section was a giddy 158. For every year after 2009 the number had fallen, and by 2013—the last year for which figures are available—the number found guilty in the magistrates courts had fallen to six and the number convicted in the Crown courts had fallen to 66, making a total of 72 convictions for a widespread range of criminal offences against our immigration laws.
Yvette Cooper
I wish to speak to new clauses 1 and 11, which focus on the response that we should have to the refugee crisis and the way in which the family reunion rules for refugees are simply not working. The background to this is that the European refugee crisis is showing no signs of easing. Nearly 1 million refugees have travelled to our continent this year. Some 700,000 people have travelled through Greece and, in the final weeks of November, almost 3,000 people were arriving on the tiny island of Lesbos by boat each day—this is even in the November cold. A huge number of refugees are stuck in the Balkans, often in very difficult and increasingly harsh weather conditions; there are refugees camps in Idomeni, on the Greek border, and thousands more refugees are in Serbia, including unaccompanied children. Other countries in Europe are doing considerably more than us, and I continually urge the Government to do more, as we need to do our bit to support the refugees. I am talking about those not just in the camps in the regions, but those who have fled to Europe.
Tomorrow the Prime Minister will argue that Britain should not stand back and let other countries shoulder the entire security burden that stems from the events in Syria. That will be a powerful point for him to make, but what follows from that is the fact that we should not stand back and allow other countries to shoulder so much more of the burden of responding to the refugee crisis, especially as we are not doing enough to help.
This year, Britain will take just 1,000 refugees from Syria, and yet 3,000 arrive each day in Lesbos. I was struck by what the Minister said about asylum shopping. Given that we had only 25,000 asylum seekers in Britain last year, compared with 700,000 in Germany, how can he seriously talk about asylum shopping? In fact, what we are talking about are families who have been split up by a terrible refugee crisis and who simply want to be together. Families have been ripped apart by a bloody and brutal civil war in Syria. Parents have been torn apart from their children and brothers apart from their sisters.
I have met Syrian children on their own in refugee camps. There are 11 and 12-year-olds desperate to be reunited with their families. Our current rules make it very hard to reunite families of refugees who have been split up by the crisis. The British Red Cross is currently supporting an Iraqi refugee who hopes to be reunited with his wife and two daughters, one of whom is disabled and has the mental age of a seven-year-old. She is entirely dependent on her mother, but she is over 18 and so is not eligible to come to the UK under the Minister’s family reunion rules for refugees. She is stuck in Iraq, and the strain of being a sole carer is taking its toll on her mother.
Another case of the Red Cross is that of a 15-year-old boy whose parents have both been killed in the war and whose brother has been granted refugee status in the UK. He has not registered an asylum claim anywhere in Europe, but has had his fingerprints taken in Greece. Understandably, his brother wants him to join him in the UK, but he is currently not eligible and has been told to return to Greece where he knows no one and has no prospects. He is now in Italy, but is getting no support from the state and is living with another Syrian family. His brother is incredibly worried about his safety, as he feels that he is at risk of being exploited by gangs of traffickers, which, as we know, is what happens to many unaccompanied refugee children.
When I was in Calais a few weeks ago, I met a single mother with two small children. She thought that her husband had been killed in an Assad jail. The family were living in a small caravan and tents in the mud in Calais. They had left Syria and been financially supported for a while by her father-in-law, but he can now no longer afford to support them. She told me that her own father and brother were here in Britain, and that was why she had paid money to people traffickers to travel across Europe to try to join them, as they were her only remaining family. She said that they could support her here in Britain. [Interruption.] The Minister says what about Dublin. What a good point. What about Dublin III, because, in so many cases, Dublin III should help to reunite families, but it does not do that? It is not working,
Quite a few people I talked to in Calais probably would have a case under the Dublin III arrangement, but there was no process for them to apply to. Those who had looked at it were told that the French procedures and the bureaucracy would not allow it and that it was too difficult. This is why new clause 11 is so important. It urges the Minister to look at the way in which Dublin III is being implemented across Europe. Clearly, there is a huge problem here, and it could be what is driving some of the illegal migration. It could also be driving people to take huge risks at Calais. Why are they trying so desperately hard to get to Britain? Why are they not going to Germany, Sweden or other countries? Many of them told me that it was because they had family in Britain, and they were people who ought to have refugee status. Their claims were not being assessed so they were taking huge risks, causing security risks for the Eurotunnel trains and causing great problems. They were stuck in the mud in the cold winter of northern France. Much of this is to do with what France and other countries need to do, but I urge the Minister to review Dublin III. It is just not working in practice for too many of the refugees who are fleeing terrible conflict.
When many refugee families have been hit by crisis, persecution or war, they may lose their closest family members. They may no longer have the parent or the child that current family reunion rules cover. Their nearest relative may now be a brother or sister or someone who is not covered by the existing rules. That is why it is so important to look at the wider family relationships of refugees.
My intention in drawing up new clause 1 was to make it easier to reunite refugee families and to help refugees whose closest family are already refugees here in Britain to get sanctuary here too. That would cover the case of the 19-year-old in Beirut that I raised with the Minister, and the woman whose disabled child is over 18 but still needs her parents. It is not my objective to rewrite the wider immigration rules for those who are not refugees; that is a different debate. I want to concentrate on those who are refugees. I recognise that new clause 1 is not the simplest way to do this because it is primary legislation when the matter would be dealt with better through immigration rules. Further changes to immigration rules would be needed alongside new clause 1 to ensure that the measure was focused on those fleeing conflict rather than wider family who are not refugees.
The new clause is an attempt to focus the Minister’s attention on the plight of families who are being separated all across Europe and need to be reunited. We should, out of compassion and as part of our support for refugees and for families and the family values that we hold dear, make more attempt to reunite families. It would be the best way for us to increase the number of refugees that we in Britain take. The Prime Minister set a target of 20,000 over the next five years, but we know that only 1,000 of those will be here before Christmas if the Government’s targets are met. They will need to go beyond that. The refugee crisis is not going away, and the most sensible, simple and fair way to provide more support for those who already have family here who could support them is for us in Britain to give them sanctuary.
We cannot make the debate on Syria simply one about security. It has to be about refugees and compassion as well. I know that the Government have done much to help refugees in the region, and I have praised them for doing so many times, but it is not an alternative to doing our bit to reunite families. There are so many ways in which the Government could do this; we have set out a series of ways in new clause 1 and in new clause 11. I have always sought to work on a cross-party basis and to build the biggest possible consensus. I urge the Minister in the same spirit to look carefully at what more he is able to do to help reunite some of the desperate refugee families who really need our help.
Kelly Tolhurst
I am sure that my hon. Friends and Opposition Members who served on the Public Bill Committee will agree that the debates were thoughtful and informative. I was extremely pleased to be a member of the Committee. Like my hon. Friends the Members for Castle Point (Rebecca Harris) and for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), in the past 12 months, as I have knocked on thousands of doors, I have found that immigration has been a big issue for my constituents. It has not been very often that I have knocked on a door and people have not raised this issue with me. I was therefore extremely pleased to be on the Bill Committee and to listen to the debate and hopefully increase my knowledge of certain aspects of the Bill.
Stuart C. McDonald
Like the hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), we believe that the provisions on support are among the most draconian parts of the Bill; I agree with the Minister to the extent that the disagreement is one of principle.
In our view, provisions that seek to use the further deliberate infliction of destitution, including of children, as a tool of immigration policy must be thoroughly opposed. The provisions fly in the face of evidence, are counterproductive and show a grim lack of compassion. We support all amendments seeking to prevent, or at least limit, the damage. They include amendment 29, which would remove clause 37 and therefore most of the damaging changes, and amendments 30 and 31, which would preserve all rights of appeal against decisions to refuse support. Amendment 40, tabled by Scottish National party Members, would ensure that families with children who are minors received section 95 support until they left the country.
The Minister referred to the pilot carried out by the last Labour Government, and that is still relevant to what is being proposed today. Similar proposals were abandoned because of the results of the pilot. It is interesting to look at the comments about the project made by the Joint Committee on Human Rights:
“The section 9 pilot has caused considerable hardship and does not appear to have encouraged more refused asylum seeking families to leave the UK…We believe that using both the threats and the actuality of destitution and family separation is incompatible with the principles of common humanity and with international human rights law and that it has no place in a humane society. We recommend that section 9 be repealed at the earliest opportunity.”
We believe that the same should happen to the equivalent provisions in this Bill.
Sadly, the Government have in their sights not only children but those who arrived as children and are now young adults. Rather cruelly, young care leavers will be prime targets. That is why we have tabled amendments 42 to 45, which would ensure that young people leaving local authority care were able to access leaving care support under the Children Act 1989 without discrimination. Amendments 42 and 43 would remove the provisions, added by schedule 9, that would prevent local authorities from providing leaving care support under the 1989 Act to young people who were not asylum seekers and did not have leave to remain when they reached age 18.
Amendment 44 would enable local authorities to provide leaving care support under the 1989 Act to young people who did not have leave to remain and were not asylum seekers. Finally in this group, amendment 45 would provide for the Secretary of State to make funding available to local authorities, as the specialist agency responsible for care leavers, to meet the duties, set out in the 1989 Act, to the latter group of care leavers.
Our amendments 39 and 36 bring us back to what I said about the first group of amendments relating to the broad powers, which we seek to rein in, proposed for immigration officers. Despite what the Minister says, those include powers for detainee custody officers, prison officers and prison custody officers to strip search detained persons for anything that could be evidence of their nationality—a very broadly defined power. The Minister points out that Government amendments 3 and 4 propose changing the name of the search from “strip search” to “full search”, but they do not in any essential way change the extent of the powers, which, to all intents and purposes as far as I still understand them, are basically strip search powers. For that reason, provision on the gender of the persons present during the search is made in clause 25(8). Our amendment 36 would remove the proposed power for custody officers to strip search detainees for documents that “might” establish a person’s nationality or indicate
“the place from which the person travelled to the UK or to which a person is proposing to go.”
Going further, we seek to tighten schedule 2(2) of the Immigration Act 1971. This power ostensibly deals with individuals on arrival in the UK for the purposes of determining whether they have or should be given leave to enter or remain. It has been used by the Home Office as justification for conducting speculative, in-country spot-checks involving “consensual interviews”. Amendment 39 would expressly limit this power to examination at the point of entry. The Minister argues that our amendment makes the power too tightly drawn, but in our view it is far better for intrusive powers to be tightly drawn than drawn broadly and arbitrarily.
The other atrocious provisions that amendments in this group seek to attack are those which provide that people should leave the UK even before their appeal against a Home Office decision has been heard. Amendment 27, which has support from Labour as well as SNP Members, would remove the offending clause 34, which extends powers of certification introduced by the Immigration Act 2014 to mean no longer just “deport first, appeal later” for those convicted, but “remove first, appeal later” for all. To us, these provisions are madness. They will mean people having to give up jobs, studies and family life while appeals are ongoing. Families could be separated for lengthy and unknown periods until their appeal is finally determined.
All this comes against a background of constant criticism of Home Office decision making, including in a recent ombudsman’s report. We should bear in mind that in 2014-15 42% of managed migration appeals and 42% of entry clearance appeals were successful. In 2013-14, the figures were 49% and 48%. Thousands of people could have to leave for several months because the Home Office got it wrong. The danger is that appeals will not be pursued or will be pursued inadequately given the costs of pursuing an appeal as a privately paying client from overseas.
Joanna Cherry
My hon. Friend will be aware that Home Office statistics state that only 24% of appellants removed under the current “deport first, appeal later” provisions go through with their appeals. Does he agree that this suggests that extending those provisions will make it much harder—in fact, probably impossible—for the majority of these appeals to go ahead? Is it not inherently unfair to hold appeals with the appellants unable to make their own case in person?
Stuart C. McDonald
I am grateful for that intervention and entirely agree with my hon. and learned Friend.
The Government seem to be attempting to cut net migration not just by limiting the class of people who can come under the rules but by making it nearly impossible for people to exercise their legitimate rights to stay. This is scraping the barrel of immigration control measures, and I will want to test the House’s opinion on that.
We regard as utterly unnecessary the part 7 provisions on the English language. Our amendment 34 would ensure that part 7 will not come into force in Scotland without the consent of the Scottish Parliament. We have faith that our public authorities, whether reserved or devolved, can determine that a worker has the necessary skills for the job, including speaking fluent English, and that normal complaints procedures would deal with any problems, as with any other complaint about competence. Part 7 creates unnecessary bureaucracy and is a clear example of immigration theatre and tokenism.
A number of other Members have made brave attempts to bring a silver lining to the cloud provided by this grim Bill. New clauses 11 and 1 seek to expand the range of people qualifying for refugee family reunion. I have asked questions, written letters and spoken in this Chamber on this point on several occasions, so I am very happy to provide my backing for such attempts. In the face of the most dreadful refugee crisis since the second world war, surely this is a sensible option that we can all support. Broader family reunion means that people we know should logically be sheltered in the United Kingdom do get to come here. This is the logical place for them because they have family support here and so will have help with accommodation and integration, for example. They will often even pay for their own flight. With little trouble for the Government or the taxpayer, we can extend a hand of friendship to more of those fleeing dreadful war and persecution.
Three amendments in the name of the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) similarly seek to bring some light from the darkness. Amendment 2 would introduce permission to work for those seeking asylum who have been waiting six months for a decision. My colleagues and I recognise that this is a positive step forward, and it has our backing. We also thoroughly welcome new clause 14 as a step forward in overcoming the unduly onerous financial thresholds attached to family visas, which the Children’s Commissioner for England recently reported had created thousands of what she called “Skype families”—British children able to communicate with a parent only over the internet. New clause 15 would improve rules relating to adult dependent relatives by removing unnecessary criteria, and it again has our full support.
Gavin Robinson
I appreciate the opportunity to address the House again on Report, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald), whose stewardship this afternoon has been thoughtful and thought provoking.
There is one amendment in my name, although I cannot entirely take the credit for it, and I may move slightly away from it, given what the Minister said earlier. It relates to part 7 on the requirement on public services to employ English speakers, with some exceptions for jobs outside mainland UK and so on. I had the opportunity to raise this issue on Second Reading. My first observation was that I was amazed it was not already a requirement. I cannot think of any engagement I have had with any public servant in this country who was unable to speak our language fluently. I also said that I hoped in my contributions in the Chamber and elsewhere to speak English just as well as every other resident of Northern Ireland. Yet the Bill specifically excludes the provisions in part 7 from applying to Northern Ireland.
Mr Burrowes
I share the hon. Gentleman’s surprise that there is not already such a requirement. Does he share my surprise that in areas of public life, not least in Enfield, there are councillors who themselves perhaps would not be able to pass the test of being fluent in verbal or indeed written English? [Interruption.] Yes, councillors.
Gavin Robinson
It is a wonderful tenet of our democracy that if people wish to choose an individual to represent them irrespective of their linguistic gymnastics, and are satisfied that that person will do so ably and capably, it should be within their gift to endorse them. However, when it comes to those employed in our public services throughout the UK, I think not only that this should be a requirement, but that it should apply in Northern Ireland as well.
Having made such points, it is fair to recognise what the Minister outlined in his opening speech on this tranche of amendments. He said that there are implications for the devolved Administrations and institutions, and that what has been fairly replicated for the devolved Administration in Scotland should most properly have formed the basis of our amendment 1. I accept that point, so if he considers the amendment defective, I will take that on board. However, the principle is well worth pursuing. He helpfully outlined that the Government intend to look at the issue again in the other place, which I welcome.
James Brokenshire
It may help the hon. Gentleman to say that, as I indicated in my speech, certain drafting issues need further attention to make the provision effective and consistent with those in the other nations of the UK, but we certainly intend to return to it in the Lords.
Gavin Robinson
I am grateful to the Minister for his comments.
While we are on that topic, may I suggest that there is further work to be done in the other place? Schedule 11 relates to maritime enforcement. Reference was made on Second Reading to the failure of the schedule to mention the Belfast harbour police. I think the Minister took on board the fact that it is a properly constituted, legitimate authority that is mandated to operate within the port. It is a private police force, but it looks after the security of the port. I believe that an additional provision relating to the Belfast Harbour Police could be inserted into the Bill in the other place, should the opportunity to do so arise and should such a provision have the Government’s backing. If we are intent on pursuing the thrust of the Bill, and the protections that the maritime provisions will provide, it is important that we give that matter consideration in the other place.
I want to raise a couple of issues that have arisen in recent years that relate to immigration in general and to the UK Border Force in particular. They relate to the new clauses and amendments, so I shall not be straying too far from the subject. Border Force runs a skeleton operation in Northern Ireland. In fact, one could easily be forgiven for thinking that its effective operational role related only to mainland GB.
There are ferry links between my constituency of Belfast East and that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds), and the constituency that Stranraer rests in. I am struggling to remember which one that is, but I think it is Dumfries and Galloway. Stena goes there. UK Border Force will be waiting in Scotland for anyone travelling from our part of the UK to that part of the mainland. Should anyone wish to board the vessel in Belfast in a vehicle, they will not be searched or questioned at all. Foot passengers will go through more invasive security procedures, but the immigration screening does not take place in Belfast. That omission should be looked at.
I want to mention the case of Myriama Yousef. She is a wonderful character who sought asylum in Belfast and received great assistance from the Belfast Central Mission, the Methodist church in the city. I have to be careful about the terminology I use to describe her case. She is either a failed asylum seeker or a refused asylum seeker. She is someone who sought asylum in the United Kingdom and was turned down. She had to spend time in the Larne House detention centre, which is located within the Larne PSNI station. Anyone with any knowledge of security arrangements in Northern Ireland will know that the police stations there are not the most welcoming or inviting places. That is a consequence of our history. Anyone who is detained for immigration reasons in Northern Ireland is held there, in what looks like a military compound, with sangars, high fences, security lighting and security cameras. It is not an acceptable place. Myriama Yousef was deported to the country from which she had entered the UK. She was removed to Dublin, at which point she immediately got on the Ulsterbus, paid her £8.50 fare and was back in Belfast within two hours. Following her subsequent detection, she was brought to Yarl’s Wood.
Another case relates to a point made by the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper). She talked about a 19-year-old in Beirut who was separated from her family, but this case relates to Johnny Sandhu, an Indian-born solicitor from Northern Ireland who operated in Limavady. He was detected in the serious crime suite inciting a member of the Ulster Volunteer Force to commit murder so that they could evade prosecution. He was subsequently jailed for 10 years and, on his release, he was deported back to India. His family, who relied on him, were left in Northern Ireland. His children, who were going through the education system and doing their GCSEs at the time, were not in a position to up sticks and leave, but their father was never in a position to come back to the United Kingdom.
I would be grateful if the Minister considered cases such as that and the one raised by the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford to see how we can be a little more compassionate and recognise that, when someone’s 18th birthday strikes, they do not cut all ties or lose all connection with their family. We should consider how we, as a country, can best ensure that the family unit is held together.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
On Second Reading, I described the Bill as heinous. My experience as a member of the Bill Committee has not altered that impression. The Bill is divisive and disproportionate, and it ultimately lacks a credible evidence base.
The evidence sessions were embarrassing for the Government because the vast majority of the oral and written evidence the Committee received was damning of their proposals. Witnesses from the private, public and third sectors sent the underlying message that the Bill lacks a proper evidence base, is not necessary and is merely being brought about to appease the right wing of the Conservative party and UKIP.
I take issue with part 5, which, among other things, proposes to remove support from those whose asylum applications have been refused. That blanket approach does not allow for the consideration of personal circumstances, nor does it protect families with children. We heard evidence from a number of organisations that voiced concern, shock and deep disgust over part 5, particularly in respect of how it might affect the welfare of children.
In giving evidence, Ilona Pinter of the Children’s Society said:
“We think the risks for children from this provision are very serious indeed. Essentially, it would see families becoming destitute—they would no longer have accommodation and financial support under asylum support. That obviously brings with it a whole range of risks, from families being street homeless to families having to move around, potentially for short periods of time, to stay in potentially unsafe accommodation.”––[Official Report, Immigration Public Bill Committee, 20 October 2015; c. 72, Q165.]
Even Lord Green of Deddington from Migrant Watch, with whom I disagree on almost everything else, agreed that asylum seekers with children whose claim has been refused should be treated differently.
Part 1 sets out ambitions to reduce the exploitation of migrants. However, when individuals and, in particular, parents with children are pushed into a vulnerable situation, they are forced into making rash and desperate decisions that only increase their vulnerability and the dangers they face. Most reasonable people would accept that we have a responsibility towards those who have had their asylum application rejected. Amendment 29 seeks to ensure that we continue to uphold that responsibility.
Amendment 29 seeks to omit all the changes to support that have been made by the Government by removing clause 37 and schedule 8. Assuming that the Government are not minded to accept such a wholesale change, amendment 40 would ensure that some protection exists for the children of the families affected.
The Government have attempted to simplify the support that is provided in the immigration system by moving from two sets of regulations whereby asylum seekers can claim support to four sets of regulations dealing with support by local government and central Government. That is not simplification as I understand it. Under the Bill, local authorities will be legally prevented from providing support to families, including those with young children, when there are
“reasonable grounds for believing that support will be provided”
by Home Office provisions. In practice, that might create dangerous gaps in the system where support is not provided to vulnerable families.
It is worth repeating the horrendous story of the one-year-old boy, EG, who died in 2012, followed two days later by his mother, when they were left in limbo between two different types of support. In responding to that example, the Minister stated that the gap in provision was between support from two different Departments. I accept that, but can he guarantee with absolute certainty that his proposals will result in no gaps whatsoever between the support people receive from central Government and local government?
The changes that are proposed by the Government will create a significant financial and administrative burden for local authorities. The Government claim to have consulted widely, but the Scottish Government and Scottish local authorities were not content with the level of consultation from the Home Office before the introduction of these provisions.
The underlying reason for removing support from failed asylum seekers is to allow the Government to expedite the removal of affected parties.
Margaret Ferrier
As my hon. Friend says, the Bill proposes the removal of support from those who are due to be deported. That will obviously have an impact on the children of the families who are affected. To give some context, is it not the case that this support amounts to just over £5 per day? Removing that bare minimum amount of support will not lead to refused applicants being removed from the UK any quicker. We should support families until they are deported from the UK.
Gavin Newlands
I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. In Committee we tabled an amendment to try to ensure that support was pegged at 60% of income support, which would have increased support by just over £1 a day. It is not a massive amount of money—I am not sure that many Members of the House could survive on just over £6 a day.
Paul Blomfield
In view of the time and our keenness to hear the Minister respond, I will just raise a couple of brief points. Amendment 7 has not been discussed so far this afternoon, and it is unfortunate that it is being introduced at this stage, because we did not get the opportunity to consider the principles behind it in Committee. Those include fundamental principles about the removal of access to higher education for a significant cohort of young people. The amendment will prevent local authorities from providing funding to facilitate access to higher education for care leavers whom they are supporting but who have limited leave to remain.
In the explanatory notes, the Government say that that measure will be replaced by a requirement to qualify under student support regulations, which implies that that is an easy alternative route. However, they know that that is disingenuous, because under those regulations young people who have not been recognised as refugees qualify for such a loan only if they have had leave to remain for three years, or if they have lived in the UK for more than half their life. In effect, that measure cuts off access to higher education for a significant proportion of young people who will, in many cases, gain leave to remain in the UK and build their lives here. That is not only discriminatory, but it prevents young people at a crucial point in their life from developing the skills that will provide them with productive careers and an opportunity to give back to society.
The Government have also said that they are concerned about an undue burden on local authorities because people in that situation are required to pay overseas student fees. It would be easy to legislate to give them home fees student status, which would be another option for alleviating the burden on local authorities, and one that I am sure universities would be keen to embrace. I raise the point only because I hope that, when the Bill reaches the other place, this issue will be given proper consideration.
The removal of support from refused asylum seekers with families says a lot about the Bill as a good example of bad law making, with measures brought forward that fly in the face of evidence. As other hon. Members have made clear, all the evidence is that not only is it a harsh measure, but it will be counterproductive to the Government’s objectives. If we want to reduce expenditure on support for asylum seekers, the best way to do so is to conclude cases as quickly as possible. That does not require legislation: it just needs better resourcing and decision making in the Home Office.
In Committee, the Minister argued that asylum support rates are a pull factor for asylum seekers coming to the UK, despite the fact that our rates are significantly lower than those of most other countries in Europe. I challenged him to provide evidence that they were a pull factor, but he was unable to do so. I hope that now, having had the opportunity to consider the issue and to draw on the substantial support that he has, he might be able to provide the evidence that justifies the removal of that support. All the evidence that we received as a Committee suggests that it will drive the issue in the opposite direction to the Government’s objectives. It will make it more difficult for the Home Office to remain in contact with the people liable to removal and, ultimately, undermine efforts to promote voluntary departures. It will not tackle the issue: it will create destitution that will then have to be addressed by local authorities; it will create pressure on mental health services, something that we also heard; and it could leave people vulnerable to labour exploitation by pushing them into the hands of exploitative employers. For all those reasons, I urge the Government to think again on this issue.
James Brokenshire
Again, we have touched on several important themes in the Bill that were debated and examined in detail in Committee. We have also had additional items in new clauses that were not addressed in Committee, including those tabled by the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper). We understand the depth of feeling about the human suffering in Syria and the UK and we are obviously taking several steps to respond to that crisis. I recognise the contribution that she has made to highlight several issues and concerns relating to that. We do not believe, however—I will explain how this fits into what other European countries are doing—that widening the family reunion eligibility criteria is the appropriate response. We are focusing our efforts on humanitarian aid to help the majority of refugees who remain in the region, and working with international partners to find a solution to the conflict, as well as—of course—the issue of resettlement, including of 20,000 of the most vulnerable refugees over the course of this Parliament.
The right hon. Lady asked about Dublin, and it is important to underline that the UK has fully implemented the Dublin III regulation. Those in Calais are the responsibility of the French authorities, and anyone wishing to benefit from the family unity provision of the regulation must first lodge an asylum claim in France and provide details of their family in the UK. A request will then be made to the UK to accept responsibility for that claim based on the presence of close family members—as I think the right hon. Lady recognises. As part of our joint declaration with the French Government, we continue to work with the French authorities on the overall processing of asylum claims and ways in which we can continue to support their activities. Indeed, some of the numbers they are processing and seeing outside the camps are increasing.
It is also worth underlining that our family reunion policy is more generous than our international obligations require. As I hinted at, other EU countries impose additional restrictions in their lawful residence requirements. Countries such as Denmark, Sweden and Austria have recently announced they are amending their family reunion policies, while Germany has indicated it will review its policy.
The right hon. Lady asked me about compelling humanitarian cases, and indeed the hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) gave another example. Where a family reunion application fails under the immigration rules, such as in the case of an 18 or 19-year-old applying to join their refugee parents in the UK, the entry clearance officer must consider whether there are exceptional circumstances or compassionate reasons to justify granting a visa outside the rules. I gave another example in relation to elderly parents, so there is that obligation on entry clearance officers. The hon. Gentleman is no longer in his place, but he also highlighted the specific issue of the Belfast harbour police. I am happy to reflect on his point, while recognising that it was established under separate legislation: the Harbours, Docks and Piers Clauses Act 1847. Information-sharing powers exist, but I am happy to look at that in further detail.
My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) highlighted deportation. Our primary sanctions for immigration non-compliance are removal and civil penalties, which is why, in many respects, prosecution numbers are relatively low. Our focus is on removal, therefore, rather than prosecution, which can delay removal and is obviously costly. That is why we have taken this approach.
James Brokenshire
Obviously, powers of arrest do reside. Issues of detention came up in the previous debate, and I do not cut across the need to uphold the law and ensure that people are appropriately identified, and I think that removal or a civil penalty for those unlawfully employing them are appropriate measures.
The hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald), speaking for the SNP, highlighted an issue to do with the minimum income threshold. A migrant partner with an appropriate job offer in the UK can apply under tier 2 of the points-based system, but overseas employment is no guarantee of finding work in the UK.
In highlighting the issue of destitution, the hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), who speaks for the official Opposition, said that our arrangements would not work, based on the 2005 pilot. I gave some explanation when I opened the debate, but I would add that there will be focused and targeted engagement with appeal rights-exhausted families together with local authorities. That close engagement with families is in contrast with what happened before. The Local Government Association acknowledges the need for focused efforts to engage with families and adults to promote returns, and that is precisely what we intend to do.
We are working with local authorities to close the gaps that some have suggested might apply, and, in many ways, the LGA welcomes the steps we have taken to ensure that gaps are closed. On the issue of overseas appeals, obviously this matter has been tested by the Court of Appeal, which recently confirmed that the Government were generally entitled to proceed on the basis that an out-of-country appeal is fair and effective remedy. On access to higher education, we want equality of treatment in respect of the relevant student support regulations. We are requiring that the test should be that which is applied to other migrants and British citizens applying for a student loan under the student support regulations.
Again, there was comment about safeguards for children. I want to underline the duty we have under section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009 to safeguard and promote the welfare of children. That is something we have carefully considered throughout our consideration of these provisions and that we judge provides the necessary support and protection mechanism for children under the Bill.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
We have heard considerable debate and lively discussion as the Immigration Bill has been discussed today and at the various other stages. A range of views and concerns have been expressed and considered amendments have been voted on. As we come to Third Reading, it is important that we remember why the Bill is so necessary, so I want to reflect on what we believe the Bill will do.
As I said on Second Reading, we must continue to build an immigration system that is fair to British citizens and people who come here legitimately to play by the rules and contribute to our society. That means ensuring that immigration is balanced and sustainable and that net migration can be managed.
I am sure that the whole House will agree that, without immigration, this country would not be the thriving multiracial, multifaith democracy that it is today. Immigration has brought tremendous benefits—to our economy, our culture and our society—but, as I have said before, when net migration is too high, and the pace of change too fast, it puts pressure on schools, hospitals, accommodation, transport and social services, and it can drive down wages for people on low incomes. That is not fair on the British public and it is not fair on those who come here legitimately and play by the rules. So since 2010 the Government have reformed the chaotic and uncontrolled immigration system that we inherited, and instead we are building one that works in the national interest.
This Bill will ensure that we can go further in bringing clarity, fairness and integrity to the immigration system. I would like to thank right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House for their constructive contributions in shaping this Bill during its parliamentary stages, and all those who have been involved in working on it: the members of the Committee, the House authorities, the organisations who gave evidence to the Bill Committee, and those who responded to all the consultations and provided briefing on the Bill. I thank and commend my right hon. Friend the Minister for Immigration for the thoughtful way in which he has steered the Bill through the House. It has been important and substantial work. I want to highlight briefly some of the measures in the Bill.
The exploitation of vulnerable people by unscrupulous employers is an issue that has been raised by victims’ campaign groups, charitable organisations and Members in this House many times before. We know that labour market exploitation can be committed by organised criminal gangs, and it is clear that workers’ rights need to be enforced more effectively, and that the current regulatory framework needs improvement. This Bill will create a new statutory director of labour market enforcement to oversee and co-ordinate the drive for more effective enforcement across the spectrum of non-compliance.
The House will appreciate that illegal working remains one of the principal pull factors for people coming to live in the UK illegally, so we are taking the necessary step of making illegal working a criminal offence. This addresses a genuine gap in our ability to use proceeds of crime powers to seize and confiscate the profits made by those who choose to break our immigration laws. But we should be clear that this measure is not intended to—nor will it—punish the vulnerable, such as those who are trafficked here and forced to work illegally. The safeguards provided in the Modern Slavery Act 2015 will continue to protect people in those circumstances. Instead, we want to deal with those illegal migrants who choose to work here illegally when they should, and could, leave the UK. But we must also target the employers who facilitate illegal working. The Bill will allow us to strengthen sanctions for employers who knowingly turn a blind eye to the fact that they are employing illegal workers.
We also know that a great deal of illegal working happens in licensed sectors. The Bill will ensure that those working illegally or employing illegal workers cannot obtain licences to sell alcohol or run late night take-away premises. Similarly, we will be requiring licensing authorities to check the immigration status of taxi or private hire vehicle drivers. The message is simple—illegal working is wrong, and it will not be tolerated.
Too often, illegal migrants ignore the law, remain illegally in this country and take advantage of our very generous public services. That cannot be allowed to continue, so we will further restrict access to services. We will make it easier for landlords to evict illegal migrants while also introducing new offences for rogue landlords who repeatedly rent to illegal migrants. We will crack down on those driving while in the UK illegally by ensuring that, if they hold UK driving licences, their licences can be seized and taken out of circulation. We will also strengthen the consequences for those continuing to drive without lawful immigration status, including powers to detain their vehicle.
We will create a duty on banks and building societies periodically to check the immigration status of existing current account holders so that accounts held by illegal migrants can be closed or frozen following a court order.
It is right that we address the appeals issue so that we can remove people with no right to be in the UK. In 2014 we introduced our deport now, appeal later scheme, which has helped us to deport over 230 foreign national offenders. In our manifesto, we committed to extending that to all human rights cases, provided it does not breach human rights. The Bill allows us to do just that, to ensure that illegal migrants who have not been offered leave to remain cannot frustrate the removal process.
We will also ensure as a result of the Bill that when foreign criminals are released on bail we can place a satellite tag on them so that we know their whereabouts and can improve public protection.
The Government are clear that we have a duty to offer support to those who come to the UK and seek our protection while their claim is being assessed. But it cannot be right for that support to continue once it has been established and confirmed by the courts that an individual has no need of our protection and could, and should, leave the UK. Such individuals are illegal migrants, and to support them further would be unfair on those who do need our protection and our support to establish a new life here. The Bill redresses that balance and removes incentives to remain here illegally.
Two other aspects are important. Controlling our borders is vital in protecting national security. It is imperative that we know who is seeking to enter the UK and that we are able to stop them if they seek to do us harm. The Bill gives Border Force officers more powers to intercept vessels at sea, increase penalties for airline and port operators who fail to present passengers to immigration control, and automatically apply UN or EU travel bans to stop dangerous individuals coming to the UK.
Secondly, in line with our manifesto, we will ensure that customer-facing public sector workers are able to speak English. Where communicating with the British public is a vital part of the job, fluent English should be a prerequisite, and through this Bill we will legislate to ensure that this becomes a reality.
When the Government first came to power in 2010, the immigration system that we inherited was chaotic and uncontrolled. Over the past five years we have taken great strides forward in reforming it. We have tightened immigration routes where abuse was rife, shut down more than 920 bogus colleges, capped the number of non-EEA migrant workers admitted to the UK, reformed family visas, and protected our public services from abuse. These reforms are working, but we must go further. This Bill will build on our achievements and ensure that we have an immigration system that is firm and effective, fair on the British public and on those who come here legitimately, and, most importantly, serves the national interest. I commend this Bill to the House.
Andy Burnham (Leigh) (Lab)
As the Home Secretary said, we have had a lively and thorough debate, if not a genuine dialogue, as the movement from the Government has been minimal. We have not won many amendments but we have certainly won the argument. For that, I thank my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) for the assured and expert way he led for the Opposition on the Bill. He was, of course, our star summer signing and, like one of Mr Wenger’s best from the old days, he has managed to outshine his considerable reputation already, with more to come.
I would also like to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), who brought an invaluable insight from her outstanding work on tackling the exploitation of children, and my hon. Friends the Members for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck), for Workington (Sue Hayman), for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) and for Blackburn (Kate Hollern) who served on the Committee. Our thanks go too to the co-Chairs of the Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) and the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone), and to the third-party organisations that the Home Secretary referred to, which made a very important contribution.
Figures were published last week that I believe set the context for this Third Reading debate. The ONS reports that net migration has reached a record high of 336,000—up 82,000 from last year and 101,000 higher than the level it was when the Prime Minister came to office. I heard the Home Secretary’s comments about the record of the previous Government. She needs to have a look at her own record before she comes to this House and points the finger in this direction. That is the record of her Government. Let us set it against what they promised.
The Conservatives’ 2010 manifesto made a solemn pledge to reduce net migration to “tens of thousands”. “If we don’t meet it, boot us out,” said the Prime Minister. The 2015 manifesto made the same pledge—and we now know that, rather than reducing net migration, the Government are increasing it by tens of thousands. That is the Home Secretary’s record, and it is lamentable even by the standards of the Government. The Home Secretary likes to go to the Conservative party conference and talk a tough game, but the truth is that she cannot escape her own record. The very scale of the gap between her rhetoric and the reality continues to erode public trust on this most important and sensitive of issues.
As I made clear on Second Reading, I will always support practical measures to deal with the public’s legitimate concerns about immigration, and there are some measures in the Bill that we support—particularly the emphasis on labour market enforcement and English language requirements in public services. What I will not do, however, is lend our name to desperate attempts to legislate in haste and to half-baked measures that owe more to a PR exercise to camouflage a record of failure than a considered attempt to create the firm but fair immigration system of which the Home Secretary spoke.
We will refuse to give the Bill a Third Reading tonight because the Government have failed to listen in Committee and failed to produce any meaningful evidence that the measures in the Bill will have any more success than the steps that they took in the last Parliament. Worse, by legislating in this ill-conceived way, they have produced a Bill that could have a number of unintended and pernicious consequences, as my hon. and learned Friend the shadow Immigration Minister so skilfully exposed in Committee.
First, the Bill could undermine all the progress made on tackling modern slavery and human trafficking—for which, actually, the Government deserve some credit. Secondly, the Bill could leave desperate children utterly destitute. Thirdly, it could lead to discrimination in the workplace and the housing market and erode important civil liberties and human rights. I shall take each issue quickly in turn.
I have real concerns that the creation of a new offence of illegal working could deter vulnerable people, such as trafficked women and children, from having the courage to come forward to report rogue employers and criminal gangs. Those unscrupulous individuals already hold the whip hand; the tragedy is that the Bill will strengthen their grip over these most vulnerable of people. The House should reject the Bill. Working to put food in your kids’ mouths should never be a criminal offence. More broadly, if employees fear losing wages or even imprisonment by coming forward to report employers, might not the effect of the Bill be the reverse of what the Home Secretary wants? Might it not actually increase the size of the black market?
Those are genuine concerns and I have not seen any convincing evidence from the Government to suggest that they are misplaced. Although the Government have remained unmoved during the Bill’s passage through this House, I feel sure that their lordships will wish to push them hard on this issue in another place.
Steve Rotheram (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government are focusing on the wrong party in the Bill? They should be concentrating—[Interruption.] They should be concentrating, as the Home Secretary should while I am speaking, on clamping down on unscrupulous employers who prey on the misery of people forced into terrible conditions, such as those exploited on Britain’s building sites. I have actually seen that with my own eyes.
Andy Burnham
My hon. Friend has more experience than anybody in the House of the workplaces that might be most affected by the Bill. He is absolutely right to say that unscrupulous employers—sadly, they do exist in the construction industry—will feel emboldened by the Bill. They will know that exploited people on building sites will no longer have the courage to report them to the authorities. [Interruption.] The Home Secretary says that is “desperate”, but those people are desperate and she is putting them in a worse position. She needs to think about that before she puts the Bill into law.
Another concern is about clause 34, which removes support from families—a power that the Home Office has long sought; the proposal was put to me as a Minister and piloted under the last Labour Government. The official evaluation of that pilot found no evidence of increased removals but plenty of families going underground and losing touch with the authorities. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central said in the debate, there is also the shunting of costs from the Home Office to local authorities.
In the end, however, the question we need to ask ourselves is much more fundamental: should any child—whoever they are, wherever they come from—be denied food and clothes while they are on British soil? I do not think so and I would venture to say that most Members on both sides would, in their heart of hearts, think the same. The great irony is that it was the then Conservative Opposition—specifically, the shadow Home Office team—in the last but one Parliament who led the charge against what was then known as clause 9. They were right to force the then Government to pilot this change, and we were right to drop the whole idea once the results of the pilot were clear. If what they said was right then, why is it not right now?
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) on raising widely held concerns about the need for immigration rules that allow for the reunification of refugee families. She spoke powerfully about that. I hope that the Government will continue to look at this, particularly at new clause 11, which calls for a review of the rules.
Finally, I turn to the concern about the potential of the Bill to increase discrimination and erode basic rights and liberties. We live in the most challenging of times when there is no shortage of people with extreme views who seek to set race against race and religion against religion. We are legislating in a febrile climate in which discrimination can easily flourish, and this House must take great care that nothing we do adds to that. The right response to these challenges is not to erode important rights and liberties but to do the exact opposite—to protect and champion them. Given the huge backlog in the Home Office and its consistently poor record on initial decisions, the deport first, appeal later approach could undermine Britain’s position in the world as a bastion of fair play and higher ideals. Despite the evidence published by the Government, I remain concerned that the threat of imprisonment to landlords who rent flats or houses to people without immigration status could lead to discrimination in the housing market, and a greater sense among black and Asian young people that they are being victimised.
Let me end on a more positive note that gives us a glimmer of hope for the Bill’s onward passage to another place. I am pleased that the Minister, whom Labour Members have time for, has conceded significant ground on immigration detention. That has had strong support from Members on both sides, including the hon. Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller), who has Yarl’s Wood detention centre in his constituency and has long called for a more humane system.
Paula Sherriff (Dewsbury) (Lab)
Last Thursday, I attended Yarl’s Wood having spoken to a number of charities that are assisting people there. I met a young lady of about 25—she does not know exactly how old she is because she is an orphan—who was trafficked from her home country of India. She has now been taken into detention at Yarl’s Wood and does not know when she will get out. She is 25 weeks pregnant and absolutely terrified. She spoke to me about many basic healthcare services being denied to her. [Interruption.] I appreciate that the Minister has said that this will be looked into, but does my right hon. Friend agree that it is a matter of extreme urgency?
Andy Burnham
I do agree with my hon. Friend, who puts her point very well. There are obviously concerns about the case she mentions given the question of the inappropriateness of detention for children, pregnant women, and victims of rape and torture. The Minister acknowledged the issue of minimising the time spent on administrative detention, and the effectiveness of administrative detention, and we are grateful for his recognition of that.
It is reassuring that on this issue, at least, the Government have shown a willingness to listen, but that is only the start of what they need to do. They will need to do a lot more listening, particularly to their lordships, before this Bill is in a fit state to reach the statute book.
Stuart C. McDonald
I, too, place on record my thanks to all the organisations that have supported and advised MPs during the passage of this Bill. We have had a passionate and thoughtful debate and we have one final, brief chance to debate further, so I intend to take it.
Some would wish to criticise the Immigration Minister in the light of the latest abject failure to make any progress on the net migration target, but not us: we are critical of the net migration target itself, which long precedes the Minister. On Second Reading, I described the net migration target as unhelpful and unachievable. Last week’s announcement suggests that my description was far too understated. The immigration target is, frankly, total bunkum, complete baloney, and utterly bogus. There is no research or plan that explains why tens of thousands is the right target or an achievable target. Indeed, we learned today that the Chancellor’s spending plans appear to depend entirely on the net migration target being spectacularly missed. Without forecast inward migration, we will not be able to see through the spending plans that he set out last week. It is time for an honest debate on immigration about what is desirable and what is achievable.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
Week after week at my constituency surgeries, I am left speechless as I try to explain to people coming from the most difficult of circumstances and wanting to seek a fresh home, make a fresh start and contribute to our society and economy, why this Government refuse to let them in. Does my hon. Friend agree that the net migration target is completely ideological and has nothing to do with what is actually good for the country?
Mr Speaker
I could never imagine the adjective “speechless” being applied to the hon. Gentleman.
Stuart C. McDonald
I agree with my hon. Friend.
Such an honest debate must include discussion of how we assist communities that face challenges because of significant levels of migration. It must be about how we incentivise migrants to live in the parts of the United Kingdom that most need them and can most easily accommodate them. It should be about whether and how we can properly count those coming in and out, and how we can enforce the rules we already have, rather than create endless new rules. The debate must no longer proceed on the basis of the vicious climate of hostility policy that the Government pursue, and which affects all of us. We need a better approach to migration than the ludicrous one-size-fits-all target, which actually incentivises—my hon. Friend alluded to this—the exclusion of husbands and wives, the persecuted and the bright young students who will be the leaders of tomorrow.
We should reject this flawed Bill, which is designed to pursue a flawed target. Indeed, saying that it seeks to pursue that flawed target is in itself almost certainly being too kind, because it has zero chance of getting us anywhere near the target. This is not pursuit, but pretence. The Bill has been well described as “immigration theatre”. That is the fundamental flaw at the heart of the Bill, but there are so many problems with its pernicious clauses that it is not possible to do them all justice in the time available.
The Government may feel compelled to be seen to do something about net migration, but in reality the Bill will do nothing to resolve the challenges of migration, nor to maximise its benefits, and it will not certainly achieve the bogus target. However we look at it—from the perspective of the rule of law, human rights, the best interests of children, or just simple common decency—the Bill is pretty desperate stuff. I encourage Members to vote against it on Third Reading.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
I will speak only very briefly. Unfortunately, the Home Affairs Committee sitting has prevented me and other members of it from being in the Chamber, though the hon. Gentleman for Cumbernauld and the rest of the places he represents—
Mr Speaker
The hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald).
Keith Vaz
I knew you would remember, Mr Speaker. The hon. Gentleman did tell me that he would be in the House to speak on behalf of his party, which of course he does so very eloquently.
I join the shadow Home Secretary and the Home Secretary in welcoming all the good work done by Members on both sides of the House in scrutinising the Bill, particularly the new shadow Minister for Immigration. The shadow Home Secretary has stolen him from the Home Affairs Committee. He says he is the star striker—he is not yet the Jamie Vardy of the team, but he is going that way. Sorry, I could not think of an Arsenal player; otherwise I would have mentioned him.
I think that I have served longer than any other Member in the Chamber at the moment, with the exception of the right hon. Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond), who had a short gap to be the First Minister of Scotland. In the 28 years I have been in the House, we have had about 20 immigration Bills. Every time we have one, the Home Secretary in successive Governments has got up at the Dispatch Box and said that, as a result of passing the Bill, immigration will be kept under control, the system will be much better, illegal migration will be reduced and that is the end of the show as far as such matters are concerned. Unfortunately, it never ends up like that: we pass legislation, and I am afraid that at the end of the day we have to come back again to pass another Bill.
I hope that that will not be the case with this Immigration Bill, because during the next four years until the next election I do not want the Home Secretary—either the right hon. Lady or her successor, although I am sure she will be in office for a long while—to have to come back and tell the House, “Well, it didn’t quite work, so we’re going to try something new.” My concern is not with passing legislation, although that is of course what the House is for, but with the way in which we administer the legislation. As reflected in the reports of the Home Affairs Committee, my concern has always been with the administration of the Home Office.
The Home Secretary has taken great strides. She has abolished the UK Border Agency and replaced it with a much more effective organisation. Sarah Rapson and her team are doing a much better job than their predecessors. However, there are always examples of situations in which illegal migration is not under control. Only yesterday, as a result of work done by the BBC in the south-west, undercover reporters posing as illegal migrants went to various places in Kent and Sussex and offered themselves as employees—[Interruption.] I can send the Home Secretary the video. They offered themselves as employees to work illegally in those two counties, and they were offered jobs at £2.80 an hour. They were also given advice by the employers on how to evade enforcement officers.
So no matter what legislation we pass here, at the end of the day we need an administration that is fit for purpose. I hope that, as a result of passing this legislation, we will get more focus on how we enforce the law, to ensure that those who wish to come to this country legally—students and others who genuinely want to study and work here—can do so, and that those who want to come here illegally will not be allowed to do so and will not be allowed to offer themselves for employment and to be put at risk by unscrupulous employers. There is a huge job of work to be done on the way in which we deal with enforcement, and if we can get the enforcement section of UK Visas and Immigration up to the same standard as the other parts of the organisation, it will make a huge difference. I hope that the Home Secretary will take that message with her as she continues her long journey running the Home Office.
The Select Committee heard today from the head of the UK Border Force, Sir Charles Montgomery, that he had not yet been told what his allocation was to be following the cuts—or should I say the austerity measures —at the Home Office. The Home Secretary fought a good fight with the Chancellor to protect the budget for counter-terrorism and policing, but she obviously did not win the fight in respect of the Home Office’s other functions. I hope that Sir Charles will be given that information as soon as possible, because protecting our borders, especially in the current climate, is one of the key concerns of the House and, I know, of the Government.
Richard Fuller
I am grateful to you for calling me to speak, Mr Speaker, particularly as it was not possible for me to be here for the majority of the Front-Bench speeches. I want to follow on from some of the comments of the Chair of the Select Committee, the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), about the passage of the Bill.
To be honest, I am interested not so much in what is in the Bill as in two important things that have been revealed by our discussions. The first is that there exists across Parliament a wish to see fundamental reform of the way in which we manage immigration and detention, and that wish is shared by people of all political views, from those who take a hard line on immigration to those who take a more lenient view. Secondly, there are indications—the early green shoots of spring—that the Home Office recognises the existence of that cross-party consensus. This is a tribute not only to Members of the House but to the all-party group and to Sarah Teather, the former Member for Brent Central, who instigated it. I appreciate being able to put this on record.
Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)
I am grateful to you, Mr Speaker, for allowing me to speak briefly in this important debate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller) said that it is important that this House reaches a consensus on immigration and on this Bill. It is also vital that the country recognises that there is a consensus about dealing with the immigration challenge. When all of us, a few months ago, stood on the doorsteps talking to our constituents, many of them said, “First and foremost, you must deal with the challenge of immigration.”
The right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) says that we must not keep legislating and I suppose he is right, but I believe that this Bill will play a significant and signal part in signalling to our constituents that we are serious about dealing with the challenge. This Bill will deal with the challenge and I commend it to the House.
Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
Social Security
(8 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Employment (Priti Patel)
I beg to move,
That the draft Welfare Reform (Northern Ireland) Order 2015, which was laid before this House on 26 November, be approved.
The order will ensure that the people of Northern Ireland can benefit from the radical programme of welfare reforms enabled by the Welfare Reform Act 2012 in Great Britain. That landmark act ushered in a new welfare contract with the British people. It said to those who are able to work, “Work will always pay.” It said to the most vulnerable in society, “We will continue to provide you with the support you need”, and it said to the taxpayer, “Your hard-earned money will be spent responsibly.”
This new contract reflects principles which continue to guide our welfare reform programme—that work is the best route out of poverty, that spending on welfare should be sustainable, that people on benefits should face the same choices as those in work, and that the most vulnerable should be protected. Those are the principles that underpin the Welfare Reform Act 2012, and they are the principles that underpin the Order in Council before the House today.
Before I turn to the specifics of the order, I want to remind the House of the desperate need for welfare reform in Great Britain and Northern Ireland. When we took office in 2010 nearly 1 in 5 households had no one working, the number of households in which no one had ever worked had nearly doubled, and nearly 1.5 million people had been on benefits for most of the previous decade. The welfare system, with its byzantine complexity and perverse incentives, had allowed people to become detached from the rest of society, trapped in worklessness and dependency.
Over the past five years, we have stuck to our economic plan, delivered welfare reform and seen great progress: employment is up over 2 million; there are over 680,000 fewer workless households; and the number of people claiming the main out-of-work benefits has fallen by 1 million. In Northern Ireland, too, there have been improvements in the labour market, with 33,000 more people in employment than in 2010 and the claimant count down nearly 30% over the same period, but there is still much more to do. Northern Ireland has a lower proportion of its working age population in work than any other country or region of the UK; 130,000 households have no one in work; and 5% of those claiming the main out-of-work benefits across the UK as a whole are in Northern Ireland, which is well above its share of the UK working-age population.
In rebalancing Northern Ireland’s economy to meet the challenges of today’s global economy, we are tackling these challenges and creating jobs. Economic reforms, such as the proposed corporation tax reduction, will be vital, but economic reforms alone will not create a more prosperous society or improve the life chances of people trapped in dependency. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has said many times in this House, economic reform must be complemented by social reform. We must ensure that people are supported and incentivised to take advantage of the opportunities that economic growth can create, and that is what the order does.
Improved incentives are at the heart of universal credit. The single taper rate ensures that work will always pay, and the stronger conditionality framework encourages claimants to do everything they reasonably can to find or prepare for work.
Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind)
The Minister will know that the Belfast agreement created two statutory organisations: the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission and the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland. What consultation have the Government conducted with them on these welfare reforms?
Priti Patel
Full and public consultation has taken place, and all the information has been made available repeatedly.
Early evidence suggests that universal credit is making a difference. Compared to current jobseeker’s allowance claimants, universal credit claimants look for work more, enter work faster and earn more. The benefit cap is also having a positive impact in Great Britain, with capped households 41% more likely to go into work than similar uncapped households. It must be right that the people of Northern Ireland benefit from these reforms, so the order provides the legislative framework to implement them in Northern Ireland, as well as replacing disability living allowance with the personal independence payment, which helps towards additional living costs associated with a long-term health condition or disability and is based on how a person’s condition affects them, not on the condition they have; reforming contributory benefits so that they align with universal credit conditionality, including through the introduction of a claimant commitment as a condition of entitlement; time limiting employment support allowance to underline the principle that with the right support claimants are expected to return to work; and introducing tougher penalties for benefit fraud.
The transitional provisions in the order allow the Secretary of State to exercise the vast majority of regulation-making powers in the first instance, and our intention is to introduce the regulations in the early new year, working with colleagues in Northern Ireland. It will be for the Northern Ireland Executive, however, to implement the changes, and regulations relating to the top-ups outlined in the Stormont House and fresh start agreements will be taken forward by the relevant Northern Ireland Department in the Assembly.
It is important to remember what the order is about and what it is not about. It is not intended to diminish Northern Ireland’s devolution settlement. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has made clear, the legislative approach we are taking has arisen at the request of the Northern Ireland parties, and the Assembly has given its consent. The order also reflects the draft Northern Ireland Welfare Reform Bill, which has been debated at great length in the Assembly over the past three years. Accordingly, the order includes a number of amendments that reflect the will of the Assembly, including an 18-month limit for higher level sanctions and discretionary payments.
This order is about building and delivering the fresh start agreement. It is about supporting hard work and aspiration, and creating the right incentives for people to fulfil their potential and create a safe, secure and self-sufficient life, supported by, but independent from, the state. It is about making sure that spending on welfare is sustainable and fair to the taxpayer, while at the same time protecting the most vulnerable. Building an economy based on higher pay, lower taxes and lower welfare is both right for the UK and right for Northern Ireland. I commend the order to the House.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
It is important to be mindful throughout today’s debate of the events that have led us to this point. It is now almost a full year since the Stormont House agreement was finalised, after months of negotiation between five Northern Irish political parties, involving representatives of the UK, US and Irish Governments. Those negotiations sought to reach a lasting solution to some of the problems that have afflicted Northern Ireland not just in recent years, but throughout its history. The agreement made a substantial amount of progress on some of the most contentious issues, including flags, parades and dealing with the past, while also seeking a way forward on issues such as welfare reform and the devolution of corporation tax.
The Stormont House agreement marked a turning point, but in the longer term it has not provided a conclusive resolution to most of the issues that the parties sought to address. Divisions have remained in the 12 months since and have escalated at frequent intervals. On more than one occasion this year, it appeared that there was a genuine risk not just that the devolution settlement might collapse, but that we might see a return to direct rule for the first time in almost a decade. Whatever their disagreements, it has always been clear that none of the parties wanted that. Neither, of course, did hon. Members on either side of this Chamber.
My hope is that today marks the end of a difficult process that none of us wants to see repeated. The Northern Ireland (Welfare Reform) Act 2015, which received Royal Assent this week—together with this order, which it enabled—takes an important step towards bringing the events of the last 12 months to a close. I suspect that no one will see this order as a perfect solution. Most will nevertheless regard it as necessary at least, in so far as it paves the way for an end to financial penalties and a return to stable government. The Opposition will not, therefore, be voting against the order today, just as we did not vote against the enabling Bill, which became law last week.
We have serious concerns about many of the Government’s welfare reforms and, as the Minister knows, we have not held back from expressing them at the appropriate time. We have also, however, been consistent in our view that these debates are not the right forum for rehearsing the arguments we have been making elsewhere. We sincerely hope that, in bringing recent disagreements over welfare reform in Northern Ireland to a close, this legislation will mark the beginning of a new chapter in its history. It is hoped by many that it will pave the way for progress on long stalled issues, including the devolution of corporation tax, as I mentioned, as well as a voluntary redundancy scheme to mitigate the impact of recent civil service cuts on Northern Ireland’s workforce.
We particularly welcome the provisions made for transitional protections, extending over a number of years, to help to mitigate the impact of some of the most significant changes. These include important protections for existing claimants affected by the bedroom tax and the transition from disability living allowance to the personal independence payment. I understand that agreement has also been reached for a number of changes to be made to the way that universal credit will be implemented in Northern Ireland, which include exemptions from the requirement for single household payments, provisions to allow the housing costs element to be paid directly to landlords and protections in the sanctions regime for lone parents seeking work.
These are all welcome compromises on the part of the Department for Work and Pensions. Although they may not address all the concerns that have been raised about welfare reform in Northern Ireland, they will nevertheless go some way towards mitigating the impact on some of the most vulnerable among those affected.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
The hon. Lady is rightly outlining some of the beneficial mitigating measures that will come into effect in Northern Ireland. As a Member of Parliament in this part of the United Kingdom, does she perhaps look on the package in Northern Ireland with some shades of envy for her own constituents?
Emily Thornberry
I appreciate that some of the compromises that the DUP have reached for Northern Ireland are not outcomes that we have managed to achieve on the mainland. Many of the policies that I see in front of me are certainly things that the Labour party has called for, so I congratulate DUP Members. Let us call a spade a spade. These are all welcome compromises on the DUP’s part. Although they may not address all the concerns, they nevertheless go some way towards mitigating the impacts on some of the most vulnerable among those affected.
We must remember that the divisions that recent negotiations have sought to heal go far beyond welfare reform alone. As such, finalising this agreement will allow progress to be made in other areas, making available additional funding for the Police Service of Northern Ireland to step up its efforts to fight terrorism. There will also be new funding for community initiatives, among them efforts to bring down the peace walls that have historically divided Northern Ireland’s communities. The compromises reached on the part of the DUP helped to get the exceptional circumstances of Northern Ireland recognised. Disagreements no doubt remain, but the settlement reached between Stormont and Westminster nevertheless presents an opportunity to draw a line under the difficult events that we have lived through in recent months.
Dr Alasdair McDonnell (Belfast South) (SDLP)
I rise to speak briefly on this vexed issue because, quite simply, all that has to be said and can be said on the issue has been said. My hon. Friends and I have made our position abundantly clear on many occasions, but I could not let this statutory order pass without expressing my regrets. It is entirely regrettable that the role and responsibility of the Northern Ireland Assembly has been eroded and undermined as it has by the Government, by the DUP and by Sinn Féin.
It is not clear to me whether Sinn Féin and the DUP did not realise the implications of locking into the Welfare Reform and Work Bill in the legislative consent motion, or whether they did not care. That is the situation we are in. It is particularly odd when the DUP actually voted against the Bill in this House, but then signed up to it in the Assembly.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I have listened with some incredulity to what the hon. Gentleman has said. Does he not accept that the Welfare Reform and Work Bill and the agreement for Northern Ireland represent a better deal for Northern Ireland than any other part of the UK has received? Indeed, the Labour party has already indicated its envy of the Northern Ireland deal, so will he not accept the good deal that we have—one that beats anywhere else in the United Kingdom?
Dr McDonnell
The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. The difficulty about it is that the DUP would have settled for a lot less. DUP Members argued for less time and again. Quite simply, I agree. The SDLP feels that, although the deal has its merits in some places, there are big gaps in it in others. Quite frankly, what we need to ensure is that those gaps are filled.
Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP)
Does my hon. Friend recall meetings we had with the noble Lord Freud in the other place back in February 2012 and in November 2012, when he indicated to our party delegation that those mitigations were then in place? Does my hon. Friend agree that it took some time for the then Minister for Social Development to come to his senses and realise that those mitigation measures would be in place?
Dr McDonnell
I thank my hon. Friend for her comments. I agree. I recall the meeting she mentions. In my opinion, what she is reflecting is the fact that it was a complex issue and it still is a complex issue. What comes to mind immediately—and I am glad that the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) drew my attention to it—is that the negotiation skills of Sinn Féin and the DUP have been very flawed. Quite simply, they were prepared to settle for a very bad deal, and now they are settling for just a bad deal.
I believe that we in the SDLP were right to argue that the Chancellor would have to introduce mitigation in relation to tax credits, and in due course he did, thus making that part of the debate redundant. Indeed, the £60 million top-ups are not only redundant but unnecessary. There must now be a debate about exactly where the money will be reallocated, because that is not clear. The SDLP believes that, instead of carving up poverty, we must establish a clear strategy that will relieve our present situation and enable us to concentrate on prosperity rather than welfare. However, that is a discussion for another time and another place.
Our party has argued for legislation in the Assembly but, failing that, while we have a high regard for the Secretary of State in many respects, we have been honest and open about the fact that, in this instance, we want to curb her influence and the undermining of the spirit of devolution. It is just a pity that Sinn Féin Members are not present to vote either with or against the Conservative Government. I do not know how they would vote on this occasion, but it is disappointing for us that DUP Members are being gung-ho here and voting in favour of these measures.
Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman is an extremely valuable member of the Select Committee. Does he accept that, in the spirit of devolution, which involves a power-sharing rather than a straight democratic arrangement, it is necessary for parties to make compromises? Yes, they can state what they really believe in, but at the end of the day they must make compromises in the spirit of devolution, because failing to do so could risk bringing down the devolution settlement itself. Indeed, that nearly happened.
Dr McDonnell
I fully respect our learned and hon. Friend and the issue that he has raised, but I put it to him that no party has been more willing to compromise on a whole range of issues than the SDLP. We were there at the beginning, we are there in the middle, and we will be there at the end, working to create consensus and partnership.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
I want to make it clear that the responsibility for this matter being debated in the House today lies fully with the SDLP and with Sinn Féin—and the Greens: the wee Green man in the Assembly. They used the powers that were available to block the legislation, created a constitutional and financial crisis in the Assembly, and hurt the many hundreds of thousands of people who found that for the last year the budget of the Assembly had been in disarray. The only way out of the impasse that had been created by the SDLP and Sinn Féin was to bring the legislation here. At the end of the day, common sense prevailed, and that is why we are in our present position.
Mr Gregory Campbell
Does my hon. Friend recognise that, on top of the problems that have been caused by the SDLP and Sinn Féin, more than £100 million-worth of fines were levied on the Assembly as a result of that intransigence?
Sammy Wilson
Of course, that £100 million-plus could have been used to deal with many of the pressing problems faced by my hon. Friend’s constituents and mine, and, indeed. the constituents of all of us in the House tonight. They could not benefit from hip operations, eye operations or special needs provision in schools because money had been drained from the Northern Ireland budget unnecessarily. Let us be clear about this. The responsibility for the legislation being brought here rests with those who took the view that they did, even after concessions had been made. I want to thank the Ministers on the Treasury Bench who listened to the special case in Northern Ireland, albeit that they made us pay for the changes ourselves. Nevertheless, they recognised that there were special conditions in Northern Ireland and they were prepared to be flexible. I suspect that caused some difficulty for them with their constituents, because the same arrangements were not available here on the mainland. Nevertheless, they were made available in Northern Ireland—although, as I said, the Northern Ireland Executive had to pay for the changes made.
This was always going to be a difficult issue because of the parity principle. It is one of the reasons why at the very beginning when devolution was being set up we questioned whether welfare should ever be devolved; departure from the parity principle was always going to be very difficult. The arrangement was that, so long as Northern Ireland stayed in line with tax changes and benefit changes in the rest of the UK, through the annually managed expenditure, whatever the cost of welfare would be, it would be met by the Exchequer; it would not have to be found locally, but would be met by the Exchequer. It was perfectly legitimate to say, “We’re not going to allow you to go and do your own thing and then expect the Treasury to pick up the bill.” We expect there to be that parity principle and, that being the case, the devolution of welfare to the Northern Ireland Assembly was always going to create difficulties if parties decided to dig their heels in and ask for radically different arrangements.
It has been mentioned that my party voted against some of the things contained in the Bill at Westminster. That is true, but there are many things we voted for. We supported the benefit cap. We supported the move to universal credit and the simplification of benefit arrangements. We supported the principle that benefits should be set at a level to make work pay, and not to penalise people who went out and worked. We supported all those things, but there were things we were not happy with. We voted against them here. In some cases we were able to negotiate differences in Northern Ireland, and in some cases we were not, but we faced up to the reality that once the legislation had passed through Westminster the Northern Ireland budget was not going to be able to bear the cost of not implementing it in Northern Ireland.
It is ironic, however, that the SDLP should say that Sinn Féin and the DUP rolled over to the Government on welfare reform. Let me give one example. When the hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie) was Minister for Social Development, she put through a lot of statutory instruments that simply reflected welfare changes here and were introduced in Northern Ireland, very often without any debate. Indeed, it was her successor who introduced in Northern Ireland the removal of the spare room subsidy for the private rented sector, and then railed against it when it was introduced for tenants in the public rented sector. There was not a word about it in the Northern Ireland Assembly when her colleague Mr Attwood introduced that. So we can see a certain amount of conflict between the anti-welfare rhetoric of the SDLP and its willingness on many occasions to introduce welfare changes through the Assembly.
Lady Hermon
Instead of concentrating only on the SDLP, I would be intrigued to find out what persuaded Sinn Féin, after months and months of saying no to welfare reform, to agree with the DUP—and do not tell me it was the charm of the DUP; just explain why they changed their mind.
Sammy Wilson
As I have mentioned to the hon. Lady before, because she has asked me this previously, Sinn Féin has on many occasions adopted an intransigent attitude. It said it would never turn its back on the IRA, but at St Andrews we insisted that it had to turn its back on associations with all those who were involved in criminality before we were—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. Obviously, we are broadening the debate into other areas we are not expected to deal with, and I do believe we could have quite a bit more business to come.
Sammy Wilson
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) is now going to have to do without an answer to that question because you have made it clear—
Mr Deputy Speaker
I am sure you can have a cup of tea later in order to answer it.
Sammy Wilson
Mr Deputy Speaker, you have made it clear to the hon. Lady that I would be digressing if I went down that route. The good thing is that Sinn Féin did face up to the reality that we could not go along a route where we did not have a sustainable budget and could not deliver services in Northern Ireland, we were going to hit a constitutional crisis and the devolution settlement was going to be under threat if we did not deal with this issue. I do not see what happened as a cop-out on our part, because we had always advocated that, if this matter could not be dealt with in the Assembly, it should be dealt with here—my only regret was that the Secretary of State did not take the powers earlier. Perhaps it is better that the powers were handed to her by the Northern Ireland Assembly and therefore we have this order tonight.
Ms Ritchie
Does the hon. Gentleman not recall that, when I was Minister for Social Development, I facilitated the request by the Social Development Committee, under the chairmanship of the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell)? He and others asked me whether it would be possible for money to be paid directly to the landlord rather than the tenant as part of housing allowance, in order to ensure the protection of tenants, and I was very glad to do it. Does the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) also agree that the whole purpose of those statutory instruments was to ensure that money was got to people as quickly as possible, in order to take them out of poverty and into a situation where they had money?
Sammy Wilson
The whole point of the order before us is that it allows for those changes to be made in Northern Ireland. The range of the changes has been highlighted here tonight: the exemption from the spare room subsidy changes; the direct payments to landlords; the split payments to households; and additional funding for those who would be affected by housing benefit changes to their rates. All those have been facilitated as a result of the negotiations that took place—under the auspices of a Democratic Unionist party Minister; the DUP negotiated many of those changes. As I say, we were pleased that the Government were prepared to be flexible, albeit that their largesse did not extend to funding those changes and those had to be funded from the Northern Ireland budget.
The good thing about this order is that it removes something that was toxic in the Assembly. Until December next year, any welfare changes will be done through this House and therefore the kind of impasse that we have experienced before will be removed. That is good for the stability of the Assembly. It is good that we have an order that reflects some of the changes that we believe were necessary and some of the amendments we wish to have in the legislation. Overall, it is a good part of the package. We are not ashamed of it. We do not believe it dilutes devolution. It is a recognition that the current blocking arrangements in the Assembly created problems that we had to find a way around.
Lady Hermon
I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to intervene again. I am sure that he would like to correct the record. Instead of describing an Assembly Member as a “little Green man”, perhaps he could explain that that Member of the Legislative Assembly is in fact a member of the Green party, and one of the six MLAs in North Down. I am sure that he would like to correct the record.
Sammy Wilson
The MLA is a man. He is quite small, and he sits in the corner of the Assembly, and he is also a member of the Green party. Members can take from that what they wish. He and I have a long record of conflict in the Assembly.
I welcome the order before us tonight. There is other welfare legislation that will have to come before this House. I look forward to it going through, so that the problems that welfare was causing in the Northern Ireland Assembly should not cause an impasse in the future.
Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP)
Tonight we are dealing with the Welfare Reform (Northern Ireland) Order, which implements provisions contained in the Welfare Reform Act 2012. Specific changes include top-up powers and a different sanctions regime.
Unfortunately, owing to the actions of the Democratic Unionist party and Sinn Féin, we see the surrender and return of these welfare reform powers to Westminster, and the reintroduction of the undemocratic Orders in Council, which we thought we had consigned to the legislative dustbin when devolution returned on 7 May 2007. Orders in Council are undemocratic, because no provision is made to allow amendments. I do not think that anyone would deny that.
As Members are aware, last week the SDLP tabled a number of amendments to the enabling Bill at Committee stage which dealt with the detail of this Order. Although I do not intend to reiterate our rationale, I will say this: the amendments would have restricted the Secretary of State’s powers to interfere with Northern Ireland’s welfare system.
On one amendment in particular, namely the sunset clause, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the Minister made no attempt to justify voting it down. That sunset clause was set at 31 December 2016—
Ms Ritchie
If the hon. Gentleman will let me complete my point, I will come back to him.
There was no response to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) when he asked why the sunset clause should not be made more temporary, and set at 1 June 2016. That would have reflected the new mandate following the elections in May. The arbitrary date seems to have been chosen more for neatness than for any consideration of the processes and structures in the Assembly.
David Simpson
I have the greatest respect for the hon. Lady. I wish to give her an opportunity to express her regrets—or does she, along with her party, in fact express any regrets?—that £100 million was sent back to the Treasury, which could have been used for the benefit of the people of Northern Ireland. Will she express that regret?
Ms Ritchie
On that point, I can well recall that there was robust opposition to those fines by my colleagues in the Assembly. Let me ask the hon. Gentleman this: do he and his colleagues regret the fact that there was an in-and-out approach to ministerial office by the DUP back in September, which resulted in very long waiting lists for health and in many people still having to wait for surgical procedures?
This debate and this order reflect the Government’s attitude and the disregard for the Assembly’s democratic processes on the part of the Government and Sinn Féin and the DUP. This sunset clause has been presented by other parties as the cut-off point in the Secretary of State’s interference in our welfare system, but of course that is not the case. The legislative consent motion voted through by the DUP and Sinn Féin locks Northern Ireland into the welfare provisions.
May I remind you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that DUP Members walked through the Lobby with us to vote against the provisions, yet they have joined Sinn Féin in signing up to this? My colleague in the Assembly, Mr Attwood, received a letter from the DUP Minister for Social Development last week, confirming that our constituents would face a benefit freeze for four years up to 2020 and that Westminster would have the power to impose an even lower benefit cap—lower than £20,000 for the North. That is what the DUP and Sinn Féin have locked us into. Such a four-year freeze will mean real reductions year on year for people on income support, jobseeker’s allowance, employment and support allowance and universal credit. It will mean a freeze for constituents, whether those of my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan), of the hon. Members for East Derry (Mr Campbell), for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) or for Upper Bann (David Simpson), or of the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds).
Sammy Wilson
Does the hon. Lady accept that most people in Northern Ireland do not regard a benefit freeze on the scale that she suggests, which is equivalent to take-home pay of £37,000 for someone in work, as unreasonable, and that if we are talking about making work pay, such a benefit freeze is essential?
Ms Ritchie
May I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that the standard of living in Northern Ireland is much higher and that we are talking about a benefit cap. I remind the hon. Member for East Antrim not to lead people in a slightly different direction by confusing a freeze with a benefit cap. The debate on this Order in Council, which has 140 clauses, is really about the needs of families and individuals who need to access the benefits system. People do not do that because they want to; they are forced into it because they cannot find a job, have lost their job or they live in an area where there have been considerable job losses. In Ballymena, in the constituency of the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley), there will be considerable job losses as a result of closures at Michelin.
We are all united in a desire to build a more united society where there will no longer be peace walls, and we have a stable economy with plenty of economic growth and productivity and stable political institutions. We want to ensure that we can live, and people with families can rear them, in relative comfort. It is not a lifestyle choice to be in receipt of benefits; as I explained, many people are forced into such circumstances because they do not have a job or they have some form of disability.
I would like the Minister responding on behalf of the Department for Work and Pensions to explain the calculation of the top-ups and which budget they will come from. Will they come out of the existing Department for Social Development budget or the Social Security Agency budget, or will there be a raid on the discretionary fund, which will disadvantage other people?
I take on board the fact that there is a top-up regime, and I hope that that money will be safeguarded by the Treasury to ensure that money flows to people. We do not want to see a sanctions regime lead to youth homelessness, which has been an emerging phenomenon in Germany and here in England and Wales, where benefits sanctions are in operation. Such sanctions can often bear down on the individuals and families least financially able to tolerate them. None of us, no matter what our political perspective or affiliation, would want that to happen to any of our constituents.
In conclusion, I would like to touch on a rather bizarre criticism levelled at my colleagues by hon. Members representing the DUP. They suggested that there was some contradiction in our argument that Northern Ireland’s welfare powers should be legislated for in Northern Ireland and, in the absence of that, our attempt to protect claimants through our amendment put to this House last week. There is no contradiction. We believe in democracy and in the processes of both the Northern Ireland Assembly and this House to scrutinise and amend legislation. Just because the DUP and Sinn Féin undermined the processes of the Northern Ireland Assembly, the SDLP will not undermine the role, duty and responsibility of this Chamber.
To my knowledge, Sinn Féin has been oddly quiet on this issue. Its only response to the trade unions protesting outside its offices on the issue at the weekend was that it supported the unions in
“directing united opposition against the Tory government in London”—
by handing over powers to that same Tory Government. That is rather bizarre and ludicrous.
The most important thing is that we are able to build on the political institutions and on sound economic growth and productivity in a balanced way throughout Northern Ireland, and that people are not worse off as a result of this measure—that is, people who are forced into the benefits system because of a lack of opportunity and jobs.
Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)
I shall contribute briefly to the debate. I welcome what the hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie) said about wanting to move Northern Ireland forward, building the economy and creating peace and stability in Northern Ireland. We have common cause in that. That is precisely why we believe that the fresh start agreement, including this welfare element, is so important. Without it, Northern Ireland would have gone backwards. We would, in effect, have gone back to direct rule. It would have taken many years once again to get devolution up and running, with all that would result from that.
There is no point adopting the self-indulgent, luxurious position of wishing that circumstances were different. That is the fact of the matter. We had to address a very difficult situation. The rule of parity was implemented by Ministers when I first because Social Development Minister back in 1999. I remember that the first thing we discussed with the civil servants was the issue of parity. Revisiting this point, it is interesting to note that it is cited specifically in the Belfast agreement, which the SDLP was instrumental in agreeing. That principle is enshrined in section 87 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. Parity is important. Without maintaining parity, the Northern Ireland Executive can make changes. The Northern Ireland Assembly can depart from legislation and provisions passed here, but on the principle that any additional costs would fall to be met by the Northern Ireland Executive out of the block grant. To close our eyes to that reality and pretend that things are otherwise and wish them so is simply not sensible, rational politics.
We faced up to the issue. As my hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) eloquently set out, we voted against but we also clearly supported some elements because we believed that they were best for the Government’s welfare agenda. We opposed others and then made a strong effort in the Assembly and in direct negotiation. I pay tribute to Nelson McCausland, the previous Department for Social Development Minister, for getting mitigations, which the Government accepted. We then put those forward in the Assembly. The Bill was first introduced in October 2012 and reached its final stage in May 2015. It still did not get through because of SDLP, Sinn Fein and Green party opposition.
The process is not undemocratic; remember that the Northern Ireland Assembly passed a legislative consent motion on 18 November by 70 votes to 22. The principle of devolution has been observed and the integrity of the Northern Ireland Assembly’s right to legislate has been specifically preserved. The Assembly has given its consent through that motion.
Finally, I want to put on the record the improvements and additions that Northern Ireland now has compared with elsewhere. There are the top-ups, which amount to many hundreds of millions of pounds, and the exclusion of the so-called bedroom tax. As has been outlined, we have seen the end of fines. I will not go into the figures, but those fines were having a detrimental effect on ordinary people and services in Northern Ireland and we have put a stop to them. Given their previous attitude, if the SDLP and Sinn Fein had had their way, they would continue.
We are also getting £25 million of new ring-fenced funding per year for five years to address welfare error and fraud in Northern Ireland. The UK Government have agreed that half of any savings generated in the next five years can be reinvested by the Northern Ireland Executive. Those are just some of the improvements on the welfare side as well as all the other advantages from the fresh start agreement, building on the Stormont House agreement.
We would prefer the legislation to have gone through the Assembly—of course we would. However, we faced up to the reality: if we had gone on the way we were, we would have ended up making suffer those we most wanted to protect.
Tom Elliott (Fermanagh and South Tyrone) (UUP)
I am not arguing against the legislation by any means, but I seek clarification. The top-ups available under the disability living allowance and the personal independence payment through the Stormont House agreement are not available under these proposals—instead, they are down to the three-person panel. This is just a matter of clarity. Obviously, Sinn Fein has a different perspective from that of Stormont House.
Mr Dodds
As I understand it, the Executive are establishing a small working group under the leadership of Professor Eileen Evason to bring forward proposals within the financial envelope set out by the Executive, including administrative costs, to maximise the use of additional resources. The issue will be for the Executive to determine following Professor Evason’s recommendations.
I thank the Government for the expeditious way in which they have brought this matter through the House of Commons at the request of the Northern Ireland Assembly. This is a good day for Northern Ireland, and I certainly support this legislation.
Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)
I have to start by disagreeing with the very last point made by the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds). I am not here to thank the Government for introducing, by a direct-rule-style Order in Council, legislation that I opposed. The Democratic Unionist party may be happy to endorse by fiat direct rule legislation, parts of which they supposedly opposed; earlier, the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) was honest enough to concede that his party had supported parts of the original legislation in 2011 and 2012.
I want to correct the misrecord that has come from some of the hon. Members behind me. Whenever the legislation was going through, we, as part of due diligence, were trying to get the Assembly to address properly and anticipate the implications of the legislation that passed through this House, precisely to make sure that we could mitigate and influence it and anticipate what mitigation measures and top-ups were needed to maximise whatever bit of discretion devolution could give us. DUP Members voted the proposal down in the Northern Ireland Assembly. They said that we were scaremongering. They said, “Leave it till we see how the legislation comes through and then our Minister will be able to negotiate some mitigation.” The mitigation that their Minister produced—we have heard Members repeat it tonight—was basically the same mitigation that Lord Freud told us in February 2012 would be available, so no additional concessions were got.
We wanted additional concessions. We said in the Assembly that concessions were available and that we needed to advance further mitigation, but DUP Members stalled. Yet now they make a virtue out of saying that their Minister manfully negotiated and pulled a rabbit out of a hat on concessions that were available all along anyway.
That is a dereliction on the part of DUP Members, because they did not get anything that was not already available in February 2012. We put it on the record that it was available then, and we could and should have got more if the Assembly had combined in that effort. DUP Members decided that they had sufficient confidence in the legislation that was being put through by the coalition Government here and in themselves not to create an all-party approach. An all-party approach should always have been created. I previously understood that Sinn Féin believed in such an all-party approach, but of course that tune has changed several times in the course of this whole exercise.
Let us be very clear about the content of the order: it gives effect to the 2012 Act. It basically introduces the Northern Ireland version of the 2012 Act with tweaks and adjustments, some of which were always going to be available anyway. When we first said that we were getting these concessions in 2012, the DUP said that we were scaremongering about the Bill and that we did not need to be looking to concessions. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) is chuntering away, not content with making his usual intervention; he is apparently the only Member of this House who would intervene on himself. Let us be very clear: we are told here that these concessions were got by the DUP, and at home that they were got by Sinn Féin. We have to ask, “Where are the additional concessions beyond those that Lord Freud told us were available in February?”
Ms Ritchie
Does my hon. Friend well recall the meeting with Lord Freud in February 2012 at which he stated quite clearly that these, shall we say, mitigations would include a slightly different sanctions regime and the ability for welfare payments to be paid to claimants fortnightly rather than monthly? Does he agree that those sanctions were agreed at that time and there was perhaps an unwillingness by the DUP to bring them forward through the welfare reform legislation in the Assembly?
Mark Durkan
I fully concur with my hon. Friend’s memory of that meeting. Let us be clear, because we dealt with this in the previous debate as well: at the time, the DUP Minister indicated that the computer system would easily facilitate fortnightly payments, or even weekly if it came to that, and that continuing direct payments to the landlord would not be a problem. He also said that the first time he had heard about Northern Ireland’s particular issue with the bedroom tax was from us, and that his officials had not had it raised in any of their meetings with the Department for Social Development. Of course, at that stage he had had no meetings with the DSD Minister and had none planned. When we consider who was doing due diligence in relation to staking out these issues and seeking these concessions, we should remember that that was the situation.
Tom Elliott
As I understand it, last December’s Stormont House proposals were accepted by the SDLP as well as Sinn Féin. Is the hon. Gentleman now saying that this is a worse deal or a better deal than the Stormont House proposal?
Mark Durkan
I will answer the right hon. Gentleman’s question: I think it is a worse deal. We not only have this order to transpose the 2012 Act—all the parties in Northern Ireland said they had difficulties with that legislation—but the way in which this is being taken forward means that the Government in Whitehall now have the power, by order, to transpose the Welfare Reform and Work Bill currently going through Parliament. That needs to be understood, because the legislative consent motion passed by the Assembly endorsed all the welfare clauses of the current Bill, as originally tabled. DUP MLAs voted to endorse all the clauses, even though they had voted for amendments to delete some of them or to insert additional clauses. Within a period of weeks, they voted with an entirely different attitude in relation to the Welfare Reform and Work Bill, hiding behind direct rule. I therefore think that the deal is worse.
We must remember that the order will not only have the immediate effect of transposing most of the 2012 Act as implemented in Great Britain, but also provides a power, simply by virtue of regulations, to change a lot of the terms and conditions of the benefits, and can almost disappear some categories of benefits in the 2012 Act. In essence, we are being signed up to that without so much as a provision stating that when this direct-rule power is exercised, there must still be a legislative consent motion in the Assembly. We have been treated to the fiction that while we have direct rule, we have not lost any devolution because all the powers still exist on paper in the Assembly. That means it will supposedly be entirely in order for MLAs to table motions in the Assembly to amend such areas or to come up with their own private Members’ Bills, so we will have the nonsense of parallel, competing legislative strands. That is the sort of fiction and nonsense to which we are being treated.
Let us be very clear that the problem does not relate to the political or legislative processes; the real problem is the potential impact on people whose benefits and living standards will be affected as a result. Let us remember that when the Welfare Reform and Work Bill goes through—it has now been endorsed by a legislative consent motion—it will change the limited work capability element of universal credit for new claimants from April 2017. It is quite clear that although the decision-making power, which the Secretary of State has under the enabling legislation that went through over a week ago, will end in 2016, the effect of the decisions made under that power will not die with the power. The changes in relation to the limited work capability element of universal credit for new claimants will come in, meaning a reduction in the value of current payments of almost £30 a week—from £102.15 to £73.10. That is why all the health charities and disability campaign groups are so opposed to clauses 13 and 14 of the Welfare Reform and Work Bill. Unfortunately, Northern Ireland is now sealed into that by virtue of the legislative consent motion and the measure previously passed by Parliament.
There will be a similar reduction in the amount paid to those in the employment and support allowance work-related activity group. We know from hon. Members representing constituencies in Great Britain that that is one of the notorious vexations. We have heard about just how the work-related activity group has been treated in practice, and about some of the bizarre interpretations, decisions and procedures that people have had to go through. We are now locked into a lot of that courtesy of both the legislative consent motion and this order. We do not have reason to be happy if we take seriously what our friends in all parties across the House are saying in raising their valid concerns. That also goes for some aspects of the sanctions. The time limit on the sanctions is different, courtesy of the efforts that we all made in relation to Stormont House.
I want to make it quite clear that we were signed up for Stormont House in December 2014, because the terms of the agreement stated that the proposals would be developed and brought to the Assembly. When the Bill was brought to the Assembly, however, nothing in it had changed. That is why we tabled a series of modest amendments, which would not have shattered the Stormont House agreement in any way, and which the British Government confirmed would not have stretched or undermined their understanding of what was operable under the agreement. But no, the DUP decided to veto the proposals and, on top of that, Sinn Féin decided to vote down the amendments even though the Tories had voted down similar amendments here in the original 2012 legislation. So those were the people who decided that we were not going to take Stormont House forward on an all-party basis, as had been agreed. I want to put this on record, because I do not think that enough people have understood what happened.
I will make one concession to the Government. A lot of the wriggle room that we had in the Stormont House agreement came about as a result not only of the top-up mitigations from the Executive’s own budget but of the understanding that the Department for Work and Pensions and the Treasury were going to allow the Social Security Agency in Northern Ireland a certain amount of leeway in the interpretation and operation of some of the measures. That is one reason why the big money that it was thought would be needed to make good some of Sinn Féin’s demands was not actually needed after all. The funds did not need to come out of the Executive’s budget because of that leeway being allowed.
However, some of us recognised that the arrangement was time-limited. We were worried that the effects of the welfare cap—which is not to be confused with the benefit cap—would, over time, squeeze and reduce that comfort. We said that we had to be honest about that. The SDLP was also very clear about saying at Stormont House that we had to be up front and public about the fact that, when the next wave of cuts came, we would not be in a position to say that they could be sustained out of the Executive’s budget and that we could not make a claim on the block grant to try to make good those claims. We said that we had to say that up front so that people understood it. Sinn Féin did not want to acknowledge that fact because it was still locked into the pretence that it could say it was protecting all existing claimants and all future claimants for ever more, amen. We never joined in that pretence, but no other party joined us in making that candid declaration that we could not constantly find more and more hard shoulder to run on.
That brings me to the points that were made earlier about the fines. We were asked whether we regretted the fines. We resented those fines, those penalties, those levies, those savings forgone. We have been told by the Secretary of State that they are not fines but savings forgone. I notice that the right hon. Lady did not contradict DUP Members when they were calling them fines; it is only me who gets contradicted. Whatever they are called, we resented them because they were an exercise in budget bullying. The DUP never objected to that budget bullying; indeed, one might think that they were actually in on the tactic, and in on the threat about not renewing the computer system.
The fact is that the Assembly was being bullied. I have said before that I do not believe that the Treasury will treat the new suite of devolved capacities for Scotland in relation to welfare reform in this way. I know that Scotland’s deal on welfare is not perfect. Its operation will be problematic, but I am pretty sure that the Treasury will not resort to the kind of tactics that it used against the Northern Ireland Assembly when it comes to dealing with clear differences of view between the Scottish Parliament and the Westminster Government. I believe that it will take a different course.
If we are to be honest about this issue, we must be clear that there is a need to consider whether we need to realign the devolution of welfare in future so that the situation is sustainable. When the sunset clause in this legislation kicks in, and if there is some other mid-term welfare reform package in this Parliament, we do not want the Assembly to spasm into crisis for exactly the same reason.
We said at Stormont House and elsewhere that perhaps we should realign towards something more akin to the Scottish model of devolution. In Scotland, the burden is to take an interest in the benefits that people rely on if they have disabilities and long-term conditions. That points towards a way that we could go that would allow us to be more complete in the protections that we say we are offering people and perhaps provide a more sustainable course for the future.
That answers the point that the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) made about the architecture of the Good Friday agreement and devolution in the first place. There might be a need to look at realignment, as we have declared. Indeed, I declared that a number of years ago. However, we have not had any takers at any of the talks. If people want to do that, they will find that it could go ahead.
The way in which the implications of this order and the orders to follow are being sold is wrong. Remember that this is only the first of a number of orders that we will get, courtesy of direct rule. Indeed, it is more direct direct rule than we had before, because when a lot of the Northern Ireland social security legislation was passed under the old style of direct rule, it was taken through the House by Northern Ireland Office Ministers. Now, we have direct rule by the DWP, thanks to the way in which Sinn Féin and the DUP have decided it will happen.
It is wrong for parties that oppose these changes to benefits and sanctions to say in respect of making sure that these cuts and changes will happen by direct fiat and by the hand of a direct-rule Minister in the DWP, “Well, that was a good deal because we saved devolution.” Who was threatening devolution? The only parties that were threatening devolution and the institutions were Sinn Féin and the DUP. They contrived the brink and we all had to teeter on it. When they were saved from themselves in the end, they said that they had done a good job by getting concessions that were available anyway—they were not concessions at all.
That is the nonsense and dishonesty that lies at the centre of the politics of this. We are not one bit happy or content. We are not thankful to the Government for this at all. There were ways of dealing with these issues. They should have been taken in a mature way by devolution—
Mark Durkan
They should have been taken in a mature way by devolution, using the Assembly to anticipate when the legislation which has come through here—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for East Antrim is one of the people who said that we did not need to worry about the implications of the Welfare Reform Bill when it was here in 2011. He said that we were scaremongering and he voted down moves to deal with the issue in the Assembly. Now he is saying that we should be happy with what direct rule will do over the next 13 months. That will have an effect on benefits and people’s living standards for a long time to come, not least people with disabilities and long-term health conditions.
Those people are not just worried about the implications of the Welfare Reform (Northern Ireland) Act 2015 and dissatisfied about the arrangements for personal independence payment, which need to be improved on the basis of the experience in the pilot areas in England, but they are also very concerned about the implications of the Welfare Reform and Work Bill, which will change a lot of the terms and conditions attaching to universal credit. The very basis on which the original 2012 Act was sold here and the very basis on which the DUP tried to retail that Act in the Assembly was the prospectus for universal credit. Already, those terms and conditions are being changed adversely. As we pass this order, other legislation is coming through that will fundamentally change them. That is not a good deal for the people who are on these benefits.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Welfare Reform (Northern Ireland) Order 2015, which was laid before this House on 26 November, be approved.
High Speed Rail (London – West Midlands) Bill: Instruction (No. 5)
(8 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Business without Debate
(8 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Delegated Legislation
(8 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
With the leave of the House, we shall take motions 11 to 14 together.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),
Taxes
That the draft Double Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (Canada) Order 2015, which was laid before this House on 27 October, be approved.
Corporation Tax
That the draft Double Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (Jersey) Order 2015, which was laid before this House on 27 October, be approved.
That the draft Double Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (Guernsey) Order 2015, which was laid before this House on 27 October, be approved.
Capital Gains Tax
That the draft Double Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (Kosovo) Order 2015, which was laid before this House on 5 November, be approved.—(Stephen Barclay.)
Question agreed to.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. There are a large number of petitions to be presented, and I hope that it will be of assistance to the House if I set out how we shall proceed. Once the first petition relating to school funding model has been read to the House, with its prayer—I am looking for Mr Graham Stuart—subsequent petitions on the same topic should not be read out in full. Members should give a brief description of the number and location of the petitioners, and state that the petition is “in the same terms”. Members presenting more than one petition should present them together.
When Mr Stuart has presented his petitions, which will not be possible if he is not here within the next few seconds—
Sir Edward Garnier (Harborough) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wonder if I could seek your advice. I believe that I am the third or fourth named Member in the list of those presenting a petition, and I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart), to whom you have referred, has kindly offered to present petitions on behalf of quite a number of other hon. Members. What would be the procedure for him, when presenting all the other petitions on behalf of other hon. Members who are unable to be here this evening? I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs Spelman) intends to present a petition after my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness and before me, and the process could become quite complicated unless fully and clearly explained by you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank Sir Edward for his beautifully, and slowly delivered, point of order, which was a master of theatricality. The answer to his perfectly reasonable question, which I am also delivering lente, is that the next person on the list, the right hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs Spelman), who is in her place—if somewhat out of breath—will present the first petition.
Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I know that a huge number of Members are waiting to present their petitions tonight and I do not therefore wish to detain the House too long. I also know that the petitions are on an extremely important matter. However, given the huge interest in tomorrow’s debate, I wonder if you can give any guidance on the amount of time for which Members might be able to expect to speak in that debate.
Madam Deputy Speaker
That is a most interesting point of order, and I can tell the hon. Gentleman and the House that, as far as I am aware, a very large number of Members have indicated that they wish to speak in tomorrow’s debate. I cannot at this point give any indication as to how much time will be available for each Member, but I have every confidence that Mr. Speaker, at the very beginning of the debate, will—in his usual way—be likely to give an indication that if all Members are as brief as they can be, it would be courteous to other hon. Members who wish to speak.
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Given the interest in the proceedings that will take place in the House tomorrow, in which it is likely that a very large number of right hon. and hon. Members will wish to take part and given that the motion provides that the House should finish at 7 pm, can you give the House some guidance? If an extremely large number of Members wish to speak, can that time be extended to, say, 10 pm?
Madam Deputy Speaker
I can answer the hon. Gentleman on that point most readily, because the House is already aware of a motion allowing the House to sit tomorrow until 10 pm.
Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wonder if you could help me on the debate tomorrow. It is obvious from these points of order that there will be a large number of people who want to speak in that debate. Would it be possible for the Chair to indicate to those people the timeframe within which they may be able to speak—[Interruption.] My point of order is popular with the House—[Laughter.] That would be most helpful to Members who have many duties to fulfil, so attending the Chamber can be difficult as far as timing is concerned.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Your point of order is indeed popular, Mrs Gillan. I can answer it in the same way that I answered the previous point of order. I would estimate that Members could calculate that some 90 or 100 colleagues will wish to speak tomorrow, and they should therefore consider the amount of time that will be available for the debate, from 11.30 am until 10 pm; subtract from that the amount of time that is likely to be taken by the Prime Minister, who I am sure will take many interventions, and by the Leader of the Opposition, who I am sure will take just as many interventions; and divide the remaining time by about 80 or 90. That will give hon. Members an indication of the time. Anyone who cannot do arithmetic can come to see me at some time tomorrow and I will work it out for them.
I trust that the variety and slowness of these points of order have given a certain hon. Gentleman enough time to get his breath back. When I explained to the House, some time ago, how the large number of petitions would be dealt with, most Members were not present. For the convenience of the House, therefore, and with my apologies for repeating myself, I will explain once again.
Once the first petition, relating to the school funding model, has been read to the House, with its prayer, subsequent petitions on the same topic should not be read out in full. Members should give a brief description of the number and location of the petitioners and state that the petition is in the same terms. Members presenting more than one petition should present them together.
When Mr Stuart has presented his petitions, he should proceed to the Table and hand his first petition to the Clerk, who will read out the title in the usual way. For subsequent petitions, Members should proceed directly to the petitions bag at the back of the Chair. I will call the next Member immediately after the previous Member has finished speaking. At the expiry of half an hour, no further petitions may be presented orally, but they may be placed in the petitions bag and will be recorded as formally presented. I call Mr Graham Stuart to present his petition.
Petitions
(8 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for a verbosity that one does not usually associate with you. I am also grateful to colleagues who have filled in the time after this unexpected collapse of business.
I am grateful for the time we have been given to present petitions calling for fair school funding from more than 100 constituencies right across England and the House. The current funding system is arbitrary and unfair. It penalises urban and rural alike, affecting both Labour and Conservative constituencies. We welcome the announcement of the new national funding formula for schools that the Chancellor mentioned in the comprehensive spending review last week, and we will continue, across the House, to make the case for reform, as the Government consult on their proposals. I will read out the full text of the petition, but, as you have said, Madam Deputy Speaker, other Members need not do so.
In addition to presenting a petition on behalf of 2,287 people in Beverley and Holderness, I am also presenting petitions from the constituencies of Aylesbury, Bethnal Green and Bow, Buckingham, Central Devon, Chelsea and Fulham, East Devon, Forest of Dean, Grantham and Stamford, Haltemprice and Howden, Kingston upon Hull North, Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle, Ipswich, Lewisham, Deptford, Loughborough, Meon Valley, New Forest West, Newton Abbot, Oxford East, Penrith and The Border, South Holland and The Deepings, North Swindon, South Swindon, Tatton, Thornbury and Yate, Wantage, West Suffolk, Wimbledon and York Central. In addition, I am presenting a petition on behalf of the shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), who gave me his petition earlier. He was unable to be here, but would have liked to have been. I thank all those who have signed from across the country.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of Beverley and Holderness,
Declares that the petitioners believe the existing school funding model in England is arbitrary and unfair; further declares that the ten best funded areas of England have on average received grants of £6,300 per pupil this year, compared to an average of £4,200 per pupil in the ten most poorly funded areas of England; and further declares that the petitioners welcome the Government’s commitment to introduce fairer school funding.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons supports the earliest possible introduction of a new National Funding Formula for schools in England.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P001559]
Mrs Caroline Spelman (Meriden) (Con)
I rise to present a petition on behalf of 649 of my constituents in Meriden in the same terms as presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness. Madam Deputy Speaker, may we express our thanks through you to the Clerk of Public Petitions in the Journal Office of the House of Commons?
The Petition of the residents of Meriden.
[P001554]
Sir Edward Garnier (Harborough) (Con)
I wish to present a petition on behalf of many hundreds of residents of my Harborough constituency in exactly the same terms as my right hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs Spelman) and my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness. Leicestershire has always been at the very bottom, if not penultimate, in the Whitehall funding system. We hope this petition will move the Government to improve things.
The Petition of the residents of Harborough.
[P001557]
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)
I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to present a petition of approximately 2,000 signatures on behalf of my constituents in The Cotswolds. That demonstrates the strength of feeling in my constituency that the current funding mechanism is inequitable. I hope the petition will change the situation.
The Petition of the residents of The Cotswolds.
[P001563]
Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)
I rise to present a petition on behalf of many hundreds of people in Warrington North in the same terms as the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness.
The Petition of the residents of Warrington North.
[P001564]
Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)
I rise to present a petition on behalf of the residents of Taunton Deane in the same terms as my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness, which 1,387 highly concerned residents have signed.
The Petition of the residents of Taunton Deane.
[P001565]
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
I present a petition on behalf of the residents of the Henley constituency, 592 of whom have signed it, in the same terms as my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness.
The Petition of the residents of Henley.
[P001567]
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)
I rise to present a petition on behalf of constituents in South Dorset and also in West Dorset. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness for his huge effort to get fair funding for Dorset, which has been at the bottom of the pile for far too long.
The Petition of the residents of South Dorset.
[P001568]
David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)
I rise to present a petition on behalf of 2,916 constituents in Warrington South in the same terms as my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness.
The Petition of the residents of Warrington South.
[P001569]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
I call Mr Christopher Chope. [Interruption.] Now that is very unusual: Mr Christopher Chope is not present.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
I rise to present a petition on behalf of my constituents in North West Leicestershire asking for fairer school funding. Leicestershire has for many years been the second-lowest funded of all areas in the UK, receiving some £500 per pupil less than pupils in Leicester and an amazing £1,000 per year per pupil less than pupils in Birmingham. The petition is signed by 664 of my constituents and is in the same terms as that presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness.
The Petition of the residents of North West Leicestershire.
[P001575]
James Heappey (Wells) (Con)
I rise to present a petition on behalf of the pupils, parents and teachers of schools from across the Wells constituency in the same terms as my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness.
The Petition of the residents of Wells.
[P001576]
Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)
I rise to present a petition on behalf of very many of my Tewkesbury constituents to campaign against unfair education funding in the same terms as those expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness.
The Petition of the residents of Tewkesbury.
[P001577]
Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)
I rise to present a petition on behalf of many residents of Mid Dorset and North Poole in the same terms as my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness. If necessary, I declare an interest as a school governor—and my delight in this result.
The Petition of the residents of Mid Dorset and North Poole.
[P001578]
David Warburton (Somerton and Frome) (Con)
I rise to present a petition on behalf of many hundreds of residents of Somerton and Frome in exactly the same terms as those expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness.
The Petition of the residents of Somerton and Frome.
[P001580]
Karl MᶜCartney (Lincoln) (Con)
I rise to present a petition on behalf a number of my constituents in Lincoln in the same terms as my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness. I declare an interest, in that I have been a school governor for many years. I am a board member and former chairman of the Priory city academy “Career Ready” scheme and I have two sons who attend school in the rural county of Lincolnshire.
The Petition of the residents of Lincoln.
[P001585]
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
I rise to present a petition on behalf of the residents of the Stafford constituency in the same terms as my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness.
The Petition of the residents of Stafford.
[P001582]
Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)
I rise to present a petition on behalf of the residents of Mid Derbyshire in the same terms as my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness.
The Petition of the residents of Mid Derbyshire.
[P001583]
Victoria Prentis (Banbury) (Con)
I rise to present this petition on behalf of many of the residents of Banbury in the same terms as was set out by my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness.
The Petition of the residents of Banbury.
[P001584]
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
I rise to present this petition on behalf of many of the residents—indeed, over 750 of them—in the same terms as my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness.
The Petition of the residents of Crawley.
[P001586]
Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)
I rise to present this petition on behalf of many residents of Shrewsbury in the same terms as my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness.
The Petition of the residents of Shrewsbury and Atcham.
[P001587]
Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)
I rise to present this petition signed by some 2,000 of my Stroud constituents. This is a significant figure and shows the force of feeling in my patch. I do so in the same terms, of course, as my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness, who is also my predecessor as Chairman of the Education Committee.
The Petition of the residents of Stroud.
[P001588]
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
I rise to present my petition on behalf of the residents of Torbay, calling for fair funding for our schools, in the same terms as my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness.
The Petition of the residents of Torbay.
[P001589]
Gavin Williamson (South Staffordshire) (Con)
I rise on behalf of 1,705 of my constituents who are campaigning for a fairer deal for schools in Staffordshire. The petition is in the same terms as those of my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness.
The Petition of the residents of South Staffordshire.
[P001590]
Victoria Atkins (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)
I rise to present this petition in the same terms as my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness on behalf of the many residents in Louth and Horncastle who feel strongly about fairer funding for schools.
The Petition of the residents of Louth and Horncastle.
[P001591]
Stephen Phillips (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
I rise to present this petition on behalf of a gross of residents of the Sleaford and North Hykeham constituency in the same terms as the petition presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness.
The Petition of the residents of Sleaford and North Hykeham.
[P001592]
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
I rise to present this petition on behalf of 713 Brigg and Goole constituents in the great counties of East Riding of Yorkshire and North Lincolnshire. In so doing, I declare a relevant interest as chairman of the governors at Goole academy.
The Petition of the residents of Brigg and Goole.
[P001593]
Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)
I rise to present this petition on behalf of the residents of Faversham and Mid Kent, whose children are affected by the vagaries of the current funding system for schools. It is in the same terms as that presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness.
The Petition of the residents of Faversham and Mid Kent.
[P001594]
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
I rise to present this petition on behalf of the residents of the Congleton constituency, signed by over 620 of those residents, in the same terms as that presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness.
The Petition of the residents of Congleton.
[P001595]
Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)
I present this petition for fair school funding on behalf of 1,151 parents, teachers and school children in Cheltenham in the same terms as my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness. It is time for fair funding for Cheltenham.
The Petition of the residents of Cheltenham.
[P001597]
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
I rise to present this petition on behalf of the residents of South Suffolk in the same terms as my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness. There are so many signatures that I cannot even count them.
The Petition of the residents of South Suffolk.
[P001598]
William Wragg (Hazel Grove) (Con)
I rise to present this petition on behalf of the residents of the Hazel Grove constituency in the same terms as my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness. I declare a tenuous interest as a former teacher.
The Petition of the residents of Hazel Grove.
[P001599]
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
It is a great honour on this historic occasion to present this petition on behalf of the great county of Lincolnshire. It has some of the best schools in the country, but they are sadly underfunded. I present the petition in the same terms as my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness.
The Petition of the residents of Gainsborough.
[P001600]
Antoinette Sandbach (Eddisbury) (Con)
I rise to present this petition on behalf of hundreds of concerned residents from Eddisbury in the same terms as that presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness.
The Petition of the residents of Eddisbury.
[P001601]
Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con)
I rise to present this petition on behalf of many hundreds of residents in Solihull in the same terms as my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness.
The Petition of the residents of Solihull.
[P001604]
Peter Heaton-Jones (North Devon) (Con)
I rise to present this petition on behalf of many residents of North Devon. In doing so, I applaud this Government for pledging to put right this historic wrong. This petition is in the same terms as that of my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness.
The Petition of the residents of North Devon.
[P001602]
Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con)
I rise to present this petition on behalf of the residents of Boston and Skegness, completing the county of Lincolnshire—meaning that all Lincolnshire MPs have submitted this petition in the same terms as my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness.
The Petition of the residents of Boston and Skegness.
[P001603]
Marcus Fysh (Yeovil) (Con)
I rise to present a petition on behalf of 584 residents who are passionate about fair school funding in the Yeovil constituency, written in the same terms as that of my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness.
The Petition of the residents of Yeovil.
[P001610]
Dr Daniel Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)
I rise to present a petition for fairer school funding on behalf of my constituents, which is written in the same terms as that of my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness.
The Petition of the residents of Central Suffolk and North Ipswich.
[P001611]
Michelle Donelan (Chippenham) (Con)
I rise to present a petition on behalf of the many residents of my constituency, which is written in the same terms as that of my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness, to rectify the present ludicrous funding system.
The Petition of the residents of Chippenham.
[P001609]
Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)
I rise to present a petition on behalf of 535 residents of Wyre Forest. It also includes 20 signatures from the Christopher Whitehead Language academy in the constituency of my good and hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr Walker), and is written in the same terms as that of my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness.
The Petition of the residents of Wyre Forest.
[P001608]
Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)
I rise to present a petition on behalf of the residents of Chesham and Amersham against the existing school funding model in England. Of the 10 lowest-funded schools in the country, the seven lowest-funded are in Buckinghamshire, and the lowest-funded in the country is also in the county. The petition is in in the same vein as that of my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness.
The Petition of the residents of Chesham and Amersham.
[P001613]
Lucy Frazer (South East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
I rise to present a petition on behalf of the residents of South East Cambridgeshire, which is written in terms similar to those of the petition presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness.
The Petition of the residents of South East Cambridgeshire.
[P001614]
Rishi Sunak (Richmond (Yorks)) (Con)
I rise to present a petition on behalf of the residents of Richmond, North Yorkshire, which is written in the same terms as that presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness.
The Petition of the residents of Richmond (Yorks).
[P001621]
David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)
I rise to present a petition on behalf of the residents of Macclesfield, which is written in the same terms as that of my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness. I have a similar local petition, which has many signatures of constituents.
The Petition of the residents of Macclesfield.
[P001651]
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
I rise to present a petition on behalf of the electors of Wokingham, and, in particular, the signatories who constitute a majority of the members of our unitary council and local education authority, requesting fairer funding for our schools, which need it greatly. The basis of the petition is similar to those of the petitions that we have already heard.
The Petition of the residents of Wokingham.
[P001624]
Jo Churchill (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)
I rise to present a petition on behalf of the residents of Bury St Edmunds, which is written in the same terms as that of my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness.
The Petition of the residents of Bury St Edmunds.
[P001623]
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
The petition that I rise to present has been signed by 1,335 residents of the city of Gloucester, and is, I trust, supported by all who yearn for fairer funding for schools in the city. It is written in the same terms as that of my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness.
The Petition of the residents of Gloucester.
[P001647]
Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)
I rise to present a petition on behalf of the residents of North Herefordshire, which is written in the same terms as that of my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness.
The Petition of the residents of North Herefordshire.
[P001648]
Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)
I rise, as a fellow Yorkshire Member, to present a petition on behalf of many York Outer residents, which is written in the same terms as that of my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness, to deliver fairer school funding for all.
The Petition of the residents of York Outer.
[P001649]
Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
I apologise for having missed my place in the queue, Madam Deputy Speaker, but it gives me great pleasure to present a petition on behalf of residents of Christchurch. It is written in terms identical to those of the petition presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness. I know that my constituents are confident, as I am, that the Government will honour their commitment to introducing fairer school funding.
The Petition of the residents of Christchurch.
[P001656]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
I have been given no notice that any further petitions are about to be presented.
Kevin Hollinrake
Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise to present a petition on behalf of several hundred residents of the beautiful constituency of Thirsk and Malton, which is written in the same terms as that of my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness.
The Petition of the residents of Thirsk and Malton.
[P001656]
Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I know my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) was seeking to be present this evening for obvious reasons. Has the Deputy Speaker received any information regarding difficulties in accessing the estate due to the activities taking place outside?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
I have received information that there are a great many people outside and that it is possible that some people leaving this building—I have been particularly concerned about junior and female members of staff trying to get out of this building this evening—are having difficulty in doing so. I have heard that it could also be difficult to gain access to this building, which is a very great pity. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that point of order because when assiduous Members of Parliament are not in their places when they are expected to be, there is usually a very good reason for it.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I ask if during your time in this House there has ever been more mention of the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) and in more glorious a context?
Madam Deputy Speaker
I am very happy to tell the hon. Gentleman that I have never heard quite so much mention of the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness, and I am sure he has done a sterling piece of work—and it is just as well that the injury to his leg healed so he could run here from far away.
Pre-payment Meters
(8 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab)
There is a prediction that we are about to experience the longest winter in 50 years. Now is the time to consider what that will mean for the most vulnerable in our society. We know that in 2014 there were 43,900 excess winter deaths in England and Wales, and if the predictions translate into a long period of harsh weather, that figure could rise for 2015-16 unless we act to mitigate the effects.
The UK Association for the Conservation of Energy estimated that almost 14,000 deaths over the last winter could be due to people living in cold homes. Therefore, the most obvious area where we can act is energy consumption, and particularly the cost of pre-payment meters and how they are put into people’s homes, especially for those already experiencing fuel poverty. If we tackle that issue, we can alleviate part of the problem of excess winter deaths.
More than 2,000 new PPMs are being installed every day. I would like to put on record my thanks to Citizens Advice for its “fair play for prepay” campaign. It is clear from my constituency of Brent Central how unfairly the costs of PPMs bear on poorer residents. My constituency has one of the highest numbers of people on PPMs in the country—at 26%, it is 10% above the national average—and those on PPMs pay on average £226 more a year than those with the cheapest direct debit deals. We can get an idea of the scale of the impact from the fact that it costs £3 million to the local economy.
What is worse is that 80% of PPMs are used to collect debt for the energy companies. So the energy companies subject poor people to higher rates, and there is also the cost of installing PPMs. It is almost as if these people are being punished again and again and again.
Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is raising an extremely important point, particularly for those of us in London. She says PPMs are being “put into” people’s homes. Is she stating to the House that the people living in these properties have no say in that, and are being forced to accept these PPMs?
Dawn Butler
That is what sometimes happens. Some people come home, as Mr Hamilton in my constituency did, to find a PPM has been installed without their knowledge, which should never happen. It is a disgrace that the energy companies do that.
The poorest 10% spend almost 10% of their total household expenditure on fuel, whereas the figure for the richest 10% is just 3%. That is why fuel poverty is a recognised term. According to Ofgem, those on pre-payment meters pay on average £80 more than those on direct debit. Although that figure has reduced, the differential can be reduced much further. As the Minister will know, the Competition Markets Authority’s provisional findings on the energy market, released this July, raised concerns about the affordability of domestic energy prices, as they have continually outstripped inflation over the past 10 years. Yet, at the same time, standards of service have dropped and complaints have risen. Under the Labour Government pre-payment bills rose on average by just over £17.50 a year, whereas during the past four years annual bills have risen on average by £63. The Government should make it clear to the big six energy companies that they must reduce the amount that those on pre-payment meters pay for their gas and electricity. After all, these are vulnerable people who can least afford that amount of money and those higher costs.
British Gas has sort of led by way, levelling out the amount its customers on pre-payment meters pay to the same amount as for those on cash and credit, but I have been advised that those paying by direct debit will still be incentivised and pay a little less because of the reflectivity requirements. That is understandable, but more should still be done—all that is needed is the will power of these energy companies.
Stephen Pound
Has my hon. Friend made any calculation about the amount of profit made by the big six energy companies? It seems to me that we have a case of Robin Hood in reverse here: the poorest in our society are having to pay to subsidise the wealthiest. Has she done any work on or made any estimate as to the amount of profit accruing to the big six?
Dawn Butler
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. The big six make about £600 million a year in profit, which is an enormous amount, and they can afford to treat the most vulnerable in our society much better than they do.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
The hon. Lady is making a number of excellent points and I thank her for raising this important issue. I am aware of constituents who are paying more in standing charges for pre-payment meters than they are for the actual energy consumption. That should be regulated a lot more toughly.
Dawn Butler
I agree that the standing charges need to be regulated, as does the whole industry. It can do a lot more, especially given that, as I have said, we are about to enter the longest winter in 50 years.
I urge the Minister to encourage energy companies to follow in the footsteps of ScottishPower, which suspends the debt of its customer during the winter months so that anything they put into the meter goes directly on their usage of fuel. Let me put that into context: my constituent Mr Hamilton would put £5 on his meter and the energy company would take £3, so he had only £2-worth of fuel. If the Minister was able to encourage the energy companies, they could do this straightaway and with very little effort, but it would make a big difference to the people in the country.
As the Minister will know, in 2016, we enter the enduring phase, which will ensure that all meters are smart meters by 2020. Therefore, it is important that we help to inform people who are fuel poor. After all, energy companies will be making £12 million-worth of savings with the implementation of smart meters, so surely we can look after the 2.3 million fuel-poor households in this country. The energy companies are making enough money to be able to look after those who are fuel poor.
I expect the Minister will tell us that energy companies are not allowed to disconnect customers during the winter months, but they still install pre-payment meters, which means that people self-disconnect because they cannot afford to pay. They are, in effect, still being disconnected, they are still getting cold and, unfortunately, some still die.
Stephen Pound
I really am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. I will try not to trespass on her patience for much longer. On the subject of disconnection, is she aware that, in some cases, there can be long-distance disconnection? People can be disconnected without a magistrate having to sign an order for the company to enter the premises physically to disconnect. In other words, if it is possible to disconnect a power supply without even entering the premises, one of those vital layers of protection for the consumer, particularly the vulnerable consumer, has been removed.
Dawn Butler
Absolutely. The installation of smart meters will make such remote disconnection even easier to carry out. Energy companies have said that they will not do that, but do we trust them enough to believe them? That is why we must safeguard and protect the most vulnerable in our society. It also means that magistrates have to be given clear information. As a magistrate myself, I can tell Members that we normally get lots of warrants to sign off at the beginning of a sitting. Magistrates clearly ask whether the energy company has gone through all the safeguards with regard to vulnerable adults, people with mental health problems or children at the property. On some occasions, I was not always convinced that the energy company did its due diligence when asking for a warrant to enable it to enter a property forcefully to install a pre-payment meter, which will be more expensive for that person who is least able to pay the bill.
I have talked about the high cost of pre-payment meters and the matter of self-disconnection, which happens quite a lot but which is not often mentioned by the energy companies or by this House. Recent research undertaken by E.ON highlighted that seven in 10 people with pre-payment meters had accidentally self-disconnected even when they were not expected to do so. That is a very high number. Over the winter months, we expect that figure to rise.
Pre-payment meters are being installed way too early in the debt plan. Energy companies are supposed to go through a whole plan of what they can do to help their customer to avoid fuel poverty. As we are entering the enduring phase—smart meters will be rolled out by 2020—surely now is the time to slow down and end the installation of pre-payment meters.
Chris Stephens
I thank the hon. Lady for giving way; she is being very generous. In my experience the fuel regulator has no teeth and is effectively powerless in stopping energy companies installing pre-payment meters early on. Does she agree that the fuel regulator should be given more powers?
Dawn Butler
I agree. Not only should the fuel regulators be given more powers, but a closer eye should be kept on what the energy companies are doing. I also think that the magistrates courts play a huge role in ensuring that the energy companies pass all the necessary tests before installing pre-payment meters. The amount is currently set at something like £150, but £500 is the amount set to stop people switching to another energy company. The £500 figure should be the figure that an energy company has to reach before applying for a warrant to install a pre-payment meter, because it is just too easy to get such a warrant, which means that the customer plummets into more and more debt, as they cannot afford the amount that they have to pay.
Record profits are being made by the big six energy firms year on year. Does the Minister agree that the increases in charges and complaints are simply not good enough? Further action to protect the consumer, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) mentioned, is necessary.
Does the Minister agree that, when DECC’s own fuel poverty records show that 22% of pre-payment meter users are in fuel poverty, something needs to be done and quickly, especially with winter fast approaching, if we are not already in it? We could well witness a rise in self-disconnections and fuel poverty-related deaths if we do not do something in the next few weeks.
I am sure that the Minister and I are on the same page on this issue. To help her with her response, I would like to summarise some of my requests. It would really help the estimated 11 million people on pre-payment meters if energy companies brought the cost of pre-payment meters into line with those on the cheapest direct debit. It would also add £2.5 billion into the economy. I would also like to see greater protection for vulnerable adults and children when pre-payment meters are installed. That would mean giving clear instructions to the magistrates court. I would like to see no pre-payment meters fitted during the winter months. As previously said, that leads to self-disconnections. So in effect the energy companies are still disconnecting vulnerable people during the winter months. There should be a suspension of debt during the longest winter in 50 years—this year, 2015 leading into 2016. All the above is completely doable, and a letter from the Minister could make it happen.
Lastly, we are all aware that food banks have become a godsend to many in our country and some people would be having a pretty lousy Christmas if it were not for food banks. I wish that they did not have to use them, but that is the situation. I thank the Trussell Trust and E.ON, which have teamed up to provide credit for struggling families who use pre-payment meters. I know that, in my constituency of Brent Central, we will be grateful for their services. I hope that the Minister and I will agree that this country can do more to help those who are fuel poor.
The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Andrea Leadsom)
I genuinely congratulate the hon. Member for Brent Central (Dawn Butler) on securing this debate on the cost of pre-payment meters. I can assure her that the Government are committed to helping households with their energy bills, and a great deal of the focus in my Department in recent months has been on how to reduce consumer bills for everyone. It is an incredibly important point, and the hon. Lady has made it well.
We know that it is often some of the most vulnerable in our society who can end up with a pre-payment meter. While we are working with Ofgem to provide greater support specifically for those consumers—I will come on to exactly what we are doing on pre-payment meters—it is also important to point out that we have also implemented a range of measures to help vulnerable households to reduce their energy bills, including the warm home discount scheme, which provides direct assistance on energy bills to more than 2 million low-income and vulnerable households each year.
The Government are also determined to help vulnerable consumers take advantage of the best deals available. We know that many vulnerable consumers need additional help and advice to engage with the market and take action to switch and save. That is why DECC has been providing nearly £3 million over the last three years to fund the big energy saving network. The network is designed to help vulnerable consumers take action to reduce their energy costs, with around half of participants reporting that they now spend less on heating their home because of their engagement with the network. It has reached around 220,000 people over the last two years, and we aim to reach a further 100,000 vulnerable consumers this winter.
Helping people to insulate their homes is one of the best ways to help keep energy bills down; 1.3 million homes have benefited from energy efficiency measures, such as insulation and efficient boilers, under the energy company obligation between January 2013 and September 2015. The current phase of ECO will run to March 2017, but in the spending review the Government announced a long-term successor to ECO that will continue for an additional five years from 2017, at £640 million a year, rising with inflation. That new supplier obligation will run from April 2017 to March 2022, reducing the impact of the obligation by around £30 for the average household from 2017-18, compared with current projections. It will also upgrade the energy efficiency of well over 200,000 homes per year, tackling the root cause of fuel poverty. We will set out our plans for the scheme early in the new year.
The hon. Lady has raised a very important issue. A significant proportion of households—about 17%—use pre-payment meters. Although not all pre-payment meter consumers are financially vulnerable, more than 60% of those meters have been installed as a result of debt. For some consumers in difficult circumstances, they offer an alternative to disconnection for non-payment of energy bills, although we recognise that those consumers would rather not be in that situation. Still others prefer pre-payment meters because they find that that allows them to budget for their energy expenditure and to keep track of what they are using. Consumers can build up credit in the summer months to reduce their expenditure over the winter.
We know that paying by pre-payment can be more expensive than paying by direct debit. That is because there are further costs to install pre-payment meters, as well as additional services provided. But there are safeguards in place to prevent suppliers from charging unjustifiably high tariffs for a particular payment method. Suppliers are required to ensure that differences in charges really reflect the costs they face to provide that payment method. Across the market the cost of paying for the energy by pre-payment meter is similar to the cost faced by customers paying by standard credit.
The majority of suppliers offering pre-payment meters do not charge when consumers agree to the installation. That includes the big six energy companies. Other companies, however, as the hon. Lady points out, do pass on the charges they incur from meter operators for installation. These consumers can also face costs to have the meter removed, once they are able to go back to having a credit account. That cost, on average, is between £160 and £180. Ofgem is currently working with suppliers to identify and extend good practice to end charges for installing and removing pre-payment meters.
What should suppliers be doing? We expect to see suppliers meeting the obligations under their licence only to install pre-payment meters where it is safe and reasonably practicable for the consumer to use a pre-payment meter. Suppliers must take into account a customer’s ability to repay when setting instalments to repay gas and/or electricity debt. I am pleased to say that there is evidence to suggest that suppliers are fulfilling this obligation: first, Ofgem keeps weekly repayment rates under review, and they have fallen on average in recent years; and, secondly, the majority of indebted customers are on standard credit, not pre-payment meters, and repay through a variety of means, which suggests that repayment is indeed being tailored more to suit the needs of individual customers.
We know that some customers who are concerned about their energy bills will self-disconnect by deliberately choosing not to top up, meaning that their supply will stop. In those circumstances, it is vital that they seek help from their supplier as soon as possible. I expect suppliers to have in place appropriate arrangements to protect their most vulnerable consumers, and systems to identify any potential problems so that they can be rectified early. The hon. Lady made that point very well.
Dawn Butler
I want to make a couple of points. The rate of complaints about energy companies has increased exponentially because they are not taking into consideration the circumstances of vulnerable people who are unable to heat their homes. With regard to switching, people on pre-payment meters have very little to switch to, so the benefit to them is about 8%, whereas the benefit for those on direct debit is about 22%.
Andrea Leadsom
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising those points. I will certainly look into her first point: she believes there is evidence that suppliers are not taking into account individual circumstances. As I said, I expect suppliers to have appropriate arrangements in place. If she wants to raise individual cases with me, I will look into them. I can tell her that today a dual fuel pre-payment consumer with average consumption living in London could save about £130 by moving to the cheapest dual fuel pre-payment deal in the market. There is merit in switching and I urge all consumers, including those on pre-payment meters, to shop around.
My absolute focus remains on getting the best deal for consumers. I expect suppliers to treat their consumers fairly and we expect suppliers to make sure that any reductions in the costs of supplying energy are passed directly to consumers. Strong competition in the energy supply market is the best way to keep prices down. The Government are committed to ensuring that the market works effectively for consumers.
Chris Stephens
I want to come back to the issue of self-disconnection. Have there been any discussions with her Department and the Department for Work and Pensions about emergency help that can be given to someone in those circumstances?
Andrea Leadsom
Those conversations happen regularly. I will write to the hon. Gentleman with any specific changes that we intend to make or consult on. I absolutely assure him that suppliers are required to take into account consumers’ specific circumstances. Ofgem is looking into the cost of having pre-payment meters removed and whether that should continue for pre-payment consumers.
I move on briefly to the investigation into the retail energy market currently being conducted by the Competition and Markets Authority. The CMA published its provisional findings and remedies in the summer. It found that customers on standard variable tariffs are being charged unjustifiably high prices; the majority of pre-payment customers, of course, are on those standard variable tariffs. We are committed to acting on the CMA’s recommendations and to ensuring fair prices for all consumers, including standard variable tariff customers using pre-payment meters.
The CMA also found that pre-payment customers have fewer tariffs to choose from than customers paying by direct debit. There are indications, though, that that is beginning to change. We are starting to see the development of smart pre-pay meters. E.ON is currently piloting a smart pay-as-you-go tariff for consumers using a smart pre-payment meter who then pay the same prices as the company’s standard credit customers. It expects to make the tariff more widely available to new and existing customers from next year.
With OVO’s pay-as-you-go tariff, pre-payment meter consumers receive an in-home display that enables them to see how much energy they are using and when, and how much credit they have left. Consumers can also add credit to their pre-payment meter anywhere via app, text or online. We are also seeing examples of good practice by suppliers. For example, there is SSE’s support for its vulnerable pre-payment consumers that includes monitoring those on the priority services register to identify self-disconnection. The company will then call the consumer to check the situation and to make the offer of extra assistance, where appropriate.
The Government have a manifesto commitment to
“ensure that every home and business in the country has a Smart Meter by 2020, delivered as cost effectively as possible”.
The roll-out of smart meters is an important national modernisation programme that will bring major benefits to consumers and the nation as a whole. Domestic customers will be offered an in-home display enabling them to see what energy they are using and how much it is costing.
Smart meters have the potential to transform the experience of being a pre-payment customer. Customers can top up more conveniently through a range of channels. Topping up smart meters in pre-pay mode should become as easy as topping up a mobile phone. They are likely to herald greater and cheaper tariff choices for these customers, as the cost differential will be reduced. Smart meters will enable energy suppliers remotely to take action to avoid disconnection—for example, through switching consumers to credit mode, setting non-disablement periods, and configuring debt recovery amounts to be small.
A customer’s ability to pay their energy costs while keeping warm is among the top concerns of my Department, and we are fully committed to tackling these issues through a range of innovative policies. I thank the hon. Lady and the other hon. Members who contributed to this very important debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Independent parliamentary Standards Authority
(8 years, 4 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Dr Thérèse Coffey)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the motion, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that Her Majesty will appoint Sir Robert Owen and John Thurso to the office of ordinary member of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority with effect from 1 January 2016 for the period ending on 31 December 2020.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bailey. The appointments referred to in the motion have arisen to due to the terms of Sir Neil Butterfield and Professor Tony Wright coming to an end. The Speaker’s Committee for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority has produced a report, its first of 2015, in relation to this motion and it was sent to members of this Committee in advance.
It may help if I set out the key points regarding IPSA board members. They are appointed under the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009, under which the Speaker is responsible for overseeing the selection of candidates for appointment, and the names of any candidates to be member of IPSA must be approved by the Speaker’s Committee for IPSA. The 2009 Act states that at least
“one of the members of the IPSA must be a person who has held (but no longer holds) high judicial office”,
that at
“least one of the members of the IPSA must be a person who is qualified under Schedule 3 to the National Audit Act 1983…to be an auditor for the National Audit Office”,
and that one
“of the members of the IPSA…must be a person who has been (but is no longer) a member of the House of Commons.”
On this occasion the vacancies were for the parliamentary member, the role being filled by John Thurso, and the former holder of a high judicial office, the role being fulfilled by Sir Robert Owen.
The Speaker is not regulated by the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments in making these appointments, but he chooses to follow OCPA-recommended best practice in his supervision of the process. As is normal, Mr Speaker appointed a panel that conducted the shortlisting and interviewing of candidates that was chaired by Dame Denise Platt, former chair of the Commission for Social Care Inspection. The other members were Sir Ian Kennedy, chair of IPSA, Professor Chatterji, lay member of the Speaker’s Committee for IPSA, Sir David Latham, a former High Court judge, and Laura Sandys, former MP for South Thanet.
The candidates recommended by the appointment board are Sir Robert Owen and John Thurso. Sir Robert is a former High Court judge. From 2005 to 2008, he served as the presiding judge for the western circuit and he has been a member of the Judicial College board since 2011. John Thurso is the former Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross. He was elected to the House in 2001 and served on a number of high profile Committees, including the Treasury Committee and the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards. He was also the Chair of the Finance and Services Committee in the last Parliament, a member of the House of Commons Commission and a member of the House’s Audit Committee.
As required under the 2009 Act, the appointments were approved by the Speaker's committee at its meeting on 18 November. If the appointments are made, both Sir Robert and John Thurso will serve on IPSA for five years. I hope that the Committee, and ultimately the House, will support the appointments, will wish these individuals well as they take up their new posts and will extend its thanks to the members who are coming to the end of their terms.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bailey. I have learned my lesson from previous occasions and have prepared a few words.
Briefly, it is important to recognise that the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority has an important role to play in ensuring that Members of the House adhere to the rules on expenses and other matters. We should not disregard the importance of that role. It is certainly not easy to be part of the independent arbiter at a time when levels of media scrutiny are so high and criticisms of the organisation and MPs are swift and harshly meted out. That is why it is critical that the right people, with the requisite skills and experience as laid out in appendix A of the Speaker’s committee’s report, are appointed to the posts.
In addition to extensive advertising both online and in print media, for additional transparency the Speaker also opted to have regard to the commissioner for public appointments’ code of practice for ministerial appointments to public bodies. Subsequently, an independent panel was appointed to assist in identifying possible candidates and was instrumental in drawing up the text of the advert. There can be no doubt as to the thoroughness of the search nor the validity of the eventual appointments of John Thurso, former Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross, and Sir Robert Owen, former High Court judge and member of the Judicial College board.
In line with the proper procedure, the Speaker’s committee agreed both appointments on 18 November, as the Deputy Leader of the House mentioned, and the Opposition agree with them. I wish them both the best of luck in their new roles, in which I am sure they will serve with the greatest of judgment and clarity of perspective. I also thank those who served diligently up until now—Professor Tony Wright and Sir Neil Butterfield—and echo the sentiments of the Deputy Leader of the House.
Petition
School Funding Model
Housing and Planning Bill (Tenth sitting)
(8 years, 4 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 7 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 7 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
Mr Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move amendment 89, in clause 56, page 24, line 8, at end insert—
“except in respect of high value sheltered housing which has been provided or adapted for the use of elderly or disabled people.”
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 146, in clause 56, page 24, line 8, at end insert—
“with the exclusion of—
(a) supported housing for older people,
(b) supported housing units (including self-contained homes where floating support is provided for vulnerable people),
(c) key worker housing (which includes self-contained flats subject to nomination agreements with 3rd parties),
(d) units that form part of major regeneration schemes planned or already under way,
(e) rural settlements,
(f) homes built for charitable purposes without Government grant and homes provided through Section 106 agreements requiring stock to be kept as social housing in perpetuity,
(g) cooperative housing,
(h) Almos, and
(i) almshouses.”
This amendment would exclude certain categories of specialised housing from being subject to the Right to Buy provisions of the bill.
Mr Thomas
That aspiration is one that I strongly support but I think that support should be through the supply of housing for sale. I argue gently to the Committee and in particular to the hon. Member for South Norfolk, who started so well by agreeing with me, that the additional supply of homes for sale should never be at the expense of affordable homes for rent. In the context of the amendment, that is homes for rent for the most vulnerable.
Mr Thomas
The hon. Gentleman begins to make my point for me. If he observes a little patience but continues to listen with the enthusiasm he has shown thus far, I will come to exactly that point.
I should allude to some of the difficulty that the Opposition, the hon. Gentleman and some of his friends, and those listening and watching our proceedings, are facing in being able to scrutinise the terms of right to buy. In response to the points of order I raised last week about the lack of information about right to buy, the Minister referred us to the offer details on the National Housing Federation website. When I had the chance to read that information, it made clear that the Government and the National Housing Federation and its members would work together on the implementation of an agreement and an operational document would be published. To date I can find no evidence of that operational document having been published. I look forward to the Minister giving clarity on that. It is particularly important in the context of the pilot schemes that have been launched. We simply do not know the terms on which those housing associations are piloting the offer of the right to buy.
In the context of the amendment, we do not know whether sheltered and specialist housing are excluded, or whether in the context of amendment 146 other forms of housing will be excluded in line with the original offer document. We do not know how long the pilots will run before other housing associations are required to join in. We do not know how the deal will be financed, given that it will take some time for vacant high-value council homes to be sold off to provide the finance to compensate housing associations.
As I indicated, we do not know whether the five pilots are operating exactly in line with the headlines that were agreed between the National Housing Federation and the Government. We do not know whether the five housing associations will be committing to replace like for like rented homes for sale with other homes for rent.
In particular, in the context of my amendment, we do not know whether the five housing associations will specifically replace any sheltered or specialist housing that is sold in a like-for-like way. In the National Housing Federation offer, which was published on its website, housing associations expected the Government to work with them to put in place measures to limit fraudulent activity. That is surely particularly important in the context of vulnerable adults who, in some cases, will be in sheltered or specialist housing provided by housing associations.
It would have been helpful for the Minister to have published the operational document to which he, presumably, and the National Housing Federation remain committed. Presumably, within that document, there would have been information on how action to stop such fraudulent activity might have taken place. One of the concerns raised in evidence to the Communities and Local Government Committee by one of the housing associations was the worry that family members or friends might try to persuade someone to buy their sheltered housing property when, in fact, they may not really want to do that. It is presumably that type of activity that the Government might want to stop. It would have been helpful to have the detail of the types of measures that they were going to put in place to stop that.
The offer document also anticipates the Government putting in place arrangements to manage the financial costs of the right to buy, to ensure that the cost of sales does not exceed the value of the receipts received, which could include an annual cap on the cost of right-to-buy discounts. Does the Minister remain committed to that in general, as part of the offer and in the context of sheltered and specialised housing? Will it apply in the context of the five pilot housing associations? It would be helpful to hear a little more detail.
The National Housing Federation offer specifically suggested seven categories where housing associations might exercise discretion over sales. Again, it would be helpful to hear from the Minister on whether, as part of the deal that he has agreed with the housing associations that are piloting this deal—the London & Quadrant Housing Trust, or L&Q, Riverside, Saffron, Sovereign and Thames Valley—the seven categories will remain the same, not least because, in the context of the amendment, one of the specific categories mentioned includes “supported housing”, as defined by part 5 of one of the previous Housing Acts. Other categories that are potentially directly related to the discussion on amendments 89 and 146 relate to properties in rural locations being excluded, properties where there are restricted covenants being excluded, and properties held in a community land trust being excluded. Again, it would be helpful to hear from the Minister whether the five piloting housing associations will continue to offer exclusions in those areas.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
No doubt the hon. Gentleman has read the briefing from the National Housing Federation, which said, in answer to the question of how certain types of affordable home will be protected, that the agreement allows housing associations to protect the affordable homes they own that would be difficult to replace, for example, specialist housing or homes in rural areas. Does that not satisfy his concerns?
Mr Thomas
Not completely, I have to say. Although it was helpful to receive the NHF document, it would have been helpful to have received the full operational document from the Government. Why does it not satisfy my concerns? I give the example of the Greenoak Housing Association, which operates in Woking. Its chief executive gave evidence to the Communities and Local Government Committee on 4 November and noted the fact that Greenoak is a particular specialist in the supply of sheltered housing. She said:
“Around one-third of our housing is sheltered with support. We could obviously exclude them ourselves, but the difficulty would be in re-providing.”
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that, as part of the deal with the Government, the National Housing Federation committed that, where a property was excluded from a sale but a tenant wanted to buy it, housing associations would have to offer an alternative property for sale. The chief executive of Greenoak said:
“We do not see why we should be giving a portable discount for people who are in the most suitable housing for them at the current time with the support that they need.”
It would be helpful to hear from the Minister what future the Government see for housing associations that are specialists in sheltered, supported and other specialist housing. How will those housing associations deal with the issue of portable discounts and the potential requirement they face under the deal to offer another property for sale? There is a risk of that making those housing associations not financially sustainable, which I am sure the hon. Gentleman, and indeed all hon. Members, would not want to happen.
What happens when all properties owned by a housing association in one area are specialist or sheltered housing? How would the right to buy be exercised in that situation? One could understand a tenant approaching the housing association and saying, “I want to stay within Harrow because it is so well represented in Parliament,” and no doubt for other reasons. The housing association will want to do the right thing by its tenant, but it is only offering sheltered housing in that area and wants to maintain that stock. How would that situation be dealt with by the Government and housing associations?
Age UK, in its written evidence, specifically laments the failure to build more sheltered and retirement housing and to offer older people more housing options in later life. It argues:
“Based on demographic trends, specialist housing will need to increase by between 35 per cent and 75 per cent just to keep pace with demand.”
Age UK is concerned about the decline in the availability of sheltered and other forms of specialist housing for older people on low incomes.
Although I welcome the extra capital funding announced as part of the spending review for specialist housing, which I assume includes sheltered housing, the Bill must be clear about the need to exclude sheltered and other specialist housing from the right to buy in order to ensure there is not inadvertently a further decline in the provision of sheltered housing as a result of the Bill.
I support amendment 146, tabled by my hon. Friends, not least because there is increasing concern in Harrow and, indeed, other parts of London about the provision of housing that key workers are able to afford. Of course, those key workers will no doubt have the aspiration I alluded to earlier to buy a home in due course, but if that is some way off, their immediate priority will be to find a property that is affordable to rent. One thinks of careworkers, of nurses, of teaching assistants, of the cleaner for the Minister’s office and of policemen, on occasion. One wants surely to ensure that there continues to be a reasonable supply of affordable accommodation within reasonable distance of those people’s place of work.
I welcome also the National Housing Federation decision to insist that co-op housing is not included in any right to buy, but there should be additional protection on the face of the Bill. Indeed, the Housing Act 1985 approached the issue of exclusions from the right to buy by putting those exclusions on the face of the Bill. Schedule 5 to that Act lists a series of exceptions to right to buy, including—this is a particular interest of mine—
“if the landlord is a co-operative housing association.”
The amendment would replicate that provision. Surely it would be sensible to put that on the face of the Bill. In that spirit, I look forward to the Minister’s reply to the various questions I have asked and hope that the hon. Member for South Norfolk is convinced of the sensibleness of my amendment.
Mr Bacon
I know the hon. Gentleman struggles to emulate Cicero or Demosthenes but I feel I ought to point out that, although there is a certain dulcet quality to his delivery, it reminds me more of bagpipes. There is a certain onward droning quality. I caution him not to speak like that for so long in the early afternoon because many Conservative Members will probably fall asleep.
Mr Thomas
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Perhaps I should caution him not to go for the expensive and well oiled lunch that perhaps is a feature of interest for him from Tuesday to Thursday. I am not quite sure that I have convinced him on this amendment and I fear that I will have to try a little harder to convince him of other issues during the course of the day.
Mr Jackson
Not necessarily to the advantage of either of our careers, I suspect. May I bring the hon. Gentleman back to amendment 146? Given that there was some debate earlier about the differentials in earnings and affordability across the country, does he not think that it is somewhat prescriptive to put a reference to key workers on the face of the Bill? The affordability of key workers in the north-east, north-west or east midlands might be entirely different from that in the south-east. Would it not be better to leave the Minister to make the appropriate regulations in respect of affordability on the issue of right to buy, rather than to put it on the face of the Bill?
Mr Thomas
Certainly when I was a Minister, I used to think that leaving it to the Minister’s judgment was sensible but, having spent some time on the Back Benches for a while, I am increasingly of the view that Parliament should try to limit the discretion that is purely at the hands of the Executive and might be outwith the full scrutiny of the Committee. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman does not want to try to help the police, and those who work for the national health service and careworkers who cannot afford a starter home or to buy on the open market, and who therefore need affordable housing. Why can he not see it within himself to offer them protection?
Mr Jackson
I am merely being Christian and charitable in trying to assist the hon. Gentleman towards seeing the error of his ways. I believe that, if his amendment is on the face of the Bill, it may very well give rise to legal challenges between some people who say they are key workers and others who say they are not. The definition of key workers will be problematic if it is put on the face of the Bill, rather than being left to the experience of right to buy over a course of time and the Minister then laying appropriate regulations or guidelines in respect of keyworkers.
Mr Thomas
It is precisely because the hon. Gentleman is so Christian and charitable that I have decided to add him to the very small list of Conservatives whose careers I am going to champion. I strongly believe that we need to give keyworkers protection. I recognise his point about the need to get definitions right, but I think there is sufficient recognition of the case for helping those who work in our police forces and the national health service, and our careworkers, for me to push the Minister to give additional help to protect properties for such workers.
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
Touching briefly on the point made by the hon. Member for Peterborough and the need for greater clarity and greater protections, the record should reflect the request made by the National Housing Federation in its written submission that the Government
“ensure the wording in the Bill reflects the agreement between housing associations and government”.
It is concerned that that parts of that voluntary agreement are not in the Bill, and so could be changed at any point by future Governments.
Mr Thomas
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. The brutal truth, as I suspect the hon. Member for Peterborough knows full well, is that the Government have been making up various provisions of the Bill on the hoof. Our amendments are designed to preclude any ability for the Executive to override the intentions of Parliament and to ignore the glitches that we are highlighting in their plans thus far. I recognise that the hon. Gentleman, perhaps for career reasons, may not want to support publicly the concerns of Opposition Members, but I am sure that given the fluency and skill of my contribution, he will want to take up those concerns with his hon. Friend the Minister outside the Chamber.
The Chair
Before I call the next speaker, may I say that although this sitting has been interesting and enlightening so far, we are committed to trying to get through this Bill and we have got an awful lot to do today? Could Members try to keep to the piece and be reflective in their analysis?
Dr Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)
I shall do my very best to speed along, Sir Alan. However—[Laughter]—as we come to amendment 146, it may seem a little bit odd to start our discussion on the right-to-buy provisions, such as they are, by looking at what we think should be exempted. We are doing so to try to tease out from the Minister, in the absence of information elsewhere, exactly what he thinks should be covered under the right to buy, and what the exemptions should be. I hope that we can help the hon. Member for Peterborough—we always like to help him if at all possible—by stressing that this is largely a probing amendment that is designed to get more information into the public domain.
One of the main reasons why the Government wish to extend the right to buy is their desire to push up rates of home ownership. That is a valid aspiration, which the Opposition share, but we have real concerns about how the right to buy will work in practice. We have been at some pains to emphasise that great care needs to be taken over how the new scheme will operate if it is not simply to afford an opportunity for some people to purchase a home at a discount, at the expense of the availability of social housing for those who are in desperate need. That is especially important because, as the Joseph Rowntree Foundation estimates, there will be 75,000 fewer low-cost homes to let over the next five years if the homes built to replace those that are sold are made available on a different tenure. We will come back to that several times this morning.
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
Is the hon. Lady not comforted by the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton a few moments ago that where a housing association believes that a property is of a tenure type that is difficult to replace, the property may be exempted? Does the hon. Lady not share my concern that the nine exclusions proposed in amendment 146 would unfairly deny people who live in those tenure types the important right to buy their own home?
Dr Blackman-Woods
I am trying to tease out how the homes should be replaced and whether replacement will be on a similar tenure; that is specifically the subject of later amendments. Asking for exemptions is also about trying to tease out where portability, in terms of the discount, would operate and how practical the portability would be. Again, that is the subject of a later amendment, so perhaps we can come back to those specific issues.
Since we started to scrutinise the Bill in Committee, five housing associations—L&Q, Sovereign, Riverside, Saffron Housing Trust and Thames Valley Housing—have been included in a pilot scheme. Sadly, details of the exact nature of the pilots appear to be lacking, so the amendment is really trying to tease out what will be covered. Interestingly, those very same questions are being asked by some of the housing associations and their representatives. The Committee had a note from PlaceShapers, which says:
“Our members have confirmed that the following list covers the type of stock or tenancy they would expect their Boards to consider exempting and would thus decline applications from tenants to purchase their own home: Homes for older persons… Supported housing units… Key worker housing…Units that form part of major regeneration schemes already under way… Rural settlements… Homes built for charitable purposes without Government grant and homes provided through S.106 agreements requiring stock to be kept as social housing in perpetuity”—
and on it goes. The point I am making to Government Members is that they can attack Opposition Members for proposing this fairly long list of exemptions, but we are not actually proposing them on our own. We are doing so in the light of what has already been put in the public domain by the housing associations themselves. They are not clear exactly what can be exempted from the right-to-buy provisions.
Mr Bacon
Saffron Housing Trust is the large-scale voluntary transfer housing provider in South Norfolk, which I am sure will please the hon. Member for Harrow West immensely. Last Friday, I met the chief executive of Saffron, who seemed quite relaxed about this and felt that he would be able to manage it with his organisation. He particularly pointed out that a significant number of his properties were already subject to the inherited right to buy.
Dr Blackman-Woods
I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s privileged access to Saffron Housing, but the rest of us, at this point in time—
Mr Bacon
It is not a matter of privilege. As a local Member of Parliament, it is incumbent on me to talk to important actors in my constituency. I hope that the hon. Lady does the same in hers and I assure her that if she really wanted to meet the chief executive of Saffron, I am sure he would be willing to meet her.
Dr Blackman-Woods
I am sure the hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct about that. However, in the short period of time since the pilots have been announced and our debate today, we have not all been able to speak to those running the pilots. Indeed, such communication as we have had suggests that they are still putting the details of the pilots together.
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Brandon Lewis)
I thought I would try and help the hon. Lady. I do not know whether she has tried picking up the phone and speaking to any of the chief executives, as I have, but it is quite easy to speak to them. I am sure that they will be happy to talk her through their excitement in being allowed to offer ownership to a whole new group of people.
Mr Thomas
On a point of order, Sir Alan. After the Minister’s very generous offer to my hon. Friend, would it not be possible to arrange an extra session, to which the Minister might invite the five chief executives to present evidence to the whole Committee, so that we do not have to put in separate phone calls? We could hear directly from the housing associations. Perhaps we could extend the Committee by a day in order to allow that to happen—just a thought, Sir Alan.
The Chair
That is very interesting, but it is not in keeping with the purpose of this Committee, which has already had a very lengthy advisory session at the beginning of its proceedings. Could we move on?
Dr Blackman-Woods
My hon. Friend makes an excellent suggestion. If the Minister had let me finish my sentence, I would have said that such communication as I have had with the five housing associations has emphasised that things are still at a very early stage. A lot of the detailed information we are seeking from the Minister through the amendment concerns a set of issues that have not yet been considered.
Proposed new clause 56(1)(a) would exclude supported housing for older people. I am not going to repeat everything that my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West said, but it is interesting that a review of the sector in 2012 by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation found an almost complete absence of information about the availability of supported housing to rent and recommended that the Government carry out a more detailed analysis of the availability of affordable housing to rent in the sector. It also highlighted that such housing leads to greater self-determination, safety, security and privacy for older people, and promotes greater social cohesion and sense of community, as residents support each other.
The point we are all making is that if the housing is of good quality, with excellent support in place and adequate security measures—that generally describes the supported housing provided by housing associations—its disappearance could be a catastrophe. That is especially true because the way in which replacement schemes would be financed is not clear at the moment. That point was made a number of times in the evidence to the Committee.
As we know, and as a number of hon. Members have already said, the National Housing Federation included in its briefing to us examples of circumstances in which a housing association would seek to exercise discretion over sales. That is how it is being put to us. We have to be clear that the nature of the voluntary agreement between the housing associations and the Government is to allow or to accept a whole series of discretionary exemptions. One of the main purposes behind the amendment is to tease out the thinking on this. Should this be a discretionary matter, or not? Should we have more detail in the guidance or regulations, or should some of this go on the face of the Bill?
The categories that have been outlined include properties where the landlord is a co-operative housing association, properties where the landlord does not have sufficient legal interest to be able to grant a lease, tied accommodation, properties which are chargeable to public benefit resources, supported housing and, critically, housing in rural areas. As we know, a lot of people giving evidence to the Committee were incredibly concerned about the sale of houses under right to buy in rural areas if there was not sufficient funding.
Mr Thomas
Does my hon. Friend not think that there is a need to write exclusions onto the face of the Bill, particularly for sheltered and specialist housing? As she and I have discussed, that is particularly needed in the context of the 1% cut in social rents being forced on housing associations. A number of housing association chief executives are worried that they will have to stop providing supported and sheltered housing, or substantially reduce the amount that they provide.
Dr Blackman-Woods
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. We will come to some of the detail of that point when we debate amendment 147.
We have had evidence from Age Concern and others about the need for supported housing for older people. We know from research carried out by Centrepoint and Habinteg that there is acute need across the country for more housing for vulnerable people. We have had information from the CBI about the need to create and support housing for key workers to ensure that lack of housing does not impede economic growth. I thought that the CBI briefing was extremely helpful, and I point out to Government Members the need for identified housing for key workers, particularly in areas of the country where house values are high and availability of affordable housing is restricted, such as in our major cities.
We have not talked much during this sitting about the need to exempt housing in major regeneration schemes, but again, a number of housing associations have given evidence about the difficulty that they would have funding large regeneration schemes if the properties were subject, particularly in the short term, to the right to buy. We have had a lot of evidence from the Campaign to Protect Rural England and others about the need to protect rural settlements, homes built for charitable purposes, co-op housing, arm’s length management organisation housing and almshouses. I accept that this is quite a wide-ranging amendment; nevertheless, it is important that we hear from the Minister about each of those categories and whether he thinks they should be exempt.
Mr Thomas
I have one other concern about co-operative housing. Where a housing association runs co-operative housing—it is a registered housing provider that provides exclusively co-operative housing—is it not sensible to exclude it? Otherwise, there could be pressure, perhaps due to a lack of understanding or directly from the Government or the National Housing Federation, for that housing association still to offer the portable discount, even though co-op housing is, in theory, completely excluded from the Bill. The housing association would have no other housing to offer, as it provides only co-op housing.
Dr Blackman-Woods
Once again, my hon. Friend makes an important point. It would be helpful to have some clarification from the Minister about the exemptions and where and how he thinks portability should operate. Hopefully, we will come to that later in this debate. I agree with my hon. Friend about the need to protect co-operative housing. Many of the issues that we have raised in this debate relate directly to the ability of housing associations in their various guises to offer a replacement and to have the finance to do so. Hopefully, we will come to that later too. I look forward to hearing from the Minister.
The Chair
Before I call the Minister, helpful or otherwise, may I try to be helpful to Members? I remind them that we are discussing an amendment to a clause. Making repeated interventions on the same issue is not really following the discourse as it is laid down. There should be a debate, and questions should arise from that. At the end, the Minister replies, and then the mover of the amendment is called to make a contribution in response. Then Members get a further chance to debate the clause at the end, during clause stand part. Repeated interventions on the same amendment to the same clause, over and over, limit the Committee’s work to scrutinise the Bill. I ask Members to be a bit more succinct in their analysis and to wait until the appropriate time.
Kevin Hollinrake
Part 4 of the Bill aims to address the simple problem of supply and demand, which of course controls the housing market. We are simply not building enough homes. The United Kingdom needs 230,000 homes a year. We have seen huge improvements over the past five years: 88,000 homes were started in the depths of the housing recession and there were 136,000 housing starts in England in 2015—a 56% increase. Planning permission consents numbered more than 240,000, so there has clearly been great progress along the track towards building more homes.
Matthew Pennycook
Is the hon. Gentleman at all concerned by the Office for Budget Responsibility’s downward revision of its estimate for new homes to 185,000? The estimate is down 34,400 since the election.
Kevin Hollinrake
There is no doubt that, in my constituency alone, we have seen a 100% increase in the amount of building in 2015 versus 2014. If the hon. Gentleman looks at his figures, I am sure he will see a similar increase in his constituency. Has he looked at his figures? There is no doubt that the data on the direction of travel in my constituency and many others like it are very clear—there is a 56% increase. Planning consents are increasing, too, but there is more to be done. The Bill is about releasing more land, particularly brownfield land, and expediting the whole planning process to ensure that local authorities properly staff their planning departments. The Bill allows planning in principle, giving developers more certainty about the land they are acquiring so that they can build properties on that land.
The other key thing that we need to address in the housing market is affordability, and of course those challenges are about lack of supply, which we also hope to address with some of the measures in the Bill. Owner-occupation has fallen in recent years, largely due to the recession, and it is something that we desperately want to address. I was lucky enough to buy a home in my early 20s, and I imagine that most people in this room own their own home. Why should we lock people out of that opportunity to own their own home? The Bill contains provisions on starter homes and, as in this clause, on voluntary agreement on right to buy. It is absolutely right to use our public assets more efficiently and effectively, and to release them to allow more building. Opposition Members have asked several times whether the affected homes will be replaced, and time and again we have seen evidence showing that the answer is yes.
Kevin Hollinrake
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that Shelter is not a housing association or a housing provider. I am not sure what Shelter is most of the time, but several housing associations gave evidence to our Committee. I am not sure whether he was in attendance to hear their evidence, but when my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South asked whether the measures would result in increased housing provision, they all said that it would. The measures in the Bill will clearly increase supply and will increase the number of affordable homes to buy.
The National Housing Federation told us that the agreement allows housing associations to protect affordable homes, specialist homes and rural homes. Again, that is the question raised by the amendment. Many of the housing associations I have met outside the Committee have said that they will be selling more homes and building more homes as a result of these provisions. Riverside Housing expects a fourfold increase in the number of homes that it will sell as a result of the extension of right to buy. I absolutely support the provisions of the Bill and the clauses that the amendments seek to change.
Mr Bacon
I have listened with care to my hon. Friend. Did he hear the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich refer to the OBR? Has he noticed that the OBR does not come out with statistics on how many shoes or chairs it thinks the economy is going to produce? It does not even come out with statistics on how much food is going to be produced and whether the supermarkets will be full or not. I am reliably informed that if someone does not eat, they eventually die, yet somehow we have enough food. Does my hon. Friend think that the central problem may be that the supply does not rise to meet demand, and does the Bill not help with that?
Kevin Hollinrake
Absolutely. Many of the provisions in the Bill that we have discussed, such as planning in principle for starter homes, will help to solve that problem.
Matthew Pennycook
The hon. Gentleman mentioned Riverside Housing, which said in its written submission that
“one for one replacement will be very challenging”.
Does he think that that is wrong and that the organisation will ultimately be able to provide one-for-one replacement, or are we talking about replacement in different areas, across different tenures?
Kevin Hollinrake
Challenging does not mean impossible. There are great challenges in the housing market and we need to rise to those challenges. As for one-for-one replacement, I feel that replacement is the wrong term: it should be an addition. It is an additional home, because the people who are buying that home were previously renting, and were locked out of the housing market with no prospect of getting on to the housing ladder. They are buying that home and will still live in that home. They will benefit from the place where they have lived, and most of them will live in that home for many years to come.
Dr Blackman-Woods
The reason we talk so much about replacement is that there is a huge shortage of affordable and social homes to rent in this country. Right to buy stops a social home for rent from being available; that is why we talk about replacement. We are not against the right to buy itself, but it needs to be accompanied by a like-for-like replacement.
Kevin Hollinrake
I am very pleased to hear that. If the hon. Lady visits the Inside Housing website, she will see evidence from David Orr, who says that these provisions will
“ease pressure in all parts of the market, including the rental market.”
The measure will help to improve that supply. It will also help to provide affordable homes to buy for people who are locked out of the market.
Brandon Lewis
Sir Alan, it is a pleasure to serve under your continued chairmanship at the start of the week. Some 45 minutes ago, the hon. Member for Harrow West began, if I remember correctly, by supporting the principle of the aspiration to home ownership. It is a shame that, with the exception of my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton, we have spent the rest of the time listening to the Opposition speaking against home ownership. They want to stop people having the chance to own their own home and have tabled amendments to that effect.
We touched a few moments ago on the issue of the extra homes being built following right to buy. I will not go into too much detail—I will take your words quite directly, Sir Alan—and will stick to things that are in the scope of the Bill. My hon. Friend made a very good point. On these extra homes that are being built, I understand why the hon. Lady makes the point she does, because, to be fair, I suspect that the Opposition do not quite understand how right to buy and extra homes works. Under 13 years of Labour, for every 170 homes sold under right to buy, just one was built, which is shocking. Under the reinvigorated scheme that came in in 2012 one home is guaranteed to be built for every home sold. As we have heard in statements on the Floor of the House by the Secretary of State and by me, we are reaching that target. In London, we are closer to two homes built for every home sold.
Brandon Lewis
The deal was signed and, as I understand from the comments of David Orr, all the housing associations that took part in that vote understood that it was a deal for the entire sector. Some 96% of stock is now signed up, and of those that did not have time to sign up or did not otherwise sign up, there is a fair proportion of that 4% that benefit from the right to buy for the transfer of stock anyway. It would be an extraordinarily controlling move if we were to include in the Bill restrictions on housing association decision-making powers, especially as we have worked closely with housing associations to reach a voluntary agreement in the first place, particularly in the light of recent decisions by the Office for National Statistics.
Dr Blackman-Woods
Will the Minister explain to the Committee why it is not a controlling mechanism to force housing associations to sell right-to-buy stock when they do not wish to do so, but it is a controlling mechanism to try to include important exemptions, across the whole sector, in the Bill?
Brandon Lewis
The hon. Lady underlines the point I made a few moments ago. She and the Labour party simply do not understand that the housing associations themselves want to extend the right to buy. This is a voluntary agreement that the sector put to the Government, which we accepted. The amendments suggest that Opposition Members do not trust housing associations to protect their own clients. I am sorry that they feel that way. The Government trust housing associations to look after their tenants. We believe that they have their tenants’ best interests at heart and that they will use their discretion wisely.
Mr Bacon
My hon. Friend may be interested to know that the chief executive of Saffron said to me the other day—he was musing, I must say—that associations should perhaps think of building properties for affordable rent, with a view to people who have been loyal tenants for a long time having the right to buy at some point in future. Is that not a more innovative approach, which more housing associations should adopt?
Brandon Lewis
My hon. Friend outlines something that is coming in across the housing association sector. I have spoken to chief executives and others who work in the sector, and they want to introduce new and innovative ideas to deliver more housing and give their tenants a stairway into ownership. Saffron is a really good example of an innovative association. Clearly, as we heard earlier, Opposition Members are not speaking to housing associations much at the moment and are missing out on some of the exciting things associations are talking about and want to do.
Housing associations are professional organisations that operate according to sound commercial and social principles, and we should let them get on with delivering the part of the bargain that they have proposed and which we have accepted. I therefore hope that the hon. Member for Harrow West will withdraw the amendment.
Mr Thomas
I am grateful to the Minister for his comments. I very much enjoyed the contribution of the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton, and I now feel torn. Should I continue to champion the career of the hon. Member for Peterborough? Perhaps the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton is a better hope. I will see what the Committee decides. I do not want to break my commitment to the hon. Member for Peterborough, but the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton made a case that was at least compelling enough for me to champion him and help him out.
The Minister’s central charge against the Opposition was that we are seeking in some way to prevent people who aspire to own their own home from doing so. That is simply not the case; indeed, I suspect the Minister feels some shame about the fact that home ownership has declined proportionately during the Conservative party’s period in government, and I recognise his desperate need to cover that up.
Brandon Lewis
Would the hon. Gentleman still endorse the view of the shadow Housing Minister, who said it is a good thing that home ownership has fallen since 2005, and recognised what the Government are doing through starter homes and Help to Buy to rebuild home ownership after the mess that Labour left?
Mr Thomas
I suspect that my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) would not have used at least the last part of the phrasing that the Minister used. I join the Minister in praising my right hon. Friend for setting up an inquiry into the reasons for the decline in home ownership and into what we can do about it. I also pay tribute to Peter Redfern, the chief executive officer of Taylor Wimpey, who is leading that inquiry. That follows on from the Lyons review, which was set up by the then shadow Chancellor, Ed Balls, which looked at how we can accelerate progress on home ownership. There is no lack of enthusiasm among Opposition Members for helping people who want to buy their own home. Our point is simply that we need to look at the interests of everyone who needs a place to live—potentially a place to rent while they seek to achieve their dream of a place to own.
It is for that reason that we have raised a number of concerns about the extension of the right to buy and particularly the forced sale of council homes, which we will come on to. We are concerned that that will lead to a reduction in the number of homes available to those on low and middle incomes who cannot immediately afford to buy a property.
I gently say to the Minister, as I said in an intervention on the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton, that Shelter has been very clear about the Government’s failure to build like-for-like replacements. Only one in nine of properties sold under the right to buy has been replaced.
Brandon Lewis
If the hon. Gentleman looks at the actual figures outlined at the Dispatch Box by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and by me, he will see that Shelter’s representation of those figures is, bluntly, wrong. The councils delivering right-to-buy rebuilds are delivering those extra homes one for one at the moment, and in fact in London it is closer to two for one. That is in Hansard.
Mr Thomas
I was going to suggest that the Minister, if he has not already done so, might like to read what I am told is an excellent book by the hon. Member for South Norfolk. It is called “Conundrum: Why every government gets things wrong and what we can do about it”. Life is too short, sadly, for me to read it, but I gently suggest to the Minister that he might seek inspiration and understanding of why one should seek outside sources to validate or at least challenge the assumptions that one has come to oneself or that one’s civil servants have encouraged one as a Minister to come to. I gently say to the Minister that Opposition Members, in the amendments that we have tabled, are seeking only to do what the late Margaret Thatcher did with the Housing Act 1985. Even she conceded that there was a need for exceptions to the right to buy, and they were included in legislation, not least in the 1985 Act, as I have set out. It seems to us entirely sensible to put in the Bill similar provisions on exceptions to the right to buy. We would be helping housing associations and, indeed, helping the Government in legislative terms by making clear where housing associations stand.
Mr Jackson
I fear that the hon. Gentleman is over-egging the pudding. Surely the centrepiece of the voluntary agreement between registered providers and the Government is the portable discount concept, which retains a solid commitment to the right to buy, but at the same time allows housing associations autonomy to judge locally what is applicable to them and what it is appropriate to retain in the form of specialist housing or other types of housing. The hon. Gentleman is exaggerating the effect of the Bill, because that is the centrepiece of the voluntary agreement.
Mr Thomas
I gently suggest to the hon. Gentleman that part of the purpose of opposition is to address the question of the law of unintended consequences for any legislation that the Government propose. I gave the example of housing associations that are registered housing providers but provide all their homes in a housing co-operative format. How do they offer a portable discount to their tenants? They cannot do so. Housing co-operatives are excluded in theory under the deal, but there is uncertainty as to whether the question of a portable discount still stands, so to provide absolute clarity, for the benefit of housing associations, for registered housing providers, for the benefit of the regulator of social housing as set out in clause 58 and for the Government—to enable everyone to know where they stand—it is surely sensible to include in the Bill a certain number of exceptions.
In the context of amendment 89, it is wise, given the decline in the availability of sheltered and specialist housing for those who are most vulnerable and particularly those who are older, to put in the Bill a sensible exclusion in that respect. For that reason, tempted as I am to agree with the Minister, I cannot do so on this occasion and I intend to press amendment 89 to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The Chair
Before we move on, may I again remind the Committee that the purpose of this phase in the process is to scrutinise the Bill? It is for the Back Bench to scrutinise the Front Bench in that order. When this occurs, there is a general managerial principle between the normal channels of the Whips on either side. In this case, there has been a general agreement that this morning’s session should proceed, it is hoped, as far as clause 61.
We have so far spent an hour and six minutes on two amendments to clause 61, which means that, in order to get to the agreement, we have to do six more clauses and 15 more amendments, which is highly unlikely. I beg Members to remember what this section is for, because if they do not keep up with the pace of scrutiny the House will be denied scrutinisation of the Bill. It is part of the order. Please would Members restrain themselves and remember how the procedure works. If Members need to question an amendment or a response, they should do so precisely and succinctly. They should also take the opportunity, if needs be, to do so in stand part, or at the end of a Bill, and preferably not more than once.
Dr Blackman-Woods
I beg to move amendment 147, in clause 56, page 24, line 10, at end insert—
“and must be of full market value reimbursement for the discount on the sale of Right to Buy.”
This amendment would ensure that the reimbursement received by a local authority having sold a property at a discount under Right to Buy is of the full market value, to ensure the property could be replaced on a like-for-like basis.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 150, in clause 57, page 24, line 18, at end insert—
“and must be of full market value reimbursement for the discount.”
This amendment would ensure that the reimbursement received by a local authority having sold a property at a discount under Right to Buy is of the full market value, to ensure the property could be replaced on a like-for-like basis.
Dr Blackman-Woods
With your leave, Sir Alan, I will speak to amendments 147 and 150 together because they are similar. They seek to ensure that housing associations are fully compensated for right-to-buy sales with full value replacement taking into account the discount applied for right to buy and new build costs.
I have lost count of the many organisations that have given evidence both to this Committee and to the Communities and Local Government Committee, which is holding an inquiry on right to buy. I hope we can hear reassuring words from the Minister this morning—he was uncharacteristically disingenuous about our earlier amendments.
The amendments seek to elicit from the Government what they intend to do about supporting housing associations in terms of replacement costs. As we have outlined in earlier debates in seeking to scrutinise the Bill, we want to understand completely how replacement for right to buy will happen and whether it will be adequately funded.
I gently say to the Minister that the Opposition have been clear about supporting the principle of right to buy. We are also clear that, in the past, Governments of all parties did not replace homes sold quickly enough or produce enough of them. However—it is a really big “however” that needs to be written into the record of our deliberations this morning—in the Labour Government’s 13 years, we put £32 billion into bringing our social housing stock up to the decent homes standard. After 18 years of the Conservative Government, we inherited social housing stock that was falling apart. If we are going to look at what has happened historically, that needs to be fed into the overall equation.
Moving swiftly on, I want to consider some of the evidence presented to the Committee. Housing associations say that they have concerns about whether they would be able to rebuild on a like-for-like basis homes lost through the right to buy, not only because of the provisions of the Bill but because of the impact on housing associations of the cuts to rents. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has estimated that there could be a 12% loss of income to housing associations, and a number of the associations say that they will re-profile their business plans to take account of the rent reductions and the associated loss of income. L&Q and Stonewater say that there will be an annual loss to the sector of about £1.6 billion.
Kevin Hollinrake
The top 100 housing associations employ an average of 1,000 people. Is it not reasonable to expect that they might be able to find efficiencies of about 1% per year among those employees?
Dr Blackman-Woods
The hon. Gentleman needs to make that point to the housing associations themselves. They have told us in their evidence to the Committee and to the Communities and Local Government Committee that, on the basis of what has happened with both the Welfare Reform and Work Bill and the Housing and Planning Bill, they will re-profile their activity and adjust their business plans, unfortunately moving away, it appears, from the provision of social housing for rent.
Dr Blackman-Woods
I will of course give way to my hon. Friend, who is on the Communities and Local Government Committee.
Helen Hayes
I want to remind the Committee of the evidence we heard from housing associations in relation to the pay-to-stay provisions. The provisions will place an additional heavy burden on the associations, and many of them do not feel confident of discharging them within their current resources. Does the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton not agree that, in that context, suggesting that housing associations can simply make redundancies to make up for the loss of income is unrealistic?
Dr Blackman-Woods
My hon. Friend makes a good point, and when we come to discuss the pay-to-stay provisions, we will hopefully be able to re-emphasise it.
In evidence to the Select Committee, housing associations say that what they build over the next 10 years will change. They say:
“There will be less affordable rent and more low-cost home ownership going forward.”
We are not against more low-cost home ownership. We are trying to elicit from the Minister whether he thinks it important that the social rented housing is replaced, and whether the measures in the Bill make that more difficult or easier. Stonewater says it is
“looking at the product mix…We are re-profiling…our activity”.
L&Q states:
“We have committed to a minimum of 1,000 new affordable rented homes a year. That is less than we would have produced prior to the rent reduction.”
It is also clear from the evidence to the Select Committee that the change in business activity will not be immediately apparent. It will perhaps be 2018 before plans for affordable rents are effective, because many schemes are already in the pipeline and have already been costed, with some of them already being built.
The sector is anxious and it is not clear where the replacement costs will come from. The Committee has received two helpful notes on that topic. One of them is from the Chartered Institute of Housing, which has identified a funding gap, particularly in relation to the sale of high-value local authority housing—a matter we will probably come on to this afternoon. It questions how the Government will fund the whole scheme and make up that funding gap.
There were some announcements, and some additional capital was put forward, in the autumn statement last week. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich outlined earlier, in the last few days the Office for Budget Responsibility has said that it still thinks that there will be a reduction of 34,000 homes because of the measures in the Bill and in the Welfare Reform and Work Bill. There is a challenge to the Government to highlight clearly how the replacement will be funded.
I hope the Minister has looked at the very helpful briefing from the Chartered Institute of Housing—after all, the CIH knows something about the delivery of housing in the country—and at the note from PlaceShapers, which raised a very interesting issue for the Committee, which we perhaps have not talked about enough so far: how the valuation gap changes in different parts of the country. For example, in the north, a property could be sold for £50,000. There would be a discount attached to that. However, the replacement property would cost about £135,000 or even more. Replacement costs are coming in at about three times the level at which homes in the affordable rented sector are sold off.
Again, it is not clear from anything that we have heard from the Minister how replacement costs will be guaranteed, whether or not it will be on a like-for-like basis, and how he will seek to ensure that we are not losing the social rented homes that we so desperately need across all areas of the country, and how he will try to persuade housing associations that they should not alter their business plans at this time and not move away from the provision of affordable housing to rent. As the Minister knows, and indeed as all Committee members know, that is because we need more housing across all tenures, and it would be wrong of the Committee to support legislation that would cut support for the local cost of ownership, because that would happen at the expense of social housing to rent, which we desperately need.
Brandon Lewis
Amendment 147 and amendment 150, which is obviously for London, would put in the Bill a requirement that the Government must pay a grant that reimburses housing associations for the discount in a way that ensures, as the hon. Member for City of Durham said, they receive full market value for the property.
We have been very clear that we will compensate housing associations for the cost of the discount based on full market value as determined by the open market. In fact, I draw the attention of hon. Members from all parties to the document on the National Housing Federation website, which is the voluntary agreement the NHF put to the Government. In that document, the Government commitment is outlined very clearly in the bullet points—points 3 and 4, but particularly point 3—on the front page of that agreement.
Clauses 56 and 57 are drafted in a way that ensures that the Secretary of State is able to pay in grant to the housing association the amount of the discount once it has been calculated appropriately.
Mr Thomas
The Minister has specifically referred to information on the NHF website. On the briefing that it has sent round since the spending review, the NHF specifically asks for two amendments to the Bill. Clauses 56 and 57 say that the Secretary of State and the Greater London Authority “may” make grants, but the NHF thinks that “may” should be changed to “must”. It clearly has some concerns about whether the Government will follow through with giving the full sum, as the Minister claims they will. Why not commit now to doing what the NHF wants on Report and tweaking the wording of clauses 56 and 57?
Brandon Lewis
As I keep saying, I believe that the hon. Gentleman is struggling with the concept of a voluntary deal. If the Government do not fulfil our part of the bargain, as outlined on the front page of the agreement, we will be in breach of the agreement, and we are not going to do that. Although I know that the NHF is very comfortable with where we are at, I remind it and the hon. Gentleman that the explanatory notes provide reassurance that the purpose of the clauses is to pay the discount. More importantly, the deal with the sector is crystal clear on that point. It states:
“Any sale would be at open-market value. The Government would compensate the housing association for the full value of the discount, in line with the practice introduced by the Right to Acquire.”
I am happy to reiterate that today.
I appreciate that the Opposition may be uncomfortable about the fact that we have secured a historic deal with the sector not only to deliver our manifesto commitment but to ensure that it builds more homes. However, any attempt to duplicate the deal in the Bill would not be appropriate or in the spirit of the voluntary agreement. It is not what the housing associations want, and it is not necessary to deal with the Opposition’s discomfort. I hope hon. Members withdraw the amendment.
Dr Blackman-Woods
I am really disappointed with the Minister’s response. Although he dealt to some extent with amendment 147, I do not think that he dealt at all with amendment 150. The whole point of the two amendments was to try to ensure that housing associations would have funds available not only to make up for the discount but to provide a one-for-one replacement. The Opposition have asked a series of questions about the discount, where the money will come from, and whether the Government guarantee that the money will be there for the full replacement.
Brandon Lewis
The hon. Lady has been generous in giving way, and I will be brief. I repeat that, as per the agreement, we will match up with our part of the deal to provide the full market value and cover the discount. Some housing associations have made it quite clear that they believe they will be able to build more than one extra home for every home sold.
Dr Blackman-Woods
That clarification is helpful. We will take the Minister at his word, and I will go away and look at what he has put forward this morning. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Dr Blackman-Woods
I beg to move amendment 148, in clause 56, page 24, line 10, at end insert—
“(2A) The conditions at subsection (2) must include a condition that money equivalent to the market value (disregarding any discount) of a dwelling sold under right to buy and to which the grant applies is spent by the private registered provider on the provision of affordable housing in the same county, including at least one new home replacing that sold which is—
(a) of the same tenure,
(b) located in the same local authority area, and
(c) in accordance with assessed local housing need.”
This amendment would require housing associations offering the Right to Buy to their tenants to re-invest all the money received as a result of the sale in replacement local affordable housing, including a guaranteed like-for-like home in the same area.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 151, in clause 57, page 24, line 18, at end insert—
“(3) The conditions at subsection (2) must include a condition that money equivalent to the market value (disregarding any discount) of a dwelling sold under Right to Buy and to which the grant applies is spent by the private registered provider on the provision of affordable housing in London, including at least one new home replacing that sold which is—
(a) of the same tenure,
(b) located in the same London borough, and
(c) in accordance with assessed local housing need.”
This amendment would require housing associations offering the Right to Buy to their tenants in London to re-invest all the money received as a result of the sale in replacement affordable housing in London, including a guaranteed like-for-like home in the same borough.
Dr Blackman-Woods
Amendment 148 returns to a theme that we will rehearse a great deal this morning, and probably during the early part of the afternoon. We want to ensure that the replacement for any stock sold through the right to buy is of the same tenure as the original stock, located in the same local authority area and in line with assessed local housing need. We understand that the agreement is voluntary, and we understand what discretion means, but we want to discuss whether the Bill requires additional safeguards. I think that that is what the public would expect from us, as we have been charged with scrutinising the legislation. Several of those who gave evidence to the Committee highlighted the fact that their main concern about extending the right to buy had to do with the need for greater reassurance about what replacement housing will actually mean.
The concern underpinning all of this is that, if the Committee is not careful about what it agrees to, there will be further depletion of the social housing stock, given the uncertainty about what plans for one-to-one replacement would actually mean and whether they would bear any fruit.
Chris Philp
Does the hon. Lady not agree that we should trust social housing providers to make their own judgments about what replacement is most appropriate, rather than seek to impose restrictions? Does she not further agree that specifying the same tenure in proposed new paragraph (a) of her amendment might contradict proposed new paragraph (c), which uses the words:
“in accordance with assessed local…need”?
Those two things might be different.
Dr Blackman-Woods
Let me reassure the hon. Gentleman that I will explain the different dimensions of the amendment in a moment.
There are great uncertainties about whether replacement will work in practice. Interestingly, the point was brought to the Committee’s attention by an Institute for Fiscal Studies report—if Members do not want to go to the report itself, they can look at the briefing done for the Committee by the House of Commons Library. The IFS talks about the risks and uncertainties that accompany the right to buy, and I emphasise again to the Minister and other Government Members that these concerns are felt not just by Opposition Members. The IFS points to real uncertainties about replacement, and it is interesting to read what it says:
“Given this uncertainty, and the coalition’s less-than-impressive record in delivering replacement…housing under the…Right to Buy, there is a risk that these policies will lead to a further depletion of the social housing stock”.
It is not the Opposition saying that, although I am quoting it for the benefit of the Committee’s deliberations. When organisations such as the IFS look at what has happened previously on replacement, what they see is
“the coalition’s less-than-impressive record”.
Chris Philp
I conveniently have to hand the figures for council housing starts in the five years of the coalition Government. There were 14,310. In the previous five years of the Labour Government, there were only 2,500—one seventh of the level.
Dr Blackman-Woods
If the hon. Gentleman is going to quote statistics, he has to look at the social rented stock that was delivered by housing associations during that period.
Dr Blackman-Woods
The hon. Gentleman is getting very excited. We can come in a moment to the number of homes for social rent—
Dr Blackman-Woods
Thank you, Sir Alan.
Whatever point the hon. Gentleman is trying to make, and I am not completely sure what it is, it is absolutely clear that independent assessment shows that the coalition had a less than impressive record on delivering replacement housing under the right to buy.
The House of Commons Library emphasises that the
“single most contentious aspect of the statutory”
right to buy
“has been the failure to replace the sold stock since the scheme’s inception.”
That was echoed strongly in evidence to the Committee. For example, PlaceShapers said that, although it supports the right to buy in principle, its greatest concern is to ensure that sold social housing stock is replaced on a like-for-like basis in the same location wherever possible. It adds that that will be a challenge for the sector, particularly where the replacement costs are higher than the market value of sold units—exactly the point I made to the Minister on the last group of amendments.
That is a critical issue because of the policy’s legacy in the social housing sector. Some 1.8 million properties in England were purchased under the right to buy between 1980-81 and 2013-14. The number of dwellings owned by local authorities declined from 5.1 million in 1980 to 1.7 million in 2014. Some £45 billion was raised through the right to buy but, sadly, very little of it was reinvested in replacements, which is the point. The figures speak for themselves, regardless of what the hon. Gentleman says.
Mr Jackson
The hon. Lady’s complaints would have a lot more credibility if, during a 13-year period of benign economic growth, the Labour Government had deregulated the housing revenue account, released capital and allowed local government to build new municipal housing. It is a fact that more council homes, rather than housing association homes, have been built since 2010 than were built during the 13 years of Labour government. Let us bear that in mind if we are looking to apportion blame for the lack of social housing as a consequence of the right to buy.
Dr Blackman-Woods
The hon. Gentleman obviously was not listening to my earlier point. It is clear that no Government built enough housing, particularly social rented stock. It is important that we do not keep going down the party line: “Everything you did was bad, and everything we did was good.” As I made clear to the hon. Member for Croydon South, of the £45 billion that was raised, the Labour Government put at least £32 billion into ensuring that the remaining stock was of a sufficient quality for people to live in, which is not an unimportant or irrelevant point. After 18 years of Conservative government, the stock was in an absolutely deplorable condition and often was not fit to be occupied. Necessarily, the Labour Government concentrated on ensuring that people could actually live in the social-rented stock that was available.
Maria Caulfield (Lewes) (Con)
The hon. Lady may correct me, but during the oral evidence sessions we heard from a number of housing associations about alternative house-building models. Modular housing can be built relatively cheaply and within 13 weeks. Does she not agree that that is a feasible way of replenishing stock?
Dr Blackman-Woods
In the amendment, we are looking at replacement by tenure, by area and according to local housing need. The exact nature of what that housing might look like is for another discussion. Of course, we would consider all forms of building that deliver good-quality, sustainable housing for the future. Personally, I do not have a problem with the hon. Lady’s suggestion.
The point I was making to the hon. Member for Peterborough and other Committee members is that we have to look at the total reduction in stock. If we are looking at 5.1 million homes for rent through local authorities in 1980 and only 1.7 million in 2014, we need no other information to tell us that we have a shortage of social homes for rent. The shortage is the result of a lack of replacement homes through the right to buy policy over many years, but it is worth emphasising again that the coalition’s record on that was pretty abysmal.
Maria Caulfield
The hon. Lady keeps saying that there is a shortage of one-for-one replacements, but if alternative models of house building were considered, we could easily build two for one in a short space of time. The picture that she paints is not true.
Dr Blackman-Woods
As I have already said to the hon. Lady, the amendment looks at replacement like for like in terms of tenure located in the same area and in accordance with assessed housing need. What those houses might actually look like is a very interesting discussion—one which, in terms of ensuring the quality and sustainability of products, I am very happy to have, although I fear that the Chair might rule me out of order if I did so.
The review of evidence that was asked for by the Communities and Local Government Committee, which is looking at right to buy, is being carried out by Professor Ian Cole and his colleagues at Sheffield Hallam University. The review noted that right to buy
“has contributed to a substantial reduction of the social housing stock, which—in the absence of countervailing new build programmes—has caused supply problems”
and
“a loss of relets…The scale of the decline in LA relets in recent years is marked, and declined from 221,000 lettings to new tenants in 2000/01 to 83,000 lettings in 2013/14.”
Although Government Members might get very exercised—as the hon. Member for Croydon South did—about what happened under the Labour Government, it might be better if they were exercised about what has happened in the last five and a half years. It was in those years that we saw the huge decline in the number of re-lets.
It is interesting that while we have had a reduction in re-lets in the social housing sector, we have also had a decline in the proportion of home ownership, which has fallen from 70% in 2002 to just 64% in 2013. The coalition Government not only presided over a huge loss in lettings and re-lettings in the social rented sector, but presided over a huge reduction in home ownership. That seems to be a pretty comprehensive failure in their housing policy. It does not seem to be a one-dimensional failure—it is a multi-dimensional failure.
Kevin Hollinrake
Does the hon. Lady regret the 47% drop in first-time buyers between 2007 and 2008, and welcome the record numbers of first-time buyers published in August this year—the highest since October 2007?
Dr Blackman-Woods
However the hon. Gentleman wants to play this, home ownership fell from 70% in 2002 to 64% in 2013. I would have thought that he and his colleagues would want to share some responsibility for that awful state of affairs.
Mr Bacon
Does the hon. Lady agree that everybody should share responsibility for 50 or 60 years of failure, and that arguing about statistics in this way is unhelpful? We need a revolution, where people have the opportunity—either individually or in groups, as rich people who can do it themselves or poor people who can do it through mutual housing co-operatives—to get a piece of land and build their own dwelling.
Dr Blackman-Woods
The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point, but I say to him that it is best made to his own Minister, not simply to the Opposition.
We know that under the so-called voluntary agreement, housing associations have committed to stock replacement. It is precisely because of that commitment that we seek to put more requirements about the replacement of housing in the Bill. As I said, amendment 148 seeks to ensure that the grant is paid only when there is a replacement for a home sold and when it is of the same tenure and located in the same area. In some areas, however, if a three-bedroom home for rent has been sold, the local authority and housing association may want to discuss whether it is replaced by a three-bedroom home for rent or a bungalow; they may have a particularly acute need locally for bungalows, or it could be the reverse. The amendment has been framed to ensure that the social housing stock is replaced and that it is in the same area, but that the exact nature of the stock is determined according to local housing need as assessed by the local authority, which is important if local housing need is to be addressed. I am sure that the entire Committee would want that to happen.
Without an amendment such as amendment 148 and without greater clarity from the Minister, we could easily find associations in a situation, despite everyone’s best intentions—we do know that replacement has not been on a one-for-one basis previously—where replacements could happen in areas that do not have the greatest need. For example, it might be cheaper to provide replacement homes in a different area. It is a particular concern that the level of generality for replacements means that some areas could suffer more than others. That point has been made and the National Housing Federation has agreed that
“housing associations will retain the sales receipt to enable them to reinvest in the delivery of new homes”
and will be able to
“use the sales proceeds to deliver new supply”,
but that they must have the flexibility
“to replace rented homes with other tenures such as shared ownership.”
We are hearing from housing associations on what they are likely to do under the right-to-buy provisions that they will not necessarily replace in the same tenure or in the same area because the commitment to replace homes is a national one. That could have a huge impact on areas with an acute housing need, which probably have high building costs due to a lack of land. When the Minister responds, he will need to reassure the Opposition that there will be replacement, particularly in areas of acute housing need.
As I pointed out earlier, homes for social rent and new starts for such homes are at an all-time low. Last year, it was only 10,000 properties. That is a drop in the ocean of need and meets hardly any of the demand for social rented properties. I am sure that most of our constituencies have waiting lists for council housing that are at least at that level— in just one constituency. There is huge unmet demand for socially rented homes, which is why we are unclear as to why the Government are not more concerned about ensuring that the homes sold through right to buy are replaced within in the same tenure. Otherwise, we will simply see further depletion of affordable homes for rent right across the country. Shelter has estimated that around another 113,000 homes could be lost immediately through the provisions in the Bill, so it is incumbent on the Committee to ensure like-for-like replacement.
Given the high costs of building in London, it is particularly important that we do not see social homes for rent being lost there and replaced elsewhere in the country. That might be good for the areas that get the replacements—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Lewes is shaking her head, so perhaps she would like to explain to all those in London why people there should not have access to social housing for rent. The point we are making is that there is a need for social homes to rent throughout the country, but also a need for more social homes for rent in London. A great many of the councils and boroughs in London that gave evidence to the Committee were at pains to stress the need for replacements in London of the same tenure and in the same area, to ensure that they can meet local housing need.
Maria Caulfield
The hon. Lady says that I am shaking my head, and I am, because she easily dismisses the modular housing that would give people in London easy, cheap, affordable housing of the same tenure, built to code for sustainable homes, or lifetime homes standards—any type of housing that a local authority would want. She dismisses that so easily, but it is an affordable solution to replacing like for like.
Dr Blackman-Woods
The hon. Lady cannot have been listening to what I was saying, because I did not dismiss anything. Far from dismissing new forms of new build and new modular construction, I said that the debate would be a very interesting one, and one to which I would happily contribute. The point I was making was that that is without the scope of the amendment, which seeks to ensure that we have replacement housing of the same tenure that is located in the same local authority area and in accordance with assessed local housing need. Again, I point out to the hon. Lady that the amendment says nothing about the exact nature of the replacement homes that are of the same tenure.
It would be interesting to discuss how we could drive up the quality of new house building throughout the country. I want to make it very clear for the record that we are not dismissing ways in which we can improve the quality of new homes that are delivered in this country, but that is not directly relevant to the discussion of the amendment. The important point we are trying to make is that there is a lot of evidence to suggest that if a requirement is not put into the Bill to ensure that we replace the homes sold through the right to buy with social rented properties in the same area and in accordance with local housing need, this country’s social housing stock will be further reduced. That is what all the commentators are telling us and what history is telling us, so we need to see measures in the Bill to prevent that from happening. That is the socially responsible thing to do. We very much want to hear what the Minister has to say.
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)
I have listened very carefully to the hon. Lady’s long explanation of her amendments. She might want to think again about amendment 151. As a Member representing a London constituency, I absolutely agree with the thrust of what she said: the proceeds of the sales should ensure that there is extra affordable housing provision in London. My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South has already pointed out the potential internal contradiction between “assessed local housing need” and “of the same tenure”. I could spend quite a lot of time discussing whether housing of the same tenure would be appropriate.
The hon. Lady should also think about a current example of how boroughs in London find ways to solve their housing need. There are 75 people who were on the housing list in Newham who have been found properties in my constituency because of the ability to move around within Greater London. The hon. Lady needs to think very carefully about the workability of the provision that new homes are in the same London borough.
Stephen Hammond
I will give way very briefly, because I want to win the record for the shortest speech and have the hon. Gentleman champion my career as well.
Mr Thomas
I have always had a sneaking regard for the hon. Gentleman, so perhaps he may persuade me on that at a later point. What is to stop a housing association that operates in Harrow, and is required to sell off housing stock in Harrow, using the grants that it is given from the Government to build like-for-like housing not in Harrow and not in London, but in Great Yarmouth or Nuneaton?
Stephen Hammond
If the hon. Gentleman looks carefully at new clause 1, which I and others tabled, he will see that it is more ambitious than the amendment because: first, it seeks a greater number; and secondly, it uses the term “Greater London”. I absolutely agree with the thrust of the hon. Gentleman’s point, but this amendment has some real potential dangers that would go against what the hon. Lady actually wants to do. We also really need to look at the spread of tenures that could be replaced to be more in line with London’s needs. The money could be kept in London, and this amendment is too restrictive. I urge the Minister to accept the principle but to firmly reject amendment 151, because I do not believe that it is in the best interests of London.
Helen Hayes
I want to speak briefly—I am conscious of time this morning—in support of the amendment in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan). I will refer to a specific example that illustrates why we on the Opposition side are not at all opposed to the principle of extending home ownership, but why that must not be at the expense of other housing needs in London.
A family came to my surgery on Friday—I have their permission to use their example because they were very keen that the Minister should hear it. Simret and Petros came to my surgery with their 14-year-old daughter, Mariam. They have three other children: a 12-year-old daughter, a five-year-old daughter and a three-year-old son. Petros worked as a dispensing technician in the local pharmacy, and Simret is a part-time teaching assistant who is studying to be a teacher. They are housing association tenants living in a two-bedroom property. Their children sleep in bunk beds, with the older two girls on the top bed and the younger boy and girl on the bottom. They came to see me on Friday and they told me, with great grace and forbearance, about the impact that this housing situation is having on their lives. It is having an impact on their health and wellbeing as a family, on the ability of their children and Simret to study, and on their family relationships. I was extremely moved by their story.
Would the Minister be able to tell me what there is for this family in the Bill? They do not earn enough or have sufficient savings to raise a mortgage, so although they are housing association tenants they will be unable to access the right-to-buy provisions. They certainly do not earn enough to raise a mortgage to buy a starter home at £450,000. If Simret qualifies as a teacher, they will be over the pay-to-stay threshold and will have to pay market rent, further reducing their ability to save for a mortgage. In the meantime, they are bidding each week with their housing association and the council, but there are never any three to four-bedroom properties available. Three to four-bed properties are exactly those most likely to be sold under the right to buy, and they are the most likely to fall into the category of high-value council homes.
There is a final point to make about this family. They are settled in Lambeth. Their children are at local schools, and Simret and Petros make a valuable contribution to their local community through their work and the life of their local church. They are Londoners, and they are Lambeth Londoners. They should not have to move further afield in order to access the housing they need.
Dr Blackman-Woods
My hon. Friend makes a very important point in emphasising, through real people, what the impact of not replacing like for like can be on tenure. Perhaps she would agree with Councillor Philippa Roe’s written evidence submitted to the Committee, in which she stated that:
“The agreement between government and housing associations means that they will implement the right-to buy-extension on a voluntary basis. They will not be required to replace homes which are sold in the same area or with the same tenure. This could lead to a reduction in social supply for homeless households in Westminster and London, particularly in central areas where rebuilding is more expensive. This is likely to contribute to those households increasingly being accommodated in expensive temporary accommodation and staying there longer while they await permanent rehousing”.
Does that not point to the lack of permanent housing that is very much affecting my hon. Friend’s constituents?
Helen Hayes
I hope that the Minister will listen to the evidence from Westminster City Council on this, which illustrates that the point I am making applies across the whole of London.
Mr Bacon
During our oral evidence session, I asked Councillor Philippa Roe whether Westminster City Council was looking at mutual housing co-operatives. She was the most enthusiastic of our witnesses in saying yes. The hon. Lady asked what is in the Bill for people such as those she mentioned, with whom we would all sympathise. One good answer to her question is chapter 2, which allows
“individuals… associations of individuals, or… persons working with or for individuals”
to get together and bring forward their own projects. Lambeth Council has a huge Labour landslide majority. There is nothing to stop that council buying land, bringing forward projects and promoting, establishing and growing mutual housing co-operatives for people such as her constituents. The council has not done that but there is nothing to stop it.
Helen Hayes
I will put to Simret and Petros the idea that, in addition to working very hard to provide for their family, they might seek to bring forward their own project and build their own home. Lambeth Council has one of the biggest commitments to building new social housing, including through housing co-operatives, of any council in the country.
Helen Hayes
I will not because I want to make progress, in the interests of allowing other Members to speak. The amendment in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Tooting seeks to ensure that homes lost to the rental sector under the right to buy and forced sales are replaced one for one, like for like, within the local area. I note that the Minister has been rather preoccupied with his emails while I have been telling the story of Simret, Petros and their children, but I hope that when he responds he will tell me that—
Brandon Lewis
The hon. Lady’s behaviour—her misrepresentation of what my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk said, and what she has said just now—is, to be blunt, very misleading to the Committee and Hansard.
Helen Hayes
I was concluding my remarks. I hope that the Minister will have a response for my constituents when he responds to the amendment.
Mr Bacon
I would like a brief chance to respond to the amendment as well. The constituents whom the hon. Lady described would attract all our sympathy. I only say to her that if it is possible to do it in Berlin, Amsterdam, Stockholm and many other major cities around the world, it is possible to do it in London as well.
Mr Thomas
I rise briefly to support the amendment in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Tooting and to note that there is nothing in the National Housing Federation’s deal with the Government that protects the interests of London compared with the rest of the country. As I alluded to in my intervention on the hon. Member for Wimbledon, there is nothing to stop housing associations that sell off housing for tenants replacing that housing in Nuneaton or Great Yarmouth, or indeed in other parts of the UK. Surely that is an unacceptable situation. Equally, there is nothing in the Bill that requires central London authorities to find like-for-like properties to be built in their areas. There is nothing to stop housing associations operating in the whole of London selling off properties in inner London and replacing them with properties elsewhere in London.
I say gently to Conservative Members that perhaps the ghost of Shirley Porter motivated this omission in the Bill. Hon. Members will remember that Shirley Porter went out of her way to push those in rented accommodation in Westminster City Council out of those properties in order to influence future elections.
Mr Bacon
It is interesting that the hon. Gentleman mentions Dame Shirley Porter. Does he agree that one should not really mention her without mentioning in the same sentence Herbert Morrison, Peter Mandelson’s grandfather? He said, in the late 1940s, “We will build the Tories out of London,” and I think he meant psephologically.
Mr Thomas
I was not around when Herbert Morrison was in his pomp, but I grew up when Shirley Porter was leader of Westminster City Council. Everybody remembers the sad reality of what she sought to do and, indeed, the embarrassment that Conservative Members felt at the time. Requiring a like-for-like replacement of housing association properties that are sold off in each borough in London is a sensible way to—
The Chair
Order. Mr Smith, I see that you are looking at the clock. You are quite right. We will adjourn until 2 pm.
Housing and Planning Bill (Eleventh sitting)
(8 years, 4 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 7 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 7 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 7 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 7 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 7 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 7 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
Welcome back to the afternoon sitting. I will exempt you from the need to welcome me back to the Chair until you discover how difficult I am going to be with the Committee. I am glad to be back, none the less.
Let me make a couple of time points before we commence our discussions. There may be Divisions in the Chamber at 3.30 pm and again at 6 pm, in which case we will follow the normal practice of giving 15 minutes for one vote or 25 minutes, I think, for two. I understand that there is also a briefing on Syria for the Labour party at 5 pm, and for the Conservative party at 6 pm, and I would have thought that the Committee would like to be ready, if we possibly can, to accommodate both of those. That would seem to be a sensible approach. I know that the House is sitting until 10 pm tonight, so I suppose that there is no limit to how late we can reasonably sit, if we wish.
Clause 56
Grants by Secretary of State
Amendment proposed (this day): 148, in clause 56, page 24, line 10, at end insert—
“(2A) The conditions at subsection (2) must include a condition that money equivalent to the market value (disregarding any discount) of a dwelling sold under right to buy and to which the grant applies is spent by the private registered provider on the provision of affordable housing in the same county, including at least one new home replacing that sold which is—
(a) of the same tenure,
(b) located in the same local authority area, and
(c) in accordance with assessed local housing need.”—(Dr Blackman-Woods.)
This amendment would require housing associations offering the Right to Buy to their tenants to re-invest all the money received as a result of the sale in replacement local affordable housing, including a guaranteed like-for-like home in the same area.
Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.
The Chair
I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing amendment 151, in clause 57, page 24, line 18, at end insert—
“(3) The conditions at subsection (2) must include a condition that money equivalent to the market value (disregarding any discount) of a dwelling sold under Right to Buy and to which the grant applies is spent by the private registered provider on the provision of affordable housing in London, including at least one new home replacing that sold which is—
(a) of the same tenure,
(b) located in the same London borough, and
(c) in accordance with assessed local housing need.”
This amendment would require housing associations offering the Right to Buy to their tenants in London to re-invest all the money received as a result of the sale in replacement affordable housing in London, including a guaranteed like-for-like home in the same borough.
Mr Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
Mr Gray, it is good to have you in the Chair, so one should welcome you to it.
Before the break, I was about to voice concern that the Government were giving up on the provision of housing for people on low and middle incomes. That concern is based on evidence from Savills, which estimates that an extra 350,000 English households will be unable to access either subsidised or, indeed, market rent housing in the next five years, including many London families with an annual income of up to £60,000. Indeed, Centre for London research estimates that within the next two years people with occupations such as senior nurse and senior teacher will start to struggle to find anywhere affordable to live in London.
In my own constituency of Harrow, my local council tells me the minimum starting salary for a registered nurse is £21,692 and £25,879 for a newly qualified teacher. The reduced availability of affordable rented accommodation provided by housing associations and by councils will reduce such people’s chances of accessing housing via a waiting list or a homelessness route. According to Foxtons, the average market rent in Harrow is £235 a week for a studio, £295 for a one-bedroom flat and £372 for a two-bedroom home, so for a registered nurse starting their career, a studio at market rent in Harrow would cost approximately 56% of their gross—not net—salary, and a two-bedroom home would cost 89% of that salary, which would clearly be completely unaffordable. Reducing the supply of housing association accommodation risks further driving out of London many people who are crucial to our public services and other services on which our constituents rely.
That brings us back to the point about the implications for the national health service, the police and the fire service, as many more families say that they have to move out of London to afford to live. That is the motivation behind my support for amendment 151, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan). Important as it is to help people to buy their own home, it is equally important and incumbent on the Government and the House not to give up on the provision of housing for those on low or middle incomes, and I fear that the Minister has.
I also worry about the impact on the taxpayer of the lack of a requirement to provide a like-for-like property in the same area. If there is a failure by housing associations to provide a like-for-like property in the same borough or the same region, there is a risk. Let us take the example of Westminster. Imagine that housing association properties in Westminster are sold off and there is no like-for-like provision by the housing associations. Westminster will still have its duties under homelessness legislation: it will have to provide temporary accommodation; indeed, on occasion, it will have to provide bed and breakfast accommodation. The risk is that lack of supply or reduced supply of temporary accommodation will drive up the cost for local council tax payers and put pressure on housing benefit and universal credit budgets. The TaxPayers Alliance, had it had the chance to comment, might have supported our amendment, in the clear interest of keeping homelessness costs and temporary accommodation costs low.
The amendment is also in the specific interest of outer London. Almost all housing experts predict that the incentives in the Bill for housing associations to provide like-for-like properties in central London will present great difficulty. They suggest that councils, in order to meet their temporary accommodation requirements and their duties under homelessness legislation, will push ever more people out to outer London and beyond, instead of seeking to provide accommodation in inner London, where people have well established networks and family relationships—a point alluded to by my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood.
My last point is the concern about London losing out. There is a clear sense that the reason that Ministers have to date been hostile to the idea of a clear requirement for housing associations to provide like-for-like replacement in London and in each London borough is that they want to use the resources generated in London to fund the provision of further accommodation outside London. For that reason, too, amendment 151 makes sense.
I pray in aid London Councils, which makes clear in its representations to the Committee its members’ belief that the voluntary deal poses a genuine risk to the supply of affordable homes in London. They believe that boroughs’ housing waiting lists will rise and that there will be increased reliance on temporary accommodation. They point out that London already has three quarters of the country’s temporary accommodation, with more than 49,000 households in temporary accommodation, and they worry about the rising costs.
Dr Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)
My hon. Friend makes a powerful case about housing need in London and our shared desire to address the matter. The amendment tabled by our right hon. Friend the Member for Tooting is important because we know that the proportion of London households living in social rented housing has fallen since 2001, yet London’s population has grown by 14% since 2002. That that has brought about a huge shortage of social housing for rent in London, which is why replacement within the tenure is so important.
Mr Thomas
My hon. Friend makes an important point. Indeed, the Government have exacerbated the problem by insisting, under their right-to-buy arrangements since 2012, that when a property is sold, it does not have to be a social rented property, on offer at approximately 50% of market rent; it can be a property that has an affordable rent, at approximately 80% of market rent. That makes it even difficult for those on low incomes who are trying to do the right thing by being in work, but who are unable to afford a property at 80% of market rent, of getting a property quickly.
It is worth considering another point my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham made in her intervention: London’s population is continuing to rise. Specialists estimate that London’s population is growing at a rate of 100,000 people a year. Clearly that does not mean that 100,000 new homes are needed, but a significant increase in housing stock is needed, which gives us all the more reason to worry about the absence of a like-for-like requirement on housing associations in London. Without making amendment 151 for London and amendment 148 for other parts of the country, we risk increasing the cost to the taxpayer, exacerbating the affordability crisis in London, and making it even more difficult for those on low and middle incomes to find somewhere to live. Indeed, we risk London losing out at the expense of the rest of the country.
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Brandon Lewis)
Welcome back to the Committee, Mr Gray. I look forward to serving under your chairmanship for the rest of this week and potentially the rest of our consideration of the Bill.
Amendment 148 and amendment 151, which is for London, would require housing associations to adhere to strict rules when replacing property sold under the voluntary right to buy and, indeed, building those extra homes we all want, including rules on how much can be spent and the type, tenure and location of the properties. That strikes me as the worst kind of command and control, “Westminster knows best” approach.
I find it interesting that one of the authors of the amendment is someone who has described the Bill as the end of localism, yet here we have the most anti-localist amendment I have seen for some considerable time. It goes much further than the right to buy ever has in dictating what delivery bodies can do. The hon. Member for Harrow West may be happy to extend freedoms and flexibility to his friends on councils, but housing associations have proved themselves to be consistently far more adept at responding to the challenge of delivering new housing supply, and were largely responsible for exceeding the target of 160,000 new affordable homes under the previous Government.
Our approach is very different from the Opposition’s. We have ensured through the deal with the sector that decisions are made at the most appropriate level by professional organisations that we trust. Nationally, we have ensured that for every home sold under the deal, one extra new home will be built, thereby doubling housing supply. What type of home and where it should be are decisions that will and should be taken by housing associations in the light of local conditions and need, which are covered in local plans. That is what true localism means, and I hope the hon. Member for City of Durham will withdraw the amendment.
Dr Blackman-Woods
May I, too, say what a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray?
Dr Blackman-Woods
I am an absolute optimist. Mr Gray.
Once again, I am disappointed by the Minister’s response. I am not sure how it is that Westminster can know best when forcing unwilling housing associations to subject their stock to the right to buy, but it is not okay for us to want to ensure—
Brandon Lewis
I emphasise, as I did this morning, that it is a voluntary agreement that the housing associations put to the Government. It is localism.
Dr Blackman-Woods
My understanding from what the Minister said this morning was that, whether or not housing associations had voted for the voluntary deal, they would all be subject to putting their stock up for right to buy. My question to the Minister is why it is not okay for us to want to ensure that enough affordable and, in particular, social rented homes exist for the most vulnerable in our communities following the exercise of right to buy. I am sorry that he did not engage with the Opposition’s genuine concern that without like-for-like, one-for-one replacement of the same tenure, we will lose greatly needed social rented stock. That is what commentators and housing associations are telling us. On that basis, I will divide the Committee on the amendment.
Dr Blackman-Woods
I beg to move amendment 149, in clause 56, page 24, line 13, at end insert—
‘(4) Grants must not be payable on properties bought and turned into buy to let dwellings within ten years’.
This amendment would prevent property sold under Right to Buy from being converted into buy to let dwellings for a period of ten years.
We have just dealt with a whole set of concerns expressed by housing associations and others on replacement. Housing associations and commentators have also raised other issues, and the amendment seeks to address some of the concerns about houses subject to the right to buy soon being turned into private rented properties.
It will be interesting to see what level of discretion housing associations might operate in the area, but it is worth hearing from the Minister again on whether he intends to put anything in guidance or regulation to suggest a period of time after a house has been sold under the right to buy before it can be bought up to be let out as part of the private rented stock.
The issue was considered to a degree by the Select Committee on Communities and Local Government, which is undertaking an inquiry into the right to buy. I have brought with me a copy of its review of evidence report so that I might convince Government Members that there is such a report and that it was commissioned by the Select Committee. Many of the issues that we have sought to address in amendments are covered in the evidence base. Given that, it is important that we test the Minister on what he intends to do about the grave questions people have asked about the right to buy and how it might operate in practice.
The Communities and Local Government Committee review of evidence report commented:
“A considerable proportion of RTB stock has now been ‘recycled’ into the private rented sector, especially in recent years. The pace of growth of private renting in the RTB resale sector may affect the demographics, dynamics and stability of some neighbourhoods.”
It also noted that
“resale of RTB property into private renting results in higher Housing Benefit expenditure”,
and that it was calculated
“that the higher cost of accommodation in the private rented sector”
has a direct impact on costs to local authorities, leading to
“an additional cost of £3.2 million per annum compared to the equivalent in social renting”
had the stock remained in the social rented sector. It is not an insignificant issue. Research by Inside Housing in 2015 estimated that nearly 40% of ex-council leasehold properties sold under the right to buy were now in the private rented sector. Average weekly awards of housing benefit in the private rented sector in 2015 were over £20 higher than in the social rented sector, which is more than £1,000 extra for each claim.
Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)
The hon. Lady will obviously concede that the Chancellor took fiscal measures to disincentivise buy to let in the autumn statement, and she obviously supports owner occupation. To press her on the amendment, given that it is about the power of Secretary of State to make an in-year grant under clause 56 to a housing association, what are the mechanics of clawing back over that 10-year period? Would it not be overly bureaucratic given that she says that housing associations do not currently have the capacity to collect data on their own tenants?
Dr Blackman-Woods
That is a really helpful intervention. One would hope that the threat of grant clawback when a property is converted to buy to let or private renting would be enough of a disincentive to prevent people from doing so.
I appreciate that fiscal measures were taken in the autumn statement, but the amendment seeks to tease out from the Minister, in the absence of any information about the operation of the scheme, whether he intends to give any guidance to housing associations that would help them put together a scheme to ensure not only that people are moved into home ownership, which, as I keep stressing, we all want, but that there would be a time delay before the property could be transferred into the private rented sector. We want to restrict that, not because we have anything against private renting, but because it tends to lead to a higher housing benefit bill and can lead to a clustering of private rented sector properties in a given area, which can have ongoing management costs.
As I was saying, there can be an effect on the demographics, dynamics and stability of some neighbourhoods, which is not necessarily helpful. I am sure that anyone with a university seat such as mine will know exactly what that means in practice. The centre of Durham used to have two absolutely wonderful council housing estates that were built to high standards in the post-war era. They provided much-needed social rented housing in the city centre, which is normally quite expensive. Under right to buy, however, that good-quality housing was bought up over the years by student landlords and properties have been extended. So, instead of having social rented housing available in the city centre, we have huge clusterings of student housing, which takes a fair degree of management by the university, the students themselves and the local authority. We have to make it clear that there should be a tenure mix in an area, if at all possible, which is why we are very keen to see the Government engage with this issue at some level.
Mr Jackson
The hon. Lady is most generous in giving way and I concur that Durham is a beautiful city, having spent my birthday there this year, in the chaplain’s quarters in the castle—[Interruption.] I am not a Tory toff, as the hon. Member for Harrow West might imagine.
To deal with the issues that the hon. Lady has raised, her own Government brought in the selective licensing regime under the Housing Act 2004 which deals specifically with the issue that she raised about social and demographic change, and the deterioration of residential neighbourhoods. We do not need any more legislation primarily looking at that particular issue.
Dr Blackman-Woods
I only wish it was that easy to get selective licensing in place; alas, it is not that easy. Quite a high bar has been set. If it worked effectively, that might say something about the dynamics that can occur with that amount of private rented sector housing, particularly for students in an area. However, it does not deal with the wider points I am making about the impact that conversions to the private rented sector have on the housing benefit bill. Again, that is a matter on which we want to press the Minister.
The amendment is particularly important for London and other high-value housing shortage areas, because enabling the right to buy to convert quickly to a private rented sector tenancy simply means that it becomes unaffordable for many people. The statutory right to buy requires the repayment of the discount if the property is disposed of, with some exemptions, within five years of purchase. However, there are no restrictions on tenants who exercise the right to buy and subsequently let the property to private tenants. We think that that is an omission that should be rectified. Previous criticisms of the policy noted that it is particularly important that measures restricting the practice of sub-letting right-to-buy properties, except perhaps in cases where the purchaser has died, should be included in the Bill.
As I said earlier, it is important that we address this issue, because—unfortunately—37.6% of ex-council flats are now in the buy-to-let and private rented sector. The Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy, the public sector accountants, have highlighted the negative impact of funding the right to buy, which simply means a property ends up as a private rent with further strains on the public purse, not only from the discount—obviously—but from higher housing benefit payments.
It would not appear to be a particularly economically competent measure to put a great deal of public subsidy into the right to buy itself, then have to give even further public subsidy because those houses have quickly been converted into buy-to-let properties or private rented properties. London boroughs are able to provide evidence that illustrates this point. In Barking and Dagenham, 41% of properties purchased under right to buy are now privately let. Average eligible private rented sector rents for housing benefit increased by 45% in real terms between 2000-01 and 2010-11, which is a truly extraordinary figure. An estimated £2.9 billion, or 33%, of private sector housing benefit expenditure can be attributed directly to the conversion of properties bought through right to buy to the private rented sector.
Brandon Lewis
We are alive to the concerns about the fact that more and more homes are being bought as buy to lets, which is why, as my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough outlined, in the spending review the Chancellor introduced a new rate of stamp duty that is 3% higher for the purchase of buy to lets. That builds on the fiscal changes made in the Budget to mortgage rate relief and sends a clear message about the Government’s direction of travel. We are doing work on a wider scale to ensure we get the balance right between people who want to own their own home and those who are involved in buy to lets.
Let me be clear about our objectives. We want to ensure that private investors, especially those who are not resident in this country, do not distort the market or squeeze out families and prevent them from buying and owning a home of their own. We are not, nor should we be, hindering the life chances and social mobility of individuals who want to use the opportunity of owning a home to move on and up. It would be wholly unfair to restrict housing association tenants who want to take the opportunity to buy a home of their own.
Tenants who bought their home under the voluntary right-to-buy scheme used the freedom available to all other home owners, including those who used the existing right-to-buy scheme under previous Governments, both Labour and Conservative. That scheme contains no restriction on letting, so it would be unfair to impose one on housing association tenants. A restriction on reselling or letting their home would limit their ability to move for work or family reasons. We do not think that is reasonable or necessary, given that the agreement includes a commitment to deliver extra homes though new supply. I hope that the hon. Lady will withdraw her amendment.
Dr Blackman-Woods
I have heard what the Minister has to say. The Opposition are aware that the autumn statement contained such changes. Why is it unfair to people who purchase under right to buy to restrict who they can sell their property to for a relatively short period, but it is not unfair to insist that housing remains for people who desperately need it at an affordable rent? We know that moving such properties into the private rented sector at market rents will put them out of the reach of many people if additional money does not come out of the public purse. I would like some time to reflect on the Minister’s response. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 56 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 57
Grants by Greater London Authority
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr Thomas
I would like to use this stand part debate to ask the Minister a number of questions, both general and specific. First, will he consider what will happen to the grant to housing associations in London if they are unable to provide evidence of a start on site within the three-year deadline to replace a home? Will any of that returned grant be directed to house building in the local authority area in some other way—perhaps given to the council or to another housing association?
What estimates have Ministers made of the number of portable discounts that are likely to have to be offered in London? That will affect the number of grants that will have to be made as well. It would be useful to hear from the Minister on that question. I return to the specific example I gave of a housing association that operates in a number of areas across the country. I bring to the Minister’s attention the example of Home Group, which has helped drive the refurbishment of the Rayners Lane estate in my constituency. It will of course be covered by the voluntary right to buy. If it is given grant, what provision is there that the Home Group might offer new properties in Harrow, as opposed to Newcastle or other parts of the north or the south-east where it has properties? What specific efforts are the Government making to ensure that, if there is not like for like, as we discussed on clause 56, there will at least be another property available in the Harrow area to replace one that might be sold off to a tenant?
On the financing of these grants, the Minister will be aware that there has been a debate within the housing world about whether there are alternative financing mechanisms for these grants, instead of just the option in the Bill of the forced sale of high-value council housing. Lord Kerslake and the hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson), the Mayor of London, have suggested that the Chancellor of the Exchequer might want to replace the cash discount that sales are offering with an equity loan, as the Chancellor is doing already. It would be good to hear whether Ministers have completely rejected that notion, or indeed the conversations they have had with Lord Kerslake and the hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip.
Finally, the Minister may be aware that the National Housing Federation recently sent around a briefing that clearly indicates that it is concerned that the drafting of this and the previous clause does not fit the terms of the deal that has been done within the Government. I invite him to consider the National Housing Federation’s request for a change in the language in clause 57—not now, of course, but, if he is willing to reflect on it, on Report.
Brandon Lewis
I will stick to the point behind the clause. With regard to some of the wider points that the hon. Gentleman has raised, I direct him to chapter 2 of the voluntary agreement with the National Housing Federation, which covers this fully. Clause 57 reflects the grant-making powers just discussed under clause 56, but specifically for the Greater London Authority. It is worth briefly explaining that this is because we want to ensure that the Government have the ability to compensate housing associations for the discounts to their tenants who buy their home in London under the terms of the voluntary agreement. It will allow the Greater London Authority to administer the process and make the payments. The clause is necessary because the Homes and Communities Agency does not have the locus to make payments in relation to housing association properties sold in London. I am confident that the National Housing Federation is happy that we will be fulfilling our side of the bargain, but we will continue our ongoing dialogue with it at all times.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 57 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 58
Monitoring
Mr Thomas
I beg to move amendment 188, in clause 58, page 24, line 22, at end insert
“which will include the use of local occupancy clauses as defined by section 157 of the 1985 Housing Act”.
This amendment would ensure anyone subsequently buying a former housing association property sold under the right to buy would have to have lived or worked in the housing authority area where the property is located for three years or more prior to purchase.
I suggest that Ministers might want to look back at section 157 of the Housing Act 1985 and extend the use of local occupancy clauses in rural areas under the council right-to-buy scheme to the housing association right-to-buy scheme and, in so doing, extend it to the whole country. The Minister might or might not be aware that under the terms of section 157, people have to have lived or worked in an area, usually in a national park, for three years before they can buy certain properties, usually ex-council homes. The effect of that requirement is to lower slightly the price at which homes are sold. Typically, although it depends on the area in the national park, a reduction of between 5% and 20% can be on offer to someone who has lived or worked in an area. That clearly increases the chances of people being able to stay within their communities and achieve their aspiration of owning their own home.
Given the scale at which house prices are rising, such a sensible situation for rural areas, particularly national parks, might usefully be extended to London. With this probing amendment, I am asking the Minister whether he has considered offering a similar provision in the Bill. If he has not, will he do so? Specifically, might he consider it for an area such as London, or other urban areas where house prices are rising fast? I gently suggest that this would not affect his overall objective of extending home ownership, and it would not stop the extension of right to buy; it would effectively create a sub-market within the housing market and make it slightly more affordable for a small number of additional people to get on to the housing ladder. He will understand the concern. Given the public nature of our debates, I recognise that he had to robustly defend the price of starter homes, but I am sure he will recognise the concern that they will not be affordable, particularly in London, to as many people as they might be.
Local occupancy clauses would help extend the ability of more tenants, once a housing association property has been sold for the first time, to have a chance of getting on to the property ladder by buying a former housing association property, albeit at a slightly discounted rate.
Brandon Lewis
On the hon. Gentleman’s closing remarks and his point about starter homes, I remind him that both in evidence and here in Committee, although perhaps he was not here, we made it very clear—this is about a robust defence—that the average price for a first-time buyer, the group of people who will benefit from starter homes, is considerably below the average price for a home in London and more widely. We had a range of examples, but I will not test the Chair’s patience by going through them again.
We appreciate that various measures are in place under the existing right to buy, such as properties, if sold within a certain period, being offered back to the landlord they were originally bought from. We are working closely with the sector on the detailed implementation of the scheme, including such issues. I appreciate the spirit with which the hon. Gentleman moved the amendment, but it would mean that homeowners who had bought their property under a voluntary right-to-buy arrangement will be restricted with regard to whom they can sell their property. It would make it a requirement that they can only sell on to someone who has lived or worked locally for three or more years before purchase.
Mr Thomas
I appreciate how the Minister is indulging the spirit in which I moved the amendment. May I gently suggest that the policing for a local occupancy clause already exists, in a sense, because it already applies in rural areas and, in particular, in national parks? Few national park authorities report any significant problems with the measure at the moment. Might that not encourage him to take a slightly more positive view of my suggestion?
Brandon Lewis
I appreciate the point that the hon. Gentleman is making, but we are talking about a somewhat different scale from what the amendment would introduce. Tenants who become homeowners as a result of the right to buy are exactly the same as tenants who buy on the open market; the difference is the concern about the loss of stock, which is clearly being addressed anyway through the programme to build new homes, delivering a new-build property for every property sold. Moreover, protections will be in place through housing associations having the discretion not to sell properties, particularly in rural areas—the example he gave—where to do so would not be in the interests of the local community, as the voluntary deal outlines. I hope that he will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Mr Thomas
I moved the amendment in the spirit of probing the Minister’s view. I gently suggest that any restriction on a housing association tenant selling might slightly restrict the market, but in practice I suspect that it will not do so dramatically. Potentially, the amendment would have allowed not only housing association tenants to access the ambition of owning their own home, but the Government and the whole House to ensure that those who live in communities not on high incomes had a little more chance of getting on to the property ladder. However, it was probing, and on that basis I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr Thomas
I beg to move amendment 92, in clause 58, page 24, line 32, at end insert—
‘(7) The Regulator in monitoring compliance must report where a community led housing provider as defined at Schedule [New Schedule 1: community-led housing schemes] or a tenant management organisation as defined by [New Clause: Tenant Management Organisations] has in breach of this Act used grants made by the Secretary of State to facilitate or meet a discount in respect of a right to buy discount.’
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 11—Tenant Management Organisations—
‘All industrial and provident societies and housing associations registered with the Homes and Communities Agency as tenant management organisations shall—
(a) be exempt from implementing, or facilitating the implementation of, the right to buy; and
(b) not accept grants made by the Secretary of State in respect of right to buy discounts.’
New schedule 1—Community-led housing schemes—
‘1 A community-led housing scheme is a scheme provided by a community led housing provider meeting the requirements of this Schedule.
2 A community led housing provider is a body corporate (“a body”) which makes available, or intends to make available, dwellings in England and satisfies all the conditions in paragraph 4 and at least one of the conditions in paragraph 5.
3 In the conditions at paragraph 4 the following definitions apply—
(a) “dwellings” means flats and houses for occupation by individuals as their only home;
(b) “local community” means the individuals who live or work, or want to live or work in a specified area or are part of a specified community;
(c) “own” and “owned” means ownership of a freehold interest or a leasehold interest;
(d) in paragraph 3(b) “specified area” means the locality or region referred to in a body’s constitution;
(e) in paragraph 3(b) “specified community” means the individuals to whom the body seeks to provide a benefit as set out in its constitution.
4 The conditions that must be satisfied are that—
(a) the body includes within its constitution the purpose of providing accommodation to the local community or for the members of the body;
(b) the local community have the opportunity to become members of the body (whether or not others can also become members);
(c) the local community must provide the majority vote on resolutions at general meetings and decisions at management board meetings;
(d) any profits or surplus from its activities will be used to benefit the local community or other activities of the body as set out in its constitution (otherwise than being paid directly to members);
(e) the accommodation let to individuals is owned by the body; and
(f) the number of properties owned by the body does not exceed 1000.
5 One of the conditions set out in this paragraph must be satisfied—
(a) the body’s objects include furthering the social, economic or environmental interests of a local community; or
(b) the body is owned in the majority by its members who are also the tenants of the body.’
Mr Thomas
I hope not to detain the Committee long, because we had a debate last week on co-operative housing in the context of the clauses relating to custom and self-build housebuilding. I drew the Committee’s attention to the definition of “community-led housing”, which is encapsulated in new schedule 1. Amendment 92 would specifically require the regulator of social housing to protect housing co-operatives and other community-led housing. It would be a gentle additional requirement in the legislation to ensure that, notwithstanding the voluntary deal offered, housing co-operatives are given a little extra protection.
I alluded to this previously, but it is perhaps worth setting out in a little more detail. I think in particular of the housing co-operatives in the Coin Street area on the south bank of the river Thames. They are all registered housing providers, so technically they are all housing associations, but all their properties are part of a housing co-operative. It would therefore be very difficult for a housing association that is also a housing co-operative to offer a portable discount. Under the terms of amendment 92, the regulator would have a duty to police the insistence that housing co-operatives are properly protected.
New clause 11 focuses on tenant management organisations. A major series of requests for a tenant management organisation that is also a housing association to allow tenants to buy their properties could threaten the viability of the tenant management organisation. Surely it should be for the tenants who are running the tenant management organisation to decide for themselves the future of their organisation. Surely it is not for Government to dictate to a body that is set up and running its own devices how it should operate in the future. It is for the tenant management organisation to make its own rules.
I hope that the Minister will recognise that the amendment offers an opportunity to offer a little more protection to housing co-operatives and specific protection to tenant management organisations. It would not place an onerous requirement on the regulator, but it would help to ensure that the National Housing Federation’s commitment is captured in the Bill, resulting in additional protection.
Brandon Lewis
If new clause 11 were accepted, housing associations could not implement the voluntary right-to-buy deal where tenant management organisations had been set up and registered with the Homes and Communities Agency. It would also prevent such organisations from accepting payments made by the Secretary of State in respect of right-to-buy discounts.
Amendment 92 would require the regulator of social housing to monitor and report where a housing association had disregarded the provisions of new clause 11 and operated the voluntary right to buy in properties where a tenant management organisation existed. The monitoring and reporting role would also apply to community-led housing providers—a new category of housing association that the amendment would introduce in an associated new schedule.
Let me be clear: tenant management organisations are not registered providers. They are management organisations, which will be subsidiaries of a registered provider. They are not and cannot be registered with the Homes and Communities Agency, because they cannot own stock and so are not landlords. No grant funding to cover the cost of the discount would be made to such organisations under the voluntary right-to-buy deal.
The landlord-tenant relationship is with the property-owning landlord—the registered provider—and the tenant would exercise their right to buy against that landlord. The amendments do not quite fit into that landscape. Tenant management organisations and other community-led organisations do play an important role in helping tenants to play an active part in the management of their homes, and often in wider community initiatives as well, but they are not part of the right-to-buy arrangements.
If there is concern about having different tenures, with social tenants and owner-occupiers being part of a tenant management organisation, I must say that there is no reason to believe that tenants and owners could not come together in that way. If, however, the intent behind the new clause is to create a loophole in the implementation of the voluntary right to buy, whereby the setting up of a tenant management organisation would in itself mean that the voluntary right to buy could not operate, that would run counter to our manifesto commitment to extend the right to buy. I am sure that that is not the hon. Gentleman’s intention.
Our aim is to ensure that social tenants can access available home ownership opportunities regardless of their landlord. It would be wholly unfair to tenants who want to take the opportunity to buy a home of their own if they were prevented from doing so merely because of the existence of a tenant management organisation. The voluntary right to buy deal contains protections that allow housing associations discretion not to sell properties that are important to their communities and clients. The changes are therefore unnecessary and, I would argue, counterproductive, so I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment.
Mr Thomas
I hear the Minister’s concerns, in particular about new clause 11 on tenant management organisations. Let me reassure him: no one who is committed to good governance likes the creation of loopholes, and that is the last thing I would want to be accused of. One wants consistency and clarity in all legislation.
I intend to come back later to some of the wider concerns of the housing co-op and community housing movement about pay to stay, which is part of the reason for tabling new schedule 1. There is real concern about the additional administration requirements that housing co-ops will incur as a result of the pay-to-stay requirements. However, these were probing amendments, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw them.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr Thomas
I beg to move amendment 187, in clause 58, page 24, line 32, at end insert—
‘(7) The Secretary of State and the Mayor of London must publish an annual report and impact assessment setting out how many housing association properties have been sold off and its impact on homelessness in Greater London.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State and Mayor of London to publish an annual report and impact assessment setting out how many housing association properties have been sold off and its impact on homelessness in Greater London.
The amendment relates to the Opposition’s concern that Ministers have given up on trying to help those who are in need of accommodation but who are on low or, in a London context, middle incomes, for whom the prospect of being able to buy their own home is some way off, but who nevertheless need accommodation. This is a sensible amendment to require Ministers to account for the impact on homelessness of the measures in the Bill.
The Minister may well be aware that homelessness in London is rocketing. It might be worth dwelling on some of the statistics from a number of London authorities. I am delighted to see the hon. Member for Wimbledon back in his seat; he will probably be aware that the number of homeless people and people in priority need households, which was just 89 in 2010, has risen to 132 accepted in 2015—a steady rise in the number of homeless households being accepted. The total accepted on to the housing register in 2015 was some 330; in comparison, the total accommodated in temporary accommodation in 2010 was just 76. In the hon. Gentleman’s borough, Merton, there has been a sharp rise both in the number of homeless households being accepted year by year and the number in temporary accommodation and on the housing register.
The hon. Member for Croydon South is sadly not in his place, but in 2010 the number of homeless people and people in priority need households accepted was 575. This year that figure had risen to 880. The total being accommodated in temporary accommodation was 1,478 in 2010, and by 2015 it had shot up to 2,412. Those figures indicate scale of homelessness and the number of people in temporary accommodation in these two critical south London boroughs.
In Westminster the number of homeless and people in priority need in 2010 was some 463. By 2015, it had shot up to 643 for the same period. The total accommodated in temporary accommodation in 2010 in Westminster was 1,725; by 2015, it had shot up to 2,397. The pace of growth has been similar across London. In my borough, Harrow, the number of people in temporary accommodation at the end of September 2010 was 460, but by 2015 there had been a significant rise, to 504.
That is the backdrop to the amendment. Yes, Ministers have a focus in the context of the Bill on extending home ownership; that aspiration is supported by Members in all parts of the House, but I gently suggest that they also need to focus on the needs of those on low and middle incomes, whom the Conservatives seem to be forgetting. The amendment would ensure that Parliament and, indeed, Ministers think about the issues for those on low and middle incomes, for whom buying a home is some way off. I commend the amendment to the Committee.
Brandon Lewis
As outlined, the amendment would require the Secretary of State and the Mayor of London to publish an annual report and impact assessment that sets out how many housing association properties have been sold off and the impact of that on homelessness in London. The hon. Gentleman outlined the backdrop and, while I will not test your patience by going too far outside the Bill’s scope, Mr Gray, let me say that we have increased funding: for example, funding for the discretionary housing payment will be £800 million over the course of the Parliament, which is a 40% increase.
We are determined not to return to the bad old days when homelessness was roughly double what it is today. We recognise the importance of having a mechanism to monitor and report on the effectiveness of the voluntary agreement, so the clause will allow for the collection and publication of statistics on housing association sales and new builds under the voluntary agreement. Detailed statistics on homelessness are already collected for all authorities, including figures for the number of households accepted as homeless and the reasons for the loss of their last settled home. That will allow us to monitor any changes to the homelessness situation in Greater London and indeed elsewhere. I therefore hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his amendment.
Mr Thomas
I am not wild about the Minister’s answer. I am yet to see the Government propose a significant package of measures to help those on low incomes and those who are on the temporary housing register in temporary accommodation and see no immediate sign of councils or housing associations being able to help them.
Brandon Lewis
I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s generosity in giving way. I hope he recognises that under this Government the amount of time people spend in temporary accommodation has been reduced by at least seven months.
Mr Thomas
The experience in Harrow has been a rising number of people in need of temporary accommodation and increasing concern about its quality. It would be sensible for the Minister to focus on this issue in a little more detail than the Conservatives, and his Department under the Secretary of State’s leadership, are duly doing. I am tempted to press the amendment to a vote.
The Chair
The hon. Gentleman may be tempted, but does he wish to press the amendment to a vote?
Brandon Lewis
I beg to move amendment 178, in clause 59, page 25, line 5, after “Consent” insert—
“in respect of a disposal of land in England”.
This amendment limits the amendment to section 133 of the Housing Act 1988 to disposals of land in England.
Brandon Lewis
Clause 59 amends section 133 of the Housing Act 1988 and section 174 of the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008 to allow for disposals by way of sales under the extended right to buy by private registered providers to be subject to a general consent of the regulator of social housing, as exercised under the power in section 172 of the 2008 Act. Amendments 178 and 179 are minor and technical ones, to ensure that the changes apply only to disposal of land in England, as housing policy is devolved.
Mr Thomas
Has the Minister had any conversations with the authorities in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales about why they might not be indulging in a similar set of proposals? I understand that in Scotland the right-to-buy period is being cancelled. Is the Minister aware of the situation in Scotland and what has led the Scottish National party to go down that road? Has he any indication about whether the Northern Ireland Assembly might follow the example of his party and his Government and introduce it over there?
Brandon Lewis
I suspect that, to an extent, I might be moving somewhat outside my remit, as these are devolved matters. I am happy to reiterate the debate that was had on the Floor of the House with Members of the Scottish National party making the case against right to buy. I made the same point to them as I made to Labour in Wales when they were looking at right to buy: I do not understand why they are so against giving tenants in their area the opportunity to become homeowners.
As I outlined on the Floor of the House, it might be that in Scotland, as in England, between 1997 and 2010 the Labour Party and the SNP did not do the job of building the extra homes they should have built, using the money from right to buy to build extra homes in the way that we are doing. They had a similar situation to Labour’s 170 homes sold for just one built. That is why it is so important that this voluntary deal is taken forward in the way that the reinvigorated right to buy has been in England, and we have at least one home built for every home sold. I encourage colleagues in the devolved nations to look at that model, going forward, rather than the previous Labour model.
Amendment 178 agreed to.
Amendment made: 179, in clause 59, page 25, line 8, after “Consent” insert
“in respect of a disposal of land in England”—(Brandon Lewis.)
This amendment limits the amendment to section 174 of the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008 to disposals of land in England.
Dr Blackman-Woods
I beg to move amendment 152, in clause 59, page 25, line 8, at end insert—
“(3) Portability of the discount must only apply where practicable in terms of availability of suitable properties for disposal and vacancy timescales.”
This amendment would ensure that portability of the discount must be practicable and able to be delivered in practice.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 153, in clause 59, page 25, line 8, at end insert—
“( ) Property offered under portability must be of—
(a) similar size,
(b) similar or improved quality,
(c) in an area agreed by the tenant, and
(d) subject to an appeal mechanism.”
This amendment would protect the tenant against an unreasonable offer of portability.
Dr Blackman-Woods
The amendment is designed to ensure that the portability provisions that go alongside the so-called voluntary agreement with housing associations have been properly thought through, so that offers made can be delivered by the housing associations within a reasonable timescale.
The issue of portability is very much on the minds of housing associations, as evidenced by their contributions to the Communities and Local Government Committee’s inquiry into right to buy. That is clear, but I will take the Committee through some of those examples. As requested, housing associations will apply portability—for example, Ian McDermott of Sanctuary Group said:
“we have stock in national parks, for example, which was built with covenants around selling. Those will not be for sale, but we will be offering portable discounts to those residents.”
Similarly, David Montague from L&Q said:
“For example, all of our stock in Richmond was acquired on the legal understanding that it would never be sold…That is just one example of many.”
He went on to say that L&Q will therefore not be able to offer its tenants in Richmond the opportunity to buy but will offer an
“alternative through a portable discount.”
Underpinning those statements is a supposition that it will be possible to offer portable discounts, but the lack of information before us about portability means that we must have this probing amendment to test how the Government see portability working in practice.
The PlaceShapers group of housing associations told us that the expectation that tenants living in exempted homes will be able to take their discount elsewhere—that it will be portable—might prove difficult to implement in places where the supply of alternative options is curtailed and constrained. If a housing association’s stock is very limited because a lot of its stock is exempt from the right-to-buy provisions, it might be difficult for that housing association to offer portability. That prompts a number of questions for the Minister. Will there be exemptions from the portability policy? Will housing associations always have to offer full portability? How many offers of portability will housing associations have to make, and in what circumstances? What is the timescale? Are there any restrictions that will enable the scheme to be more workable for housing associations with limited stock? For example, will the scheme expire after a certain period? Is there a different test of the reasonableness of an offer if a housing association has very limited stock?
Mr Thomas
My hon. Friend tempts me to take the Committee back to the question of the publication or not of the operational document that the National Housing Federation said it and the Government have committed to publish, setting out the details of how things such as, presumably, portable discounts will operate. Will she press the Minister to give a timetable for the publication of that document? Will it be published before Report?
Dr Blackman-Woods
As always, my hon. Friend makes an extremely helpful intervention. We could have curtailed our discussion of this clause if more information about how right to buy will work in practice was in the public domain. We appreciate that the Government have set up pilots, but virtually no information is available about how those pilots will operate. It is important for our scrutiny of the Bill that we seek to tease from the Minister the circumstances in which portability might not be able to be applied because of the nature of a housing association and its stock. We have no idea whether the Government are going to publish regulations with some of that detail or whether they will give guidance to help housing associations to make the pilots work.
We also have no idea what is going to happen after the pilots. Will the lessons learned be applied to others in the sector, or will the scheme be rolled out to everybody in the meantime? The lack of information is breathtaking, given the seriousness of what the Bill aims to do. Following the request made so eloquently by my hon. Friend, will the Minister inform the Committee, in writing if necessary, when the operational guide and more detail about the scheme will be available?
Mr Thomas
The Minister has not yet instructed civil servants to make that operational document available. Surely there is some indication from the five housing association pilots launched last week about how portable discounts will work. He could therefore give us some information about how portability will work in the context of those pilots.
Dr Blackman-Woods
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Given that those pilots were operational from midnight last Wednesday, one would assume that some consideration would be given to having an answer for tenants who got on the phone immediately—the Minister gave an example of one earlier—to register for the right to buy. One can only speculate what answer they received in the absence of any information—certainly any information in the public domain—about how the scheme should operate. There appear to be a series of questions about how the scheme will work from the housing association’s point of view. That is the purpose of amendment 152.
Amendment 153 seeks more detail from the Minister about how the scheme will work for tenants who seek to register for the right to buy and, ultimately, to purchase their housing association home. The purpose of the amendment is to see whether the Government intend to put down any parameters about the nature of the portability offer that should be made and how reasonable that might be. Will the Minister seek to put safeguards for tenants in guidance to enable them to take up the portability offer?
Paragraph (a) of the amendment suggests that a property offered under portability should be of a “similar size”. We want to prevent, for example, a family who live in a three-bedroom house that is not covered by the right to buy from being offered a portable discount on a property that is much smaller, such as a bungalow. Unless the tenants want a property of a different size, it is important that they should not be forced into a much smaller and possibly unsuitable property simply so that they can take up the portability offer. Does the Minister intend for regulations to set out the reasonableness criteria for such an offer made by housing associations?
Paragraph (b) seeks to safeguard the tenant from being offered a property that is of poorer quality. New build housing could, for example, be exempted from the right to buy, so a portability offer could be for older stock in poorer condition. Similarly, it is possible that, under discretion, housing associations would restrict the sale of refurbished property. Someone living in a refurbished property would not be able to buy it but they would be offered a property elsewhere, through the portable discount, that has not been refurbished. This is an issue that I would like the Minister to comment on. We think similar quality for tenants is important.
The Minister is looking at his watch but, as I said earlier, we could have curtailed discussion massively on this section of the Bill if the information that we are seeking was in the public domain or if we knew when it was likely to be in the public domain. If it was going to be in the public domain before we finished deliberations in Committee, we could have come back to it at a later stage. However, because we are lacking so much information, it is important in terms of our scrutiny role that we seek at least to try to have more information in the public domain.
Paragraph (c) seeks to ensure that the property with the portable discount that is offered to the tenant is either in the same area or in an area that is agreed by the tenant. This issue was raised by the Select Committee. There was a specific question asked about tenants who live in national parks, because they are quite extensive in some areas and there was a real concerned expressed, I think by the Chair of the Select Committee, that it might not be possible to offer portability in those circumstances, or not in the same area. It is important to us that, if there is going to be portability and it is going to involve another area, there has to be agreement with the tenant.
Lastly, paragraph (d) of the amendment seeks to tease out from the Minister exactly how an appeal mechanism would work. We know—we already have information from the National Housing Federation—that, if the tenant were unhappy with the alternative offered, for example because it represented a worse housing option than the one in which they lived, or it was in a location that presented difficulties in terms of employment, schooling and other commitments, they would be allowed to appeal to the regulator to arbitrate. Where the regulator considered that the association had acted fairly, it would suggest that the tenant accept the offer or, subject to available funding, offer the tenant a portable discount to purchase a property on the open market. Where the regulator considered that the association had not offered a reasonable alternative, the association would agree to offer another alternative.
I thought that that was quite interesting. Again, it begs a number of questions. Are we absolutely certain that the regulator would be independent? Is there a limit to the number of times that the tenant can go back to the regulator? If a tenant is offered a property that they think is unreasonable, they can turn it down. The regulator might agree that it is unreasonable. The housing association must then offer another property, but what if the tenant thinks that that is also unreasonable, perhaps for a different set of reasons? Can the tenant go back again and ask that it is looked at by the regulator? It seems to me that that is quite a cumbersome way to deal with just one transaction. Is there a limit on the number of times that someone can go to the regulator or a timescale that should be applied? Indeed, is there a timescale for wrapping up an offer of portability for a particular tenant? At the moment, as I have said, we simply have no real information about the appeals process, how independent it is or how fair it will ultimately be to the tenant, and whether the scheme will be workable. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s answers to our specific questions on how portability will operate.
Mr Thomas
I rise to support the amendment in my hon. Friend’s name. In doing so, I am struck by an example in Wealdstone in my constituency, where one particular housing association, A2Dominion, is engaged with tenants and leaseholders in what seems to be a never-ending discussion about a series of construction problems with the property. It has been going on since 2008, and the problems still do not seem to have been sorted out. There are extensive leaks, a whole series of flats have been affected and there is as yet no sense when my constituents in Bannister House, an A2Dominion property, will have their problems sorted out.
In the context of the amendment, the last thing that I would want is for other tenants, under the portability arrangements, to be offered a poor property such as those in Bannister House, with a history of maintenance problems. My hon. Friend’s amendment seems to be a sensible pro-tenant safety measure on which it is worth pushing the Minister. I raised a couple of questions during debate on clause 57 stand part, one of which related to portability. The Minister resorted to the classic tactic of Ministers who do not know the answer by referring to some document on a website.
Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con)
I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman says that it is a classic tactic because he is speaking from experience.
Mr Thomas
Exactly, Mr Gray. It would be outwith the terms of the debate. I will, however, gently ask the Minister again whether any estimate has been made of the number of portable discounts that will be offered in London. Will any restrictions be placed on portable discounts? Again, that is a question worth asking. For example, do they need to be on homes in the same local area? I hope that he might be willing to answer those questions rather than fob the Committee off.
The Chair
Order. Before the Minister commences, I suspect that we are just about to have a Division in the main Chamber. When that occurs, we will suspend the Committee for 15 minutes for the first vote and an additional 10 minutes each for any further votes. I hope the bell will ring; we are waiting for it. It will happen any second now, so I think we can anticipate it and suspend the Committee for 15 minutes, followed by 10 minutes for each subsequent vote. [Interruption.] Ah. There we are.
The Chair
I remind the Committee that we were discussing amendment 152 to clause 59. The hon. Member for City of Durham had proposed it and I was about to call the Minister to respond.
The Chair
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for asking me. I am afraid to say that I am a very old-fashioned individual and I apply the same clothing and eating regulations in Committee as I do in the main Chamber. I hope the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not agree to that: it is midwinter, after all.
Brandon Lewis
Thank you, Mr Gray. I think Hansard will show where the hot air has been coming from for much of today.
Amendment 152 would limit the portability of discounts offered under the voluntary right to buy to cases where this was practical in terms of availability of suitable properties for sale and of the vacancy timescales. Amendment 153, just to refresh our memories, would require properties offered with a portable discount to be in an area agreed with the tenant, of a similar size and quality, and for there to be an appeal mechanism. From the comments made before we broke to vote, it was clear that the Opposition were trying to put into legislation arrangements that we have negotiated in a voluntary deal with the sector.
Hon. Members asked for details of where these things are printed. The hon. Member for City of Durham quoted from what I think she said was something sent round by the National Housing Federation. Actually, she quoted directly from the voluntary agreement that is published on the National Housing Federation website, chapter 1 of which very much outlines those points. That is backed up by a written ministerial statement made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government on 12 October. Housing associations have made it clear that they agree, as part of the deal, that where a housing association exercises its discretion not to sell a home, the housing association will provide an alternative from its own stock. The rest Members can read in chapter 1.
Mr Thomas
Very specifically, on the Coin Street example I gave, where all the properties are part of the housing co-operative, will they have to give portable discount or not? I recognise that they are excluded from right to buy in general terms, but are they excluded in this context from having to offer a portable discount?
Brandon Lewis
Again, I highly recommend that the hon. Gentleman read the proposal from the National Housing Federation. It has a clear table, headed in bold, “Examples of circumstances where housing associations may exercise discretion over sales” in which co-operatives are listed.
Housing associations have agreed in the deal that there will be a proposal for an appeal mechanism where a tenant is not happy with the alternative property on offer. The hon. Member for City of Durham asked if it would be a genuinely independent process, but I am sure she was not trying to question the independence of the regulator and it is the regulator to which the voluntary agreement relates. To suggest that the housing associations will not deliver on the terms of the agreement takes us back to the problem the Opposition appear to be having with the concept that housing associations are professional organisations that we trust and that will honour their agreement with the Government. After all, it was their proposal. I do not believe that they will fail to honour the agreement, which is why I do not accept the amendments.
Brandon Lewis
As I have outlined, this is an agreement that the National Housing Federation proposed to Government. We have accepted it and will deliver our part of the bargain so that they can deliver their side, and we trust them to do that. The amendments imply, again, that the Opposition do not trust housing associations to take up their side of the bargain. I simply do not accept that; we do trust them.
Amendment 153 seeks to limit the type of property that can be offered to tenants under portability arrangements and again seems to limit the opportunities of tenants to own their own home. What about tenants who have an expanding family and need larger accommodation, or are looking to downsize as the family moves away, or to make home ownership more affordable? We do not agree with the Opposition’s insistence on imposing unfair and unnecessary restrictions on them. Where tenants are able to use their discount to purchase an alternative property it would entirely be at their discretion whether to take up that discount and portability. The amendments are unnecessary.
Dr Blackman-Woods
As I said earlier, these are largely probing amendments seeking to elicit more information from the Minister about how the portability mechanism might work in practice. To my knowledge, we did not accuse housing associations of failing to deliver on the voluntary agreement or failing to have a regulator in place. We simply sought more information.
If I could drag us all back to reality for a moment, housing associations did not wake up one morning on 23 September or thereabouts and think, “Gosh, we must go and have a voluntary agreement with the Government on the right to buy. Let’s see if we can catch them just before the Conservative party conference and see if we can agree something.” It was within a context of the Government saying, “Come up with a voluntary deal, housing associations, or we will put something on statute.”
Brandon Lewis
I appreciate we are some way off the scope of the Bill, Mr Gray, but could I respond to a very direct point?
Brandon Lewis
I will test your patience a moment to suggest that the hon. Lady would surely acknowledge that perhaps the housing associations saw what was in the Conservative party manifesto, appreciated that we had a mandate to deliver that, actually wanted to deliver ownership for their residents and tenants, and therefore wanted to work with the Government to do so.
The Chair
Order. I would much rather that you did not go too far down that particular track. We are reserving our comments for the amendments we are considering. Dr Blackman-Woods.
Dr Blackman-Woods
Yes, I will seek to do that, Mr Gray. I was just trying to clarify what “voluntary” meant.
As I said, these are largely probing amendments and they have generated quite a lot of heat, although I am not sure that we have much more light on how portability will operate in practice. Perhaps the Minister would reflect on that in the coming weeks and we will get some more information from housing associations. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Dr Blackman-Woods
I beg to move amendment 154, in clause 59, page 25, line 8, at end insert—
‘( ) The discount should remain in perpetuity.”
This amendment would ensure that homes sold under the Right to Buy remain as discounted housing in perpetuity.
I might be able to anticipate what the Minister will say about the amendment, given the extensive discussion we had on a similar matter regarding starter homes. Nevertheless, it is important that the Opposition seek to get more information from the Minister about why properties sold under right to buy can attract a discount for purchase, and why it is not possible for that purchase to remain in perpetuity, so the number of homes lost to home ownership under the right to buy could be replaced in a very easy way: as somebody gets a discount, buys the home, sells it and moves on to another property that they might buy on the open market, the property they are leaving would attract a discount again.
Millions of homes have been lost in the social rented sector through right to buy, and the amendment would ensure their ongoing availability. It also means that the discount on a right to buy property would be a cheaper way to ensure that homes were available for low-cost home ownership, and probably a much cheaper way to fund the replacement than any of the other measures that we have considered. However, this is a straightforward amendment asking why we do not consider how we might provide a discount in perpetuity. I would be interested to hear from the Minister why he thinks it is not a good idea.
Brandon Lewis
I appreciate the hon. Lady’s opening remarks and her thoughts on what we might say, but I must respond to the amendment as written. Interestingly, it highlights and reconfirms the fact that the Opposition are keen to ensure that housing associations do not receive full market value for their properties; they are seeking to remove that possibility from the individual tenant. The other option is that they want the Government to pay compensation over and over again every time the property is sold. I might not be overly surprised that they have a cavalier attitude to public money, but I doubt that that is genuinely what they intend; at least, I hope it is not.
If the intention behind the clause is to protect stock, I say once again that stock will be built up, as extra homes will be built as a result of the measures. The amendment as drafted makes no sense. It would be either deeply unfair or deeply profligate, depending which way it is read. I hope that the hon. Lady will withdraw it.
Dr Blackman-Woods
If the Minister is absolutely certain in his assertions about the waste of public money, perhaps we could do a cost-benefit analysis of bringing houses back through the route in the amendment rather than completely replacing them and rebuilding elsewhere. Again, this is a probing amendment. It would help all of us in our deliberations on these clauses if we had had more information about the extension of right to buy to housing associations and how it might work in practice so that replacement continues.
I hear what the Minister says, but so far I have not seen any evidence to back up the points that he is making. I do not want to press the amendment to a vote at this point, but it would be extremely helpful to have the information to back up the points that he has made in his response. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Dr Blackman-Woods
I beg to move amendment 155, in clause 59, page 25, line 8, at end insert—
“( ) A dwelling must not be sold under the Right to Buy without the Housing Association having the ability to—
(a) verify the source of funding for purchase,
(b) establish who is occupying the property,
(c) check that the person/s seeking to purchase the property under Right to Buy has no interest in another property,
(d) have sufficient time to carry out checks for fraudulent activity, and
(e) be able to prepare reports on (a) – (d) for the Housing Association Board of Trustees to consider.”
This amendment would ensure that housing associations are able to carry out proper checks before proceeding with the Right to Buy offer.
The amendment seeks to argue that a dwelling must not be sold under the right to buy unless the housing association has the ability to do a list of things. I will talk for a moment or two about why we think that amendment 155 is extremely important. I emphasise at the outset that it is based on a range of questions that have been asked by the housing associations, which have presumably signed up to the voluntary agreement. Given that a lot of people out there are seeking to operate the right-to-buy scheme, I hope that we can get a detailed response from the Minister to the points made in the amendment.
Several housing associations suggest that they would like provisions under the right to buy, as listed in the amendment, to help them ensure that properties are not bought and resold as a means of laundering money. It is a serious concern of theirs. They also want to ensure that measures are implemented to help them assess and tackle fraud.
PlaceShapers is also concerned to ensure that it fulfils its responsibilities to counter fraud and money laundering. PlaceShapers requests that the process of demonstrating eligibility for right to buy requires an obligation to evidence provide the source of money to purchase. Mandatory fraud checks should be part of the application process and sufficient time should be allowed for completion of investigations prior to an application being accepted.
Given how quickly the Government have moved to the pilots, one would assume that one of the things the pilots will do—presumably this is not already in place—is establish arrangements to enable them to check thoroughly who is applying for the right to buy and whether they are a bona fide tenant.
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)
I understand the hon. Lady’s point, but surely almost all she is asking for—or the housing associations are asking for—would be required for a mortgage, if that person was going to buy. They are tenants of the property, so most of this information is already there. On the particular point about money laundering, under the stringent new rules about getting mortgages, that fear would not be present.
Dr Blackman-Woods
The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. However, PlaceShapers and other housing associations say that not all requests for a right to buy are accompanied by a mortgage application. They want to ensure that the source of money, if not through a mortgage, is from a bona fide source. That is a very real concern. We want to hear how the Minister thinks the right-to-buy scheme will address this particular set of concerns.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
The hon. Lady will be aware that the conveyancing solicitor also has a responsibility to check the identity of the client and the source of funds, to prevent money laundering offences from taking place.
Dr Blackman-Woods
I simply reiterate my point that housing associations want to ensure that they can carry out due diligence and are seeking, as are we, some guidance from the Minister about what might be appropriate. In passing, I should say that the amendment is largely probing to test whether the Government have thought about how the scheme will work in practice, and whether the concerns of the housing associations that will have to operate it are being taken on board.
Mr Jackson
It is incumbent on the hon. Lady to table an amendment that makes sense. She cannot simply say that it is a probing amendment, because she will have heard at the evidence session that virtually all the housing associations said that they did not have the organisational capacity to collect robust data on their own tenants’ financial circumstances. Yet she is now asking us to believe that they can put time, effort and resources aside to become, effectively, a Financial Conduct Authority for their own tenants.
Dr Blackman-Woods
I am not sure why the hon. Gentleman does not think the amendment makes sense. It says:
“A dwelling must not be sold under the Right to Buy without the Housing Association having the ability to—
(a) verify the source of funding for purchase,
(b) establish who is occupying the property,
(c) check that the person/s seeking to purchase the property under Right to Buy has no interest in another property,
(d) have sufficient time to carry out checks for fraudulent activity, and
(e) be able to prepare reports on (a) – (d) for the Housing Association Board of Trustees to consider.”
I am not sure what the hon. Gentleman’s problem is. The amendment makes perfect sense to me. The hon. Gentleman might disagree with it, but that is a different issue from the amendment not making sense.
In addition to the concerns in the amendment, housing associations also wonder whether eligibility for right-to-buy discounts should exclude those tenants who are in arrears with their rent and those who receive housing benefit. Personally, I am not sure about that, but the housing associations have raised those issues.
In relation to tenants with an assured shorthold tenancy, the housing associations want to be sure that family members who wish to take part in right to buy have been occupying the property as their only and principal home for the qualifying period and that no applicant has an interest in another property. Those are sensible measures because of the discounts that apply under right to buy. As the discounts are now substantial, it is important that we encourage housing associations to account properly for how money is spent and that due diligence is allowed to happen. That seems sensible.
Mr Jackson
There is a modern trend called “virtue signalling,” and we have a version of it here. This is either an amendment that should be taken seriously and could be added to the Bill, or it is not. It is not a probing amendment so much as a wrecking amendment that is virtue signalling to our friends at the other end of the corridor—the unelected panjandrums in the House of Lords—who will be looking at this Committee’s decisions and debates.
Dr Blackman-Woods
If this is a wrecking amendment, does the hon. Gentleman accept that it is a wrecking amendment that has come from the housing associations themselves? If they have genuinely signed up to a voluntary agreement, one can only ponder why they would want to wreck this legislation.
Mr Jackson
It is apposite at yuletide to say that turkeys do not vote for Christmas. Anything that puts a burden on the housing associations would not be in the best interests of their tenants. Taking issue with the hon. Lady is like wandering down memory lane. Twenty-five years ago, when I had the honour to serve as a London borough councillor, the Labour party was going through a hard-left spasm, and it was then finding it difficult to contain its antagonism towards the first iteration of right to buy. The Labour party had to pay lip service to it, but it was all about putting bureaucratic barriers in the way of tenants exercising their proper, due right to buy. Although the Labour party pays lip service to the desire for more people to own their own homes—again, I cite the figure that 86% of people say that they want to own their own home and support right to buy—I get the feeling that somehow it has not caught up with that trend.
I say that because the hon. Lady knows that the housing associations specifically made it very clear at the evidence session that we attended a week or so ago that, in respect of pay to stay, they did not have this capacity to check. It seems—bizarre as it may appear—that housing associations do not routinely check the financial bona fides of their own tenants: their incomes, their expenditure, and the basis on which they were being housed by that private entity, for the time being, or by that social entity in the form of a housing association. It seems to me that the hon. Lady has disregarded that evidence by tabling an amendment that is onerous and bureaucratic, and would have a direct cost on front-line services in terms of the provision of social housing and specialist housing.
Given the very sensible points made by my hon. Friends the Members for Thirsk and Malton and for Wimbledon, the amendment is superfluous simply because it disregards the fact that there are already regulatory and statutory obligations and duties on several bodies to ensure that money laundering does not take place. The checks and balances that the hon. Member for City of Durham thinks that we should put into legislation by means of this amendment are simply not needed, and would put an extra bureaucratic burden on housing associations. Indeed, this amendment is not good enough and, in my humble opinion, it is a wrecking amendment. Even though the hon. Lady does not suggest it, I decry the fact that housing associations, which said that they are too busy to check their own tenants’ financial bona fides for pay to stay, would still be expected under the amendment—indeed, they suggested it through the National Housing Federation—to put in place an onerous and difficult bureaucratic regime.
Mr Thomas
While the hon. Gentleman is talking about onerous burdens on housing associations, would he like to tell the Committee whether he now shares the concerns about the onerous duties under pay to stay, to which housing associations have drawn the Committee’s attention?
The Chair
Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman might not want to do that, because we are focusing entirely on the discount.
Mr Jackson
The hon. Gentleman tempts me, but I would not want to incur the wrath of our Chair on this occasion. That particular happy hunting ground and battle royal of pay to stay are before us in the future. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is arming himself metaphorically and intellectually for that battle but, for the time being, I decry this amendment. It is unnecessary. Checks and balances exist to make sure that the proper procedures are followed to ensure that there is no criminal activity, especially money laundering, in the right-to-buy process for housing associations.
Brandon Lewis
The voluntary right-to-buy deal sets out the work done jointly by the Government and the sector to develop an efficient implementation process. This process would include measures that exist in the current right-to-buy scheme, such as eligibility tests and measures to limit fraudulent purchases—not the least among all the points raised by my hon. Friends earlier.
In the hon. Lady’s closing remarks, she made what was almost an aside about checking whether extending right to buy is—I think I quote her correctly—a “waste of money”. I say to her that perhaps she should meet people such as Wendy, whom I met in Liverpool on Friday, and others who have been able to take advantage of right to buy over the past few decades and support the reinvigorated scheme. I am getting messages from people who look forward to being able to benefit from the extended right-to-buy scheme. They will tell the hon. Lady that home ownership is not by any means a waste of money, nor is the fact that the Government will make sure that housing associations receive the full market value to use to deliver new homes.
Dr Blackman-Woods
My point was not that the right to buy and discounts are a waste of money but that, if it went to somebody who was money laundering or was, in some other way, not fit to get the right-to-buy discount, that would be a waste of money.
Brandon Lewis
All these checks and balances will be developed as part of the detailed design of the scheme currently under way and will indeed be informed by the pilot schemes announced by the Chancellor in the spending review. It is not necessary or appropriate to include them in the Bill. The clauses in the Bill are those that are necessary to make the deal work, they are not needed to duplicate the deal. I hope that the hon. Lady will withdraw the amendment.
Dr Blackman-Woods
I said that this was largely a probing amendment to see whether there was support from the Minister for giving guidance to housing associations on the sorts of eligibility tests that they might wish to carry out. It is interesting how Government Members have sought to categorise this as just further regulation when what we are really seeking to do on behalf of housing associations is ensure that they can carry out necessary checks to make sure that money is being used widely. At the risk of boring myself, I feel I have to reiterate, yet again, that the Opposition are not against the right to buy as a principle, we are simply deeply concerned and opposed to the way that this particular scheme is being rolled out with so little information in the public domain. As the amendment was largely probing, I beg to ask leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 59, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 60 and 61 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 62
Payments to Secretary of State
Mr Thomas
I beg to move amendment 186, in clause 62, page 26, line 7, at end insert—
“except in respect of a local housing authority within Greater London.
(1A) In respect of a local housing authority within Greater London the Mayor of London after consultation with the London Assembly may make a determination requiring the authority to make a payment to the Mayor in respect of a financial year.”
This clause would devolve to the Mayor of London after consultation with the Assembly, any requirements by housing authorities in London to make payments relating to the sale of high value Council housing.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 144, in clause 62, page 26, line 7, at end insert—
“(1A) Before making a determination under subsection (1) requiring a local housing authority within Greater London to make a payment, the Secretary of State must obtain the consent of the Mayor of London and the London Assembly.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to obtain the consent of the Mayor of London and the London Assembly before making a determination requiring a local housing authority in London to make a payment to the Secretary of State in respect of vacant high value housing.
Mr Thomas
The amendments represent a menu for localism in London. Amendment 186 seeks to devolve to the London Mayor and London Assembly the decision as to whether to require the forced sale of high-value council housing in a particular housing authority in London. Amendment 144 requires the specific consent of the Mayor and Assembly before that happens. I table both amendments in the spirit of the scale of the housing crisis in London. The concern is that the Government have given up on trying to help those on low and middle incomes who cannot yet afford their aspiration to buy a home and we should ensure that they have the prospect of renting decent housing in London.
A series of housing experts have registered their concern about the forced sell-off of council housing across the country, but particularly in London. Shelter, in its report “The forced council home sell-off” from September 2015, estimated that almost 80,000 of the properties that would be lost from the social housing stock under the forced sale would be in the 20 most affected local authorities, of which half are in inner London. The top 20 councils that will be most impacted by the forced sales have, between them, plans to build some 20,390 homes. The policy will put many of those plans at risk. Several inner London councils, not least Islington and Southwark, have made clear their concern that the forced homes sell-off could end their new-build programmes entirely or, in the words of Southwark Council,
“drive a coach and horses”
through their house building plans.
Brandon Lewis
As we know, amendment 186 would amend clause 62 to provide for the Mayor of London, after consultation with the London Assembly, to make a determination that would require London boroughs to make the payment of receipts raised by the sale of high-value assets to the Mayor for each financial year.
Amendment 144 would require the Secretary of State to seek the consent of the Mayor of London and the London Assembly before a determination for each local authority’s payment is sent to the local authority.
I will go through the potential impact of the amendments separately. The first would amount to a London ring fence—that is clear from what has been outlined. We have also been clear from the start that our manifesto commitment on extending right-to-buy discounts to housing association tenants will apply across England. To enable that to happen, we will need to ensure that all receipts generated from the sale of high-value assets are used across the country.
During the debate on Second Reading, I listened to a number of hon. Members who represent seats in London. Their contributions rightly stressed the importance of housing in London. The current Mayor has been focused on that, and I share his determination to deliver homes for Londoners. That is why I am working closely with my hon. Friends—for example, my hon. Friends the Members for Richmond Park and for Wimbledon—to ensure that we are able to secure a sensible approach to delivering the housing that London needs. My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park outlined that very clearly and passionately on Second Reading. My hon. Friends recognise the importance of our meeting the manifesto commitment, which is exactly what people elected the Government to do. I recognise the importance of working with my hon. Friends, the local authorities and indeed the LGA more widely.
That leads me to the point of the second amendment, which would give the Mayor and the Assembly the ability to block the Secretary of State from making a determination in respect of London local authorities. Effectively, it would be a right of veto over the Government’s implementation of policy that was contained in our manifesto. I have the utmost respect for the current Mayor and for my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park—the next Conservative Mayor of London. Let us be clear: neither of them has expressed any interest in the Mayor or the London Assembly having any such power. I can only see this as mischief-making on the part of the Opposition.
Mr Thomas
I trust that the Minister will answer the question I posed about why he is not interested in the proposal of the hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip for an extension of the Chancellor’s equity release scheme to fund the housing association sell-off, which would obviate the need for the forced sale of council homes.
Brandon Lewis
I will carry on focusing on the amendment that the hon. Gentleman has been speaking to. It would not only add an additional bureaucratic step to the process, but would mean that we want to give those bodies the ability to frustrate the Government in delivering an election mandate, which is something that I am sure the hon. Gentleman would not want to encourage anybody to do. I certainly know that my hon. Friends are not trying to do that.
As provided for in clause 62, all local authorities will be consulted on any draft determination before it is finalised, either on an individual basis or through their representative body. The details of determinations for a London local authority do not require the scrutiny of the Mayor or the London Assembly. Housing that is excluded will be set out in secondary legislation. The Department is engaging widely with local authorities and other stakeholders. Indeed, I met the leader of Harrow Council just last week along with others from across the parties. No decisions have been made yet about types of housing that could be excluded or cases when housing would not be considered as becoming vacant.
As part of our process of updating data on local authority stock, we are collecting information on the purpose of the stock held in order to understand more about the types of housing that the local authorities own. That will inform decisions on housing that will be excluded from this chapter. I welcome the thoughts of the Committee on what housing to consider excluding, and I am fully committed to finding an outcome for London that ensures that more homes are delivered. That is very much the focus of the current Mayor of London, my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip, and, indeed, of my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park. I will continue to work with all parties to achieve that.
I put on the record my thanks to the GLA and the London boroughs, across parties, for their ongoing engagement with me and my Department. I recognise the importance of ensuring that London local authorities play a key part in the process, which the amendments would frustrate. I hope the hon. Gentleman withdraws the amendment.
Mr Thomas
I note that the Minister failed to deal with the issue of alternatives that would obviate the need for the forced sale of council homes. I am disappointed that he is not willing to reflect on the proposals of the hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip, of the noble Lord Kerslake or, indeed, of the Local Government Association as to how the housing association sell-off might be financed. The amendments were tabled in the spirit of the concern that every right-to-buy sale and, therefore, every sale of a council property, has not led to a like-for-like replacement. I mention again, in passing, Shelter’s figure that only one in nine properties sold under the right to buy have been replaced with a new start on site.
Brandon Lewis
I am sure the hon. Gentleman was almost waiting, knowing that I would want to intervene. I remind him again, as I did earlier, that Shelter’s figures do not give a direct relationship. Actually, the numbers in London are almost two for one, taking account of the fact that local authorities have three years to build those extra homes.
Mr Thomas
I simply look at the overall figures for the right to buy—the scale of the difference between the number of right-to-buy sales since 2012-13, and the number of starts on site and acquisitions. There is a huge gap between those figures. If the Government were to achieve their current ambition of a one-for-one replacement, there would need to be some 22,000 starts or acquisitions by the end of 2017 to match the sale of council homes since 2012-13. That is equivalent to 2,300 per quarter. In the first quarter of 2015-16, there were just 307 starts, which suggests that we are some way from achieving even the Government’s target of one-for-one replacement. With that scepticism in mind, I cannot, sadly, accept the Minister’s assurances on this occasion, and I intend to urge the Committee to support my amendment.
Dr Blackman-Woods
I beg to move amendment 157, in clause 62, page 26, line 11, at end insert—
“(2A) The total payment required from all affected local authorities in any financial year shall not exceed the total grant paid in that year to private registered providers in respect of right to buy discounts.”
This amendment would avoid powers being used as a general means of taxing councils and tenants for the benefit of the Exchequer.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 158, in clause 62, page 26, line 11, at end insert—
“(2B) The costs and deductions referred to in section 62(2)(b) must include an estimate of the cost of replacing each high value dwelling sold with a dwelling with the same number of bedrooms in the same local authority area.”
This amendment would allow for one-for-one local replacement.
Dr Blackman-Woods
Labour Members think that clauses 62 to 72 contain some of the worst aspects of the Bill. We are certainly interested to hear from the Minister whether he thinks it is localist to insist that local authorities sell off their high-value council housing in order to pay for the right-to-buy scheme, which, as a number of Committee members will know, is seen out in the real world largely as the forced sale of council housing. We seek in this amendment and others to require the Government to ensure that no more demands than absolutely necessary are placed on local authorities to fund the right to buy.
We have many concerns about how such homes will be replaced, and about how the Government will estimate the income that they will require local authorities to pay. I wondered last year, when the Government produced a consultation paper on transparency in social housing assets value, what they had in mind. It seemed not a bad thing on the face of it to have some information about the value of assets in the social housing sector.
However, when the consultation paper was issued and when the Government published their response in November 2014, it was not immediately apparent what they had in mind, because a number of local authorities that responded said, “Yes, we think it’s a fairly good idea that we get some information about the value of our assets. We already do this partly,” or “We already do this sometimes, internally; why do the Government want us to do this so immediately—by April 2015—without giving us adequate time to put a proper valuation system in place? Indeed, why is it restricted to authorities that have a housing revenue account?” I could go on. As I said, people were not necessarily against having some say that would put a valuation on council stock, but it was not apparent to a lot of people who were responding to the consultation why that information would be needed in the way that it was requested by the Government or in the particular timeframe.
I raised that at the beginning because it means that, somewhere along the line, for one reason or another, the Government thought about the value of local authority stock and, perhaps, what it could be used for. It is interesting that a number of the comments that came forward eventually into the Conservative party manifesto said that, under the consultation—and, indeed, more widely—it was seeking to question the efficiency of the use of council stock. This high-value housing was being used to support and house poor families, which perhaps was not an efficient use of council housing stock. I am paraphrasing, and trying to describe the intention to the Committee. If Government Members want to correct me on that supposition, I am happy to take interventions, but outside that supposition I am not sure what is meant by “efficiency”.
What came forward from the Conservative party manifesto was that there would be a question about whether using high-value housing stock with a social rent attached to it to house people who were desperately in need of affordable social housing was the most efficient use. The Conservative view was that the housing could be sold off to fund a right to buy; that, regardless of whether it was going to be sold or not, a levy would then be attached to it; that local authorities, regardless of whether they were able, or wished, to sell the property and remove it from the housing stock, would have to do so; and that the estimate of income would be applied. That is one of the things we find most difficult about the clause. That is why we have tabled amendments that would limit the circumstances when it could be applied but would ensure that, in addition to the cost of selling the stock, there would be an indication that the stock would be replaced in a similar way and in a similar area, so as not to remove from the stock of housing available to local authorities much needed social rented property, which is vital to house the most vulnerable in our communities.
We know that, under clause 62, the Secretary of State may make a determination that requires local authorities to make payment to the Exchequer based on an estimate of how much high-value housing the local authority expects to become vacant in the upcoming financial year. That is what we are seeking to address with our amendment. We already know that the Minister has no definite information about the number of high-value housing units that will become vacant in the coming years. We know that because we do not know how much high-value housing there is. It is difficult to determine how much high-value housing will become vacant if we do not know how much high-value housing there is in the first place. We do not know a great deal about either of those things.
We do think that the numbers of vacant properties that come forward will be much more limited than the Minister has perhaps estimated. That means that payments to the Secretary of State may in fact be higher than the total grant paid in that year to private registered providers in respect of right-to-buy discounts.
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
I asked my local authority for an estimate of how many expensive council homes would become vacant each year, and the estimate that it gave me was 19. That puts the matter in context. If they are not available in a borough such as mine in inner London, in parts of which the land and house prices are rising very rapidly, it will be a case of being forced to fall back on a more direct levy on local authorities.
Dr Blackman-Woods
My hon. Friend makes a vital point and helps to emphasise what Opposition Members are saying, which is that we have grave concerns about how the estimate will work in practice. It could bear no relation to reality whatever. I would have thought that it was very important for the Minister to have a much clearer idea of the number of homes that will become vacant and the amount of money that will be attached to them. In fact, we seem to be hearing—my hon. Friend has just made this point very well—that the numbers of vacant properties coming forward that are deemed to be of high value, however that is to be determined, are in fact limited.
Savills, the property adviser, estimates that the Government are likely to raise only £3.2 billion a year from 5,500 council home sales. Savills says that that is well below the projection made by the Conservative party of £4.5 billion in receipts a year from 15,000 sales. As we can see, that is quite a discrepancy in terms not only of the numbers of homes that will become available under the clause, but of the amount of money that will be raised.
Amendment 157 is designed to ensure that local authorities do not lose out and, ultimately, to ensure that the powers given to the Secretary of State in clause 62 are not used as a power of general taxation. We feel that that might be the case if the estimate bears no relation to reality—a levy might simply be placed on local authorities that have council housing stock. We are deeply concerned about what the measure might mean, and not only in terms of loss of stock if local authorities do sell the homes. We think that, whether they decide to sell the homes or not, they will not raise the amount of money that the Government thinks they should and therefore that a levy will be applied to them. That could be instead of selling the homes, but it is more likely that it would be in addition to that.
The Chair
I intend to suspend the sitting at 5 pm to accommodate an Opposition briefing on Syria. There will potentially be votes at 6 pm, followed by a Government briefing on Syria, so the sitting will be suspended until 7.15 pm to accommodate also time for supper.
Westminster Hall
(8 years, 4 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Armed Drones
(8 years, 4 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the rules of engagement and the use of armed drones.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. In all my time in the House of Commons, this is the first time that I have proposed a motion in Westminster Hall, so I beg your indulgence for any errors of procedure that I make.
The issue before us is hugely topical, particularly given the debate on Syria in the House tomorrow. Armed drones, unmanned aerial vehicles or unmanned combat aerial vehicles have been described by some as just another weapon system—a modern version of the rifle or the missile—and by others as offering unparalleled operational potential, but with associated strategic risks.
In the recently published strategic defence and security review, the Government proposed 20 new Protector armed drones to
“enhance our…global strike capability”,
by which I assume the Government mean inside and outside war zones. That distinction will come up time and again in what I have to say and, I hope, in the Minister’s response.
Reconnaissance drones—I will deal with these for a second without going into the armed element—give troops enormous advantages. They are an unblinking eye in the sky for 24 hours a day, with a very wide angle of view and great precision. They are enormously valuable to special forces and in counter-insurgency operations, let alone in conventional warfare. They are reliable, give real-time intelligence, and are able to replay events quickly so that troops can know what has just happened.
Last week, the all-party parliamentary group on drones and the Royal United Services Institute had a conference on drones, at which we were addressed by probably the greatest warrior of modern times, General Stanley McChrystal, and his English counterpart, Graeme Lamb, both of whom devised and operated the strategy against al-Qaeda in Iraq and destroyed that organisation. In doing so, one of the primary tactics involved using a drone to backtrack any suicide bomb attack on the green zone, signals intelligence to follow up on the origin of it, and special forces to arrest and stop the instigators. That allowed us pretty much completely to eradicate al-Qaeda in Iraq, so it was an incredibly important element of our operation there.
McChrystal talked about the use of drones as a force multiplier. For example, if 20 people were sent in to make an attack, 80 or 100 force protection soldiers were needed. Those are no longer needed because of the reconnaissance sight capability, so drones are an incredibly important weapon system, even just as a reconnaissance system. They are also incredibly precise strike weapons. They are apparently largely riskless, with very little chance of loss of human lives on our side, and have pinpoint-accurate strike capability. The use of drones can therefore provide a never-ending threat inside and outside war zones. I will come back to the difference between the never-ending threats in those two categorisations in a moment.
Drones consist of relatively accessible technologies. As a result, we might take it that proliferation is inevitable. That is one of the strategic risks that I want the Government to consider. Beyond that, there are other genuine concerns. The first was made clear by General McChrystal last week: on one hand, drones lower the threshold for and make it easier to enter into armed conflict, and appear to remove the risk to our personnel and to render warfare almost like a video game; on the other hand, there is an illusion of precision. For those reasons, drones make the propensity to go to war far greater for countries that are worried about, say, their casualties. Most countries will concern themselves about casualties. Casualties are the political price paid for going to war and, as we will see with the Chilcot inquiry shortly, they create a great back pressure against war. As I said, there is an illusion of precision. One forgets that many of the reasons for imprecise targeting are not the drones or the weapon system, but the intelligence on which the targeting is based. Very often there is a precise weapon system, but it is not more precise than the intelligence can make it.
The other point made by General McChrystal that is worth considering is that the use of drones may make accidental conflict more likely. He cited the example of the Turkish air force shooting down a Russian aircraft a week or so ago, and said that had the incursions by the Russians into Turkish airspace been made by drones, they would have been shot down much earlier because the price of the action would have been smaller. That may lead to a lower threshold for an aerial conflict, so there are other ways that the use of drones can reduce the threshold. As such, one of the strategic risks of the use of armed drones is an increased risk of armed conflict.
The second point that came up, which is not really a strategic risk but is a matter of concern, was the effects on drone pilots. There was a great deal of concern about the fact that drone pilots, as it were, go home to their families each night with no time to decompress after effectively being in the war zone all day. They witness the violence, whereas most people who are involved in a war are distanced, at least to some extent, from the people who suffer from their weapon system. The sheer fidelity of the drone systems makes the witnessing very close and personal, in some senses. The sheer number of kills that some armed drone squadrons achieve increases the stress. One squadron was attributed with 1,626 kills, which is far more than any normal aircraft squadron would carry out. There is a long-distance version of post-traumatic stress disorder.
However, one other element worried me even more than that. It comes back to the legalities, to which I will return in a minute in putting a question to the Minister. If we undertake drone attacks outside a defined war zone, the location from which those attacks are operated may become part of a war zone, and we may legitimise a counter-attack on that area. Since many of those places are in rear areas, that has real issues for the operation of our RAF bases, such as RAF Waddington.
The big strategic risk that was raised by a number of people, particularly McChrystal, at the RUSI conference was the damaging impact on hearts and minds in battle. For those suffering drone attacks, there is an inability to strike back, a fear of constant danger, and a never-ending threat that is always there. There is strong evidence that this syndrome radicalises and militarises civilians, and unites militants. Drones can act as a recruiting sergeant. The most obvious example is the American drone operation in Pakistan, which, although it has taken out a lot of Taliban leaders, has also acted to recruit a number of others to their cause. Again, I suspect that will manifest itself in the battle against ISIL, because such organisations recruit worldwide. Last year, ISIL’s estimated recruitment was 30,000, having climbed from 15,000 during the course of the American attacks in Syria. That is an incredibly serious element of the strategic risk of using drones. From that point of view, drones are perhaps the biggest risk that we undertake.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
Was there any discussion at the conference of how soon it will be before terrorist organisations are able to organise attacks using drone technology, or at least a modified version of it?
Mr Davis
No, not particularly. There was a reference to it, but it was a throwaway line, and I cannot tell you the originator of the reference because of Chatham House rules. As I said earlier, plainly the nature of the technology involved in drones is awfully straightforward: the aerodynamics are straightforward; the motive power is straightforward; and the guidance systems are straightforward. Of course, lots of commercial drones are now available. Making an attack drone would take more than that, but it is pretty straightforward to achieve almost every element of building a drone—perhaps not a terribly sophisticated Predator or Reaper drone, or whatever, but a drone that might be used for a single-shot attack, or that could get to a location that is otherwise well protected against terrorist attack. It is absolutely clear that, if that is not possible now, it will be possible in the extremely close future. Drones are an element of proliferation that I suspect is already out of the bag. There is not much that we can do about it except plan our defences against drone attacks. That is too big a story for this debate, but the hon. Gentleman makes a good point.
I now come to the nub of this debate. The legal framework we create for drones has implications for strategic risk, for the way drones are used, and for whether their use acts as a recruiting sergeant. All the elements that I have talked about can be affected by the legal framework, which needs clarity to maintain the UK’s international standing and to protect the pilots and the armed forces from prosecution. It is not fair to ask our soldiers to carry out tasks without absolute legal certainty. Most of us do not know the exact background of some of the recent drone strikes—I am sure the Minister knows, but I do not. After the Khan strike, a headline in The Sunday Times stated “Army chief demanded legal cover for killing”. The article claimed that the director of special forces asked for specific legal advice on the strike. I do not know whether that is true, but it highlights one of the issues for me, which is that when we are going into a controversial military technology, we must absolutely ensure that the officers who use it are properly protected and clearly understand the limits of its use and where they might cross the rules of war, international law and so on. That is one of the major drivers of my argument.
When Reyaad Khan and Ruhul Amin were targeted in Syria by a UK drone on 21 August 2015, the Government claimed:
“This airstrike was a necessary and proportionate exercise of the individual right of self-defence of the United Kingdom.”
The Government also said that there was “clear evidence” that these individuals were planning and directing armed attacks against the United Kingdom. There was a lot of debate about that at the time, and there were questions about how imminent the attack might be, and how it was possible for there to be an imminent attack when these individuals were in Syria and the attack was cited as being in the UK. Some of the events that were cited happened in advance of the air strike, so it is not obvious how they could have been prevented by it. There was a series of arguments, but the basic argument was imminent self-defence.
In a letter to the United Nations, the Government cited the collective self-defence of Iraq as the second argument for the strike. I am not a lawyer, but it seems self-evident that this is a little like someone turning up in court to face an assault charge and saying, “I wasn’t there, but if I was there, he started it.” One argument undermines the other. The presentation of two arguments to the United Nations weakens, rather than enhances, the claim. I do not know why that was done, but again it highlights why we need absolute clarity on such matters. This is not an area in which we can risk having doubt—in the interests of our officers, let alone in the interest of our national reputation—about whether we have done the right thing.
As it stands, an armed attack must already have been launched, or at least be imminent, in order for states to resort to force in individual or collective self-defence; that is one element. Action against past attacks, if not done during the course of a war, risks being categorised as reprisal, which is unlawful in peacetime. Action against future attacks, which might be considered pre-emptive or preventive, is also considered unlawful. There is quite a narrow gap for strikes, which must be necessary and proportionate.
The concern raised by the Khan attack, and indeed by the subsequent attack by the Americans, relates to what we might call “targeted killing”—some have used the phrase “extrajudicial killing.” The concern, which again was raised by General McChrystal, among others, was that that could be seen as an easier alternative to arrest or prosecution when dealing with terrorists. We had that argument in Northern Ireland 30 years ago, when we were accused of hard arrests, as it were. We do not want to revisit that argument, because it was pretty unedifying at the time. If we give in to temptation and such strikes happen, it may be morally right in the case of the individuals concerned, but it would be legally dubious. At the very least, it would amount to a significant change in the Government’s stance on what is legal and what is not, and it therefore requires careful consideration.
Those concerns are amplified by the recent change in the ministerial code relating to international law. I happen not to think that the change has any legal standing but, from a political point of view, it raises concerns that, again, could be used against us by our opponents. I have argued time and again that one of our strongest counter-terrorism weapons is the fact that we abide by a high moral standard. If we do not abide by a high moral standard, we lose one battle to our opponents straightaway.
I am driving towards the relationship between the rules of engagement and the legalities I have just mentioned. This is my direct question to the Minister; I understand that she may not be able to answer it today, but hopefully she will be able to indicate where she is going towards on this question. If the rules of engagement are properly drawn up, they must be within the law, within declared Government policy and within any parliamentary limits that have been set. The Syria debate will address the limits set by Parliament, but action must fit within all three areas. I would normally assume that to be the case but, after our conference last week, I got a memo from somebody who does not want to be identified, so forgive me if I do not identify him. The memo encapsulates the problem about which I am worrying:
“Following the conference last week, I came away with the distinct impression that the MoD is using a different lexicon to the APPG and academe resulting in us talking at cross purposes. Where the APPG and Human Rights Select Committee…are talking about war zones and so forth the MoD have very carefully couched their wording in terms of RoE and operational areas.
Typically RoE have an opening preamble covering the legitimacy of the operation involved…The wording for this will be sanctioned by the MoD legal advisers and endorsed by the law officers’ staff. The RoE then set out the area of operations and it was clear to me from the comments at the conference that this area included parts of Syria—hence everything being done (including 21 Aug) was within the RoE. Typically the MoD and lower formations take the law officers’ confirmation of legitimacy as gospel. They also then seek to make the rules as flexible as possible to allow commanders the greatest possible latitude.”
Essentially, he is saying that the MOD is using a set of language to explain the rules of engagement and the area of operation that is not the same as the law officers’ definition of what is and is not a war zone and the like. That seems important.
The relationship between the rules of engagement, international and national law and policy is the point where the rubber meets the road. One can expect soldiers and airmen to operate on the basis of the rules of engagement only, and nothing else. We must be very clear in this area.
The Joint Committee on Human Rights has begun an inquiry on the legality of the drones policy. There are three pages of questions—I will not read them out—that crystallise the inquiry. They are all good questions, but I finish on the point that drones are not just another weapons system; they are an incredibly effective weapons system subject to legal and technical proliferation, and to change in the behaviour patterns of both politicians and senior commanders. There is a great risk of acting in a way that is tactically incredibly successful but strategically dangerous. It seems to me that we need a clear and unambiguous legal policy, in the interests of our soldiers, our citizens and our allies.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I am pleased that the Backbench Business Committee agreed that this was an important debate to have, and I thank them for that. I also thank the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) for his contribution. He made highly relevant and pertinent points, some of which I might repeat. I make no apology for that, because we are discussing a serious matter. I also hope to consider the use of drones from the human perspective, including that of our service personnel.
I echo the sentiments of the right hon. Gentleman, who raised significant concerns about the operational parameters, thresholds and legal framework for the use of drones. Like him, I note the killing of UK citizens by British drones in Raqqa earlier this year. The UK Government have a clear desire at the moment to engage in a campaign of air strikes, which reinforces the importance of having debates such as this fully at the appropriate time. We need proper and clearly understood parameters and a legal basis for any military action that we take. Those parameters are most appropriately discussed and agreed before and not after we ask our service personnel to undertake action.
It is vital that we take the time in this debate to consider and assess the use of armed and unarmed drones and the legal and structural frameworks within which they are used. Because we are responsible for their use, we must also consider the impact upon the people against whom such weapons are used and understand that sometimes they are not the desired or intended target. We must also consider the impact on those whose job involves operating drones.
Clearly, technology is moving fast. Not only are military drones available to our armed forces and those of other nations, but the technology is becoming more accessible and advanced all the time. I understand that companies such as DHL and Amazon are beginning to research the deployment of commercial delivery drones for business purposes. We must assume that such technology will be available not only to our friends but, as the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) noted, to those who wish us ill. We must consider that. I know that technology to counter such a situation is under development too.
We must consider those whom we ask to operate drones. It is our duty to look after military personnel operating within a conflict zone; that is equally relevant whether crews are miles away or have not moved from their desks during their deployment because they are engaging in the conflict by operating a drone. Clearly, a key decision-making factor will be the fact that the use of drones does not directly endanger our service personnel, which is important. The ability to control drones remotely means that our personnel can operate effectively out of harm’s way, and we must see the positive in that. However, Chris Cole of Drone Wars UK strikes a cautionary note:
“Drones swing the balance away from engaging in the often difficult and long-term work of solving the root causes of conflicts through diplomatic and political means, towards a quick, short-term ‘fix’ of ‘taking out the bad guys’.”
However, it may not be the bad guys who end up on the receiving end of drone strikes, which is surely a cause for concern and another reason to consider legality. Studies on US targets have revealed a number of flaws in how targets are identified, including during a number of strikes resulting from electronic communications that officials subsequently acknowledged as unreliable.
David Cortright, the policy director of the Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies, also raises ethical questions about drone use as a means of combating terrorism. He cautions that after 10 years of combat in Afghanistan and given the current high levels of threat from terrorist attacks, of which we are all aware, we ought to know better. We may need to consider that point. Additionally, former Pentagon adviser David Kilcullen has testified that drone strikes arouse anger, which coalesces populations around extremists. As we have heard, recent terrorist attacks in Pakistan are seen as a direct response to drone attacks. Reports from the federally administered tribal areas in Pakistan suggest that it is a matter of honour under the tribal code for the families of drone attack victims to seek revenge. The US drone programme, operating largely in declared war zones, counts nearly 90% of people killed in recent drone strikes in Afghanistan as not the intended targets of those attacks.
From a legal perspective, such statistics and reports cause concern. Yasmine Ahmed, director of Rights Watch UK, told the Joint Committee on Human Rights that clarity is required about the framework on which the UK Government rely in their use of targeted drone strikes, and I agree. Although the UK Attorney General suggested in September this year that UK Government actions on targeted drone killings complied with humanitarian law, serious questions still remain, including on the definition of a combatant and the assessment of those killings as militarily necessary.
In 2010, Sir Gus O’Donnell presented the parliamentary convention on when the UK Government are expected to provide Parliament with the opportunity to debate decisions to use military force. Except in an emergency, approval in advance is required. It is therefore concerning that the unprecedented use of a drone strike to kill a UK citizen in Syria outside the context of war was not notified to Parliament in advance. The facts of the incident have not yet emerged into the public domain, leaving the parameters within which the Government are working unclear to us.
The use of drones must also be considered in relation to those whom we deploy to operate them. I am pleased that we have discussed mental health provision for service personnel in this House recently; the issue deserves scrutiny, understanding and resource. In such discussions, it is imperative that we also fully consider the impact on mental health of being a drone operator.
In 2013, the US Armed Forces Health Surveillance Centre published a report noting that operators of unmanned drones can suffer the same psychological problems as operators of manned drones and similar problems to aircrew. In addition, it said that the negative psychological impacts do not present themselves only as post-traumatic stress disorder. Because of the level of emotional distance between operators and the reality of the human targets that they are pursuing, there are concerns that it might remove the human aspect of their work.
Last month, The Guardian published an article in which a number of former air force drone operators and technicians had come to the paper to discuss their opposition to the ongoing reliance on unmanned drones. One ex-operator described his experience this way:
“Ever step on ants and never give it another thought? That’s what you are made to think of the targets—as just black blobs on a screen. You start to do these psychological gymnastics to make it easier to do what you have to do—they deserved it, they chose their side. You had to kill part of your conscience to keep doing your job every day—and ignore those voices telling you this wasn’t right.”
Questions have been raised about the psychological effects of the very real distance between operator and target, which has sometimes been described as encouraging a PlayStation mentality amongst drone operators. That is a danger in having to remotely control the aircraft separately from the events on screen, as operators can disconnect from the reality of their control over the drones. The UN special rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions raised the concept of a videogame mentality in a 2010 report to the UN Human Rights Council.
Recently, the BBC also highlighted the impact of the job upon the mental wellbeing of drone operators. It reported on the RAF’s 13 Squadron, which operates drones from an aircraft hangar in Lincolnshire. The operators there, who are all qualified and experienced military pilots, work in shifts, controlling aircraft thousands of miles away. The preparation and processes that they undergo are exactly the same as those required for flying a conventional aircraft, and once the door to the workspace is closed the pilots report that it puts them psychologically in that airspace, with all the emotions and thought processes being exactly the same as on manned planes.
One RAF crew member is reported as saying that the potential for psychological and emotional impact on drone operators was
“far greater than it ever was with a manned cockpit”.
He explained that the impressive resolution of drones such as Reaper means that operators know exactly what is on the other end of their crosshairs, and that this immediacy of targeting is also magnified by the fact that the drone crews are “airborne” for hours and hours. Also, unlike conventional crews, they do not have four-month tours but a year-round job, with a proportionately greater risk of suffering post-traumatic stress disorder.
Similar issues are being reported in the USA, with concerns regarding the psychological impact of drone crew experience, and difficulties with crew retention and recruitment. These difficulties are becoming a significant issue, with drone crew members keen to transfer to conventional crews, and consideration now being given to financial incentives to persuade pilots to remain on drone crews, where numbers are becoming critical because three times more pilots are aiming to leave drone crews than conventional crews. Studies have also indicated a concern about psychological numbing, which is attributed to crew seeing the very clear, direct video feed.
Mr David Davis
The hon. Lady is very eloquently laying out one of the major areas of concern about the use of this weapons system. Does she think that if the drone operators know unequivocally that what they are doing is legal, it would make their job easier and their chance of suffering stress lower?
Kirsten Oswald
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention; he makes a very important point. If we expect our service personnel to go into any conflict situation, whether they are in a conventional aircraft or operating a drone, it is our responsibility to make sure that there is a legal basis for that action.
There is an ethical dilemma when drone operators are faced with their targets. In the USA, it is being considered whether it might be better to replace the images that crew members see with modified interfaces. It is possible to do that, but of course the concern then arises that it would potentially introduce an unethical level of emotional distance, which could lead to a lack of recognition of those affected by strikes as people, dehumanising them. I note that the right hon. Gentleman had heard General McChrystal express similar concerns.
That disconnect has also been reported as causing operators challenges in coming to terms with the effects of their actions on both combatants and civilians, and their working environment can contribute to that. After their shift, operators head home in their cars, thousands of miles from the results of their day’s work and—crucially—remote from the opportunity to assimilate their experiences with those of colleagues, as would be the case in a more conventional setting.
Looking to the future, it was recently disclosed that the United States military are using civilian operators to fly drones that are tracking suspected militants and other targets across the globe. This is part of a privatisation of job roles that were previously exclusively undertaken by military personnel. The Los Angeles Times reports that civilian pilots operate combat air patrols that daily fly through areas where military operations are taking place. These civilian operators provide video and collect sensitive information for the United States air force. Although they are not permitted to pinpoint targets or fire missiles at them, they are clearly operating military drones, which is prompting questions, because they are now part of what the USAF refers to as the “kill chain”, which starts with surveillance and ends with the launching of missiles.
That is not the situation that we are faced with now in the UK, but we are faced with a situation in which the thresholds of operation—the legalities and the parameters— are unclear. It is also a situation where, notwithstanding the potential for use of drones, unintended consequences reign supreme. For these reasons, I call upon the Government to debate this issue further, and I would be delighted to hear further information from the Minister about the points that I have made.
Graham Stringer (in the Chair)
Order. I intend to call the Front-Bench spokespersons at 10.30 am. There are 25 minutes left for other speakers, so I hope you can do the arithmetic yourself.
Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) for securing the debate. As ever, he made a thoughtful and insightful contribution. He is also a man of boundless optimism—after all, he suggested that we would hear from the Chilcot inquiry “shortly”.
Unmanned aerial vehicles, or drones, have undoubtedly proved devastatingly effective. Militarily, as my right hon. Friend pointed out, their use has assisted in expelling al-Qaeda from large tracts of Pakistan—albeit not without some cost, and I agree precisely with what he and General McChrystal had to say—and from Yemen. Politically, drones have allowed the US in particular to pursue strategic objectives without needing to put boots on the ground in an era when, as we all know, there is very little appetite among western electorates for their countries to engage in further overseas military adventures.
Without doubt, the development of drone technology will continue apace in the years ahead. Drones will assuredly be an essential part of the furniture of international warfare and, as a consequence, their use will require a thorough overhaul of international law and regulation. That overhaul is still to come.
In the euphoria that surrounds the decisive deployment of drones to eliminate terrorist leaders from afar, it is also worth reflecting—as the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) did earlier—that before the world is too much older our enemies will also enjoy access to this technology, with potentially calamitous effect. Terrorists and even criminal extortion gangs will soon be able to operate hardware of this sort, the cost and capability of which is rapidly coming within their range.
The use of drones by the UK military was first avowed as recently as September, when the Prime Minister announced the extrajudicial killings of two UK citizens, Reyaad Khan and Junaid Hussain, who had joined ISIL in Syria and featured prominently in a propaganda video that promoted and encouraged terrorist attacks on UK soil. Of course, the UK Government wished to place those deaths on the record lest details seeped out via a freedom of information inquiry, as happened in July regarding joint US-UK air strikes over Syrian airspace. Moreover, the US policy of routine avowal of fatal drone attacks created the risk that eagle-eyed observers might notice that the two operations resulting in the deaths of Khan and Hussain had not been similarly gazetted. It is better to take the initiative rather than allow lurid conclusions to be drawn. In November, Mohammed Emwazi—alias “Jihadi John”—was similarly dispatched in co-operation with the US military.
For as long as such ISIL-supporting British terrorists were at large on Syrian soil, it would evidently have been impossible to bring them to trial. To be fair, there is a distinction between the situation today and that in Ulster some 40 years ago. Of course there were ungoverned spaces in parts of Londonderry and Belfast, but there are massive tracts within Syria that make it impossible to bring people to trial. None the less, their terrorist activity was designed to cause mayhem on UK soil. We are de facto at war with the so-called Islamic State, and as a consequence Khan and Hussain might properly be regarded as combatants. However, the strong inclination in the post-Iraq war era to provide watertight legal cover for all military operations led, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden said, to the drone raid being classed as “self-defence” under article 51 of the UN charter.
That has opened up a series of contentious issues. For example, were the primary subjects of the drone attack “directing an attack”, and was such an attack “imminent”? As a consequence, our intelligence agencies will need to show after each drone strike that they have carefully considered the operation of article 51, unless we have the change in law that I will come on to. We need to keep the terms of such drone operations under regular, if not constant, review.
Mr David Davis
My right hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point. One of the difficulties with such a legal basis is the requirement of imminence, which gives us an evidential problem. Presumably there was some sort of terrorist cell in this country that was about to carry out a terrorist action, and the Government have failed or refused to answer questions about whether there have been any arrests in the follow-up to that strike. That gives us a problem. The Government may have good reason for not giving us the information, but when drone strikes are carried out they will have to be ready to provide an evidential chain of some sort to show that what they did was correct.
Mark Field
I very much agree with my right hon. Friend’s comments. It seems to me that we need to keep the terms of drone use under regular, if not constant, review, and that before seeking ministerial authorisation the intelligence agencies would have needed to conclude that the individuals posed an imminent and clear threat to national security. It is also essential that our security services satisfy themselves that a drone strike, rather than any attempt at apprehension, is both necessary and proportionate. The issue of collateral damage—the impact of a strike upon innocent civilians in the vicinity—has been incredibly controversial, especially in Pakistan and Yemen, where it has often been recognised that US strikes have necessitated discreet co-operation with host Governments.
In truth, the increasingly sophisticated monitoring of mobile phones, other telephony and emails has enhanced the ability to target suspects with virtually pinpoint accuracy—it was notable that the only other fatalities in the two UK strikes this summer were associates. That is a good thing; we should try as far as possible to minimise collateral damage.
Nevertheless, I agree with other contributors to the debate that there is now an urgent, and possibly unanswerable, case for updated legislation to govern the use of—not to mention the continued reliance upon—new drone technology. That would allow the Prime Minister and the Government of the day to act with the timing and precision required to wage effective operations, without first having to consider how to navigate the complex labyrinth of precedent, law and parliamentary approval that currently blunts us. The US War Powers Act goes some way to providing a template in that regard, bestowing on the Executive branch the ability to give the green light to action without congressional approval, while maintaining a series of vital checks, safeguards and balances.
It is worth recalling that US legal justification in relation to the use of drones on overseas targets has historically been markedly less strenuous. That has arguably caused difficulties in the ungoverned parts of the world where “Five Eyes” co-operation is often strongest—Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan and, more recently, parts of Syria. The UK security services’ knowledge that intelligence passed to their US counterparts is used to launch drone strikes without, for example, any clear imminent threat to national security, potentially places the UK military, and our own workers, in a legal quagmire.
Although a common protocol among western allies would be ideal, that would necessitate an open political debate about the desirability of adopting the hit list approach that the US military have for selecting drone targets. For the Obama Administration, that approach has essentially involved a rolling update of named individuals, with the list being refreshed whenever there is a successful drone attack involving the assassination of terrorist targets. Needless to say, such an approach is far removed from the necessity for the prior legal approval of each and every step under British law as it currently stands.
Thank you, Mr Stringer, for allowing me to speak for rather longer than my requisite minutes, but I did take some interventions. I very much look forward to the Minister’s response to the debate, and to her recognising that we need new legislation and some genuine thought about the matter, not just in the context of what is happening in Syria but, I suspect, for many years to come.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
I broadly agree with all the contributions made so far, by Members on both sides of the House. My interest in the matter was sparked when the Prime Minister announced to the House that drones had been used by the UK in Syria to kill Reyaad Khan—a UK citizen, albeit one who had been radicalised and had chosen to go and fight for ISIL/Daesh in Syria. I realised that I had met the young man many years previously, during a discussion about politics with a group of young people at a youth forum in my constituency. At that time, he was an engaging young man who was interested in politics, and whose political views seemed perfectly normal. When he was a teenager, there was no sign that he would end up being radicalised, choose to go to Syria and join ISIL/Daesh, and come to the end that he did, perhaps inevitably. It provides food for thought when a constituent one happens to have met ends up meeting such a fate.
I will not go into too much detail, because that is not necessarily within the wishes of Reyaad Khan’s family, but I should make it clear that the radicalisation horrified his parents. Many months before the outcome that eventually befell Reyaad Khan, I had written to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to ask, at the family’s request—his parents thought he was in Turkey, perhaps on his way to Syria—for any assistance the FCO could possibly provide, through our consular services in Turkey, in finding a reason to intercept the young man and return him to the UK. I want to make it absolutely clear that the family, who were desperately concerned, were making efforts to prevent the young man from travelling to Syria. That is a tale for us all; as Members of Parliament, we need to be aware of what can happen to our constituents.
Our sympathy should, of course, principally be with the victims of ISIL/Daesh, but extremely difficult and concerning questions of ethics and legality are raised when the UK Government use a remote drone to kill a UK citizen in a country with which, technically, the UK is not at war, even if that citizen has participated in actions carried out by a non-state actor, such as ISIL/Daesh, that undoubtedly presents a direct threat to the UK’s security. Many of the legal issues have already been mentioned, and because of the time I will not go into any great detail. I am not naive enough, however, to believe that the justification used by the Government, and cited by the Prime Minister in the Chamber of the House of Commons, tells us the full story about what legal advice has been given to the Government, and what the justification for the targeting of Reyaad Khan and others has been.
I know that the Minister will not be able to respond to this—I have put it directly to Ministers before—but I have to put on the record that in my view there is in the Ministry of Defence a list of names of UK citizens for whom there is, in effect, a pre-authorisation in place. There would have to be a final signing off, but if those individuals became available to be targeted, they could be targeted. That does call into question, under article 51 of the United Nations charter, the justification on the basis of the imminence of attacks.
Several hon. Members rose—
Kevin Brennan
I will give way to the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis).
Mr David Davis
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, which impinges on the speech made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field). One of the most worrying things for me about American policy is the idea that the President approves a kill list every Thursday morning, or whenever it is. That is the kind of area in which I do not think we want to go in the direction of the Americans. Politicians should not have the right to strike someone from the face of the earth, no matter what the logic. Does the hon. Gentleman agree?
Kevin Brennan
I will just make a little progress. That is why it is so important that we have this debate, and why the Joint Committee on Human Rights inquiry is so important. I understand that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), who is not here today, has written to the Secretary of State for Defence expressing her concern about the Ministry’s lack of co-operation with that inquiry. Will the Minister, in her response, confirm that the Committee will get the Ministry’s full co-operation, obviously within the parameters of what it can say on this matter?
Kevin Brennan
I will, briefly, but I am conscious of time. If the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Kirsten Oswald) will forgive me, I probably will not give way a further time.
Mark Field
If article 51, which states that there has to be an imminent threat, is to mean anything, the security services—and, indeed, Ministers who are considering the issue—need to be in a position to update such a list constantly. The notion that an individual is on a list until such time as they are eliminated or assassinated seems to be at odds with article 51. There needs to be a process whereby the question of whether a person is still an imminent threat to the UK is regularly turned over in people’s minds.
Kevin Brennan
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. I will be interested to see whether the Minister illuminates that issue further in her response to the debate.
I want to raise one other issue, which is whether there should be an inquest into the death of Reyaad Khan. The case, it is fair to say, is fairly unique, but it has possibly led to similar cases. To some extent, an inquest might help establish some of the legal parameters in such cases. I have received representations on this—not from constituents, but from others. As I understand it, section 9 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 effectively grants global jurisdiction in respect of the potential unlawful killing of a British citizen. There is no question but that the issue of legality has been raised, and is under debate; we would not be here today if there was not a question mark about the legality. Can the Minister tell us whether the Government have a view on whether an inquest would be appropriate, if it is correct that the 1861 Act has global jurisdiction, and that the action that led to the death of this British citizen, albeit one who was acting in such a way as to be an enemy of the UK, was physically initiated in the UK, although the weapon used to carry it out was physically located elsewhere? Given the time constraints, I will not go on much longer, but I am interested to hear her response.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. I thank the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) for bringing the issue to the House and for putting a clear analysis on the record. Drones have become an increasingly integral part of defence, and their capabilities have gone far beyond surveillance. We have the ability to use drones for combat purposes, which is what the debate is all about. We have concerns about drones being indiscriminate, and worries about whether we can be specific in our targeting using such automated systems. However, while military systems have an increasing range of automated functions, no fully autonomous systems are in use. The operation of a drone still needs human input, so it is fair to say that there is still a large enough degree of control. There is no reason why drones should be more indiscriminate than air strikes, boots on the ground or any other method of combat. Humans control drones and work within the rules.
When it comes to surveillance, there is no doubt that drones have revolutionised our ability effectively to gather intelligence across all corners of the globe. We have already seen drones take out incredibly dangerous individuals and gather the intelligence required for forces to go in at ground level and take targets out. Clearly there have been positives resulting from drone use, but that does not mean we should not be mindful of the concerns about their use expressed by some Members. We can do more to address such concerns by taking formal steps better to educate stakeholders and the public as to what drones actually are. Contrary to popular belief, they are not indiscriminate, pilotless killing machines, but state-of-the-art, precise and remotely piloted military systems, controlled by highly professional, highly trained individuals. Decisions about how a drone behaves when on an operation are made by pilots, analysts and a whole team in real time, just like the crew of a traditional aircraft. All UK drone pilots have to follow the law of armed conflict and the rules of engagement in exactly the same manner as pilots of traditional manned aircraft.
The decision-making process leading to the identification and engagement of targets is identical to that for conventionally manned aircraft. More than that, as our drone pilots have greater access to information, through a combination of the aircraft’s on-board sensors and the ability to access off-board information, they are the best informed and least pressurised of all our aircrew who have to make critical decisions about when to strike.
In the real world, drones’ capabilities save the lives of our personnel, allies and civilians daily. The vast majority of civilian casualties in the middle east are caused by insurgents, terrorists and truly indiscriminate murderers. It is our remotely piloted aircraft that the terrorists fear most. They know just as well as we do that these systems contribute massively to our identifying them and their weapons.
In the time remaining, which I wish to share with the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan), I want to get to the facts. As of January 2014, Reaper has flown for more than 54,000 hours over Afghanistan. In that time, it has fired just 459 precision weapons. The sophistication of the weapons means that they can change course after release if innocent civilians stray into a strike area. That is one example of the many safeguards in place. We need to be able to harness that effectiveness in future conflicts, including those currently spiralling out of control in the middle east.
We know of one highly regrettable incident in which civilians were killed by a weapon deployed from a UK Reaper. Of course that is one incident too many, but in that case, a strike on two trucks carrying insurgent explosives resulted in four civilian casualties, in addition to the death of the insurgents.
This exceptionally useful tool contributes greatly toward protecting and defending UK forces and civilians. The Government’s use of unmanned and remotely piloted aircraft means that we have to safeguard information relating to our targeting and intelligence capabilities, and that applies across the board. The debate has given us an opportunity to provide the public with more information about drones and how, in reality, they are far from indiscriminate killing machines; rather, they are important and life-saving assets.
Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)
I congratulate the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) on securing this important debate; I supported him in doing so at the Backbench Business Committee. He set out a number of concerns, which I hope the Minister will address, not least of which is the question of why Parliament was told that the reliance was on self-defence of the UK, when the message to the UN relied on collective self-defence of Iraq. People might say that that is an arguable or pedantic point, but the fundamental principle matters; it should matter to us in Parliament, and those of us with any concern for international law and the standing of the UN.
Members have touched on a number of issues. Some suggested that we should not relate the issue too much to the experience in Northern Ireland, but when we consider some of the decisions made in the formative years of the involvement in Northern Ireland of the British Army and the intelligence services in the early ’70s, and what then became normative, questions do arise for us. We cannot just casually accept, whenever we ask questions about this matter, people saying either “Don’t ask” or “Don’t expect a full answer.” The real answer is, “We know, and it is okay.” Many hon. Members accepted that sort of line down the years when we raised questions about the nature of operations in Northern Ireland; and many of them then declared themselves shocked when they read in the de Silva report that something close to a kill list was operated in Northern Ireland, and that Parliament was being misled. It is still not clear whether Ministers were misled or were part of the misleading. That experience of sleepwalking through the formative stages of a new situation or operational vista, and of other standards becoming normalised, means that we need to ask questions at parliamentary level.
We should also remember that the Prime Minister told us about this extrajudicial killing in the context of a wider statement about Syria and refugees. It is not clear whether we would have had a statement just on the killing. That sad statement came at the end of a recess, and it is not clear what the standard would be in future. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said that the standards to be followed and the decision-making processes are identical to those for manual aircraft, but I do not think that, in parliamentary terms, we do know that. He may have been briefed to that effect, but we have not been told that. Many of us have asked questions, including on the all-party group on drones, and have not received full information. Let us remember that manual aircraft would not have been sent in to kill Reyaad Khan, so we are not talking about like-for-like at all.
The hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Kirsten Oswald) raised the question, as did the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden, of the protection of operators and of knowing exactly where they stand in the system. There is not clarity on any of those issues. If the hon. Member for Strangford is so confident of the answers, he should join us in calling for a much fuller clarification of the policy and practices, so that when we have a system, moving forward, it is not determined by default and drift, but by real deliberation, real design and proper delineation of standards, principles and procedures.
Graham Stringer (in the Chair)
Before I call the Front-Bench spokespeople, I hope to be able to give the proposer two or three minutes to respond to the debate.
Martin John Docherty (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer, in this timely and critical debate on the rules of engagement and use of armed drones. I am sure all Members here will agree that the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) and members of the all-party group on drones have ensured an in-depth and robust debate on matters of ethics, morality and fundamentally political choice.
My hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire (Kirsten Oswald), the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden and others who have participated in the debate have made a convincing case for further debate, scrutiny and holding the Government to account for the political choices they make in deciding the role of the state in surveillance and in ending lives, especially the lives of UK citizens living in other countries. I take the point made by the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) about future drone use and, as mentioned by others, their use by extremists and criminals. That needs to be looked at in depth to perhaps inform future policy.
As has been outlined, for some Members, the present lack of information relating to the rules of engagement leaves much to be desired, and for many it highlights our inability to comply with international human rights law—critically, particularly with regard to seeking to understand whether the European convention on human rights applies when physical power and control is exercised over a person via an automated vehicle controlled by a UK citizen. This is exacerbated, as was mentioned, by the Secretary of State’s lack of response to the Joint Committee on Human Rights. If the Secretary of State were able to attend the Committee, we could perhaps get a resolution and some clarity. I am sure that the Minister will wish to address that when she responds.
The efficiency of the present systems is an important issue. In some cases in the past decade in Afghanistan, drones did not hit their target. Given the increase in the use of drones in Afghanistan under the leadership of President Obama, this must surely throw into doubt their efficiency, and the ability of Government policy to limit the power of extremists at home and abroad, both now and in future. The Government’s present approach could arouse feelings of anger and lead to local populations coalescing around extremists, rather than removing them from the overall picture.
Fundamentally, this physical disengagement—the move from traditional warfare in the field, mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire, to being based in a bunker thousands of miles away—is a Pandora’s box that has been opened and will not be shut. If in the weeks and days ahead we find ourselves involved in an aerial bombardment over Syria, the use of drones, not only in surveillance but in the delivery of hardware, will be a military choice, not a political one.
The need for at least a statement or summary on the legal use of drones and supporting rules of engagement need to be published, as well as a definition of areas of operation. Now more than ever, my constituents—I am sure that I speak for my hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire, too—seek a detailed policy and operational guidelines. We accept that those guidelines should recognise the security implications for our armed forces.
In addition, we hope that the Government will clarify the use of civilian operators and their possible role in delivering ordnance to the end point—that is, in using the firing button—in present and future operations. We also hope that mental health will be considered. In a recent Adjournment debate, we discussed mental health and the impact on veterans, military personnel and their children.
The Government must clarify our limitations. In which countries do we use drones? Will we become another United States, targeting countries such as Pakistan? If we do, we must consider the ramifications for some of our partners—including, critically, the Commonwealth family—and their relationship with the UK. Holding the Government to account requires us to have the ability to ensure that evidence is challenged and proven, and that includes the ability to prove the effectiveness of drones in military use.
I have a feeling that no matter the number of deaths, civilian or otherwise, the use of drones will continue and increase. In the light of that, will the Government consider that recent research has revealed that over the past 10 years, 61% of CIA air strikes have hit domestic buildings?
Kirsten Oswald
It is crucial that drone strikes are made with the utmost accuracy if they are to take place, and civilian casualties must be avoided. Is my hon. Friend aware of cases such as that of Fahd al-Quso, who was killed apparently in Yemen and Pakistan? Similarly, there are others who have been targeted by the United States who have apparently been killed several times. What assessment does my hon. Friend make of that in relation to accuracy and reporting?
Martin John Docherty
I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s intervention. Her point recognises the limitations on intelligence. I will cover that in a moment.
An estimated 222 civilians have been killed in United States strikes, including the American and Italian hostages killed in recent drone strikes in compounds. The use of drones without robust and accountable rules of engagement removes not one additional extremist or terrorist, but acts as a recruiting sergeant for the most heinous of blood cults. The present policy of power to kill anyone anywhere in the world without oversight or safeguards is a failed strategy that perpetuates the illusion that military force is effective in combating extremists.
Mark Field
Will the hon. Gentleman accept that, as I suggested, part of the issue is that in Pakistan and Yemen there is co-operation between whatever authorities there are—I would not say there is a functioning Government in either of those countries—and the US military? That is part of the problem. Drones are a recruiting sergeant because of the anger in what is essentially a collection of civil wars with a lot of militias in place.
Martin John Docherty
Strangely, I would not disagree or agree. We are seeing the continued emergence of extremists. The recent dreadful attacks in Paris and Beirut show the exacerbated position that we find ourselves in.
As my hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire said, our mistake could be in believing that electronic communication or signals intelligence is infallible. We know from experience that this is not the reality we wish it to be. This was mentioned in detail by the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden. Our ability to scrutinise and inform the policies that improve intelligence should be welcomed—I hope the Minister will welcome that—as it seeks to improve conditions for armed forces and civilian staff who are at the coalface of engagement.
Finally, the future development of this technology will challenge our military planning and, critically, our own use of drones, especially the development of autonomous drones. Although there is a policy not to develop that technology, I urge the Government to agree to the UN resolution for a moratorium on the development of such technology until we better understand the ramifications on our society.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) on securing this debate. We have had contributions from the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Kirsten Oswald), the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field), my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan), and the hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon), for Foyle (Mark Durkan), and for West Dunbartonshire (Martin John Docherty).
The right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden explained the use of UAVs. We must recognise that they are a new technology in a long list. The history of development goes back to Zeppelins and other types of weapons. He highlighted the issue of how UAVs are used. In my experience, for the majority of the time, they are a valuable tool in surveillance and intelligence gathering. However, as he rightly says, in some cases they have a capacity to deliver weapons to a target. He highlighted the issue of Baghdad, the defeat of al-Qaeda and the use of UAVs in operations, but he then made a very important point that we should not forget. That battle was won not only through the use of UAVs but by the brave servicemen of the US and the UK, and also—the important point he made—by the use of good intelligence. Much of it was secured not through UAVs but from other sources.
A number of speakers mentioned the legal framework for the use of UAVs, which is important. It is no different—nor should it be—from the framework for an attack by a conventional aircraft or, for that matter, UK forces on the ground. It is important that that legal framework is in place. If someone joins Her Majesty’s armed forces, one of the first things they are taught in basic training is the rules of engagement for self-defence. It is clear that even the most junior members of the armed forces know when they can and cannot use force by, for example, discharging their weapons. Whether delivered by a UAV or a conventional aircraft, the use of weapons is covered by a legal framework.
As a former Ministry of Defence Minister, I know that the same rules of engagement are used whether we are talking about a UAV or a Tornado using conventional weapons against a target. I accept that there is a lot of misinformation, and perhaps some ignorance, which the MOD needs to address. The idea is out there that the people operating UAVs are somehow isolated from the decision-making process. They are not. As I understand it, they are just as much part of that process as someone flying a Tornado would be. There are suggestions that they do not know the legal ramifications of what they are doing or about the intelligence around it, but that is not the case.
I know from my experience in the MOD that on a number of occasions in both Afghanistan and Iraq legal authority was given, whether in the form of advice given to the chain of command or an agreement by Ministers, but even when the missions had been agreed they were aborted. That was not because of an intervention in the chain of command, but because the operator saw that the situation on the ground was such that they would have to abort to avoid civilian casualties, or for some other reason. We need to be clear that UAV operators are not sitting in isolation. They have not just been given a set of instructions to carry out without any thought process; they are clearly thinking, which is important.
The hon. Members for Strangford and for West Dunbartonshire mentioned the idea of the autonomous use of UAVs. That is an entirely different situation from the current one. I agree that if technology goes down that route, we will require a new set of laws for how we set rules of engagement. An important point about the legal framework is that the MOD needs to do more to explain the rules of engagement.
The right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden spoke about the legality of using the rules of engagement outside a conflict zone, which is a legitimate point to address. During my time in the MOD, the use of UAVs was confined to Afghanistan and Iraq, and the main bulk of their work was in surveillance and intelligence gathering—vital tools for the fight in Syria.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West made an interesting point about the fact that the threshold for access to UAV technology is getting lower. There is, I think, already some information about terrorist groups acquiring the technology, which means that we will need to develop ways to counteract it—for example, through jamming.
The hon. Member for East Renfrewshire made an interesting point about mental health. A lot of anecdotal evidence has come forward, some of which she mentioned. Perhaps the MOD needs to look at that, because we have new technology. For example, the defence medicine department at King’s College might want to consider doing a longer-term study of the effects on those who are operating UAV systems.
In closing, I am confident in the legal framework around the people who operate these systems. Is it important to have this debate? Yes, it is. Should the MOD do more, not only by explaining the rules of engagement but by actually answering questions when challenged? I think it should.
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Penny Mordaunt)
I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) for securing this important and extremely interesting debate, and I thank all the other Members who spoke and attended. I also thank my right hon. Friend for recognising that this new technology has great potential to keep our armed forces safe and reduce civilian casualties. He and other Members spoke about its capacity to be a decisive tool and a force multiplier, about its precision, and about its role in keeping our armed forces safe. An important point that has not been touched on is that because the crews who operate armed drones are not themselves in a combat zone—although there are unique stresses, which I will address later in my speech—and may build up many hours of experience in operating and flying missions, they might actually make better judgments.
I shall first try to answer some of the technical legal questions that my right hon. Friend focused on, after which I will address the other points that Members have made. Our doctrine and rules of engagement are compliant with international law—including international humanitarian law—and underpinned by the principles of distinction, humanity, proportionality and military necessity. We are confident that the existing provisions in international law are sufficient to regulate the new weapons systems.
Our rules of engagement—as opposed to our static doctrine—are tailored to specific missions and will include policy, legal and operational guidance. They are typically given in a series of permissions and prohibitions that must be followed during a particular operation. We do not put the rules of engagement in the public domain, because it would give our opponents a considerable advantage if they understood that aspect of our operations.
A lot of what my right hon. Friend was driving at and a lot of the assurances he wants are contained in our doctrine. In 2011, the Development, Concepts and Doctrine Centre produced a joint doctrine note on our approach to unmanned air systems, to capture some of the issues we knew about at the time. Although it was a thorough piece of work, it was meant to be only a temporary document. There has clearly been a huge evolution in our understanding of unmanned air systems and the related issues, some of which were touched on earlier. That document initiated a debate about a whole range of legal and ethical issues. The original note was agreed by a wide stakeholder group in 2011, and the next version, to be called the UK air power doctrine, is anticipated towards the end of next year. It will develop the concepts and framework that will underpin our rules of engagement and policy development, and will be the receptacle for a lot of the issues raised by my right hon. Friend.
This whole subject area is clearly complicated by the current wider debates about international humanitarian law, where it applies and in what situations. We are used to dealing with state-on-state conflicts, but we are moving into very different territory these days, and that is becoming the norm. I devote a large proportion of my time to the subject, and one of the first meetings I had as Armed Forces Minister was with the International Committee of the Red Cross, to look at how we secure the primacy of international humanitarian law and deal with the questions around non-state conflicts.
Mr David Davis
Will the Minister give an undertaking that the MOD will co-operate fully with the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which will hopefully provide information about exactly that issue?
Penny Mordaunt
Yes, I can give my right hon. Friend that assurance. If we have been tardy in responding to the Committee, I apologise, and I am very happy to follow that up. The Secretary of State is due to speak to the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) shortly, and I will follow that up after the debate. We certainly wish to co-operate, because putting more information into the public domain about the seriousness with which we take such issues will reassure hon. Members.
We have focused on air systems, but there are all sorts of other systems. We are investing massively in underwater systems, for which there is another set of legal requirements. My right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden referred to operational areas and war zones. Clearly, we might have to use these systems and others to respond to a range of situations, including hostage situations and so forth. The picture is complex, but we take it extremely seriously. An enormous amount of time is going into developing the doctrine as the technology develops. We want to operate in a good framework with best practice, and we want our allies to do the same. There is wide international consultation, and we will be playing a full role in helping others to raise their game.
Let me turn to some of the other points that hon. Members have made. The particular weapon or platform type that we use has no bearing on our decision about whether to use force. I assure the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) that the targeting boards and processes are identical for these and other weapon systems.
Several hon. Members focused on the effect on pilots. That issue is often framed in terms of the emotional effect of taking a life on the pilots conducting the strike activity, whether they become detached from the situation and whether they have access to the same support—decompression and so forth—that people on more conventional operations can access. It is often about not what people do, but what they see. I have spoken to pilots who have said that most distressing and frustrating thing is to see something take place that they are unable to prevent, in part because of the strict restrictions placed on them, which cause stress. Of course, the health and wellbeing of our armed forces personnel is of the utmost importance, and we are mindful of the pressure and stresses that such operations cause. The personnel involved are carefully monitored and, where appropriate, have access to the highest levels of military physical and mental healthcare. Looking after them is key, and that is one of the main roles that our front-line commanders are tasked with.
The RAF stress management and resilience training team has delivered stress awareness briefs to units operating these systems, to make personnel aware of the subject and of the range of assistance and support that is available to them. We recognise the unique nature of such operations, and we have embedded TRIM—trauma risk management—providers in RAF Reaper squadrons. As hon. Members know, TRIM provides a model of peer group mentoring and support for use in the aftermath of traumatic events.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field) and the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Martin John Docherty) asked about others having access to such systems and our ability to combat that. I assure all hon. Members that that was a key strand of our recent strategic defence and security review, and there will be ongoing work to ensure that the right defensive systems and practices are in place to prevent such technology from being used against us.
Hon. Members spoke about the effect on hearts and minds. We understand that whatever means we use to deliver precision weapons in conflict zones—air strikes, operations on the ground or remotely piloted air systems—there will be a negative effect on the civilian populations in the vicinity. However, we do not take the decision to conduct strikes lightly, and we take every step to minimise the impact on civilian populations, including using precision-guided munitions.
Kevin Brennan
Before the Minister finishes, do the Government have a view about whether it is appropriate to hold an inquest if a UK citizen has been killed in that way?
Penny Mordaunt
I was coming to that point, but I will answer the hon. Gentleman’s question now. He dealt with the issues he raised in a sensitive manner. The Prime Minister was clear that in circumstances in which we have no alternative—hon. Members have outlined why we had no alternative in that situation—and we think we can prevent and disrupt an imminent threat, we will take action. I think that is the right thing to do. In the specific case that the hon. Gentleman asked about, there will be no inquest. Because it is outside the coroner’s jurisdiction, there will not be a coroner’s inquest either. The answer to his question is no, there will not be either an inquest or a coroner’s inquiry.
It is, of course, the terrorists who target civilian populations and induce suffering. That is why we have and use these systems. All civilian deaths are regrettable, but in more than 80,000 hours of UK Reaper remotely piloted aircraft system operations, only one known incident has resulted in civilian deaths. UK forces have strict operating procedures to minimise the risk of casualties.
Finally, like all hon. Members, no matter what their views on this technology, I pay tribute to the pilots and crews who keep our country safe.
Mr David Davis
Thank you very much for chairing this debate, Mr Stringer. It has been a privilege to serve under your chairmanship. I thank the Backbench Business Committee, and I hope we have justified its decision to give us this debate.
Let me quickly pick up a couple of points. I thank the Minister, who answered many of our questions well. My right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field) argued that we need a new law. Given that the UK air power doctrine will be published in 2016, what we really need more immediately is a robust and clear public application of the current law. That would be the most important outcome of this debate.
Some hon. Members argued that this is a new system, but it is operated in the same way as existing systems. The principle is the same, but the practicalities are different. To put it in physical terms, a Tornado can cross the length of a football field in one third of a second, but a drone can watch the same football field in orbit for eight hours. Clearly, there are differences in precision.
The rules of war were built around the fog of war and the doubt that it creates, so we have an opportunity to make them more precise and humane. However, as the hon. Members for West Dunbartonshire (Martin John Docherty) and for East Renfrewshire (Kirsten Oswald) said, in American strikes, each kill of a terrorist is claimed three times. That implies that at least two innocent people die as a result of failures of intelligence, so there are areas of concern.
That brings me to the most important aspect of this debate, which is the blurring of the area between war and peace. Drone operations in war zones worry me much less than drone operations outside war zones. That is where Governments will be tempted to do things that are beyond what we normally expect of a civilised western Government. I will look very carefully at the 2016 UK air power doctrine for an answer to that issue.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the rules of engagement and the use of armed drones.
Small Business Saturday
(8 years, 4 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered Small Business Saturday
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I thank the powers that be for selecting this topic for debate. I am delighted that we have the opportunity to discuss how vital small businesses are to the prosperity of the UK’s nations.
The importance of small businesses should be self-evident. Indeed, 99% of businesses in the UK have fewer than 49 employees, accounting for 48% of total employment and 33% of turnover. That amounts to 15 million people in the UK being directly employed by small businesses, with a turnover of £1.75 trillion. They are the drivers of economic growth, creating jobs and serving the requirements of our communities. Whether they are—in no particular order—local tradesmen, retailers, service providers or catering outlets, the benefits of small businesses extend beyond the employees they hire. Just under a fifth of all small and medium-sized enterprises in the UK operate in the construction sector and 15% operate in the professional, scientific and technical sectors, and those businesses complement the success of associated industries such as manufacturing. We should therefore recognise that the influence of SMEs cannot easily be quantified simply by looking at their own output as it extends into the wider economy and communities.
In bringing forward this debate, I wanted to stimulate the discussion around how we can continue to support small businesses and to highlight the challenges that they face. For the last three years, Small Business Saturday has provided the opportunity to focus the minds of consumers, business people and policy makers on the indispensable contribution made by small businesses.
David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on obtaining this debate. One issue that our small businesses, whether they are on the high street or are another form of SME, face today is that of business rates, which are crippling many companies. I am sure he would agree that they need to be looked at.
Ronnie Cowan
I certainly do, and that is a topic that I hope to cover later on.
Last year, 16.5 million UK adults supported a small business on Small Business Saturday, and I am sure that this year’s campaign will be equally successful when it takes place on Saturday 5 December. However, although it is important to raise awareness of the challenges small businesses face on the first Saturday of every December, we must ensure that the campaign leaves a positive and lasting impact on small businesses all year round.
Mr Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. I want to pay tribute to the others, along with myself, who instigated the bringing over of Small Business Saturday from the US to the UK, including the Federation of Small Businesses, the Institute of Directors, the British Chambers of Commerce and the British Independent Retailers Association, and to thank Michelle Ovens and the team at Small Business Saturday UK above all for setting it up. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is important to acknowledge that Small Business Saturday is not all about shopping? Our small businesses do a lot more than just provide retail services and products and do so much more for our economy. Small Business Saturday is as much about people outside of retail as it is about those within it.
Ronnie Cowan
I absolutely agree. It is easy for us to focus on shopping and the high street, particularly pre-Christmas when that is what it is all about. Retail is a large part of it, but small businesses employ people in all sorts of sectors and many of them, such as my business in my previous existence, which I hope to touch on later, do not have the high visibility of the high street.
Other hon. Members will be able to relate to concerns about decline, as shop closures and empty retail units are an issue that stretches right across the UK. As in other constituencies, the situation in Inverclyde varies considerably. The largest town of my constituency, Greenock, is primarily served by an enclosed shopping centre populated by larger retail outlets which has struggled in recent years with closures and has failed to live up to the potential that the centre of Greenock has to offer. In other parts of my constituency, the smaller towns of Gourock and Kilmacolm have been comparatively successful in maintaining more vibrant town centres, mainly populated by small, independent businesses. However, they are not helped when large banks withdraw their high street presence and contribute to the reduction in footfall.
There are no easy answers when it comes to regenerating our high streets, but Inverclyde provides a valuable lesson: smaller, independent retailers are an integral part of creating thriving town centres.
Nicola Blackwood (Oxford West and Abingdon) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this important debate. Small Business Saturday is an opportunity to highlight the vital work of local authorities in supporting high streets. His point about empty shops is important and I congratulate the Vale of the White Horse District Council, which has halved the number of empty shops in Abingdon and has put on free parking for Small Business Saturday. It also helps to throw the important Abingdon extravaganza to support local shops. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that Small Business Saturday’s message is that we will see lasting improvements for small businesses only when local communities support them, whether retail or not, throughout the year?
Graham Stringer (in the Chair)
Order. I remind hon. Members that interventions should be short and to the point.
Ronnie Cowan
I thank the hon. Lady for her point.
One business in my constituency that is contributing to the success is the Pirate and Bluebelle, a gallery operated by Heather McCulloch and Nick Summers. It is a small business in the very literal sense of the word. Their shop is just 2 metres by 4 metres and is one of the smallest galleries in Scotland, if not the UK. Heather and Nick established the business in order to sell artistic photographic prints and by doing so they are now supporting a number of emerging local artists and crafters. Like many small business owners, Heather and Nick are self-motivated, have been prepared to take risks and are driven by a desire to benefit not only themselves, but their local community. In the words of Heather herself:
“We feel that the rewards far outweigh the cash.”
I hope other Members today will join me in commending Heather and Nick’s community spirit in creating a successful small business. Their experiences should be noted by policy makers in this Parliament and elsewhere. For example, Heather and Nick are concerned that the business registration process was difficult to understand and noted that the guidance on what was expected of them on tax and national insurance contributions could have been more clearly stated. Furthermore, Heather and Nick feel that the personalised support from Business Gateway made a positive contribution to the establishment of their gallery. An adviser has been available to answer questions specific to their circumstances and that specialised knowledge has assisted in developing the business in its first year of operation. I would echo that sentiment as I ran my own small IT business for 12 years and the burden of the paperwork required by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs distracted from the enjoyment of being self-employed.
The UK has an annual business death rate of 10% and the Pirate and Bluebelle is an example of why pre-planning is so important. Heather and Nick tested the market by attending local fairs and measuring the reception of their product with customers. They followed that up by securing premises on a shopping strip suitable for a small independent retailer and the type of products they wanted to sell. Many businesses fail within the first five years, and it is vital that potential business owners undertake the necessary preparation before fully committing.
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing such an important debate ahead of Small Business Saturday. Does he agree that it is important to encourage more women to start their own businesses, as they often fail sooner than their male counterparts? As the world of work changes, we must ensure that businesses such as Decadently Pure in my constituency, which is run by Ros Milligan who recently won a West Lothian chamber of commerce award, are able to develop and flourish.
Ronnie Cowan
I would not for one minute believe that women were more likely to fail at small business than men—certainly that is not my experience in my community, where many of the businesses are run by strong, vibrant and intelligent women. I am surprised to hear that. Despite the challenges, long hours and potential risks of running a small business, Heather is optimistic about her future operating an independent business in Inverclyde. She said:
“Setting up and running a small business has been one of the most challenging things we have ever done but also the most rewarding.”
I am aware that a range of support is already available to small businesses such as the Pirate and Bluebelle—I should point out that Inverclyde and, indeed, Gourock have many other good small businesses dealing in fine art. Assisting SMEs must be a collaborative effort across different tiers of government and various other organisations. In Inverclyde small businesses have access to a variety of support, including from Inverclyde Council, the Scottish Government, Riverside Inverclyde, Skills Development Scotland, Business Gateway and Scottish Enterprise.
At local authority level, businesses in my constituency have access to grants that assist with capital expenditure, staff training and structural improvements to business premises. Inverclyde Council provides a small business loan scheme to improve the small business start-up rate. A west of Scotland loan fund is also available, providing loans of up to £100,000 for established businesses operating for more than two years, while newer businesses may borrow up to £30,000 through the same fund.
Such schemes emerged in response to the small business concern of finding credit increasingly difficult to secure. Another local organisation, Riverside Inverclyde, has complemented the work of Inverclyde Council to tailor solutions specific to my constituency. It has promoted the establishment of small businesses by providing quality office space, which is an important task, because Greenock, formerly a town of heavy industry, did not have enough office space suitable for a modern, digitally connected business. In establishing or refurbishing six offices and business centres, Riverside Inverclyde has helped to secure more than 850 jobs.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. He is talking about the support needed by small business, which, as he said, is vital all year round. Does he agree that the Small Business Saturday team is becoming more of an all-year-round support and is securing support, not least with its bus tour, which has travelled throughout the country for many weeks, to show that support is needed every day of the year, not only on 5 December?
Ronnie Cowan
Absolutely. This coming Saturday is a focal point, which is all about raising awareness, as is the debate. As the hon. Gentleman says, it is all year round, because it is sometimes a day in, day out struggle for businesses to keep their head above water.
At national level small businesses have been eligible for the Scottish Government’s small business bonus scheme since 2008. Almost 100,000 businesses now benefit from having their business rates reduced or completely removed—a record amount since the introduction of the scheme. The scheme has provided indispensable assistance to businesses throughout extended periods of difficult economic circumstances. Since its 2008 introduction, the amount of money being saved by businesses throughout Scotland has more than doubled and because of that competitive advantage, businesses in Scotland can this year save up to £3,200 more under the scheme than equivalent businesses in England can. I welcome the First Minister’s commitment that the scheme will continue throughout the next Parliament, should the current Scottish Government be re-elected.
Cross-border collaboration also benefits small businesses, in particular on important infrastructure projects such as improving access to superfast broadband. Federation of Small Businesses research found that 99% of small firms rate the internet as “highly important” to their business. I note that the Scottish Government are ahead of schedule in meeting their target of 95% of premises covered by superfast broadband by 2017, so we can see in practical terms how collaboration between levels of government and other organisations is critical to giving small businesses the support they need to thrive.
If I may be allowed to indulge myself, I cannot end my speech without mentioning that Inverclyde has many advantages as a place to do business. It is within commuting distance of Glasgow, is a short distance from Glasgow airport and enjoys excellent rail connections. Anyone wishing to start a business in the area can expect excellent tailored support from Inverclyde Council and Riverside Inverclyde, in addition to the wider benefits that the Scottish Government provide.
George Kerevan (East Lothian) (SNP)
I, too, commend my hon. Friend for securing this important debate. He talks about collaboration between different agencies of government, but does he accept that one agency, HMRC, has not been helpful to small businesses recently? It is planning to close down offices throughout the UK, making it much more difficult for small businesses to get their tax forms correct.
Ronnie Cowan
I touched on HMRC earlier and I echo my hon. Friend’s sentiments.
In the lead-up to this year’s Small Business Saturday my message is clear: let us create more local jobs and vibrant town centres, and invest in the future of our communities by backing our SMEs.
Graham Stringer (in the Chair)
Before I call John McNally, may I check with the Minister that he has had permission to speak?
The Minister for Small Business, Industry and Enterprise (Anna Soubry)
indicated assent.
John Mc Nally (Falkirk) (SNP)
Thank you, Mr Stringer. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Inverclyde (Ronnie Cowan) for securing the debate on a subject that is close to my own heart.
As a small business owner, being a hairdresser and running a business employing staff, I appreciate the commitment and training that goes into running a small business for more than 50 years. I appreciate the trials and tribulations of people running their own business and what a powerful driver the small business sector is for growth and competition across the economy.
As the vice-chair—soon to be the chair, hopefully—of the all-party group on the hair industry, I fully appreciate the work that has gone into the Hair Council, which I believe includes more than 250,000 hairdressing businesses in Britain. It supplies a huge amount of effort and employment, especially in support of local town centres. I welcome the opportunity to support the Small Business Saturday campaign and to highlight the business successes in my constituency and throughout Falkirk district.
Over the past two years alone, more than 1,057 new businesses in my constituency have been registered at Companies House. Falkirk has benefited from the steady increase in successful entrepreneurship and business development, with many successful businesses supplying other local businesses in the area. That is in no small part due to initiatives such as Small Business Saturday, a grassroots, non-commercial campaign that highlights small business success and encourages consumers to shop locally and support small businesses in their communities.
As my hon. Friend said, Small Business Saturday takes place on the first Saturday in December. It is my hope that the campaign will have a long-lasting effect on businesses and shopping habits in Falkirk and towns throughout the district, as well as Scotland-wide. Nationally, our small businesses are well supported by the Scottish Government’s small business bonus scheme, which has benefited more than 99,000 commercial properties in Scotland and helped the number of small businesses in Scotland to increase by more than 50% over the past 15 years.
Locally, Falkirk benefits from an excellent district business improvement team in the form of Falkirk Delivers, headed by Alex and Sarah. Their team have a similar ethos to that of Small Business Saturday and have the mantra of keeping things local, which is more than a “use it or lose it” message. It is about supporting businesses that have supported the town and have evolved the way in which they do business to benefit our communities and local people. It is about appreciating local knowledge, providing excellent customer service, and retaining money within our local economy to ensure that our towns are a thriving and vibrant place to shop, live and work, and providing a feel-good factor about them.
Falkirk benefits from a diverse range of businesses located at its core. The town has two covered shopping centres, Howgate and Callendar Square, in which national retail businesses are located, but what distinguishes Falkirk from other, larger towns is the diversity and range of smaller independent businesses. Falkirk also has a renowned and award-winning night-time economy, with a variety of pubs, cafés, restaurants and nightclubs, many of which are independently owned and managed.
Falkirk town centre, like many, has seen a change in the landscape over the past few years, as my hon. Friend the Member for Inverclyde mentioned. Some of our national retailers have moved away from their traditional high street presence, and vacancy rates have hovered around the national average, but our small retailers seem to have weathered the economic downturn of the past few years better than most. I will keep supporting those small businesses in the best way I can.
Small Business Saturday, on 5 December, is an ideal vehicle to remind people to shop locally—at Stenhousemuir, Larbert, Denny, Dunipace, Bonnybridge, Laurieston and Polmont. I hope I have not left anywhere out, or there will be hell to pay when I get home.
The Falkirk Delivers team has a marketing campaign using print and social media that features many of our local independents. For example, we have Gems Sweets, where we can still buy Spanish Gold, Chelsea Whoppers or Lucky Tatties—perhaps that does not fit well with yesterday’s debate about the war on sugar, but they are quite tasty. A fixture in our town for more than 100 years has been G.W. Smith cycle shop. We have Coffee on Wooer, a trendy new artisan coffee shop that always has a space for local musicians, poets and writers to do their thing. The town’s Howgate centre recently launched INDY, an independent marketplace with small unit space, ideal for the have-a-go entrepreneur. It offers the best of both worlds, because it is located in a busy shopping centre but is aimed at encouraging and growing unique and individual independent businesses.
Such businesses are the heart of our town centre community. They are known, loved and trusted by locals and visitors alike. However, Small Business Saturday is not only about retail. Falkirk town centre is home to lawyers, accountants and translators—and we even have a 3D printer—all of whom rely heavily on local businesses, so Small Business Saturday and the wider “keep it local” campaign play a part for those services as well.
Falkirk Delivers and its partners are working on a range of projects and initiatives to continue to support the town centre during a time of change. With the £5 million-plus investment through the Townscape Heritage initiative, the successful launch of our “can do” space and projects such as the Carnegie Trust’s TestTown, the message is that Falkirk is very much open and ready for business. I totally support my hon. Friend the Member for Inverclyde on this issue.
The Minister for Small Business, Industry and Enterprise (Anna Soubry)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Inverclyde (Ronnie Cowan) for securing the debate and to everyone who has contributed to it. I will begin with some stats: 99.3% of United Kingdom businesses are small businesses. Small businesses employ 12.4 million people, which is 48% of total private sector employment. They have a combined annual turnover of £1.2 trillion, which is 33% of turnover in the private sector, and there are a record 5.4 million private sector businesses in 2015, which is an increase of 908,000 from the start of 2010. I say that to give context and to show that we should never underestimate the huge importance of our small businesses.
I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr Umunna) and others who brought Small Business Saturday to this country. It is a welcome American import that has been hugely successful. I was honoured to go to the launch of this year’s Small Business Saturday in July, where I learned a great deal. I was already a fan of it—it has been in place for a couple of years—but I had not appreciated this annual event’s importance for small businesses not just in having customers going along to celebrate and put their money where their mouth is, but in their relationships with each other. I was really struck by the fact that Small Business Saturday is a great opportunity for small businesses to develop and expand their networks and to learn much from each other.
The hon. Member for Inverclyde made the good point that Small Business Saturday is not just about celebrating retail, though there is nothing wrong with that. Small businesses in our high streets and towns encompass IT firms, accountants, solicitors, health providers and leisure providers—there is a long list.
Mr Umunna
I thank the Minister for her kind words. It is important to state that Small Business Saturday is not about being against our large businesses, because the relationship between our small and bigger businesses is symbiotic—they depend on each other. Small businesses are an important part of larger businesses’ supply chains, so overall this is a pro-business campaign for every business, whether big or small, because everyone benefits in the end.
Anna Soubry
I completely endorse everything the hon. Gentleman says. We should not forget that some small businesses are sole traders, while many will employ just one or two people. However, they are a critical part of the supply chain. Indeed, we should not forget the support that accountants and solicitors give to larger companies.
One of the downsides of being a Minister is that I am constrained about speaking in glowing terms about my constituency. All of us love to come to this place and champion our constituents, and rightly so. If I may, I will indulge my businesses and constituents with what I shall do this Saturday in celebration of Small Business Saturday, which is supported by the Government—goodness me, we all know that this is not a party political issue.
I shall probably begin at Bardills, which is an excellent garden centre—we forget how many garden centres are important small businesses—where I will order my Christmas tree. Then I shall go into Kimberley, which is one of three excellent towns. I shall enjoy a cup of coffee in Rumbletums and probably some cake over at Madhatters. I will go to a flower shop—I will be in trouble, because I could go to a number of good flower shops in my constituency, but the one in Kimberley is particularly good. I can buy fruit and vegetables in yet another great small business that, like so many, is family-run. Fred Hallam Ltd in Beeston goes back many generations, and while such families are running businesses they are providing a real service to their communities. We should not forget that.
When I go to the great shops and small businesses in my constituency, I really notice the level of care they give to customers. They know their customers and look after them by making sure that whatever they want is available. Such businesses are particularly keen to ensure that they provide an excellent service to older customers.
I will go into Beeston. The town unfortunately suffered because of the tram works that blighted it, but it is on its way up. Now we have got the tram, and we look forward to more people coming into the town and other people who previously shopped there coming back.
My hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Nicola Blackwood) made a good point about the need for free parking. She talked about her own constituency, where there will be free parking this Saturday, and I am pleased that my borough council will have free parking throughout December. I have quite controversial views on parking, which we will not go into, but let me put it this way: the more towns that embrace free parking, the better. As I said, I shall go into Beeston and enjoy Fred Hallam Ltd—it has a fishmonger, which is rare.
Bill Esterson
To show the cross-party consensus on this issue, may I congratulate Sefton on providing free parking throughout December for the very purpose that the Minister describes?
Anna Soubry
I completely endorse that.
I will go to the deli and buy, if not fine cheese, some Blue Monkey beer called BG Sips, which I recommend to everyone. Microbreweries are another type of small business that employ people and contribute hugely to the local and national economy. Many are now stepping into exports, and the Government are keen to ensure that UK Trade & Investment looks at the benefits it can provide to small businesses.
No doubt I shall go into Relish, where I will have to have another bacon butty or some similar delight. That is another good example of a small business that is doing well. I shall finish in Stapleford, where I will go to an excellent small business that alters clothes—it has been going incredibly well and is now growing and leading the town team. No doubt, I will end up in Shabbylicious with yet another excuse to drink more tea or coffee and indulge in more cakes and mince pies.
I hope I have made a serious point. Small business are important to the economy, and the statistics show it. I want to finish on a hopefully positive note, which is about business rates: small businesses now pay less tax. We are supporting them by extending the doubling of small business rate relief in England to April 2017. More than 400,000 small businesses will pay no rates at all as a result of that welcome extension.
I know that all Members will be out there on Saturday celebrating Small Business Saturday. I am grateful to the Federation of Small Businesses, which brought the event to my constituency. I pay tribute to it, and to the Institute of Directors, the British Chambers of Commerce and everyone who supports this excellent initiative.
Question put and agreed to.
Employment Tribunal Fees
(8 years, 4 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the effect of the introduction of fees for employment tribunals.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Streeter. An essential part of any democracy is an economy that works for the whole population. That means there should be not only full employment, or as close to that as can be managed, but opportunities for everyone to make the most of that economy. There should be no glass ceilings. People from different backgrounds should all have the same chance of making it into their chosen job. Crucially, in the context of this debate, an individual should have the security of knowing that if things go wrong, they have a realistic avenue through which to seek redress.
To my mind, we have a system in place that puts security near the bottom of the pile in terms of priorities. Security should be the cornerstone of any settlement on how the workplace operates. No matter how imperfect the current system is, if there are workplace rights and protections that this place has deemed a necessary part of the social contract between Government and the country, we should be absolutely sure that those rights can be genuinely enforced, if we are not to have an illusory scheme of protection.
The employment tribunal system has a social benefit for everyone and should therefore be accessible to all members of society. It is worth reminding ourselves that tribunals took on their present character as employment courts to resolve disputes between employers and workers in 1971, as part of that year’s Industrial Relations Act, largely arising from the recognition that unresolved workplace grievances had led to a proliferation of official and unofficial industrial action. Those origins should serve as a clear warning that if we are to live in a just society, we need an accessible and fair system for resolving disputes.
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on bringing this important issue to the Chamber. Does he agree that the introduction of these fees disproportionately affects women, particularly those who are pregnant or in part-time employment? That issue must be addressed.
Justin Madders
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I will address later some of the disproportionate impacts of the fees, but they are part of a bigger picture: they are part of a sustained attack on working people in this country. A lot of the legislation in the previous Parliament and currently going through the House is nothing more than an attack on basic workplace rights and protections. If our ambition is to have an economy and country where everyone has a stake in their prosperity, we should value the security and sustainability of jobs as much as the means of creating them.
It is widely recognised that losing a job is one of the major occasions in life on which people face extreme pressure and stress. Obviously, it is not quite as significant as some other issues, but for many, it can be a pretty traumatic experience. It can affect a person’s marriage, health, home, finances and, of course, family, yet we seem to be fostering a culture in which an individual is considered a disposable item to be cast aside with barely a second thought. While that culture exists, it is important that we have strong protections in place and—this relates to today’s debate—an effective and accessible system enforcing those protections.
Let us look first at the stark data, which show that the number of tribunal claims lodged has fallen off a cliff since the introduction of fees in July 2013.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this important debate. One of the reasons given for the introduction of these fees was to protect hard-working taxpayers from having to contribute to the cost, ignoring the fact that the people bringing these claims are hard-working taxpayers. Does he agree?
Justin Madders
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention; his record on representing working people is one of note. He is absolutely right that everyone who takes part in the system contributes already through their taxes. As I will go on to demonstrate, there is little sign of any wider benefit to society. In fact, it could be argued that the fees are creating more problems than they solve.
Between October 2013 and September 2014, there were 32,671 fewer single claims brought by individuals than in the previous 12 months. That is a decrease of 64%. Over the same period, the number of multiple claim cases—those brought by two or more people against the same employer—was down by 3,527. That is a decrease of 67%. Comparing different periods can produce different figures, and an awful lot of different comparisons can be made. Indeed, some comparisons show up to an 80% drop in claims lodged. Whatever the comparisons or periods used, there is an average drop of around 70% in the number of claims lodged. It is therefore indisputable that there has been a significant drop in the number of claims since the introduction of fees.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. I held a debate in this room a few weeks ago on women and low pay, an issue that my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) just raised. The tribunal process is an important mechanism through which women can secure equal pay in their place of work, because if the claim is successful, their employer is instructed to carry out an equal pay audit. The financial barrier, however, means that many women are not getting to that stage, and therefore fewer equal pay audits are being done than could be done. Does my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) agree that tribunal fees represent a barrier to equality in the workplace for not only the women making claims, but those in workplaces where claims could be made but are not?
Justin Madders
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s excellent contribution in the debate she referred to. She is, of course, right that there are significant issues of barriers to justice, and of employers not learning lessons about inequality; that needs to be put right. She makes a valid point about equal pay audits. Tribunals have additional powers beyond simply awarding compensation. We hear a lot of rhetoric from the Government about cutting down on the compensation culture, but tribunals have important powers that go beyond compensation. They also, for example, have the power to make a statement of an employee’s terms and conditions. That is absolutely basic, bread-and-butter stuff that we should expect to happen in an employment relationship, but occasionally it is necessary for an employee to go to a tribunal to get that basic statement of terms and conditions.
We can bandy the figures around in a number of ways, but the common thread is that there has been a 65% to 70% drop in the number of claims lodged. It is little wonder that, with such overwhelming evidence, Lord Justice Underhill stated the following when he considered in the High Court Unison’s judicial review of the fees regime:
“It is quite clear from the comparison between the number of claims brought in the ET before and after 29 July 2013 that the introduction of fees has had the effect of deterring a very large number of potential claimants.”
That is a very clear statement.
There has no doubt been a reduction in the number of claims made. Have employers suddenly started treating their employees better? [Laughter.] I do not think there is any suggestion among Opposition Members that that is the case. It is worth remembering that since the introduction of fees, the general trend has been an increase in the number of people in work, so the proportion of people in employment who are bringing tribunal claims is actually decreasing even more than is suggested by the raw data.
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. I would like to make reference to the TUC’s submission to the Select Committee on Justice inquiry on tribunal fees, which stated:
“The EHRC and BIS recently funded a large-scale survey of the experiences of new mothers in the workplace...The survey findings suggest that 54,000 women a year (one in nine new mothers) are dismissed, made redundant when no other employee is, or are treated so badly while pregnant or on maternity leave that they are forced to leave their jobs.”
Indeed, I know women who have suffered exactly that. That is happening at a time when, despite all the joy of adding a new member to their family, they are under a huge amount of pressure. In 2012-13, prior to the introduction of fees, there were 1,593 claims for pregnancy-related detriment or dismissal.
Mr Gary Streeter (in the Chair)
Order. Interventions should be brief. The hon. Lady might wish to make a speech later, but for now, perhaps she will conclude.
Margaret Greenwood
I am sorry, Mr Streeter. There was half the number in the following year—790 claims. Does my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) agree that that is an unacceptable level for our society?
Justin Madders
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention and I understand the passion that led her to speak for slightly longer than is the norm. She is absolutely right that pregnancy discrimination is still rife in the workplace. Figures that I have seen suggest that of the 54,000 women who are dismissed on the grounds of pregnancy each year, only 1.5% proceed with a tribunal claim. Is that not a damning indictment of the difficulty that people have in accessing justice?
We need to examine the supposed reasons that the Minister may put forward for why the number of claims has dropped. I am sure that the Government would like to claim that the success of the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service early conciliation scheme is part of the explanation, but we should remember that the scheme was not in place for the period immediately after fees were introduced, so that cannot explain the number of claims dropping so dramatically immediately after fees were introduced. The figures that we have seen on early conciliation provide little comfort for those seeking to explain the reduction; indeed, as I will argue, the fee system can be seen as an impediment to effective early conciliation.
The figures on early conciliation tell us that of the 60,800 notifications made to ACAS in April to December 2014 as part of the early conciliation scheme, 15% were formally settled by ACAS and 22% progressed to an employment tribunal claim. That leaves a massive 63% that were not formally settled through ACAS but did not progress to an employment tribunal. Of course, it is not possible to identify how many of those claims had merits, but it is too large a figure to ignore, and the similarity between that figure of 63% and the figures that I have already referred to is too much of a coincidence for us to ignore.
Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab)
Interestingly, if we look at employers taking up early conciliation through ACAS, we find that Government Departments are some of the worst offenders for not participating in early conciliation; that includes the National Offender Management Service, which is very poor at engaging. Does my hon. Friend have any comments on that?
Justin Madders
My hon. Friend, of course, has great experience in this area. The Government should be setting an example. They should be leading from the front and be seen to be engaging in the processes that promote and encourage good workplace relations. Is it not really something when we have a Government Department potentially discriminating against someone or impinging on their workplace rights, then refusing to engage with the systems that that Government have set up to try to resolve that dispute? And then the Government charge that person to force their rights. What kind of situation is that? It is not a fair, equitable or just way of dealing with matters.
Let me turn to the significant amount of evidence submitted to the Justice Committee. I think my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral West (Margaret Greenwood) has referred to evidence that was given to the Justice Committee in respect of NOMS, and I recommend anyone who has not read those transcripts that look at that evidence. In it, multiple witnesses demonstrate the deterrent effect that fees have had; that evidence goes well beyond the data that have been referred to.
Chris Stephens
The hon. Gentleman is making a number of excellent points. On fees, does he agree that there will be an impediment to cases in which a worker brings a case for an illegal deduction of wages, because the fee will be higher in some cases than the amount that the worker is looking for in their claim?
Justin Madders
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right on that point, which I will come to later. Speaking from personal experience as a lawyer before I entered this place, I have a number of examples of such situations, and that cannot be right in a fair and just society. Returning to the Justice Committee, it received evidence from Citizens Advice, which published a report called “Fairer Fees” in January 2015. It stated that 82% of its clients said that the fees deterred them from bringing an employment tribunal claim.
All the Government talk at the introduction of the fee regime was about weeding out vexatious claims. As I will go on to demonstrate, there has been no convincing evidence put forward that this system has done anything to reduce such claims, in stark contrast to the significant body of evidence suggesting that people with genuine complaints have not been able to pursue their rights as a result of the fee system. It may be that part of the Government rationale is that those who use the system should contribute to it, in which case far more equitable solutions can be found. It may be that despite everything else, it is and always was part of the Government’s plan to reduce the number of claims being made, in which case they have succeeded.
Richard Arkless (Dumfries and Galloway) (SNP)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for securing this very important debate. Does he agree that one of the reasons given in the Beecroft report, which initiated the imposition of tribunal fees, was the desire to make business more efficient, and that the very notion that people being prevented from having access to justice within the workplace would increase productivity and make a business more efficient is completely misguided?
Justin Madders
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The suggestion that workplace rights and treating people with respect and decency is somehow an impediment to a business running well is the stuff of nonsense. Having a stable and well-motivated workforce actually helps to improve productivity. The Beecroft report is really where all this is coming from. There is a view that employment rights are somehow an impediment to the good operation of business. If someone has the misfortune of having worked somewhere for less than two years, they effectively have no employment rights, so that has been got through almost by the back door.
Let me return to the reduction in the number of claims. Undoubtedly, that has been stark, and if that is the Government’s intention, it has been successful, but it is unfair, crude and a denial of basic justice. The Citizens Advice report stated that 47% of its clients who were potential type B claimants—those bringing unfair dismissal or discrimination claims—said that they would have to save all their discretionary income for six months in order to be able to proceed with a type B claim. And those are the lucky ones—many who have lost their job have no discretionary income. Keeping a roof over their head and putting food on the table will always take priority over pursuing a claim for which the outcome is uncertain and which will not be resolved for months.
Margaret Greenwood
Somebody facing a situation in which they may want to go to an employment tribunal is stressful enough, and they may well be thinking that they might lose their job or have to leave their job because they are so unhappy. With that in mind, there was the figure from Citizens Advice that four out of five clients they dealt with felt that the current levels of fees would deter them from even bringing such a claim. Does my hon. Friend think that is an acceptable state of affairs?
Justin Madders
No, it is not an acceptable state of affairs. My hon. Friend makes a really pertinent point: if somebody is still working for an employer, the last thing that they want to do is take them to a tribunal. It does not help the employment relationship to improve, and it almost certainly leads to a parting of the ways one way or another. We should be there to help people if they have had a violation of their rights. There should be an easily accessible system to enable them to resolve things.
Let me go back to the startling statistic that those bringing type B claims would have to wait six months in order to afford the fee. Does that not tell us something? When the time limit for bringing such claims is three months, the fact that a person would have to wait six months in order to afford the fee is a complete exposé of how wrong-headed and unjust the system is, so if the Government are minded to make any changes, at the very least, they should look at the level at which fees are set.
I will say a few words on remission, because no doubt that will be used to justify the level of fees. However, do not forget that the comments that I just referred to have been made by people at a time when fee remission is available, so it obviously is not working for many. It is worth noting that when the Government first looked at the fee remission system, they estimated that about 63% of claimants were predicted to benefit from fee remission in whole or in part, but in reality, only about 21% have. The average monthly take-home salary in this country is just under £1,800. Remission is not available to people on that salary, but they are asked to stump up two thirds of that sum just to pursue a tribunal claim. Does that not highlight how unrealistic the fee remission system is?
We also have the completely indefensible situation in which an employer does not pay their staff, which is one breach of the law, but that is then compounded by the fact that the employer does not issue payslips and, because the individuals have not received payslips, they cannot access the remission system. How can that be a just situation?
If the objective of introducing fees was to weed out unmeritorious claims, the policy has been a failure. The success rate has not really changed, and I argue that the employment tribunal structure has plenty of well-developed measures to deal with unmeritorious claims, such as deposit orders, strike-outs and costs awards. Indeed, over the last decade or so, there has been a general ratcheting up of measures designed to deter and weed out frivolous, vexatious and misconceived claims. The rules are there, are clear and are perfectly capable of being applied, so I suggest that that is the route to go down if the concern is really about stopping people pursuing claims unreasonably or vexatiously.
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)
While my hon. Friend is on that point, I want to mention the fact that under the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, legal help was available to advise clients on whether they had a claim that was worth pursuing at a tribunal. Would it not have been better for the Government not to mess around with legal help under that Act, and to allow people the opportunity to receive that legal advice, which often acted as a safety net?
Justin Madders
I thank my hon. Friend the shadow Minister for his intervention. Of course he is absolutely right: that advice is an important safety net. I know from experience that the majority of people who are advised that they do not have a claim will take that advice on the chin and will not pursue the claim, so the fact that we have not been able even to maintain levels of access to advice has probably only made the situation worse.
As I was saying before the intervention, there are rules to deal with unmeritorious and vexatious claims. I want the Minister to tell us today whether he considers that those rules are effective, and if he does not, what he will do to change them.
Denying access to justice via a high fee level is arguably making no difference at all to the number of vexatious claims being lodged, because if this system was weeding out vexatious claims, the success rate would increase. The fact that it has not suggests that the fee system is a deterrent to all. Ministry of Justice statistics indicate that success rates have in fact remained broadly the same, rather than increasing. In the four quarters before fees were introduced, success rates ranged between 10% and 9%. In the four quarters after fees were introduced, success rates were broadly similar at 9%, 9%, 5% and 13%. Even the president of the employment tribunals, Mr Brian Doyle, suggested that only a very small percentage of claims can be identified as weak or unmeritorious and that we need to be careful about the way in which we bandy around the term “vexatious” when it comes to claims.
Chris Stephens
Can the hon. Gentleman confirm that those workers who have the benefit of trade union membership will find that a trade union also has a test as to whether to proceed with a claim to a tribunal?
Justin Madders
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. He is of course absolutely right. Trade unions play a vital role in ensuring that justice is served for their members, but they also play a wider role by not supporting or endorsing claims that are considered vexatious or weak. We really should mark out that contribution that is made. Of course the vast majority of people who work in this country are not trade union members. Perhaps that is one reason why the figures have not substantially changed as a result of these initiatives from the Government.
The myth that there is a vexatious culture out there has been perpetuated by parts of this Government and certain sections of the media. It is almost as if they believe that there is an army of litigious individuals out there who are routinely fleecing employers with spurious claims. That view has no basis in fact. As I said, there are already rules to stop vexatious claims proceeding. Each case is considered by a legally qualified judge. Most employers have access to professional advice on their case and far more are legally represented at tribunals than claimants—and all of that in a country that regularly appears near the bottom of the pile in any OECD studies of the strength of employment protection across the planet. It is far from the easy ride for employees that some people would portray.
In addition, it is simply not the case that there are hundreds of no win, no fee lawyers out there ready to exploit employers by bringing forth spurious claims. The clue is in the title: “no win, no fee”. If the lawyer does not think that the claim will win, they will not get paid for it, so why would they waste time pursuing a claim that they know will ultimately be unsuccessful?
The idea that employers are a soft touch in these matters is simply untrue. Most are professionally represented and should be able easily to spot someone trying it on. There is a question about how those who are not members of trade unions access affordable representation. We have dealt with that in some of the interventions today. Of course I would say that the best thing that anyone can do to protect themselves in the workplace is to join a trade union, but that is not a substitute for basic advice and support for people who find themselves in these very difficult situations. The Government have pulled the rug out from under them.
This system not only prevents access to justice, but feeds the myth that employment rights are some sort of undesirable impediment to properly functioning businesses. At its worst, it acts as encouragement to those rogue employers who think that employment protection and workplace rights are an optional extra to be ignored whenever possible.
There is plenty of evidence from those representing individuals in employment tribunals, including those who gave evidence to the Justice Committee, that some employers will deliberately decide not to engage in any kind of discussion about resolution of a claim until the very end of the process, even when they may very clearly be in the wrong. The pre-claim conciliation process run by ACAS can be and often is met by employers refusing to engage at all. They know that if they have dismissed an employee, they may not have the funds to pay for a tribunal claim. Even when one is under way, they still hold off until the hearing fee is paid before seriously considering whether they should engage in settlement negotiations. That can be as little as three weeks before the tribunal hearing. That wastes everyone’s time and the tribunal’s and the taxpayer’s resources. There is a category of employers who will not engage with anything unless they know that the employee has paid their £1,200, but even in the cases in which the lower fee applies, there is now a real dilemma facing employees, who are asking themselves, “Can I afford to take this on even though I know I am in the right?”
The starkest example—I referred to this earlier—is one from my own experience shortly before I was elected to this place. It involved an employer systematically refusing to pay their staff over a period of weeks. They refused to engage with ACAS in early conciliation and decided instead to sit back and wait for the tribunal claims that never arrived. The people affected whom I saw were all women and had all lost several weeks’ wages. There was no doubt that money was owed, but all of them questioned spending £390 to recover a similar amount and some of them were actually seeking to recover less than their initial outlay in fees, so for them the dilemma was even greater. Of course, there was no reason to suppose that they would not succeed in their claims, but it is a sad fact that employers, even if they do lose, do not actually pay the compensation due to the employee more than 50% of the time. Given the intransigence shown up to that point, I could not criticise those people at all for not wanting to take that risk.
How can anyone defend the bad employer playing the system and preventing very basic employment rights, including the right to be paid, from being enforced? It does not take a great feat of imagination to see how that attitude can inform an employer’s thinking on whether they should, for example, take steps to dismiss an employee fairly in the first place. After all, if they want rid of someone, why waste too much time on that process if they think that the person will not have the resources to challenge it afterwards? Far from the picture painted by some, this Government are actually creating a culture in which an employer can hire and fire with impunity.
Then there is the situation in which the employer becomes insolvent. The claimant has to apply to the Redundancy Payments Service for redundancy pay, but if there is no employer left to order reimbursement from and it is not recoverable from the national insurance fund, the claimant never recovers their fees. How can it be right that the state can profit from that situation? What kind of situation allows an employee to be, in effect, fined for attempting to exercise their rights in the already difficult situation in which there is an insolvency?
The GMB union has provided a very clear example of what amounts to a significant profit made off the backs of trade union membership fees. It was involved in a claim in Sheffield against a company that in February 2015 went into administration. The business was later sold to new owners, with the original company being wound up. There were redundancies, and the employment tribunal found in favour of the 48 people who brought claims in respect of a failure to consult and unfair dismissal. The claimants were supported by the GMB and three other unions, with fees totalling £13,200 being paid to issue the claims and have them heard. Although the tribunal ordered the respondent to refund the fees, there was virtually no chance of recovering them, as the legal entity had been wound up. Notably, it was only possible for those employees to bring claims because they were supported by a union to get their case before the tribunal. That is a tribute to the importance of trade union membership, but it cannot be right that trade unions or individuals have to make such payments with no avenue for recovering the cost. In that situation they were completely blameless, so why should the state penalise them?
On the question of costs, it has been suggested that one of the justifications for the fee system is that it will recoup some of the costs of the tribunal system. If that was the intention, the system has been a failure. The latest accounts from the Ministry of Justice show that in 2014-15, the net income from employment tribunal fees was £9 million and expenditure on employment tribunal services overall was £71.4 million, which means that the increase in net income from fees covers 12.5% of the cost of running the employment tribunal service. The Government seem to have been unable to quantify, in response to written questions, the extra administration and staffing costs in the tribunal service of having to administer the fees and the remission system. In reality, the gain in revenue is probably lower than 12.5%, and it has been achieved at the expense of a 69% drop in the number of claims.
There is no mention anywhere in any of the documents I have seen of the benefit to the taxpayer from the application of the recoupment regulations, which can result in an employer paying back to the taxpayer thousands of pounds—for example, in jobseeker’s allowance already paid to the claimant—which is offset against the claimant’s compensation. Such repayment is normally ordered where a tribunal has made a finding of unfair dismissal. Why is that clear benefit to the taxpayer not included in any considerations, and has anyone stopped to consider that the level of recoupment will have reduced as the level of claims has reduced—
Mr Gary Streeter (in the Chair)
Order. I am reluctant to intervene, because the hon. Gentleman is making a fine speech, but he has been speaking for half an hour. He might want to take into account the fact that several colleagues want to catch my eye.
Justin Madders
I will be brief, Mr Streeter. As we have discussed, do not the participants contribute to the system through their taxes anyway? Is it not simply part of the cost of a civilised society? In the long run, we all benefit from stable and balanced employment relations. If the Government are so determined to recoup costs and if they are genuinely interested in ensuring access to justice, surely the obvious way to deal with the matter is to levy a fee or apportion a percentage of compensation at the end of the process, not at the beginning.
At the moment, if a claimant is successful, they can recover their fee from the respondent, but what is the respondent’s contribution to the costs of the tribunal? It is nothing. I suppose it could be argued that they indirectly contribute by recovering the fee and repaying it to the employee, but as we have seen, that outcome is not certain, and the burden disproportionately falls on those who seek to enforce their rights.
Employment tribunals play a vital role in ensuring the effectiveness of basic rights, such as the rights to the minimum wage, paid holiday, time off and maternity leave, and the right not to be unfairly dismissed or discriminated against. If we value those rights and think that they are important, we should also value the ease with which people are able to exercise them. Those rights are not just about individual dignity and respect in the workplace; they bring with them important social and economic benefits for the country. They ensure that most people can participate in the labour market without facing unfair discrimination. They give vulnerable workers more job security and stability of income than they would have. They encourage a committed and engaged workforce and the retention of skilled workers. They allow people to plan their lives and plan for the future, knowing that if they do a good job and their employer runs its business well, they are likely to remain in work. Employment rights are, ultimately, of benefit to everyone. The fee regime not only undermines those rights but actively encourages rogue employers to flout the law, and I say that the regime should be scrapped.
Mr Gary Streeter (in the Chair)
Order. The wind-up speeches will begin at 3.30 pm.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Streeter. I congratulate the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) on making an excellent contribution. Like him, I believe it is clear that the introduction of fees for employment tribunals has led to a reduction in claims, and we can only conclude that that is denying workers access to justice. In April to June 2014, the first three months after the introduction of fees, there was an 81% drop in claims. Discrimination claims, for which a £1,200 fee is required, have fallen, and sex discrimination cases were down by 91% in the first year. As indicated earlier, unpaid wages claims, which attract a fee of £390, are down, often because in those cases the fee is more than the amount sought by the worker.
There is no evidence that fees are needed to prevent unfounded claims from being made; on the contrary, evidence gathered by the Trades Union Congress, Citizens Advice Scotland, Citizens Advice England and Wales, the Law Society of Scotland and Bristol and Strathclyde Universities shows that workers with genuine cases are being prevented from lodging their claims by their inability to pay the fees. That can only mean that a growing number of unlawful employment practices are going unpunished, which is detrimental to the achievements of a fair workplace. As the general secretary of Unison, Dave Prentis, said recently:
“There is stark evidence that workers are being priced out of justice and it is women, the disabled and the low-paid who are being disproportionately punished.”
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we are also talking about gender discrimination, because women who are suffering from pregnancy discrimination or maternity discrimination will be afraid to take cases with a price tag of £1,200, so they will suffer in silence?
Chris Stephens
I agree with that, and there has been growing evidence in the last few years of pregnant workers being dismissed unfairly. The hon. Lady is absolutely correct to say that the fee of £1,200 would be a natural barrier for women workers, particularly in sectors of the economy that are traditionally low paid, such as the retail sector. It would be very difficult for someone in such circumstances to progress. The hon. Lady’s statements are backed up by the legal affairs spokesperson of Citizens Advice Scotland, who has said:
“Employment Tribunals regularly include cases where people have been un-paid or under-paid for work they have done, or cases where they have been mistreated—including bullying, racism, sexual harassment. People who have suffered such treatment surely have a right to justice, and that right should not be based on their ability to pay.”
All the evidence suggests that the review of employment tribunal fees should include an equality impact assessment. As I have indicated, I am concerned about the divisive rhetoric that we sometimes hear on workplace and trade union issues. We are told that fees were introduced to save the hard-working taxpayer money, but those who are chasing a tribunal or who wish to submit a tribunal claim are, indeed, hard-working taxpayers.
In Scotland, the administration of employment tribunals is due to be devolved under the Scotland Bill. In the Scottish Government’s programme for government, First Minister Nicola Sturgeon said:
“We will abolish fees for employment tribunals, when we are clear on how the transfer of powers and responsibilities will work. We will consult on the shape of services that can best support people’s access to employment justice as part of the transfer of the powers for Employment Tribunals to Scotland.”
That proposal is supported by Scotland’s “workers’ parliament”—the Scottish TUC’s annual congress—and by Citizens Advice Scotland. I will end with the words of the latter in welcoming the Scottish Government’s intention to abolish tribunal fees:
“So we are delighted that the government has addressed this issue, and has seen the urgency in putting it right. These fees should never have been introduced, and they need to be scrapped as soon as possible.”
I could not agree more.
Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Streeter. May I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests regarding my previous occupation as a director of Thompsons Solicitors, which is a national firm of employment law specialists that conducts a substantial number of employment tribunal cases on behalf of trade unions and their members?
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) on securing the debate. Like him, I am deeply concerned about this issue. As he outlined, the impact of the coalition Government’s tribunal fees has been to price people out of access to justice. The Conservative party calls itself the party of working people, but if there is one single policy that totally exposes that statement as a myth, it is the introduction of employment tribunal fees. The Conservatives knew exactly what the impact of the policy would be, because they and their Liberal Democrat coalition partners at the time were told repeatedly and forcefully that the proposal would decimate access to justice. Just as with legal aid cuts, civil court fee increases, restrictions on judicial review, the Trade Union Bill, the proposal to repeal the Human Rights Act and the intended increase to the small claims limit that the Chancellor announced in last week’s spending review, employment tribunal fees were not introduced to solve a real problem. They were introduced to diminish the voice of ordinary working people, of trade unions and of their members.
I am sure the Government will try to say that the rationale for introducing the fees was to defray the cost of the Courts and Tribunals Service. If that really was the rationale, it has failed spectacularly, because so few people can afford to bring claims that the revenue has not been generated, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston said.
The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General openly stated that the purpose of the fees was to deter people from bringing employment tribunal claims. In an article for The Telegraph website in March 2014, he wrote:
“Unscrupulous workers caused havoc by inundating companies with unfounded claims of mistreatment, discrimination or worse. Like Japanese knotweed, the soaring number of tribunal cases dragged more and more companies into its grip, squeezing the life and energy from Britain’s wealth creators.”
He went on to say that the tribunal system had
“become a system that in too many cases was being ruthlessly exploited by people trying to make a fast-buck.”
Where is the evidence for that? If the situation really was as he stated, the success rate in employment tribunal cases brought after the introduction of fees would have risen significantly, because the fees would have acted as a disincentive for unmeritorious claimants. What has actually happened? The success rate has stayed at the level it was at before the introduction of fees.
Preventing access to justice through high fees, therefore, weeds out not just unmeritorious cases—I accept there will be a few of those—but nearly all cases. In that respect, the policy has been tremendously successful. Fees have had a severe negative impact on the ability of people—particularly those on low and average household incomes and the more vulnerable in society—to access the justice system. That was a shameful intention. We had a Minister openly stating that he and his coalition partners wanted to prevent members of the public from accessing the justice system.
Ian Lavery
My hon. Friend will not be surprised by that attack on hard-working people in the workplace who want to seek justice. Like me and other Members, she has experienced the gagging Bill part 1, the gagging Bill part 2 and what is classified as a trade union Bill. All in all, they are a concerted attack on people who just want to get on in life. If there is a problem with justice in the workplace, they want to be able to challenge it.
Jo Stevens
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I could not have put it better myself.
As we have heard, there has been a 69% drop in single-applicant cases since the introduction of fees. However, I want to comment on a couple of other statistics. There has been a 90% drop in sex discrimination cases and a 45% drop in pregnancy-related unfair dismissal cases. That is yet another example of the Prime Minister’s problem with women. He does not want public money spent on women, so they bear the brunt of 75% of his Government’s public sector spending cuts. He does not want to do anything about the grossly unfair VAT regime—the tampon tax. Instead, he cuts funding for domestic violence refuges and rape counselling services, and he makes women pay for those services themselves through the VAT on sanitary products. Furthermore, if any of us is subject to sex discrimination at work or sacked because we are pregnant, he prices us out of access to an employment tribunal to challenge that unlawful treatment.
Jo Stevens
My hon. Friend makes a valid point. Irony is alive and well in this House. I do not quite know where to start with my thanks to the Prime Minister for the way he treats women.
I turn to what I expect the Minister to refer to as the Government’s mechanism to mitigate people’s being priced out of justice: the fee remission system. Given that the affordability of fees is a central issue in the debate, the remission system’s effectiveness in addressing it is important. However, the reality is that the system is little more than a fig leaf. For each separate fee incurred, a separate application for fee remission, with detailed evidence of income, must be provided. The booklet to guide people through the process is 31 pages long, and the preparation of applications can take up to 30 minutes, increasing the costs of the case every time a court fee is incurred. That work also has an impact on the time of court and tribunal staff. It represents unnecessary bureaucracy, as well as a backward step in the Government’s stated intention to move towards deregulation, efficiency and cost cutting.
In a speech to the Engineering Employers Federation in November 2011, the then Business Secretary, Vince Cable, said:
“I want to make it very clear that for those with a genuine claim, fees will not be a barrier to justice. We will ensure that there is a remissions system for those who need help.”
The latest available information on remission comes from statistics issued by the employment tribunals. They show that, from July 2013 to June 2015, only 17.7% of issue fees requested were remitted.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston commented on the redundancy fund. Claimants are forced to pay tribunal fees out of their redundancy pay. I really hope the Justice Committee will address that issue in its report on access to justice. I also hope it will look specifically at the terrible problem of employment tribunal fees, which affect women in particular. I ask the Minister to take those comments back to his colleagues to ensure that fees are scrapped.
Richard Arkless (Dumfries and Galloway) (SNP)
Like my colleagues, I can confirm that it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Streeter. Special thanks to the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) for securing what I, like his colleagues, consider to be an extremely important debate.
I rise as a member of the Scottish National party to put the SNP’s case, and I want to start by putting the issue in a Scottish context. The issues of employment law and employment tribunal fees are reserved to the Westminster Parliament. There is an expectation that clause 37 of the Scotland Bill will devolve the financial arrangements and management of employment law tribunals to Scotland. The Scottish Government have a clear policy of abolishing the fees as soon as we have the power to do so. To quote the Scottish programme for government, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) did, that will be done
“when we are clear on how the transfer of powers and responsibilities will work.”
The devolution of any part of the administrative justice sphere in Scotland is done through a separate Order in Council. We are yet to see whether the Government will sign off the relevant Order in Council and whether it will include the right to adjust employment tribunals, but we are working on the basis that that is what will happen.
Why does Scotland have an interest in this issue? We could argue that, if these issues are devolved, it will be for Scotland to decide whether to abolish fees. Of course, that disregards the funding arrangements between the UK and Scotland. If fees are abolished in the rest of the UK, Scotland’s funding mechanism will be increased by the extra amount the Scottish Government will have to spend in future years on employment law tribunal fees. While we have a commitment to abolish fees, therefore, unless the fiscal arrangements are correct, Scotland will have to find the money to do so from the remainder of its budget—which we are willing, at this juncture, to do, because that is clearly the moral thing to do.
As I said earlier, the imposition of employment law tribunal fees follows from the Beecroft report. The premise on which it was based was high-handed. The report stated that business must be allowed to grow and to be more efficient, but that employment law impedes that. That statement is very contentious. As I said in my intervention, simply stripping a firm of its cost liabilities and potential need to spend money does not, in itself, make that business more efficient. I would argue that if a business treats its staff correctly, the staff will treat the clients correctly, and that will make the business more productive and efficient. The premise on which the imposition of the fees was based is therefore flawed at best. This is all being done to save the £82 million or so a year that was spent on employment tribunal cases.
The upshot is that someone with a simple claim for being refused time off, or for a breach of working time regulations, faces a £160 issue fee and a £230 hearing fee. For a more serious case of discrimination for wrongful dismissal, there is a £250 issue fee and a whopping £950 hearing fee. God forbid that anyone would ever need to go to appeal, as the combined cost is £1,600 on top of what has been paid for the previous hearing. It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out that this will be a material deterrent to claimants bringing their cases.
Every litigator worth their salt—I speak with some credibility as I used to be a litigator—understands acutely that quite often the way to win a case is not to win a substantive argument, but to pile cost pressure on the other side. This is the Government trying to use a litigious tactic to pile cost pressure on claimants who, ordinarily, just want their grievances heard. It is a disgraceful course of action. The result in Scotland has been a 92% reduction in redundancy claims, an 81% reduction in sex discrimination claims, and a 90% reduction in claims for breaches of working time regulations.
Legally, through free access to employment law tribunals, we went as far as we could in making rights that protect workers absolute; now, they are not absolute. The right to not be unfairly dismissed, to be free from sex discrimination, and to be consulted on redundancy is no longer absolute. I asked the Minister what kind of message this sent out. It sends out a message that it is okay to abuse workers because, essentially, they have no course of redress, and that it is okay for the rest of the workers in that organisation to feel that their fellow workers have been marginalised. That has a direct impact on their productivity levels, wellbeing, morale and, ultimately, the financial success of the organisation for which they work. With these changes, it appears that the lower someone is on the income scale, the more inaccessible justice becomes.
I will pick up on points made by previous speakers. The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston was right to highlight that tribunals do not just award compensation. They can provide a statement of fact—of terms and conditions that give vulnerable workers clarity about their position in a company. He is also right that there has been substantial evidence to the Justice Committee—which, as a member of that Committee, I have heard—highlighting how much of a deterrent the fees are. He is right to point out that some employers will not even consider the claim until the issue fee is paid. That is piling even more cost pressure on to the vulnerable workers and works in favour of the employer. It tips the balance away from justice and towards employers for no good reason, as far as I can see.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West rightly made the point that workers have been priced out of justice. The changes disproportionately affect women, minorities and those at the lower end of the income scale. He is also right to point out that there is wide support in Scottish civic society for the Scottish Government’s policy of abolition.
The hon. Member for Cardiff Central (Jo Stevens) made some excellent points very well. She is right to say that the policy completely makes a mockery of the Conservative party’s claims to be the party of working people, and it is not evidence-based. As with much of the legislative agenda that I have witnessed since becoming a Member in this House, particularly the Trade Union Bill, this seems to be an ideological attack with no evidence base whatever. That follows a consistent theme in the legislation that I have seen come before Parliament since joining the House in May.
Chris Stephens
The hon. Member for Cardiff Central (Jo Stevens) also mentioned the wealth creators. Does my hon. Friend agree with me that the genuine wealth creators in this country are low-paid, long-hours workers—many of them women—who are helping to keep the economic wheels turning, yet they are the ones under attack?
Richard Arkless
I completely agree with that. Any business that sees its staff as disposable units of production is headed for disaster. I go back to what I said: if businesses treat their staff properly, the staff treat customers properly. If customers are treated properly, the business will be successful. If a business is successful, there is a dividend for shareholders, which, no doubt, is the motivation of the Conservative party.
In conclusion, I urge the Minister to persuade the Government, when he takes this information back to them, that their review should conclude what the Scottish Government, Scottish civic society and Opposition party Members conclude: that they should abolish these draconian fees without delay.
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)
It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Streeter. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) on securing this very important debate. He speaks with huge experience—far more than me. He was, I think, an employment solicitor from 1998. I ought to declare my interest: I am a lawyer. Prior to my election to this House, I was a barrister at Wilberforce Chambers in Hull. Since then, I have been admitted to the roll of solicitors, practising only occasionally on a completely pro bono basis. As we are discussing tribunals, including employment tribunals, I ought to declare the fact that my wife is a fee-paid judge in the social entitlement tribunal, and a legal aid lawyer. She does not practise employment law. If she did, she would not do so through public funding, because the Government took away the little public funding that there was for employment law in the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012.
Since the introduction of employment tribunal fees in 2013, there has been a massive decline in the number of cases brought to tribunals. The number of single employment tribunal claims has fallen by 69%, and the number of discrimination cases has fallen by a massive 80%. It cannot be said that that is a result of weeding out unmeritorious claims. It is beyond what is reasonable to suggest that the Ministry of Justice could have calibrated fees perfectly to deter 50,000 or more vexatious cases every year while ensuring that all meritorious cases were heard before tribunals.
It is important to look at a couple of cases that have come to my surgery. One is the case of Steve, who is a full-time forklift truck driver in Hull, working for a builders merchant. He had worked five consecutive Saturdays but had not been paid. A simple wage claim amounted to £280, but the fee was £390—completely prohibitive. He would have been entitled to fee remission had he been advised, but as the Minister knows, there is no longer legal help for employment law. In any event, the procedure for claiming fee remission is so complex and long-winded that it would put anybody off. The suggestion that a layperson could tackle the complexities thrown at them in applying for the fee remission is just ludicrous, and the Minister probably knows that. He might not accept or want to concede that, but it happens to be absolutely right.
There are three problems. One is the possibility that fee remission is not brought to the public’s attention. I do not think that people know about it, and even if they did, it is too complex to tackle without some legal help. The fee remission scheme is an absolute minefield. I looked at it briefly today. [Interruption.]
Mr Gary Streeter (in the Chair)
Order. We have a fourth problem: there is a Division in the House, so the sitting is suspended. I understand that we are expecting possibly two votes, so we will suspend for 25 minutes. If it is only one vote, please come back as quickly as possible, as we will suspend for 15 minutes.
Karl Turner
Before the short suspension for us to run along to the Division Lobby, I was explaining that there is a difficulty with the Government suggesting that the fee remission scheme is the answer to employment tribunal fees. I said that there were three problems. First, there is the possibility that the remission scheme is not being brought to public attention. As far as I understand it, most people do not know it exists. I have spoken to various law centre staff and citizens advice bureau advisers who have said that people genuinely do not know that the scheme exists and are sometimes surprised to find that it does. Secondly, the fee remission scheme is an absolute minefield. Thirdly and lastly, how can any individual without legal help know what their own legal position is and whether they might be entitled to a fee remission?
I mentioned the first case study, but another one has come to me as an MP. It is the case of Mary, who was employed as a personal assistant. She brought a sexual discrimination claim when her employer was not happy that she had become pregnant. She left the job and immediately found other employment. Even with the fee remission, she was still required to find £840. It is fair to say that she begged and borrowed to come up with that money. However, she said to me that if she had not had family members and friends who were prepared to help her out financially, she would have had a problem. She could not have gone to a loan shark, and clearly she did not want to borrow money, but she considered it and eventually borrowed from friends and members of her family. But for that, she estimated that it would have taken her three months, even on a reasonable salary, to save the money to pay for the fee. We know that the statutory bar for bringing an employment case is three months. Clearly, people are not managing to get the money together to get an application in on time.
Such examples show that since 2010 the Government have attacked the rights of workers. Under the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, employment cases were taken completely out of the scope of legal help; the Government have increased the time required to gain employment rights from 12 months to two years; we have seen the introduction of employment tribunal fees; and we have also seen the introduction of the Trade Union Bill, which further dramatically undermines the rights of working people. Any claim that this Government are on the side of working people is utterly disgusting, and I put that in the strongest possible terms. It is absolutely disgusting to suggest that this Government are on the side of working people.
The Government argued that the reason for introducing fees was to prevent vexatious claims, and then they argued that it was mainly to recover the cost of running the employment tribunal service from users who could afford to pay. However, the latest accounts from the Ministry of Justice show that in 2014-15 the net income from employment tribunal fees was £9 million, while the expenditure on the service was £71.4 million. That means that the increase in net income from fees covers 12.5% of the cost of running the service. That12.5% gain in revenue was achieved at the expense of a 69% overall drop in people bringing claims to employment tribunals—tens of thousands of workers deterred from seeking justice for breaches of their employment rights. The evidence must suggest that the Government’s introduction of tribunal fees is purely ideological. It is punitive and shuts thousands of workers out of accessing justice.
[Mrs Cheryl Gillan in the Chair]
I am conscious of the time, and I am keen for the Minister to reply to hon. Members who have spoken. As I said at the outset, they are probably an awful lot better informed on the subject than I am. I do not want to take up too much more time, but I have some questions that I hope the Minister will make a note of and try to answer.
What is the Minister’s assessment of the high expenditure of the employment tribunal service? If it is terribly difficult for him to come up with a full answer immediately, I am happy for him to write to me. Given that the volume of cases is down massively, will the Minister explain why there has not been a corresponding drop in running costs? We are all keen to save money—we all want to make efficiency savings wherever possible—but the evidence seems to suggest that there is no genuine saving from the completely unfair introduction of fees.
Jo Stevens
I just want to provide an anecdote. I was talking to an employment tribunal panel member last week. He is supposed to sit for 31 days a year, but in the past 12 months, because of the paucity of cases being brought to the tribunal, he has been able to sit for only nine. We have some expensive people sitting in employment tribunals having to string cases out because people cannot afford to bring claims.
Karl Turner
I said that Opposition Members have a great deal of knowledge and experience in the field, and my hon. Friend has just highlighted that. Employment judges, who are paid—I will guess at the amount—probably upwards of £140,000 a year often sit idly without any work, as a result of what the Government have done with fees.
Finally, if, as the Government have claimed, the dramatic fall in the number of cases is down purely to the removal of vexatious claims, why have we not seen an increase in the percentage of successful claims? If the necessity to introduce the fee scheme was about preventing vexatious and unmeritorious claims, surely the success of the claims that are in the tribunal system should be going through the roof, but that is clearly not happening.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Shailesh Vara)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Gillan.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) on securing the debate. It is an important subject, and I know that in his case it is particularly so, given his background as an employment solicitor. I thank the other contributors, the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) and the hon. Member for Cardiff Central (Jo Stevens), and the two Front-Bench spokespeople, the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (Richard Arkless) and the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner). I also thank the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston for allowing me the opportunity to put on record the Government’s position.
The Government recognise the crucial service that employment tribunals provide to those employees who have serious disputes with their employers. It is vital that people in that position have meaningful access to justice and an effective way to remedy their problems.
Ian Lavery
If it is that vital for ordinary people in the workplace to access justice, will the Minister explain why his Government introduced a £1,200 tribunal fee?
Mr Vara
I ask the hon. Gentleman to bear with me, as I will turn to that issue, and also to the issue of working people that has been mentioned by a number of colleagues.
Hon. Members will be aware that the Government were elected as a majority Government with a clear mandate to eliminate the budget deficit during this Parliament. That requires a responsible approach to funding public services, which must include the courts and tribunals, both now and in the future. When the Government introduced fees in employment tribunals in 2013 it was estimated that the cost of running the service was about £84 million per year. Before the introduction of fees, the whole burden of that cost was met by taxpayers. Fees were introduced to reduce the burden, and to ensure that those who were using the service and benefiting directly from it were making a reasonable contribution to the cost, when they could afford to do so.
At the time the fees were introduced, we also applied Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service fee remissions. That scheme is there to ensure that those on low incomes are not prevented from lodging a claim. Under the scheme, those who qualify may have their fees waived, either in part or in full, depending on their financial means. I am a little disappointed that although much has been made of the employment tribunal fees, only a passing reference was made to the conciliatory scheme introduced by ACAS, to which I will turn shortly.
As far as remissions are concerned, I am grateful for, and have very much taken on board, hon. Members’ practical comments, and I can assure colleagues that my officials are looking at how applications are made to see how the process can be made simpler and more user-friendly.
Chris Stephens
Will the Minister reassure us that he will pay particular attention to cases in which there is a claim for an illegal deduction of wages, the amount of which is lower than the fee demanded by the service?
Mr Vara
I will not make any instantaneous decisions. I will look at everything in the round. We are considering the matter, and the hon. Gentleman will be aware that we are undertaking a review—which I will come on to—of the whole employment tribunal fees structure, of which I am sure that matter will be a part.
Jo Stevens
The Minister mentions the review that is under way. The terms of reference for the review make no reference whatsoever to the question of whether the fees should be abolished. They simply say that the review will make
“recommendations for any changes to the structure and level of fees”.
Will the Government reconsider the terms of reference, and think about whether the fees should be scrapped?
Mr Vara
The terms of reference are a little broader than the hon. Lady says. They are “to determine how successful” the employment tribunal fees have been in achieving “the original objectives”. There were three original objectives. One was financial, to consider transferring
“a proportion of the costs from the taxpayer to those who use the tribunal where they can afford to do so”.
The second objective was to consider any behavioural aspects,
“to encourage parties to seek alternative ways of resolving their disputes”,
and the third was to ensure that we maintained “access to justice”. We are carrying out the review in terms of those three broad original objectives.
Jo Stevens
May I take it from the Minister’s reply that the question of abolition of fees is not ruled out, in the context of the review?
Justin Madders
I do not wish to labour the point, but the question is simple. We are not asking the Minister to make a decision today; we are simply seeking clarification and confirmation that he is not ruling out the abolition of fees altogether as part of the review.
Mr Vara
It is important to appreciate that once the Government website publishes terms of reference, which have been there for many weeks, it is not appropriate to seek to change those terms of reference simply because one is in a debate, no matter how many times colleagues try to press me to respond in that way.
Karl Turner
I will give the Minister one last opportunity: is the possibility of the complete abolition of the fees in the review?
Mr Vara
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave setting out the three objectives against which we are basing the review.
It is important to note that the introduction of fees was designed to encourage parties to use alternative ways of resolving their disputes. Colleagues will appreciate that such means can often be more effective, less stressful and less expensive than formal litigation. For that reason, the previous Administration introduced the new early conciliation service, under which anyone contemplating bringing a complaint to an employment tribunal must first contact ACAS, which will offer conciliation that is free of charge.
ACAS’s evaluation of the scheme during its first year shows that the early results are promising. Although participating in early conciliation is not compulsory for either party, the vast majority do so. In 75% of cases, both parties agree to participate. The scheme was used by more than 80,000 people in its first year. Recent research by ACAS shows that more than 80% of participants in early conciliation were satisfied with the service. Much has been said so far about lawyers acting for people, so it is important to note that we have a free option, without lawyers who charge fees, that will also be less stressful and in an environment that is constructive to arriving at a solution. Sadly, it is often the case that when lawyers are involved, it can be antagonistic. That is not always the case, but it can be the case when two sets of lawyers are acting.
I assure colleagues that it was always our intention to carry out a post-implementation review of the impact of fees on employment tribunals. As Members will be aware, we announced that review in June. The aim of the review is to look at how effective fees have been in meeting the original objectives, as I mentioned. Following their introduction, there has been some concern—it has been expressed today—about the impact fees have had on people’s ability to bring claims before the tribunal. Those criticisms have tended to focus on selected statistics, taken in isolation and out of context. In particular, the fall in the volume of claims issued in the employment tribunal has been pointed to as proof that people are being denied access to justice. That is too narrow a perspective when considering this rather broader issue. The fall in the number of claims is likely to be the result of a number of factors. Crucially, there is a failure to take account of the significant increase in the take-up of conciliation.
Justin Madders
The Minister will be aware that conciliation was introduced some time after the fees were introduced. Will he explain why there was such a significant drop immediately after fees were introduced?
Mr Vara
I maintain that it is too simplistic to say that the fees were responsible for the drop. If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me for just a moment, I will explain the other reasons that may have contributed to the decline in the numbers. As I have already mentioned, ACAS’s evaluation of the service suggests that the early results are promising. It is noteworthy that the trend was that the number of claims was declining before fees were introduced. It is likely that that was related, at least in part, to the improving economy, which has delivered higher levels of employment. The economy and employment have continued to improve, and it is therefore likely that we would have continued to see a trend of falling claim numbers, irrespective of whether fees were introduced.
Ruth Cadbury
The Minister says that there was a decline for other reasons. The figures that we heard earlier in the debate were of 60% drops and even a 90% drop in certain types of cases. Was the level of drop in claims that the Minister saw of that order?
Mr Vara
I am giving a general analysis of the number of claims that were made to the employment tribunal. The trend of the total number of claims was declining. The hon. Lady seeks to talk about specific types of cases, and I am not going to go into that. I am talking about the general trend, because the debate and the numbers given so far have been broad and have related to the total number of applications received to employment tribunals.
Chris Stephens
Is the Minister casting doubt on the specific research on this matter carried out by Citizens Advice Scotland, Citizens Advice for England and Wales, the TUC and others? Will he write to me with the figures on the declining number of employment tribunals prior to the introduction of fees?
Mr Vara
I am certainly not casting doubt on research. If the hon. Gentleman recalls, I said that I was not going to discuss specific issues and specific types of case. It is important to take things in the context of how the debate has been going so far. The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston spoke in broad-brush terms about the fees coming in and the total number of reductions.
Richard Arkless
I politely ask the Minister, when he takes the information from this debate back to the Government and his colleagues, to point out to them that although there may arguably have been a small decline or a trend before the imposition of fees, since then the numbers have fallen off the edge of a cliff. The trend has not continued.
Mr Vara
I take on board what the hon. Gentleman says. As I have said, we are undertaking a review at present.
Other policy reforms, including changes to employment law, which the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston referred to, are also likely to have had some impact on the figures. It is clear, therefore, that a wider range of factors needs to be taken into account if we are to have a proper assessment of the true impact that fees have had, and that needs to be considered in the round. That is why we are doing a review, and that is what the review will seek to evaluate. If, after the review has reported, the Government believe that there are compelling arguments for changes to the fees structure or to the operation of the fee remissions scheme, we will, of course, bring forward proposals for a consultation, to which Members may wish to contribute.
We recognise that fees are never popular, but in the current financial climate we have a duty to consider all possible ways of ensuring that the courts and tribunals are adequately funded, so that access to justice is protected in the long term. Let me be absolutely clear, however, that at every step we have ensured that the most vulnerable are protected through the fee remissions scheme, so that the burden falls on those who can afford to pay. The conclusions of the review will provide us with a clearer picture of how fees have affected the way people seek to resolve their disputes.
Turning to some of the issues that were raised by colleagues in the debate, there was a charge that the fees were a sustained attack on working people. [Hon. Members: “Yes.”] I do not accept that for one moment. I refer to something that the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston said in his speech—I will more or less quote him—which was along the lines of, “If you are still working, taking your employer to a tribunal is the last thing you want to do.”
That is exactly why an ACAS proposal and early conciliation is a lot better than going to the tribunal. I like to think that the proposal for ACAS fits in nicely in the context of that interpretation of his sentence. The conciliation system is free. Colleagues talk about considering the working man but it seems that, by proposing to scrap or not recognise the free early conciliation system, they are showing that they would prefer a system where lawyers are instead paid by the people whom they speak about.
Jo Stevens
I am glad that the Minister has praised ACAS and the service that it provides. On that basis, will he please therefore speak to his colleagues in government about the fact that Government Departments are not engaging in early conciliation via ACAS, and specifically, on the point that I made earlier in the debate, about the National Offender Management Service?
Mr Vara
I take on board what the hon. Lady says, and I will certainly look into the matter further. On the remissions system, I have already said we are looking to see how it can be made more user-friendly, and we will continue to look at it. The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston also quoted Lord Justice Underhill in the case in which Unison had been involved. I gently point out to him that both the cases brought by Unison to seek judicial review were rejected by the Court of Appeal. Unison is seeking permission to appeal from the Supreme Court, but let me put it on the record that we will object robustly if the appeal process is granted.
Richard Arkless
The Minister is being extremely generous with his time; Opposition Members appreciate that. As part of the brief that he gives back to his colleagues—I am afraid I have had a memory freeze. I will come back to my point. I apologise.
Mr Vara
We still have about three and a half minutes, so I am happy to give way to the hon. Gentleman again if necessary.
On the issue of women and pregnancy discrimination, let me make it absolutely clear that it is unacceptable that women, pregnant or not—indeed, anyone—should be discriminated against when there are laws against it. We have strict laws and the Government take the matter very seriously, as do all Members of all parties. The reviews that have been referred to will certainly be taken into account by my Department’s review into the employment tribunals.
The hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway spoke of the Scottish aspect. I can assure him that my officials are in contact with Scottish officials to ensure that, pursuant to the Smith Commission, there is a smooth transfer in the running of the tribunals. I hope I have managed to persuade colleagues that the matter is not simply about preventing vexatious claims; it is much broader than that and is intended to ensure that where there is a need to reach a settlement with an employer, it is done in an environment that is less stressful than the court environment. Given the financial climate in which we operate, it is right that those who use the court service should in some way contribute to it.
I will conclude by congratulating the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston on securing this debate. It is absolutely clear from the 90 minutes or so that we have had that it commands a huge amount of interest from colleagues. I am grateful to him for giving his colleagues an opportunity to air their views, and for allowing me to take on board their comments and views and put on the record the Government’s view.
Justin Madders
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Gillan. I will be brief. I am disappointed in what the Minister has said today. I do not believe that he has really taken on board our concerns. I am very disappointed that, despite having had four opportunities to confirm that there is a possibility that the review of the fees will lead to their abolition, he has declined to confirm that. So we have a consultation and a review of the system, but it is nothing more than a comfort blanket to justify the original decision. I am also disappointed that, apart from the Minister, who spoke as best he could in a difficult situation, no one else from the Conservative party was here today to speak up on behalf of the Government’s policy. Perhaps they do not want to defend the indefensible.
It is worth bearing in mind that the Government’s approach is all part of a strategy in a race to the bottom. It is not a race that we should take part in. In the long run, we will all be the poorer for that kind of mentality. Let us get a system that allows workplace justice. Let us have a proper consultation and take on board all the evidence—the weight of evidence from the Justice Committee that we have heard today—about how the fees have really denied access to justice. Let us get a system that really allows access to justice. The only way to do that is to scrap the fees altogether.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the effect of the introduction of fees for employment tribunals.
Post Office Closures
(8 years, 4 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered service provision in the event of post office closures.
It is an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mrs Gillan. I am grateful for the opportunity to lead this debate about post office provision. I have particular concerns about post offices closing and not being reopened, or not for some significant time. This being a debate about post offices, I very much hope to receive your stamp of approval, Mrs Gillan. I am conscious that other MPs will wish to speak—mail or female—and I will leave plenty of time for them to do so. If I go on for too long, I am sure that Members will tell me in no uncertain terms, “Letters speak!” I shall leave behind the appalling puns and move on to the subject of the debate.
With the Post Office having moved towards a franchise model, local provision is increasingly reliant on private individuals providing a post office as well as running their own business. If those individuals decide to hand in the keys, the Post Office is left to try to find a replacement, and the community is without a post office until it does. I shall explore three areas in my speech. First, I shall provide a brief case study of the closure of my local post office in Heathfield in my constituency, Bexhill and Battle. Secondly, I shall assess whether the Government’s contract with Post Office Ltd obliges the latter to provide replacement post offices following closures. Thirdly, I shall ask the Minister what more can be done to ensure that Post Office Ltd is held responsible for better service provision.
Turning first to the case study on post office closure, Heathfield is a rural settlement serving 12,000 residents. It is the largest parish in the country by population. In most eyes, it is a town, although it is fair to say that I would be run out of town—or, indeed, parish—if I suggested so. As befits a population of that size, Heathfield has a high street with banks, supermarkets, and both national and local shops. Whereas high streets around the country may be struggling, Heathfield’s has strong footfall, with new national retailers opening for business.
In March this year, the postmaster running the post office branch expressed a wish to leave the business. Post Office Ltd identified a potential new postmaster, but he was unfortunately unable to secure a lease agreement on the site. Sadly, the branch closed on 1 April 2015. The Post Office employed an agent postmaster, but he could not agree a lease on the premises either. That leads to my first issue: Post Office Ltd will send in a temporary postmaster to run a post office only from the existing site, so people are at the mercy of the landlord when it comes to making this work. Post Office Ltd will not look at alternative temporary premises for the temporary postmaster, despite there being plenty of premises available in my Heathfield example.
By summer, the pressure applied by the community and our fantastic county, district and parish councillors caused Post Office Ltd to consider a temporary solution in the form of a portakabin post office. Despite the district council offering a berth in the car park adjacent to the existing site, Post Office Ltd decided that that was not logistically possible, so it opted for a different car park in Heathfield. Having delivered the portakabin via crane, time was taken waiting for BT and other suppliers to kit out said portakabin. That leads to my second issue: Post Office Ltd must have huge buy-in clout when dealing with its vendors, but there appeared to be an institutional unwillingness to drive BT and others to deliver the required capability, or to hold feet to the fire.
When the portakabin was finally ready to go live, Post Office Ltd engineers found that the site was not flat enough to provide safe access for customers. The portakabin was promptly removed, and no temporary solution has been provided. That leads to my third issue: there are more than 11,500 post offices in operation, so if my local one can close, I am sure that others can and have closed.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
My hon. Friend makes an important point. I am sad to hear what has happened in Heathfield. I hope that the same will not happen in Bulkington in my constituency, where the Co-op gave notice of withdrawing its post office franchise only last week. That set all sorts of hares running in the village, with talk of the post office closing down. It is not the post office that is closing down; the Co-op has elected to take away the franchise and has not, at this stage, taken any steps to find an alternative site. My hon. Friend has raised an important problem, and I look forward to hearing from the Minister how the Post Office might deal with such matters.
Huw Merriman
I thank my hon. Friend for making that point. Indeed, Co-op was one of the retailers we approached in Heathfield to see whether it would be willing to take on the post office, but that particular Co-op franchise at least made it clear that it was not in the business of post offices anymore. That might add fuel to my hon. Friend’s fire.
David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)
I found it humorous when the hon. Gentleman mentioned post offices in portakabins—they would not last too long in certain parts of Northern Ireland. Does he agree that although the Co-op might have had some responsibility, so does the Post Office, because post offices are part of the fabric of the community, and are where pensioners and others meet? Surely the commitment needs to come from the Post Office.
Huw Merriman
I absolutely agree, and will touch on that when I discuss the effect on my constituents.
Karen Lumley (Redditch) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate. I add my concerns to the others expressed, because the post office in Inkberrow in my constituency is up for consultation. The local shop was keen to have it, but the Post Office could not consult properly with local residents. It would be great if post offices could be sited in community facilities such as pubs.
Huw Merriman
I very much take my hon. Friend’s point. One of the challenges we have found has been in trying to find businesses that are willing to take on post office sites. The choice does not seem to be there any longer—at least, not that I can see from the situation in Heathfield.
Andrew Percy
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. In my constituency we have exactly the same problem, with post offices closing and there being a long gap before they are replaced. There are problems even when people are willing to take on a post office. A sub-postmaster in my constituency wishes to take on a post office in another community, but he cannot because the Post Office demands that he goes through all these hoops, despite being a serving sub-postmaster. Often, because of the processes put in place by the Post Office, willing people will not accept the role, and we end up with no facility at all.
Huw Merriman
I very much agree with my hon. Friend. The compliance process is long and detailed. The current consultation in Heathfield means that we will not see a solution until February at the earliest.
Returning to my story, the portakabin was removed because the Post Office Ltd had no plan in place for portakabin roll-outs. If the closures that I believe will come do come, there needs to be a plan. The councillors realised that a permanent replacement was the only option, so they approached a number of national and local stores in the high street. I will give examples that show how difficult it now is to get businesses to take on a post office. Having previously hosted the post office, Sainsbury’s said no, despite losing footfall following the closing of the adjacent post office and having to compete with a new Waitrose. A WHSmith is opening soon, which is a good sign that the town is vibrant; one would think that the business would work well there, but it said no. As I say, Co-op said that it is not taking on post offices. The post office used to be sited in the sorting offices, but Royal Mail refused to accommodate even a temporary outlet. All other retailers declined to apply.
Finally, one local business, an off-licence, was willing to make an application. Thank goodness for that gentleman. That leads me to my fourth issue: the model now seems to be that neither village post offices—often called “locals”—nor main post offices in towns will operate as a stand-alone business now. That would be fine if existing businesses were willing to take on the operation, but as our experience in Heathfield shows, they are not. I question whether the commercial terms will stand the test of time for the other 11,500 post offices when renewal comes up.
As I said earlier, the Post Office is now in consultation with the community until January 2016. The expectation, if all goes well—touch wood—is that the new post office service will be in place in February 2016. That is almost a year after the doors closed to a post office that serves 11,500 to 12,000 residents.
Throughout the period of closure, the vast majority of customers have had to use services at a village a few miles from Heathfield. That is fine for those who have a car and can travel, but like many hon. Members here, I represent a rural constituency in which the bus service has been reduced. The proportion of over-65s in my constituency is 10% above the national average. The elderly cannot jump on a bus and then wait more than an hour in the cold to come back.
That leads me to my fifth issue and my second key question. Does the Government’s contract require the Post Office to provide a post office replacement following a closure if the branch serves a significant number of community members, or has been closed for, say, six months? It appears that it does not. Post Office Ltd must meet access criteria, as they are called, and overall branch numbers, but as somebody at the Post Office rather haughtily said to me,
“The way in which the Post Office meets the access criteria and branch numbers is an operational matter for the Post Office.”
That may be so, but it is also of great significance to my constituents and those of other hon. Members. The Post Office currently meets the access criteria, but I question how long it will continue to do so in the marketplace that I have described.
My concluding question is: what more can be done to ensure that Post Office Ltd is held responsible for better service provision? If the Government contract required either a temporary or permanent replacement to be in place within a set period, Heathfield would not have been without its post office for so long. I call for the contract terms to be amended to require a replacement post office to be in place within six months if the previous post office serviced a community of, say, 10,000 residents or more. If a replacement fails to be found, there should be financial penalties and ramifications on the career ladder. Although the Post Office staff have done everything they can, their roles are not subject to incentives, and there are no penalties if a post office closes, provided that the general access criteria are met. Those are the changes I ask for.
Mrs Cheryl Gillan (in the Chair)
Four Members have indicated that they would like to speak, and we must accommodate the three Front Benchers’ speeches. I will not impose a time limit, but I hope that you will all bear that in mind.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to speak on this issue. I commend the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) for bringing it to Westminster Hall for consideration. This is a key issue in my constituency—as in, I believe, every other constituency. We have experienced a lot of changes to our post offices over the years, not all of them for the best, although some have been carried out constructively.
The post office is a national institution that has been at the heart of British society since its inception. The post office in my constituency is more than just a post office. The post office is a community hub for people in towns, villages and hamlets up and down the country. It holds together the fabric of society. My post office, although I do not visit it very often, is also a shop, and that is where the change has taken place. It is clearly the thriving centre of the village. For many of the people who go to the post office to post letters or whatever else, the social interaction they get there is vital. Without it, they would suffer.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
On the issue of the other services that local post offices provide, over the past 20 years there has been a reduction of almost 50% in the number of branch post offices, and that trend looks likely to continue. We need a fundamental reassessment of the services provided by branch post offices, particularly in rural areas.
Jim Shannon
As always, my hon. Friend sums up the whole debate in about two sentences. He is absolutely right. Those are clearly the issues, and that change needs to take place across the whole Post Office.
Post office restructuring and modernisation will affect different post offices in different ways. In some places, there is concern that the post office, its services and its community value will be lost. In others, including my constituency, the concern is about the staff who face dramatically increased working hours for the same wage. That issue has to be taken into consideration. When post offices, their services and their provisions are lost, our role is to protect those who are adversely affected by those changes. Elderly people can be left vulnerable and isolated by the loss of what for many is a community hub.
Over the years, I have had the chance to work with post office counters. I want to mention Mark Gibson, who has worked hard to make the necessary changes. Over the years, with his help and the help of local people, we were able to move local post offices into shops in several villages on the Ards peninsula: Kircubbin, Cloughey, Portavogie, Ballygowan, Saintfield and Ballynahinch. The Scrabo estate post office was moved into the Ards shopping centre. Those are the things that can be done if we have the co-operation of the post office counters and those who own shops.
Changes can result in job losses in my constituency, as well as the loss of the community value of the post office. We need to put in place mechanisms, to which my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) referred, to enable the post office to do more. For example, why cannot every post office deal with vehicle tax? That could be done in every post office across the Province. They could deal with benefits, banking and other things. I spoke to the Minister before the debate, so he knew that that question was coming. I hope for a full answer when he speaks.
We have some questions about the post offices in Ballywalter, Portavogie and Killyleagh in my constituency. They are coming into the new system. The postmasters and postmistresses are concerned about how the changes will take place, and the staff are worried about their working hours. Hopefully, relocating staff from closing post offices will alleviate that problem.
It seems that when the individual in charge of a post office decides that they no longer wish to trade, they simply shut up shop. On some occasions, post offices have closed. We were able to move all but one of the post offices I mentioned into other shops in the area. The hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle mentioned a post office that moved into a pub. That is unusual, but it is important that it was retained.
We warned about the drawbacks of the privatisation of the Post Office. Now that it has happened, the Government should do everything they can to ensure that the Post Office has plans in place to make adequate provision. I understand that the contract with the Post Office was geared towards requiring Post Office Ltd to find temporary or permanent replacements for closed post offices. We have to be careful about how the Government push Post Office Ltd. The Government need a hands-on approach to ensure that the major changes happen smoothly, that those who are adversely affected are protected, and that Post Office Ltd fulfils its contractual obligations.
In conclusion, the post office is an integral part of my society—the villages, estates and towns of Strangford, which I represent. People in those villages and estates need post offices for social interaction and for the services they provide. Post offices are the lifeblood of all the villages and estates in my constituency. My plea to the Minister is that he helps them to remain that way.
Dr Daniel Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Gillan. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) on securing the debate. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), whose remarks, as always, were considered.
I hope to inject some optimism into the debate. Our debates in this place are often full of doom and gloom about issues facing our constituencies. Of course, it is right that we advocate on behalf of our constituents, who need to access local services, but some good things have been happening to post offices that have benefited my constituents. I will refer to a few of those things and talk about the issue, which my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle raised, of the challenges that communities face when post offices temporarily close, often due to unforeseen circumstances.
Post offices are the lifeblood of many rural areas and of many of the shopping parades on the periphery of our larger town centres. That is certainly true of my constituency. The service that they provide to older people is particularly important, offering a focus in the village or community for people who have little daily contact and may otherwise be isolated. That is particularly true in rural areas of Suffolk. There is some cause for optimism, however, because the Government have taken supporting post offices seriously. At the beginning of the previous Parliament, as a result of the spending review, £1.3 billion was put into securing a modernisation programme for post offices both large and small, including Crown post offices, main post offices and local post offices. The programme is bringing benefits, certainly to my constituents. A further raft of £640 million was announced in 2013, £20 million of which is specifically for remote rural post offices. Residents in central Suffolk have benefited from that.
One issue that was flagged up when the modernisation programme was taken forward was that the Post Office needed to modernise some of its practices, recognising that we now live in a digital age. We need a Post Office that can benefit from economies of scale and from collocation with other community services. Post offices can benefit village shops by attracting more customers and helping to maintain the viability of shops and services that may otherwise be at risk as people move towards online shopping.
Andrew Percy
I hope my hon. Friend does not think that we are all being negative. The post offices at Pollington, Eastoft, Airmyn and Wrawby were all closed under the previous Government’s closure scheme, and we are pleased that that scheme has gone. The concern about the current positive policy is the huge delays when people are told that they are getting a new post office but then it does not open, meaning that people change their behaviour and start using other services or post offices elsewhere. That is the concern, and I would not want him to think that anyone who is criticising that is at all negative about what the Government have done on post offices. We have protected them in a way that previous Governments did not.
Dr Poulter
My hon. Friend makes a valid point. I am sure that the funding and investment that I have just outlined is welcomed by Members from both sides of the House, because it has gone directly to maintaining the viability of some of the most remote rural post offices. However, the challenge that my hon. Friend throws down, which was also raised at the outset by my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle, is a good one.
When a post office is temporarily closed, such as the one that my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle mentioned in Heathfield, a village with which I am familiar having spent some of my younger days in his constituency, the problem is that the closure can become de facto permanent. Even when a temporary closure is flagged up to the local community and the Post Office many months in advance, the Post Office does not always act quickly enough to put in place either a temporary or permanent solution. I am lucky to have an engaged parish council that considered a number of options for maintaining the viability of the post office in Stradbroke. I helped in that process, and I am pleased that we still have a functioning post office service.
As my hon. Friend pointed out, the danger, and the evidence from elsewhere, is that a temporary closure can last for many months. The viability of the service is then lost and many customers start to take their custom elsewhere, which can have a knock-on effect on the potentially fragile local economy that benefited from having a post office. When the original £1.3 billion was provided, conditions were imposed to ensure that services remained accessible and viable. I am interested in what the Minister has to say about how we can better work with the Post Office to deal with the issues around temporary closures and to speed up the process, so that such closures do not become de facto semi-permanent and so that services can be put back in place. At the moment, it seems that a good policy that has benefited and encouraged the viability of many rural post offices, particularly through collocation, can be undermined in some communities by temporary closures.
Dr Poulter
I will, but I am conscious of the time and the need to close my remarks.
Jason McCartney
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and congratulate all those who have contributed to the debate. I was not aware that other Members were in the same situation as me. My own village post office in Honley has now been closed for six weeks and I have been struggling to get any explanation from the Post Office as to why. Business has been migrating elsewhere. Only this afternoon, the post office in Meltham, which is where we were supposed to go, has also closed. I thank my hon. Friend for raising this issue, which I am now aware exists across the country, not just in my constituency.
Dr Poulter
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that any community could face temporary closures. The great tragedy of such closures, some of which can be unforeseen and happen at short notice, perhaps due to the death of a long-standing postmaster, is that they are often not sudden and are flagged up many months in advance when a postmaster wants to retire. We need prompter action and early engagement from the Post Office in such circumstances. Given the conditionality of the money in the £1.3 billion modernisation programme, I am interested to hear what further steps the Government can take to ensure that the Post Office gets it right. We do not want temporary closures to become permanent, and we must recognise that temporary closures can have a detrimental effect on the other shops in a village or community that relied on the footfall brought in by the post office.
The Government have taken some promising steps towards reinvigorating the Post Office. I believe that 150 new branches opened last year as a result of the modernisation programme. That is good news, but we need to address temporary closures properly. I look forward to the Minister’s remarks.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mrs Cheryl Gillan (in the Chair)
Order. We still have five speakers left, with half an hour to go. I call Dr Paul Monaghan.
Dr Paul Monaghan (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (SNP)
Thank you, Mrs Gillan, for the opportunity to discuss the important issue of service delivery in the event of post office closures. I congratulate the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) on securing the debate and on highlighting his case study, the features of which I recognise only too well.
Post offices play an enormously important role in the lives of communities across the UK, and nowhere is that more evident than in constituencies such as mine that have many remote and rural communities. Indeed, the post office is the heart and soul of many villages in my constituency, and for many people it is the only means to interact with the outside world. They do so not only through postal services and parcels but through banking and accessing business services, submitting identity documents, obtaining a passport or driving licence, accessing cash, building up a modest savings account, receiving pensions and collecting benefit entitlements. I appreciate the challenges that the Post Office faces in delivering that range of crucial range of services, and I appreciate that it is working hard to ensure that its services remain as accessible as possible, particularly for older and disabled customers.
Between March 2001 and March 2015, 531 of Scotland’s post offices were closed. That is equivalent to over 27% of all post offices being lost—more than one in four. Each of those closures is a disaster for the local community, depriving it of the means to interact with the world in the ways that I described. On 8 November 2015, just a few weeks ago, The Mail on Sunday published an article stating that there had been a large number of temporary post office closures in rural villages and towns of Scotland. Figures obtained by the paper showed that 90 post offices in Scotland are now officially registered as temporarily closed. I say “temporarily”, although a third have been closed for more than five years. Commenting on that sad fact recently, the consumer spokesman for Citizens Advice Scotland noted:
“Local Post Offices are vital for remote and rural communities as consumers and business there can face difficulty in travelling to alternative branches.”
The paper noted that new figures provided by the Post Office under the Freedom of Information Act demonstrated that as of 31 March 2015 there were 1,492 post offices in Scotland, of which 1,402 remained open. Of the 90 classed as temporarily closed, 77 were in rural areas. Several of those are in my constituency. Of the temporarily closed post offices, 34 have been closed for five or six years, six for four years, two for three years, seven for two years and 14 for one year. Within the past year alone, 27 post offices have closed temporarily throughout Scotland.
The effect of post office closures is dramatic, not least because many of the post offices have evolved to take on responsibility for delivering a range of banking and business functions, in addition to the traditional post office role. That evolution has taken place because many of the banks operating in the UK have implemented a programme of branch closures and reduced opening hours in many communities. In the rural areas of my constituency that often means that the local post office is the only available financial service provider within a 60-mile radius. It goes without saying that where the banks have closed and the post office follows, communities are left in grave circumstances. Such a situation is far too common, as we have heard.
To be clear, accountability for the post office network lies with the UK Government, who have a responsibility to ensure that post office services are available for Scotland’s rural communities. In those communities there is no alternative to post office services.
The Postal Services Act 2011 sets out the minimum requirements of the universal service obligation, on which the Post Office must deliver. The requirements are statutory and may be altered only with the consent of the UK Parliament. The minimum requirements are: at least one delivery of letters every Monday to Saturday to every address in the UK; at least one collection of letters every Monday to Saturday; postal services at an affordable, uniform tariff across the UK; a registered items service at an affordable public tariff; an insured items service at an affordable public tariff; a free-of-charge postal service to blind or partially sighted people; and free carriage of legislative petitions and addresses.
The Post Office, posts and postal services are reserved to the UK Government under the Scotland Act 1998, but the Scottish Government are committed to strengthening the long-term sustainability of the post office network in Scotland, consistent with the national performance framework. Recognising the importance of post offices, the Scottish Government have determined to provide funding to local post offices to maintain their crucial service delivery through, for example, the post office diversification fund for Scotland. The objective of the fund is to contribute to the regeneration of deprived urban areas by sustaining and improving post office branches on the margins of viability that provide socially important services and facilities and that act as an anchor for other retail activity. Such objectives clearly apply to rural areas as well. In 2011-12, for example, 48 post offices throughout Scotland received funding of upwards of £25,000, individually awarded to various outlets for a variety of improvements, including refurbishments, improved security, retail equipment and so on.
The Scottish Government recognise the valuable social role of post offices, particularly in deprived and remote areas of Scotland. That is why the Scottish National party continues to promote innovative approaches to delivering public services through post offices. We want to support local authorities, local enterprise networks and third sector organisations to work together to find sustainable solutions that place post office services at the heart of community-based services.
The UK Government must do all in their power to protect rural communities from the destructive impact of post office closures. Post offices perform a vital service in many areas of the UK. They have a pivotal role to play and are often the only place where letters and packages can be sent and received, bills paid, cash withdrawn and savings deposited. For communities that as often as not do not have internet connections, such services are essential in every meaning of the word.
Scotland has many remote and rural households and communities, and in common with communities in other countries in the UK, they should not have vital services taken away from them. I call on the UK Government to improve strategy and policy and to secure post offices for communities throughout the UK, but particularly in remote and rural areas.
Mrs Cheryl Gillan (in the Chair)
I would like to start the wind-ups at 10 minutes past 5, with five minutes for each of the Opposition Front Benchers and, I hope, 10 minutes for the Minister. That is what I am aiming for, so I hope Members will accommodate it.
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) on bringing this important issue to the Chamber. It is not only important for rural communities, although I understand what hon. Members have been saying.
In August, the shop in which the post office was operating in the community of Newbiggin-by-the-Sea in my constituency went into liquidation—in a flash, just like that, the post office was closed. Newbiggin is a lovely seaside village of about 6,000 people where lots of them depend on the post office services. There is no bank in the area—the village is at least three miles from a bank or any other post office—and the area is in the top 10% of deprived lower layer super output areas, so a lot of people depend on benefits and there are a lot of elderly people in the village. To have the post office taken away means, almost within minutes, a devastating impact on families, individuals and isolated people. As has been mentioned, those people might not be able to jump into a car or have great transport links to get to the next nearest post office and, to be honest, a lot of those elderly or vulnerable people might not have a clue where the next post office is. The issue is really important.
It is easy to criticise the Post Office and everyone else concerned, but we have to think about the communities, the people and the devastating impact on them, not just in Newbiggin in my constituency, but in villages and towns throughout the country, as has been explained in the Chamber this afternoon. We have got to have some sort of reliable post office provision, and it cannot be that if the old lady or gentleman who runs the post office sadly passes away, that provision is basically withdrawn. People depend on these services and there has got to be some form of contract between the Government and the Post Office so that in the event of a liquidation, a death or something like that, people can still use post office services, the lifeblood of their community.
I urge the Government to think about how we can come together with a strategy—a community contract—between the Government, the Post Office and the community to ensure services whatever happens. Unfortunately, in life things do happen, and post offices have been closed not because of anything that the postmaster or postmistress has done, but because of circumstances outside their control. The Government should be ensuring that that provision cannot, even temporarily, be withdrawn.
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)
I thank the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) for securing the debate and I am pleased to serve under your chairmanship today, Mrs Gillan.
We have heard a similar story in all parts of the House: how vital post offices are in their communities and the extent to which they are more than just a service—they are about the community hub and their impact on a whole range of different sectors of society. I find myself fully in agreement with the speech just made by the hon. Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery). He highlighted the impact on people in deprivation when a post office is closed. Those are often the people who have less access to public transport, the internet and other vital services, which shows how vital post offices are in the community.
My hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Dr Monaghan) highlighted the Scottish situation, which I am a bit more familiar with, and the good work done by the Scottish Government through its post office diversification fund. That is an example of what can be done. That fund has been key in saving post offices on the cusp of viability, certainly for larger communities of more than 10,000 people, which is a beacon for the way forward, because it has allowed those post offices to continue and act as an anchor for other services, which gives great vitality.
The hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) talked about the problem of delays in getting temporary offices up and running, while my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross mentioned the impact of temporary closures that go on way beyond what anyone would think was in the realms of temporary. Upwards of five years is not temporary; that is semi-permanent. Perhaps the Minister might look for a way to address that blight. If we think a closure is temporary, we can accept a bit of grief for a few months, but we cannot accept that for years.
The hon. Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter) made many valid points, including on the impact of temporary closures. A strong message we can take from the debate is that we need something done about that. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) pointed out how vital post offices are as community hubs, which is a point everyone has made in the debate. They go beyond a service and while we might now live in a digital age, many elderly people who may not be as digitally competent are utterly dependent on those services, as are businesses who have poor broadband connections and need those services for general business and communication. That covers a huge range. I hope that I have not missed out any contributors to the debate, but I think we pretty much agree with everything said in all parts of the House. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Gillan. I congratulate the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) on securing this important debate. He is keen to ascertain what the Government will do to ensure that the Post Office has proper plans in place for provision and that, where there are problems, it acts quickly to ensure an available replacement, whether on a temporary or permanent basis.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) hit the nail on the head and spoke for everyone when he said that the post office is the heart of the community. Post offices are indeed an essential part of British life, providing somewhere for people not only to buy their stamps and post letters and parcels but, as the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Dr Monaghan) said, to access many other vital services. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) said, sometimes they are the only places where people can access such services—it might not be possible to go anywhere else.
Of course, things do change. Quite often that is as a result of technological change. The hon. Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter) summed that up by saying that we are in a digital age and, as a result, the number of post offices has fallen in recent years. Most post office branches are operated by franchise partners or sub-postmasters who are independent business people, so, in order for their post offices to remain open, they often rely on Government subsidy. Despite some reassurance, clearly there are still real pressures, which have not been helped by the controversy surrounding the Post Office’s Horizon accounting system.
Many hon. Members have raised cases in the House in which it appears that honest and hard-working sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses have had their reputation tarnished and livelihood threatened—in some cases they have lost their liberty—having been accused of improper accounting. Whatever the truth, in those cases computer software was responsible for the loss of large sums of money. Unquestionably, that may have acted as an off-putting factor for those who might have considered running a post office as part of their business.
In addition, as has been pointed out, some post office proprietors have been resigning from the business because they are concerned that their post offices are not financially viable. Local papers throughout the country are full of stories—I see them in my constituency—of postmasters and postmistresses struggling to stay in business. Often, that occurs where Post Office Ltd has changed the status of a local post office as part of national changes to the service, which leaves them having to rely on commission to offer what services they can.
When that happens, the survival of the post office is dependent on the viability of the shop in which it is contained and some complain that they cannot afford to run the post office, in particular owing to the extended opening hours demanded by Post Office Ltd. Will the Minister tell us how many sub-postmasters have resigned in the past year as a result of being unable to run their business profitably with a post office in their premises? What procedures do the Government expect them to follow when it becomes clear that a post office is in danger of closing?
Without proactive policies, thousands of constituents can be left without a local post office because Post Office Ltd is unable to rely on the good will of an individual operator. Does the Minister believe that Post Office Ltd is taking adequate steps to be proactive in preventing closure and acting swiftly enough to ensure that a replacement is available locally when a post office has to close? Indeed, does he believe that conditions put on replacements, such as very long opening hours, are unreasonable?
Jim Shannon
One thing that has not been mentioned but the Minister could take on board for his response is the possibility of incentivising financially those who want to take over a post office. Perhaps the Government need to offer a small financial bonus or incentive to enable people at least to consider that, based on a contract and proper conditions. That has happened in Northern Ireland and perhaps it should happen here as well.
Yvonne Fovargue
That is certainly something to put to the Minister. The Government have committed £640 million from 2015 to 2018 to fund the network transformation programme and to protect branches where vital services are provided to communities but the post office is not commercially viable. Is the Minister content that sufficient funding is being provided to fulfil that task? What will happen when the subsidy runs out in 2018? Can he guarantee that after that point the transformation programme will have ensured that remaining post offices are commercially viable? I look forward to his response.
Stephen Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Gillan. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) on securing the debate and the way in which he has championed this issue most effectively since his election to Parliament. He raised a number of points that it may be helpful to address at the outset, on whether this is a new model in the Post Office, to what extent it is commercially attractive and how the Post Office is being held accountable.
Like my hon. Friend, I represent a rural constituency and I have a similar change programme in my area. I am also aware of the challenges in areas such as mine on public transport, to which he alluded. As for whether the franchise model is new, it is not; it has been around since the 1990s and it is long-held practice to collocate a post office and a shop. What is changing to a certain extent is the number and scale of post offices being collocated, and while in the past we had post offices with shops that sold sweets, birthday cards and various other things—many of us will remember that from our childhood—now we more often have shops with a post office attached to them.
On whether running a post office is commercially attractive, the footfall generated is very attractive to many shop owners. Indeed, having one counter as opposed to two can mean that customers do not have to queue twice and can make managing staff in the shop more efficient. There are therefore commercial attractions to collocating a post office in another business nearby, which is part of the appeal for many taking that approach forward.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) rightly spoke of the social hub that the post office offers. That is why I hope he will support the Government’s manifesto commitment to secure 3,000 rural post offices and, as part of the arrangements with the Post Office, to maintain 11,500 branches as part of the network. The Government recognise, through the funding that has been allocated, the important social hub that post offices provide. Indeed, that is in stark contrast to the previous Labour Government, under which at least 5,000 branches closed as part of their closure programme. The Government have made a commitment to the Post Office in recognition of the exact point the hon. Gentleman raised—that post offices make an important social contribution to communities.
My hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter) injected a welcome note of optimism to the debate, recognising that, in securing the network as the Government have done, we have increased significantly the hours that branches are open, often on Sundays, compared with the past.
Alongside the allocated funding, there is a specific £20 million community branch fund, which I urge Members to take advantage of. The fund encourages branches that may be the last shop in their community to bid for things they may need to make their businesses more viable, so measures are available within the funding mechanism to help preserve post offices where they are aligned with the last shop in a village or community. That is part of the wider £2 billion allocated since 2010 as part of this programme.
Before I come to the specific case in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle and the chain of events behind the post office’s temporary closure there, I turn to my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy), who raised the issue of the hoops that have to be jumped through, causing frustration and adding to the time taken to open a new post office or appoint a new postmaster. I think we all share that frustration, but there are good reasons for it, given the significant position of trust that postmasters and postmistresses hold within their communities and the large sums of money they often handle. It is therefore right that a thorough consultation process is part of those appointments, but that can have an impact.
Andrew Percy
I think any reasonable person would accept that. We could perhaps do better by ensuring that interim measures are in place while something else is being worked on. That is the problem. Everyone understands the importance of a postmaster’s job and the compliance regime that must go behind it, but the length of time between the closure of a post office and the opening of a new one is unacceptable, and we need to smarten up on that.
Stephen Barclay
My hon. Friend raises a valid point. These things are looked at on a case-by-case basis, and each case tends to be different. That is highlighted in the case of the post office in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle, where a number of interim measures were tried. He alluded to a portakabin being used and the attempt made to look at whether that could be located close to the store or needed to be further away. The issue of temporary staff was considered. A mobile van was also considered, which is sometimes suitable, but the volume of customers at the Heathfield store was too high. There were specific issues with the portakabin, but that solution was tried.
Attempts are made to mitigate the time taken, but sometimes local factors work against that. Unfortunately, in my hon. Friend’s case, a chain of events has made it more difficult to put the interim solution in place. I hope that better news is imminent. I know he supports the proposal for a new permanent host for the post office in Heathfield: Unique Wine Ltd, which is on the high street. The consultation is ongoing, so I hope there is light at the end of the tunnel for him.
In terms of locating a post office in an existing business—in that case, an off-licence—there are plenty of examples around the country of such collocation working well, not least due to the longer hours in which it enables the public to access the post office. I take slight issue with the suggestion from the hon. Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue) that the Post Office is imposing unfair terms by asking for longer hours. She also suggested that the public are not getting access to post offices. I think most customers will welcome the fact that a post office, through collocation, is open for longer hours. That is part of the public benefit.
Yvonne Fovargue
I will simply give the Minister an example from my constituency, where a local shop has a post office in it but is finding it difficult to maintain a profit with that post office because of the hours for which it has to maintain that particular counter. It is thinking of closing the service, rather than keeping it open for shorter hours.
Stephen Barclay
Indeed, but the proposed new branch in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle would be open for 21 hours longer a week than the previous store. Notwithstanding the time taken to put the new branch in place, once it is in place, subject to the consultation, the collocation means that the post office will be open for an additional 21 hours, which I think will be particularly welcome to his constituents.
The Post Office is tasked by Government to maintain a network of 11,500 branches and to meet specific access criteria—for example, that 90% of the UK population live within 1 mile of a post office. The Post Office is meeting those criteria, as set out in the annual report it publishes. That agreement does not specify that every community must have or retain a post office. That is because the business needs the flexibility to respond to local circumstances in each case. Were we to require the Post Office to maintain individual branches or reopen them within a set period—an issue that my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle raised—it could lead, in extremis, to a new post office having to be built if a lease could not be secured on an old site. Such a restriction would be counterproductive to protecting the commercial viability of the network.
The economics of the Post Office is such that with the changes brought about by the internet and the digital world, small stand-alone post offices sometimes do not generate enough business to be sustainable on their own. The modernisation programme that the business has been following for the past few years has been about moving local post offices into a vibrant shop where the overheads of a business, such as property and staff costs, are shared with the host business, which is what we are seeing in my hon. Friend’s constituency.
The experience of the Post Office’s directly operated branches—the Crown branches—is illustrative. Collectively, those businesses have moved from making an annual £50 million loss to breaking even. That underlines the Government’s commitment to the Post Office network and a mix of modernisation, automation, labour reform and, in no small part, the franchising of weaker branches that are not delivering that performance. Were the Post Office to be forced to run more directly operated businesses with weaker turnover than in busy town centres, those branches would not be sustainable without greater public subsidy. Rather than force that on the business, we are allowing the estate to manage itself in a more value-for-money way, while protecting the 3,000 rural branches and the wider network.
It is regrettable that the Post Office has been unable to maintain service provision at Heathfield since April. However, that is not due to a lack of effort or expense by the Post Office. Unfortunately, local circumstances sometimes prevent the ideal outcome, as we saw with the portakabin example. In most cases, the business is able to find a way to maintain provision successfully. I am glad that a potential branch has now been found in my hon. Friend’s constituency, which I know he supports.
In seeking a solution at Heathfield, we should not lose sight of the fact that the Post Office is delivering a service that is open for more hours, with less public subsidy, and therefore offers a better, value-for-money service for the taxpayer. That reflects the Government’s commitment to maintaining the branch network and recognising the social hub that the hon. Member for Strangford described so well.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered service provision in the event of post office closures.
Written Statements
(8 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Deferred Prosecution Agreement
(8 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Attorney General (Jeremy Wright)
Yesterday the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) entered into a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) with Standard Bank Plc (now known as ICBC Standard Bank Plc) in accordance with section 45 and schedule 17 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013. This was the first time that this new power has been used by a prosecuting authority since the provision came into force on 24 February 2014. The indictment deferred by this agreement comprises a charge under section 7 of the Bribery Act 2010—corporate failure to prevent bribery—the first time this section of that legislation has been charged.
Corporate economic crime damages the British economy in monetary and reputational terms. Since May 2010, we have made structural changes to improve our strategic capability, including introducing deferred prosecution agreements in February 2014. The Government recognised the need for this additional and much-needed weapon in the prosecution’s armoury to provide the flexibility to secure appropriate penalties and better outcomes for victims. Yesterday’s agreement has resulted in the imposition of a multi-million pound penalty, payable to the Treasury. The DPA goes much further than just addressing the financial impact of the offending. It also regulates the future behaviour of the company, compelling Standard Bank to pay for and submit to an independent review of safeguards put in place to prevent future offending.
A DPA is where an agreement is reached between a designated prosecutor, in this case the SFO, and an organisation facing prosecution for certain economic or financial offences. The effect of such an agreement is that proceedings are instituted by a bill of indictment but then deferred on specific terms such as the payment of a financial penalty, compensation, disgorgement of profit along with implementation of a compliance programme, co-operation with the investigation and payment of costs. There are several stages to the process which include both a private and public hearing before a member of the senior judiciary. If the terms of a DPA and statement of facts is agreed between the parties, and approved by the judge, a declaration that a DPA is in the interests of justice and that its terms are fair, reasonable and proportionate must be given in public. Lord Justice Leveson delivered such a declaration in his judgment of 30 November 2015. Details of this particular DPA and the judgment have been published on the website of the SFO. Should the company not adhere to the terms of the agreement the SFO has the ability to prosecute the company.
[HCWS344]
Accession of Liberia to the World Trade Organisation
(8 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Minister for Small Business, Industry and Enterprise (Anna Soubry)
My noble Friend the Minister of State for Trade and Investment (Lord Maude of Horsham) has today made the following statement.
I wish to inform the House that on 3 November 2015 the Government opted in to the Council decision relating to the accession of Liberia to the World Trade Organisation (WTO).
The Council decision has the effect of extending to Liberia the horizontal commitments the UK makes to all WTO members, including in the provision of services by natural persons from third countries, otherwise known as “Mode 4”. It is the presence of these Mode 4 commitments in the relevant instruments which triggers the UK Justice and Home Affairs opt-in.
The Government have supported the accession of Liberia to the WTO on the right terms. In acceding to the WTO, Liberia will embrace a series of rules and commitments which form the foundation of an open, transparent and non-discriminatory global trading system and which will provide important guarantees for them and for other WTO members. Accession to the WTO will bring Liberia more firmly into the global economy and help make Liberia a more attractive place to do business.
Liberia’s accession to the WTO is consistent with the UK’s policy of helping least developed countries (LDC) to take advantage of the international trading system. The Liberian accession, due to be formally agreed at the 10th WTO ministerial conference in Nairobi, will also send a broader positive signal to the wider developing world, with an African LDC acceding to the WTO at the first ministerial conference to be held in Africa.
[HCWS343]
Convention on the Manipulation of Sports Competitions
(8 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Tracey Crouch)
On 2 March 2015, the European Commission brought forward proposals for two decisions authorising the EU to sign the Council of Europe’s convention on the manipulation of sports competitions on behalf of member states. One decision related to betting and sport, while the other decision related to justice and home affairs (JHA)—the “JHA decision”—covering matters related to co-operation in criminal matters and police co-operation.
The JHA decision cites a legal base in title V of part III of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union, and recognises that the UK’s JHA opt-in applies. The convention requires the provision in national law of criminal offences and provisions on co-operation in enforcement as well as provision—which is derogable—for extraterritorial enforcement.
Based on the JHA decision presented by the European Commission, the Government are concerned that opting in will have the potential to prevent the UK from derogating from the extraterritoriality provision. The Government believe that the UK should retain the flexibility to derogate. Taking this into account, the Government decided not to opt in to the European Commission’s JHA proposed decision.
These proposals are still being negotiated between the European Commission and member states with no current date scheduled for adoption.
[HCWS346]
Foreign Affairs Council (Defence) and General Affairs Council
(8 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs attended the Foreign Affairs Council on 16 November. My right hon. Friend, Minister of State and Deputy Leader of the House of Lords, Lord Howe attended the Foreign Affairs Council (defence) on 17 November. I attended the General Affairs Council on 17 November and Rory O’Donnell (counsellor regions, agriculture and fisheries) represented the UK at the General Affairs Council (cohesion). The Foreign Affairs Council and Foreign Affairs Council (defence) was chaired by the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Federica Mogherini. The General Affairs Council was chaired by the Luxembourg presidency. The meetings were held in Brussels.
Foreign Affairs Council
A provisional report of the meeting and conclusions adopted can be found at:
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/meetings/fac/2015/11/16-17/
The Foreign Affairs Council (FAC)
The Foreign Affairs Council (FAC) was overshadowed by the Paris attacks of 13 November. The meeting covered middle east peace process (MEPP), migration and Syria. There were also moments to reflect on the Paris attacks. The discussions on the Eastern Partnership and Libya were postponed to the December FAC.
MEPP
In the presence of EU Special Representative Fernando Gentilini, the Council discussed the situation in the middle east in the light of the increased violence, particularly in East Jerusalem, the west bank and Gaza, focusing on the peace process. member states agreed that the EU should explore what it could do on the ground to help preserve the two-state solution.
Migration
The Council discussed migration, following up on the high-level conference on the western Balkans route held on 8 October and the Valletta summit held on 11 and 12 November. Ministers discussed the follow-up to the decisions already taken on the central Mediterranean route and on the western Balkans. The Foreign Secretary raised the importance of Turkey as a strategic partner with whom the EU should engage across a broad agenda including migration, foreign policy, security and counter-terrorism, and business.
Syria
Over lunch, Ministers discussed Syria with UN Special Envoy Staffan de Mistura. They discussed the latest developments, taking into account recent diplomatic efforts, including the discussions in Vienna on 23 October and 14 November.
Ministers agreed without discussion a number of measures:
The Council adopted conclusions on Burundi;
The Council adopted conclusions on Sri Lanka;
The Council adopted conclusions on the EU’s support to transitional justice;
The Council adopted conclusions on Yemen;
The Council adopted conclusions on the special report entitled: “Report by the European Court of Auditors on the EU police mission in Afghanistan”;
The Council extended the mandate of the European Union special representative (EUSR) in Kosovo until 28 February 2017.
The Council reviewed the restrictive measures in view of the situation in Tunisia in light of the information forwarded by the Tunisian authorities concerning the latest developments in the ongoing judicial proceedings in Tunisia against 48 persons listed in Council decision (CFSP) 2015/157. The Council concluded that no changes needed to be made to these designations.
The Council amended the restrictive measures in view of the situation in Afghanistan to implement the decision of the UN Security Council Committee on sanctions against the Taliban, adding one person to the list of individuals, groups, undertakings and entities subject to restrictive measures.
The Council amended the restrictive measures in view of the situation in Somalia to reflect the de-listing by the UN of one deceased person.
The Council adopted the EU’s position on the eighth review conference of the convention on the prohibition of the development, production and stockpiling of biological and toxin weapons and on their destruction (BTWC) taking place from November to December 2016.
The Council added Albania to the list of beneficiaries of funding activities to reduce the threat of the illicit spread and trafficking of small arms and light weapons (SALW) and their ammunition in south-east Europe.
The Council adopted the EU’s position for the second meeting of the EU-Georgia Association Council.
The Council adopted the position of the EU on the draft declaration of the Union for the Mediterranean (UfM) ministerial conference on the blue economy.
Foreign Affairs Council (Defence) and European Defence Agency (EDA)
The Foreign Affairs Council (Defence) was dominated by discussions about the terrible attacks in Paris on 13 November 2015. At the meeting the French Defence Minister, Jean-Yves Le Drian, confirmed that France was calling for bilateral support from member states under article 42.7 of the Lisbon treaty—the mutual assistance clause. Minister of State and Deputy Leader of the House of Lords, Lord Howe, confirmed the UK’s continuing support to France, noting that bilateral contact between our two Governments was already under way. All of the other 27 EU Defence Ministers were unanimous in offering their political support and expressing their readiness to provide practical assistance. In his address to the FAC (D), NATO Secretary-General, Jens Stoltenberg, emphasised that NATO stood in solidarity with France, while underscoring the importance of greater EU-NATO co-operation.
Minister of State and Deputy Leader of the House of Lords welcomed the European Commission’s defence action plan that proposed to brigade existing Commission instruments together under a single plan, but expressed caution towards new initiatives, emphasising the need to implement those already agreed. In discussion, the UK also emphasised support for ongoing work on “Capacity Building for Security and Development”, given its potential to strengthen a genuinely comprehensive EU approach.
The EDA steering board discussion initially focused on the reform work EDA had undertaken to date, including the presentation of its three-year planning framework. The High Representative and Vice-President of the Commission, Federica Mogherini, then sought Defence Ministers’ agreement on the EDA’s future programme of work and the 2016 EDA annual budget. The UK noted that it could not agree to any increase in the EDA’s budget for next year, but encouraged the EDA to continue with important reforms with a view to reviewing the 2017 budget.
General Affairs Council
A provisional report of the meeting and conclusions adopted can be found at:
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/meetings/gac/2015/11/17/
The General Affairs Council (GAC) on 17 November discussed: preparation of the agenda for the European Council on 17 and 18 December 2015; the rule of law; the inter-institutional agreement on better regulation; the 2016 Commission Work programme; and the European semester.
Preparation of the December European Council
The GAC prepared the agenda for the 17 and 18 December European Council, which the Prime Minister will attend. The December European Council is expected to focus on: migration; economic and monetary union; the single market; the UK’s renegotiation; and external relations issues, likely to include Russia and Ukraine.
In light of the attacks in Paris, I highlighted the importance of further discussion of counter-terrorism issues following the extraordinary Justice and Home Affairs Council on 20 November.
On migration, I stressed the urgent need to make progress on implementing the action plan agreed at the Valletta summit on 11 and 12 November.
On the UK’s renegotiation, I underlined the areas where the UK wanted to see reform as set out in the Prime Minister’s letter to the President of the European Council on 10 November.
Rule of Law
The Council held the first annual dialogue on promoting the rule of law in the European Union. The theme of this year’s dialogue was “rule of law in the age of digitalisation” and member states were invited to present examples of good practice and challenges at national level.
I highlighted the need to tackle online extremism and set out the successes achieved in the UK through the work of the counter-terrorism internet referral unit and the voluntary participation of online service providers. This has enabled the UK to ensure regular and swift removal of extremist material without the delays and concerns over extraterritoriality that would hamper attempts to achieve the same results through enforcement of legislation.
First Vice-President Timmermans also updated the GAC on October’s human rights colloquium, hosted by the European Commission, on combating anti-Semitism and anti-Muslim hatred.
Inter-Institutional Agreement on Better Regulation (IIA)
The GAC received a presentation from the Luxembourg presidency updating Ministers on the progress of the IIA negotiations, including the recent political talks between the Commission, the European Parliament and the Council.
2016 Commission Work Programme
The GAC discussed the 2016 Commission Work programme (CWP): “No Time for Business as Usual” published on 27 October. The UK welcomes and looks forward to working on the Commission Work programme—a step towards a more effective EU.
Annual Growth Survey and Road Map for the European Semester 2016
The Commission outlined that the publication of the annual growth survey (AGS) had been delayed until 25 November. The AGS will mark the beginning of the European semester process and is due to be published alongside the alert mechanism report, the joint employment report and the Commission draft budgetary opinions on eurozone member states. The AGS sets out broad EU level economic and social objectives for the year ahead and is expected to contain a focus on euro area level priorities, as set out in the European Commission’s 21 October communication on steps towards completing economic and monetary union.
The GAC received a presentation from the Luxembourg presidency and incoming Dutch presidency on the newly revised European semester road map focusing on the implementation of country specific recommendations (CSRs) and sharing of best practice between member states.
General Affairs Council (Cohesion)
The session of the GAC on 18 November was dedicated to cohesion policy. Ministers agreed Council conclusions on: the contribution of the European structural and investment funds to support the transition to a low-carbon economy; European territorial co-operation (or Interreg) programmes; and steps that might be taken to simply the implementation and administration of European structural and investment funds.
[HCWS345]
House of Lords
Introduction: Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted
Introduction: Lord Livermore
Sustainable Development Goals: HIV
(8 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Cashman
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, in order to help achieve the Sustainable Development Goals, how they plan to invest in key populations in middle-income countries where it is expected that by 2020, 70 per cent of people living with HIV will live.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for International Development (Baroness Verma) (Con)
My Lords, the UK is proud to be the second largest international funder of HIV prevention, care and treatment. We have pledged up to £1 billion to the Global Fund and £9 million to support key population groups through the Robert Carr civil society Networks Fund. The UK’s support to the Global Fund will prevent approximately 8.4 million new malaria, HIV and TB infections.
Lord Cashman (Lab)
I thank the Minister for that Answer. Today is World AIDS Day. AIDS is the biggest killer of women of reproductive age. AIDS is the second-biggest killer of adolescents. In 2014, 1.2 million people died of an HIV/AIDS-related illness. There are 36.9 million people living with HIV, and most people living with HIV are in middle-income countries. Therefore, it is vital that when addressing the possible withdrawal of programmes and funding from middle-income countries, the Government look at indicators other than the blunt instrument of GNI.
Baroness Verma
My Lords, I reassure the noble Lord that approximately 50% of Global Fund resources are directed to middle-income countries. We use our seat on its board to encourage it to focus on key populations, as the noble Lord is aware. As middle-income countries graduate from aid, we work with the Global Fund, UNAIDS, national Governments and civil society to encourage stronger national responses and greater domestic resource mobilisation.
Lord Fowler (Con)
My Lords, there are 36 million people around the world living with HIV, yet WHO estimates that half of them are untested and undiagnosed. Is not the reason why people do not come forward the prejudice against them and the criminal law against gay people and lesbians in so many countries? Given that so many of these countries are inside the Commonwealth, should not the British Government take the lead in campaigning against such injustice?
Baroness Verma
My Lords, my noble friend raises a really important point. Stigma and discrimination drive key affected populations underground. At the recent CHOGM talks in Malta, we very much had that conversation. I reassure my noble friend that we spend £6 million a year on research programmes–including understanding how social drivers increase HIV infection—and on supporting people in those countries.
Lord Chidgey (LD)
My Lords, 35 out of 121 low-income and middle-income countries have increased their spend on AIDS by more than 100%, with all domestic spending on AIDS amounting to some 60% of the total. Does the Minister agree that this confirms the long-standing role of communities in addressing the epidemic in the years ahead, and the critical importance of investing in a strong community health presence to broaden the reach of their services? Can she assure us that these vital services will not be threatened by DfID’s planned withdrawal of budget support?
Baroness Verma
I need to reassure noble Lords that there is no withdrawal of budget support. However, we do need to ensure that the support we are giving is to those people who are in most need and are unable to self-finance. The low-income, high-burden countries need our support the most but we continue to work in middle-income countries. So there is no withdrawal—just smarter, more focused delivery of services.
Lord Lexden (Con)
Is not the criminalisation of homosexuality simply incompatible with the Commonwealth charter, which all its members have signed up to?
Baroness Verma
My noble friend is of course right: universal rights must apply to all people. That is one of the key messages we must keep reinforcing, whether at Commonwealth level or outside the Commonwealth.
Lord Loomba (LD)
My Lords, how will the money be targeted to help women who become widows through this appalling disease so that they are not left to become destitute and poverty-stricken?
Baroness Verma
My Lords, the noble Lord knows that the UK Government have put women and girls at the heart of all their development assistance work. We know that women are disproportionately affected by not just HIV/AIDS but a number of other complex issues. In the programmes we are working through at country level, we are therefore focusing on ensuring that, as the SDGs rightly say, no one—no one—is left behind.
Baroness Corston (Lab)
My Lords, is the Minister aware that there are now many thousands of AIDS orphans, particularly in Africa? They frequently find that other family members take their parental possessions, and they are destitute. Do the British Government have any programmes in Africa to support such children?
Baroness Verma
My Lords, this is a really important question. On a recent visit to Zambia, I saw some of those orphaned children being taken care of predominantly by grandparents, particularly grandmothers. We found that, through programmes such as social cash transfer programmes, we are helping to keep children in school and receive an education. However, that does not really respond to the wider issue of ensuring that those children are supported throughout their childhood, and we work very closely with a number of NGOs on the ground to ensure that children have access to good healthcare and education.
Lord Winston (Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that these questions are rather predicated on the notion that HIV will remain a fatal illness? Does she not agree that one of the key issues is to improve research into retroviruses and viruses such as HIV, for which, in time, there is every chance of finding effective cures?
Baroness Verma
The noble Lord is right that we should look for zero HIV infection, but while we are working towards that—investing and researching—we still of course have the wider issues to comprehend.
Women and Girls: HIV
(8 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Collins of Highbury
To ask Her Majesty’s Government how they plan to incorporate HIV as a priority in their work to improve the lives of women and girls, given that HIV is the biggest killer of women of reproductive age globally and of adolescents in Africa.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for International Development (Baroness Verma) (Con)
My Lords, every two minutes an adolescent girl is infected with HIV, which is of course unacceptable. We are therefore proud to be the second largest funder of HIV prevention, care and treatment and have pledged up to £1 billion to the Global Fund. Nearly 60% of the fund’s resources are invested in programmes that reach women and girls.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, one of the most common dangers of mainstreaming an issue is the potential lack of focus. Can the Minister assure the House that any reduction in HIV-specific DfID programming will not result in reduced resourcing or reduced focus on HIV?
Baroness Verma
My Lords, yes, I can reassure the noble Lord that integration is at the core of DfID’s approach. Our bilateral programmes work with Governments and civil society to ensure that HIV programmes are delivered within an integrated health service for women, girls and beyond. I am sure the noble Lord will be pleased that, with UK support, we have reached 3.1 million women with services to prevent transmission of HIV to their babies. A lot is going on within the programming.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, does the noble Baroness recognise—I am sure she does—that the Global Fund has been transformative in tackling HIV/AIDS? If she recognises that, how will the Government ensure that their Ross fund on infectious disease, which they announced last week, will complement rather than compete with the Global Fund?
Baroness Verma
Of course we recognise the great strength of the Global Fund, but we are also excited about the Ross fund, a £1 billion research initiative that will focus on malaria and other infectious diseases. At this moment, I do not have enough detail of the initiative to tell the noble Baroness more but, as always, I am open to her speaking to me about it once I have more details.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)
My Lords, while it is obviously appropriate today to focus on the very large populations with HIV outside this country, will the noble Baroness agree that it is important that we remember that HIV/AIDS is a public health issue in this country, where there are groups that are significantly at risk? Could she therefore encourage her colleagues to make sure that as, for example, funds to local authorities reduce, public health campaigning towards getting people tested and ensuring that treatment is available does not diminish?
Baroness Verma
My Lords, the noble Baroness is right to bring the question back home. It is a mandatory duty for local authorities to ensure that the services are available and accessible to those who require them. If the noble Baroness would like further detail on that, I will be more than happy to write to her.
Lord Crisp (CB)
My Lords, the noble Baroness is well aware that many young people and young people’s organisations are active in advocacy, on both the prevention and treatment of HIV/AIDS, and they are, of course, very well placed to influence those most at risk. What are Her Majesty’s Government doing to support the work of young people in this field?
Baroness Verma
My Lords, the noble Lord and I enjoyed a very good session earlier today at which we listened to very eloquent testimonials from three young people who are not only living and dealing with HIV infection themselves but doing the broader work they are trying to deliver for others. It is important that, through the work I do with my department, DfID, and the FCO, we collectively ensure that we are engaged with all organisations across the civil society base and Government to Government.
Lord Lexden (Con)
The new UN sustainable development goals set a target of eliminating the AIDS pandemic by 2030. How is DfID planning to achieve that target?
Baroness Verma
My Lords, my noble friend is right: we want to see the pandemic eliminated by 2030. We know that we are a long way from achieving that but we have to do so. When I answered an earlier question, I alluded to the need to focus very much on low-income, high-burden countries that are unable to self-finance. We have to make treatment accessible to the very people who need it and who do not always know the best route to it. We are working with our partners globally, through all the various institutions, to try to eliminate HIV infections by 2030.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, turning to the Answer to the Question from my noble friend, my understanding is that public health funding is being cut. Therefore, can the Minister explain how the Government will ensure that local authorities meet the duties that she spelled out?
Baroness Verma
My Lords, I think I made it clear in my earlier response that local authorities have a mandatory duty to ensure that those services are accessible.
Channel Tunnel: Migrants
(8 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Berkeley
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what action they are taking with the Government of France to deal with the organised groups assisting migrants seeking to use the Channel Tunnel to enter the United Kingdom.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Bates) (Con)
My Lords, we continue to work closely with our French counterparts. The joint declaration signed on 20 August cements a comprehensive programme of work between our two countries.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
I am grateful to the Minister for that Answer. Is he aware that rail freight services through the tunnel have been virtually decimated—I declare an interest as chairman of the Rail Freight Group—and that road freight is being equally badly hit because people are still climbing into lorries? There may be a fence round the terminals and there may be a few more guards, but dogs are not allowed to bite—I suppose that that would be against the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act if it applies to Calais. Surely more should be done to direct attention at the gangs that are organising these migrants into armies with chain-saws, blankets, mattresses and bolt-cutters to climb the fence. Could there not be more intelligence? Are the Government going to use some of the 1,900 new spies that the Minister announced in November—although they might need a bit more training—to help them?
Lord Bates
The noble Lord is absolutely right: that is why the Prime Minister announced in July that the Organised Crime Task Force will concentrate specifically on immigration crime. At the Valletta summit in November he announced an expansion of the task force. Through new legislation in the Serious Crime Act, that work has already led to the disruption of 174 organised immigration crime groups. But we are very conscious that more needs to be done and are working very closely on that with our French counterparts.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that a twin-track approach is needed? First, refugees and asylum seekers need to be offered safe and legal routes through humanitarian visas and, secondly, all EU states need to participate fully in European police co-operation, including through a strengthened Europol, which the UK is not opting in to. Does he not therefore have to acknowledge the truth, which is that the present Government are failing on both those tracks?
Lord Bates
No. On Friday there will be a Justice and Home Affairs Council meeting, which the Home Secretary will be at. At the emergency meeting on 20 November following the Paris attacks, a whole new raft of initiatives was set out on which we are going to co-operate. These include the Schengen information systems, which exchange information on people who represent a potential threat across Europe. The noble Baroness was absolutely right in her first point, which is why we set up the Syrian vulnerable persons programme. We have said that checks on the 20,000 additional refugees who will come in over the lifetime of this Parliament will take place in the camps so that they do not have to make dangerous journeys and can be verified by the UNHCR and by us.
Lord Naseby (Con)
Is my noble friend aware that Bedfordshire, where I live, seems to be blessed with having more illegal immigrants disgorging at motorway service stations, allegedly because that is the first place where the lorries refuel? In those circumstances, why is it impossible to undertake a check on the ferries once they have left Calais en route to the United Kingdom and before people disembark at Dover?
Lord Bates
It is certainly an issue to which we have to find a solution. Part of that solution lies with the border force arrangements on both sides at the juxtaposed controls in Calais, and we are working very closely with our French counterparts on that. There is also a huge role for the hauliers to play—not necessarily the UK hauliers but some of the continental ones. They need to take the most basic security steps in relation to their vehicles to ensure that this does not happen. That is why we have introduced the accreditation scheme, together with civil penalties for people who fail to abide by it.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister recall the case that was raised in the House just two weeks ago about Rob Lawrie and his attempt to rescue a child from the aptly named “jungle camp” at Calais? Can he say whether it has been possible for the Government to have the meeting with Save the Children that they committed to during Question Time? Can he also tell the House how many people are in that camp today and how many of them are children?
Lord Bates
I know that specific case: it was a very difficult one and we have offered some consular support on that issue. Of course, when we are dealing with vulnerable children, it is absolutely critical that they are recorded, that their records are taken and that they are closely supervised. On the specific point about how many people are in that camp, which is a terrible facility, one of the things in the joint declaration was that we wanted to reduce the number from 6,000. The number is now about 4,500, and that is a tribute to the French, who have started relocating people from that camp into what are called respite settlements in places such as Picardy. On the specific matter of Save the Children, the noble Lord will be aware of the UNHCR’s reservations on that. That still remains our position, but we are very much open to meetings.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
My Lords, according to a national newspaper report, a government Minister told the Home Affairs Select Committee in the other place last week that small airports and ports around the UK were a weak link because those coming to this country intent on acts of terrorism would chose to use them to enter the country rather than the bigger airports and ports where stricter measures are in place. Since the Minister went on to say that urgent work was under way to address this issue, are the Government really telling us that they have only just woken up to the fact that security at small airports and ports now needs to be as effective as security at larger airports and ports? If that was not the inference of what the Minister concerned said, what was that Minister trying to tell us?
Lord Bates
There is a certain displacement happening here. As the security at Coquelles gets stronger and tougher, and as we then provide greater security around the port of Calais and move along to Dunkirk, Le Havre and other places, there will be displacement. People are going to be forced into the smaller ports and airfields that have been mentioned. That was the reason why we said that there was an increased threat there that needs to be responded to. Part of that was announced by the Chancellor last week when he announced £9 million for additional aviation security just to tackle that problem.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Stowell of Beeston) (Con)
My Lords, I suggest that it is the turn of one of the minor parties. I propose that the noble Baronesses from the Liberal Democrats and the Green Party decide between themselves who would like to give way.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb
My Lords, thank you very much. Could the Minister tell us, for those people who are currently suffering in the “jungle camp” in Calais, what the Government are doing to enable them to get to Britain if they have every right to be here? I have asked this as a Written Question; I had a response but I did not get an answer.
Lord Bates
Under the Dublin regulations, they have to apply for asylum in the first safe country that they arrive in. If that is France, that is where they must apply for asylum. There are regulations under Dublin III, which the noble Baroness will be familiar with, that deal with family reunification. Where the individual applies for asylum in France but actually has strong family links in the UK, we will enter into discussions with our French counterparts to see how that arrangement can be resolved in a way that keeps the family together.
Lord Tomlinson
Would the Minister agree that it is about time that he changed the Answer he gave the House recently and revisited the role that identity cards can play in the fight against terrorists and illegal immigrants, and, by doing that, in the fight against the gangs that are organising these activities?
Lord Bates
The answer I gave to the House, which I acknowledge it did not fully accept—perhaps that was to do with the way I presented it—was that we had tried that before.
Lord Bates
Well, we did try it; investment was put in place for it. We are now saying that we believe that the best security is achieved through a stronger, intelligence-led approach to tackling serious and organised criminals who have dealings in immigration crime or terrorists seeking to do us harm. We believe that the solution should be intelligence led, which is why we have announced an additional £2 billion for the security services over the lifetime of this Parliament.
Lord Mawhinney (Con)
In an earlier reply, my noble friend said that, over a period of time, the very good work done by the Government and the French had thwarted 174 organised attempts to use the Channel Tunnel. Can he tell your Lordships’ House how many organised attempts were not thwarted over the same period?
Lord Bates
I am not sure about that, but the specific answer that I gave was not so much about attempts at incursions into the tunnel as about the organised criminal groups that are at the heart of this evil trafficking which is happening across borders throughout Europe and particularly into our country. My answer was that the work of the Organised Crime Task Force that the Prime Minister had set up, which will receive funding over this Parliament, had led to the disruption of 174 organised criminal groups and gangs over that period.
Paris Attacks: Violence Against Muslims
(8 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they will take to prevent violence against Muslims and other minority groups following the attacks in Paris on 13 November.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport and Home Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, the Government take the safety of all our citizens and communities very seriously; indeed, this is at the core of counterextremism strategy. Following the tragic events in Paris, we are working to take all necessary action: police have increased their presence at important locations and events; advice has been given to places of worship; and we are working with organisations such as Tell MAMA to confront anti-Muslim hatred. The Prime Minister has also announced new funding for the security of mosques.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
I thank the Minister for his reply and am grateful for all that Her Majesty’s Government are doing already. Perhaps I may focus on one particular area. Since those terrible events on 13 November in Paris, some of our national newspapers have run some very disturbing stories about the treatment of British Muslims and minority groups, such as asylum seekers, here. Does the Minister agree that, in modern, democratic Britain, there is no place for misleading headlines and scurrilous cartoons designed to demonise minority groups? Many of us on these Benches have been involved in face-to-face meetings during the past three weeks with members of the Muslim community, who are deeply dismayed and angry at what has happened. What are Her Majesty’s Government doing to counter such unhelpful stories and narratives and to strengthen community relations between minorities and the wider British public?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
I agree with the right reverend Prelate that, at a time which is very sensitive, to see the headlines that we have seen in certain newspapers is, frankly, appalling. They do not help and they certainly do not add to community cohesion. Notwithstanding the freedoms of press that we enjoy, it is important that we see responsible press reporting. On what steps we have taken, perhaps I may first say how greatly encouraged I have been by the efforts on the part of the communities themselves, particularly the Muslim community, and their reaction to the Paris attacks. Let it be clear that no Government of whatever colour, previously or today, have ever asked any community or faith group to apologise for their faith, and that should be on record. However, what is required is that all communities come together to condemn such atrocities as we have seen in Paris and elsewhere around the world. The Muslim community has been at the forefront at that, not just here in Britain but across the globe—I am sure that many noble Lords will have seen the advert which was taken out by many Muslim community leaders and mosques condemning the actions in Paris and saying quite clearly, “Not in our name”.
Lord Singh of Wimbledon (CB)
My Lords, the Minister will be aware of numerous attacks on Sikhs as a result of mistaken identity. While hate crimes against the Muslim community have been monitored by every police force in the country, not a single penny is being spent on monitoring hate crimes against Sikhs. The American Government are well aware of this problem which Sikhs suffer from and are taking steps to monitor that hate crime. When will the British Government catch up?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
Let me assure the noble Lord that the British Government take all hate crime seriously. That is why, in October, the Prime Minister announced a new hate crime initiative, which will be published in January, against all forms of hatred and bigotry. On the recording of anti-Muslim hatred, all religious hate crime and bigotry from anywhere in the country will be recorded officially by all police forces across England and Wales from April next year.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, following the London bombings in 2005 there was a similar increase in Islamophobic hate crime. The then most senior Muslim officer in the UK said that this,
“can lead to these communities completely retreating and not engaging at a time when we want their engagement and support”.
What guidance have the Government given to police forces on engagement with Muslim communities in order to maintain their trust and confidence?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, the noble Lord referred to the tragic events of 7/7. In Britain today, no community, including the Muslim community, has retreated. We are a thriving democracy—multifaith and multicultural—where we celebrate the diversity of our country as a strength. However, the noble Lord is right to ask what the police are doing. We are working hand in glove with the police to ensure that reassurance is conveyed to all communities, irrespective of whatever faith they may be, that the police, the Government and all of us stand with them against all forms of bigotry.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Stowell of Beeston) (Con)
My Lords, I think we should go to the Labour Benches.
Lord Morgan
My Lords, is this not a two-way affair? I recently chaired a committee on student radicalism in our universities and I was saddened and appalled at how the Islamic societies there form themselves into self-created ghettos. I would like to discuss this with the Minister, and perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Bates, as well. They isolated themselves from, and in many ways were hostile to, the outside student community, not to mention sexual minorities and women groups. Muslims should not be attacked, obviously, but should they not also make their own positive commitment to community integration?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
The noble Lord referred to a report, which I have seen, and he is right to say that. No one needs to see division within our communities wherever they may be, including within a university setting. That said, the noble Lord will also recognise that the Muslim community, as I have said, has been at the forefront of condemning not only the actions in Paris but those elsewhere globally. It is a strength of our country that, in the face of such bigotry, venom and vicious attacks against humanity, we come together, irrespective of our backgrounds or faith, to say we stand together against all bigotry, united as a nation. We should commend all groups which have done just that.
Arrangement of Business
Lord Taylor of Holbeach (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, it may be helpful if I make a brief business statement regarding our proceedings tomorrow.
Following discussion in the usual channels, we propose to postpone the first day in Committee on the Welfare Reform and Work Bill and arrange in its place a debate on the Government’s proposals for action in Syria. The debate, which in this House would be on a take-note Motion, would start after Oral Questions and we intend that it should conclude before the House of Commons vote on the Government’s proposals. A speakers list is already open in the Government Whips’ Office. The list will close at 11 am tomorrow, at which time we will also communicate an advisory speaking time.
I hope that these arrangements will commend themselves to the House.
Scotland Bill
(8 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Dunlop
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to which the Scotland Bill has been committed that they consider the bill in the following order:
Clauses 1 to 12, Clauses 34 to 41, Schedule 2, Clauses 42 to 64, Clauses 13 to 18, Schedule 1, Clauses 19 to 33, Clauses 65 to 70, Title.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for agreeing to take Parts 1 and 2 of the Bill at the end, but could he give us an assurance that we will have the fiscal framework by the time we get to Parts 1 and 2, as recommend by both the Economic Affairs Committee and the Constitution Committee of this House?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scotland Office (Lord Dunlop) (Con)
I know that this is a matter of great importance to my noble friend and the whole House. We debated the fiscal framework very fully at Second Reading, and there is nothing further that I can add. However, I can confirm that the relevant parts of the Bill will not be taken in Committee until after the new year, and that gives us space to make progress with the fiscal framework negotiations.
European Union Referendum Bill
(8 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
“Designation of organisations: designation of one organisation only 8A (1) Section 108 of the 2000 Act (designation of organisations to whom assistance is available) has effect for the purposes of the referendum with the following modifications.
(2) Subsection (2) has effect for those purposes as if for the words from “the Commission” to the end there were substituted “the Commission may—
(a) in relation to each of those outcomes, designate one permitted participant as representing those campaigning for the outcome in question; or(b) if the condition in subsection (2A) is met as regards one of those outcomes (“outcome A”) but not the other (“outcome B”), designate one permitted participant as representing those campaigning for outcome B.(2A) The condition in this subsection is met as regards an outcome if either—
(a) no permitted participant makes an application to be designated under section 109 as representing those campaigning for that outcome; or(b) the Commission are not satisfied that there is any permitted participant who has made an application under that section who adequately represents those campaigning for that outcome.”(3) For the purposes of the referendum subsections (3) and (4) are to be treated as omitted.
8B Accordingly, for the purposes of the referendum, section 109 of the 2000 Act (applying to become a designated organisation) has effect as if—
(a) in subsection (4) paragraph (b) (and the “or” before it) were omitted, and(b) in subsection (5) paragraph (b) (and the “or” before it) were omitted.8C (1) This paragraph applies if the Electoral Commission designate only one permitted participant under section 108(2) of the 2000 Act in respect of the referendum.
(2) If this paragraph applies, section 110 of the 2000 Act (assistance available to designated organisations) has effect for the purposes of the referendum as if—
(a) in subsection (1) —(i) for “any designations” there were substituted “a designation”, and (ii) for “the designated organisations” there were substituted “the designated organisation”,(b) subsections (2) and (3) were omitted, and(c) for subsection (4) there were substituted the subsection set out in sub-paragraph (3) below. (3) That subsection is—
“(4) The designated organisation (or, as the case may be, persons authorised by the organisation) shall have the rights conferred by paragraphs 1 to 3 of Schedule 12.”
(4) If this paragraph applies, section 127(1) of the 2000 Act (referendum campaign broadcasts) has effect for the purposes of the referendum as if the words from “made” to the end were omitted.”
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Anelay of St Johns) (Con)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 1, I shall also give the Government’s view on Amendments 2 and 3, which stand in the name of my noble friend Lord Hamilton.
Government Amendment 1 would allow the Electoral Commission to designate a lead campaigner on just one side. This would override the current provisions in the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, which require the Electoral Commission to designate on both sides or on neither. This amendment has the same purpose as an amendment previously tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay. The Electoral Commission has indicated that it supports the government amendment, but it does not support the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Hamilton.
For there to be full public confidence in the outcome of this referendum, it is vital that the rules in place for campaigning are fair, and are seen to be fair. The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, identified that the rules in the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act meant that a campaigner on one side could deliberately decline to apply for designation in order to deprive the other side of the benefits of this status. The desire of the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, to address this situation was met with widespread support in this House. I am therefore pleased to present Amendment 1 as a sign of the Government’s willingness to listen.
However, the amendment goes a little further than that proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay. It does so because while the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, sought to address deliberate “gaming” of the system, it introduced the possibility of a referendum campaign taking place in which only one side of the argument had access to a range of publicly funded benefits. Although perhaps unlikely, there could be circumstances where a campaigner, which is the only applicant for one side, applies in good faith but is not designated because it fails to satisfy the Electoral Commission that it is adequately representative. In that event, if single-sided designation is possible, a large range of publicly funded benefits could be available to just one side of the campaign when there had been no deliberate gaming tactics on the other side.
As a result, the Government have looked at whether each of the benefits of designation should apply in the event of only one side being designated as a lead campaigner. This requires a difficult balancing act, since if these benefits are pared back too much, that would merely reinstate an incentive to game the system—something that all noble Lords are seeking to avoid. The government amendment therefore establishes that in the event of only one lead campaigner being designated, it will not be entitled to a publicly funded grant or to make a referendum campaign broadcast. In terms of the referendum broadcast, I hope that noble Lords will appreciate that, as well as being a sensible balancing of the benefits available, it is also necessary to remove this right in the event of single-sided designation as it could undermine the capacity of broadcasters to act with due impartiality.
The grant available to the designated lead campaigners can be up to a maximum of £600,000 each and comes from public funds. It is a statutory maximum. The grant is administered by the Electoral Commission and can only be used subject to conditions that the commission sets. As an example, for the AV referendum in 2011, the grant available was a maximum of £380,000, but in the end, neither of the lead campaigners spent more than £150,000 of the available grant. The Government are clear that the perceived fairness of this referendum would be significantly undermined if the publicly funded grant is given to support one side of the campaign but not the other. Amendment 1 will therefore provide that, in the event of single-sided designation, this publicly funded grant will not be available to either side.
The Government have considered whether it would be appropriate to restrict any of the other benefits of designation where there is just one lead campaigner. However, we consider that further restrictions would simply reinject an incentive for campaigners to game the system as there would be limited advantages to being designated at all.
Amendments 2 and 3, tabled by my noble friend Lord Hamilton, would provide that the power to designate for just one outcome should be available only where there are no applications for designation from campaigners in support of the other outcome. I appreciate and understand my noble friend’s approach. Indeed, the Government had considered this very approach in preparing Amendment 1. However, we realised that Amendments 2 and 3 would undermine the intent of Amendment 1, which is to prevent gaming. Amendments 2 and 3 would merely alter the means by which a campaigner could seek to frustrate the designation process and prevent the other side gaining the benefits. Campaigners could do this simply by putting in an intentionally substandard application that would not meet the statutory test. My noble friend’s amendments would therefore enable campaigners to game the system, albeit in a different way. I know that that is certainly not what my noble friend seeks to do.
I will add one final reassurance to the House and to my noble friend Lord Hamilton. Amendment 1 does not affect the fundamental principle of the rules on designation. Where there is an application for designation that meets the statutory test, the Electoral Commission must designate a lead campaigner. Where there are two campaigners for one outcome that both meet the statutory test, the Electoral Commission must then designate the applicant that represents “to the greatest extent” those campaigning for that outcome. The Commission cannot refuse to designate where that test has been met. I beg to move.
Amendment 2 (to Amendment 1)
Lord Hamilton of Epsom
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, in moving this amendment I will speak also to Amendment 3. I will withdraw Amendment 2 at the end of these proceedings. As my noble friend reminded us, the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, in a previous amendment, tried to prevent one side sabotaging the referendum by not applying for designation. The big problem with the noble Lord’s amendment was that this made it possible to end up with the designation of the “remain” campaign and not the “leave” campaign, which would have made things extremely uneven. Those of us who have come to know and love the noble Lord’s amendments are not too surprised by that.
The Government have gone to great lengths to try to address this problem. As my noble friend said a minute ago, this has been a very difficult balancing act indeed. Key to her amendment is new subsection (2A). There is no problem with new paragraph (a),
“no permitted participant makes an application to be designated under section 109 as representing those campaigning for that outcome”,
but there is a problem with new paragraph (b), which is why my original amendment advocated that it should be withdrawn. Since then, I have had conversations with my noble friend’s office and suggested that it might be better to put in a designation of frivolous and vexatious application. That would be a test of whether the application for designation was genuine.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, as the Minister was kind enough to refer to the paternity—or maternity—of this amendment, and as the one I tabled at an earlier stage was the start of this story, I thank her for the great care she has taken in looking at this extremely complex matter. Unlike the noble Lord who preceded me, I shall address only the amendments on today’s Marshalled List and not spend a lot of time on amendments that are not being moved and are not, therefore, appropriate for discussion today. Nor will I claim the credit for this not very likely eventuality being made a lot less so. That should go entirely to your Lordships’ Constitution Committee, which first spotted the risk of gaming and asked for it to be addressed by the House; I responded to that request.
As regards the amendments that we are discussing, I know that the noble Baroness has worked extremely hard on this very tangled subject. She knows that, in my view, the distinction she has made concerning the broadcasting rights is absolutely right: they should not be one-sided under any circumstances, and I made that clear when she discussed the matter with me informally at an early stage. As to the government-funded portion that follows designation, I am entirely prepared to follow her wisdom in this matter. I think the balance has been very carefully crafted and achieves the maximum deterrence to gaming, whether deliberate or inadvertent. That is an important issue because gaming could happen inadvertently or deliberately, and the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, referred to that. We probably now have a text which, if and when the House approves it, will make it extremely unlikely that this will happen, and far more unlikely than the text of the original Bill, unamended, would have done. Therefore, I commend that. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, will withdraw his amendment. This amendment would merely muddy the waters yet again, and therefore make the risk of gaming, or inadvertent events, more likely. I am delighted that he will withdraw his amendment and offer my support to the Minister.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, I am very disappointed that my noble friend will withdraw his amendment but relieved to find at least something during our discussion on this Bill on which I disagree with him. I very much appreciate the way my noble friend the Minister has listened to the debate and brought forward amendments, although, at this last stage, I am very disappointed that she has brought forward this particular amendment, and even more disappointed by the briefing from the Electoral Commission—a body that costs more than half the cost of the entire Royal Family and therefore is very well resourced indeed. The Electoral Commission suggests that this amendment is helpful. The reason I am disappointed by its response is that it is suggesting that, in the event of there being only one campaign, the amount that that campaign can spend should be increased even further. Even at this late stage, we are faced with a Bill that allows one side—the stay side—to spend more than twice as much as the leave side. To my mind, that entirely defeats the purpose of having expense limits, which are meant to ensure that people are not able to buy a result. My noble friend said in her opening remarks that it was very important that the Bill was seen to be fair. Indeed, in moderating the original amendment that the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, put forward, she has made some progress in that direction. However, the Bill remains extremely unfair in that one side is able to spend considerably more, although this amendment takes away the state funding and the broadcasting funding in the event of there being one campaign. I entirely accept that that is a sensible change.
However, I am concerned that the Electoral Commission is judge and jury in its own court. It decides what is a designated campaign. In the event that it decided that none of the campaigns that was in favour of, say, leaving the European Union was suitable, we would be faced, as a result of this amendment, with one side being a designated campaign and having very considerable resources. Everyone who has spoken so far has said it is very unlikely that that would happen. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, on having spent the entire time that we have spent discussing the Bill trying to amend it to make it one-sided to help his particular cause.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
He has, indeed. If anyone wants to challenge that, I am very happy to give chapter and verse. Every single amendment that has been put forward has sought to improve the position of those who wish to stay in the European Union. Whichever side of the argument you are on, it is absolutely essential that, if we get a narrow result, people are able to say that it was a fair campaign and it was properly funded.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
Does the noble Lord accept that it is not about giving one side an advantage but about stopping the gaming of the system, which would prevent a fair exercise? That was the point made by the Minister in introducing her amendment, which I think is generally much welcomed.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
I am most grateful to the noble Baroness, who, with her great experience in the European Parliament, knows all about gaming the system. I am coming on to the point about gaming the system because we have already had examples. My friend and former colleague from the other place, Sir Eric Pickles, has already written to the Electoral Commission saying that the leave campaign should not be designated because it had upset the CBI at its conference and sought to expose that it was one-sided.
If we have those sorts of games being played, where people try to knock out one campaign in order to allow another campaign an advantage, that is gaming the system. This amendment makes it effective because it means that if people were able to persuade the Electoral Commission not to designate a campaign on one side, the other side would have considerable advantage, including even more expenses to spend on the campaign than are already provided in the Bill.
I am disappointed that my noble friend is not seeking to press his amendment. It is of course a matter for the House but I look forward to hearing from my noble friend the Minister how she believes it will be possible to deal with complaints if those who wish to stay win by a very narrow margin and people argue that it was an unfair campaign because one side was allowed to spend far more than the other.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I, too, welcome the government amendment. It addresses the specific issue of gaming in the unlikely event that a group of people tried to disadvantage one side or the other, by addressing the facilities that are given to designated lead campaigns. Under PPERA, those lead campaigns are given certain opportunities to communicate to the electorate. What the amendment does not do, quite rightly, is stop other voices.
I get the impression from the debates we have had on the Bill that somehow we are all going to be corralled into one campaign or the other. I think it very unlikely that the leave campaign will stop UKIP—or any other political, campaign or community group—expressing its opinions. I hope the referendum will result in a multiplicity of voices that cannot be legislated for or corralled. I welcome the amendment and the way in which the Government have addressed this particular risk, which is now minimised.
Lord Spicer (Con)
I will make one very brief point in support of my noble friend Lord Forsyth’s point that the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, have been on a roll over the past several occasions. We had the example where it was said that something called objective data could be put out about the whole thing, and that of course is the deception enabling one side to put across its point of view. That amendment was not accepted. Now we have this, which again is done in the guise of fairness, but as my noble friend has pointed out, could have the effect of being very unfair. So it is the case that the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, has been on a roll with his amendments and we should bear that in mind when we come to further amendments.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, is too young to remember the 1975 referendum but while there was a decisive victory then, it did not stop those who lost the referendum from arguing within six months that it had been unfair and that the people had not really spoken, so they would continue their efforts. We have to recognise, sadly, that referendums do not solve matters for a generation and that the side which loses, even if it is defeated by a very large majority, is highly likely to say that it has been unfair.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Hamilton for his analysis of how the government amendment has developed. It is not the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, who pointed out that he was reflecting very much on the view of the Constitution Committee of this House. Noble Lords throughout the House of course respect the Constitution Committee, and therefore gave their support at Report.
Both my noble friend Lord Hamilton and the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, have recognised the difficult balancing act that has to be achieved. This is indeed a complex matter. We have had to look carefully at how to craft the amendment so that we meet this House’s request that we discourage gaming the system, while avoiding penalising the person who is trying to avoid gaming and is actually the victim of it. We are also meeting the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Collins: that voices should be heard. My amendment has two aspects: broadcasting, and the maximum grant of £600,000. It is clearly up to the political parties to spend up to their limits, and others can of course spend up to £700,000. I will not rehearse in detail the whole panoply of what the spending limits comprise, but it was important to respond to the view of the Constitution Committee. We have sought to do that in a way which enables people clearly to see that it is better to take part, and take part honestly, than to try to game.
The Electoral Commission has indicated that, when looking at the designation of lead campaigners, it will expect campaigners to demonstrate the following: how the applicant’s objectives fit with the referendum outcome it supports, and the level and type of support for the application; how the applicant intends to engage with other campaigners; the applicant’s organisational capacity to represent those campaigning for the outcome; and the applicant’s capacity to deliver their campaign, including its financial probity. These are all matters we would expect the Electoral Commission to take into account.
I am sure that all noble Lords will join me in wanting this process to be firm and fair, so that the organisations representing views on either side can organise themselves such that they can present to the Electoral Commission a case which can be judged on its merits, and so the process can proceed with expedition. I urge my noble friend to do as he said and withdraw his Amendments 2 and 3 when they are called.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, I shall also speak to Amendments 9 to 25 inclusive, which are all in my name. Government Amendments 4 and 9 to 25 relate to the reporting requirements that apply to donations received by, and loans and certain other transactions involving, permitted participants other than non-minor registered parties.
One of the reasons why there are so many amendments in this group is that the Bill, like legislation for previous referendums, deals separately with donations and loans. Therefore, Amendment 4—along with Amendments 16, 17 and 18—is minor and technical. These amendments make it clear that different paragraphs in the schedules may be commenced at different times. Amendments 9 and 15 are also minor and technical, and would ensure that there is no conflict between two provisions in the Bill about the reporting of donations and loans that apply and modify the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act for different purposes.
I now turn to Amendments 10, 11, 12, 13, 19, 21, 22 and 23, which are the main focus of this group. The Government have tabled these amendments as a result of an undertaking I gave on Report to the noble Lord, Lord Jay. The noble Lord had tabled an amendment, following discussion with the Electoral Commission, to address concerns that the rules in the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 requiring campaigners to return donations from ineligible sources applied only to permitted participants. At the time, I set out clearly why the Government could not accept the noble Lord’s amendment as drafted, and I will not rehearse those arguments now, as they are on the record from Report stage in some detail.
However, I noted that the Government had already taken steps to address the concerns identified by the noble Lord’s amendment. These are provided by the introduction of pre-poll reporting requirements in relation to loans and donations. These provisions require permitted participants to be transparent about the sources of their funding before the vote takes place. In these pre-poll reports, campaigners are also required to detail certain donations received and loans entered into before they become a permitted participant. I gave an undertaking on Report to consider whether the level of transparency provided as part of the pre-poll reports was adequate. On that basis, the noble Lord, Lord Jay, withdrew his amendment at that stage. The government amendments I have brought forward today represent the result of consideration and discussions with the noble Lord. We believe they will provide for greater transparency, but without imposing an unnecessary burden on campaigners.
Government Amendments 10, 11, 13, 19, 21 and 23 establish that the first pre-poll reporting period for donations and loans will begin on commencement of the relevant provisions and end after the first week of the referendum period. I note that the Electoral Commission supports all the amendments in this sub-group. The actual length of the referendum period is as yet uncertain, as noble Lords are aware, simply because we do not know the date of the referendum itself, but noble Lords will recall that we agreed earlier to an amendment stating that the referendum period should be at least 10 weeks. Setting the first period through this amendment enables the starting of the first pre-poll reporting period without waiting for the regulations setting the subsequent reporting periods to be made.
Government Amendments 12 and 22 make further progress by increasing the scope of donations and loans that need to be reported. The Electoral Commission supports these amendments too. Under the Bill as it stands, the pre-poll reports need to include only donations or loans for the purpose of meeting referendum expenses that are to be incurred during the referendum period. This would be difficult to apply in practice, especially if the referendum period has not yet been set—as it cannot be, because the negotiations have not yet concluded and we are not yet able to bring to the House a statutory instrument inviting the House to consider a date for the referendum.
These amendments will require the reporting of donations and loans that were for the purpose of meeting referendum expenses generally. This approach means that, once these provisions are commenced, if campaigners are receiving funding from foreign sources to help meet any referendum expenses, they will have to declare this before the referendum. The campaigning rules that will apply to the EU referendum do not expect people to anticipate that they may seek at some future stage to become registered as a permitted participant and return money they receive. This is clearly the fair approach to regulation.
However, the pre-poll reporting rules recognise that there is a risk that, in certain circumstances, a campaigner might delay registering as a permitted participant so that they can receive otherwise ineligible funding. The pre-poll reports therefore seek to shine the light of transparency on the sources of funding campaigners seek to use. Through government Amendments 12 and 22, we have therefore increased the scope of the pre-poll loan and donation reporting requirements. I hope the House will recognise that the additional transparency the amendments provide is indeed a benefit, and that the Government have delivered on the commitment I gave at Report. I am very grateful indeed to the noble Lord, Lord Jay, for his constructive amendment at Report and his engagement on this point. It has helped us to arrive at this outcome.
I now turn briefly to government Amendments 14, 20, 24 and 25, which are all minor and technical. Amendments 14, 20 and 24 will correct a cross-reference, insert an additional definition and set out more clearly how existing reporting requirements under PPERA will function when applied to this referendum. Finally, Amendment 25 clarifies that the pre-poll loan reports must cover third-party security arrangements, referred to in the Bill as connected transactions, as well as loans and other regulated transactions to which the committed participant is a party. I beg to move.
Baroness Ludford
My Lords, I rise with some hesitation, because this is not an area that I know much about. I find the briefing from the Electoral Commission slightly confusing. It is probably a bit unfair to ask the Minister whether I should be confused, but is she satisfied that the concerns expressed by the Electoral Commission have been fully addressed? Its briefing states that it supports the amendments, which will increase transparency of information, but it is not clear from the last two paragraphs of the briefing whether those concerns applied before Report and have now been cleared up by the new amendments today. The last sentence states that,
“in addition to these amendments we will use our guidance for referendum campaigners to strongly encourage them to only accept donations from permissible sources prior to registering with us”.
Is it the Minister’s understanding that that has been overtaken by events and that her amendments now fully satisfy the concern that some donations would escape the permissibility requirements and post-poll reporting obligations? Do her amendments close all those loopholes? I apologise for asking her to clear up my confusion, but I would none the less be grateful.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, I follow that intervention with regard to the position of the Electoral Commission. I understand from what the noble Baroness said that it agrees with the content of what the Government are doing. Is it also entirely happy with the timing implications? If I understand it correctly, the commission has said that, in practice, it needs a minimum of 16 weeks’ notice after the last regulations have been approved. Is there an implication in the Minister’s statement for that timescale? If that is the case, is the Electoral Commission relaxed that it can work within those implications on the overall timescale arising from the amendments?
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
My Lords, I shall speak briefly to Amendments 12 and 22, which, as the Minister said, were made in response to a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Jay. I have to say, although it may increase the paranoia of the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, that the noble Lord, Lord Jay, is abroad today—indeed, I am sorry to have to say, in France.
The concern that the noble Lord, Lord Jay, was speaking to is in my view, although I have heard the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, at least half met by the changes that the Government have made. My understanding is that the Electoral Commission recognises that that is as far as it is possible to go. As I read its briefing, it is saying that, in addition to the amendments, it will use its guidance for referendum campaigners strongly to encourage them only to accept donations from permissible sources prior to registering with the commission. That is very good advice, and the House should encourage that. I welcome the government amendments, as at least they will have the effect of increasing transparency and, backed by such guidance from the Electoral Commission, should discourage inappropriate donations.
Lord Flight (Con)
My Lords, how will these measures deal with contributions from overseas? This might not be a big issue, but obviously there is the thought that there may be significant contributions from the EU itself.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, I am particularly grateful for the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, because it encapsulated the issue. The noble Lord, Lord Jay, is content that we have gone as far as a government amendment, or indeed any amendment, can go—I think that is the point—within the statutory system. The Electoral Commission in its briefing, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, referred, is saying that, beyond legislation, there is the whole issue of people behaving properly. Clearly, we want to ensure that those people who are receiving donations carry out their best efforts to ensure that they come from a source from which they should receive them. But also there are those issues that I mentioned in opening, such as the fact that some people who are receiving donations will not know at that stage that later on they will want to register to be a permitted participant. Therefore, we have to be cautious not to overload them with regulation, because they cannot guess what they are going to do as the sums of money rise and how they will feel as their activity increases. The noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, encapsulated that position very well.
My noble friend Lord Flight asked about overseas moneys. I referred during my presentation of the amendment to how that might be affected. I made it very clear in earlier stages of this Bill how money from overseas may be part and parcel of permitted donations. I do not think that it would be appropriate for me at Third Reading to go through the detail of that again, but perhaps it would be right for me to respond to my noble friend by making it clear that we have always set out that permitted participants cannot accept donations of more than £500 from the EU institutions, as these are not eligible donors under PPERA. With companies based in Europe, as long as a campaigner does not spend any other money campaigning during the referendum period, it would be possible for campaigners to receive up to £10,000 from a foreign company and use it to campaign. That is a necessary function of proportionate controls on low-spending campaigners. I went into this in some detail in Committee, so I shall not try to do so now. It is important that we have transparency in all these matters, and that is exactly what we have tried to put at the heart of this group of amendments.
“( ) In this paragraph references to “common plan expenses” of an individual or body are to referendum expenses which are incurred by or on behalf of that individual or body—
(a) as mentioned in sub-paragraph (1)(a), and(b) in pursuance of a plan or other arrangement mentioned in sub-paragraph (1)(b).”
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, in moving Amendment 5, I shall speak also to Amendments 6 to 8, which are in my name. These are technical amendments relating to the “acting in concert” rules that will apply for campaigners at the referendum.
The acting in concert rules apply when two or more campaigners work to a common plan, incurring expenses during the referendum period to promote a particular outcome at the referendum. These rules are intended to prevent a campaigner setting up multiple bodies to campaign for the same referendum outcome, thereby circumventing the spending limits. When a designated lead organisation is involved, all spending incurred as part of that plan counts against the lead campaigner’s spending limit only. None of the spending counts against the spending limits of the other campaigners in the common plan. When two or more campaigners work together as part of a common plan without the involvement of a designated lead organisation, the Bill ensures that the total spending incurred as part of that common plan counts against each of the campaigner’s spending limits.
Government Amendments 5 to 8 are minor drafting changes to make clear the original policy intent that campaigners do not have to account for expenditure by other participants in the common plan which have been incurred independently of the arrangement. I conclude these groups of amendments with technical matters, but they, as all others, have shown the complexity of trying to deliver legislation that should be as fair and balanced as possible.
Before I proceed to other matters in this group, as we come to a close I ought to take this opportunity to give a short expression of thanks. I made clear at Second Reading that the Government’s aim is to deliver a robust and fair referendum on the UK’s membership of the European Union. Noble Lords across the House have helped to achieve this aim with their usual careful attention and contributions. I am grateful to all noble Lords who spoke during the passage of the Bill, and to those who took the time to attend various meetings across summer and autumn outside the Chamber.
It is always a dangerous business to pick out individuals, but I am going to be dangerous. I hope noble Lords will permit me to name a few names. I am particularly grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Hannay and Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, who brought their great expertise to bear, as did others, such as the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, who in particular made it possible to focus on matters that affect the devolved Administrations.
The Opposition Front Benches have been unfailingly constructive, and I am very grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Morgan of Ely and Lady Smith of Newnham, and their colleagues for their work and engagement and for testing us from time to time. Of course, I should like to pay particular tribute to my noble friends Lord Forsyth, Lord Blencathra and Lord Hamilton, among others, who have certainly kept me on my toes in the best possible spirit—I wish I wore heels as it would be easier to be on my toes.
From a personal perspective, I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Faulks. His support throughout this Bill has been invaluable to me. I am particularly grateful for his sensitive handling of the important debates in this House about the referendum franchise which, of course, will be continued in another place. I am also grateful for the counsel of my ministerial colleagues, David Lidington, the Minister for Europe, and John Penrose, the Minister for Constitutional Reform.
It has always been of the utmost importance to the Government that the referendum process should be fair and be seen to be fair. I am confident that the European Union Referendum Bill is all the stronger for the detailed scrutiny it has received in this House. The Bill will now return to another place, which will express its view. As noble Lords will be aware, the other place has consistently voted against lowering the voting age, and I expect it to repeat that decision with regard to this Bill. As I said at Second Reading, this Bill sets the stage for one of the most important decisions that the people of these islands have been asked to make in a generation. Our work gives them the opportunity to do that. I beg to move.
“( ) In paragraph 10(1)(c) of Schedule 15 to the 2000 Act as it applies for the purposes of the referendum, the reference to paragraph 2 of Schedule 6 to that Act is to be taken as a reference to that paragraph without the modifications of that paragraph made by this Schedule.”
(a) the period (“the first reporting period”) beginning with the commencement day and ending with the 7th day of the referendum period, and(b) such other periods ending before the date of the referendum as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Minister;and in paragraph (a) “the commencement day” means the day on which that paragraph comes into force.”
(a) in the case of the report for the first reporting period, within 7 days beginning with the end of that period;(b) in the case of the report for a period prescribed under sub-paragraph (2)(b), within such time as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Minister.”
“( ) In sub-paragraph (1), the reference to paragraph 2 of Schedule 6A is to be taken as a reference to that paragraph without the modifications of that paragraph made by Schedule 2 to the European Union Referendum Act 2015.”
(a) the period (“the first reporting period”) beginning with the commencement day and ending with the 7th day of the referendum period, and(b) such other periods ending before the date of the referendum as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Minister;and in paragraph (a) “the commencement day” means the day on which that paragraph comes into force.”
“(a) the nature of the transaction (that is to say whether it is a loan, a credit facility or an arrangement by which any form of security is given),“(b) the value of the transaction (determined in accordance with paragraph 3 of the Schedule treated as inserted by paragraph 1 of this Schedule (“Schedule 15A”)) or, in the case of a credit facility or security to which no limit is specified, a statement to that effect,“(ba) the date when the transaction was entered into by the permitted participant,(bb) the same information about the transaction as would be required by paragraph 18(3) and (4) of Schedule 15A to be recorded in the statement referred to in paragraph 15 of that Schedule,“(bc) the information about each qualifying person who is a party to the transaction which is, in connection with recordable transactions entered into by registered parties, required to be recorded in weekly transaction reports by paragraph 3 of Schedule 6A to the 2000 Act (reading references in that paragraph to an authorised participant as references to a qualifying person who is a party to the transaction), and”
(a) in the case of the report for the first reporting period, within 7 days beginning with the end of that period;(b) in the case of the report for a period prescribed under sub-paragraph (2)(b), within such time as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Minister.”
“(b) the following expressions—“qualifying person”, and
“regulated transaction”,
“( ) Paragraph 23 of the Schedule treated as inserted by paragraph 1 applies for the purposes of this paragraph as it applies for the purposes of the provisions of that Schedule relating to the reporting of transactions.”
Education and Adoption Bill
(8 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Pinnock
“Scrutiny of education provision
(1) The Education and Inspections Act 2006 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 70C insert—
“70D Scrutiny of education provision
(1) This section applies where more than 10 per cent of schools in a local education authority area are eligible for intervention under section 60B as inserted by section 1 of the Education and Adoption Act 2015 (coasting schools).
(2) The relevant local authority may establish, under section 21(2) of the Local Government Act 2000 (overview and scrutiny committees), a committee of that authority to review and scrutinise matters relating to the provision of education in such schools in the authority’s area, and to make reports and recommendations on such matters in accordance with regulations under this section.
(3) Regulations shall make provision—
(a) as to the matters relating to the provision of education in such schools in the authority’s area which the committee may review and scrutinise;(b) as to matters relating to the provision of education in such schools in the authority’s area on which the committee may make reports and recommendations to local Academy sponsors;(c) as to information which local Academy sponsors must provide to the committee; and(d) requiring Regional Schools Commissioners to attend the committee to answer questions.””
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I suspect that the movers of the amendment have been rather taken by surprise by the speed with which the European Union Referendum Bill completed its Third Reading, which on past counts was rather unexpected. My congratulations to the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, on the speedy way in which she dispatched the business. I think it would be fair to the noble Lord, Lord Storey, to allow him to arrive.
This is clearly an amendment about the role of local authorities. Obviously the specific details are contained in the amendment, but I want to take this opportunity to ask the Minister whether he is able to say something more about the role of local authorities in education in the future, because that is very much contingent on the amendment before us. He knows that we have debated whether the Government’s real intention is for all schools in the maintained sector to become academies. The Minister has rather dissembled on that point, but he will know that it was very clear from what his right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said only last week in the Autumn Statement that it is essentially the Government’s intention that at least all secondary schools should become academies. Mr Osborne said:
“Five years ago, 200 schools were academies: today, 5,000 schools are. Our goal is to complete this school revolution and help every secondary school become an academy. I can announce that we will let sixth-form colleges become academies, too, so that they no longer have to pay VAT. We will make local authorities running schools a thing of the past, which will help us save around £600 million on the education services grant”.—[Official Report, Commons, 25/11/15; col. 713.]
As the amendment talks about local authorities, it is entirely reasonable for me to ask whether that is an enunciation of a new government policy. If it is, and my impression is that when the Chancellor makes a Statement in the other place it is an enunciation of policy, clearly it is the Government’s intention to take local authorities completely out of the schools sector.
The point that I put to the Minister is this: why are we going through the charade of this Bill when it is the clear intention of the Government to phase out maintained schools completely? Why are the Government not prepared to be open and honest about this? Why do they not come forward with the appropriate legislation? I would oppose that legislation, but let us at least have an honest debate. I know that we are on Report and I guess that I am pressing against the boundaries of what is allowed, but it is none the less a very interesting amendment.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, I apologise for missing the opening part of this discussion on Report. Amendment 1 in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Storey has a distinct purpose, which is one that I raised in Committee. Schools are a locally delivered service and that will not change, even with the implementation of the Government’s desire that all schools become academies. Consequently, once school-specific processes have been exhausted, parents tend to seek redress for their concerns about a particular school from a local body. Currently, parents see their local authority as that body. Already, in my experience as a local councillor, parents seeking to take a complaint about their local school to the next level turn to the council only to find, where it is an academy, that this is no longer within the remit of LAs.
The second reason for tabling this amendment is that schools are a major spender of public money. More than 50% of a local authority’s revenue spending is on schools. Where is the local accountability for that expenditure, especially as the number of academies increases and their diversity grows? Sadly, there have been a number of high-profile failures of financial governance in the academy sector, which includes some serious allegations of fraud, some of which have been proven; for instance, in schools in Bradford and County Durham. They are not the only ones. The Education Funding Agency has issued financial notices to improve on several academy chains, including the Academies Enterprise Trust, which was served with a notice only last year. Therefore there are already examples of the failure of local accountability to highlight issues of concern about public expenditure on something as important as education and schools.
Multi-academy trusts, which seem to be the current favoured way forward, are accountable only to the Education Funding Agency and the Secretary of State for their strategic and financial performance. Governance models in multi-academy trusts ensure that the sponsor or sponsoring body controls the trust. The strategic direction and decisions on the school’s budget are, crucially, in the hands of the directors of the trust and the trust members, who are self-appointed and accountable for their actions only via agreements signed with the Department for Education. In this model there is no accountability to the local community, which the academy and the academy trust serves, and no accountability to local parents for the investment in the education of their children. This amendment seeks to address some of those concerns.
In 2006, the Government established local authority health scrutiny committees. The scrutiny committees comprise both elected councillors and co-optees with relevant experience in the health sector. The purpose is to provide a public forum where local NHS bodies—hospital trusts or commissioning groups—can present policy changes which are discussed and are subject to questioning from the perspective of the local community. In other forums they are questioned as regards their financial position or their general direction—as regards trusts—from a clinical commissioning point of view. However, the local community has the opportunity through the scrutiny committee to raise issues of concern, such as access to the services that are going to be provided. In my experience, health scrutiny committees can add value by providing access to strategic leadership across the sector and by enabling generalised complaints and concerns about the service to be given a local and public hearing. I suggest that local education scrutiny committees would fill a vacuum by providing a process, based on this sort of model, to have a forum for discussing issues pertinent to the local community.
One of the keys to success in schools is harnessing the support of the local community they serve. The risk in the multi-academy trust model is that the schools become more remote from the communities they serve. I suggest that a successful multi-academy trust would welcome the opportunity of a public platform where it could demonstrate transparency in its decision-making and respond to questions from local people regarding performance. A scrutiny model would also enable the regional schools commissioner to report back via a local public forum. I hope that the Minister will be able to respond positively and constructively to this proposal. I beg to move.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education (Lord Nash) (Con)
My Lords, responding to the original remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, I am glad that he used the word “dissembled” over the question of the future of the academy programme and local authorities. I think that it is a better word than “dishonest”, which he used in Committee. I have made it absolutely clear on a number of occasions that the default position for a coasting school is not to become an academy. However, the Prime Minister has been clear that our ambition is that, in time, every school will have the opportunity to become an academy. Given that ambition, it is right that we look at how we might reform the role of local authorities in education, although there is no intention of taking them out of education totally. Obviously their role in school improvement will reduce as regional schools commissioners take more responsibility.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
I hear what the Minister says but what did the Chancellor mean by saying:
“We will make local authorities running schools a thing of the past”.—[Official Report, Commons, 25/11/15; col. 1370.]?
What does that mean in relation to what the noble Lord has said? He may not like my use of the words “dissembling” or “dishonest” but I come back to the core point. Is it the Government’s intention that, willy-nilly, all schools will be academies, as the Chancellor said last week?
Lord Nash
Perhaps the noble Lord will let me finish. In a situation at some stage in the future where all schools were academies, obviously local authorities would not be running schools. However, we certainly anticipate them continuing to have a role in the sufficiency duty, admissions, SEN and safeguarding. Perhaps I may make it absolutely clear that it is not about making every school an academy overnight at the stroke of a pen. That is not what we are after at all; we are about organising schools so that through academies and the multi-academy trust programme many more of them can, by working with each other, take advantage of the benefit of economies of scale efficiencies and deliver career enhancement, better CPD and leadership development. Given that ambition, it is right that we look at how we form the role of local authorities, as we have discussed.
The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, referred to financial irregularities in academies. I think that we have covered this before but I re-emphasise that academies are subject to far greater financial scrutiny than local authority maintained schools. They have to publish annual accounts which are audited by third-party accountants, something local authority maintained schools do not have to do. They are subject to the scrutiny of the EFA and the Charity Commission, and they are also subject to company law. I do not wish to make comparisons—
Lord Nash
Perhaps I may finish before the noble Baroness gets on her feet. I do not wish to make comparisons but a couple of years ago the Audit Commission found in, I believe, one year alone nearly 200 cases of financial irregularities in local authority maintained schools.
Baroness Pinnock
In response to the proposal that I made in Committee, the Minister said that academies’ accounts undergo greater audits than those of local authority maintained schools, but I suggest that that is probably not the case. I am the governor of a school in the local maintained sector. The school’s accounts are published as part of the local authority’s accounts, which are audited by a senior auditing company—KPMG in this case. Therefore, the internal and external audit of the accounts is carried out by the council’s own internal auditor and by external auditors. I am not suggesting that they are any better than the audited accounts of academies in terms of overall performance, and I think it is erroneous to suggest that one is better than the other.
Lord Nash
I am sure that anything the noble Baroness is involved in is very well scrutinised financially but, as a rule, all academies have their accounts audited but not all maintained schools do.
Turning to the subject that we are here today to discuss, I shall speak to Amendment 1 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Storey, and the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock. This proposed new clause would allow a local authority to establish a committee to review and scrutinise the provision of education in coasting schools where coasting schools make up more than 10% of the schools in the local area.
From our debate on a very similar amendment in Committee, I know that the noble Lords’ concerns are that, where a local authority has a number of coasting schools, the education provision in these schools is monitored and reviewed at a local level, with direct intervention happening where necessary.
I share the noble Lords’ desire to ensure that coasting schools are subject to robust oversight and intervention but, in the past, too many local authorities have made little use of their intervention powers, as we have discussed in earlier debates. The Bill now gives regional schools commissioners working on behalf of the Secretary of State the powers to work with and intervene in any school that is coasting. The Bill provides RSCs with additional intervention powers for maintained schools so that they can tackle schools directly that have been allowed to fail, or indeed coast, under the local authority’s watch. This means that all coasting schools will come under the scrutiny of the RSCs.
The revised Schools Causing Concern guidance, which is currently out for consultation, will set out what steps RSCs will take when schools in their area have been identified as coasting. Initially, the RSC will make contact with coasting schools in their area to identify whether the school has the capacity to improve sufficiently by itself. If the RSC deems that additional support or intervention is needed, there are a variety of intervention options, such as bringing in additional support from a national leader of education, temporary support from a local school or becoming a sponsored academy.
I emphasise that, throughout this process, no coasting school will go unchecked. RSCs will not wait until more than 10% of schools in a local authority have been notified that they are coasting before they start reviewing the education provision in these schools. The work of RSCs in relation to coasting schools will be continuous and thorough, with the aim of intervening swiftly where necessary. It is just not fair on the pupils in a coasting school to have to wait for an extraneous event, such as more than 10% of schools in their LA to be coasting, for support to take place.
RSCs are based in the regions that they serve, which means that they will make decisions on coasting schools based on their knowledge of the local area and with the input from their head teacher board. Head teacher board members are recruited from across the region and so bring local intelligence to RSC decision-making. I welcome the positive comments made today in Ofsted’s annual report about the appointment of RSCs as overseers of school performance.
RSCs are already successfully scrutinising academies in their region when they have concerns, and intervening where necessary. The proposed powers for them to do the same for maintained schools are an extension of this and they will be resourced up to enable them to do so.
RSCs are already working closely with local authorities, meeting them regularly to discuss schools of concern. Since their appointment, RSCs have been proactive in using their intervention powers in relation to academies and encouraging local authorities to do the same for maintained schools. We know that some local authorities have been positive about the introduction of RSCs, and have found that this partnership working can result in a joint understanding of local priorities, a new energy and an effective approach to tackling underperformance in their areas. In some areas we have seen a marked increase in local authorities issuing warning notices to their poorly performing schools.
Noble Lords will be aware that the Chancellor’s spending review speech restated the Government’s position on reforming the role of local authorities, as we have discussed. They will remain responsible for the maintained schools for which they are accountable, but the local authority role will, as I said, have to change in the light of the growing number of schools becoming academies. I therefore do not consider this amendment, which proposes additional responsibilities for local authorities in respect of non-maintained schools in their area, appropriate in that context.
I hope I have been able to reassure noble Lords that RSCs will be actively monitoring and reviewing all coasting schools, not just ones in areas where they are in bad company, and intervening when appropriate. I therefore urge the noble Lords to withdraw their amendment.
Baroness Suttie (LD)
My Lords, I believe that we have made our concerns on this matter very clear, but we are happy that there will be robust oversight and scrutiny for all schools. With the assurances from the Minister that all schools will be dealt with fairly on this matter, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments 6 and 7, which I thought would be treated as individual amendments but, to my surprise, have been grouped. So here we are.
Amendment 2 has been resubmitted, because we share the concerns of the professionals in the field about what the future might hold for voluntary adoption agencies after the full establishment of the regional adoption agencies. Having said that, I think that moving Amendment 2 should be a formality, because, within the past few days, the Minister has to all intents and purposes already indicated—in writing no less—his tacit acceptance of it.
In moving what was then Amendment 32ZA in Committee, I highlighted the fears of many voluntary adoption agencies that they could be squeezed out with the establishment of the regional agencies and that considerable difficulties remained as far as their involvement was concerned. I went on to say that we owed a duty to them to air those views and seek the Government’s help in prioritising them. Well, we did, and the Government did. In fact, those of us involved with the Bill received letters from Ministers in both Houses, and both responded positively. The Minister of State for Children and Families, Edward Timpson, clearly stated the Government’s commitment to making sure that voluntary adoption agencies are involved in regional adoption agencies. He stated that,
“the excellence in practice of VAAs is at the heart of the regionalised system”,
and that he wanted VAAs to be leading players in the design of that system, which was why,
“I have not approved a proposal to set up a regional adoption agency without a clear commitment to involving voluntary adoption agencies in the design of the service—and I will make sure local authorities keep that commitment”.
That is very welcome—so far, so good—but it leaves the umbrella body for voluntary adoption agencies, the Consortium of Voluntary Adoption Agencies, with concerns, because it believes that the Minister’s commitments do not go far enough in explaining how the Government will achieve that aim. In the letter of the noble Lord, Lord Nash, the paragraph on the matching process is important—and this refers also to Amendment 7. The Minister states that a regional adoption agency will have one pool of adopters that it will draw on when matching children in its area and that this will minimise sequential decision-making.
However, the issue of concern is that, within that single pool of adopters, those approved by a voluntary adoption agency will have a price attached to them in some way. Voluntary adoption agencies somehow have to cover the cost of recruiting, training and approving those adopters, as well as supporting them after placement. This may be through the current inter-agency fee of £27,000, through “block purchase” arrangements where a regional adoption agency pays for a set number of VAA adopters a year, or through other arrangements. It is not yet known how this will be arranged in the various regions; the point is that individual regional arrangements will decide it, and that is an area of uncertainty for the voluntary agencies.
If that means that voluntary adoption agency-approved adopters will be seen as coming with a cost attached to them in a way that adopters approved by the regional adoption agency will not, that is potentially an issue. Of course, adopters approved by the regional agency also come with a cost, although that is less visible. The evidence also suggests that, despite perceptions of voluntary adoption agency-approved adopters being expensive, the costs of providing an adopter are virtually the same across both the statutory and the voluntary sector. There are further concerns, as it is accepted that the inter-agency fee does not cover this full cost. Indeed, the CVAA, the consortium, estimates a shortfall of at least £10,000 per placement, which suggests that local authorities get excellent value for money from using voluntary adoption agency adopters.
In Committee, I raised the issue of what is known as sequential decision-making. In his letter to noble Lords, the Minister said:
“A regional adoption agency will have one pool of adopters that it will draw on when matching the children in its area. Individual local authorities will therefore no longer have their ‘own’ adopters to match their children with ‘in house’ as they do currently. This will ensure that sequential decision making is minimised”.
Yes, it will be minimised, but not ruled out. That remains an issue for the voluntary adoption agencies.
Part of what drives that behaviour, understandably, is the fact that local authorities often have a preference for adopters they have approved. This, in addition to the perception that voluntary adoption agency-approved adopters involve an additional cost, causes a mindset that leads to sequential decision-making. There is no reason to suppose that this mindset would be any different in a regional adoption agency. Voluntary adoption agency-approved adopters would still have to be paid for by some means, and that would not be approved in-house by the statutory part of the regional agency.
The basic issue is that, within regional agencies, voluntary adoption agency-approved adopters will still be the second preference of those deciding on matches. This is bad for children because it causes delay, and bad for local authorities because delay in placing children incurs huge costs. I was surprised—I wonder if Ministers are aware—that providing local authority-based residential care costs more than £100,000 per child per year. That is why there is a need to reform the matching process to ensure that those making the decisions are focused solely on finding the best match for the child as quickly as possible. This would be better for all parties involved and would help the Government achieve their aims of reducing delay for children and involving voluntary adoption agencies in regional adoption agencies.
Further, there is the issue of voluntary adoption agencies having to divert resources towards administrative and governance processes during the transition. We know that the Department for Education has allocated £4.5 million for this purpose but can the Minister say whether any further funding will be made available? Voluntary adoption agencies are already saying that the funding is beginning to dry up and, with the transition likely to be spread over a number of years, the problem can only intensify.
The final reason why the ministerial letters have not assuaged the concerns of those involved at the front line is that it is unclear how the Department for Education will influence the role for voluntary adoption agencies and a given regional agency. That is where typically smaller specialist voluntary agencies would be contracted to regional agencies. The assumption is that it will be for a regional agency to decide when to contract out and to which agencies. Given such uncertainties, there is clearly an issue about predictability of income for smaller voluntary agencies, some of which have already expressed fears that they will be at risk. Can the Minister offer any encouraging words to the voluntary adoption agencies to meet those worries?
Amendment 6 aims to clarify whether the Secretary of State’s powers in relation to adoption functions could be used in respect of a particular group. The key concern is about accountability and ensuring that the new system results in meaningful improvements for vulnerable children, especially the harder-to-place ones, and specifically those in the categories listed in the amendment.
The overhaul of the adoption system introduced by this amendment to the 2002 Act will have failed in its objective if it does not meet the challenges inherent in the current system. There is universal agreement that where adoption is in the best interests of the child, that child should be placed with a suitable family at the earliest opportunity. That must not mean a wait of more than two years, which it often does.
Overall there is not a shortage of prospective adopters. In March of this year, across England there were 2,810 children waiting to be matched and 3,350 approved adopters. The mismatch between these figures highlights the need for an improved system and the introduction of regional adoption agencies may in time produce that. However, there is an existential shortage of prospective adopters for certain groups of children. These groups contain harder-to-place children and include those over the age of four, those with disabilities, black, Asian and minority ethnic children and sibling groups.
The length of time between the decision being made that adoption is in the child’s best interests and the adoption taking place is, of course, key. According to the Adoption Leadership Board, in June of this year no fewer than 71% of children waiting more than 18 months between the placement order and the placement fell into a harder-to-place category; more than half of children from black, Asian and minority ethnic back- grounds waiting to be placed had been waiting 18 months or more since the placement order was made; and 64% of disabled children had been waiting 18 months or more, as had 47% of sibling groups. These indicate the scale of the problem, the extent of the improvement needed in the adoption system and the need for greater emphasis to be given to harder-to-place children.
For the new regional adoption agencies to be deemed a success, it is essential that the time these children spend waiting to be adopted is reduced, and quickly. Understandably, it will always be more difficult to find prospective adopters willing and able to adopt children in the groups to which I already referred. Part of the rationale offered by the Government for the introduction of the regional agencies is that they will lead to a larger pool of adopters from which it will be easier to find a match for harder-to-place children. There is some justification for that, and I certainly hope it proves correct. There is, however, no automatic link between creating regional adoption agencies and improving outcomes for these groups. In fact, there is a risk that the new agencies might feel under pressure to increase the overall numbers and speed of adoptions, creating an incentive to concentrate on the most straightforward matches which, of course, involve babies.
The Prime Minister’s speech on 2 November mentioned new measures to double the number of children placed with adoptive families sooner, halving the time they spend in care waiting to move into their new home. That was greeted with caution among professionals, who have serious doubts that the necessary resources will be forthcoming to allow that increase to become reality. I hope the Minister might be able to offer some reassurance to them in his reply. Equally, concern has been expressed that what I call this “hell-for-leather approach” might contravene the legal duty of local authorities under Section 17 of the Children Act 1989. That legislation states that it is the general duty of every local authority to,
“safeguard and promote the welfare of children within their area who are in need; and … so far as is consistent with that duty, to promote the upbringing of such children by their families by providing a range and level of services appropriate to those children’s needs”.
Therefore, for the Government to prioritise more and quicker adoption is questionable both morally and legally, unless local authorities are providing a good Section 17 service to families. As a consequence of the cuts that local authorities are required to make—ironically, not least in Oxfordshire, about which the Prime Minister himself has been moved to complain—there is major concern among professionals that this is not so.
Equally, there is real concern that the process of creating new regional adoption agencies will divert existing resources, leading to an undermining of current relationships. The new system will inevitably take some years to become fully effective, and there are concerns among the various agencies as to whether they will have the necessary resources during the transitional period to invest in effective services and support for children and adopters.
The £30 million made available by the Government to assist harder-to-place children is welcome, but it will not last long. It was disappointing that the Autumn Statement seemed to have nothing to say regarding additional resources for these children. Without that, it is not clear how the Government can ensure that the system will improve the waiting time for harder-to-place groups. That brings us back to voluntary adoption agencies, which have particular expertise in working with harder-to-place children; perhaps that is another aspect of their invaluable work that should be recognised.
In Committee, the Minister stated that regional adoption agencies would be,
“incentivised to find the right family for a child as quickly as possible”.—[Official Report, 17/11/2015; col. GC 47.]
Can he outline what form these incentives might take?
Returning to Amendment 6 specifically, the Government must prioritise and ensure that these groups do not continue to be left on the fringes of the adoption system. One means of achieving that would be to accept the addition to Clause 13 contained in this amendment, to allow them to become a full part of the Secretary of State’s powers under that clause. As I stated at the outset, this seems to be very much in line with the content of the Minister’s letter, so I hope he will not find any reason not to accept this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 4, which is in my name and that of the noble Earl, Lord Listowel. I think that the noble Earl has withdrawn from that, so I am now—
The Earl of Listowel (CB)
If it would be helpful to the noble Lord, I think that Amendment 4 is in the next group.
Baroness Pinnock
I would like to add my support to what has been said about the amendments relating to establishing regional bodies for adoption. Just to give some local examples, in Yorkshire they have already set up a pilot for regional adoption, involving a hub for the whole of the region and then three spokes: one for the north and east of the country, one for the south and one for the west. Each of those hubs includes all the voluntary agencies currently operating in the Yorkshire and Humber region.
Lord Nash
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 2, 6 and 7, which aim to ensure that voluntary adoption agencies play an important role in the move to, and the future services provided by, regional adoption agencies. Broadly, the amendments in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Watson and Lord Hunt, and the Government’s intentions are in the same place.
First, I take this opportunity to again set out our commitment to the voluntary adoption agency sector. Its expertise and the services that it provides have already been central to the improvements we have seen in the adoption sector. We absolutely want this to continue. As I have previously told the House, these organisations have a central role to play in regionalisation, as referred to in the letter that my honourable friend the Minister of State for Children and Families recently sent to the chief executives of all VAAs, reiterating our commitment to their involvement.
Voluntary adoption agencies have knowledge and specialist skills that will be crucial in ensuring that the new regional agencies provide the high-quality services we expect to see. That is why all the projects we are funding this year include VAAs. We have also been clear with projects that VAAs should not simply be involved once decisions about the design of the new regional adoption agency are made. We have required all projects to commit to involving voluntary agencies in the early design phase of their work.
Amendment 2 would mean that local authorities and VAAs would jointly decide who should deliver the adoption functions on behalf of the local authorities being directed. I absolutely agree that it is important that VAAs have a role in any conversations about using the power introduced through the Bill, and I assure noble Lords that this will be the case. As I set out in our last debate, where the power is needed, decisions about its use will be made following extensive discussions with all those involved or affected, including VAAs. All relevant agencies will have the chance to comment on the proposal before a final decision is taken. In addition, the Adoption Leadership Board, of which the Consortium of Voluntary Adoption Agencies is a key member, will have an important role to play in shaping any decisions about regionalisation.
It would, however, be impractical and unbalanced to give a VAA joint decision-making power with the local authority in relation to the question of which agency should carry out the functions on the authority’s behalf. The local authority has statutory responsibility for delivering its functions. Although it is appropriate for the Secretary of State to make a decision, instead of a local authority, about who should carry out those functions in the limited circumstances where this proves necessary, it is not appropriate to give a VAA the power to make that kind of decision on behalf of a local authority or to veto a local authority’s proposed course of action. Instead, we need to use the mechanisms I outlined above to ensure that the views of VAAs are taken into account when decisions are made about how the power will be used.
Amendment 6 would allow the Bill to be used in relation to particular groups of children. This would enable the legislation to be used to make specific arrangements relating to hard-to-place groups of children. Over the last few years we have made significant strides to improve things for this section of children but there is a lot further to go. I completely agree with the motivation behind this amendment. We know that certain groups of children wait much longer for adoption than others. In 2014-15, hard-to-place children waited, on average, almost seven months longer for adoption than other children.
I am pleased to be able to clarify that subsection (5) of the clause is intended to enable it to be used in exactly this way. Subsection (5) enables a direction to be made in relation to certain categories of children. If, for example, arrangements between a group of local authorities are not working well enough for disabled children, this legislation could be used to direct those authorities to make different arrangements for them. This could, for example, include requiring local authorities to make arrangements for their family-finding functions in relation to those children to be undertaken by a specific, specialist VAA.
Finally, I turn to Amendment 7. When we discussed this issue previously, and again today, the noble Lord, Lord Watson, expressed his concern that VAA adopters would not be used by regional adoption agencies in the future because of financial considerations, and that this would lead to a continuation of the practice of sequential decision-making, which we are all keen to see end. First, I can clarify that VAA adopters do not represent a higher cost than adopters recruited by a local authority. A report by the University of Bristol in 2009 found that interagency fees were perceived as excessive by local authorities, despite the fact that they were found to be lower than what local authorities spend on placing children internally. It is crucial that we address this myth, as it is damaging to VAAs and drives the poor practice of sequential decision-making. I emphasise again that one of the key objectives of the policy is that each regional adoption agency will have a single pool of adopters. This is key to ensuring that swift, non-sequential matching decisions can be made. This is what we all want to see.
The local authorities and VAAs which make up a regional adoption agency will need to come to an agreement about which adopters are part of their central pool, and how the VAAs are remunerated for their investment in recruiting and approving adopters. The department is not prescribing the financial arrangements that will underpin new regional agencies, as we want to be led by what VAAs and local authorities think works. However, we are providing a comprehensive package of support to help local areas work through issues such as these, and come up with models which enable VAAs and local authorities to work together seamlessly and fairly.
Some regional adoption agencies may have the VAA partners doing all the adopter recruitment, given their skill and track record in this area. This would certainly be an interesting model. We will be working with VAAs and local authorities to develop fair and robust financial models which ensure that VAAs are not disadvantaged. However, I note the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Watson, about the financial drivers in this. He raised a number of points that we want the sector not to be nervous about. I think that it would be helpful—if the noble Lord is willing to do this—if I organised a meeting with the noble Lord, the Consortium of Voluntary Adoption Agencies, Minister Timpson and officials, to discuss these issues in greater detail. I am glad to see that the noble Lord is nodding in agreement to that.
Finally, I remind noble Lords that regional adoption agencies will not be, and are not intended to be, entirely self-sufficient. There are, of course, some children for whom even a regional agency’s larger pool of adopters will not suffice, either because the child has particular needs or because the agency does not have an appropriate approved adopter ready at the point the child needs a match. Social workers in regional agencies will be expected to identify these children quickly and act promptly on their behalf by engaging with the national pool of adopters using national matching tools.
In view of my comments, I hope that the noble Lord will feel reassured and will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie
I thank the Minister for that comprehensive reply, much of which I welcome. The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, commented on the Yorkshire pilot and the support for voluntary adoption agencies. Given the very sad episode that she related, I could not agree more that permanence has to be the aim when children are being placed. It is not just a question of finding a place fairly quickly but of finding one that both the child and the family have a good chance of making sustainable and, ultimately, permanent. That is what we are looking for. That is why I raised concerns about the Prime Minister’s comment that we should simply look to double the number. It is not a numbers game in that sense. I will raise this issue again in the next group of amendments, but I point out that Clause 13, on the terms of adoption, concerns only 5% of the children in care.
I was pleased to hear the Minister stress what he called the essential role of voluntary adoption agencies—those agencies will also be pleased to hear that—and that he foresees them having a role at the early design phase. That is what they are looking for. I do not doubt the Government’s will in this regard, and nor do the voluntary adoption agencies, but it is a question of how they intend to make it happen. This is a case of walking the walk and talking the talk, and doubts remain about how they will match the intention with the reality. Of course, it is not me, my colleagues or, indeed, the other opposition parties that the Minister needs to reassure on this point, but the CVAA and its member organisations. The CVAA was obviously centrally involved in the Adoption Leadership Board and those discussions can—and I am sure do—take place, but I simply reiterate that that the voluntary adoption agencies need that reassurance.
The Minister said that he agreed with the motivation behind Amendment 6. It is helpful to have his comments on the record that subsection (5)—if I am quoting him correctly—is designed to enable the measure to be used in the way the amendment suggests. That is useful and will be welcomed by organisations such as Barnardo’s, which has real concerns about harder-to-place children and the fact that the numbers are increasing and the resources to tackle that are at least in doubt, although the hope is that additional resources will be made available. The Minister may be able to reveal that in the near future.
I understand what the Minister is saying on the sequential decision-making issue but am slightly puzzled when he says that there is no difference in cost between voluntary adoption agencies and local authorities in this regard. He referred to the Bristol University study. I had not heard of that but, even more surprisingly, it seems to have eluded the Consortium of Voluntary Adoption Agencies, which is saying there are situations where local authorities may have—I will put it no more damagingly than this—a back-scratching operation whereby there might be a bit of a trade-off, such as the whole interagency fee not being required to be paid in certain situations or an understanding about some future arrangement between the two. Voluntary adoption agencies are effectively excluded from that. The new arrangements will certainly make that more difficult but they may not rule it out and that needs to be taken into account. I will look at the Bristol University survey and see what it says. I very much hope that that is the case but it may not be. Finally, I thank the Minister for the offer of a meeting and I would certainly be pleased to take that up.
(f) the provision of a mental health assessment prior to the making of a placement order.”
Lord Watson of Invergowrie
My Lords, we turn now to mental health support, which is very important indeed. Amendment 3 follows on from what was Amendment 33 in Committee, to which I spoke. I emphasised then that the issue of support once a child is placed in adoption can be crucial to whether that adoption becomes permanent—the point we were making a few moments ago in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock. Often, specialist support is needed to care for a child appropriately.
I also quoted figures supplied by the NSPCC which I think bear repeating because they show that 45% of children in care have a mental health disorder, compared with only 10% of the general child population. The mental health needs of children in care were debated thoroughly in relation to that amendment and those in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Listowel. The NSPCC has now met with Ministers, yet the organisation still believes that specific measures need to be included in the Bill to provide mental health assessment and support as early as possible during a child’s time in the care system. Amendment 3 sets the placement order as the milestone point by which children should have received that assessment.
What is needed is to prioritise vulnerable children, particularly those who have experienced abuse or neglect, which includes a significant majority of looked-after children. The Government must give a commitment to create the earliest possible provision of automatic assessment and support for those children within the adoption system. I will not repeat the point I made in Committee—that Clause 13 aims to provide for only 5% of children in care. We believe that the Bill is wrongly skewed in favour of adoption to the exclusion of all other forms of care. The vast majority of professionals in the field want nothing more than good provision for all looked-after children, whether their welfare be met by adoption, special guardianship, a child arrangements order—what used to be a residence order—long-term fostering or kinship care.
I say in passing that Sir Martin Narey’s announcement that he will be standing down as chair of the Adoption Leadership Board next year offers the Government an opportunity to demonstrate that they value all forms of care equally. The arrival of a new person to head the board should be used as an opportunity to broaden its remit to include all forms of permanency.
Recent research carried out by the NSPCC highlighted that one-fifth of children referred to local specialist NHS mental health services are rejected for treatment. This was described by the NSPCC as creating,
“a ‘time bomb’ of serious mental health conditions”.
Children in care not being able to access the mental health support they need to rebuild their lives represents a serious gap in provision—one that I highlighted in Committee—but I am afraid the Minister did not provide an answer as to how that gap might be filled. I ask him again: does he grasp the extent of the problem being set out for him by the professionals, the people working daily with children with mental health problems? If so, does he believe that sufficient resources will be made available to meet the needs of children in care who are not currently receiving the support they desperately need? Ultimately, the care that can be provided in mental health and other areas for children in care comes down to resources.
In Committee the noble Baroness, Lady Evans, referred to the £1.25 billion that the Government have made available to improve mental health services for children and young people over the next five years, through the implementation of the report Future in Mind. She also mentioned that clinical commissioning groups were involved in that process, although how that huge sum of money is being spent continues to be something of a mystery. Although Future in Mind makes a number of recommendations, there is real doubt as to where we are in the delivery of those recommendations or detailed plans for spending the promised funds. With the majority of that money being spent through clinical commissioning groups, and given all the layers of devolution that there are in the National Health Service, it remains unclear just how that report’s priorities will be met.
The answer to those questions seemed to become less, rather than more, clear last week with the Autumn Statement, when the Chancellor said that “we build on that”—the £1.25 billion—
“with £600 million of additional funding, meaning that by 2020 significantly more people will have access to talking therapies, perinatal mental health services and crisis care”.—[Official Report, Commons, 25/11/15; col. 707.]
The question is: what might this mean for the mental health needs of children in the care system? The Chancellor did not indicate whether the extra resources were for children, but—let us look on the positive side— he did not rule out children being prioritised within its reach either.
In response to a Question from Luciana Berger in another place as to how that £600 million will be prioritised, the Minister of State at the Department of Health, Alistair Burt, confirmed that the sum is to be spread,
“over the next five years … and … is additional to current spending. The levels of funding in individual years and the specific mental health service improvements it will fund will be determined in the new year, once the Mental Health Taskforce has reported”.
We know that there are to be additional resources available, so my question to both Ministers today is: what representations will they and their officials in the DfE be making to ensure that a proportion of that money is earmarked to fund the improvements required in mental health services for children and young people in care over the five-year period that is meant to be covered?
In conclusion, given the spending pressures which councils face and a situation that can only deteriorate still further as a result of the Autumn Statement, surely the Government should now be prepared to acknowledge that all children entering the care system should receive an automatic mental health assessment, in addition to the physical assessment that they currently receive. Why on earth should that not happen? Children in care should then immediately receive the report that the assessment shows is necessary to enable them to deal with their condition. Thereafter, common sense surely dictates that there must be regular monitoring of children’s mental health while in care to ensure that the support they are being given is contributing to their improved state of health. I suggest that these demands are not unrealistic and should become expectations on behalf of children who need support to enable them to develop into adulthood. I beg to move.
Lord Storey
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 3 and 4. I was taken with the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Evans, in Committee when, speaking for the Government, she said:
“I absolutely agree that the mental health of adopted children is a key issue”.—[Official Report, 17/11/15; col. GC 38.]
She went on to say that the £1.25 billion would be available and how the Future in Mind report would be implemented. Of course, we all want to see children who are in adoption find the right parents to adopt them as quickly as possible, but we also want to make sure that that adoption works. It is no good children being adopted if the adoption then breaks down.
One of the reasons that adoption regularly breaks down is that we have not properly assessed the children, particularly in relation to mental health. If we want to make sure that adoption works, we must put this crucial area right. I will not—well, I will—repeat the figures that 45% of children in care have a mental disorder, which is a huge number, while 60% of those who come into care have experienced neglect or abuse.
How do we ensure that we get this right? To me, it is very simple; to use an old expression, it is not rocket science. It is about providing the expertise and the resources but also about making sure it happens, which is why these amendments actually specify how it should happen. Like the noble Lord, Lord Watson, I cannot understand why the Government would not agree to that. It will be to their credit, and to the success of the Bill, that children who are adopted or who go into care are in the right situation and getting the right support.
We have come a long way in terms of mental health issues in the last few years—and it literally is only in the last few years. One of the areas I am concerned about is that we say, “Oh, there’s a strategy; there’s X amount of money available”, but often those resources do not go to the right people. I know from experience and from talking to other teachers that getting CAMHS into schools now is much harder than it was a few years ago. Never mind a few weeks’ wait, it can often be several months before that support is given. So I wonder whether, when the Minister replies, we might hear how mental health support might be given to schools in a more orderly and speedy way.
I repeat that I want it enshrined in the Bill that we do the assessment for children and young people as soon as possible so that we get it right. In replying, perhaps the Minister could say whether, if the mental health strategy comes out and says that, the Government will agree to it and implement it as well.
The Earl of Listowel
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 3 first, which I think is an excellent amendment. I wish to be very brief at this stage because I found the Minister to be most helpful in addressing my concerns in Committee and since then. Before I speak further about that, I thank noble Lords who have spoken on all sides of the House in support of amendments that I have tabled previously in this area to better address the mental health needs of looked-after children. I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Storey, the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, and the noble Lords, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Lord Watson, for their support over those concerns.
Since Committee, I have received a letter from the Minister on the mental health needs of young people. I have heard that the office of Edward Timpson MP, the Minister for Children, will be contacting me about a meeting, which will be very helpful in this regard. I also heard him speak yesterday at the Nuffield Foundation at the launch of a report into the educational achievement of looked-after children. I was very much struck by his recognition that the mental health needs of looked-after children had not been properly addressed in the past and heard, in what he said, his real commitment to addressing these issues for them. We have yet to learn the specifics of what he intends to do, but I feel that the direction of travel is just right, and I look forward to meeting him to discuss the specifics of what needs to be done.
I will not speak to my amendments, and nor do I expect the Minister to respond to them. Being as brief as possible may be the most helpful thing I can do at this point, unless the Minister would like me to speak briefly to my amendments—if that would be helpful to him—in which case I would be glad to do so. But my feeling was that the Government have been very helpful and I do not wish to push things any further or take any more of your Lordships’ time at this moment. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Massey of Darwen (Lab)
My Lords, I shall speak briefly on three points on this group. The first is about the assessment of children, the second is about the monitoring of children and the third is about the local authority spending lottery.
Assessment has been discussed before, so I shall be very brief. It seems to me, supported by the NSPCC, that the mental health assessment should not rely solely on the strengths and difficulties questionnaire, the SDQ screening tool. Children need direct contact—interviews—they need to be accompanied by a carer to assess mental and emotional health needs, and the assessment needs to be carried out by a qualified mental health professional. On monitoring, clearly, if a child is assessed as having a difficulty, they should be monitored the whole time they are in care to inform carers and professionals about what support the child is receiving and how it can and should contribute to their well-being.
Thirdly, I believe that there is a spending lottery between local authorities in terms of both overall spending and what to spend the money on. Will the mental health strategy cover that? For example, some local authorities that I know are very poor at spending anything on CAMHS for children in care. Perhaps the Minister would comment on that. Will the Government and the mental health strategy consider the outcomes of not providing mental health support for children? The risk of poor outcomes is a risk for life. We know that for children with mental health problems who do not have support in care, the outcomes are poor in relation to criminal or anti-social behaviour, drug and alcohol abuse, teenage pregnancy and very poor academic performance. What is the Minister’s response on how the mental health strategy will address some of those concerns?
Baroness Howarth of Breckland (CB)
My Lords, I apologise that I was unable to speak in Committee on this issue; I had to attend another committee at the same time. I just want to ask for clarity on a very narrow point—which is actually a wide point.
The amendment adds mental health services for children in the adoption process. The noble Lord, Lord Watson, made a very clear statement about the large number of other children in care who face the same needs—children in kinship care, long-term fostering, or hostels for children with special difficulties. Is the thinking clearly about basing the provision of services on the actual needs of the children as they are seen, rather than the bit of the system they are in? My concern is that we see adoption as a better placement than many others when often it is not; kinship care can be a much better solution for a child. As the noble Lord, Lord Watson, said, permanency is what actually matters. I hope that mental health services can be clearly focused on children to ensure permanency, whatever that permanency looks like.
It makes very good economic sense to ensure that money is clearly targeted to children in care—and, sometimes, children in their own families who are showing special needs. Economically, if you can get to those children early, you will improve their life chances. If they are targeted, that can be measured. Those are the things that the Government want to do at the moment: target services to see what works and makes good economic sense, because people will be able to make better sense of their own lives. Will the Minister ensure that there are adequate mental health services—we know that there is a great difficulty at the moment—and that they are targeted at need rather than at category?
Baroness Benjamin (LD)
My Lords, I rise to support Amendment 4. As I have said at all stages of this Bill, with the support of the NSPCC, every single child entering care should receive an automatic mental health assessment in addition to the physical assessment they currently receive. Children in care should then immediately receive the subsequent necessary support to help them to deal with the issues of mental health identified in the assessment. There should be regular monitoring of children’s mental health while in care to inform what support that child receives and ensure that it contributes to their improved well-being. These provisions are essential to strengthen the Bill because they will help towards making significant savings for the NHS, the prison services and society in general.
The NSPCC, myself and many others welcome the Government’s announcement of an additional £600 million for mental health and see it as a great opportunity to make sure that more of the most vulnerable children get access to the mental health support that they need to overcome the trauma they have experienced. As I have said time and again, childhood lasts a lifetime, so let us give all children the best start in life, including children in care and children in the adoption system. They need to be cared for and looked after in every way possible. We owe it to them, so I hope that the Minister will include these provisions in this important Bill.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 3, 4 and 5, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Watson and Lord Hunt, the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, and the noble Lord, Lord Storey, which focus on improving the mental health needs of children adopted from care. I thank noble Lords for raising these issues. As the noble Lord, Lord Watson, said, we had a detailed discussion in our previous debate in Committee, when I set out that improving the mental health of both looked-after and adopted children is a key issue for the Government. Following the debate, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools sent a letter to the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, and the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, describing in more detail the actions that we are taking to improve the assessment and support that these vulnerable children receive.
As the noble Lords, Lord Storey and Lord Watson, said, I set out that the Government have committed £1.25 billion to improve mental health services for children and young people over the next five years through the implementation of Future in Mind, the report resulting from the Government’s review of child and adolescent mental health services. I can give noble Lords an assurance that we are now working closely with the Department of Health and NHS England on the implementation of Future in Mind. The NHS England guidance on completing local transformation plans stipulates that they should cover the needs of the most vulnerable children, such as looked-after and adopted children. Key to this is that local areas must work together to understand the vulnerabilities of these children and young people and transform their services accordingly. We are absolutely committed to looking at the needs of children and making sure that they are properly addressed. This will include addressing the important point made by the noble Lord, Lord Watson, about filling in the current gaps in services.
Local NHS clinical commissioning groups, in developing their local transformation plans, have worked closely with their local health and well-being boards and partners in local authorities, youth justice and education. All clinical commissioning groups have now submitted their plans, which are currently being assessed by NHS England. Improving the assessment of and support for looked-after children will be a key priority for our programme of work. I agree with all noble Lords and with the NSPCC, which has been cited a number of times in this debate, that getting the assessment right when children enter and leave care for adoption is important.
All looked-after children already have a health assessment at least once a year which must include an assessment of their emotional and mental health as well as their physical health. That assessment, which informs the development of their health plan, should take account of the information provided from the strength and difficulties questionnaire that is completed by their carer. I accept the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, that for some young people with a range of problems, a follow-on referral to a specialist health service is required.
Turning to the provision of a mental health assessment prior to adoption placement, when an agency is considering adoption for a child, it should immediately consult its medical adviser to determine whether the health information obtained through the most recent health assessment is sufficient, up to date and as broad-ranging as it needs to be. Where a new health assessment is needed, this should be organised in time for the medical adviser to complete their part of the child’s permanence report. That is because, as a number of noble Lords have mentioned, permanence is key.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie
I hesitate to break the noble Baroness’s flow. She mentioned that a new health assessment will be undertaken, but she did not specifically mention a mental health assessment. That is the point. The physical assessment is always done, so why should the mental health assessment not always be done at the same time or immediately afterwards to make sure that any problems are spotted at the earliest opportunity?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
The broad health assessment will include those elements. It must include a summary by the agency’s medical adviser of the child’s current physical and mental health, so both are included. When an application is made to a court for a placement order, the agency is required to submit the summary as part of the application. Local clinical commissioning groups should use these assessments of looked-after children and adopted children to inform their local transformation plans to ensure that they can meet the needs of their local population.
At the national level, the Department for Education hosted a roundtable event last month bringing together children’s social care and mental health stakeholders to discuss how to improve mental health services for looked-after children and adopted children. As a result, we are considering how centres of excellence, possibly linked to regional adoption agencies, might enable the mental health needs of looked-after children and adopted children to be better met. Following that roundtable event, Edward Timpson, the Minister of State for Children and Families, met Alistair Burt, the Minister of State for Community and Social Care, to discuss how to ensure that mental health services can meet the particular needs of these children and young people in an effective and timely way. I should like to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Watson, that the two departments are working closely together.
In addition, we are providing £4.5 million of funding in this financial year to accelerate the development and implementation of regional adoption agencies. Adoption support, including mental health, is a key element of that. We are clear that regional adoption agencies should have a focus on improving the assessment of adopted children’s mental health needs and the provision of appropriate mental health support services. I should also mention the government-funded adoption support fund. More than 2,000 families have already benefited from £7.5 million of therapeutic services provided by the fund for adopted children and their families. We know that getting a high-quality assessment of need is critical, and local authorities are increasingly using the fund to pay for specialist assessments and, where appropriate, specialist therapeutic support.
The noble Lord, Lord Watson, raised concerns about this Government’s focus on adoption. We are engaged in comprehensive reform, but we are also doing a number of other things. For instance, we have established a programme of reform for social work, including the development of new assessment and accreditation systems for three levels of professional practice for children’s social workers in England. We have created the children’s services innovation programme and we have introduced “staying put” to allow children to remain with their former foster carers after the age of 18. We are engaged in reform across children’s services that will benefit all looked-after children.
The noble Lord, Lord Storey, asked about getting CAMHS into schools. We heard from head teachers who came to the briefing a few weeks ago that one of the benefits of multi-academy trusts is being able to recruit professionals to work across a number of schools, so we are seeing improvements in that. Alongside this, the Future in Mind report says that there will be mental health training for health professionals and others who work with children and young people, such as staff in schools, to help them to identify problems and ensure that young people get the help that they need. So it is something that is on our agenda and we are continuing to look at how we can improve that.
I hope that the explanations I have given will reassure the noble Lord that we are committed to meeting the objectives of these amendments, and that he will be feel reassured enough to withdraw his amendment.
The Earl of Listowel
In welcoming what the Minister said, and in noting that the noble Lord, Lord Prior, is sitting next to her, which is comforting in this current discussion, I ask her whether she has quite recognised the nub of the concern of Peers all around the House. While current practice is that a GP, a generalist, will give a health assessment that will include mental health elements when a child comes into care, many of us believe that that is inadequate, and we have been trying to communicate this to the Government. While there is a strengths and difficulties questionnaire, which is useful, it simply does not meet the need for a mental health professional to undertake an initial assessment of all children coming into care so that their mental health needs can be identified early on and they can then be met with services following. I listened with great care to what the Minister said and it was very helpful, but I hope that she can assure us that the Government recognise that that is the concern that many noble Lords are raising—the need for a specialist mental health professional to do that initial assessment for every child coming into care.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply, along with all other noble Lords who have contributed to the debate on this group of amendments on this important area.
I was very pleased that the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, had received a letter from the Minister for Children and Families, I think he said, subsequent to our last sitting in Committee. I wonder whether he might be prepared to share that with us because it might have information of general interest to those of us who have been involved with the Bill and are looking to take these issues forward.
My noble friend Lady Massey raised an important point about what the outcomes of not providing this proper mental health care could be. You do not need a very vivid imagination to foresee that there will be many effects, once children reach adulthood, if some of the issues with which they are trying to deal in childhood are not adequately cared for and are allowed to get worse as they approach adulthood, not least at a time when they have to go out into the world and live on their own. That is an important point and it was well made.
The noble Baroness, Lady Howarth of Breckland, if I noted her point down correctly, talked about the resources being targeted at need rather than category. I very much agree, as she will know. Despite what the Minister said, I do not doubt that the Government are committed to other forms of care but it looks as if this is given a disproportionate amount of attention; it is the only one involved in the Bill, and then there were the remarks—attributed to, I think, the Prime Minister in his speech in November—that further legislation was somewhere in the pipeline,. Those working in the other categories would value something of substance from the Government to say, “We’ve looked to beef up the ability of the adoption sector; now this is what we are doing for the other sectors”. I hope that the Minister will bear that in mind and that the Government will come forward with that in due course.
The Minister said that mental health care for children in adoption was a key issue for the Government. I am perfectly willing to accept that, but I come back to the point made on Amendment 2 that there should be an assessment prior to placement. In response to that, the Minister said that assessments were carried out prior to placement but she seemed to say, and I hope that I am quoting her correctly on this, that both types of assessments—that is, physical health assessments as well as mental—were included. That is very welcome, but it is not understood by the organisations involved in adoption, judging by the comments they have made to me and other noble Lords as the Bill has progressed through its various stages. It therefore might be helpful if she could write to me, perhaps to expand a bit about what mental health assessments are given prior to placement, as I think everyone involved sees that as a key issue.
The Minister also mentioned the £4.5 million that the Government have provided to accelerate the establishment of the regional adoption agencies. While that is welcome, I made the point in moving the amendment that that is seen to be if not running dry then already running a bit thin, and I wanted some assurance of what might follow that. She mentioned another sum of £12.5 million. I do not know whether that will be used in the same way. Some of it might be, but certainly the feeling among the adoption agencies is that £4.5 million will get things started but will not take the whole process very much further, and that additional resources will be necessary.
When the Minister assured me that the Department for Education works closely with the Department of Health, I thought, “Well, of course you would say that, wouldn’t you?”. However, a serious point is: how will the progress of implementing the recommendations of Future in Mind be reported? How can they be monitored and made available to organisations in the field that are involved in their delivery to some extent but which also care about being able to trace the effectiveness of those recommendations that are put into place? Some form of reporting would therefore certainly be valuable. Again, I ask either of the Ministers whether they would be prepared to write about that, because £1.25 billion, which is over a five-year period, is a huge sum of money—although I am not sure when the five-year period started. I think I am right in saying that Future in Mind was published in 2012 but I do not know whether that was the start of the five-year period. However, that is one of the questions that may well be answered in the Minister’s response.
We have had a number of helpful comments from the Minister. Those involved will be happy to take some of them forward and, I hope, to build on them, but at this stage I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Pinnock
“( ) A statutory instrument under subsection (2) may not be made until the Secretary of State has laid before Parliament a report on the funding of the costs of conversions under this Act.”
Baroness Pinnock
My Lords, I am a relative newcomer to your Lordships’ House, and just one of the features of the legislative process that has amazed me is that substantial changes can be made without there being any publicly stated budgetary provision. Therefore, here we are again today, legislating for an increase in the number of academy conversions without any stated provision for funding the changes.
Every school that seeks or is forced to become an academy is given a grant of £25,000, so if 1,000 schools are converted into academies, as the Minister stated in Committee, the Government will need to set aside £25 million. I accept that this is small change in the Government’s big budgetary process; nevertheless, £25 million can go a long way in other sectors of the education service.
This is just the upfront, visible funding. A report by the National Audit Office in November 2012, Managing the Expansion of the Academies Programme, stated that the additional cost of the academy programme to the Department for Education was £1 billion. The programme had by this stage involved just over 1,000 schools. Although there have been reductions in the costs of conversions since then, as reported by the NAO, there are undeniably costs in addition to the upfront £25,000 per school grant.
In response to the amendment tabled in Committee, the Minister said:
“I will be delighted to comment more on the DfE’s total settlement on Report”.—[Official Report, 17/11/15; col. GC 51.]
I look forward to hearing the specific details from the Minister. If no budget is identified, I, for one, will have to conclude that the funding is being top-sliced from other areas of the schools budget. If so, I will be very disappointed, because schools’ budgets are already being squeezed and further cuts would put some of them in considerable financial difficulty.
Therefore, the amendment is tabled with a purpose, which is to try to discover how much the Bill is going to cost the education sector and where the money is coming from. If, as I hope, the Minister is able to clarify all those points, I will indeed be very satisfied.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, I am sure that we will all be interested to hear from the noble Lord the answers to the noble Baroness’s questions, particularly his response to her suggestion that the money for the implementation of the education parts of the Bill will be top-sliced, presumably from money that would have gone through local authorities to maintained schools. I would be very interested to know the answer to that.
I am going to tempt fate by asking the Minister the same question again, referring to what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said about the education budget in the Autumn Statement and his announcement that all schools in the secondary sector will become academies. He said:
“We will make local authorities running schools a thing of the past, which will help us save around £600 million on the education services grant”.—[Official Report, Commons, 25/11/15; col. 1370.]
I would like to know how on earth that £600 million is going to be saved. Does he think that the £600 million used by local authorities is simply a waste of money? All those central services provided by local authorities are to be destroyed but presumably most maintained schools think they are pretty helpful. I assume that, when they all become academies, the schools will be given some element of the budget to make up for the services they would have received from local authorities.
Understanding education finances these days is a conundrum but I certainly hope that the Minister will clarify what exactly his right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer meant by what he said last week. Perhaps the answer to the noble Baroness’s question is that the finances are going to come directly from the money that would have gone to local authorities, which may be what she meant by top-slicing.
Lord Nash
My Lords, Amendment 8, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Storey, and the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, requires that the Bill cannot be commenced until a report on funding the costs of the academy conversions resulting from the Bill has been laid before Parliament.
As noble Lords may recall, this amendment was also tabled during Grand Committee, when I agreed to say more on the outcome of the spending review in relation to the Bill. I hope the noble Baroness will be delighted to hear that I can now do so. I am pleased to say that, following the Chancellor’s Statement last week, total spending on education will increase in cash terms in this spending review period from £60 billion in 2015-16 to nearly £65 billion in 2020. The exact budget for the academy programme will be finally determined following our internal business planning process, now that we know the exact spending review settlement. But I would like to reassure the House that the Department for Education’s overall settlement clearly recognises the potential costs of academy conversions as a result of this Bill and has been very much part of the detailed conversations we have had with HMT. I hope that the noble Baroness is pleased to hear that.
Baroness Pinnock
I thank the Minister very much for his response. Two things occur to me. He stated that education spending in the Autumn Statement was going to rise over the four-year period from £60 billion to £65 billion, which is an 8% increase over the period or 2% per annum. That will barely cover the cost of inflation in the education area, let alone the increasing numbers of children in the sector. Although any increase is to be welcomed in these times, we should not over-egg the sums involved. The second interesting thing is that the Government intend to recoup costs from the maintained schools for the loss of the ESG at local authority level. That clearly reduces even further the amount of money the maintained sector has to invest in the learning of the children in its care.
Departmental budgets have yet to be determined, so it is understandable that we have not had an answer but could the Minister write to me in response to the questions I have raised once the internal budget has been determined so that there is transparency in the process and we all know how money is to be allocated for this particular part of the Bill? I am delighted that the Minister is nodding to show that he will be able to do that.
With that in mind, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
National Health Service (Licensing and Pricing) (Amendment) Regulations 2015
(8 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Prior of Brampton
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 2 November be approved.
Relevant documents: 9th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, 14th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Prior of Brampton) (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for his interest in this matter, and I know he has great knowledge through his work at the NHS Confederation, in healthcare and as a Minister. Naturally, I am disappointed to understand from his amendment that he feels that the draft regulations are fundamentally unfair and in contradiction to the assurances given by my predecessor, my noble friend Lord Howe. I will take this opportunity today to reassure him—I hope—and wider stakeholders that this is not the case.
I want to begin by giving some context to the regulations. They seek to rebalance the objection mechanism that exists within the statutory processes of setting the national tariff for healthcare services. They increase the objection percentages for clinical commissioning groups and relevant providers of services. They will also remove the prescribed objection percentage for providers weighted according to their share of the supply in England of such services as may be prescribed.
Everyone knows the scale of the financial challenge facing the NHS. That is why the Government have committed to investing £10 billion by 2020-21 to fund the NHS’s own plan for the future, with £6 billion frontloaded in the first two years of the six-year period.
Along with the implementation of a range of provider support measures we have available, this will help to ensure the health and care system remains on a sustainable footing over the longer term. But as Simon Stevens made clear in the Five Year Forward View, the NHS must play its part in delivering these efficiencies.
Delivering a financially stable NHS is a key priority for the new chief executive of NHS Improvement, Jim Mackey, working closely with the department and NHS England to support the system at a local level to deliver the transformational changes needed to drive efficiencies.
Nevertheless, we do not underestimate the challenges facing the system from an increasingly ageing population with more complex needs, which I am sure all noble Lords are aware of. This is why we support the ambition of the Five Year Forward View set out by NHS England to ensure we protect the model of universal coverage free at the point of delivery for future generations.
But to realise this vision, we need to support the whole health system. This will not be easy, but this principle lies at the heart of the regulations, which we believe will ensure sufficient stability and timeliness in publication of the national tariff but also ensure that as much as possible of the additional funding that this Government have provided for the NHS reaches patient services, rather than being tied up in processes or reinforcing acknowledged barriers to transforming health and care.
Let me give noble Lords some background to the regulation—where this refers to statutory duties, I will use the name Monitor rather than NHS Improvement. The Health and Social Care Act 2012 introduced a new independent, transparent and fair pricing system that requires Monitor and NHS England to collaborate to set prices and further develop new payment models across different services. The intention of this system was to create a more stable, predictable environment, allowing providers and commissioners to invest in technology and innovative service models to improve patient care.
Monitor has the specific duty of promoting healthcare services that represent value for money and maintain or improve quality. It achieves this by working with NHS England to regulate prices and establish rules for local pricing and flexibilities. NHS England defines the “units of service” for which prices or rules will be specified. Units of service include, for example, the pregnancy-related services that a woman may need through antenatal, delivery and postnatal care, with levels of payment aligned to clinical factors—often complexity. At all stages, Monitor and NHS England have to agree elements of the tariff with each other.
The Act also includes a statutory basis for providers and commissioners to raise formal objections to the methodology that Monitor proposes for calculating national prices rather than the price itself. It is vital that tariff proposals reflect wider views across the sector but, as NHS providers acknowledge:
“The ultimate responsibility for setting NHS tariffs must lie with Monitor … and NHS England as the statutory price-setting bodies”.
Following comprehensive engagement with commissioners and providers, Monitor is required to publish a final draft of the national tariff and allow 28 days for commissioners and providers to consider the proposals. Commissioners and providers may formally object to the proposed methodology for calculating tariff prices for specified services. This draft instrument seeks to amend regulations made in 2013. Those regulations exercise a duty to prescribe two objection thresholds and a power to prescribe a third. Thus, under the current rules, Monitor will calculate the following after the consultation: the percentage of commissioners objecting; the percentage of providers objecting; and the percentage share of supply held by the objecting providers, which allows the objections of providers to be weighted proportionate to the nationally-priced services.
Each threshold is currently set at 51%. If any of these are met, the unexpired tariff remains in force. Monitor cannot publish the national tariff and has to either put forward alternative proposals and publish them for consultation, or refer the method and the objections received to the Competition and Markets Authority.
I shall now explain the outcome of the two tariff processes that took place in 2014-15 and 2015-16 under these new arrangements. No objection threshold was met when the first proposed national tariff was consulted on in 2014-15 and the tariff was published on time. For 2015-16, the objection tariff mechanism was triggered as the share of supply objection threshold was met as 73.7% of providers by share of supply objected. As a result, the unexpired 2014-15 tariff remained in place.
A key motivation for providers’ objections to the tariff proposals was the efficiency requirement of 3.8%. A further significant trigger for formal objections related to a variation to the payment of national prices for specialised services rather than the underlying method for the price, which is the only ground on which objections can be made. As a result of the objection mechanism being triggered, the 2015-16 tariff was not published and the unexpired 2014-15 tariff remained in place at a potential considerable cost to the health service.
Following further engagement, a large majority of providers agreed a local variation to the 2014-15 tariff prices while a minority have continued to be paid the unvaried 2014-15 tariff prices. Overall for 2015-16, this has meant an additional cost pressure estimated at £0.5 billion. We cannot afford this and any repetition would ultimately affect patient care and prevent crucial investment in front-line care. This cannot be right. It would also distract the system from implementing the five-year forward view which would place the NHS on a sustainable footing.
The objection mechanism is intended to be a process that is triggered in exceptional circumstances. When the thresholds were prescribed in 2013, it was made clear in the Explanatory Memorandum:
“The Department also intends to review the objections thresholds in due course once the new system beds down”.
The circumstance that national prices in the tariff are set predominantly for acute care rather than mental health and community services means that objections from acute providers then carry most weight in calculations against the share of supply threshold. While the larger acute providers have perhaps exercised their own role in using the objection mechanism in a broadly reasonable manner, the share of supply mechanism cannot fairly reflect the balance of wider interests across the healthcare sector. This should not be read as the Government placing less value on the crucial role played by the acute sector, but as a greater emphasis on the interests of the NHS as a whole. Indeed, we welcome the role that the acute sector is playing in new collaborative roles within its health economies.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord for his detailed and careful explanation of the reason for this statutory instrument. I still regard it as a flawed set of regulations and I am not surprised that your Lordships’ Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee has reported it for the specific attention of the House on the grounds that the regulations may imperfectly achieve their policy objective. It is my contention that the regulations undermine a core part of the Health and Social Care Act 2012. They certainly run against the spirit, if not the letter, of what the noble Earl, Lord Howe, told the House during the passage of the Bill. Although the noble Lord has been very careful to differentiate between acute and non-acute trusts, the actual impact of what is being proposed is that NHS trusts and foundation trusts, which provide 96% of the tariff work for the NHS, are effectively disabled from using the tariff objection mechanism because it is mathematically impossible for them to trigger it alone. They would need some of the very small-scale, private providers to join in. The effective silencing of the voice of the NHS front line in the tariff-setting process displays a shocking degree of arrogance on the part of NHS England. It seems to be bent on punishing these providers for having the temerity to object, as they did in the last financial year.
The noble Lord has carefully described the national tariff. I suspect that noble Lords know more about it than they ever thought they wished to. As he says, it is very important in terms of the income going to most NHS providers. The 2012 Act provides for a statutory duty to consult on the proposals that NHS England and Monitor make. There is also a parallel right to object to the tariff proposal if they have insignificant numbers. The current threshold is 51% of commissioners or providers, either individually or based on the proportion of services they provide. This is called the share of supply. I do not think that 51% could be said to be not setting a pretty high threshold. I understand entirely that this mechanism is not meant to be used regularly, but current experience shows that it actually works. It was not used in the first year of its operation, but it was used in the 2014-15 financial year, with 75% of providers by share of supply making an objection. The reason they objected was that the tariff changes made, particularly for specialist services, would have an enormously negative impact on the providers of those services and, by definition, on the specialist services themselves.
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, perhaps I might start by suggesting to the Minister that this is another example of why the NHS might be unsustainable and that we probably need an independent commission to look at the whole of the NHS. I realise that neither he nor the Opposition Front Bench are likely to agree with me on that, but I make the point that this is yet another nail in the coffin, so to speak, which will get us to that end some day.
I find myself in agreement with some of the things that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has just said. We have an example here of where raising the tariff to 66% actually means ruling out the ability of the providers to engage in any kind of discussions relating to the tariff because the target is too high. If that is the case and the providers are therefore not able to engage with NHS England and Monitor, which sets the tariffs, what other mechanisms do they have? They cannot see the proposed tariffs until the consultation occurs, which is rather too late for them even to road test whether the tariffs are likely to be workable—particularly if they involve, for instance, any implications on pensions or proposals that the Government may have brought about pay deals, or any other issues that may impact on the cost. So how is the provider likely to get any input at an early stage and engage with the tariff-setting mechanism? There will be no such input, I suggest, through these proposals, which will make it impossible. They will therefore have to live with the tariff.
I realise that the big providers might be able to do that, because they might save some money from other aspects, but let us take the specialist providers. We can particularly imagine this in paediatrics and with some cancers, where providers work on small margins and the costs may escalate. Because of a few patients having highly complex issues, costs can overrun. That is why the top-up fees of some £300 million were introduced, 70% of which go to paediatric specialist services. Now the proposal is to remove those or reduce them considerably. In paediatrics, the top-up might go down from £217 million to £95 million. So these specialist providers have a choice: either to provide poor-quality service, which impacts on the patients, or to opt out. Who will then suffer? It will be not the commissioners, NHS England or Monitor but the patients—because they will not have a service or will have a poor-quality service.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, that there needs to be some kind of mechanism where there is early involvement of the providers, which can engage in the tariff-setting mechanism. They would not necessarily dictate it; they might disagree with it but suggest some proposals. One of the ways, as he suggests, would be a stakeholder forum involving all the parties at an early stage. The Department of Health can then have some accountability from all the people in the stakeholder forum, including the providers. I am attracted to that suggestion, and I hope the Minister will respond to it.
The Minister responding in the other place sounded sympathetic—or at least suggested that he understood the issues. I hope that we can go further today and that the Minister will say that it sounds attractive and that he might look at it.
Lord Warner (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I start by thanking the Minister for his briefing yesterday, which I found very helpful. I also declare a forthcoming interest in that I shall shortly be chairing a short-term commission to consider the approach to commissioning specialised services, which will report next April. That may well, in the light of the debate this evening, have some fairly uncomfortable things to say about the commissioning of these services in today’s financially straitened NHS. It is very difficult to argue technically with the points made by my former noble friend—still my noble friend—the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, about this set of regulations, but in a sense that misses the bigger point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Patel.
I express my sympathy for the Minister. He is, to all intents and purposes, between a rock and a very hard place. He has to operate within the extremely clunky system provided for setting the tariff for specialist services in the Health and Social Care Act 2012—which, if I may say so, is one of the less distinguished pieces of legislation passed by Parliament. Trying to set a tariff using a system of objection thresholds is a somewhat bizarre way of doing it, even by the standards of the 2012 Act. That so-called new transparent system for reconciling the needs of commissioners and providers has clearly not worked. It is very difficult to see it working, not least because we end up leaving the decision on the tariff right up close to the start of the next financial year. If we want a five-year plan for reforming the NHS, that is about the daftest way to go about setting a national tariff. I understand why no one wants to go back to the 2012 Act and revise part of it but it is pretty bizarre, in a fast-changing world, to set the detail of how you negotiate the tariff in primary legislation. That is a fundamental flaw which we are now struggling with, as a result of that legislation. That is why we are getting into this tangle over the technicalities of this set of regulations.
If I was still the Minister trying to set acute hospital tariffs at a time of tight NHS finance and, at the same time, trying to prioritise community health services and mental health—as the Minister rightly suggests people are trying to do—I would probably be doing the same thing as the Minister, stuck as he is with this piece of legislation. I might even, if I was feeling particularly crotchety, go for 75% instead of 66%. But that is the fault of the system we have landed ourselves with, not because of a devious NHS England, devious Ministers or a devious Department of Health. We need to get to a different system. NHS providers have opened up some issues to talk about. It is certainly very difficult, in today’s age, to argue with the idea of a more open-book approach. But it also requires the open-book approach to take place further back down the food chain, before we get close to the beginning of the financial year. That is the only way these specialised services can look ahead.
It is true when I look back on my time as a Minister —this is where I start to part company with the noble Lord, Lord Hunt—that there is a pretty strong track record of the big NHS acute hospital providers having everything their own way. Even when, as a Minister, I said that the commissioner’s view should determine the outcome, those providers went on pushing and pushing, way up to and past the start of the new financial year. Of course, I am not talking about trusts chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt—I am sure nothing like that ever happened in Birmingham. However, let us be clear, that is how some of the big London providers, in particular, behave—not in our second city, of course; heaven forbid.
There is a long history, then, of big providers pushing the envelope on the price for the job and weak commissioners being unable to stand up to them and deal with them. We now move to a situation where that problem must be tackled, and quickly. We can quibble about the technicalities of the way NHS England and Monitor have handled this episode, but it does not get away from the point that the Minister made: at the end of the day, these guys and girls have to make the decision. They have to decide on a canvas that is much bigger than that being painted by the acute hospital sector.
We should be a bit more forgiving towards the Minister on that. It takes a bit of bottle to say that we are going to put more money into community services and give more money and parity of esteem to mental health, even in a difficult financial climate. That means taking some fairly tough decisions about how much of the collective resources you put into acute hospitals and specialised services. This is where commissioning must play its part. It may mean that we want a smaller number of providers for some of those service lines; it may mean that we have to concentrate them.
NHS providers may not have realised that an open-book approach means that we start to find out more about those who are less productive or effective. I hope the Minister will listen to some of those ideas, particularly the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, at the end of his speech and by the noble Lord, Lord Patel. We have a clunky system and we need to change how we set the tariff if we really want to deliver the vision in the Five Year Forward View. I hope the Minister will respond positively to some of those ideas for a new approach.
Lord Turnberg (Lab)
My Lords, I must first apologise to the Minister for not appearing at his briefing yesterday and for coming late to his initial remarks. That will not stop me speaking, if I may.
The regulations are clearly designed to save money. They have little to do with correcting what is a major underlying defect in the tariff system: the perverse incentives that tariffs have introduced. My noble friend Lord Hunt has dealt pretty well with how the regulations were aimed at raising the threshold at which objections can be raised and, equally importantly, levelling the playing field to allow small providers with limited budgets to have the same voting power as very large teaching hospitals with billion-pound budgets, which provide more than 95% of the service. It is rather like non-league football clubs and those in the Premier League having the same voice in their commercial activities. The problem is that, to get 66% of all organisations, including all the small ones, puts those trusts that provide more than 90% of the service in hock to those who provide less than 10%. So it is not much wonder that the highly specialised hospitals—the Marsden and Great Ormond Street, the Institute of Neurology, the Christie hospital and so on—are voicing strong concerns about the impact on them. Of course, that is why the Government want to shackle them—to keep costs down—but that is at the risk of denying high-quality specialised care to those who need it.
All that has been well rehearsed by my noble friend Lord Hunt and other noble Lords. I really wanted to point out that the regulations do nothing to get round the unintended consequences and perverse incentives of the tariff system, which I raised with the Minister in a previous debate. That system encourages trusts to go down the route of using devices to gain higher incomes and discourages cross-referral between specialists within a hospital when a trust can gain two fees for two referrals from general practice. It discourages consultants from using phone-in follow-up out-patient clinics to save patients the need to travel in to be seen, as a visit to a hospital incurs a higher fee on the tariff. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Warner, as he rails against the acute hospitals, but I do not necessarily agree with all his solutions.
I support my noble friend’s amendment. The regulations are unwarranted and damage those who provide the vast majority of the service, while doing nothing to get at one of the major defects in the tariff system.
Lord Kakkar (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interest as chairman of University College London Partners, an academic health science centre which has a number of important providers. The Minister made a very important point about the five-year forward view and the need to encourage new models of care working that ensure collaboration beyond institutional boundaries —and, indeed, to go further and look at new models of funding, including those of accountable care organisations. With a view to a potential journey towards more effective commissioning, and therefore more intuitive constructing of a tariff to support general acute services and more specialised services, will the proposals that the Minister brings to the House today aid that journey? Will looking at these regulations in the way proposed help institutions to work more effectively together, recognising the opportunity to look at tariffs that focus on pathways of care rather than individual segments of care, so ensuring the Government’s objective to ensure that valuable resources committed to the provision of healthcare are used most efficiently? There is a recognition that there will have to be greater attention to these matters as we go forward, and every opportunity should be used to ensure that that objective is achieved. One of the most important is the approach to setting the tariff and, therefore, these regulations.
Lord Prior of Brampton
My Lords, as always in these debates, we have had some pertinent and useful contributions. I shall take some of the points raised in reverse order. On the very important point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, a profound change is happening in how we will deliver care over the next five years, which will be very much more based around a system rather than the institution. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, would agree with that; we will move from a payment-by-results system that has been very much based around individual pieces of care delivered in acute hospitals, to other payments systems, such as a capitation system or a whole pathway system. That is going to happen.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this interesting debate. We perhaps went rather wider than the terms of the regulations. I agree with the Minister that payment by results was brought in essentially to drive through reductions in waiting times by providing the right incentives. By and large that has been very successful, but we are moving, and this is a very good thing, into thinking about systems and how they work. There is a clear need to develop a funding mechanism to ensure that there are proper incentives for system-wide working, and I absolutely agree with that.
However, I also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Warner, my fellow former Minister. Looking at the Five Year Forward View, it seems to me that essentially we are moving again to a planning model but we are still stuck with the 2012 Act, and the two do not seem to mesh together. The Minister is struggling with these regulations because they are trying to operate a system that is still based on payment by results, when in essence we are trying to incentivise people to work together to produce a much more effective system and that is very difficult. If he were to tell me that the NHS amendment Act was to be brought forward, I think he would find a warm welcome in your Lordships’ House, but perhaps I dream too far.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Patel, that I do not disagree at all with his idea of an independent commission; the funding challenges facing health and social care warrant that kind of independent consideration. I say to him, though, that all the work done by the King’s Fund and the Nuffield Trust suggests that if you could maintain real-terms growth at 4% a year, which is the historic annual real-terms growth of the NHS, we would get a pretty good system without some of the pressures that we are facing at the moment. It is not a question of having to increase money to the NHS and social care hugely, but it needs some increase or we will be faced with the kind of problems that we have at the moment. The Barker commission, which was sponsored by the King’s Fund, shows some of the thinking that one might ask a royal commission to go into.
My noble friend Lord Turnberg mentioned the particular challenges of highly specialist providers, which of course are very much tied into the area that he knows so well: our whole R&D effort in this country and the link with the life sciences. While I understand the language of domination by specialist providers, we need to recognise that the link that these very same providers have with R&D and the life sciences is crucial to this country and to the lead that we often have in these areas. We have to be very careful not to undermine their financial viability because of the general financial challenge.
I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Warner, is working on, chairing or leading this work on specialised services, and I am sure he is right that we need to have much more effective commissioning. I certainly accept that that is likely to lead to a rationalisation of specialised services, which will not be universally popular. However, if we can show that by doing so we get more bang for our buck, getting better specialist services, and that they are a better investment, clearly, that has to be followed through. I hope that we will see the outcome of that work within the next few months.
I have no problem at all with putting more resources into mental health and community services—I entirely understand that. However, the regulations are a pretty poor show, and in effect disfranchising the providers, who get 96% of the tariff income, is not the way to go forward. However, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Prior, for what he said. I take his commitment to rebuilding the confidence, as he described it, of providers in the system, as a very strong one. He did not quite go as far as I would have wished with regard to endorsing the open book approach. Does that mean that that is still being considered, or has it been rejected? Can I take anything from that?
Lord Prior of Brampton
I will have to defer to Jim Mackey, the chief executive of NHS Improvement. It would not be fair for me to answer that question.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
I am sure of that, my Lords. I will just say to the Minister that I hope the spirit of this debate will be conveyed to him and NHS Improvement. I certainly have been very impressed by the chief executive’s words since his appointment, and of course the chairman, Ed Smith, commands great respect and authority, not least for the work he has done on behalf of Birmingham University, for which those of us in the city are very grateful.
With that, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken. The point has been made, we look forward to a better approach in the future, and I hope that the spirit of the proposal regarding early consultation and an open book process will be acceded to. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment to the Motion.