House of Commons

Thursday 10th December 2015 Commons Chamber

Thursday 10 December 2015

The House met at half-past Nine o’clock

Prayers

Thursday 10th December 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

business before questions

Wass Inquiry Report

Resolved,

That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, That she will be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before this House a Return of parts of a Paper, entitled The Wass Inquiry Report into Allegations Surrounding Child Safeguarding Issues on St Helena and Ascension Island, dated 10 December 2015. —(Jackie Doyle-Price.)

Oral Answers to Questions

Thursday 10th December 2015 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

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

1. What plans his Department has to increase the number of HGV drivers.

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

We have taken measures to reduce waiting periods for large goods vehicle driving tests. So far this financial year, the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency has recruited 78 new driving examiners, a further 65 are undertaking training, and another 41 have been offered posts. That will allow experienced examiners to move over to LGV testing. More than 55,000 tests were conducted in 2014-15, which is the highest total for six years.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

With 45,000 qualified professional drivers needed to fill the skills gap in the HGV industry, will the Minister confirm whether the HGV driver standard has been approved as part of the Trailblazer apprenticeship programme? Will companies be able to use that funding to pay for licence acquisition?

[Andrew Jones]

I confirm that the Trailblazer apprenticeship was approved in the last day or so, but that is a question for the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. I have not yet been fully informed about all the details of that, but it is important to encourage people to take that test. We know there is a shortage of HGV drivers, and we recognise the vital role that the road haulage sector plays in driving growth and keeping our economy moving. The hon. Gentleman may be interested to know that there has been a 36% increase in drivers taking that test in the past year.

[Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)]

While recognising that there is always a need for safety, will the Minister and his Department consider whether HGV licences are needed for certain types of vehicle? Given that there is now so much automation on some of the larger vehicles, does someone really need an HGV licence to drive them?

[Andrew Jones]

That is a very interesting question. I have driven one of the new high-tech HGVs; obviously, without a licence, so it was on a testing track, not the highway network. I was struck by how helpful the vehicle is—it includes large numbers of automated systems —but also by the amount of information that comes at the driver. I do not think we should compromise on safety, and I suspect that the current regime is just right.

[Mr Speaker]

One wonders whether there is any limit to the talents of the Minister.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

What is the Minister doing to encourage negotiations between the DVSA and staff in relation to their dispute? There was a high turnout in the vote for industrial action. Will the Minister either refer the matter to ACAS or push the powers that be into negotiations?

[Andrew Jones]

I am acutely aware of the limits of my talents, Mr Speaker.

In answer to the hon. Gentleman, the Government are keen to see a settlement to that dispute, and I know that my colleague in the other House, Lord Ahmad, is currently working on that.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, there are 60,000 vacancies for HGV and LGV drivers, but many people are unable to take up those opportunities because of the price of training. I know that the Minister has considered that issue, but will he consider the possibility of a loan or grant for the £4,500 that it takes to train an HGV driver?

[Andrew Jones]

I know that the industry is keen to focus on that, and I am keen for more people to take that test. The average pass rate is only 52%, so considering what can be done to increase that will be my top priority. I will consider these matters, but I do not think it will be possible to start subsidising individual licence applications; otherwise, we would have to extend that measure across the piece.

[John Mc Nally (Falkirk) (SNP)]

3. What recent discussions he has had with Ministers of the Scottish Government on development of the high-speed rail network.

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

I have had a number of discussions with the Scottish Government Cabinet Secretary for Infrastructure, Investment and Cities. The UK Government and the Scottish Government are working closely together to consider options to further reduce journey times, and we hope to make a statement on the next steps in the new year.

[John Mc Nally]

The Secretary of State will recognise that Scotland has a reputation for excellence in delivering major infrastructure projects. What consultation has he undertaken to ensure that businesses and their workforces in Scotland realise the full benefits that HS2 will bring, for example through design and construction?

[Mr McLoughlin]

HS2 has been very effective in doing a number of presentations to businesses, right across the country, on the opportunities that will arise from one of the biggest construction projects the country has seen. I hope all companies, be they in England, Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland, have the opportunity to apply for some of those jobs and contracts. There is no doubt that the first stretch of HS2 phase 1 will bring reduced journey times to Scotland. The announcements I made last week will add to that.

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

As the wonderful people of Scotland eagerly anticipate the announcement on the high-speed rail network, they will become ever more reliant on air travel. Clearly, there are slot restriction problems between Scottish airports and London. Does the Secretary of State anticipate making an announcement soon about airport capacity in the south-east?

[Mr Speaker]

An ingenious but unsuccessful attempt, I am afraid, if Members look at the terms of the question on the Order Paper.

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

Labour supports the extension of high-speed rail services to Scotland. To get there, however, we will have to get to the north of England first. Why are we still waiting for Ministers to confirm the route and the stations for HS2 north of Birmingham, and does the Secretary of State understand that this lack of progress is placing their commitment to HS2 in the midlands and the north in doubt?

[Mr McLoughlin]

With the greatest charity, I do not think the hon. Gentleman can get away with that. We have been making progress on HS2. In 13 years, Labour only woke up to the HS2 project in year 13. The progress we have made far outstrips the progress the Labour party ever made.

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

4. What progress has been made on plans to widen lanes on the M6 between junctions 16 and 19.

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

The M6 junctions 16 to 19 smart motorway scheme commenced the start of works in October 2015. Work on the project is progressing well, with preparatory works such as site clearance currently being delivered. The main works for this project are due to commence in early 2016 with a 23-month construction phase, meaning the scheme is expected to complete in early 2018.

[Fiona Bruce]

Several of my constituents living near this stretch of the M6 consider the measures to mitigate the effects of noise and environmental pollution to be inadequate, both in terms of the current impact during the works and the impact of the widened M6 for years to come. Will the Minister meet me to discuss my constituents’ concerns?

[Andrew Jones]

That section of the M6 is very busy: it carries about 132,000 vehicles a day. There are measures that can be taken to help with noise, such as a low noise surface being laid on the road or installing noise barriers. I would be delighted to meet my hon. Friend.

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

I thank you for your indulgence, Mr Speaker. I am rather out of breath, sir, and I am very grateful to have caught your eye.

The local enterprise partnership in Cheshire identified this stretch of the M6 as a problem that needs work, but it failed to identify the M56 in Cheshire where major delays and serious accidents are an almost weekly occurrence. Will the Minister, while he is looking at M6 junctions 16 to 19, consider yet again the problems on the M56 and whether he can bring road safety forward in that part of Cheshire too?

[Andrew Jones]

That is a very entrepreneurial extension of the question. I am always happy to look at issues of road safety wherever they are on our road network. We have already had a Westminster Hall debate on this issue, so the hon. Gentleman is fully aware of the Government’s view.

[John Pugh (Southport) (LD)]

This is absolutely currently the most appalling bit of the motorway network anywhere in England. Has the Minister factored into his plans further economic growth in the north and the need to shift freight to rail?

[Andrew Jones]

Most certainly at the heart of our road investment strategy is the impact on the freight sector. As regards rail, I work very closely with the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Claire Perry).

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

5. What recent progress his Department has made on its rail electrification programme.

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

Since 2010, 50 miles of track have been electrified, including the full route between Liverpool and Manchester. Last month, Sir Peter Hendy, chairman of Network Rail, at my Department’s request published his proposals for delivering the multibillion-pound rail enhancement programmes, reconfirming this Government’s commitment to electrifying over 850 miles of track—the biggest modernisation of Britain’s railways since Victorian times.

[Liz McInnes]

In my opinion, the Government’s handling of their electrification programme has been nothing short of shambolic. The pausing, then the unpausing, of the TransPennine and midland main line electrification painted a picture of a Department in disarray. What is the added cost to the programme because of the Government’s U-turn, of which there was no mention in the Hendy review?

[Claire Perry]

This Government are committed to electrification, unlike the previous Labour Government that electrified less than 10 miles of track in 13 years, when the economy was booming. I gently remind the hon. Lady that this is a Government of delivery. We want to make sure that the promises we set out can be delivered. That is why it was right to look at the programmes to make sure that they could be delivered, and they will be delivered. Yesterday I was very pleased to announce one of the biggest upgrades in the modernisation of rail travel for her constituents that this country has ever seen. We are scrapping the Pacers. We are introducing new trains. We are transforming the rail network in the north—something else that her Government completely neglected to do.

[Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend say a bit more about how the electrification project, plus the award of the new franchise for Northern Rail and TransPennine, will address the acute need to find additional rolling stock in that part of the country?

[Claire Perry]

My hon. Friend raises an important point. I can confirm that the midland main line will be electrified to Bedford and to Kettering and Corby by 2019, and to Sheffield by 2023. We will electrify to Cardiff by 2019. We will complete, we think, Liverpool to Newcastle by 2022. That means that there can then be a cascade of rolling stock right across the country. However, it is not enough for the people of the north to wait for cascaded trains—they deserve brand-new trains to replace the Pacers that have been chugging round that network for 40 years. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) chirrups away. Her Government had a chance to replace the Pacers in 2003 and 2004, and they did not. The rail passengers of the north deserve better. We get it; Labour does not.

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

Sir Peter Hendy’s report followed the breakdown and cancellation of previous promises. Will the Minister guarantee that these new proposals will be implemented on time and with the cost as set out, with the right rolling stock in the correct place at the correct time?

[Claire Perry]

I know that the hon. Lady shares the absolute aspiration that what is promised is delivered. It was right for Network Rail to take a long, hard look at itself, because it had been in the business of peddling promises that went out of control in terms of funding and over time in terms of delivery. [Interruption.] I might remind the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds) that a few years ago his party wanted to make Network Rail the “guiding mind” of the whole railway. We do not hear much about that policy these days. It is absolutely right that we have changed the management structure at Network Rail. We have put in Sir Peter Hendy, who is an exceptionally experienced railwayman, and we have asked the organisation to think very hard about delivery. Crucially, only last week in the spending review, we were able to reconfirm the Government’s funding commitment, which means that the money is there for this transformational project.

[Ben Howlett (Bath) (Con)]

As my hon. Friend is aware, the largest investment in the railway since the Victorians on the Great Western main line will have a huge impact on the Bath and west of England economy. What progress is she making on the four miles of track that will link the electrified Great Western main line with Heathrow?

[Claire Perry]

Again, this is part of the overall proposals. As my hon. Friend knows, the western rail link is absolutely vital. It has been set out, and work is going on to make sure exactly how it is delivered. We understand how important it is. My hon. Friend represents a fine city. He and I went through Box tunnel together on a little people mover—[Interruption] That sounds worse than it is—with others to see at first hand the transformational effect that electrification work is having on his city.

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

The unpausing of the rail electrification programme is welcome, but the news that completion will be delayed and the costs much higher has understandably caused dismay. The cost of the electrification programme is now set to be at least £2.5 billion more than planned. As a result, Network Rail’s borrowing limit has had to be increased by £700 million, with the rest of the money being found from the sale of its assets. What assurances can the Government give that these asset sales will be sufficient; and given that the costs have already risen by 70%, what happens if they rise further still?

[Claire Perry]

The hon. Gentleman raises the delivery risk inherent in all these things. This is the biggest transformation project for more than 100 years, and he is absolutely right that it has to be funded with both Government money and third party asset sales. A huge amount of due diligence has gone into that work, which is ongoing, but we now have a plan and are confident that £38 billion will be committed and that 850 miles of track will be electrified.

[Amanda Milling (Cannock Chase) (Con)]

I welcome the news that the electrification of the Chase line is on track for completion in 2017, but, unfortunately, that is little comfort for commuters experiencing serious overcrowding at peak times. Will my hon. Friend join me in calling on all relevant organisations, including London Midland and Amazon, to work together to find a prompt solution to this overcrowding?

[Claire Perry]

I am happy to confirm my interest in reducing overcrowding nationally and in Cannock Chase, which my hon. Friend represents with such vigour.

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)]

6. What recent progress he has made on publishing a cycling and walking investment strategy.

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

As a keen cyclist myself, I am delighted that the Government continue to encourage more cycling and walking across England. We did good work under the last Conservative Government: spending per head rose from £2 in 2010 to £6 now and more than £10 in the cycling ambition cities. On the long-term vision, we have made it clear that we want to make the UK a cycling nation. One step will be to publish a cycling and walking investment strategy next summer. The recent spending review committed more than £300 million to support cycling.

[Ruth Cadbury]

The comprehensive spending review contained little new money: just £1.49 per head over the Parliament. My predecessors in the all-party cycling group recommended £10 per head per year, which the Prime Minister agreed with. How can we deliver an effective cycling and walking strategy with only £1.49 per head?

[Claire Perry]

I commend the hon. Lady and my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk) for their co-chairmanship of the all-party group. She is right to focus on the need to invest, but in our view, and hers I think, the investment should be targeted, which is why the cycling ambition cities get more than £10 per head. Her analysis does not include our commitment that every mile of new road built by Highways England must be cycle-proof or the additional money for local growth funds so that cities and towns that want to encourage cycling have the freedom to do so.

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

It is now clear that cycling took a big hit in the spending review and that there will be little left for the cycling and walking investment strategy when it finally appears. The Minister has had the air let out of her tyres. Will she confirm that the figure of £1.49 is the real figure for cycling outside London and that spending on cycling has effectively been halved?

[Claire Perry]

The hon. Gentleman represents a cycling city that I am proud to visit, but I have yet to see him on his bike pedalling past our front door when I am up there—but I am sure I will soon. I completely refute his assertion, however: we have made incredible progress on cycling. He need only drive in to see the chaos created by the Mayor’s east-west cycle highway being delivered in the city with the highest level of cycle spending historically. That is the cycling ambition target now being reached in eight other cities. I want to reconfirm that we have ensured that every mile of new road built will be cycle-proof, which is something Labour neglected to do.

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

7. What progress his Department has made on identifying a location for a UK spaceport.

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

As the Prime Minister told the House a few weeks ago, it is the Government’s ambition for the UK to become the European hub for commercial spaceflight, and we hope to launch the competition to select the location for the base in the second half of 2016.

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald]

It has long been believed that Prestwick airport was the only place in the UK visited by none other than Elvis. It is an area in desperate need of attention and economic investment. Will the Minister follow in the king’s footsteps and pay a flying visit to see how the Government can help regenerate that vital airport in the west of Scotland?

[Andrew Jones]

I am aware that the visit by Elvis is one of Prestwick’s claims to fame, but there are several other contenders in that competition. I would, of course, be delighted to visit.

[Mr Speaker]

We do not need Elvis when we have the hon. Gentleman.

[Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)]

8. How much the Government plan to spend on transport infrastructure between 2015 and 2020; and how much was spent on such infrastructure between 2010 and 2015.

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

The coalition Government spent £41 billion on transport infrastructure between 2010 and 2015. On an equivalent basis, this Government plan to spend £61 billion on transport infrastructure between 2015 and 2020—an increase of 50%. This includes £15 billion for the biggest road improvement programme seen in Britain since the 1970s, and the electrification of 850 miles of railway—the biggest rail modernisation since Victorian times.

[Daniel Kawczynski]

My right hon. Friend will know the importance I attach to the north-west relief road—the final bit of the road around Shrewsbury, which has a cost-benefit ratio of 5:4. He says that the project is going to be the responsibility of the local enterprise partnership. How will his Government work with LEPs to ensure that they have adequate funding and logistical support to carry out and implement these vital schemes?

[Mr McLoughlin]

My hon. Friend is right, and he has been to see me to make representations, with a number of people from the council and from Shrewsbury itself. It is right that this is taken forward by the LEP. Funding for the major LEP schemes has been set aside and was agreed as part of the spending review. Details on how to bid to the fund will be announced shortly.

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

With no news on the privately financed electrification of the line between Selby and Hull, and with yesterday’s announcement on the TransPennine franchise failing to give additional services to Hull for city of culture 2017 and providing only refurbished, not new, trains, can the Secretary of State understand why people in Hull were rather taken aback by the comments of the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Andrew Jones) on “Look North” when he said that investment in northern transport is about to overtake that of the south? Do not those words show that the Under-Secretary is away with the Christmas fairies?

[Mr McLoughlin]

I do not know whether I would want to go into Christmas fairies so far as the current Labour party is concerned, as Labour Members might be seeing fairies in many places. I believe that the Department for Transport has been helpful to Hull in its preparations for the city of culture, not least with the improvements at Hull station and the proposals I have worked on with the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) to ensure that the footbridge project is brought forward much more quickly to provide access to the Hull dockside. I am sorry that the hon. Lady cannot welcome that.

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

Will the Secretary of State consider reviewing his spending priorities? Is it not true that billions of pounds would be available to spend on transport infrastructure across the whole country between 2015 and 2020 if the current plans for HS2 were replaced with a conventional high-speed line running at 155 mph? Money would be available to pay decent compensation, provide improved environmental protection and faster investment in HS3 and HS2 phase 2, which should be a much greater priority than cutting 10 minutes off the journey between Birmingham and London?

[Mr McLoughlin]

I have to say that I do not think I will ever convince my right hon. Friend on this particular subject—so I am not sure I am going to try. Let me simply say that the investment in HS2 is not just about speed—a point that I cannot get over enough—but about capacity and the huge increase in people travelling on our railways. [Interruption.] My right hon. Friend says that we could just build another conventional line, but that would cost 90% of what HS2 is costing in any case, so there would be no significant savings. I make no apology for being part of a Government who are investing for the future of the nation.

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

The future infrastructure project on which the Government have to make a decision that is of most interest to most people is that of airport expansion. People of all positions on the issue are interested to know when a decision will be made. On 1 July 2015, the Prime Minister said in response to a question:

“What I can say to her is that we will all read this report and a decision will be made by the end of the year.”—[Official Report, 1 July 2015; Vol. 597, c. 1474.]

On 5 October this year, the Secretary of State said at the Conservative conference:

“The Davies commission has produced a powerful report, and we will respond by the end of the year.”—

and he repeated that in an interview on 30 October. Will the Secretary of State therefore confirm that a decision will be made on airport expansion by the end of the year, or will party politics and the London mayoral elections come before a decision for the nations of the UK?

[Mr McLoughlin]

I have read much speculation about what decisions we may be about to make. Some of that speculation may be true, but until we make a decision, I shall not be able to inform the House of it.

[Drew Hendry]

Given that answer and the potential for delay, and given that the Davies commission had accepted that links with regional airports are vital for the future—especially for airports such Inverness and Dundee—will the Secretary of State undertake, as a matter of urgency, to present proposals on public service obligations for such routes, and to amend the regional air development fund to keep regional air routes sustainable?

[Mr McLoughlin]

I know how important it is to retain links through the London airports. I should be more than happy to discuss the issue in detail with the hon. Gentleman, and with the Scottish Government.

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

Would the Secretary of State or the rail Minister be willing to discuss with me the issue of transport infrastructure investment in south London? Proposals from Transport for London and the Department for Transport, on which local authorities have not been consulted, would lead to a reduction in the number of fast services to Victoria, and I should like to discuss that with Ministers.

[Mr McLoughlin]

I am sure that my hon. Friend the rail Minister would be more than happy to meet the right hon. Gentleman. The simple fact is that, in London and, indeed, throughout the country, we are seeing an ever greater demand for transport, and we are doing all that we can to meet those requirements. As a result of huge investment, the Victoria line now offers some 37 trains an hour, and there have also been upgrades on the Northern line. However, the pressure for further upgrades is an important issue.

[Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)]

9. What further plans he has to reduce road congestion.

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

The Government are providing £15.2 billion between 2015 and 2021 to invest in our strategic road network. This is the biggest upgrade to our motorways and A roads for a generation, and it is adding capacity and tackling congestion.

[Sir Greg Knight]

I welcome what my right hon. Friend says, but is he aware that there are many ways of reducing congestion that are not anti-motorist? Has he read “Green Light”, a report by Councillor Richard Tracey, which concludes that most traffic lights could be turned off between midnight and 6 am, and that that would reduce both congestion and pollution? Why should a motorist have to sit at a red traffic light when there are no pedestrians in the vicinity, and no vehicles are seeking to use the junction? Will my right hon. Friend persuade local authorities to review their policy on traffic lights, and get them to turn some of them off?

[Mr McLoughlin]

I rather thought that at this time of year people were turning lights on rather than off! I know that my right hon. Friend feels strongly about traffic lights, and I should be more than happy to look at Richard Tracey’s report, but, in the main, this is a matter for local highway authorities. Perhaps my right hon. Friend could exert some influence on those in his constituency.

[Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)]

One of the principal causes of congestion in urban areas is, of course, illegal parking. What is the Secretary of State doing to make the enforcement system simpler and more effective?

[Mr McLoughlin]

That, too, is a matter for local highway authorities, which can employ the necessary measures and regulations.

[Michelle Donelan (Chippenham) (Con)]

22. Having visited my constituency a number of times, the Secretary of State will know that the specific and complicated problem of traffic congestion in Bradford on Avon is having a significant impact on business and residents. Can he suggest a way of dealing with it?

[Mr McLoughlin]

I visited Bradford on Avon with my hon. Friend earlier this year, and I know that she is right about the traffic congestion in the town. I should be more than happy to meet her, along with my hon. Friend the roads Minister, to discuss in detail what we could do to help, but this is, in the main, a matter for Wiltshire council.

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

The pinch-point scheme at junction 24 of the M60 in Denton has been a great success in tackling congestion. Unfortunately, however, one of its unintended consequences has been the increased motorway noise experienced by nearby residents of Thompson Close. Highways England has promised to introduce noise reduction measures, including new road surfaces, in the next financial year; will the Secretary of State please ensure that that happens early in the next financial year?

[Mr McLoughlin]

I do not know that junction particularly well, but following the hon. Gentleman representations I will certainly look into it and we will write to him about when Highways England will do that work.

[Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con)]

19. One of the key campaigns in my constituency to reduce road congestion is for an M4 link to the Avon ring road, which would involve an extra junction, 18A, on the M4. Next year the joint transport study commissioned by the local enterprise partnership and the surrounding councils will look at how to reduce road congestion in the area, and I hope the M4 link will be an integral part of that. Will the Transport Secretary meet the LEP, the local council and me to discuss this?

[Mr McLoughlin]

I am more than happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss this. As I have said, a huge amount of investment is being made available to Highways England. I visited the site with my hon. Friend earlier this year, and it would open up a large area of potential development, which is very important for his constituency.

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

Over the summer, roads to the channel ports ground to a halt, lorry drivers who were stuck in their cabs needed emergency water to drink, and local businesses were hit as Kent villages near the motorway network were cut off. The Chancellor’s announcement of a new lorry park may be a step in the right direction, but it will not keep the traffic moving of itself and it falls well short of highways management road improvement works that local partners tell me are needed if Kent is going to be protected from similar snarl-ups in future. Does the Secretary of State consider his lorry park “job done”? If not, what else is he going to do before, rather than after, the people of the south-east go through the same thing again?

[Mr McLoughlin]

I do not regard it as “job done” but I regard it as a great step in the right direction to find that level of resources available to solve what was an unacceptable situation for people in Kent last summer. It is definitely a step in the right direction, but I will obviously keep every other option under review.

[David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con)]

10. What progress his Department has made on implementing the community transport minibus fund.

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

The community transport minibus fund will provide over 300 organisations with a new minibus so that they can continue to provide the vital services that they offer. Approximately 70 organisations whose vehicle requirements are very specific will be grant-funded to purchase their vehicle and we have started delivering vehicles to these organisations already. The competition to supply the remaining vehicles commences next Monday.

[David Morris]

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer, but will he ensure that Lancashire County Council is aware that this scheme can be utilised? It is currently proposing to cut the subsidy to rural buses and others even though it has almost half a billion pounds in reserves.

[Andrew Jones]

Like my hon. Friend, we fully understand the vital role buses play in our community. The community transport fund is to help not-for-profit organisations continue to meet the needs of passengers who may otherwise have no access to public transport, but may I draw my hon. Friend’s attention to the £250 million a year bus service operators grant, which the Government provide and the purpose of which is to help run bus services that may otherwise not be viable? I cannot instruct Lancashire County Council, but I hope it is considering how to apply this funding in a way that can reach rural areas that need a good bus connection to help improve their economic growth and social inclusion.

[Maggie Throup (Erewash) (Con)]

Derbyshire County Council is to cut the funding for community transport from April next year, which will see Erewash Community Transport in my constituency lose nearly £150,000—a similar story to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (David Morris). This is yet another attack on the elderly and vulnerable by Derbyshire County Council, which is playing politics with vital community services. Ahead of my Westminster Hall debate next Wednesday, will the Minister agree with me that we should be supporting these services, not cutting them?

[Andrew Jones]

My hon. Friend is, as ever, a significant champion for her constituency, and we agree fully on the merits of supporting buses.

[Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab)]

Following on from that question, is the Minister aware that the real culprit in this business is the Tory Government? They have cut Derbyshire County Council’s grant by—are you listening?—£157 million. Give Derbyshire the money back and we can sort everything out in the whole county.

[Andrew Jones]

I do enjoy the hon. Gentleman’s interventions. I am sure he was very formidable—when he was in his prime. It is up to Derbyshire County Council to organise its own priorities, and we should be focusing on issues that make a difference.

[Chris Green (Bolton West) (Con)]

11. What progress his Department has made on collecting and interpreting data gathered by smart ticketing schemes.

[Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)]

13. What progress his Department has made on implementing smart ticketing schemes.

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

We are making good progress on implementing smart ticketing across transport modes and across England. On railways, some train operators are already using smartcard and barcode technology; all our major cities have smart ticketing schemes; and we have committed £150 million to support the vision of “Oyster for the north”.

[Chris Green]

I thank the Minister for that answer. Devolution to Greater Manchester includes plans to introduce a multimodal smart ticketing scheme. Will she assure me that from the outset travel data will be collected and interpreted so that further improvements can be made to Greater Manchester’s public transport system?

[Claire Perry]

My hon. Friend is right to point out the importance of gathering data and how great it is that this devolution agenda is working for passengers in Manchester. I agree with him about the importance of data and I will certainly make my views known to Transport for Greater Manchester, which is responsible for introducing these schemes.

[Rehman Chishti]

The Minister will know that I have raised the issue of automatic refunds before and campaigned for their introduction in Kent, so that my constituents can benefit from refunds when their trains are delayed by a few minutes instead of the current 30 minutes. When will this scheme be introduced nationally?

[Claire Perry]

First, I commend my hon. Friend for consistently promoting the interests of his travelling constituents. He may be aware that from next February, c2c, which runs trains throughout his neighbouring county in south Essex, is introducing an automatic compensation system, which will provide compensation after two minutes of delay for those customers who are registered and signed up to its system. That is exactly the sort of scheme I want to see nationally, so we will closely monitor the roll-out of this programme to see whether it can be rolled out across other franchises.

[Peter Kyle (Hove) (Lab)]

Flexible ticketing was announced in 2013 and was wildly popular in the south-east when it was trialled in 2014, but there are rumours that it is being kicked into the long grass. Will the Minister scotch those rumours for long-suffering commuters in the south-east by announcing the date for its roll-out?

[Claire Perry]

The hon. Gentleman is right to point out that the south-east flexible ticketing scheme, to which the Government have committed £80 million, is being implemented. We are currently looking at the best way to roll that out across the train operating companies. It has already gone live on Southern, Govia Thameslink Railway and indeed on c2c, and we are talking to Southeastern about the right date to introduce it. I would be happy to meet him to work on this together.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

12. What recent representations he has received on the future of emergency towing vessels in the northern isles; and if he will make a statement.

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

I have received a number of representations from those in Scotland with an interest in the future provision of the emergency towing vessel operating from the northern isles. The Government fully recognise the importance of ensuring shipping activities off the coast of Scotland remain safe. To that end, the Maritime and Coastguard Agency will consult interested parties shortly on the need for and scope of putting alternative towing arrangements in place beyond April 2016.

[Mr Carmichael]

The Secretary of State will remember the interesting and lively discussions we had leading up to the decision to retain that emergency towing vessel in 2011. He will recall that the people in the MCA and in his Department who wanted to remove it then argued that cover could be provided by the offshore oil and gas industry working in the region. He will also be aware that the price of oil has fallen sharply since then and that there is now much less activity in the north North sea. May I gently say to him that the case that led to the right decision in 2011 is even stronger today than it was then?

[Mr McLoughlin]

Just to put the record right, the conversations in 2011 that the right hon. Gentleman refers to were not held in the Department for Transport—they were held elsewhere. I very well remember both the case he made and visiting the vessel in the summer of 2013.

[Maria Caulfield (Lewes) (Con)]

14. What his policy is on improvement of rail services in the south-east.

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

The Government are investing heavily in service improvements in this region through the multibillion pound Thameslink programme, in which new trains, service and station improvements will finally start to be delivered next year. However, I am the first to recognise that the current performance, especially on the Brighton main line, has been well below expectations. That is why I continue to chair the Southeastern quadrant taskforce, which focuses on driving up performance on these vital routes. I wish to invite my hon. Friend and all other interested hon. Members to a new year taskforce meeting in which we will discuss performance improvements specifically for those routes.

[Maria Caulfield]

I thank the Minister for her reply and her hard work in dealing with this issue. Given that Southern rail is about to roll out a new timetable on the Brighton main line and that its performance has been so poor, will she provide all Sussex MPs with a monthly performance report so that we can personally put pressure on Southern rail to deliver?

[Claire Perry]

My hon. Friend raises an excellent point. I am told that all that information is on the Govia Thameslink Railway website, but I confess that I find it quite difficult to find and quite hard to interpret. I will ensure that the information, which is already provided by the operator to my Department and published, is made available to members of the public and their MPs in the most obvious and transparent form, so that we can all see the performance improvement that we want.

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

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Huddersfield is a long way from the south-east, but the hon. Gentleman will ask a question that I know will be exclusively focused, like a laser, on the south-east.

[Mr Sheerman]

A bit like many Members of Parliament, when I am here in London and the south-east, I use Southern rail, and I will be very pleased if it is to be improved. None of us begrudges that investment, but we do put it into perspective, which is that we are not getting enough infrastructure investment in the north, linking the big towns and cities. It must be north first and south second.

[Claire Perry]

The hon. Gentleman is a good friend, and I would hate to suggest that he was snoozing yesterday rather than watching the news, because we announced a transformational package for railways in the north. Let me tell him what is happening in Huddersfield: new TransPennine trains; new services between major cities; three new stations; 500 new carriages across the network; an end to those hated Pacers forever; and on-board improvements for passengers. He might shake his head, but it will happen. He can say bye-bye to the Pacers from 2019. This Government are absolutely determined that the northern powerhouse comes to life based on transport investment, and I am so proud that we are the Government who are delivering.

[Mr Speaker]

I am still seeking that laser-like precision. I turn now to the hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers).

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

20. My constituents find it extremely difficult to get to the south-east because we do not have a direct rail service to London. Will the Minister use her good offices to ensure that the rail regulator, which has had an application with it for two years, makes a quick decision?

[Claire Perry]

It is impressive stuff, Mr Speaker. My hon. Friend will know that the open access competition to which he refers is a matter for the regulator, but it has been quite clear that his constant campaigning is paying off. He is getting £88 million of funding for the dualling of the A160 near Immingham and resignalling for the north-east Lincolnshire region, plus the massive franchise benefits that we announced yesterday, including improvements at Cleethorpes station.

[Mr Speaker]

Last but not least, the man with the dazzling tie to beat all dazzling ties. I call Mr Andrew Bingham.

[Andrew Bingham (High Peak) (Con)]

15. What steps his Department are taking to ensure that British firms benefit from the Government’s transport infrastructure investment.

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

The Department engages extensively with the market to raise awareness of forthcoming business—equipping British firms with the information and skills they need to respond to opportunities. Through the Rail Supply Group, we are working to strengthen the capability of the UK rail supply chain so that UK-based suppliers are better able to win work here and abroad.

[Andrew Bingham]

I can promise you, Mr Speaker, that my tie was not based on the original design for Spaghetti junction.

Much of the infrastructure that will be built as part of the plan will also benefit my constituents, because most of the lime that will be used will come from the High Peak quarries, hugely benefiting the supply chain and the wider economy. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, when we look at the Glossop spur, which we are promised as part of the infrastructure plan, the biggest gain will be to my local companies as they can get business in and out of the area? Furthermore, if that work was extended around Tintwistle, as I would like, it would further help and encourage my local businesses and local economy.

[Mr McLoughlin]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing out the opportunities for firms in his constituency, which I know incredibly well. Indeed, I have visited Tintwistle with him on numerous occasions and he has pointed out the improvements that he wishes to see. The road investment programme will, in part, help us to move towards those improvements, but the work that Colin Matthews is doing on the wider issue of a tunnel will also be important for his area.

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

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

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

Since I last addressed the House at Question Time, Cumbria, Lancashire and the north-west have experienced record-breaking rainfall, which has led to the worst flooding since 2005. It closed the west coast main line, but Network Rail’s orange army has worked tirelessly to restore the service and I am pleased to say that at 14.00 on Tuesday 8 December trains were once again running from London to Glasgow via Preston. Since then, rail services have restarted on all the affected routes. This Christmas, Network Rail will undertake a significant programme of work, delivering the Government’s record £38 billion investment in the railways.

[James Berry]

Given the imminence of the announcement, I shall resist the urge to ask about Heathrow and will ask instead what steps the Secretary of State’s Department will take on irresponsible pavement parking in view of the cross-party support gained for the private Member’s Bill that we debated in this House last Friday.

[Mr McLoughlin]

A very useful debate took place last Friday and commitments were given to have further discussions on this important issue. I will ensure that those discussions take place and that we try to address some of the issues. Local authorities already have a lot of powers, however, if they wish to use them.

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

The closure of roads and rail lines in recent days is a timely reminder of the strain extreme weather events place on transport networks. We all remember the flooding at airports in 2010 and 2013, the loss of the Dawlish seawall and, as the Secretary of State said, the heroic response of Network Rail’s orange army. So will the Secretary of State explain why the Dawlish resilience options report, due last month, has not been published? What assurance can he give that the lessons of previous periods of disruption have been learned?

[Mr McLoughlin]

We always look to learn from experience and that is the case with the Dawlish repairs and the work that has been done by Network Rail to ensure that the line is secure for future use. Excessive weather conditions such as those that we saw last weekend put extra pressure on the network. One of the most important things, however, is ensuring that the network continues to operate safely.

[Lilian Greenwood]

I hope that we do learn from experience. The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry) had a little go at this, and I am going to give the Secretary of State another chance. On airport expansion, the Prime Minister told this House in July:

“The guarantee that I can give…is that a decision will be made by the end of the year.”—[Official Report, 1 July 2015; Vol. 597, c. 1473.]

Employers have been clear that the Government should bring forward the decision they promised, but fear a further politically motivated delay. Was the Prime Minister making a clear pledge—no ifs, no buts—or are residents who live near Heathrow and Gatwick about to be subjected to yet more blight and uncertainty?

[Mr McLoughlin]

I will not take any lectures from the Labour party on planning infrastructure. Labour was woeful at it and did very little of it. The simple fact is that we now have a Government who are more committed to infrastructure than the Labour Government were for 13 years. The simple fact is that when an announcement is to be made, I will make it in the House.

[Craig Williams (Cardiff North) (Con)]

T2. I thank my right hon. Friend for visiting Cardiff last week and discussing electrification, among many other issues. I welcome the fact that this Government are making Great Western railway electrification a top priority. More broadly, what will the bimodal trains mean for Cardiff, Swansea and the south Wales economy?

[Mr McLoughlin]

I was very pleased to visit my hon. Friend’s constituency with him last Thursday, as well as other areas in Wales. I believe that the upgrades—the new inter-city express programme trains—will be very important because of their bimodal nature. They are undergoing testing at Melton Mowbray and they are very impressive indeed. They will lead to a much improved service for his constituents and those people who live toward Swansea, as well.

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

T3. Disabled people—particularly wheelchair users and those with sight loss—are finding it increasingly difficult to access public transport, particularly buses. Will the Secretary of State consider encouraging bus companies to give their staff more disability awareness training, and will he also consider the statutory introduction of audio-visual announcement systems in the upcoming buses Bill?

[Mr McLoughlin]

I will certainly give encouragement—not that they should need it—to the bus companies to make sure that facilities for disabled people are available and that their staff know the right way of making those facilities available to them. That is incumbent on all bus companies. As for a future bus Bill, the hon. Gentleman will have to wait until it is published.

[Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)]

T5. My constituents leaving for their holidays from Stansted airport would like to be kind to the environment and give the A14 and the M11 a miss, and use CrossCountry trains, but they often cannot do so because the trains run too late for their flights from Stansted airport. Will the rail Minister have a word with the rail regulator to restate the importance of rail and airport connectivity?

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

My hon. Friend is right. Stansted airport, along with local MPs, lobbied hard to get that early morning service from Liverpool Street, which stopped people having to sleep at the airport to catch early flights. I will happily discuss this with him and we can have a conversation with CrossCountry.

[Mr Speaker]

I call Catherine West. Not here.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

The committee on the medical effects of air pollution estimates that 60,000 deaths a year occur in Britain because of the effects of air pollution. That is 20 times the number killed in all road traffic accidents. The Government state that they will not achieve their legal limit on nitrogen oxide pollutants until 2030. Is this not a disgraceful situation? What will the Government do to take on Volkswagen, which has been accused of causing 12,000 avoidable deaths in Britain alone by gross deception in relation to its vehicles? What is the Minister doing to accelerate the clean-up of NOx air pollution in this country?

[Mr McLoughlin]

I am sure the hon. Gentleman has not forgotten that the biggest increase in the use of diesel vehicles took place between 2001 and 2010. As I have said in the past, the behaviour of Volkswagen is a disgrace. It must put right what it got wrong. I am having further meetings later today to discuss that with Volkswagen.

[Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)]

T6. Will my hon. Friend provide an update on the availability of funding from the new stations fund? The town of Wellington in my constituency would make an excellent candidate for a new station. There is a great deal of interest in it from business and locals. I am having a meeting tomorrow with those people and it would be great to give them a little more information.

[Claire Perry]

I am happy to confirm that the Government mad £20 million of further money available for the new station fund in the summer Budget. It is up to local authorities and local businesses to bring forward proposals for new stations. We want them to be rooted in the benefits that they deliver to the local community. I would be delighted to review with my hon. Friend a proposal for Wellington station and look forward to working with her. We would like to get new stations built.

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

One of the consequences of the catastrophic floods in Cumbria has been the near-disappearance of the A591 between Grasmere and Keswick, which in effect cuts the Lake district in two. Will the Government consider applying for EU solidarity funding to make sure that we reopen or replace that road imminently so that the Lake district, which continues to be the most marvellous place to spend Christmas and new year, can be reconnected?

[Mr McLoughlin]

I well understand the hon. Gentleman’s concern and the way his constituents have been affected. I am sure the feelings of the whole House are with them and those in neighbouring areas who are facing chaos in their homes and who, in some cases, will not be able to get back into them before Christmas. We discussed EU funding on Monday and said that we would look at it. I will be looking for more immediate help for his area, and my hon. Friend the Minister of State will be in Cumbria tomorrow.

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

T7. I was so encouraged by yesterday’s announcement that two Northern Rail franchises were to receive a massive £1.2 billion boost to rail services, with 500 brand-new carriages, that I would like to ask my right hon. Friend whether that was intended as a signal to the three bidders for the Greater Anglia franchise as to what is expected of them if we are to help the Anglian region to—in the words of the announcement—“realise its full economic potential, ensuring it has a modern 21st century transport system”?

[Mr McLoughlin]

In the interests of crispness and brevity, the answer to my right hon. Friend’s question is yes.

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

The Secretary of State will be aware that under the current proposals for HS2, although the overall journey time to Scotland will be reduced, the journey time north of Crewe to Scotland will actually increase, owing to changes in the stock used. Will he therefore commit to bringing forward a definitive timetable for the proposed further upgrade works discussed with the Scottish Government for north of Crewe?

[Mr McLoughlin]

Some of the issues to which the hon. Gentleman refers will obviously be taken into account at the next planning round for Network Rail, but we are making upgrades on the line now. In fact, over the Christmas period I hope to see some of the improvements being made at Stafford, which will help to increase capacity further up the line.

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

T8. The creation of the west midlands combined authority provides an opportunity to take a strategic views of the region’s transport needs. Does the Secretary of State agree that it also provides an opportunity for his Department to work with local operators, such as London Midland, to relieve congestion on the Rowley Regis to Birmingham line, which is becoming a big problem?

[Claire Perry]

In the interests of Christmas and brevity, yes.

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

Among the franchises announced yesterday was one owned by the German state rail company, DB, so can the Secretary of State tell the House what proportion of the ticket fare paid by UK commuters will be used to subsidise the fares of German commuters in Germany?

[Mr McLoughlin]

If a foreign company was to set up in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, would he be complaining about the jobs it brought? I am very pleased that British companies are winning rail contracts to provide services in Germany. I believe that the marketplace works. The announcements we made yesterday represent a seismic change in the service for both the Northern and TransPennine franchises, which I would have thought he would welcome, as nearly every local government leader in the area has, most of them being Labour.

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

Will the Minister join me in welcoming the fact that Farnworth tunnel near Bolton, which has been closed for enlargement as part of the electrification programme, will reopen next Monday, allowing for more and longer trains?

[Claire Perry]

Absolutely. As my hon. Friend and others will know, it is very difficult to do that upgrade work without disruption, and I thank people for their patience, but if anyone doubts that this Government are serious about transport investment in the north and the electrification programme, they just need to go and see what happens on Monday morning when those trains start running through the tunnel again.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

As the Secretary of State will be aware, on 29 November 2013 a police helicopter plunged through the roof of the Clutha bar in my constituency. The air accidents investigation branch published its report on 23 October this year and made a number of recommendations, including installing black box recorders in helicopters. When will the Government respond to the report?

[Mr McLoughlin]

The air accidents investigation branch was able to answer these specific questions—indeed, Keith Conradi was in Scotland on the day the report came out—and show that there is nothing to prevent police authorities and local authorities from already including that equipment in helicopters. I am working with the Civil Aviation Authority to determine the next steps in relation to the report, which has to be taken very seriously.

[Mr Speaker]

Ah! The hon. Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) is looking as happy as ever, doubtless celebrating Arsenal’s quite outstanding victory last night.

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

As no doubt you are, Mr Speaker.

The Secretary of State has already mentioned visiting Stafford, no doubt to see the work at Norton Bridge, excellently undertaken by Network Rail. With the advance of the first stage of phase 2 of HS2, there is the question of the impact on infrastructure, particularly on roads in the area around Stafford and mid-Staffordshire. Will he kindly meet me to discuss that?

[Mr McLoughlin]

I am more than happy to meet my hon. Friend. As I said, we are investing a huge amount in infrastructure. Having been in Stafford only a few a weeks ago, I know about the problems he refers to.

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

Will the rail Minister repeat the figures she gave to the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety annual conference this week about the appalling number of suicides on our rail system and the disruption and dreadful impact that has on the victims and on the travelling public?

[Claire Perry]

What I told the conference organised by the hon. Gentleman, whom I commend for his decades of work in this area, was that every 30 hours somebody takes their life on the rail network. That is a tragedy both for the families of the victims and for the drivers and staff, for whom it is a deeply distressing experience, and it also affects those whose travel is disrupted. I commend the work the hon. Gentleman’s group is doing and the work that Network Rail is doing with the Samaritans. We want to see those numbers coming down.

[Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)]

The creation of the local majors fund in the autumn statement is very much to be welcomed. The much needed third crossing in Lowestoft will look to bid into that fund early in the new year. Can my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State confirm that the fund will be up and running as quickly as possible after Christmas?

[Mr McLoughlin]

I most certainly can confirm that the fund will be up and running after Christmas. I remember visiting the site with my hon. Friend on a couple of occasions earlier this year. I think the scheme he mentions is a very strong candidate.

Southern Health NHS Foundation Trust

Thursday 10th December 2015 Commons Chamber

10:35

[Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the report of the investigation into deaths at Southern Health NHS Foundation Trust.

[The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Jeremy Hunt)]

The whole House will be profoundly shocked by this morning’s allegations of a failure by Southern Health NHS Foundation Trust to investigate over 1,000 unexpected deaths. Following the tragic death of 18-year-old Connor Sparrowhawk at Southern’s short-term assessment and treatment unit in Oxfordshire in July 2013, NHS England commissioned a report from audit providers Mazars on unexpected deaths between April 2011 and March 2015.

The draft report, submitted to NHS England in September, found a lack of leadership, focus and sufficient time spent in the trust on carefully reporting and investigating unexpected deaths of mental health and learning disability service users. Of 1,454 deaths reported, only 272 were investigated as critical incidents, and only 195 of those were reported as serious incidents requiring investigation. The report found that there had been no effective, systematic management and oversight of the reporting of deaths and the investigations that follow.

Prior to publication, or indeed showing the report to me, NHS England rightly asked the trust for its comments. It accepted failures in its reporting and investigations into unexpected deaths, but challenged the methodology, in particular pointing out that a number of the deaths were of out-patients for whom it was not the primary care provider. However, NHS England has assured me this morning that the report will be published before Christmas, and it is our intention to accept the vast majority, if not all, of the recommendations it makes.

Our hearts go out to the families of those affected. More than anything, they want to know that the NHS learns from tragedies such as what happened to Connor Sparrowhawk, and that is something we patently fail to do on too many occasions at the moment. Nor should we pretend that this is a result of the wrong culture at just one NHS trust. There is an urgent need to improve the investigation of, and learning from, the estimated 200 avoidable deaths we have every week across the system.

I will give the House more details about the report and recommendations when I have had a chance to read the final version and understand its recommendations, but I can tell the House about three important steps that will help to create the change in culture that we need. First, it is totally and utterly unacceptable that, according to the leaked report, only 1% of the unexpected deaths of patients with learning disabilities were investigated, so from next June, we will publish independently assured, Ofsted-style ratings of the quality of care offered to people with learning disabilities for all 209 clinical commissioning group areas. That will ensure that we shine a spotlight on the variations in care, allowing rapid action to be taken when standards fall short.

Secondly, NHS England has commissioned the University of Bristol to do an independent study of the mortality rates of people with learning disabilities in NHS care. This is a very important moment at which to step back and consider the way in which we look after that particular highly vulnerable group.

Thirdly, I have previously given the House a commitment to publishing the number of avoidable deaths, broken down by NHS trust, next year. Professor Sir Bruce Keogh has worked hard to develop a methodology to do this. He will write to medical directors at all trusts in the next week explaining how it works, and asking them to supply estimated figures that can be published in the spring. Central to that will be establishing a no-blame reporting culture across the NHS, with people being rewarded, not penalised, for speaking openly and transparently about mistakes.

Finally, I pay tribute to Connor’s mother, Sara Ryan, who has campaigned tirelessly to get to the bottom of these issues. Her determination to make sure the right lessons are learned from Connor’s unexpected and wholly preventable, tragic death is an inspiration to us all. Today, I would like to offer her and all other families affected by similar tragedies a heartfelt apology on behalf of the Government and the NHS.

[Heidi Alexander]

These are truly shocking revelations that, if proven, reveal deep failures at Southern Health NHS Foundation Trust. The BBC has reported that the investigation found that more than 10,000 people died between April 2011 and March 2015. Of those 10,000 deaths, 1,454 were not expected. Only 195 of those unexpected deaths—just 13%—were treated by the trust as a serious incident requiring investigation. Perhaps most worryingly, it appears that the likelihood of an unexpected death being investigated depended hugely on the patient: for those with a learning disability, just 1% of unexpected deaths were investigated, and for older people with a mental health problem, just 0.3%.

We obviously await a full response from the Government when the report of the investigation is published, but a number of immediate questions need answers today. First, does the Health Secretary judge services at the trust to be safe? A recent Care Quality Commission report found that

“inadequate staffing levels in community health services was impacting on the delivery of safe care.”

What advice can he give patients, and the families of patients, currently in the care of Southern Health?

Secondly, the Health Secretary confirmed in his reply that NHS England received the report in September, but can he explain why it still has not been published, and can he provide a specific date on which the final report will be made publicly available?

Thirdly, when was the Health Secretary first made aware of concerns about Southern Health, and what action did he take at that time? What does he have to say to the relatives and friends of people who have unexpectedly died in the care of the trust and who, today, will be reliving their grief with a new anxiety?

The issue raises broader questions about the care of people with learning disabilities or mental health problems. Just because some individuals have less ability to communicate concerns about their care, that must never mean that any less attention is paid to their treatment or their death. That would be the ultimate abrogation of responsibility, and one which should shame us all. The priority now must be to understand how this was allowed to happen, and to ensure this is put right so it can never happen again.

[Mr Hunt]

I agree with what the shadow Health Secretary says. She is absolutely right in both the tone of what she says, and in the seriousness with which she points to what has happened. It is important to say that this is only a draft report. To put the hon. Lady’s mind at rest, I am completely satisfied that NHS England took this extremely seriously from the moment we understood that there was an issue about the tragic death of Connor Sparrowhawk. David Nicholson, the then chief executive of NHS England, and Jane Cummings, the chief nurse, met the family and ordered the independent investigation. It is a very thorough investigation.

As the hon. Lady will understand, when there is an investigation about something as serious as avoidable mortality, we have to give the trust the chance to correct any factual inaccuracies and challenge the methodologies. It has taken from September until now to get to the point in the process where the report is ready to be published. I have been assured by Jane Cummings this morning that it will be published before Christmas. We will not allow any further arguments about methodologies to stand in the way of the report being published before Christmas, as was always planned.

On the hon. Lady’s very important question about whether services are safe at Southern Health, we have the expert view on that, because we set up a new chief inspector of hospitals and a new inspection regime. There was an inspection of Southern Health, and it got a “requires improvement”. The inspectors were not saying that its services were as safe as they should be, but that its services, along with those of many other trusts in the NHS, needed to become safer. She was right to draw attention to some of the failings alluded to in the report.

The hon. Lady can draw comfort from the fact that this matter has been taken seriously. NHS England commissioned a report, which is, by all accounts, hard-hitting. I have been following the situation since we first understood the issues around Connor Sparrowhawk’s tragic death, and so has NHS England. That is why we have a report that I think will lead to important changes.

The fundamental question on which we all need to reflect is why we do not have the right reporting culture in the NHS when it comes to unexpected deaths. We have to step back, be honest and say that there are reasons, good and bad, for that. People are extremely busy, and there is a huge amount of pressure on the frontline. People have an understandable desire to spend clinical time dealing with the patients who are standing in front of them, rather than going over medical notes and trying to understand something that went wrong. Sometimes, there will be prejudice and discrimination. The whole House will unite in saying that we must stamp that out. Sometimes, people do not speak out because they are worried that they will be fired or penalised. We have to move away from a blame culture in the NHS to a culture in which doctors and nurses are supported if they speak out, which too often is not the case.

The whole House will want to unite in supporting the leaders of the NHS who want to change that culture. It is unfinished business from Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust; it is important to get it right, and I know that the NHS is determined to do just that.

[Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)]

The allegations in the draft report about Southern Health are deeply disturbing, and I welcome the steps that the Secretary of State has announced. In particular, I am pleased that he will not treat this as an isolated incident. The key findings of the draft report show that in nearly two thirds of the investigations, there was no family involvement. Will he immediately send the message out to all trusts that it is vital to involve family members, particularly when we are talking about those who cannot speak for themselves?

[Mr Hunt]

I will do that, and I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me the opportunity to do so. We see this situation all too often. There was a story in the Sunday newspapers about a family being shut out of a very important decision about the unexpected death of a baby. It is incredibly important to involve families, even more so in the case of people with mental health problems or learning disabilities. The family may be the best possible advocates for someone’s needs.

We need to change the assumption that things will become more difficult if we involve families. More often than not, something like litigation will melt away if the family is involved properly from the outset of a problem. It is when families feel that the door is being slammed in their face that they think they have to resort to the courts, which is in no one’s interests.

[Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)]

I echo what the Secretary of State said about family involvement, which should be routine in investigating an adverse event. It definitely takes the heat out of the situation.

There are two issues here. One is the shocking difference between 30% of adult deaths being investigated, and just 1% of deaths of people with learning disabilities, and Connor represents the human face of that, which is frightening. The second issue is about individual trusts being left to decide what and how much they investigate, and what they produce, because a much more systematic consideration of the data is required. NHS England publishes annual mortality figures. Strikingly, 16 trusts that were identified with higher than expected mortality levels also had higher than expected mortality the year before, yet it appears that no action was taken. The benchmark appears to be “average”, but if we have poor performance, that average is lower. We should set our aspirations higher than that.

[Mr Hunt]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right. The 30% figure was for people with mental health conditions, not for all adults, but I question why we are investigating only 30%—the highest figure at Southern Health NHS Trust—of unexpected deaths. These were not just deaths; they were unexpected deaths, and it is the duty of medical directors in every trust to satisfy themselves that they have thought about every unexpected death. We must reflect on these serious matters.

The hon. Lady is right about the need to systematise processes when there is an unexpected death, so that we do not have a big variation between trusts. The exercise that Sir Bruce Keogh is doing, going around all the trusts, is about trying to establish a standardised way of understanding when a death is or is not preventable. The hon. Lady has been a practising clinician, so I am sure she will understand that at the heart of this issue is the need to get the culture right. Clinicians should not feel that a trust will take the easy route and blame it all on them, rather than trying to understand the system-wide problems that may have caused a clinician to make a mistake in an individual instance, and that is what we must think about.

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

Behind each statistic is a person and a family, and the Secretary of State is right to say that finger-pointing should not be directed at clinicians alone; it is more important to consider the whole system and the culture in a trust. Will he encourage all trusts, and all medical and nursing schools, to make the Francis report on Mid Staffordshire compulsory reading? There is so much in there that could prevent such occurrences in future.

[Mr Hunt]

No one knows more about the Francis report than my hon. Friend, because of the direct impact that it had on his local hospital, and he is right to talk about that culture change. There is an interesting comparison with the airline industry: when it investigates accidents, the vast majority of times, those investigations point to systemic failure. When the NHS investigates clinical accidents, the vast majority of times we point to individual failure. It is therefore not surprising that clinicians feel somewhat intimidated about speaking out. People become a doctor or nurse because they want to do the right thing for patients, and we must support them in making that possible.

[Norman Lamb (North Norfolk) (LD)]

The coalition Government rightly established a public inquiry to look into the appalling care at Stafford hospital, and the Secretary of State has pointed to the challenge to the culture that the Francis report engendered following that scandal. Is this the moment to consider something similar for people with learning disabilities, or those with severe and enduring mental ill health, who too often continue to be treated as second-class citizens in our NHS? Sara Ryan, Connor Sparrowhawk’s mother, has called for a public inquiry. Will the Secretary of State consider that? It seems that it is time to shine a light on what is going on.

[Mr Hunt]

I am happy to consider that. The right hon. Gentleman and I are completely on the same page on these issues. My only hesitation is that a public inquiry will take two, three or four years, and I want to ensure that we take action now. I hope I can reassure him and the House that by, for example, publishing Ofsted-style ratings for the quality of care for people with learning disabilities across every clinical commissioning group, we will shine a spotlight on poor care in the way that the Francis report tells us that we must. I do not see the treatment of people with learning difficulties as distinct from the broader lessons in the Francis report, but if we fail to make progress, I know that the right hon. Gentleman will come back to me, and rightly so.

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

Many of my constituents are service users of Southern Health, or the family members of service users. They are looking for reassurance from the Secretary of State that there will not simply be an immediate intense spotlight but an ongoing one, so that they can have confidence that the scrutiny and oversight, particularly for young people with learning difficulties, will be ongoing.

[Mr Hunt]

I can absolutely give that assurance to my hon. Friend’s constituents. I hope they will consider the tone of my earlier remarks and realise that we are not looking at this simply as an issue for Southern Health. Clearly, important changes must happen there and must happen quickly, and we will do everything we can to make sure that they happen. I also think, however, that there is a systemic issue in relation to the low reporting of avoidable and preventable deaths and harm, and the failure to develop a true learning culture in the NHS, which in the end is what doctors, nurses and patients all want and need.

[Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and congratulate NHS England on what sounds like a very thorough report. I remind him that challenging the methodology was exactly the same first line of defence used by the now disgraced management at Mid Staffs hospital. Will he answer the specific question my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander) asked as to when Ministers first knew about problems in the trust, which we hear go back to 2011, and what action they took as a result?

[Mr Hunt]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his comments. I hope I did address that by saying that the first time was when we realised there were issues around the tragic death of Connor Sparrowhawk. That is what started the process and led to the independent investigation. Because NHS England wanted it to be very thorough, that investigation went right back to 2011 and up to 2015. It looked at all unexpected deaths in that period, and at the reporting culture and lessons that had or had not been learned as a result. A lot of action has been taken. I can also reassure the right hon. Gentleman that during that period we have been implementing the recommendations of the Francis report, which has meant that throughout the NHS there is a much greater focus on, and transparency in, patient safety.

It is important to give the NHS credit. During the past three years, we have actually seen a 25% increase in the number of reported incidents. I think people are treating this much more seriously than in the past, but there is much more to do.

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

I, too, welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement and the news that he plans to accept the recommendations of this very sobering report. Will he reassure the House that anyone found to have been deliberately contributing to patient neglect or failing to investigate avoidable deaths will be held to account both by the professional regulators and the full weight of the law?

[Mr Hunt]

I can of course give my right hon. Friend that assurance, but there is a note of hesitation in my response. That is partly because professional standards, as my right hon. Friend knows, are not a matter for politicians—they have to be set independently by the General Medical Council and the Nursing and Midwifery Council—and partly because if we are going to improve the reporting culture, which in the end is what the report is about, we have to change the fear that many doctors and nurses have that if they are open and transparent about mistakes they have made or seen, they will get dumped on. That is a real worry for many people. Part of this is about creating a supportive culture, so that when people take the brave decision to be open about something that has gone wrong they get the support that they deserve.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

As well as asking the Secretary of State how the learning on this very important issue will be shared with the devolved Administrations, may I ask whether all other trusts are being advised that they will now probably receive approaches from families —no doubt Members may be contacted in this regard, too—who have questions about their own experiences? Will he ensure that they will be sensitive to such approaches about possible historical cases?

[Mr Hunt]

I can give the hon. Gentleman that reassurance. Trusts understand that that is already happening and has been happening. All trusts will have families that have been in touch with them with concerns about potentially avoidable or preventable deaths. I hope that this will be a reminder to all trusts that they need to take those concerns very seriously indeed.

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

The disparity in excess deaths between vulnerable groups at Southern Health is truly shocking, but of course responsibility for looking after the people in question spans health and social care. Is my right hon. Friend content that we have in place the informatics that will allow outliers to be identified, and therefore rectification to be under way? One assumes that that could easily be done by NHS England, but at the moment the informatics seem to be problematic in this respect.

[Mr Hunt]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is why Professor Sir Bruce Keogh is developing a methodology to help us understand the number of avoidable deaths and the reporting culture at a trust level. We have a good methodology for understanding the number of avoidable deaths on a national level. The Hogan and Black analysis says that about 3.6% of deaths have a 50% or more chance of being avoidable. However, we will not get real local action until we localise it, and that is the next step.

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

Is the Secretary of State satisfied that families seeking truth and justice for their loved ones are having to rely on pro bono lawyers for advice and representation, and on crowdsourcing to get legal advice?

[Mr Hunt]

I am afraid that that probably does happen. We all, in all parts of the House, passionately believe in and support the NHS. It should never come down to lawyers. When there is a problem, we need a culture where the NHS is totally open and as keen as the families are themselves to understand what happened, whether it could be avoided, and what lessons can be learned. If nothing else, that is the big lesson that we need to make sure we act on as a result of today’s leaked report.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

It is clear from my right hon. Friend’s statement that there is a cultural problem in Southern Health and across the NHS. Does he agree that far too often NHS management and clinicians are far too defensive and end up arguing about the data rather than addressing the underlying causes, which would fix the problem in the first place?

[Mr Hunt]

My hon. Friend is right. It is quite heartbreaking that when these things happen we seem to end up having an argument about methodology and statistics, and whether it is this many thousand or that many thousand, rather than looking at the underlying causes. We have to ask ourselves why people feel that they need to be defensive in these situations. We have to recognise that everyone is human, but, uniquely, doctors are in a profession where when they make mistakes, as we all do in our own worlds, people sometimes die. The result of that should not automatically be to say that the doctor was clinically negligent. Ninety-nine times out of 100, we should deduce from the mistake what can be learned to avoid it happening in future. Of course, where there is gross negligence, due process should take its course, but that is only on a minority of occasions. That is where things have gone wrong.

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

Not many people are as grateful to the NHS as I am, having just returned to full health thanks to the intervention of the wonderful team at Guy’s hospital, so any criticism I make of the NHS is in the generality. Many of us have known for a long time that there is a problem with access to full NHS treatment for people with learning difficulties. In particular, speaking as a member of the newly formed Autism Commission I can say that many people on the autism spectrum have poor communication skills and finish up with inadequate access to the health service. I do not particularly want a public inquiry; I want fast action to change the culture now. The Secretary of State is absolutely right about that.

[Mr Hunt]

I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman was looked after by Guy’s and St Thomas’s, where my mother was a nurse and where I was born, so I have connections to that trust as well. He is right about making sure that we get the culture right. It is about creating a more supportive environment for people who do a very, very tough job every day of the week. When we have a conversation along those lines with patients and with our constituents, they understand that as well. More than anything else, they want to know that lessons are going to be learned and acted on.

[Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con)]

Was it necessary to delay the report’s publication for two or three months—a week or two I could understand—and will it now be published not in a fortnight’s time, before Christmas, but next week, when we will be here?

[Mr Hunt]

I hope the report will be published next week. The commitment I have from NHS England is that it will be published before Christmas. I am confident that, whenever it is published, it will generate huge media interest, rightly so and partly thanks to the shadow Health Secretary’s urgent question. When the draft report was sent to the trust, it came back with 300 individual items of concern, and it was right for NHS England, in the interests of accuracy and justice, to consider fully all those concerns. It has given me an assurance, however, that, whether or not it can reach an agreement with the trust about its contents, the report will be published before Christmas.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

What will the Secretary of State do about whistleblowers? As most Members know, we have had problems over the years with whistleblowing and people being victimised by the NHS after raising concerns.

[Mr Hunt]

Sir Robert Francis’s report “Freedom To Speak Up”, which I received and presented to Parliament just before the election, looked specifically at this issue and the difficult problems people face when they speak out about a problem in their trust. Sadly, on occasions, not only are they hounded out of that trust but they find it difficult to find a job anywhere else in the NHS, because word gets round on the old boys’ network. I think, however, that if we need whistleblowing at all, we have failed. We need a culture where, when people raise concerns, they are confident they will be listened to. That is a big statement to make, but other industries have managed it, including the airline, nuclear and oil industries. I do not think any health care service in any other country has managed to get this right. Individual hospitals—Salford Royal in this country, Virginia Mason in Seattle—have fantastic learning cultures, but I want the NHS to be the first whole health economy to get that culture right.

[Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)]

I welcome the Secretary of State’s answer to the urgent question. I speak as a Member with a hospital in special measures that had the seventh-highest mortality rate in the country in 2005-06. Does he agree that to address this problem we need tough CQC inspections, good local leadership—Medway hospital now has an excellent chief executive—and the right support from the Government?

[Mr Hunt]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It seems wrong to draw any crumbs of comfort from the awful things in the draft report, but we can draw some comfort from the fact that the NHS itself is commissioning hard-hitting reports that do not pull any punches—the new CQC inspection regime does exactly that. I commend all the staff at Medway hospital who have worked so hard to raise the standard of care over the last few years. I know it has not been easy for them.

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

The Secretary of State has not yet mentioned the role of the medical examiner. Does this latest tragedy not illustrate that the introduction of a national system of medical examiners, as recommended by the Shipman, Mid Staffs and Morecambe Bay public inquiries and supported by the Royal College of Pathologists, is now long overdue?

[Mr Hunt]

I agree with the hon. Lady. It was also a recommendation of the Francis report that the coalition Government committed to implementing. We will tell the House shortly what our plans are on this front.

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

People will be both saddened and dismayed that after Mid Staffs and the new CQC inspection regime such problems can still arise. Does the Secretary of State agree that, although there is no simple solution, the solution certainly does not lie in trusts adopting and relying on a tick-box approach to safety?

[Mr Hunt]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is worth saying that the tragedy that sparked this report happened before the new CQC inspection regime had got under way. The old CQC regime was rather a tick-box approach, partly because the people doing the inspections were often not doctors who could make peer-review judgments about the quality of services. If someone is not a doctor, there is a tendency to want to tick yes or no in reply to a question rather than to deal with the underlying issues. Having judgment in our inspections will be a very important step forward.

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)]

This investigation would not have happened if it had not been for the tenacity and work of Sara Ryan, Connor Sparrowhawk’s mother. Is it right that the family’s legal representation was funded by crowdsourcing?

[Mr Hunt]

I think it is tragic when anyone has to resort to the courts to get justice. Sara Ryan is one of many who have had to go to huge out-of-pocket expenses to get justice and the truth with respect to their loved ones. Last week, I went to the launch of James Titcombe’s book. He campaigned for years and years to get justice and the truth about the death of his son, Joshua. That is exactly what we have to change.

[Mrs Flick Drummond (Portsmouth South) (Con)]

Will the Secretary of State confirm that the draft report also covers the Southern Health Foundation community-based mental health services for adults? That received a “good” in the CQC report published in February 2015. Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the CQC report was rigorous enough?

[Mr Hunt]

I believe it does cover the mental health services for adults, but I will check and write to my hon. Friend. When the CQC does its inspections, it is important for it to inspect individual elements of what a trust does, and it gives different ratings to different parts. We need to recognise that even within one trust it is possible to have big variations in the quality of care. As I say, I will look further into this and write to my hon. Friend.

[Peter Kyle (Hove) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State rightly mentions the fact that the culture needs to change so that people can be more uninhibited about talking about the problems they face within trusts and hospitals. May I remind him that the culture is set from the top? I therefore invite him to come to the Dispatch Box again and inform the families and the House when Ministers first knew that there were problems in this trust.

[Mr Hunt]

I think this is now the third time I have said it, but the answer is that Connor Sparrowhawk’s tragic death happened in July 2013. Sara Ryan then campaigned bravely. As always on these occasions, it started with a local process where concerns were raised with the trust. The matter was escalated to NHS England in early 2014 when David Nicholson, the chief executive, and Jane Cummings, the chief nurse, got involved. Ministers were kept informed throughout, and that was the point at which Mazars—[Interruption.] I have just said that Ministers were kept informed of what NHS England was doing throughout, but that was the point at which the report by Mazars was commissioned. It is a very thorough report, and we will see it when it is published before Christmas.

Business of the House

Thursday 10th December 2015 Commons Chamber

11:13

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

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

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

The business for next week is as follows:

Monday 14 December—Consideration in Committee and remaining stages of the European Union (Approvals) Bill [Lords], followed by debate on a European document relating to the relocation of migrants in need of international protection, followed by debate on European documents relating to the European agenda on migration.

Tuesday 15 December—Opposition day (13th allotted day). There will be a debate on climate change and flooding, followed by a debate on the Government’s housing record. If necessary, consideration of Lords amendments.

Wednesday 16 December—Consideration in Committee of the Armed Forces Bill, followed by debate on a motion relating to the welfare cap, followed by motion to approve a money resolution relating to the Riot Compensation Bill, followed by, if necessary, consideration of Lords amendments.

Thursday 17 December—Debate on a motion on protecting 16 and 17-year-olds from child sexual exploitation, followed by a debate on a motion on conception to age two, the first 1001 days. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.

After that, we will break for the Christmas recess. The provisional business for the week commencing 4 January 2016 will include:

Monday 4 January—The House will not be sitting.

Tuesday 5 January—Remaining stages of the Housing and Planning Bill (Day 1 of a two-day Report and Third Reading). It will be helpful if I remind colleagues that the House will sit at 2.30 pm that day, while Westminster Hall business will be scheduled between 9.30 am and 2.30 pm. Further details will appear on the Order Paper.

I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for 17 December will be:

Thursday 17 December—Debate on a new tobacco control strategy.

Next week there will be a statement on the outcome of the climate talks in Paris, a statement on local government finance, and—as I promised during business questions a couple of weeks ago—a statement updating the House on the situation in Syria.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Happy Hanukkah, Mr Speaker.

Tuesday of this week saw the 50th anniversary of the entry into force of the Race Relations Act 1965. It was by no means perfect, but that was the first time a Government—and it was, of course, a Labour Government—had attempted to tackle racism in this country. The Bill was passed by a majority of only 261 votes to 249, because all the Conservatives voted against it.

I remember very clearly that, when I was a curate in High Wycombe, one of our churchwardens, the wonderful Ellie Hector, used to talk to me about how shocked she and her family had been by the racism they experienced when they arrived in this country from St Vincent in the 1950s—and it was not just the “No blacks, no Irish, no dogs” signs. She said, “We had been taught at Sunday school in St Vincent, by English Sunday school teachers, that we were all created equal, but in England, even in church, people used to move to another pew just because they had found themselves sitting next to someone who was black.” Well, thank God, Labour legislation helped to change things in this country.

Talking of which, I am delighted that the House is to debate international human rights day this afternoon. It commemorates another Labour Government achievement, the European convention on human rights, to which this country was a signatory in the 1940s, and which we followed up with the Human Rights Act 1998. We will fight to defend that, because we are proud of our Labour legacy.

The Tories, however, seem intent on abolishing every vestige of the Grayling legacy. I predicted that the new Justice Secretary would get rid of the ludicrous courts charges, and lo, it hath come to pass. The prisoners’ book ban, the Saudi execution centres, the “secure college” —all scrapped. So terribly sad! Now the Information Commissioner has described the view of the Leader of the House on freedom of information as a return to “the dark ages”. I know that I am in danger of becoming the love child of Russell Grant and Mystic Meg, but I hereby predict yet another U-turn. Would it not be better if the Leader of the House did his own U-turn this time, rather than allowing the Justice Secretary to do it for him?

The petition requesting the banning of Donald Trump from entry to the United Kingdom now has more than 400,000 signatures, which means that we will end up having a debate about it in the House. Indeed, there are so many signatures that the website has actually crashed. I am sure that every single one of us in the House would want to say to that man, “You are a nasty, mendacious bigot, and your racist views are dangerous.” The obvious answer in the United States is simply “Vote Hillary”—I should inform the Hansard reporters that that is spelt with two Ls—but just in case Mr Trump gets on to a plane bound for the United Kingdom, I have a solution. I think that the Home Secretary should steam down to Heathrow, or whichever airport it may be. I think that she should position herself on the tarmac, dressed in one of her Gloria Gaynor outfits, and tell him “Just turn around now, ’cause you’re not welcome any more.”

The Leader of the House announced that the Committee stage of the Armed Forces Bill would be debated on Wednesday. May I urge the Government to consider new clause 6, which would require the Government to institute a review of compensation for former members of the armed forces who suffer from mesothelioma? It is surely a scandal that members of our armed forces are given only a small proportion of the support that is available to civilians with exactly the same condition. Mesothelioma is a hideous disease, and most sufferers die within a few months of contracting it. Surely we, as a country, can do better than this.

We would think that in Advent the Government would want to do everything to ensure that everybody has a stable home—not a home in a stable—but on the very last day of the Committee stage of the Housing and Planning Bill the Government have tabled a niggardly little amendment that is aimed at forcing people out of their council home after just two or five years. Is that really the Tory Christmas message? Do they not understand that home is where the heart is? So can the Leader guarantee that at the final stages of the Bill we will have two days for Report, legislative consent and Third Reading?

May we also have a debate on the sanctions regime affecting benefit claimants? If a claimant arrives even a minute late for an appointment or an interview, he or she will be sanctioned, often as much as three months’ benefits. But this week the Work and Pensions Secretary turned up fully 15 minutes late for an interview himself, and the latest figures suggest that his great universal credit scheme, which was meant to have been rolled out to 7 million people by now, has reached only 141,000. At this rate he will not be a few minutes late; he will be six generations late, as it is going to take 150 years to get there. Surely he should practise what he preaches: should he not be sanctioned and have three months’ salary docked from his ministerial pay?

We know the Government are determined to sneak as many changes in through the back door using secondary legislation as possible. That is why we want an oral statement before Christmas on Lord Strathclyde’s report on the powers of the House of Lords, but the latest piece of skulduggery is the Education (Student Support) (Amendment) Regulations 2015, which will scrap maintenance grants for the poorest students. The Institute for Fiscal Studies warns that this means that students from the poorest backgrounds will leave university with substantially higher debts than their better-off peers. Surely that is wrong. Because of the way the Government are doing this, there is no guarantee we would even have a debate on this drastic measure, so will the Leader agree to early-day motion 829 and grant us a debate as soon as possible?

[That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Education (Student Support) (Amendment) Regulations 2015 (S.I., 2015, No. 1951), dated 29 November 2015, a copy of which was laid before this House on 2 December 2015, be annulled.]

We also want an oral statement on airport capacity. To be honest, we would prefer a decision, as would the whole of British business, but as the Government are still in a holding pattern some 30,000 feet above Richmond Park, we will make do with a statement. Will the Leader of the House guarantee, however, that there is not going to be some press conference in which the non-decision is announced, and that the announcement will be made in this House first?

I was ordained a deacon 29 years ago on Monday, so I hope you, Mr Speaker, will allow me to revert to type for a brief moment. I hereby publish the banns of marriage between Luke James Sullivan, of this parish, the Opposition Chief Whip’s political adviser, and Jemma Louise Stocks of the parish of Ashington, at St Maurice’s church in Ellingham in Northumberland this Saturday. If any of you know any reason in law why they may not marry each other, you are to declare it. Speak now or forever hold your peace. We wish them well.

[Chris Grayling]

At least we know that if unfortunate circumstances arise in the Rhondda the hon. Gentleman can return to his old career in the Church.

May I start by congratulating the hon. Gentleman on his award by ITV Wales as MP of the year? I give him my warm congratulations—and I am sure the award will be very well received on his own party’s Benches. May I also say to Members on both sides that I hope everyone is aware of the call for evidence from the restoration and renewal Committee? It has been circulated to all Members, and a number of informal discussions and drop-in sessions will of course be held while the Joint Committee does its work. I know that the shadow Leader is doing that work with Members on the Opposition Benches, and I am doing so with Members on the Government Benches. The call for evidence is designed to invite responses from any Member who has an interest in these matters, and I encourage everyone to take part.

On the comments made by Donald Trump, let me make two things clear. First, I believe the Muslim community in this country is a valuable part of our community and that it is made up of decent, hard-working, law-abiding citizens who have nothing to do with a tiny extremist sect within the Islamic world that is threatening deeply unpleasant things not only to the people of this country but to Muslims in the middle east as well. I utterly reject any suggestion that our Muslim community is to blame for the terrorist threat the world faces. But I also say in relation to Donald Trump that I believe it is better to deal with this in a democratic debate, and for us to reject those views absolutely and to make it clear to everyone that such views have no place in a modern society.

On mesothelioma, I will take a look at the issue the hon. Gentleman raises; I have every sympathy with the view that it is a dreadful disease and I will take a look at that point.

On the Housing and Planning Bill, I am not sure that he was listening to my statement, because I announced the first of two days of debate for its Report stage and Third Reading. He will therefore have plenty of time to debate these matters.

The hon. Gentleman talked about being late for Department for Work and Pensions matters, but I noted last week that the Leader of the Opposition was late for the wind-ups in the Syria debate—perhaps the most important debate of this autumn session. After the shadow Foreign Secretary had started his speech it was a good five minutes before the Leader of the Opposition shuffled in, so I do not think I would talk about lateness if I was on the hon. Gentleman’s side of the House.

On student finance regulations, the hon. Gentleman is well aware that if he wants a debate on a regulation in this House, all he has to do is pray against it. I am not aware of any recent precedent where a prayer made by the Leader of the Opposition and his shadow Cabinet colleagues has not led to a debate in this House. The hon. Gentleman will be well aware that that is a simple process.

On airports, I am sure that when a decision has been taken—it has not been at this moment in time—I will discuss with my colleagues how we can bring the right information to this House.

I have a couple of other points to make. I echo the words to the happy couple; we wish them well for this weekend.

Let me finish by talking about the justice system. I am very proud of what this Government have done on the rehabilitation of offenders. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) started the work and I continued it, as the Lord Chancellor is doing. Today, if someone goes to jail for less than 12 months, they receive 12 months’ support after they have left. Under the Labour party, people were released with £46 in their pocket and left to walk the streets without necessarily having anywhere to go, and with no support and no guidance—no nothing. I will therefore take no lessons from the shadow Leader of the House about legacies in the justice system—I am very proud of mine. He talks about the ludicrous criminal courts charge, but I just remind him that he voted for it.

[Mr Speaker]

I am delighted to join in the congratulations to Luke and Jemma. We hope they have a wonderful day at the weekend and a great life thereafter.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

Happy Hanukkah, Mr Speaker. The Chairman of the Backbench Business Committee has been called away on urgent constituency business and he asked me to explain what has happened with the business for next Thursday. The Committee advertised the normal pre-recess Adjournment debate, but by the close of business on Monday only five Members had requested to speak in it, so on Tuesday the Committee took the decision of allocating the debating time to two items that have more than 30 Members wishing to speak on them. I trust that Members will understand the rationale for the decision making.

I now come to the issue I want to raise. This week, Harrow council has announced that it is going to slash public health funding by 60% over the next three years. That short-sighted decision will mean that programmes on smoking cessation, tackling obesity, diabetes, sexually transmitted diseases and other aspects of public health will go awry. Clearly, other councils may be deciding to take a similar approach. When this money was allocated to councils I warned of a risk if it was not properly ring-fenced. May we therefore have a debate in Government time on the important issues of public health, because in the long term addressing this will cost the NHS millions?

[Chris Grayling]

First, I thank my hon. Friend for explaining the reasons for the debate structure next Thursday. I was slightly disappointed that we are not having a standard Adjournment debate, as I know one or two other Members are. We should take this opportunity to send a message across the House to say that to ensure that this debate does happen in its usual form before future recesses, Members need to put in a request to make sure that there is demand; otherwise we end up with the kind of debate that he described.

My hon. Friend makes an important point about public health. It is often a false economy to economise on public health, but as a senior member of the Backbench Business Committee he is very well placed to secure such a debate on a topic that he rightly says is very important.

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

I thank the Leader of the House for announcing next week’s business.

More than 400,000 people have now signed a petition to ban Donald Trump from entering the UK, following his appalling and outrageous comments about banning people of the Muslim faith from entering the United States. In Scotland, we have already stopped him being one of our GlobalScots and stripped him of his honorary degree from Robert Gordon University in Aberdeen. I hope that the Leader of the House will find some leadership and convey the strong sense and feeling that exists in the whole country. Why not bring this e-Petition to the Floor of the House in Government time so that all the issues can be properly debated? Such is the sense of outrage throughout this country that the public expect us to do that.

I note from the business statement that we have two days for the Housing and Planning Bill. We could not have two days for a debate on Syria, yet we have two days for what is considered to be English-only business in the House. I do not know how the two issues can be conflated. Surely we should have two days to discuss Syria. I am glad that the Leader of the House has announced that there will be a statement on Syria before the House rises for Christmas. I hope that the Prime Minister will make it, because we must hear from him about the efficacy of United Kingdom action thus far. A number of us have great concerns about what is happening in Syria. I am talking about not just the difference that our four or six planes make on the ground, but the targets that are being selected. I have questions about how 12 countries, which have been bombing Syria and having difficulty in identifying targets, could neglect a big oilfield in the desert until the UK got involved. We need to hear from the Prime Minister about action thus far.

The Leader of the House likes his anniversaries, so I am pretty surprised that he did not mention the fact that the Prime Minister has led the Conservative party for 10 years—and what a legacy thus far. The “Scandal of Hunger” report from the all-party group on hunger speaks of “armies” of people going hungry in the UK, with the Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee talking about children going for days without a meal. Is there not something wrong in the reign of Dave when we can spend obscene amounts of money on weapons of mass destruction, and find money at the drop of a hat for ill-conceived military action, yet leave children to go hungry in every constituency in the United Kingdom?

We are also surprised that there was no mention of the Strathclyde report on the House of Lords, because that was supposed to be here before Christmas. I am sure that the whole House is interested to hear how this Government intend to deal with these recalcitrant be-ermined tribunes of the People, though I think it is a bit of a foregone conclusion that they fully intend to cook the ermine goose. Given that the Lords like to dress up like some ill designed Santa Claus, is this not the time of the year that we think of the peer?

[Chris Grayling]

The hon. Gentleman never loses his abilities as a natural performer. I gently remind him that Lord Strathclyde said that he hoped to complete his work before Christmas. I hope that that continues to be the case. It is my intention to update the House as soon as I can.

The hon. Gentleman talked about the remarks of Donald Trump. I can reiterate only that I wholeheartedly disapprove of what he said—frankly, it was nonsense—and I am aware of the petition that is growing in size. Of course it is not for me to decide how to handle a petition; we now have a Petitions Committee. It is right and proper that it is the House that decides what matters should be brought for debate through the mechanism of the Petitions Committee. Doubtless, he will make his representations to the members of that Committee.

I have a slight sense that the hon. Gentleman is trying to reopen the debate on Syria. Let me remind him that the House debated the matter for eleven and a half hours, as part of 20 hours of debate and questions over a nine-day period. The debate showed the House at its best. We heard some really fantastic, thoughtful and well-articulated speeches that set out both sides of the argument. We heard some insightful comments from the Scottish National party. We had a magnificent speech from the shadow Foreign Secretary and some really thoughtful speeches from those on the Conservative Benches. The House voted and decided overwhelmingly to extend the action from Iraq to Syria, and we will update the House when it is appropriate.

The hon. Gentleman will also recognise the need to update the House on two other important areas: the humanitarian work and the peace process, which will hopefully deliver a lasting political solution to Syria. We will keep the House updated on all those factors, and we will have a full update before the Christmas recess begins.

The hon. Gentleman talked about food banks and hunger. I simply remind him that, under this Government, unemployment has fallen sharply. Crucially, the number of children growing up in workless households has fallen by hundreds of thousands. That will make a transformational difference to many of the most deprived communities in this country.

The hon. Gentleman said that I should perhaps have drawn attention to the Prime Minister’s 10th anniversary as leader of the Conservative party, but he was in the Chamber during questions last week and he must remember that I did it then.

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

In the light of the foolish and mean-spirited decision to end the tradition of the Christmas Adjournment debate, which allows between 15 and 20 Members to raise matters of a general nature, will the Leader of the House consider in future setting Government time aside for the debate and view it as a Christmas present to the House?

[Chris Grayling]

One of the disappointments about the Backbench Business Committee’s decision is that the House will not have the opportunity to hear my hon. Friend’s customary magnificent, insightful and thoughtful speech in the Adjournment debate before the start of the recess—a tradition that neither I nor the House would wish to lose. It is very much my hope that the Backbench Business Committee, swamped with requests for a debate ahead of the next recess, will be able to continue this important tradition of the House in future.

[Anna Turley (Redcar) (Lab/Co-op)]

On 17 October, the Government held a steel summit in Rotherham. The outcome was that the Government committed to having three working groups that would report before Christmas. Obviously, we have one more week to go. I would be delighted to have a commitment from the Leader of the House or the Minister for Small Business, Industry and Enterprise that they will report back to the House either verbally or in written form on the outcome of those three working groups.

[Chris Grayling]

It is coincidental that the Minister concerned is sitting next to me at this moment and from a sedentary position she says, “We will”. I can give the hon. Lady that assurance.

[Oliver Colvile (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Con)]

As my right hon. Friend knows, for some while now I have been campaigning for the decriminalisation of prescription errors made by community pharmacies. Before the election, the all-party group on pharmacy was told that the Government would publish proposed legislation by the end of the year, but I now understand that that is unlikely before the spring. May we have a statement from the Department of Health on this very frustrating delay?

[Chris Grayling]

I know how assiduously my hon. Friend has pursued this matter, as he has a number of other important issues. I am aware that the Department of Health is moving ahead as rapidly as possible and intends to introduce changes at an early date. The Health Secretary will be back in this House on the day that we return in January and I advise my hon. Friend to take advantage of that opportunity to ensure that that momentum continues apace.

[Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)]

In my constituency, the award-winning company SMD risks losing an order for Russia worth £80 million because it cannot get an export licence under Government trade sanctions. Without that order, there will be large job losses. This week, the company’s redundancy consultation group delivered a letter to Downing Street seeking intervention from the Prime Minister as there is a distinct possibility that the problem could be overcome with Government support. Will the Leader of the House urge the Prime Minister to give the letter serious and urgent attention?

[Chris Grayling]

Of course this is an important issue. We always want to ensure that we take advantage of international business opportunities where possible. I will ensure that the Prime Minister is aware of the hon. Lady’s concern and, of course, the Minister who is coincidently sitting alongside me is aware of the situation and is up for having a discussion with the hon. Lady about it.

[Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)]

Loneliness remains the biggest killer of elderly people and Christmas is a reminder of that. May we have a debate at some point about a strategy to tackle loneliness among older people? Will the Leader of the House also take this opportunity to pay tribute to Community Christmas, the excellent charity doing everything it can this Christmas at events such as that at the Forge in Scunthorpe to ensure that older people will not be on their own this Christmas?

[Chris Grayling]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. I commend Community Christmas for the work he describes, and charities around the country will be doing such work this Christmas. I would send a message to everyone in this country with a lone neighbour who might spend part of this Christmas alone: it is not a big hassle to invite them round for a drink sometime over the Christmas period. I hope that everybody will think of doing that.

[Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)]

In view of the appalling news today that NHS discharge delays have hit record levels and that the NHS has missed various targets, including its key cancer target, may we have an urgent debate or an urgent statement from the Secretary of State for Health on the Government’s failure to manage the NHS properly and their totally inadequate response in the comprehensive spending review?

[Chris Grayling]

I reject what the hon. Gentleman says. The NHS is doing a very good job in challenging circumstances, facing rising demand and increased treatment opportunities. We continue to increase the money available to the national health service to deliver those treatments to patients. It is interesting that although we have made that commitment, we have heard no such commitment from Labour, and in Wales, where Labour is in control of the national health service, we see things going backwards.

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

It is about time we had a debate on the unsuitability of the opaque and arcane hybrid Bill process in this House, of which HS2 is currently the subject. I have been contacted by many of my constituents who, in good faith and for the first time, are petitioning against the new proposals put forward by the Government in additional provision 4. Instead of those petitions being heard, 75% of those petitioning on the Chilterns have had their locus standi challenged by HS2 and must defend their right to give evidence to the HS2 Committee or lose their right to petition. They will just not be heard. This shows that the hybrid Bill process is complicated, inequitable and frustrating, not only for Parliament and the Members who have been sitting on the Committee for 18 months, but for the very people whose lives are impacted by this horrible project. Can we not, in 2015, find a less cruel and more easily understandable process?

[Chris Grayling]

I know that my right hon. Friend has been an assiduous representative of her constituency over what I know has been a difficult issue for her and her constituents locally, and I commend her for the work she has done and is doing. She makes an important point about the complexity of the hybrid Bill process. The Procedure Committee or the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee—I see my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin), who chairs the latter, returning to the Chamber—might look at this. It is an interesting point about the use of hybrid Bills and how they work, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan) may like to talk to our hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex about examining that in his Committee.

[Mr Speaker]

It is very useful that when a celebrated denizen of the House is referred to, he is just about still in the Chamber.

[Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab)]

Many Members will have seen a report in The Guardian today about the exploitative work practices in Sports Direct, which include paying less than the national minimum wage and daily body searches of employees, down to the outside of their underwear. May we have a debate, please, in Government time on exploitative work practices and on the failure of national minimum wage enforcement?

[Chris Grayling]

First, it is illegal to pay less than the minimum wage, so where there is prima facie evidence of that it should be brought to the attention of the relevant authorities. The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills will be here on Tuesday for questions and the hon. Lady might like to raise the matter with him.

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on raising, during his visit to Iceland at the end of October, the unacceptability of that country carrying out commercial whaling. May we have a debate to put further pressure on those fortunately few countries that still carry on that outdated and cruel practice?

[Chris Grayling]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. Those of us who believe in conservation deplore whaling where it takes place. Whales are magnificent creatures. It would be a tragedy if any species of whale were to become extinct. I do not support the hunting of whales and the Prime Minister was right to raise the issue in Iceland. This area of conservation, like many others, should be brought before the House regularly. I hope my hon. Friend will use the various avenues available—perhaps through the Backbench Business Committee—to make sure that this and other conservation issues are continually on the agenda of this House.

[Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)]

The Leader of the House will recall that on 29 October I raised the issue of the abolition of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission pension scheme and the concerns that many hon. Members have. Despite his assurances, we have heard nothing since from the Government. Will the Government make a statement and inform Members what discussions and decisions have been made on the matter?

[Chris Grayling]

I always seek to follow up issues raised with Departments. If we have not had a response, I will make sure I chase up again today and get a proper response for the hon. Gentleman.

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

Last week the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) led a very well-supported debate in Westminster Hall on the disproportionate effect of changes to the pension age on women born in the 1950s. My podcast on the subject has now been viewed more than 130,000 times, so it appears that this affects a great many more constituents than was envisaged—I urge them to write to their own MP, rather than to me. Given that yesterday the former Pensions Minister, Steve Webb, said that the Government had not been properly briefed and got the decision wrong, will my right hon. Friend urge our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to come to the House to explain the processes behind this and explore what transitional measures might now be taken?

[Chris Grayling]

This issue has been raised in recent months by Members on both sides of the House, including at business questions. I commend my hon. Friend for the popularity of his podcast; he clearly has a wide influence in these matters. I will ensure that his concerns are drawn to the attention of the Secretary of State, who I am sure will wish to address them when he is next in the Chamber. These are difficult decisions, of course. As life expectancy in this country rises, which is a good thing, that brings particular pressures on the public purse and challenges that we and previous Governments have had to face.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We are short of time, so we need short questions and short answers, please.

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

Will the Leader of the House ensure that it is made clear in this afternoon’s debate on the transatlantic trade and investment partnership that: first, TTIP does not present a threat to public services and, if it does, the Government will block it; and secondly, the Government will push for an investor-state dispute settlement to guarantee that Governments will not be sued as a result of policy changes and, if it does not include that, the Government will block it?

[Chris Grayling]

The right hon. Gentleman has put his concerns on the record, and they will have been heard by the Minister sitting next to me, my right hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry). He is of course welcome to stay for the debate. He is right that there has been a huge amount of inappropriate scaremongering about TTIP; it is being used by left-wing pressure groups as a vehicle to make an anti-Government campaign more widespread. It is about time those groups acted more responsibly and stopped telling people things that are simply not true.

[Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)]

My constituents in Brownsover saw their GP surgery close on 17 April this year, so many must now make a bus journey to see the doctor. NHS England is in the process of arranging for a new surgery to be developed, but the project has been beset by delays and there is no clear indication of when it might be delivered. Many residents in that part of the constituency have acute health needs. May we have a debate on what can be done to get my constituents the service they deserve?

[Chris Grayling]

No area can afford to do without GP services for any length of time, particularly in winter. My hon. Friend has made an important point that I suspect will be noticed by those in the health service—they tend to be when they are raised in the House—but the Secretary of State for Health will be here on the first day after the Christmas recess, so I suggest that my hon. Friend raises the matter then if things have not moved forward.

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

If there was to be a debate on that deeply bigoted man Trump, would it not be useful to make two points: first, in this country we have legislation against inciting racial hatred, which is a very effective law that I certainly hope will remain; and secondly, and most importantly in many respects, we have effective gun control, which I do not think would do any harm in the United States?

[Chris Grayling]

It is unusual for me to find myself in complete agreement with the hon. Gentleman, but I am absolutely with him on that. My only concern is that I do not think we should give those remarks the oxygen of publicity, because that helps rather than hinders. The remarks were unacceptable and, in my view, unrelated to the real world. We have a Muslim community in this country who deplore what is happening internationally and play a really important role in our society and economy, and we should value them for what they do.

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

Christmas is coming, and so is a statement on airport expansion in London, apparently. I heard the Secretary of State for Transport say today that he has not yet made a decision, but Radio 4 has been spreading a wicked rumour that he is about to fudge that decision. Will the Leader of the House please remind the Secretary of State, before he makes the decision, that too much fudge is bad for you?

[Chris Grayling]

I am sure that the Secretary of State has noted my hon. Friend’s comments. What I can tell him is that no decision has yet been taken—there is plenty of speculation about it in the media—on how to respond to the Airports Commission’s report. Of course, if such a decision is taken, it will be right and proper to have a statement to this House.

[Kevin Barron (Rother Valley) (Lab)]

I had the opportunity to meet members of the Heathrow workforce in Committee Room 11 yesterday afternoon. They told us that implementing the Davies commission’s recommendation would benefit not just them but the British economy. I read this morning that the Prime Minister is going to announce today that the decision is going to be delayed for six months. Are the Government more concerned about the outcome of the mayoral election than the benefit to the British economy?

[Chris Grayling]

I can only say to the right hon. Gentleman that he is just going to have to wait for a decision to be taken. Despite what has been said in the media, I say to the House again that no decision has been taken on how to respond to that report. When it is, we will respond to the House appropriately.

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

It is now one year since the report by the nuisance calls and texts taskforce, led by Which?, was issued. May we please have a statement on what progress has been made in implementing its recommendations and what remains to be done?

[Chris Grayling]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. I will make sure that his concerns are passed on to the relevant Minister and I will seek to get a letter to him, to update him on what is happening.

[Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)]

Last week during the Syria debate I asked both the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary an important question regarding collision warning systems and whether the RAF planes flying over Iraq and Syria were equipped with the latest technology. I got no answer. Therefore, may we have a statement or, indeed, a debate on that very important issue, because our air people deserve the best kit possible so that they can fight in our interest?

[Chris Grayling]

To reiterate, I committed two weeks ago to having an updated statement on Syria before Christmas. There will be such a statement next week and the hon. Gentleman will have the opportunity to raise that specific question again.

[Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)]

Councillor Gloria Opara on Medway Council, who was born in Nigeria, has raised with me the threat that Boko Haram poses to people in Nigeria. May we have an urgent statement on what the Government, along with the international community, are doing to address the terrorist threat in Nigeria and what we are doing to assist the 10.5 million children not in education who are susceptible to radicalisation in that country?

[Chris Grayling]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. Of course, we have been actively engaged in discussions with the Nigerian Government about how we can help them in the struggle against Boko Haram, a deeply unpleasant group that has committed some serious atrocities. In particular, it has committed some appalling atrocities against the Christian community in Nigeria. We should do everything we can to help the Nigerian Government resist what is a very unpleasant movement.

[Simon Danczuk (Rochdale) (Lab)]

South Street nursery in my constituency, which has been rated outstanding by Ofsted for the past nine years, could face closure by Rochdale Council because of massive cuts to its budget by this Conservative Government. Should we not have a debate on how this Government are adversely impacting on childcare provision?

[Chris Grayling]

The best councils around the country have adapted well to a more challenging financial environment and are continuing to deliver and support high-quality services. I cannot comment on the effectiveness of Rochdale Council; suffice it to say that many other councils have managed to do things differently without that kind of cut. There will be a statement on local government finance between now and the Christmas recess, and the hon. Gentleman will have a chance to raise those concerns with the Secretary of State.

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

The spouse of a constituent of mine lives, together with their child, in a part of the world that I will not name but that is very affected by extreme terrorism at the moment, yet she has been denied a visitor’s visa to come and visit her husband with her child in this country. May we have an urgent debate on the denial of visas to family members in such situations?

[Chris Grayling]

It is always difficult to comment on an individual situation, because I do not know enough about the circumstances. My hon. Friend makes an important point on behalf of his constituent. I am sure the Home Office will look as carefully as it can at the application, but it has to take difficult decisions sometimes. Without knowledge of the circumstances, it is very difficult for me to say whether this is a matter that has been got right or wrong.

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

Twenty MPs from six parties in this House wrote to the Chancellor before the comprehensive spending review, seeking further resources for those affected by contaminated blood. We have not had a response to that letter. In the meeting that we had with the public health Minister, the hon. Member for Battersea (Jane Ellison), she promised that a statement about the consultation on the resources available would be made to this House before the recess. Can the Leader of the House assure me that there will be an oral statement to this House before we finish next Thursday?

[Chris Grayling]

Several Departments have made commitments to update the House on a variety of matters before the Christmas recess. I simply give an assurance that every Department is working hard to ensure that it fulfils such commitments.

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

I reiterate the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff Central (Jo Stevens). Sports Direct has 450 stores nationwide and should be an exemplar as an employer. May we have an urgent debate on how the closure of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs offices will help us to enforce the national minimum wage?

[Chris Grayling]

The changes in the HMRC structure are simply because, as more and more of its work is done online and more and more of us deal with our tax affairs electronically, maintaining a network of 170 offices does not make sense. We have decided to rationalise the structure to one with more specialist centres, which will enhance, rather than detract from, what HMRC does.

[Callum McCaig (Aberdeen South) (SNP)]

The decision to remove £1 billion from the carbon capture and storage competition is the latest kick in the teeth for the green and low carbon technology sectors. I have asked the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change several questions to which she claims she does not yet know the answers. May we have a debate or a statement from the Secretary of State so that we can tease out why this disastrous decision was made?

[Chris Grayling]

I know that the hon. Gentleman has already raised this issue. I am not embarrassed by our record on renewables. During the last quarter—over the summer—more than 25% of our energy generation came from renewables, which is a step change from where we were previously. This Government and their predecessor, the coalition Government, have moved to develop renewable energy in this country, but we do not have unlimited funds and we must use those funds carefully. The Secretary of State has taken the decision not to move away from carbon capture for the long term, but to have a mix of energy generation. The mix that she set out in her statement in this House two weeks ago is the right one. She will be back in the House on 7 January, when the hon. Gentleman will again have a chance to ask her about his concerns.

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

Fewer than 10% of people in this country any longer make anything, but the vibrancy and health of manufacturing are crucial to the future of our country. Tonight, there will be a celebration of manufacturing on the terrace, hosted by the Engineering Employers Federation. I know that we will be able to talk a bit about this in the TTIP debate, but may we have a debate soon about the importance of manufacturing and how we can support that sector in our country?

[Chris Grayling]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman about the importance of manufacturing. I wish him well with his event this evening. He could certainly bring to the attention of the Backbench Business Committee the need for a general debate on the importance of manufacturing. However, I gently remind him as a Labour Member of Parliament—this is more directed at his Front Benchers than at him—of the popular myth in this country that manufacturing fell sharply as a proportion of our national income under Conservative Governments in the 1980s. In fact, that proportion barely changed at all in the 1980s, but under Tony Blair and Gordon Brown it almost halved.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

Last Tuesday, when the Leader of the House announced the arrangements for the Syria debate, he told us that he was not aware of any “specific reason” why the Prime Minister could not be in the Chamber on Thursday to allow us to have a second day of debate. Is the Leader of the House now in a position to tell us where the Prime Minister was last Thursday, and is it standard practice for him to be kept in the dark about his Cabinet colleagues’ commitments?

[Chris Grayling]

Surprisingly enough, I do not watch every inch of the Prime Minister’s diary. What I told the House then, and I say again today, is that if a matter is sufficiently important for the Prime Minister to be in the House, he will be in the House. It was important for him to be in the House, and he was here last Wednesday to lead the debate, which lasted for 11 and a half hours. I think that showed this House at its best: it was the right way to do things.

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

My constituents Mr and Mrs Peacock are registered with the Telephone Preference Service. However, a company called Real Time Claims continuously harasses them over the phone, and has even cited the Data Protection Act 1998 as a defence for constantly harassing them. To echo the comments made by the hon. Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall), may I ask for a statement in the House about last year’s report on nuisance calls and texts?

[Chris Grayling]

This is clearly a matter of concern to Members on both sides of the House. I would say to both my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) and the hon. Gentleman that I will talk to the relevant Department and get them a response, before the Christmas recess, about what is happening on that front. He has performed an important service by raising the matter in the House today. I encourage him to talk to the data protection regulators about any individual business that is misbehaving. There are mechanisms to deal with that, and they should be used.

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

It is worth reflecting on the comments of the previous Pensions Minister yesterday, who said:

“we made a bad decision”

on the increases in the state pension age. I think that Mr Webb is right and that hundreds of thousands of potential pensioners in this country will be discriminated against. Will the Leader of the House call an urgent debate on this matter, and will the Government reflect on the mistakes that they have made on pension provision in this country?

[Chris Grayling]

There are plenty of avenues that would allow the hon. Gentleman to call such a debate, such as the Backbench Business Committee or the Adjournment debate system. We have had to take difficult decisions about the pension age, against the background of an ever-ageing population. The previous Government took similar decisions. It is a reality that people will retire later than they would have done in the past. We will continue to have discussions with Members about the detail, but we cannot escape the reality that we face.

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

Will the Leader of the House tell me when the next meeting of the Welsh Grand Committee is likely to be? It has not met since the election and it met only once in the year before the election, yet prior to that it met eight times a year on average. I knew that he was keen on Welsh MPs not speaking in English debates, but I had not realised that he had extended that to Welsh debates.

[Chris Grayling]

The right hon. Gentleman does talk a lot nonsense sometimes. As he knows, I have never sought to exclude Welsh MPs from speaking in English debates. The essence of the reform is that we do not to exclude Welsh or Scottish MPs from speaking in debates on English matters. Of course, the same does not apply the other way around. The Welsh Grand Committee will have a lesser role in the future because we are in the process of devolving substantial additional powers to Cardiff, but I will look at what is happening with the Committee and write to him.

[Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)]

Yesterday, during the debate on women and the economy, the Economic Secretary to the Treasury responded to a number of queries asking her to validate the figures she was quoting on domestic violence refuges by informing the House that they came from “the online system”. Will the Leader of the House make a statement on the roll-out of that new font of all knowledge that the Government seem to be using?

[Chris Grayling]

I do not think we need an additional statement, because the hon. Gentleman has made his point.

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

May we have a debate about Disclosure and Barring Service checks, and about how individuals can be better supported while they wait for those checks to be completed? A number of my constituents have lost out on employment as a result of DBS checks not being carried out on time. I believe that this area would benefit from the attention of Ministers.

[Chris Grayling]

I have had a similar experience in my constituency. On more than one occasion, I have, as a constituency Member, given the Disclosure and Barring Service a good push to try to get a response for a constituent who was waiting on a job offer. The hon. Gentleman makes an important point and I will make sure it is relayed to my colleagues. There is no excuse for putting people in a position where they might lose a job offer because of this process.

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

This week, I received three letters from No. 10 Downing Street, all hand delivered. Each letter told me that a written question that I had submitted was being transferred to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. By the time I received the letters, I had the answers from the Foreign Office, which demonstrates what an archaic waste of time such letters are. If the Government are serious about cutting the cost of politics, can we have a Government debate on the archaic systems and institutions of this place, and on how we can seriously save money?

[Chris Grayling]

Many Departments are now responding to questions electronically. It is a bit harsh of the hon. Gentleman to criticise both the team at No. 10 and the Foreign Office for being extremely quick in responding to his questions. We aim to please.

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

By capping the number of occupants at five and renting properties rather than buying them, as has happened at Porlock Avenue in Audenshaw in my constituency, Serco, which is contracted by the Home Office, avoids planning and licensing requirements relating to houses in multiple occupation. May we have a debate on asylum dispersal addresses, as this sharp practice risks undermining public confidence and community relations, which none of us wants to see?

[Chris Grayling]

We will shortly have Communities and Local Government questions. I would never support inappropriate practices, but it might be the case that not putting large numbers of asylum seekers in the same place and instead allowing them to blend into the community is the right thing to do.

Point of Order

Thursday 10th December 2015 Commons Chamber

12:04

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. This morning at Transport Questions, in response to my question about airport expansion, the Secretary of State stated that “when an announcement is to be made, I will make it in the House.” However, it has also been reported that there will be a press conference setting out the Government’s new position later this evening. Is it in order for the Transport Secretary to commit to making a statement in this House first, only to proceed to announce the policy in the press when the House is not sitting? At the very least, would it not be a great discourtesy to the House to do that?

[Mr Speaker]

The short answer to the hon. Lady is that if the Government have an announcement to make—whether of a final decision, as they see it, on this matter or appertaining to that final decision and describing the process to be undertaken and the specified period in which it will be undertaken—it should be disclosed to the House first so that hon. and right hon. Members can have an opportunity to question the Secretary of State. He is an extremely experienced Minister and a very experienced Member of Parliament, and he is well able, as he regularly demonstrates, to fend for himself at the Dispatch Box. These matters should be treated of in this Chamber and not somewhere else. It is blindingly obvious that that is the wish of the House today, and I feel sure that the Leader of the House will communicate that as necessary.

Backbench Business

Thursday 10th December 2015 Commons Chamber

Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership

Thursday 10th December 2015 Commons Chamber

12:06

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

I beg to move,

That this House believes that the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, the Comprehensive European Trade Agreement, the Trade in Services Agreement and any associated investor-state dispute settlement provisions should be subject to full parliamentary scrutiny in the UK and European parliaments.

I am amazed that the Leader of the House, who is just leaving the Chamber, has described opposition to the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership—TTIP—as a political campaign by left-wing pressure groups. I do not think that the Chair of the European Scrutiny Committee, the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), or the Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies), fall into that category. They, along with members of the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee and many other Committees, are interested in this matter for a variety of reasons. I am pleased that Members from all parties across the House have taken an active interest in this vital issue. I note that the Leader of the House has now left in ignorance, but that is as we would expect.

When I spoke on this subject a year ago, I talked about arbitration problems and big companies focusing on suing democratically elected Governments over laws that might undermine their future profits. Today, in the context of the COP 21 talks in Paris, I want to make the key point to the Minister for Small Business, Industry and Enterprise that unless the environmental imperatives coming out of Paris are integrated, in a binding and legally enforceable way, into the EU free trade agreements with Canada and the United States, we will be in danger of sleepwalking into environmental oblivion, irrespective of what comes out of the talks.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

It is right that this motion should come before the House today. Going back to my hon. Friend’s comment about the Leader of the House, how can we trust the Government with industrial relations when we have their anti-trade union Bill going through the House? This should be scrutinised on the Floor of the House, as should the effects on public services, given the presence of American predators who could take advantage of the new arrangements.

[Geraint Davies]

Yes, that is a key point. I have here a copy of the draft trade and sustainable development chapter of TTIP, and I hope that the Minister has read it. I know that a number of her fellow Ministers have not. It contains references to rights under labour laws, but they would not be legally enforceable. I would like them to be enforceable, because workers’ rights are at risk of erosion as a result of these deals.

I want to make it clear that I am in favour of trade, of growing trade and of the European Union. I do not want any confusion about that. The trade between the EU and the United States is already worth in excess of $700 billion, as the Minister will know. The forecasts of the amount by which the economies will grow vary from nothing to about 4%. Let us remember that the forecast for the expansion of economic activity as a result of the single market varied between 4% and 6.5%, but it ended up being 2%. Companies such as Moody’s are saying that it will amount to the equivalent of a cup of coffee per person per day. If you like coffee, perhaps that is worth having, but we need to think about the benefits of trade versus the costs and risks involved.

[Christina Rees (Neath) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that Labour MEPs have sought a common position in the EU Parliament on TTIP, and are calling for a full carve-out of all public services, the inclusion of all binding and enforceable workers’ rights, and strong safeguards on food, health and safety measures? That specifically excludes the investor-state dispute settlement mechanism, which is not democratic, not open to scrutiny, and not independent or fair to states that are being sued by corporations whose members sit on the board.

[Geraint Davies]

My hon. Friend makes her point well, and I will come on to some of those issues, especially the ISDS.

[Guto Bebb (Aberconwy) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Geraint Davies]

I do not want to give way too many times, but I will do so briefly and then make progress.

[Guto Bebb]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, and I apologise if my voice is not very strong today. On employee rights, I met representatives of the American trade union movement, which sees TTIP as a great opportunity to ensure that the rights we have in Europe are replicated in the US. As an internationalist, I would expect the hon. Gentleman to support such a change.

[Geraint Davies]

I share that aspiration, but the issue is whether those rights are legally bound and enforceable within TTIP, and they are not. My point is not that we should burn, shoot and get rid of TTIP; we should pull the ISDS teeth out of the wolf, and genetically edit TTIP so that it includes environmental imperatives, enforceable rights at work, and human rights. It should be a blueprint for future global trade, rather than a blueprint for the destruction of environmental and human rights.

[Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

rose—

[Geraint Davies]

I will give way first to my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral West (Margaret Greenwood), and then to my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (Mr Spellar), who I know is pro-TTIP, so I will be glad to hear from him.

[Margaret Greenwood]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. Does he agree that the Government and European Commission should heed the call from the British Medical Association to exclude the NHS from TTIP, just as the audio-visual sector and healthcare services are excluded from the EU services directive?

[Geraint Davies]

At a minimum, we should have a copper-bottomed arrangement such as Finland’s, which protects all health—public and private—as well as social care, from any intervention. At the moment those guarantees are not provided, and things are done on a case law basis. If there is private provision somewhere, that would allow an avenue for American contractors to move in.

[Mr Spellar]

My hon. Friend lays great weight on the ISDS. Can he say how many agreements Britain currently has that have ISDS provisions, how many cases have been brought against the UK, and how many have been successful?

[Geraint Davies]

My right hon. Friend knows that a large number of ISDS bilaterals are in play, and that no cases have been taken against us. He also knows that exposure to ISDS will increase by about 300%. If his pet dog goes around biting the neighbours, that does not guarantee that it will not bite him. Just because other people die from cigarettes and he has not, that does not mean he will not. We should protect ourselves against the provisions in ISDS, rather than hear those spurious arguments that are normally regurgitated by Government Members.

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

On the specific point raised by our hon. Friend the Member for Warley (Mr Spellar)—

[Mr Spellar]

Right honourable.

[Helen Goodman]

By our right honourable Friend, this is not about the number of court cases taken; it is about ministerial action being inhibited for fear of those court cases. I had that experience as a Minister, and our right hon. Friend is barking up the wrong tree.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. We need short interventions because there is a lot of interest in this debate. The hon. Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) is 10 to 15 minutes into his opening speech, and I would not like him to give it all away through interventions.

[Geraint Davies]

I will resist responding to the comment about barking.

On the ISDS, we know that big companies use the powers available to them to sue democratically elected Governments. For example, the Lone Pine fracking company is suing the Canadian Government for hundreds of millions of dollars because Quebec brought out a moratorium on fracking. In a well-known case, Philip Morris is suing Uruguay and Australia over tobacco packaging. The Dutch insurance company, Achmea, is suing the Slovakians for trying to reverse health privatisation. If those powers are available, corporations will use them to maximise profit. Why should they not? That is what they are there to do. I am not saying that they are immoral, because that is what they do and that is what we expect. Our job is to regulate to ensure that the public interest is put first.

There is also an issue of sovereignty. The comprehensive economic and trade agreement will last for 20 years; some people are worried about the EU, but future Governments would be bound by these rules for 20 years. I think that is wrong, and a lot of Conservative Members have raised that point with me.

[Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Geraint Davies]

No, I will not.

[Albert Owen]

Will he give way on that point?

[Geraint Davies]

Go on then.

[Albert Owen]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I realise that he is getting a little frustrated with the amount of interventions, but mine is brief and specific to the motion. He talks about the scrutiny of this House. Will he explain what method of scrutiny would be used? Would scrutiny be done by a Committee, or would a Minister come to the Dispatch Box, so that the whole House could provide scrutiny?

[Geraint Davies]

The issue is already being scrutinised by the European Scrutiny Committee, and the Environmental Audit Committee, on which I sit. The Business, Innovation and Skills Committee is also interested in it, and the provision will clearly have a widespread impact, so it should be brought before the House. I would like recommendations to be made by this House in an advisory way to the European Parliament, so that it can table amendments. At the moment, everything is being decided by negotiators behind closed doors. That is completely unacceptable, and it will just be a yes/no decision with ratification. CETA was agreed in September 2014, and it sounds as if it is having some sort of legal washing. It will be brought before Members of the European Parliament next spring.

I want to mention regulatory chill because of the pressure and threat of that sort of action. Already, the EU has withdrawn its demands for transparency and clinical data in trials. That means that if a big drugs company does 10 trials and three go wrong—thalidomide, for example—and seven go right, it only has to publish details of the seven that go right. That is worrying, as are the bits and pieces about trade secrets, which clearly undermine and inhibit democracy. There are issues of rights at work, and the problem of CETA being agreed, because that is a Trojan horse that allows all the powers created in the investor-state dispute settlement to come in through the back door and bite our democracy, public services and public finances.

[Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Geraint Davies]

No, I will not. I want to dwell on the fact that as we sit here, 20 million people in Beijing are crying because of the environmental damage of trade and the unregulated economic activity that supports it. Meanwhile, in Cumbria, people are flooded because of the impact of climate change, and no one seems to be asking why. We should ensure that future trade agreements for the EU, Canada and the US have enforceable environmental imperatives that constrain corporations from making the situation worse, and that that spreads to China and elsewhere. However, nobody seems to be speaking about elsewhere.

We need trade laws to be trumped by what comes out of Paris in a legally binding and enforceable way, but that is not happening at the moment. I spoke with the Secretary General of the OECD, who was making a speech in Paris when I was there at the conference. He said that a £200 billion subsidy is currently given to fossil fuels and that he was not happy about that. I said, “What about getting the environmental imperatives from Paris as minimum standards into TTIP?” He scratched his head and said, “We haven’t thought about that, but it might be a good idea.” That is where we are, but the EU is asking for an oil and gas pipeline from the US to get shale gas and all sorts of oil over here. What will that do for our carbon footprint?

This is a case of trade on the one hand and the environment on the other, and we need an integrated approach to global sustainable development. I think that the ISDS should be stripped out of TTIP. People say, “What about the investors? They should be protected,” but investors have judicial review and breach of contract, and they already use those rights in public courts. The only difference is that in public courts the public interest is weighed against the commercial interest; on an arbitration panel, it is all about private interest, and public interest and public health issues are not really weighted.

Let me give an example. Tecmed is a waste disposal plant in Mexico that breached new regulations. The Mexican Government decided not to renew the contract because of that breach. Tecmed went to an arbitration panel and Mexico lost the case and had to pay £5 million, plus £8 million court costs. My point is that if the UK requires stronger emissions standards to live up to our promises regarding a 1.5° or 2° increase in temperature, the ISDS could come along and sue us for obliging companies to move forward with those requirements from Paris. Tribunals, as opposed to public law, are more heavily in favour of investor protection than public protection. That is the wrong way around.

Lord Maude said to me, in response to questioning by the European Scrutiny Committee, that companies deserve a bit of compensation if Governments intervene, and that there was nothing wrong with that. The point I am trying to make, however, is not that there should not be compensation. The Minister will be aware of the case in which the Costa Rican Government took back land with natural value—endangered species and habitats—and provided compensation of $1.9 million. The owners of the land took them to an arbitration tribunal, which did not factor in public interest or public value—that had nothing to do with it. It was all about commercial issues and it was decided to fine the Government $16 million. The ISDS favours the private sector, not public interest or natural habitat, so we need to strip it out of TTIP.

Another issue with ISDS is that it can trump national law and previous national law. In the case of Deutsche Bank v. Sri Lanka, the Supreme Court in Sri Lanka brought forward existing laws to stop payment to Deutsche Bank. Deutsche Bank went off to an arbitration panel, an international court, and, even though its arrangements had been made after the national law had been passed, it won the case. This implies for Britain that, if TTIP goes through in its current state, the Climate Change Act 2008 will be trumped by ISDS. That is unbelievable in terms of sovereignty and democracy.

A lot of Conservative Back Benchers are up to speed, but there are a lot of turkeys voting for Christmas on the Government Front Bench. We will not have protection for our famous products, such as pasties, Welsh lamb, Cumbrian sausages and so on. The headline in The Sun was lyrical: “Pasties get a pasting.” We could have Welsh lamb produced in Nebraska.

The TTIP environmental chapter makes reference to Rio and Copenhagen, but it contains nothing that would not allow investors to trump enforcement. There is no binding enforceability. None of the pledges in the environment chapter are carved in stone, and they could be overturned by arbitration panels. Those pledges need to be legally binding, with an enforcement mechanism that goes through national courts.

In a nutshell, I am suggesting that ISDS be removed from TTIP. Article 1 of CETA should say that the provisions in TTIP will be, without reservation, subject to the 2015 Paris conference and subsequent treaty agreements, that TTIP should be consistent and contribute to the targets agreed in Paris and subsequent COP meetings, and that we do not go down the route of harmonising by means of the proposed regulatory co-operative body. Harmonisation of standards is a good thing in principle, but it would all be decided behind closed doors by civil servants subject to lobbying from industry. That is not something we want.

Finally, there are a lot of things wrong with TTIP that we need to change, but the motion relates simply to scrutiny. I am not for abandoning TTIP. We need a blueprint for future global trade. We need to integrate environmental imperatives. We need to make sure legal rights and human rights are enforceable, and show leadership on global trade that provides a sustainable, fair and equitable world.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. There will be an eight-minute limit on speeches.

12:24

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

I congratulate the hon. Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) on securing the debate and on raising some very important points that this House should consider seriously.

As the last Member in this House, I think, who was involved in negotiating a successful international trade round—the Uruguay round, when I was Secretary of State for Trade and Industry—I am extremely in favour of free trade. I believe there is a strong case for unilateral free trade, although that is not easy to sell to the electorate. A priori, therefore, I approach the TTIP agreement from a position of strong support. I am very suspicious of critics of TTIP who are often simply against trade, simply against markets, simply against choice, simply against business and simply against America.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Lilley]

I will not, because the hon. Gentleman may find in a minute that I have answered his question.

I am especially hostile to all those people who press the button on 38 Degrees campaigns that relate to anything against trade and business. I was rather surprised, therefore, to find myself sympathising with four people who appeared in my surgery and announced, to a groan from me, that they were members of 38 Degrees and had concerns about TTIP. They actually raised some very important points that resonated with me from my experience of past negotiations.

I am, of course, totally in favour of removing tariffs, but that is a relatively minor aspect of what TTIP is about. Over the years, we have been hugely successful in removing tariffs and straightforward barriers to trade. They averaged 40% back when the general agreement on tariffs and trade was set up. They were still around 15% when I was negotiating. The tariffs now between the United States and Europe average less than 2%. Half of all goods traded between the two continents are entirely tariff-free. That means, of course, that those that are subject to tariffs can be higher. On clothing, the tariffs are up to 30% and on cars the US levies a tariff of 2.5%. The EU, under the influence no doubt of German car manufacturers, levies a tariff of 10% on imports of cars from America.

Abolition of the remaining tariffs is worth having and would be the final success of GATT. TTIP goes far beyond that, however, and into harmonisation of regulation, rules on investment and rules on procurement. It is true that those sorts of rules can, either by intent or by accident, be used to inhibit trade. We should avoid using them in that way and we should seek, if we can, agreements to anti-discrimination rules so that neither in the business of investment nor procurement would either the United States or the EU be allowed to discriminate against firms from the other side.

My concern, and the concern of my constituents who declare themselves to be members of 38 Degrees, is that we may be creating a bureaucratic and legal process that may escape proper democratic control and may be subject to improper corporate influence. It is also symptomatic, although this is the least important point, of bureaucracies that perpetuate their existence even when the task they were established to do is largely complete. Literate Members of this House—we are all literate—will remember Dickens describing the circumlocution office, whose chief, Lord Tite Barnacle

“had died at his post with his drawn salary in his hand”

defending the existence of an organisation that no longer had any need to exist. Actually, because we have succeeded on tariff negotiations, we should be scaling down, not up, the international bureaucracy and not giving it far more undemocratic powers.

Even during the Uruguay round, I had my concerns. First, I was concerned about accountability to this House. The negotiations were so complex that it was difficult for the House to hold Ministers to account, and it was easy for Ministers to present a fait accompli to this House and say they had achieved the best compromise.

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the bodies scrutinising TTIP very assiduously will be the US Congress? It would not let things go that it felt put their own people at a disadvantage.

[Mr Lilley]

I would like to hear my hon. Friend say that this House is going to exercise democratic control rather than relying on the American Congress.

Partly because Ministers were so little accountable to this House on this issue—I cannot remember having to respond to any debates on it—officials were very reluctant to be accountable to Ministers. In almost every other area where I was in Government, I thought that British officials were wonderful and that the caricature of them in “Yes Minister” was false, but where an international bureaucracy was involved and there was limited democratic control, they were extremely reluctant to respond to Ministers’ requests about what they were up to or to explain the compromises they were making. I had to argue very hard and strongly to reassert my control over officials. Ultimately, of course, it is up to Ministers to do that.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend think that TTIP will be in any way accountable to this House? It does not look as though it will be.

[Mr Lilley]

There are aspects where I think we are in danger of unnecessarily handing over unaccountable powers, and we should be very careful about doing so.

Negotiations, then and now, are aggravated by the fact that we are negotiating at second hand through the EU and at arm’s length. I campaigned for continued membership of the EU in 1975, and I have accepted that we have to make some sacrifices to have a common market, but we should be aware that we have only second-hand control. My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) thinks that we should probably rely more on the American Congress.

[Jeremy Lefroy]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Lilley]

No, I am sorry. I know that I am sadly misrepresenting my hon. Friend.

All these problems are comparatively easy when we are just dealing with the abolition of tariffs. When we are handing to international bureaucracies and legal tribunals wide areas of regulation, investment rules and procurement, the problems may be greater.

My other concern about bureaucracies is that they may be unduly influenced by corporate lobbying. The less responsive they are to elected Members of this House, the more likely they are to be responsive to corporate lobbying. I am not one of those who believes in the dogmatic Marxist view that the world is run by a conspiracy of corporations and big business, nor that big business always wants to deregulate. In truth, the people in bureaucracies and big business have a common world view and believe that they should run things collectively with as little interference from democratically elected politicians as possible.

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

Will the right hon. Gentleman take an intervention?

[Mr Lilley]

I will not, I am afraid.

Moreover, big business has a natural interest in regulation being used as a barrier against small businesses trying to enter the market or new businesses trying to innovate.

We should be very careful about creating international bureaucracies outside the control of democrats that may prove less responsive to elected Governments but more vulnerable to corporate regulation. The hon. Member for Swansea West raised the specific issues of fracking and genetically modified foods. I am very strongly in favour of fracking, and very strongly in favour of allowing GM to be used; I happen to have the main research institute on that front in my constituency. Ultimately, these decisions should be made democratically. To me, it is far more important that democracy should prevail than that some international bureaucracy should support my prejudices on fracking and GM, as it probably would. It is up me and people like me in this House to persuade the majority of Members and the majority of the public that something is right, and not to say, “Let’s support an international bureaucracy because it is going to take the decision out of our hands and reach what we think is the right view.”

I am unequivocally in favour of removing tariffs. I would welcome agreement under TTIP to anti-discrimination rules whereby Europe and America agree that they will not discriminate against foreign companies in procurement and investment. However, I would be very careful about creating a self-perpetuating international bureaucracy and handing to it powers that are largely out of the control of elected representatives and too much under the influence of corporate lobbying. At the end of the day, democracy is more important even than free trade.

12:34

[Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

I declare an interest as the chairman of the all-party European Union-United States trade and investment group and as an unashamed supporter of trade. Over the centuries, trade has been of huge benefit to this country, particularly to the west midlands, which grew on the back of trade. Indeed, the west midlands is the only region of the UK that has a positive trade balance with China. Equally significantly, trade has been the engine by which hundreds of millions of people around the world have been lifted out of poverty. We need only look at the growth of China. I will come back to some aspects of that, as they were mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies). Hundreds of millions of people in China have seen their lives changed dramatically as a result of trade.

In debating these trade deals, there have historically been those in this House and in British politics who are opposed to trade. This is not a recent argument.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

My right hon. Friend will know that all the nations that have achieved dramatic improvements in their economies have done so with a degree of protection. The Chinese have used a massive devaluation of their currency against the western currencies behind which they have seen their economy develop rapidly. Protectionism works.

[Mr Spellar]

I am pleased that my hon. Friend wants us to move towards a more rules-based system that will enable us to develop more effectively. Trade has worked in that regard, and I am glad that he concedes that.

A great mythology is being developed around this. When I asked my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West how many agreements the UK has had that involved ISDS, he was reluctant to reveal that the answer is 94. How many cases have been taken against the UK on that basis? My understanding is two. How many of those cases have been successful? My understanding is none. Mention is made once again of the very long-running Philip Morris so-called case. It is absolutely true that Philip Morris said it was lodging a case. Has it gone anywhere? Has it stopped the Australian Government taking action? Of course it has not. One of the more regularly cited cases is that of Slovakia’s health insurance system. We are often told that a Dutch insurance company managed to secure substantial damages from the Slovakian Government. That is true, because the case was about whether, under the existing contract, it could repatriate its profits to Holland. In a second case, which everybody seems to forget, the Slovakian Government won, and also got costs, because the tribunal held that the company was not empowered to intervene in the democratic processes of a sovereign state.

I particularly take issue with the Government over the fact that while the Leader of the House might talk about left-wing groups campaigning with scare stories, Ministers will not take on the myths so that we can get back to arguing about the issues that my hon. Friend rightly raised. The Government just hide away engaging in the negotiations and will not take these issues on.

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

If ISDS has been used so little, and given the concerns that have been expressed by all sorts of groups, particularly in relation to the NHS, why does the right hon. Gentleman think it is so important to have it as part of TTIP, which is an arrangement that, like my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr Lilley), I would in general strongly support? ISDS appears to be the sticking point for a very large number of people.

[Mr Spellar]

I would strongly hold to that. I am just saying that ISDS is not the great problem that people are claiming. The hon. Gentleman mentions the NHS. The European Commissioner wrote to the former Trade and Investment Minister about the impact of TTIP on the NHS, saying:

“Member States do not have to open public services to competition from private providers, nor do they have to outsource to private providers.”

It is a decision for this Government, and nothing to do with any trade deal. She continued:

“Member States are free to change their policies and bring back outsourced services back into the public sector whenever they choose to do so, in a manner respecting property rights (which in any event are protected under UK law)”.

[Geraint Davies]

Does my right hon. Friend agree, though, that the essential difference is that ISDS tribunals are held in private, the primary focus being the investor and commercial and trading law, whereas a public court involves the public interest and transparency, which is intrinsically better? There are lots of cases where these big companies have claimed enormous damages, but I will not go into that. This is about the intrinsic shape of the system.

[Mr Spellar]

My hon. Friend and I will have to discuss this matter later. The problem is that such a process would require the creation of a supranational court, unless there was an agreement on reciprocity between the Supreme Court and the European Court, which might cause problems with Conservative colleagues.

There was very little controversy over CETA and the discussions with the Canadians, or those with the Koreans and all the other countries with which the EU has conducted trade talks, until we began discussions with the United States, which touched many people’s nerve endings and neurons.

[Andrew Percy]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that if we scratch beneath much of the opposition, we find blatant anti-Americanism. Does he agree that it is deeply offensive to the Canadian Government to describe CETA as a Trojan horse for TTIP, as if “little Canada” were doing America’s dirty work? That is the implication, and it is deeply offensive to Canada, a country with standards of protection that go beyond our own in many areas.

[Mr Spellar]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for a point well made.

My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West then talked about China and, interestingly, about the environmental situation there. If the EU and the US do not do a trade deal to enshrine the current free trade and democratic liberal order, the Chinese will be the ones setting the parameters of world trade, and he has rightly identified that they might be much less concerned about issues such as workers’ rights and the environment.

With regard to the Canadian deal, my hon. Friend raised concerns about food and the implications for geographic indicators—Welsh lamb and so on. In fact, one of the great attractions not only for farmers in the UK but for framers across Europe, particularly southern Europe, is the provision for geographic indicators; and, to be frank, one of the attractions for Canada and the United States is the ability to sell GM, so a trade of GM for GI might well come out of these talks and be of advantage.

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

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Spellar]

Unfortunately, the clock is running.

As I indicated earlier, the Leader of the House talked about scaremongering by the far left, and we have received emails again from 38 Degrees, which will no doubt be castigating me again on Facebook. Interestingly, its standard email this time had a link to a pamphlet by John Hilary of War on Want published by the Rosa Luxemburg Foundation. I excuse the ignorance of Conservative Members, but a number of Opposition colleagues might be aware of the dissident communist Rosa Luxemburg, if not necessarily of the Rosa Luxemburg Foundation and its deep links with Die Linke in Germany, the far left party that grew out of the old East German Communist party. There is a lot to be said against the old East German Communist party, but it was pretty good at propaganda and agitation. There are valid arguments to be made, but hon. Members must be clear about the driving force behind the campaign.

Unfortunately, the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr Lilley) touched on an area alluded to by my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West: the European Scrutiny Committee. It was the neuralgic reaction of some Conservatives to anything involving the EU. Let us be frank: one of the key enablers of our conducting trade negotiations around the world is our membership of the EU. It enables us to negotiate through the combined strength of the EU, contrary to the views of Mr Farage, who believes we could somehow negotiate trade deals on our own. When we campaign next year to remain members of the EU, we will find that many of the arguments being made against TTIP reflect the arguments against the EU. In the modern world, there will be some trade of sovereignty for effectiveness and relevance, and that is why we should support the agreement.

12:45

[Guto Bebb (Aberconwy) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the passionate speech of the right hon. Member for Warley (Mr Spellar). I apologise to the House for my voice; I hope it lasts for eight minutes, but if not I might sit down early.

I declare an interest: I am the secretary of the all-party parliamentary group on European Union-United States Trade and Investment. I am proud to stand here in support of TTIP. This is another example of how elements in British society are trying to close down debate. In August, my daughter, who is 14, left our house to do her paper round. She came back in and said there were 20 people picketing outside my house because I was the secretary of the all-party group. They were basically accusing me of wanting to kill people by selling off the NHS. If we are to have a debate about this, we should at least make it an honest debate and avoid intimidation. We have a duty to debate it openly and transparently, and intimidation has no part in that.

This is the fourth time we have debated TTIP in the Chamber. The hon. Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) has secured two debates, and the all-party group has secured another two.

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

Is not a danger that this debate is premature? The proposed agreement has not been reached, and before it could be ratified its text would have to be distributed to the 28 member states and this House, where proper scrutiny could be applied?

[Guto Bebb]

My hon. Friend makes an important point, but I do not think the content of the agreement is the issue; the issue is an anti-free trade agenda hiding behind TTIP. It is not a protest against a proposed trade deal; it is an attack on free trade.

We have heard about the so-called secrecy of the negotiations. It is true that the final text has not been released, but all the proposals are available online. If any Member or their researcher were to google “TTIP”, they would find the text of the negotiations. This is probably the most open trade negotiation we have ever entered into as part of the EU. When I hear these accusations of secrecy, therefore, I wonder whether people know they can google the issues being debated. The all-party group has held open meetings in the House, attended by 100 to 150 people, on the effect of the proposed treaty on the automotive sector, public services, textiles, and food and drink producers. To claim there has been a lack of discussion in the House is to make a false argument and to play into the hands of protesters who are against not the treaty per se but the concept of free trade.

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I am finding this debate quite interesting. I agree with the pro-trade sentiments of the all-party group on TTIP, but, to echo the comments of the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr Lilley), should not a decision about whether we accept hormone-treated beef in the UK lie outside the remit of a trade organisation and be a decision for the House?

[Guto Bebb]

As somebody who represents a Welsh constituency with a significant number of lamb producers, I want to see Welsh lamb offered for sale in north America, which is not currently the case. If the way to get that product into the north American market is through a European trade agreement with north America, I am willing to look at the detail of that agreement. I stress again that the remit for the negotiations was agreed by 28 member states of the EU. There have been two motions in the European Parliament. The EU trade negotiator has been to the House twice to explain the EU’s remit and how it is developing the agreement. So there has been an opportunity to engage, and the final agreement will be scrutinised as well. If there is concern about some of the concessions made, perhaps on a quid pro quo basis, those issues could be identified at a later stage.

It is important to address head on the so-called threat to the national health service—and I have to say that it is a so-called threat. I hope that every Member who speaks in this debate has read the detailed, three-page letter from the European trade negotiator to the Health Committee on 11 December 2014, which makes it very clear that there is no possibility of an impact on our health service, or on public services more widely for that matter, as a result of the TTIP agreement. It categorically states that

“all publicly funded public health services are protected in the EU trade agreements, and this approach will not change for TTIP.”

That brings us back to the crux of the issue and the point raised by the chairman of the all-party group—that the debate seems to be about the fact that we will be making an agreement with the United States of America. Let me state clearly as the secretary of the all-party group that I have had literally thousands of emails from all parts of the United Kingdom accusing me of all sorts of skulduggery in relation to this proposed trade deal. I was quite impressed by the fact that the people emailing me believed that I had far more power than I have ever had as a Back-Bench MP.

[Mr Andrew Smith (Oxford East) (Lab)]

rose—

[Geraint Davies]

rose—

[Guto Bebb]

I will not take interventions.

The important point is that not a single email was ever sent to me about the deal with Canada, unfortunately described, in my view, as a Trojan horse for TTIP.

[Mr Andrew Smith]

rose—

[Guto Bebb]

No, I will not take an intervention.

Not a single email was sent about that agreement, so it difficult not to conclude that this is not about trade and not about the health service, but about a latent anti-western, anti-US agenda, which I find disreputable.

[Mr Smith]

rose—

[Guto Bebb]

No, I will not take an intervention on that issue. The point needs to be made and it has been made.

We are clearly having a dishonest debate on this issue. Claims have been made that have not been substantiated and we have had accusations of secrecy that do not stand up to scrutiny. It is clear, too, that issues are being raised about ISDS, but I argue that that case was demolished by the right hon. Member for Warley. The hon. Member for Swansea West has offered no explanation of why not one of the 94 agreements has been the subject of any complaint to my inbox; we seem to have these concerns only because TTIP is a deal with the US.

I have now dealt with some of the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Swansea West, but I think we should also look at some of the opportunities that will come from TTIP. My right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr Lilley) was right that tariff barriers are comparatively low. It is clear from talking to regulators on both sides of the Atlantic—the European Union and the US—that the regulations are often not specifically there for the safety of the public in the US or the EU; they are there as a means to offer a protectionist stance for some industries.

It makes very little sense, for example, for our booming and hugely successful exporting car industry to undertake a crash test that is completely different in the US from that in the EU. The crash test is different because the regulations are different, and the effect is to add over £600 to the cost of Mini Cooper. The dashboard has to be changed to accommodate the mechanism for the airbags necessary to comply with US test regulations. Nobody believes that a crash in the US is any different from one in the EU, but the test is different—at huge cost to the car industry. If the TTIP agreement were to be secured and some of the regulatory burdens removed, there would be potential for a 7% growth in exports.

Similarly, when we talk about the need for a manufacturing-led recovery, it is difficult to believe the concerns of Labour Members when the opportunity arises to get rid of some of the counterproductive and anti-competitive regulatory burdens but they are not willing to work with manufacturing sectors to reduce them.

More importantly, the regulatory burdens are extremely unfair on small and medium-sized enterprises. Larger companies have the capacity to deal with the regulatory burdens in the US and subsequently to deal with the regulatory burdens in the European Union. The small businesses in my constituency have world-class products to offer, but are not in a position to sell them to the US because the regulatory burdens provide a barrier to their potential to trade. Small businesses that send packages online through the internet often find themselves in difficulty when dealing with the US because they do not know whether the rules and regulations applying to imports through the postal system into the US would be the same as they are in Europe. Again, larger businesses—the Amazons of this world—can cope quite easily with those challenges, but smaller businesses operating in my constituency cannot.

To talk about this agreement being one for large multinationals is to miss the point. The point of the agreement is to reduce the regulatory burden, which large companies are quite happy to impose because it closes the opportunity for small businesses to compete against them.

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

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Guto Bebb]

No. I have only a minute left.

The fact that I have a drinks producer in my constituency who is unable to put in a second production line in order to get the correct bottle size is a classic example of the way in which regulations work against small businesses and to the advantage of larger businesses.

Finally, when it comes to being an MP from Wales, let me say categorically that the denial of Welsh lamb from my constituency to the US consumer is utterly disgraceful. The agricultural sector is broadly clearly supportive of this treaty. Yes, we need to scrutinise it; yes, we need to ensure that the House has a say in the agreement; but we should try to grab the opportunity for growth in all parts of the United Kingdom, and not least in Wales.

12:56

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

Let me say to the hon. Member for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb) that, irrespective of his views on TTIP, hon. Members and their families should have the right to security in their own homes. If he has been lobbied in his own home by protesters, I entirely deplore it.

I am in favour of free trade, which should be a good thing. It should create wealth and provide innovation in relation to jobs and markets, and it should promote existing services and products in new markets. I do not believe, however, that the proposed TTIP deal is about free trade; it is about increasing the dominance of several large globalised corporations that have no loyalty to any one particular country. Their loyalty is only to the next quarterly figures on Wall Street or the City of London.

We have talked about public services, and I believe that they will continue to be under threat unless we get a categoric response that they have been taken out. It is all being dealt with in secret, of course, so we cannot secure such a categoric response.

Let me deal with the investor-state dispute settlement, about which my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (Mr Spellar) provided some interesting figures. There is a fundamental principle about ISDS that undermines its entire existence. We rightly preach the rule of law and democracy to the developing countries, but it would seem that it does not apply to large globalised corporations. However much I disagree with Conservative Members and however much I deplore some of their policies, the bottom line is that their party won the general election and I respect their democratic right to take its programme through Parliament. As I say, however, that democratic right does not apply to large globalised corporations.

If by some fluke on Friday night I win the Euro Lottery and buy myself a Ferrari or a Lamborghini—

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

Why not buy British?

[Christian Matheson]

Indeed, I shall buy myself a nice, top-of-the-range Range Rover. If the Government reduce the speed limit on the motorways to 50 mph, am I allowed to sue them because they have taken away my enjoyment in driving that car? It is exactly the same with TTIP. If the Government choose to change the law, it is their right to do so, and there should be no caveats for large corporations.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

I am glad that my hon. Friend is addressing the issue of ISDS, which is of great concern. It was introduced, we were told, to give security to investors against weak legal systems in developing countries. Whether or not that is true—my hon. Friend has just made a good point—I do not believe that we have a weak legal system in this country, despite what the Government have done. The idea that the private law rights of multinationals should be put above the system that applies here is disgraceful.

[Christian Matheson]

My hon. Friend makes a good point, but I now wish to give an example of the perils that ISDS may bring. It involves another regime, but it could easily be transcribed into TTIP. Veolia has sued the Egyptian Government for alleged breach of a contract for waste disposal in the city of Alexandria on the basis of a bilateral agreement between France and Egypt.

At a time when Egypt is in a vulnerable and uncertain position politically, we should be helping it to develop democratic structures. When the Egyptian Government introduce a minimum wage that will probably benefit most ordinary Egyptians, we should support their action, but apparently Veolia has sued the Egyptian Government for taking that action. How stupid and short-sighted is it to sue the Egyptian Government and lower the standards of living of ordinary Egyptian workers at a time when we are trying to persuade Egypt that Islamism and the Muslim Brotherhood are not the way forward? This is an example of a western corporation undermining the wellbeing of ordinary people. That is what ISDS does: it enshrines the rights and priorities of globalised corporations over and above those of ordinary people, and the results could be catastrophic.

[Mr Spellar]

As I made clear earlier when I mentioned the Philip Morris case, lodging a case and winning a case are not one and the same thing, but my hon. Friend may be right. Has anything happened to the Veolia case?

[Christian Matheson]

I believe that it is still going through the process, but it is the principle on which the case is based that concerns me: the principle that corporations should have their own private mechanism for resolving disputes, rather than adopting the accepted legal procedures of the country in question.

[Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab)]

Does not the ISDS system effectively constitute a private court staffed by private judges with private lawyers, based on private law for private profits?

[Christian Matheson]

What a shame that I am not as articulate as my hon. Friend. She has hit the nail on the head. ISDS is a mechanism that undermines the rule of law by giving a separate system to large globalised corporations and taking away from them any sense of responsibility to elected Parliaments such as ours, or to countries like Egypt where we may be hoping to foster and develop democracy.

[Andrew Percy]

May I just even things up? We are, I am sure, in the business of facts here. Far from ISDS being for the benefit of private corporations, it is a Government mechanism, agreed by Governments largely for the benefit of Governments.

[Christian Matheson]

I do not agree. I think that it is largely for the benefit of private corporations. The hon. Gentleman and I will have to differ.

I want an economic system that works for the people, not one in which the people work for the system. TTIP will enshrine the dominance of global corporations, which have driven down wages, moved jobs into areas where they think they can pay people less, increased personal and family insecurity, and—let us be clear about this—made tax-dodging into an art form.

[Rachael Maskell]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Christian Matheson]

I am about to end my speech, but I will always give way to my good friend the Member for York Central.

[Rachael Maskell]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Does he share the concern that the American Federation of Labour and Congress of Industrial Organisations has expressed about the North American Free Trade Agreement, which has brought about the loss of so many jobs and has had such a negative impact on the American economy?

[Christian Matheson]

My hon. Friend and I have known each other for a good few years, and we were both involved in the creation of one of the first global trade unions, along with American unions. The United States was mentioned earlier, and I am certainly not anti-United States, but my contacts in the American trade union movement are absolutely opposed to TTIP because they believe that their jobs and their terms and conditions—[Interruption.] The Minister says, from a sedentary position, that that is not true. I should like to know when she last spoke to any American trade unions, because I speak to them quite regularly.

I believe that the interests of the Conservative party are now enshrined in the large global corporations and the City of London. I believe that we could and should design a trade deal along the lines of TTIP that could benefit ordinary people, but TTIP is not that trade deal.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (Mr Spellar) talked about the European Union. One thought has occurred to me, although perhaps I am wrong; no, surely not. TTIP could well be a Trojan horse for those who would have us leave the European Union. The EU, for all its faults, imposes social, economic and environmental constraints on corporations. TTIP would provide the free trade deal that is sought by so many of those who want us to leave the EU, without any of the social and environmental benefits.

[Guto Bebb]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Christian Matheson]

I am about to sit down.

I worry about the possibility of a ready-made deal that would enable us simply to leave the European Union, withdraw from the requirement for social, environmental and employment protections, and then sign up to something that would involve no such protections. That is my fear, and I shall be watching the debate on the European Union carefully and with not a little suspicion.

13:06

[Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) for enabling us to debate this issue. I am very glad that we are having the debate, and that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Small Business, Industry and Enterprise will be responding to it.

I have a great deal of sympathy with the motion. While I think that we need accountability when it comes to one of the biggest trade deals in history—if not the biggest—and that the House should provide that accountability, I also think that few significant issues in politics today have been so poorly considered in the public realm. That may be due to a lack of knowledge for which, perhaps, we are all responsible. We, as parliamentarians, should play our part in trying to inform and educate the public as well as listening to them, so that everyone in the country understands the true nature of this deal. However, there has also been a huge amount of misinformation and distortion on the part of certain groups, and that has led to a general sense of concern. Like other Members, I have received hundreds of emails and letters about this issue over the last year or so. I believe that the concern is unnecessary, because there is far less to fear than those groups suggest, but a more important consideration is that it obscures, purposefully, the huge opportunity that this deal presents to all of us.

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

I think that the hon. Gentleman put his finger on it when he used the phrase “far less to fear”. He said that people did not understand the deal, but that is because it has not been properly explained to them. Some of them fear that there is a Trojan horse, but whether there is or not, we cannot move forward without consensus among the public, whether they are worried about jobs, about the environment, or about the precise contents of TTIP. If people do not understand something like this in a representative democracy such as ours, what can we do?

[Robert Jenrick]

The hon. Gentleman has made a good point. That is why I am pleased to see that the Minister is present, and why I was pleased when, on the occasion of our last debate on this subject—in 2014, I believe—my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) responded on behalf of the Government. I want more Ministers to convey the case for TTIP to the public, engaging in a genuine, informed debate, and trying to sell the deal in a rational way. At present, it is being led by groups who have come out with some pretty poor-quality public discourse.

Some of the emails that I received this week were fairly ill informed, to say the least. I suspect that they were generated by 38 Degrees. They were all the same, apart from the fact that the adjectives varied: the deal was variously described as dodgy, dangerous, evil and sinister. There could not be a more pathetic quality of debate. Let me say to those behind the emails, “For goodness sake, have the strength of your convictions: raise the quality of debate and argue rationally, rather being so immature.”

The Government must lead the debate. They must support a project which I believe has huge potential to build transatlantic links to bring Britain and Europe closer to America, and to create a huge and important new free trade area and myriad opportunities for jobs and growth. We are not necessarily talking about large corporations; as was rightly pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb), this is about businesses both large and small. Only last week, I met representatives of some businesses that will benefit from this kind of deal. They were not large corporations, but small and medium-sized businesses that were trying to make a living and create jobs.

[Mr Andrew Smith]

What is the hon. Gentleman’s answer, however, to the concerns raised by his right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr Lilley) about the real dangers TTIP presents of disproportionate corporate power being used to manipulate a bureaucracy which is not democratically accountable?

[Robert Jenrick]

I will come on to that now, because there are a few specific points I want to make, some of which have already been raised by other Members. One is about healthcare. This has been a political football on both sides of the House for far too long. As my hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy said, the Health Committee wrote to the negotiators and received an incredibly comprehensive reply, which I would recommend to any Member. I have sent it to every constituent who has written to me about TTIP. I am not a friend of the EU—I am a Eurosceptic—so it is unusual for me to say that this is one of the most straightforward, comprehensive, honest answers I have ever seen from a European bureaucrat. I say this to other Members: “Please, if you haven’t read this, read it and send it to your constituents, because it does more to debunk the myths than anything else I have seen on this debate.” I will not rehash it, but I think it is incumbent on every Member of this House to read it and to appreciate how comprehensive it is and that it demolishes all those myths and scaremongering.

Overall, suppliers are already able to offer hospital services and health-related professional services through a commercial presence in the United Kingdom. The important thing for everyone who engages in the provision of health services and healthcare through companies in this country is that they have to comply with UK standards and regulations in the same way as British healthcare providers do. Those standards will remain under the sovereignty of this country and this Parliament, regardless of TTIP.

I appreciate that there is genuine concern about ISDS, but again I think it is fairly ill informed. I was a lawyer and the first case I worked on as a trainee solicitor many years ago was for a small British investor that had used a bilateral investment treaty very similar to this one to invest in eastern Europe. This perfectly legitimate UK company had seen its licence revoked illegitimately by that Government, and this small investor was able to use that treaty to get its money back and win justice. This is not about large corporations exploiting the system; it is about all investors around the world, including our own businesses being able to hold other Governments to account and ensure that they do not make arbitrary and poor decisions that negatively affect British companies.

As we have heard, ISDS is not a novelty. This is not some new threat that has recently emerged. These clauses have been put into most trade deals for years and years. I have heard the familiar examples of odd cases and inactions around the world, but these clauses have not had the effect that has been described in the media. As we have heard, 3,400 of these clauses have been inserted into trade deals globally. The EU and its members have 1,400 such clauses in various trade deals, and the UK has 94 in our existing bilateral treaties. We have twice been challenged and we have never lost a case under an ISDS.

What we have done, however—this is an important point that has not been made—is successfully bring claims against other countries. We have had slightly more success in that regard because the point of an ISDS is to underline the value of the total agreement and make sure no individual investor or business can be disadvantaged by another Government or union of Governments breaking the obligations they have entered into and negatively affecting our own businesses and investors, large and small.

It has been said that these treaties have primarily been used in developing countries, such as in the case I just mentioned, where potentially the legal system was not as good as ours or that of the United States, but of course although the US does have a very good legal system, it is a very expensive legal system where cases can take a long time. I actually think that this would be a very useful device for our small and medium-sized companies.

Similarly, there are states in the EU—some southern European countries, for instance—where American investors I have met and spoken to over the years would be very reluctant to sail into if they had to rely entirely on taking matters to the legal processes of those states to challenge the bona fide of local officials in respect of whether they were complying with the agreement. On both sides of the Atlantic, although there would be very few cases, I think they would generally be beneficial.

I was going to talk about transparency, but nobody could have put that point better than my hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy, and of course a degree of secrecy and confidentiality is important, because the US has very good negotiators in trade talks, and we want our negotiators in the EU, which is in a difficult position being a union of 28 nation states and Governments, to be in the best possible position in these talks, and not simply give everything away. This is one of the more transparent trade deals we have seen, and certainly one of the most transparent the EU has done, and the commissioners are trying to be as forthcoming as possible.

This free trade deal is, as we have heard from at least some Members, a huge opportunity. The United States is not a threat to us; it is the UK’s single biggest export destination. Some 17% of our exports go there, and it is important for a whole range of our sectors, such as aerospace, as we have heard about, the creative industries, and the luxury goods industry. The UK is a world leader in that, and America is home to more affluent households with disposable incomes of more than $300,000 than any other country. It is a huge market, therefore.

Only last Friday I visited a business in my constituency that is trying to put hearing loops into the New York metro, but is having to spend thousands of pounds to meet the various and complex regulatory burdens involved.

[Richard Arkless (Dumfries and Galloway) (SNP)]

On that point, would the hon. Gentleman try to persuade his Government colleagues that the US should lift the ban on haggis, and would he welcome that?

[Robert Jenrick]

That is a very good point and I certainly would welcome that. I want to see British businesses from all parts of the United Kingdom getting into those markets and creating jobs.

We have heard that tariff barriers are now quite low—down to around 3%—but it is the non-tariff barriers that need to be pushed aside for the benefit of businesses like those in my constituency, and TTIP offers a huge opportunity to create the jobs and growth of the future. It is a massive potential win not just for our constituents and businesses, but for humanity as it offers an opportunity to bring the west together to protect our economic and national security.

13:17

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

Like most of the other speakers in this debate, I am instinctively in favour of trade. Scotland has got a fantastic story to tell given the world-class quality of so many of our goods and services. We want to be able to sell them around the world, and I think that those around the world want to be able to buy them without restrictions. We should instinctively support the principle of free trade, but completely unregulated free trade is not an unmixed blessing.

We have to ask ourselves who ultimately free trade is there to benefit. Is it there to benefit a handful of major corporations, is it there to benefit a handful of well-placed people with the ear of particular Governments, or is it there to benefit the citizens who produce the wealth for all those businesses? I know where my loyalties would lie, and at the moment I am not at all convinced that free trade as envisaged in TTIP is going to give the benefits to the correct place.

We should remember that what we are being asked to agree today is not that TTIP is a good idea or a bad idea, but that TTIP should, before being set in law, be brought back and properly scrutinised and debated in this Parliament, and I would argue in the Parliaments of other EU member states as well. I find it ironic that the party whose leader is going around Europe right now arguing for better protection for the alleged sovereignty of this place in dealings with the EU also seems to be saying to us that we can trust EU officials to sign us up to trade deals and we do not need to bring the deal back to this Chamber or anywhere else in this place for it to be considered and scrutinised. Yes, there will eventually be a binding vote in the European Parliament, but there should be a proper, well-informed debate and a vote in this Parliament at the very least to give a clear indication to UK MEPs as to how we would like them exercise their vote.

[Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the biggest concerns about the whole process is the lack of transparency? Nobody knows exactly what is happening.

[The Minister for Small Business, Industry and Enterprise (Anna Soubry)]

It is on the internet!

[Peter Grant]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. I hear the comment that it is all on the internet, but I hope that when the Government respond, or when someone responds on their behalf, they will be able to explain the following to us: if it has been on the internet and has been so widely available for so long, why is it that MEPs have been given the opportunity to scrutinise it for only the past week? That is being done not in an open debate, but in a closed room where they are allowed to take handwritten notes but are not allowed to take photocopies of that document out of that room to show to their constituents or to anybody else. Why is the EU insisting on that degree of secrecy if the whole thing is already widely available on the internet?

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

rose—

[Peter Grant]

I am sorry, but I would like to make a bit of progress.

I entirely agree with the calls from across the House asking for an open and honest debate. I agree that it is deprecable if any politician or their family is subjected to intimidation because people disagree with their point of view, no matter how sincerely or passionately that disagreement might be held. However, the same people who are calling for an open and honest debate have also dismissed everybody who has concerns about TTIP, including the hon. Members for Stone (Sir William Cash) and for Clacton (Mr Carswell), as being part of some left-wing campaign. These people seem to think it is a bad thing that an organisation has made it as easy for ordinary citizens to lobby their MP as it has always been for multinationals, which get managing consultants and lobby consultants to do it for them. It seems that we have gone from being a “left-wing campaign” a few minutes ago—I have been a part of pretty few left-wing campaigns and I sometimes think we could do with some more of them—to being completely “anti-American” and then completely “anti-western”. The last time I checked I was a westerner. The only anti-western person in my household is my wife, and she is anti-western only to the extent that I am not allowed to watch cowboy and Indian films.

[George Kerevan (East Lothian) (SNP)]

On this anti-western argument, does my hon. Friend agree that the American trade unions are just as vociferous in demanding safeguards, in particular the removal of the investor clauses?

[Peter Grant]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right; this is not a case of America wanting to push everything through and Europe wanting to stand in the way. There are vociferous supporters of TTIP on both sides of the Atlantic, but there are also those who have genuinely held concerns, not only in left-wing organisations, but in some business organisations, among some people, such as those I mentioned, who are certainly not left-wing politicians in this place, among trade unions, and in that well-known bastion of left-wing activism the British Medical Association, although the Government have dismissed it in those terms previously.

We are talking today not specifically about the merits or demerits of TTIP and its associated potential agreements, but about where decisions should be taken on whether TTIP goes ahead. It would be a bit ironic if Members who have taken the time to come here to take part in the debate on whether we should have a debate on TTIP voted at the end of the afternoon not to have a debate about it. I am therefore assuming that there will be no need for a Division.

Concern has been raised about the ISDS, which we are told has now been completely replaced by the international court of something or other. We do not know exactly how that is going to operate as yet. My question is: why is it needed? Ordinary citizens who are aggrieved about the actions of the Government in their own country can try to rectify that through the democratic process, and I commend 38 Degrees for making that a bit easier for those who cannot afford their own lobby consultants. If they feel aggrieved that the Government have acted in a way that is against the law, ordinary citizens have recourse to the legal system within their own country or within the country of the Government whom they think has acted against them. The legal system is imperfect and so is the parliamentary democracy system, but they are available to ordinary citizens. Why does a big multinational company need a further line of recourse which is not available to ordinary citizens? Why does a citizen whose family were hounded out of Zimbabwe in fear of their lives not have recourse to compensation through the international courts, yet a multinational company that is unhappy that its profits from selling tobacco in some countries may be reduced has access through an international tribunal? Why do ordinary citizens not have that? Why is that tribunal needed in the type of country that we claim to be, where there is a mature legal system, and the courts system is designed to be impartial and to give everybody a fair hearing? If the concern is about southern Europe, I point out that the nations of southern Europe are part of the European Union.

[Guto Bebb]

I find the hon. Gentleman’s comments fairly imperialistic, because the implication would be that we do not need this sort of mechanism in a deal with the United States, because we have mature legal systems, but if we are having these deals with a third world country, we may need it. I find the comment odd.

[Peter Grant]

The point I am making is that there could be concerns about the maturity of the legal system of some countries with which we might want to enter into international agreements. The example given earlier was countries in southern Europe, but the last time I checked they were part of the European Union. If they are acting in breach of a treaty that has been signed up to by the EU, I would have thought that there would be recourse through the European courts. If there is not, perhaps that needs to be looked at. I fail to see why it is necessary to have a separate form of recourse for companies that want to sue sovereign democratic Parliaments and Governments, one that is not made available to citizens of the countries who have elected those Parliaments in the first place.

[Robert Jenrick]

The hon. Gentleman is making a decent point, but the UK is already in bilateral investment treaties with a range of other countries around the world that have mature democracies, and some of these treaties have ISDS arrangements. The EU, including the UK, has just signed up to one such treaty with South Korea. Is he suggesting that we withdraw from all those bilateral investment treaties around the world, including important ones such as the recent one with South Korea?

[Peter Grant]

I am not suggesting that at all. I suppose the question might be: if the ISDS has been so successful, why is it being scrapped and replaced by something else?

One final observation that I want to make is that although the Government clearly regard completion and ratification of TTIP as being a major selling point for staying within the EU—I believe the Foreign Secretary said as much before the European Scrutiny Committee—a sizeable body of public opinion in the UK takes the opposite view. I do not know how sizeable it is, but it is there. There are parts of the UK, including a lot of areas in Scotland, where people want to be part of the EU but will change that allegiance if TTIP goes ahead. That might be music to the ears of some Members, but the Government may be making a massive tactical mistake if they believe that support for TTIP will persuade more citizens to vote to remain in the EU. There is a serious danger that it will actually have the opposite impact. The tragic irony of it is that if TTIP is already done and dusted before the EU referendum, people will vote to leave the EU and then discover that they are still lumbered with TTIP for 20 years, because once we have signed up to it even our leaving the EU does not allow us to get out of it.

I make an appeal to Members, and this applies regardless of whether they have already decided in their own minds about the merits or otherwise of TTIP and whether they think it is a good or bad idea. Once we know the full details of what TTIP and its associated agreements are going to mean, surely we must have a proper and full debate in this place, and in the Parliaments of the rest of the EU, at least in order to give MEPs a clear steer as to how they should be exercising their vote in the binding decision that they will take at some point in the future.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. He will have to stand up, but I call Andrew Percy.

13:27

[Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)]

I had forgotten how to do it, Mr Deputy Speaker. When I turned up for this debate, I was not intending to speak, but I have been drawn into doing so, having listened to some of the arguments made by Opposition Members. [Hon. Members: “There were not enough speakers!”] That may be a factor as well. Let us start by talking about the things we agree on. It was reassuring to hear Opposition Members talk in favour of free trade and in support of trade. I want to see Welsh lamb sold in the United States, although it is not as good as lamb from Yorkshire and Lincolnshire. I even want us to export haggis, that great north of England foodstuff that we exported to Scotland in about the 15th century. I want to see that sold in the US in the right form—not with the bits missing that must be missing for it to be sold there at the moment. We can all agree on those things.

[Drew Hendry]

On that point about Scottish and other produce being taken forward, does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Scottish Government should be involved in the ratification of any detail of TTIP before it is implemented ?

[Andrew Percy]

I was questioning the Scottishness of haggis. Of course, the mechanism for determining this treaty is well set out. It will be determined in the national Parliament of the United Kingdom, as it should be, just as it will be determined in the national Parliaments of the 27 other member states. The turnout of Scottish National party Members today is impressive, as it is in a lot of debates. It certainly could not be said that the voice of Scotland on this will not—

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

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Andrew Percy]

No, I am still responding to this point. The voice of Scotland is going to be heard strongly and loudly on this issue, as it is on so many others.

I just want to talk about—

[Steve McCabe]

rose—

[Andrew Percy]

No, I will not give way. I have changed my mind.

I just want to talk about CETA for a moment. What the hon. Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) said about it being a Trojan horse is slightly offensive to the Canadian Government.

[Geraint Davies]

rose—

[Andrew Percy]

The hon. Gentleman did not give way to me, so I will not give way to him.

[Geraint Davies]

On that point—

[Andrew Percy]

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman wants to say that it was not an insult. To use the term “Trojan horse” suggests that the Canadians are in some way being used as a battering ram for the Americans, which is quite offensive. CETA in Canada has the support of the new Government, just as it did of the previous Government.

Much has been said about transparency. The theories on that have been well and truly demolished by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb) who quite rightly pointed out that the text of what is being debated is available, and that, at the end of this process, there will be a mechanism for approval in all 28 national Parliaments. One could argue that few things that affect us are subjected to quite so much scrutiny. I am not sure that I can subscribe to the argument of the hon. Member for City of Chester (Christian Matheson), which seems to be that the process of agreeing TTIP could be some sort of conspiracy with regard to leaving the European Union. I did not follow that argument, as it made little sense to me.

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that, given the big interest of many of our constituents in what could go wrong with TTIP, it is vital that the UK has both a strong influence and the right to say yes or no, as these are very important matters for our goods and services?

[Andrew Percy]

I could not agree more with my right hon. Friend. Indeed, I agree with him on so many matters. The issue will come before this House. As I said in an intervention, there is an element of anti-Americanism in this. I am not saying that that is being expressed by those in the Chamber today, but it did come across in an email to me. I do not hear much from 38 Degrees. The people of Brigg and Goole are too busy just getting on with their lives to waste their time forwarding me emails that are written by somebody else, telling me what their view is. I did have an interaction with someone in which I pointed out this view about anti-Americanism. There was then a trail of emails, in which I pointed out that we had all these ISDS agreements with 94 other countries, and that had only been used against us on two occasions, and never successfully. The trail ended with my constituent, who had assured me in his first email that he was not anti-American, saying, “Ah yes, but the other agreements have not had American lawyers involved.” Clearly, there is an element of anti-Americanism involved, and we should not pretend otherwise.

[Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)]

rose—

[Andrew Percy]

No, I will not give way, because I will not get any extra time. [Interruption.] I have a lot to say.

I could not disagree with anything my hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy said. He made a fine speech, despite his hoarse voice, on the impact on small businesses. I represent an area that is a mix of big industry and small and medium-sized enterprises. Again, a constituent contacted me with something from 38 Degrees. I was robust with him on this position on TTIP, as I have been since I came to this House in 2010. I explained that it is of benefit to small businesses. His response was, “Well, I run a small business, and I have tried to do trade in America, and it is really very, very hard.” That is exactly my point. Those are the people who will benefit most from this agreement.

I represent an exporting centre in this country. A lot of small and medium-sized enterprises have great products to offer, but only a big corporation can afford all the skills and people necessary to navigate the regulatory difficulties; others can struggle, so this agreement will be of benefit to them.

I wish to say something about the impact on the NHS. Some of the scaremongering has been really scandalous. We looked at this matter in the Health Committee, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), who is on the Committee, mentioned. We put a series of specific questions to Jean-Luc Demarty, who is the director-general for trade in the European Commission, and his responses could not have been blunter. It is worth while me reading them out for the record. We asked:

“Is it the EU’s negotiating position that publicly funded health services should be excluded from TTIP”?

The answer was very clear. He said:

“This is the effect of the EU's approach to public services in all trade negotiations since the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) in 1995.”

He went on to say:

“It is also worth explaining that even without the above reservations and exceptions, the EU trade agreements leave EU governments at all levels free to regulate all services sectors in a non-discriminatory manner...Therefore, in effect all publicly funded public health services are protected in EU trade / agreements, and this approach will not change for TTIP.”

We were not satisfied with that answer, so we asked another question:

“What would be the consequences for the provision of NHS services, including hospital, primary care and community services, if they were not specifically excluded from TTIP?”

Again, the response was clear:

“in effect all publicly funded public health services, including NHS services, will be protected in TTIP.”

We asked again:

“Does the definition of public-funded Health Services include private companies who run such services paid for from public funds? Does it include third sector organisations?”

The answer was:

“Yes, as long as the services are publicly funded, it does not matter how they are delivered.”

They will enjoy the same protections.

We get a lot of nonsense from the EU, but the answer to this next question could not have been simpler. We asked:

“Is there any opportunity after the exclusion of any public services from TTIP for other countries to challenge that exclusion and, if so, what is the process?”

In other words, can they challenge the exclusion of the NHS? The answer was, “No”—with a big fat full stop after it. It could nothave been clearer. Another question was:

“Is there any action that a Member State can take outside the negotiation process to ensure that health or any other public services are exempted from the provisions of TTIP or any other trade agreement?”

The director-general said:

“As above, in the Commission’s view there is no need to take any further action to ensure this result, as public services are always protected in EU trade agreements.”

We received similar answers on charitable providers and when a national Government take back in a service. So, this nonsense being perpetuated about the risk of TTIP to the NHS is shameful. It is about trying to present an image to people in this country that big, bad, nasty American healthcare providers, which are only about profit, will come in and sweep up the NHS for private profit. Nothing could be further from the truth, as has been made clear by US negotiators. One US negotiator was really clear about this. He specifically mentioned the UK and said that TTIP is not a way of the US trying to get access to the publicly funded health system in the United Kingdom. The EU trade negotiator was very clear. He said that the service was wholly excluded already. It does not matter whether the service is privately provided, charitable-sector provided or publicly provided—it is all protected.

When people run around campaigning against TTIP and raising legitimate concerns—and there have been some legitimate concerns—about the process and ISDS, the one thing they must not do is frighten people and say that this is about American businesses coming in and destroying the NHS. The response from the EU—I never quote the EU because I do not like the EU, and I am campaigning for us to leave it—has been absolutely clear on this: the NHS is safe, whether or not there is TTIP. The only bodies that can cause any damage to our NHS, and challenge this in the way that those who oppose TTIP say, are national Governments. Governments are in a position to do the damage to the NHS, but in England, that is not happening because we have an excellent Government doing good things for the NHS. In other parts of the UK, that might be up for debate.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)]

Order. Before I bring in the next speaker, I will have to reduce the limit to seven minutes. I call Helen Goodman.

13:38

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

I wish to begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) on securing this debate. I am very grateful to him for asking me to support his application to the Backbench Business Committee for this very important debate, and I agreed with everything that he said about the risks of TTIP and about the need for us to think more deeply about the institutional architecture as we move forward, so that trade, environment and labour standards are all put on an equal footing.

I also want to say what an excellent speech my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Christian Matheson) made. He drew out the problems that similar arrangements have caused in developing countries. The point that he made demonstrated that those of us who are raising questions are fully in the tradition of all those who back the human rights and democratic values of Europe and America.

The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills has analysed the benefits of TTIP. Its estimate is that the gain in this country by 2027 in terms of higher GDP would be £7 billion. When one hears the figure of £7 billion a year, that sounds like quite a lot, but let me put it in the context of the amount of trade we have in this country and the huge uncertainties about the forecasts as we go forward.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I just want to make the point that statistics are bandied about for political advantage. My hon. Friend is quite right about the £7 billion, but how would it compare with the £62 billion of trade deficit with the European Union? Those are the kind of figures that make £7 billion very small indeed.

[Helen Goodman]

The point that I was going to make was that the Office for Budget Responsibility, in its forecast of GDP out to 2020, has an uncertainty of 6% in GDP. That is £160 billion, so we lose the £7 billion of economic benefits in the rounding. I am not saying that there will not be some economic benefits, but we should consider how significant they are and weigh them against the disadvantages that other hon. Members have mentioned. Will this have a significant benefit for our level of exports? By way of comparison, the impact on the level of growth in the markets to which we export is expected to be £338 billion over the next five years. If we have variations in the exchange rate, that will be far greater than the possible benefits we can get from this trade deal.

I am resting my case on the analysis from the Minister’s Department. On the assumption that the Department has got this right, each person in this country would benefit to the tune of £110 a year, or about £2 a week. It is very nice to have £2 a week and I am sure that we would all rather have it than not, but if the price that has to be paid is a loss of working conditions, labour standards and potential improvements in the national minimum wage or national living wage, the benefits will not in practice accrue to ordinary people in this country. That is why people have doubts about this.

Colleagues have raised the concerns about the national health service, the environment and food standards. I think that the carve-out in the European Commission’s negotiating mandate secured by the French on audio-visual services is extremely important; it is also important that we maintain our cultural resources.

Let me come to the big downside of TTIP, which is the loss of sovereignty inherent in the investor-state dispute settlement. The intellectual integrity and honesty displayed in the speech of the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr Lilley), a former Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, made it a very important contribution to the debate.

[Mr Spellar]

Is not the logic of the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr Lilley) just as much that he would rather we were not involved with the EU either, as another supranational body? Is there not a danger in this line of argument?

[Helen Goodman]

There is nothing in our arrangements with the EU that is similar in any way to the private court system under the ISDS. That was the point that the former Secretary of State was making.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (Mr Spellar) said earlier that not many cases have been taken under ISDS or won under ISDS, but it inhibits ministerial action because Ministers are worried about court cases. My hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester made the point that in developing countries the costs of running these court cases are a further inhibition on ministerial and democratic action.

[Geraint Davies]

Does my hon. Friend not agree that in most ISDS cases, we are the investor in developing countries, and we would be the ones to take action? In the American cases, they would be taking action against us. We have all the fire to come.

[Helen Goodman]

My hon. Friend makes a fair point, but I just want to say that I think that Ministers are inhibited from taking policy action by fear of court and legal proceedings. When I was a Minister at the Department for Work and Pensions, albeit a very junior one, I was interested in considering the entitlements to benefits of migrants from eastern Europe. My officials not only would not make the changes I was asking them to make, but would not even give me advice on the matter. They said, “Minister, to advise you on that would be to advise you on an illegal action.” That is exactly the kind of conversation Ministers will get into with the ISDS.

[Mr Lilley]

indicated assent.

[Helen Goodman]

I am pleased to see the right hon. Gentleman nodding in agreement.

[Robert Jenrick]

The UK has 110 bilateral investment treaties, almost all of which have ISDS, including with some very sophisticated countries such as Singapore and Hong Kong, where the legal system, certainly for commercial cases, is acknowledged to be excellent and akin to ours. Is the hon. Lady saying that the UK should withdraw from all or some of those bilateral investment treaties, on the basis of her previous experience as a Minister?

[Helen Goodman]

I am not saying we should withdraw. Perhaps we should have more parliamentary scrutiny of what is going on under the arrangements we have; perhaps we are shedding a light on them; and perhaps we should be grateful for those constituents who have alerted us to the issue. I am grateful not because we have to accept every single message in its last detail, but because they have triggered my looking into this more deeply.

Lack of transparency in the negotiations, weak parliamentary scrutiny and the risks mean that it is very important that we do not agree to this measure unless we strip out the ISDS. I am extremely pleased to support the motion this afternoon.

13:46

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

I last spoke on this issue in February 2014, and I started out, as I will now, by noting that Wales is a proud exporting nation, despite recent setbacks. Wales outperforms the other component parts of the UK, and according to HMRC statistics we have a trade balance of £5.86 billion based on 2014 figures. By contrast, England has a deficit of £125.6 billion.

Despite recent setbacks in Welsh exporting figures, the potential of a trade deal for Wales is hugely significant, but it should not come at any price. The cost should certainly not be the destruction of public services or environmental and safety standards, or the subversion of public justice to one law for corporations and one law for everybody else. I should state from the outset that I am in favour of further developing trade links between the EU, which is already the world’s largest trading bloc, and the United States. However, I still have many reservations about the proposed TTIP, despite the recent attempts by the European Commission to allay those concerns by proposing alternatives.

It is a great irony that the UK Government are dead set on ploughing ahead with TTIP while at the same time jeopardising the future of Wales and the UK within the EU with a referendum conceded in panic by the Prime Minister when UKIP were hot on the Tories’ tails. I see that the renegotiation is not going as well as he planned and I suspect that the charade of Tory unity on this issue will disappear very rapidly as the referendum approaches.

[Guto Bebb]

Is the hon. Gentleman not concerned that the attacks on TTIP, which is being negotiated by the European Union, are in effect undermining our relationship with the European Union? Is it not the case, therefore, that some of these outspoken attacks are more damaging to the position that he supports, which is continued Welsh membership of the European Union?

[Jonathan Edwards]

I am grateful for that half-clever intervention. The biggest danger to our relationship with the EU is Tory policy on the needless referendum that we will be having in the next year.

When I spoke on TTIP 22 months ago, I set out many of the concerns that I and my party, Plaid Cymru, had regarding the proposal as it stood then. I set out our concerns about the highly controversial ISDS as well as the potential for the agreement to allow for the privatisation of public services despite the public’s desire to keep those services in public hands, not to mention the concerns over lowering environmental and safety standards through so-called harmonisation.

The economic benefits of TTIP are contested. A study for the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills estimates that the gains for the UK would be £4 billion to £10 billion annually by 2027. However, the average tariffs on trade between the EU and the US are already relatively low. Therefore, many of the proposals within TTIP and much of the negotiation are centred on non-tariff barriers to trade, such as product regulation and standards, which would need to be harmonised, and measures to protect the rights of investors.

[Rachael Maskell]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree with the Tufts University analysis of TTIP, which concludes that we would suffer a net loss as a result of the proposals for the future of our economy?

[Jonathan Edwards]

I have not read that report, but I take the hon. Lady’s word for it.

The estimates overstate the gains, and alignment of regulatory standards in areas such as consumer safety, environmental protection, procurement and public health could have substantial social costs. Wales’s existing trade with north America has grown rapidly over the past decade and a half as a share of our overall exports, without TTIP in place. Of course, a trade deal could help to grow that even further, but that should not happen at any social cost, and certainly not at the risk of further hollowing out Wales’s industrial base. Any trade deal that does go ahead should definitely not be a large corporation closed shop in relation to trading across the Atlantic, as TTIP most definitely appears to be at present. Some 99% of Welsh companies are SMEs, making up the backbone of the Welsh economy. In any trade deal they deserve as much of a look-in as the big companies.

Alongside the potential for the default privatisation of public services such as health, the most controversial element of TTIP so far has been the ISDS provisions, which would allow investors to bring proceedings against Governments who are party to the treaty. The proceedings would be heard in tribunals outside the domestic legal system, meaning that Governments might determine policy with an overriding fear of being sued by corporations—a point made earlier. I said the last time I spoke on TTIP, and I will say again, that the US and the EU already have advanced legal systems. Neither is a banana republic, and corporations should abide by the same well-functioning legal system as the rest of society.

Throughout Europe, including here in Wales and the UK, Governments have been listening, and the UK Government and the European Commission have sought to allay concerns via a new proposal for an investment court system, published only last month. It appears, though, that they are only changing the name. My original point is relevant and remains valid. We already have a highly advanced court system in existence in all the places within the reach of the proposed trade agreement. The proposals for any alternative shadow legal system should be dropped immediately. Not to do so is an affront to democracy.

Given that public services are devolved, the devolved legislatures and Governments of the UK should have a veto over TTIP.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I want to put on record how TTIP could affect NHS contracts. We in the Democratic Unionist party are totally opposed to it for that reason. We also oppose ISDS. As health is a devolved matter, we want to put it on record that it should be the regional Assemblies and Parliaments that make the decisions, and the Government should liaise closely with them. Does the hon. Gentleman agree?

[Jonathan Edwards]

I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. I am sure there will be some collaboration on the issue between Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales in the near future. Those areas of public service delivery are the competencies of those Administrations. They might have a different agenda from the UK Government, and devolved Administrations should be fully consulted on and fully involved in any ratification of TTIP by the UK Government.

I am grateful to groups such as Global Justice Now and the Council of Canadians as well as Unison for bringing to my attention CETA, the comprehensive economic and trade agreement between the EU and Canada, often referred to as TTIP’s little brother. Although there is much public awareness of the TTIP negotiations, CETA is on the verge of being ratified but is not receiving the scrutiny or attention it deserves. CETA includes the most controversial part of TTIP, investor -state dispute settlement. Many US firms have Canadian subsidiaries, thereby allowing US firms to operate in the EU market. Public services are vulnerable because CETA locks in current levels of liberalisation, meaning that future Governments will find it extremely difficult to stop Canadian companies delivering public services in the EU. CETA is due to be fully ratified in mid-2016, and I urge the UK Government, the Welsh Government and the public to reject this deal unless the safeguards that I have outlined in relation to TTIP are put in place.

The public and politicians should also be aware of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which is little known over here. Again, the criticisms of this proposed deal bear the hallmarks of TTIP and CETA—secrecy, and the fact that large corporations will exert undue influence over public policy through shadow legal systems.

In conclusion, I am still optimistic that a trade deal aimed at further reducing tariffs in order to secure a level playing field can be achieved, and I believe it would benefit Welsh exporters and our economy as a whole. Many of the environmental standards that the EU requires from its producers and manufacturers should not be compromised. They are already above and beyond those required in the US, placing us at an advantage without the potential social costs that would result from the proposals that are the areas of major concern. In order for any trade deal to have my support and that of Plaid Cymru and the wider public, it must unquestionably drop any proposals for a shadow corporate legal system and ensure that the EU’s existing environmental and social safeguards are maintained.

13:55

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) and other colleagues on securing this important debate. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) on her speech. Like her, I agree with much of what the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr Lilley) said in a very honest speech.

I am of the left. The Conservatives accuse some of those who oppose TTIP of being on the left. Well, I am of the left. I call myself a democratic socialist, but as our party defines itself in its constitution as a democratic socialist party, I think I am in the right party and I am happy and proud to be so.

Those who support TTIP should read “Fighting TTIP, CETA and ISDS: Lessons from Canada” by Maude Barlow on behalf of the Council of Canadians. Everything they say will be shown to be wrong when they read that.

TTIP must be opposed with all possible force as a dangerous attempt to negate meaningful democracy. It is designed simply to hand economic power to global corporations and to prevent democratically elected Governments from acting in the interests of their peoples. It has been negotiated largely in secret between private corporate representatives and bureaucrats, with no real democratic political involvement and certainly no representation from workers and their trade unions. On the continent of Europe millions of workers are aware of the dangers, and it is vital that the people of Britain, especially the working people of our country, also become properly aware of the dangers before it is too late.

I mentioned Europe and have seen evidence of the growing resistance to TTIP there. I was recently in Brussels, on the day of the European Council, when the Prime Minister announced his intention to write his famous letter to Donald Tusk. What was also significant on that day was the complete lock-down of the political centre of Brussels to protect politicians from a massive anti-TTIP demonstration. There were police road blocks at every turn, with water cannon at the ready and public transport services in the area closed down. I could not persuade a taxi driver to take me anywhere near my destination, and the metro was not stopping at the station serving the political district. Most significantly, there seemed to be an effective news blackout of the demonstration, so the political and bureaucratic establishment was doing its bit to protect the interests of the corporate capitalist world.

There will, of course, be all sorts of public reassurances from that same political establishment that TTIP will be benign and beneficial. That is a lie. If TTIP eventually becomes established, there may be some superficial qualifications, which will simply be pushed aside when the private corporations get their way. There is a parallel in the European Union’s hypocritical and empty commitment to workers’ rights and trade union rights—the sham of so-called social Europe. The Viking and Laval cases show that when push comes to shove, employers’ rights override any supposed worker rights. The Greek bail-out required the Greek Government to restrict trade union and worker rights as a condition of the bail-out, and there is more of that to come.

Now we see the nomenklatura of the European Union seeking to sell out workers’ rights, trade union rights and citizens’ rights to control their own lives and their societies through their elected democratic Governments. We are moving towards the referendum on Britain’s EU membership, and millions of trade union votes will be a significant factor in that referendum. The TUC is strongly opposed to TTIP and my own union, the GMB, is likely to recommend a vote to leave the EU if TTIP goes ahead. If 6 million public sector trade unionists fear that TTIP is going to happen, with the likely threat of privatisation of our public services without redress, and the threat to the services they provide and their livelihoods, they will vote to leave the EU.

I have argued that the EU is fundamentally anti-democratic, although some of my colleagues may disagree. If the Commission does a deal with the US and the corporations, that will confirm what many of us believe—that the EU is an agent of the global private corporate world.

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

The hon. Gentleman talks about the threat to public services. Given that the people of Scotland were told by the Better Together campaign that the best way to protect Scotland’s NHS was to vote no in the independence referendum—the People’s NHS is organising a very effective campaign in Scotland—does he agree with the position of the First Minister, who has asked the Prime Minister specifically to exempt the NHS from TTIP?

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I would certainly support that.

Over 10 years ago Tony Blair wined and dined American health corporations in Downing Street as a prelude to what has been happening. Private companies, with the connivance of the current Government, are even now buying into bits of the national health service to make a profit, cherry-picking the most profitable bits and leaving the difficult bits for the public sector. I believe that it is time for us all, especially in the Labour party, to wake up to the dangers and reject TTIP before it is too late.

14:00

[Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP)]

I commend Conservative Members for sitting through this entire debate; if I had gold, silver and bronze medals to hand out, I would have one medal too many.

I agree with the general principles of the motion. It is entirely appropriate for an all-encompassing agreement such as TTIP to be scrutinised by elected representatives in this House and in the European Parliament. As Members are aware, negotiations on the agreement began in July 2013. During the subsequent two and a half years it has been extremely difficult for elected representatives at any tier of government to acquire clear information about it. Holding negotiations behind closed doors rarely instils public confidence, particularly when the results of any agreement will have wide-ranging political and economic ramifications. Unsurprisingly, this lack of transparency has generated widespread public scepticism about the proposed agreement.

[Drew Hendry]

On that point, if the TTIP agreement is as benign as we have been told, particularly for the NHS, does my hon. Friend agree that we should get the details out into the open so that they can be debated properly in this Chamber?

[Ronnie Cowan]

I agree with my hon. Friend.

My Scottish National party colleagues, whether MSPs, MPs or MEPs, have held a consistent position on TTIP: although Scotland might benefit from a free trade agreement with the United States, we require a number of assurances before we can give the proposals our full support. First, under no circumstances can TTIP threaten NHS Scotland with privatisation. I previously wrote to the Prime Minister regarding that specific issue, as did the Scottish Government, who urged the UK Government

“to ensure that the NHS is fully and explicitly exempt from TTIP and, if that is not the case, to use its veto at the European Council to prevent TTIP progressing”.

The UK Government’s response expressed the opinion that TTIP poses no threat to the NHS. I know that my constituents will not find the assurances of a Tory Government sufficient evidence that the NHS is safe from privatisation.

Unionist Members will no doubt say that health is devolved to the Scottish Parliament, but I remind them that any privatisation of health services in England will have associated funding implications for Scotland. It is unfortunate that no clear evidence has been provided regarding the protection of NHS Scotland and that we are instead reliant on an assurance from the EU and the UK Government that we should not be concerned. Legal advice sought by Unite the union was quite clear in concluding that the NHS is:

“Included in the material scope of the TTIP”.

The concerns of many people in Scotland about TTIP and NHS privatisation could easily be alleviated by an explicit opt-out for the NHS in the text of the agreement. As yet that has not been forthcoming. The SNP will continue to engage and advocate for NHS Scotland to receive adequate protection.

[Rachael Maskell]

Would it not be better to have a positive list of what is included in TTIP, rather than a negative list of what is excluded?

[Ronnie Cowan]

I could not argue with that. Either way, we need to have the assurances in writing.

Worryingly, there are already examples of Government policy changes resulting in legal action from foreign investors, including in the health sector. We must do everything possible to oppose such a situation in the UK’s nations. I would add that the European Commission’s proposal to replace the investor-state dispute settlement mechanism with the investment court system is little more than a rebranding exercise that will not alleviate the concerns that have been raised. It is unclear to me why an entirely separate legal mechanism is required to “protect” investors from national Governments. Foreign investors should not have the privilege of a special court, and multinational corporations, like individuals, should continue to operate entirely within the existing legal framework.

For those reasons, the text of any TTIP agreement must be subject to parliamentary scrutiny before the UK votes on it at European level. The Scottish Parliament must be part of that process, as Holyrood is best placed to determine the effects of any agreement on Scotland.

I have no objection in principle to free trade agreements, but it must not be free trade at any cost. The potential threat to NHS services, the transfer of powers to the private sector and the lack of transparency in the negotiation process are all areas of serious concern. It may yet be possible to reform TTIP in a positive way, but that can be done only when elected representatives have a more active role in drafting the agreement. Until the European Commission recognises these concerns, I am unable to see how any elected representative can give unqualified support to TTIP.

14:06

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

I marvel at the utter certainty of the many hon. Members who are not here. Before negotiations are even completed, they seem to know what is in the final settlement. I marvel, in particular, at the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy), as we can see him fading away into the mists of the past—

[John Nicolson (East Dunbartonshire) (SNP)]

Like Brigadoon.

[Roger Mullin]

Yes, like Brigadoon. I marvelled at his utter certainty and faith in the European Union as he read a letter to us for two and a half minutes. We can be comforted by the fact that we received assurances from the UK Government, and from Government Members, on a negotiation that is not complete, and unlikely to be completed for a considerable time.

I am in favour of international trade—it would be surprising if I were not, as the Member who represents the constituency that was home of Adam Smith. It would be wise of Government Members, had there been any here, to read some of his writings and see what leads to free trade and effective markets. My concern is that much of what is being proposed takes inadequate account of small and medium-sized enterprises, for example. We will be faced with a costly, bureaucratic and legalistic international court system.

[Drew Hendry]

Given the historically important factors for Scotland, such as shellfish and wild salmon, does my hon. Friend agree that it is vital that the Scottish Government understand the implications of the details of any TTIP agreement before it is implemented?

[Roger Mullin]

Absolutely. That is a particularly important reason why it is not only this House that needs fully and properly to debate any final settlement; it also needs to come to the devolved authorities, and not only in Scotland, but in Northern Ireland and Wales—I assume that Members from Northern Ireland and Wales would welcome that opportunity. If there is anything that new Members, who have been here for a mere six months, have come to understand, it is that this Government have no interest whatsoever in the concerns of the Scottish economy, and it is matched only by their complete ignorance of it.

[Anna Soubry]

indicated dissent.

[Roger Mullin]

Well, the lady on the Government Front Bench can do her snide little waving, but it does not hide the truth of my statement. [Interruption.] Yes, does she wish to intervene? [Interruption.] Silence is golden in some cases.

I commend the hon. Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) for securing this fine opportunity to debate this important issue, but I am sure that he, like me, is very disappointed at the lack of interest shown by Government Members in international trade. I have particular interests that have not been mentioned so far, so I am going to take a little time to delve into one or two other areas.

I became aware some time ago that the Department for International Development had commissioned a study by the University of Sussex on the impact of TTIP on developing countries, or what it called “low income countries.” I would like to read into the record one of the paragraphs produced by the University of Sussex for the Government:

“A transatlantic agreement carries potential threats…in some sectors. The reciprocal removal of”

most favoured nation

“tariffs in transatlantic trade could entail LIC”—

low income countries—

“lose market share to the TTIP partners as a result of the fall in tariffs and other barriers.”

In other words, and to put it simply, the removal of barriers to partners within the deal while maintaining barriers elsewhere will make it more difficult for international trade to be accessed by some of the world’s poorest countries, which we should be encouraging to engage in trade. I am concerned about that and hope that when the Minister responds, she will address the effect that the proposal will have on some of the poorest countries in the world.

Like many Members who have already spoken, I am also concerned about the great democratic deficit in the proposed investor-state dispute settlement or, as it is becoming known, the international court system. I was particularly intrigued by the comments of the former Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr Lilley), that he was greatly concerned about the issue. ISDS will put in place a system that could usurp the legitimate democratic processes of those countries involved. On this point, as on so many others, those of us who are concerned have been reassured and told that we are foolish because there have been 94 ISDS agreements and nobody ever uses them. If that is the case, allow me to save millions of pounds in negotiating them by suggesting that they be immediately dropped. Then everybody will be happy and content, will we not? Some of the arguments strike me as completely and utterly fallacious, if enjoyable near Christmas time.

I wanted to refer to many other issues. I have been encouraged by my fellow SNP MPs to respond to all the detailed contributions made by Government Members, but since they are not here to hear my words of wisdom, I think I will save them for a more convivial time, in order to take them to task.

[John Nicolson]

For those of us who are having trouble seeing across the aisle, will my hon. Friend, for the record, remind us how many Conservatives are taking part in this debate? Perhaps he could count them for us.

[Roger Mullin]

My hon. Friend is being very unkind. I believe there is one to come, but I do not see the right hon. and hon. Members I would have expected to be flooding the Government Benches, had they a genuine interest in international trade or in the issues under discussion. They have gone away, like much of this Government’s policy.

If anybody needs to be convinced that we need to be concerned about TTIP, the democratic deficit and the way in which it provides favours, but only for the large corporations, this debate has served its purpose and served it well.

14:14

[Kate Osamor (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) on securing this debate and the other hon. Members who signed the motion.

I want to focus on the potential impact of the investor-state dispute settlement on our NHS. Before coming to this House, I worked in the NHS for 15 years, so it is personally important to me. Many of my constituents have also sent me emails stating that they are very concerned about the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership and the potentially damaging effects on consumer safety, environmental protection and public health.

The ISDS allows investors to bring proceedings against foreign Governments who are party to the treaty in tribunals outside the domestic legal system. The Government state that the ISDS provisions are still under negotiation and that they must strike the right balance on protecting investors. I believe that that threatens to lead to greater corporate interference in public policy, as Governments may be motivated by fears that they are going to be sued by private companies. Therefore, I was particularly concerned when in February the summary of a legal opinion commissioned by Unite—a left-wing union of which I am a member—suggested that

“there are real risks arising from the TTIP that could impact on the NHS unless a robust carve-out is put in place.”

I am encouraged by the Government’s answer to a parliamentary question on 28 October that they have protected the national health service and public services in these trade agreements and that it would be possible for a future Government to terminate private provision of services, but I am deeply concerned that they will facilitate further privatisation under this Government. Many campaigners, including People’s NHS, who took to the streets in November, also fear for the NHS.

I end my speech by asking the Government, first, to clarify their position on the use of the ISDS element of TTIP and, secondly, to reiterate their guarantee that it will not interfere with our ability to de-privatise our NHS.

14:17

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

I, too, thank my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) and the Backbench Business Committee for initiating this important debate.

TTIP may not be on the lips of everyone in every constituency, but there is great interest in it in my constituency, so much so that during the general election campaign, when I was pleased to be joined on the campaign trail by the wife of the then Leader of the Opposition, she was absolutely amazed to find that the inhabitants of the first three houses whose doors we knocked on all wanted to talk to her about TTIP. I think she went away appreciating that Cambridge is a very special city indeed.

Such is the interest in the city that we have had a series of public meetings, one of which I organised. I was very pleased to welcome my colleagues Richard Howitt and Lucy Anderson, who are both Members of the European Parliament, to help throw light on what for many people is still a deeply opaque process.

Of course, I agree with other hon. Members that trade agreements are important, but they are also intricate and complicated, perhaps inevitably so. For many of our citizens they seem very remote, and they are often negotiated under wraps. Even to those of us who are following the detail, TTIP can seem fiendishly complex, but it is so important that it cannot be ignored, which is why we must keep asking questions and make sure that they are answered to our satisfaction.

As other hon. Members have pointed out, of course we are in favour of trade agreements. They bring significant benefits and boost trade and growth, and they should secure and create jobs, bring down costs and extend choice for consumers. The Government tell us that an ambitious agreement could add as much as £10 billion annually to the UK economy in the long term, which would be good for jobs and good for consumers. That would, indeed, be welcome, but those economic benefits are contested, and I suspect that, in truth, the reality is that there is simply no way of knowing for sure at this stage what the potential gains may be. We should beware of hyperbole. We need to be able to weigh the possible benefits against the possible risks, which is why the Government should assess, in a transparent, comprehensive manner, what the real economic impact might be. I understand the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee has recommended that this assessment should set out the potential benefits and risks on a sector-by-sector basis, which would probably provide much sought-after clarity.

There are many concerns about TTIP, and they have been well rehearsed in this debate. I share with many hon. Friends the concerns about the impact on public services, particularly the national health service. The investor-state dispute settlement mechanism might gift transnational corporations the power to sue countries for profits that have been lost as a result of that country’s policy decisions. There is a very real fear that the inclusion of the ISDS mechanism will prevent a future Labour Government from reversing the Health and Social Care Act 2012 in England owing to the fear of the cost of legal challenges they may face.

[Mr Spellar]

If companies have existing contracts as a result of privatisation, can they not, under contract law, take action in the domestic courts? Is that not the problem, rather than that there will be a new legal procedure?

[Daniel Zeichner]

I certainly agree with my right hon. Friend that real problems are created by our own Government, and we do not just have to fear TTIP, but TTIP might make the situation worse. As someone who endured the horrors of a tortuous and expensive tendering process for our health services in Cambridgeshire during the past few years and has seen it collapse spectacularly and expensively in recent weeks, my advice to the House is: “Don’t go there.”

We have had reassurances from Ministers. Recently, the Minister for Skills said that

“the Government were entirely satisfied that the position regarding TTIP would not threaten the public status of our NHS or other public services. We were entirely satisfied that there was absolutely no intention on the part of the Commission in negotiating the agreement, or on the part of any other EU member state, to allow the status of either our public services or theirs to be threatened.”—[Official Report, 9 July 2015; Vol. 598, c. 568.]

I must say that I am not so sure, not just because of who told us that, but because, from what I have heard, my constituents are not satisfied and because we will not be satisfied until we have concrete proof that a TTIP deal would not irreversibly expose the NHS to competition and threaten its very basis as a public service.

Finally, TTIP is no ordinary trade agreement. Its prime objective is the removal of regulatory barriers to trade, but there is a significant gap between EU and US regulations in a host of areas—safety at work, food production, the use of pesticides and GM crops are just some of them. The danger is that instead of TTIP harmonising regulations upwards to remove regulatory barriers, it will seek the mutual recognition of regulations between the EU and the US. That will inevitably lead to pressure for deregulation in the EU, as EU businesses find that they can no longer compete against US companies that operate to inferior standards of environmental protection and health and safety legislation.

[Jo Stevens]

There are significant concerns about the United States not ratifying the International Labour Organisation conventions and about violations of fundamental labour rights in the United States, such as the right to organise and the right to negotiate collectively. Does my hon. Friend support the implementation of those core ILO standards within TTIP?

[Daniel Zeichner]

It would most certainly be good for our Government to recognise many such obligations, and certainly to do so within TTIP. I wanted to conclude that section of my speech by saying, to put it rather crudely, that the US can keep Donald Trump—we do not want that here.

These issues are not easy to resolve, but we should proceed with caution. A trade agreement that brings economic benefits for our country is undoubtedly welcome, but putting ourselves at a disadvantage, undermining our public services and weakening consumer and workplace safeguards is not. We deserve to know what is going on, and we demand that the Government stop ducking and dodging and ensure that future negotiations with the EU and the US are done in the open so that everyone can make an informed judgment.

14:23

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner). Like him, I have heard many concerns expressed by many constituents in relation to this issue at a number of levels. They do not come at it with an anti-American point of view. My constituency enjoys significant US corporate investment—would that we had more—and many people are employed by firms that are US-based or were US-based but now have a more global formation. The city of Derry has long been key to the transatlantic partnership. It was a key transatlantic port for many years, and even during the second world war. As Base One Europe, the Americans’ first base in Europe in the second world war was in Derry. In fact, they started building it six months before Pearl harbour.

My constituency gives such transatlantic relationships a very positive embrace. We are not against anything transatlantic, we are not against trade, we are not against investment and we are not against partnership, but people have a right to be concerned about what has been proposed and to make sure that parliamentarians—at Westminster, in the European Parliament and, I hope, in the Parliaments of other member states—will do due diligence and give due scrutiny to what is involved, because the potential is significant.

I do not dispute that some aspects of TTIP are potentially very positive. I have listened to the arguments that some hon. Members have made in offering assurances about what this trade deal actually represents. However, they too must listen to people’s serious and genuine concerns. I congratulate the hon. Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) on introducing this debate, but I also congratulate the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr Lilley) on helping to delineate carefully some of the different issues involved.

We have to make sure that we are not creating, in the name of all the good we want to happen in relation to trade and investment, any new constructs that are beyond accountability, meaning that we end up with transnational capital having more legal clout than the parliamentary systems of democratic states in determining public policy and national law.

It is also important to recognise that some hon. Members have cited the assurances given either by Ministers in this Parliament or by members of the European Commission. Some people say, “Well, other investor-state dispute settlement systems have not resulted in cases being lost.” We know that past performance is no guarantee in relation to future prospects. We particularly need to recognise that the scale involved in this deal is much greater than that involved in any of the other existing bilateral ISDS set-ups.

We must remember that there is potential not just for cases against the UK to be lost, but for cases against other member states to be lost, which would then create case law that could, in turn, be used against the UK and other member states. That is a key worry for the devolved Administrations: what are the consequences for them of cases brought elsewhere? Indeed, the devolved Administrations may be targeted—for example, a case may be brought against a devolved health service—because they are seen not to have very deep pockets and are seen not to be in a strong position to hold out against such a case. For some corporate interests, that may then be a Trojan horse to get into other UK services.

We have had such an experience in relation to the EU. The fact is that the European Commission has often introduced directives, and given assurances about its intentions and the import of those directives, but has not then been in control of subsequent European Court of Justice decisions. Such ECJ decisions have meant that the European Commission has had to revise its guidance to member states, and member states that previously relied on those assurances have had to bow to different demands.

[Christina Rees]

Does the hon. Gentleman think that a separate judicial system available only to foreign investors is called for?

[Mark Durkan]

That could be one answer. There may be something in that. It is interesting that the European Commission seems to have accepted that there are some problems with the proposed ISDS. I note that even the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) said that some legitimate concerns about the ISDS had been made, although he did not tell us what they are. Does the proposed investment court system answer all such questions? I am not sure that it does, and we must look at that. We must come up with a system that actually works in all terms: yes, one that provides free trade, open trade and fair trade, but also one that protects public services in this country.

We must remember that aspects of TTIP have previously been debated in this Chamber and elsewhere. Indeed, the hon. Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) introduced a private Member’s Bill during the last Parliament. I was on the Public Bill Committee on the National Health Service (Amended Duties and Powers) Bill. It was filibustered by Conservative Members who wanted to stop a private Member’s Bill that would have provided belt and braces protection against the implications of TTIP for the health service. If they thought that the protection was already there and the Bill was superfluous, it seems strange that they would go to such lengths to filibuster it. The hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) treated us to hours of papal encyclicals on social good and health. We were treated to his version of “Top of the Popes”, all in an attempt to stop this House putting in place a bulwark to protect health services. That makes people suspicious of the true import of this agreement.

The hon. Member for City of Chester (Christian Matheson) was right to ask how this issue will play into the EU referendum. He said that the arguments that are being made for TTIP could be used by people who want us to exit the EU to say, “We can have all the benefits of trade outside the EU.” On the other hand, the referendum will probably be highly personalised as the Prime Minister’s referendum and, as he will have little to show from his renegotiation that will persuade the doubters on his Back Benches, he will instead go before the electorate saying, “If you don’t stay in the EU, you won’t have the benefits of TTIP.”

This referendum may well be sold, as was the original referendum, on the basis of market opportunity. If the market opportunity is the TTIP market, this might become a very significant issue during the campaign. The experience in Ireland shows that issues that appear to be esoteric and technocratic can become the running strand in a referendum—one does not know where that will lie. The fundamental misgivings that people have about TTIP need to be addressed now through proper scrutiny; otherwise we might find ourselves casualties of the public debate during the referendum campaign.

14:32

[Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)]

I would like to put on the record my appreciation for the work that my hon. Friend the Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant) and the hon. Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) did to secure this important debate on TTIP. It is a matter of great concern to many of us across the House and it has been important to hear the varied contributions. I pay tribute, in particular, to my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Roger Mullin), whose contributions are always considered and colourful.

The position of the Scottish National party on the proposed trade deal has been clear and consistent, and was reached democratically by the membership of our party. I reflect the views of my hon. Friends, the membership of my party and many, many Scots when I say that we have real and legitimate concerns about a number of the proposed provisions in the trade agreement that would threaten the ability of elected Governments in Europe to act and regulate in the public interest. I will touch on those concerns later.

At the outset, I will address the value of international trade and foreign direct investment, which are vital to our economy. The debate on this trade agreement is not about the principles of free trade. I and my party are passionately pro-trade. Instead, this debate is about the need to achieve a balance. There must be a balance between securing opportunities for further international trade and doing so transparently, while protecting the integrity of democratically elected Governments to run public services and make decisions in the interests of the people they were elected to serve.

Scotland is an avowedly outward-looking and ambitious nation, and is punching well above its economic weight. According to Ernst & Young, Scotland was the UK’s most successful inward investment magnet outside London last year in terms of the number of investment projects secured. In all, 80 separate inward investment projects came to Scotland last year, almost half of which were from the United States. There is a pattern of competitive excellence. Over the past 10 years, Scotland has secured more than 37,000 jobs from foreign direct investment, making it a narrow second to London but well ahead of other parts of the UK. In the past six years, under the SNP Scottish Government, the value of international exports has increased by 40%. That is good for Scottish business, good for the Scottish economy and good for working people in Scotland. The internationalisation of Scottish business, boosting exports and attracting foreign direct investment remain key to Scotland’s economic strategy. My point is that Scotland is a proud and successful trading nation.

In the interests of balance, it would be remiss of me not to highlight the Conservative Government’s record on trade and exports. There were 4,000 fewer British businesses exporting in 2014 compared with the number that traded internationally in the previous year. Earlier this year, it emerged that the Chancellor has presided over the largest annual trade deficit since records began in 1948—a deficit of £92.9 billion, which is the equivalent of 5.1% of GDP at current market prices. The claim that the Government lay to economic credibility is a myth and it lies in tatters.

I highlight that trading record because it is important to recognise that the economic achievements of the SNP Scottish Government are characterised by an openness to trade with our partners and friends around the world. We welcome the opportunity to forge better trade links and encourage our businesses to release their international potential. However, TTIP represents better trade links at the expense of transparency and democracy, and potentially at the expense of good public services owned and managed by the public. I will address three specific concerns.

The first concern relates to the investor-state dispute settlement, which has been much talked about today. We have seen movement on this issue over the past few months from the European Commission, which has conducted somewhat of a rebranding exercise with its revised international court system, which replaces ISDS. Although the ICS proposals contain a number of important reforms of ISDS, the changes are nowhere near what is required to overhaul the inherently unfair system of extra-judicial rights for foreign investors. The fundamental question of why private companies require the ability to challenge public policy decisions made by democratically elected Governments remains unanswered.

This is not a fringe concern. Without intimating any political preference in the upcoming US presidential election, I highlight the comments of Hillary Clinton in her book, “Hard Choices”. I commend it to the House—it is a great read. She says of trade agreements that

“we should avoid some of the provisions sought by business interests, including our own, like giving them or their investors the power to sue foreign governments to weaken their environmental and public health rules”.

While I am talking about views in the US, it is interesting to note the letter of objection to ISDS, which claims that it weakens the rule of law, that was signed by eminent lawyers and academics such as Judith Resnik, professor of law at Yale, and Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz.

The SNP has repeatedly pressed the Government for an explicit exemption from the agreement for the national health service. There must be absolute clarity that although the UK is, for the time being, the member state, any decision it takes in the context of TTIP, such as opening up the NHS in England to greater private sector involvement, in no way interferes with the Scottish Parliament’s devolved responsibility for the Scottish NHS. I commend the campaigns that have stimulated public interest in the potential consequences for important public health services, particularly the People’s NHS campaign. I urge the Government to pursue meaningful exemptions for the NHS.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is concerning that the public information campaign on TTIP has been left to such grassroots organisations? They are going out and making the case to people on the streets on a voluntary basis, but there is no wider campaign.

[Hannah Bardell]

I share my hon. Friend’s concern. Perhaps we should draw on the experience of the Scottish referendum, which showed that full engagement and full transparency allow full participation in these processes. It is important that the public have all the information available to them.

My second concern about the potential impact on Scotland of a ratified TTIP is the effect on protected food names and geographical indicators.

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

This week, we had an excellent Westminster Hall debate on bees and the use of neonicotinoids. There are worries that TTIP could water down the regulations on pesticides. Does my hon. Friend agree that, in addition to the threat to names and geographical indicators, TTIP poses other threats that could affect Scotland’s clean, green status and its £14 billion food and drink sector?

[Hannah Bardell]

My hon. Friend makes her argument eloquently, and I share her concerns.

I understand that in the course of the negotiations the UK Government have suggested three Scottish products—Scotch beef, Scotch lamb and Scottish farmed salmon—for inclusion in TTIP as protected geographical products. However, there are at least 11 other protected Scottish food names which must have clear and explicit protection in TTIP. The consequence of this not happening would be the potential flooding of the market with imitation products. I invite a commitment from the UK Government that they will negotiate for the inclusion of special protections in TTIP for the full range of protected Scottish product names.

Negotiations on the scope of TTIP began in July 2013, but the people of these isles, who will be affected for better or worse by this trade agreement, have had to rely on speculation in the column inches of newspapers for any insight into how they might be affected. Indeed, the progress of this trade agreement has been characterised by a lack of transparency, and that is simply not good enough. Again, this is not a fringe concern; it has also been expressed by the President of the German Bundestag, Norbert Lammert, who has indicated that he would even oppose TTIP without a more transparent process of negotiation.

Should an agreement on TTIP eventually be reached, it will be for the Heads of Government across Europe to indicate their approval and for the European Parliament to approve or reject the agreement. On the question of whether the final deal is good for us, good for our public services and good for our small businesses, we will need to place our trust in this Prime Minister’s judgment. I would suggest to him—and to this Government—with the greatest respect, that should an agreement on the scope of TTIP emerge, he might wish to afford this House the opportunity to properly debate the merits of any such agreement. That point has been made numerous times today, and I would welcome a commitment from the UK Government to that effect. I also suggest that that courtesy might be extended to the devolved legislatures and Governments.

It is by no means clear when, or even if, a final agreement on TTIP might emerge. To be clear, should it come to pass that an agreement is reached, any potential economic benefits of TTIP cannot come at the price of the threat of the privatisation of our public services such as the NHS, and it cannot come at the expense of the integrity of our distinct national products. I suggest that public and political confidence, if they are not already lost, might be won by embracing a more transparent process in the progression towards an agreement. I look forward to the contribution from the Government today.

14:41

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

First, I want to say well done to my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) for securing the debate. If I counted correctly, there have been 16 Back-Bench contributions. I hope I have not missed anyone out. The speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West was followed by a very important speech from the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr Lilley). His thoughtful and important points about international bureaucracies outside democratic control resonated across the House. My right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (Mr Spellar), the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on European Union-United States trade and investment, put the case in his typically robust style and in a very effective manner.

We also heard speeches from the hon. Member for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb), my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Christian Matheson), the hon. Members for Newark (Robert Jenrick), for Glenrothes (Peter Grant) and for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy), my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman), the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards), my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins), the hon. Members for Inverclyde (Ronnie Cowan) and for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Roger Mullin), my hon. Friends the Members for Edmonton (Kate Osamor) and for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner), and the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan). Finally, we heard from the hon. Member for Livingston (Hannah Bardell), speaking from the Front Bench for the Scottish National party. All those speeches made for a very interesting debate, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to it.

There have been several debates on this subject in the House over the past couple of years and I am sure that they have helped to shape the debate about TTIP and to influence the negotiations in a positive way. There is general cross-party support for trade, and for a good trade agreement, but, as we have heard, there is also a great deal of controversy and concern, and in some cases outright opposition.

A comprehensive trade agreement between the EU and the USA has huge potential benefits. The CBI has described it as a global economic game changer, but of course for that to be true we have to get it right. The hon. Member for Livingston pointed out the Government’s dismal record on trade. I can tell her that new figures have come out today on the UK trade deficit in goods and services which show that the figure had risen to £4.1 billion in the three months to October 2015, which is £2.4 billion higher than in the previous three months. If that is not clear evidence that we need to improve our trade and export performance, I cannot imagine what is.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

Does my hon. Friend agree with Anthony Hilton, who has written in the Evening Standard that the disaster facing us is in fact a trade deficit disaster, and that this Government and future Governments will have to address it?

[Kevin Brennan]

Yes, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. When the Government discuss deficits, they seem not to want to talk about the trade deficit at all. It is extremely important, however, because it will in effect become a tax on every household in the country if we allow it to persist. We have to do much better, and this point simply highlights the difference between the Government’s rhetoric and the reality of what is happening in our economy.

Estimates commissioned by the Government, and others, suggest that the potential gain from TTIP to British output could be between £4 billion and £10 billion, or 1% and 3% in exports. We must, however, be cautious about the overall figures, as they have been questioned. It would be helpful if the Government could do more to explain their case. In particular, given the wide range of contributions to today’s debate from Members representing constituents in all the nations and regions of the UK, it would be helpful if they could break down a little further what the potential benefits would be across the nations and regions.

I put a written parliamentary question to the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, which the Minister for Small Business, Industry and Enterprise answered recently. My question was about the potential benefits of TTIP to various parts of the UK economy. The part of the question that the Government could not answer was the part relating to the benefits for the economy of each region and nation. It would be useful if the Government did that work if they want to convince the public across the United Kingdom of the benefits of the process.

We support the core objectives of a good deal—job creation, better wages, higher standards and consumer benefits—but as the debate has shown, there are still legitimate concerns that the Minister needs to address in her response. The desire to get the deal through is understandable, particularly given the US presidential election in 2016. Europe and the US are Britain’s most important markets. The US is already the UK’s largest export market, but more can be done to tackle barriers to trade and to improve market access—hence the need to reach a deal. However, any trade deal must filter down to employees, to small and medium-sized enterprises and to consumers. The business case for TTIP must be more than a case just for business. That point will be crucial in assessing any final deal.

We have set out four tests in the past and I want to repeat them today. The first key test is the ability of the deal to deliver jobs and growth. The second is that it should be open and accountable. The third is the aim to achieve the highest possible standards regarding social and environmental concerns and, of course, wages. Fourthly, the agreement must allow enough space for national Governments to act in their own interests and according to their own democratic mandates. We have been monitoring closely the negotiations between the EU and the US, and the UK Government’s input into them, through the prism of those tests. We want the benefits that businesses experience to be passed on to consumers through better choice or lower prices.

I am sure the Minister will argue strongly for the benefits that TTIP can bring, and it would be useful to hear whether she thinks it would be in Britain’s interest to leave the European Union, given that we are negotiating this agreement. Can she explain what would happen to TTIP if the UK left the EU? Reports suggest that the Prime Minister is considering recommending such a course of action if he cannot get his way in the negotiations. Labour Members strongly believe that it is in the UK’s interest to stay in the European Union, and I hope the Minister will echo that in her response to the debate.

Real concerns have been raised about the ISDS, and many of our Labour colleagues in the European Parliament have pressed hard on that issue. The current European Parliament resolution calls for the ISDS to be replaced by a

“new system for resolving disputes between investors and states”

that is

“subject to democratic principles and scrutiny.”

The text does not address the issue of having a separate judicial system that is available only to foreign investors. The European Commission responded to the European Parliament’s demand by publishing on 16 September a proposal for a new mechanism called the investment court system, which would be used as a reference for TTIP and all future trade negotiations. Labour MEPs are considering that proposal closely and have expressed strong reservations about it.

It would be helpful to hear a strong statement on the NHS from the Minister, given the concerns that have been raised by constituents and by right hon. and hon. Members today. When does the Minister believe that the TTIP agreement is likely to be concluded? What representations have Ministers made to the European Union about ISDS, and what are the Government doing to engage better with businesses, charities, consumer groups and trade unions to improve public understanding of TTIP and counter the view that it is all being done behind the public’s back?

The prize of a successful agreement must be shared among all—businesses, employees and consumers—and not just large corporate interests. Labour will continue to push for transparency so that the benefits of this major deal are clear to all. As hon. Members have mentioned, there are concerns about the impact of TTIP on working people and public services in the UK. Our major concern is that the trade agreement has the potential to dilute workers’ rights, and given the Government’s record on that—not least the Trade Union Bill in the other place—those concerns are understandable. What assurances can the Minister give about labour and workers’ rights, and will she assure the House that the agreement will not be used to block future attempts to bring a health service back towards public ownership?

Time is limited, so in conclusion we believe it right that this important issue be debated in Parliament, and we agree that the proposals deserve proper scrutiny at UK and EU level. Labour supports trade agreements that can bring significant benefits through boosting trade and growth, securing and creating jobs, and bringing down costs and extending choice for consumers. However, we want to hear the Government’s response to the legitimate concerns that have been raised in the House today about TTIP.

14:51

[The Minister for Small Business, Industry and Enterprise (Anna Soubry)]

I think you are too young, Madam Deputy Speaker, to remember Sanatogen wine, but yesterday I was unfortunately on my sick bed. In fact, I was so ill—I do not expect any sympathy—that I could barely sip water, never mind Sanatogen wine, but today’s debate has been an absolute tonic. At times my blood pressure rose a little too high for comfort, but I think we have had a really good debate about this important agreement.

Unfortunately I have only about seven or eight minutes to try to answer all the points that have been raised, and I will fail in that. The usual rules apply, and anybody who has raised an important point will get a letter in response to it, because time—as ever—is against me. I congratulate the hon. Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) on securing this debate, and hon. Members on the quality of almost all the speeches.

My hon. Friends the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy), for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb), and for Newark (Robert Jenrick) raised a point about the unfortunate scare stories that have been put around. I gently chide the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Roger Mullin) who spoke about the fact that the Government Benches were empty. In fact, many Members seem to have disappeared by the time he rose to speak—I am sure that was not a comment on his oratory. There were about 15 SNP Members in the Chamber, and it would be silly to suggest that those who were not present do not care about this important matter.

[Callum McCaig (Aberdeen South) (SNP)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Anna Soubry]

No I will not.

It does not enhance the reputation of the Chamber when hon. Members refer to the lack of people present, because that does not mean that other hon. Members are not in their rooms working and following the debate, or that they will not read it in Hansard. We all care, on all sides of the House, about this matter.

My hon. Friends the Members for Brigg and Goole, for Aberconwy and for Newark made very important points about the scare stories. There has been a lot of unpleasantness around this matter. I would just say to the hon. Member for City of Chester (Christian Matheson) that perhaps he and others on the Labour Benches are now experiencing the sort of abuse and attack that, frankly, most of us on the Conservative Benches have been receiving for many, many years. This is really a rather good example of it. We have been told that we do not believe in our national health service, although we do, and that we want in some way to privatise it, which we do not. Equally, we have been told by an SNP Member that such was his concern that he decided to write to the Prime Minister and that the Prime Minister wrote back giving an unequivocal guarantee that neither the NHS nor any other public service was under threat from this agreement, at which point he—the hon. Gentleman—said it was not worth the paper it was written on. I do not think that that advances democracy; it is grossly insulting to the office of the Prime Minister and it does the hon. Gentleman no credit at all.

We then have the letter from the European Commission. I will not repeat it, as my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole read out the most important points and put them on the record. Well, I hope hon. Members will take the view of the European Commission. It is a remarkable document from the EU. It is succinct and it answers good questions with good straight answers. It is absolutely clear that this trade agreement poses no threat to the national health service or any other bit of the public sector. It is most unfortunate that too many Opposition Members refuse to listen to the reality and take those assurances, and instead scaremonger and whip up a storm where no storm exists.

There has been criticism about an apparent lack of transparency. I am very grateful to the European Union, which during the course of the debate has tweeted a link to its website. I have visited its website. If Members follow me on Twitter, I will very happily provide a link to it. Again, I have to say—perhaps remarkably, although I am a firm supporter of our continued membership of the European Union; that is well known and has been known for donkeys’ years—in all seriousness that it absolutely lays out everything that is being negotiated very clearly in good plain English. The idea, therefore, that this is all being conducted in a secret manner is absolute nonsense.

It is very important to make the point that there have been six debates about TTIP in this place, and rightly so. That is exactly what this place does extremely well. Backbench Business debates, Westminster Hall debates—it matters not. They have all been opportunities, like today, for hon. Members quite properly to stand up and raise their concerns, as the hon. Member for Swansea West so ably did.

[Helen Goodman]

Will the Minister use the last three minutes to respond to the questions that have been raised about ISDS, instead of telling us what she drinks?

[Anna Soubry]

The hon. Lady has just wasted 30 seconds in which I could have provided exactly that response.

May I now deal with the actual subject of the debate, even though others seem to have drifted off? This is an important trade agreement and it is all about free trade. It will bring huge benefits to the economy of this country. We have heard mention, quite rightly, of independent assessments that say that the benefit to the United Kingdom economy is somewhere in the region of £10 billion—that is real benefit to everybody. We have many examples of previous treaties. The hon. Lady should know all about these investment treaties and ISDS clauses, which she says she does not like in this treaty. She should like them. She should know all about them, because when she was in government she approved 20 of them—20 of these sorts of treaties were signed by the previous Labour Government, and rightly so. We have a great record of creating the right environment in the United Kingdom for investors and for treating them fairly. We have over 90 such agreements in place with other countries, and, as other hon. Members have said, there has never been a successful claim brought against the United Kingdom. To date, 90-plus existing bilateral investment treaties have not led to any regulatory chill. The European Union wants an improved approach to investment protection, and ISDS in TTIP guarantees the right of Governments to legislate in the public interest fairly and without discrimination.

I will deal quickly with the point about small and medium-sized businesses. I take exception to the idea that they will somehow suffer disproportionately under TTIP. On the contrary, large companies can often overcome non-tariff barriers, such as differing regulatory standards, because they have the necessary resources that small businesses simply do not have—small businesses cannot afford the time and the costs involved. TTIP is likely to be most beneficial precisely to small businesses in our country, because it will help them trade, notably with the United States.

I can assure hon. Members that these provisions will not prevent the Government from taking regulatory action to protect the public or the environment, nor will they force the Government to change laws, to open markets, or, as I say, to privatise public services such as the NHS. I want to make it absolutely clear that climate change policies are not on the table in the TTIP negotiations, so TTIP will not hold back action on climate change or undermine current or future legal obligations, under the United Nations framework convention on climate change, to reduce carbon emissions.

TTIP is not a secret negotiation. It is there for everybody to read on the internet, and it is reaching the right conclusions. When it has concluded, it will be for this Chamber to ratify it. It will lie here for 21 days. At that point, any hon. Member could put before the House a motion to reject it. However, I hope that when that day comes Members will accept this agreement because it is about free trade and it is the right thing to do.

15:00

[Geraint Davies]

I thank all Members from all corners and all nations of the United Kingdom who have contributed to this excellent debate. The problem that people have with TTIP is ISDS. Nobody has made a compelling case for the inclusion of ISDS. The wolf’s teeth should be drawn so that we can move forward to get the benefits of trade. In addition, we need to introduce enforceable and binding measures to protect our environment, our democracy, our labour standards, and our human rights.

The simple fact is that we want trade. Yes, we will have trade, but let us not trade our democracy, our liberty, our sovereignty, our public services and our environment into the pockets of multinational companies. Let us have trade, let us move forward, let us keep all that we have in Europe that we value, and let us have a global trading situation where everybody can benefit fairly and our environment is sustained.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House believes that the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, the Comprehensive European Trade Agreement, the Trade in Services Agreement and any associated investor-state dispute settlement provisions should be subject to full parliamentary scrutiny in the UK and European parliaments.

International Human Rights Day

Thursday 10th December 2015 Commons Chamber

15:02

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered International Human Rights Day.

As we celebrate the 800th anniversary of Magna Carta this year, it seems particularly appropriate to debate international human rights to highlight the fact that in many parts of the world the values of Magna Carta, the rule of law and basic rights are routinely, systematically and severely violated; and to ask Her Majesty’s Government whether human rights remain at the very heart of our foreign policy, and, if so, how we protect and promote them in practice. That is the thrust of this debate.

I am aware of the recent reconfiguration of human rights priorities within the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to address human rights within the broad contexts of democratic values, the rules-based international system, and human rights for a stable world. I look forward to hearing from the Minister what that will mean in practice and how human rights will be more effectively delivered under the new framework.

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

Having written to the Prime Minister and the Foreign Office a fortnight ago regarding proposed mass executions in Saudi Arabia, I am dismayed that the Government evidently do not share my alarm, as I am yet to receive replies. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if the UK Government wish to be taken seriously about human rights, they need to show more leadership globally?

[Jim Shannon]

Yes, I do, and I have already put that on the record in debates in Westminster Hall.

I am particularly pleased to have secured this debate alongside the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), who is sitting across the way; she is a dear friend who is well respected in this House. There have been many debates in this House on human rights themes in relation to specific countries, but we have not, to my knowledge, in the time of this Government or the previous one, had a wide-ranging debate with an opportunity to review the human rights situation around the world and the different ways in which Britain—this great nation—has responded to the challenges so far. The House of Lords has had several such debates, and I welcome this opportunity to do likewise.

The Foreign and Commonwealth Office publishes an annual report on human rights, as well as quarterly updates. May I suggest that we consider having an annual debate in Government time in the main Chamber of this House to coincide with the release of the annual report, giving the House as a whole an opportunity to respond to it?

It is vital that we discuss human rights today, on international human rights day, when we commemorate the adoption 67 years ago of the universal declaration of human rights by the UN General Assembly. The declaration was written to provide a common standard for all peoples and nations of which individuals and societies should strive to secure effective recognition and observance. It has helped to shape policy around the world and paved the way for nine legally binding human rights treaties, including the international covenants on civil and political rights and on economic, social and cultural rights, which were both adopted in 1966 and which more than 160 states have ratified.

Despite these treaties, the human rights and basic freedoms we enjoy in this country are under sustained and severe attack in many other parts of the world. Some 67 years on from the declaration’s adoption, the preamble is worth recording in Hansard, because it is very relevant today:

“disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people”.

That is what we should focus our attention on.

The first three articles of the declaration make it clear that human rights are not confined by geography, territoriality, culture or religion. As its name suggests, they are universal—for everyone—and as the UN Secretary-General, Ban Ki-moon, has underlined, it is not called the partial declaration of human rights or the sometimes declaration of human rights. Article 1 unequivocally states:

“All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.”

Article 2 states:

“Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction…or under any other limitation of sovereignty.”

Article 3 insists:

“Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.”

These and the following 27 articles should provide the framework for this debate and our foreign policy.

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

When I was a trade union representative, I went on a training course about the Human Rights Act 1998, and one thing that has always stayed with me is that the Act was introduced to prevent another holocaust from happening. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, were this country to scrap the Act, it would send a terrible message to the rest of the world?

[Jim Shannon]

Yes, I do agree. The Human Rights Act is an integral part of this debate, as I think contributions from across the Chamber today will confirm.

Despite everything I have said, freedom of expression, including freedom of the press, is denied in many countries. Journalists, dissidents and bloggers have been arrested, imprisoned or murdered in countries such as China, Bangladesh, Vietnam, Russia, Cuba, Egypt and Iran. Women’s rights are abused in many places through rape and sexual violence in conflict. Can we begin to understand the violence, barbarity and horror of what that means? Such things have occurred in parts of Burma and the Democratic Republic of Congo; such acts have been carried out by religious extremists in India and Pakistan; in countries such as Saudi Arabia women are denied basic freedoms. In addition, the rights of children are under attack through the forcible conscription of child soldiers in many countries and the use of child labour. Refugee rights are a particularly topical concern, given the unprecedented movement of people escaping desperate situations in the middle east and north Africa and the situation of the Rohingya people from Burma on boats in the Andaman sea.

Freedom of thought, conscience or religion is set out in article 18 of the declaration, and is the most basic right of all, yet the right to choose what to believe, to practise one’s beliefs, to share them with others in a non-coercive way and to change them is increasingly under threat throughout the world, and it affects everyone, of all religions and no religion. The Conservative party manifesto and the Government have recognised freedom of religion or belief as a fundamental British value, and the Government have pledged to stand up for this right at the UN Human Rights Council in 2017-19.

I am proud to chair the all-party parliamentary group on international freedom of religion or belief, which boasts 55 Members and 22 expert stakeholders dedicated to advancing this fundamental right. Freedom of religion or belief is a litmus test of the state of human rights in any society and is inseparably linked with other freedoms, such as the right to life, freedom from torture and inhuman or degrading treatment, the freedoms of expression and of association, as well as rights such as those concerning unjust detention, the right to a fair trial and the rule of law.

It is vital to recognise that such violations affect everyone, not just particular religious or belief communities. Minority belief women and children are particularly vulnerable, and are often doubly discriminated against for their identity. As Andrew Copson, chief executive of the British Humanist Association, and Benedict Rogers of the Christian Solidarity Worldwide highlight, where Christians are persecuted, minorities from within Islam—Shi’a or Ahmadiyya, for example—also suffer, as do the Baha’i. Where Muslims are the prime victims as in Burma, and the Uighurs as in China, Christians and other minorities suffer alongside them.

In many parts of the world, those who choose to exercise their right not to believe, to reject religion and to become agnostics, atheists or humanists, face discrimination, arrest, imprisonment, torture or even death. That is the reality of today’s world. Religious freedom involves far more than merely freedom to worship, and is not just a concern for some minorities that hold strong religious convictions. Religious freedom is not just a right to be tackled in moments of crisis.

My first suggestion for policymakers and diplomats therefore is directly to address freedom of religion or belief as a mainstream human right inseparably linked with other fundamental freedoms, and proactively to address religious freedom abuses before they escalate and result in devastating violence—the like of which we have seen at the hands of Daesh in Syria and Iraq. Ensuring that individuals have freedom of religion or belief is in the interests of all nations, including our own.

This year, 100,000 Christians will be murdered because of their faith, while 2 million will be persecuted for it and 2 billion will live in what is called an endangered neighbourhood. That is just one section of religion—Christians—and shows what can happen to them and to all the other religions as well. Extensive research carried out by Georgetown University’s Berkley centre demonstrates that greater religious freedom leads to better security, stability and even economic growth, and that it reduces extremism, societal tensions, violence and even poverty.

Promoting and securing the right of individuals to have the freedom to practise their beliefs in peace and safety is a fundamental British value that we all uphold. It should therefore be treated seriously as a framework on the basis of which many of the UK’s foreign policy aims can be achieved. Perhaps the Minister will respond to that point in his reply.

My colleagues will be able to expand on why a strategy including the advancement of freedom of religion or belief should inform how the 2015 national security strategy and the strategic defence and security review should be implemented. In its bid for re-election to the UN Human Rights Council, the UK pledges to advocate

“in favour of equality and non-discrimination, including on the grounds that freedom of religion or belief can help to counter violent extremism”.

I strongly believe that it can, so it is a pledge that I welcome and sincerely hope will be carried through.

It is important that the Government not only speak out about religious freedom and other human rights abuses, but proactively ensure that their current policy is not directly or indirectly supporting violations of human rights and particularly of religious freedom. Steps should be taken, for example, by the Department for International Development—it is important for this debate to encompass defence and DFID issues—in line with sustainable development goal 16 to ensure that aid is not given to schools that preach intolerance, as happens in Pakistan, and to encourage trading partners to ensure that religious minorities and those who have non-religious world-views are given equal rights in the workplace. Aid must be channelled, I believe, to organisations and programmes that can demonstrate a sophisticated understanding of freedom of religion or belief and can show how their work will have a positive rather than a negative impact.

Given that the Government have recognised in their various guises the importance of freedom of religion or belief as a fundamental stability and security-generating human right, and given that human rights are to remain at the centre of UK policy abroad, how will the Government ensure that their staff are “religious-freedom literate” and that this right will be taken seriously across all Government Departments? How will the Government ensure that all Departments work in conjunction with each other effectively to secure this right?

While the visits over the last few weeks of the Indian and Kazakhstani Prime Ministers and Chinese and Egyptian Presidents are important for building economic and trade ties, we sincerely and honestly hope that the human rights, and indeed human rights clauses in trade agreements, are kept integrated into the discussions during such visits. It is great to have economic ties, and we should have them, but let us have human rights enshrined and protected as well. Foreign policy cannot be based on fiction and we cannot allow immediate political and economic interests consistently to take precedence over more long-term security objectives, even if seen as controversial.

The spirit of the universal declaration of human rights, adopted 67 years ago today, must be respected and upheld. We must strive to secure effective recognition and observance of human rights that will in turn provide all victims of rights violations around the world with the hope that we take their situation personally and we take it seriously. We have an opportunity in this House today to be the voice of those who do not have a voice.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)]

Order. I am going to impose a time limit of eight minutes, and we will see how we get on.

15:14

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

I am delighted to be under your chairmanship again, Madam Deputy Speaker.

I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for his inspirational introduction to the debate, and for organising it. It is essential for international human rights day to be remembered in the House of Commons, which is, in many ways, the foundation of many of the rights of which we speak. It is from this Parliament, and from this voice of free-born sons of the country—originally English, but now including representatives of Scotland, Wales and Ireland—that many of the rights that we now see around the world have sprung. The traditions of democracy that were brought together here 750 years ago led to the rights in the declaration of New York, of which the hon. Gentleman rightly spoke, and which echoed around the world to fight the fascism and hatred that resulted in the holocaust. The hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton (Liz McInnes) spoke of that earlier.

[Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab)]

On this international human rights day, does the hon. Gentleman agree that the issue of violation of the Igbo tribe’s human rights needs to be resolved, and that the Biafran leader should be released, as has been suggested in representations by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman)?

[Tom Tugendhat]

The hon. Lady clearly speaks with great knowledge of those issues. I am sure that she will raise them with the Foreign Secretary and the Secretary of State for International Development on the appropriate occasions.

If the House will forgive me, I shall now focus on a specific aspect of human rights, namely the right to freedom of religion. This may surprise some Members, but I am going to begin with a quotation from the Koran. It is from the second Surah, Surah al-Baqarah, which states “la ikra fï al-din”: “There is no compulsion in religion.” One of the seminal tenets of Islam is that it is a religion freely entered into by free people, and one of the reasons why many of us recognise it as one of the great religions of the world is that very principle of freedom—that very underscoring of rights.

Those of us who may not share the same belief system as the Islamic faith, because we are from a Christian tradition, may not follow all its tenets. However, that freedom of association, that freedom of religion and expression, that freedom to choose whose God, which God, or indeed no God, is a fundamental human right. I am very pleased that we are beginning to have this conversation in the House of Commons, which, as we know, recognises all religions and none. As the west becomes more secular—and, indeed, as the “none” gains more power over the plurality—it is worth remembering that those freedoms do not always apply, and that some religions turn the minds of young men and women towards the extremism that this House would fight. However, I am pleased that we are at last talking not only about extremism as something that we might fight—as we did only a week or so ago, in the debate that was summed up so eloquently by the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn)—but about a right: a very fundamental right that all people in our country and, we hope, around the world will share.

As we emerge from talk of extremism in the global area, I hope that Members will forgive me for speaking about extremism at home. In view of Operation Trojan Horse and Peter Clarke’s impressive report on Birmingham schools, it is worth remembering that even in our own society—even in our most multicultural and free towns, such as Birmingham and London—it is possible to find havens of hatred and islands of ideology that are absolutely inimical to the freedoms that we expect of all people, not just all British people but people around the world. I am delighted that the Government are fighting that extremism, and I urge them to stand even more strongly against it. When we see young people being brought to the school of hatred rather than the school of understanding, we must fight that with every fibre of our being. It is not those young people who are born to hate, but the so-called leaders, the so-called community elders who teach them hatred, and we must fight that too.

Extremism is of course not just a threat to the souls of humans all around the world; it is a threat to our security and it is therefore absolutely right that when we consider how we shape and defend ourselves, we form one simple principle into which we must all fit. That principle was underlined in this country with the signing of the Great Charter at Runnymede; that single understanding that we all stand equal before the law, from King to pauper, is a fundamental principle. It has applied for 800 years because the common law is indeed that: it is common to all of us and it works for all of us.

When I hear people talk, as some have over the past number of years, that we should have different legal structures for different religious communities, I say that as a man who follows the Church of Rome—I know not all Members of the DUP would agree that that is a great thing to say in this House—and who stays loyal to the Holy Father, I recognise very strongly that we here follow the common law. We follow the Queen’s law and it is right that we do so.

My own private confession is precisely that; it is a confession of private faith. It is not an act of public statement, and I would urge those of other religious communities that when they seek to structure the way they operate within our great United Kingdom to also see it as that. There is of course a place for conscience in our country—and there is a place for tradition and there is a place for culture—but it is not the same as the place for common law. That is why I am absolutely vehement and will bow to no one in my defence of that common law.

It is not just articles of the common law that some people speak of, and it is not simply Acts that may have been passed in the last 15 or 20 years, that guarantee those rights; it is the sum total of law that has been built up over nearly 1,000 years that guarantees those rights. Yes, there are other Acts that bring in elements of continental jurisdiction. Yes, there are Acts that bring in elements of other foreign concepts of jurisdiction as well. But personally, when people speak of the right of men, I prefer the rights of British men and women, because those are the fundamental rights that have kept us safe, free from fascism and communism and free to live our own lives in dignity and to practise our own faiths.

That leads me to think about some of the times when we have not been free. There have, even in this great kingdom of ours, been moments when our forebears were not free to practise their faiths, and when they were victims of hatred and religious wars. I am thinking, of course, of the reigns of the great Queens Mary and Elizabeth, when people under their authority executed and tortured people of opposing faiths. There were great saints on both sides of that national moment and there were great heroes on both sides of the debate, but for me what sums up that debate is something we should remember as having the heart of Englishness in it—it was, as we know, a very English moment. What summed it up for me was Queen Elizabeth’s great line; “I will not put windows into men’s souls.” That illustrates the understanding she had that freedom of expression under loyalty to the Crown was an essential part of being part of our kingdom.

That is the central aspect we must remember on international human rights day, because that understanding that freedom of faith and expression is something the state must guarantee for us—that, in our case, the Crown must guarantee—is essential but it works only if the relationship is two-way. Yes, the state must guarantee the freedom of expression, but the freely expressed religious faith must not be of a kind, an ideology or an extremism that seeks to undermine the liberties of others, which in our case means the application of common law.

I am deeply honoured to be following the hon. Member for Strangford, and I am deeply proud to be standing here on international human rights day in this Court of Parliament, which I see very much as the heart of the court of human rights in this world, because this Court of Parliament has been a light, a beacon, a city on a hill. It has been that ideal, and we can see, my own family included, how many migrants, activists and others have shaped their concepts of democracy and freedom on the basis of the words that have been spoken on these Floors and from these Benches. So I am honoured to be here speaking on behalf of this motion, and I urge the House to consider it well.

15:24

[Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat), whose family has a long tradition of public service. I also thank the hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) and the hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Ms Ahmed-Sheikh) for securing this debate, because we are here to celebrate human rights today, not to bury them. I do not know whether hon. Members have seen the website of the Canadian astronaut Chris Hadfield, but he sent down images of Earth from space and showed us the beauty of where we live. He showed us Earth as one world, where we live together and the only boundaries are those of land and sea. Injustice and discrimination know no boundaries, which is why international human rights are necessary.

The universal declaration of human rights set out articles and protocols. They are the guide, the code, the commandments of how we should live together in a common humanity. The UK was one of the first countries to sign it and was the first to ratify it, in March 1951. What are they? The hon. Member for Strangford alluded to a few of them, but I want to put them on the record: the right to life; the prohibition of torture; the prohibition of slavery and forced labour; the right to liberty and security; the right to a fair trial; no punishment without law; the right to respect for private life; freedom of thought, conscience and religion; freedom of expression; freedom of assembly and association; the prohibition of discrimination; and, under the first protocol, the protection of property, the right to education and the right to free elections. Every single one of those we hold dear in our country, and they are embedded in the declaration’s words.

The universal declaration of human rights was drafted after the ending of the second world war, as a response to the oppression and tyranny that came out of the two world wars. Every one of the rights I listed had been systematically violated, which is why we need the declaration, and why we incorporated it into the European convention on human rights and subsequently into the Human Rights Act 1998. This was not to take anything away or add anything and make things difficult for judges; it was so that judges could read into our legislation whether it is compatible with our fundamental rights. Ministers do not have to do anything apart from declare that human rights and their legislation are compatible.

There is a myth that the European Court of Human Rights is taking some sovereignty away, as it applies the doctrine of the margin of appreciation. The margin of appreciation gives flexibility and enables the Court to balance the sovereignty of member states with their obligations under the convention and now the 1998 Act. It takes into account the sovereignty of member states and their laws.

Breaches of human rights still occur around the world. In Burma, despite the election win by the National League for Democracy, there are political prisoners who still need to be released—Pyone Pyone Aung took part in a peaceful protest; and the army can still overthrow a democratically elected Government in cases of national security. That must change. In Australia, Human Rights Watch found that the Government had done too little to address indigenous rights and disability rights—indigenous Australians are disproportionately represented in the criminal justice system. In the USA, the criminal justice system, from policing to prosecution and punishment, is plagued with injustices, such as racial disparities and excessively harsh sentencing. In Yemen, with which a number of Members have links, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) and the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart), who spent his childhood there, Amnesty International has reported 21 air strikes which killed at least 241 civilians and injured 157 people, most of them women and children. The strikes were found to be indiscriminate or disproportionate, and arms are still supplied by the UK.

We then come to the lawyers who have died defending human rights. The Law Society said it was shocked and saddened by the murder on 28 November of the Kurdish human rights lawyer Tahir Elçi. Karim Hamdy, 27, died in February 2015, after two days’ detention in Cairo, with broken ribs and bleeding in the brain. Rashida Rehman was killed in 2014 for defending people charged under Pakistan’s blasphemy laws. Salwa Bugaighis was shot dead in her home in Libya in June 2014 after voting. She was a prominent human rights lawyer who opposed moves to make the hijab compulsory.

Finally, human rights—both the Human Rights Act and human rights generally—are the David to the Goliath of the powerful. They provide help to the helpless and a voice to the voiceless, which is why we must protect them and celebrate them today.

15:30

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on opening the debate on international human rights day so comprehensively, and on all that he does in this regard. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz), and I commend her on her speech and all that she has done, particularly with regard to the people of Burma, over very many years.

This House is debating the most crucial of issues. A former Foreign Secretary was clear that human rights are at the very heart of foreign policy. I thank the Foreign Office Ministers for attending this debate, and for regularly raising human rights issues around the world, as I know they do. It is important that Ministers from the Department for International Development do so, too.

As a member of the International Development Committee and the Joint Committee on Human Rights, I was concerned to see a lack of any focused reference to human rights in the recently published Department for International Development strategy, “UK aid: tackling global challenges in the national interest”. Yes, there was reference to supporting women and girls, and yes there was reference to the disabled, but it is my contention that if there is not a core focus on human rights in our strategy for international development, we will miss out on addressing the cause of so many humanitarian problems around the world, which, ultimately, DFID and our aid funds have to address.

There must be much more focus on human rights in our international aid work. For example, not addressing article 18 disproportionately affects women and girls in any society. Not addressing inequality disproportionately affects the disabled. Twenty-one of the 28 countries in which UK aid is spent are either fragile or conflict-affected, and for many of them, that fragility is at least in part—if not in large part—a result of their Governments’ lack of respect for human rights.

The hon. Member for Strangford mentioned Pakistan, which is a recipient of substantial UK aid, but many other countries that receive UK aid should be challenged on their human rights abuses. In Bangladesh, for example, freedom of expression is denied to journalists, dissidents and bloggers, who are arrested and detained. In Uganda and Sudan—also recipients of UK aid—the rights of the child are under attack. There is forcible conscription of child soldiers, and child labour. In Ethiopia, where we support women and girls, there is a closing down of the political and media space. In Nepal, where we have done so much to help with the recent disaster relief outcomes, there have been recent endeavours to restrict the constitution. In every country where UK aid is spent, DFID Ministers and in-country officials should challenge it when they see that human rights are not being respected.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. I have a huge respect for what she does. Is it her belief that we should not give aid unless human rights are maintained in a country, or do we have to compromise in giving aid? I think we do. What does she think?

[Fiona Bruce]

It would be a tragedy for the people of those countries to suffer even further and not receive our aid, simply because their Governments were abusing their human rights.

The UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon recently said that the freedom for civil society to operate is diminishing around the world, and there is real concern that the space for human rights has been closed down in many countries. Increasing restrictions in some countries is limiting the ability of non-governmental organisations to work or receive funding. If civil society is to play its full role, the international community, with the UK in the lead, needs to act to protect its operating environment, particularly as implementing the sustainable development goals—the new global goals recently signed up to by 93 countries—is a huge challenge. In those countries, the contribution of a healthy civil society, which very much needs those goals to succeed, will be essential. We cannot afford to see civil society space closed down.

Let me give examples of how even in the past few years, new laws and policies in countries that we support have restricted NGOs’ ability to operate. In Kenya, legislative restrictions on freedom of information are inhibiting the fight against corruption, and hundreds of NGOs have been shut down or had their bank accounts frozen. Amendments have been sought to legislation with the aim of capping foreign funding for NGOs at 15%, basically making it impossible for many to operate. Ethiopia, too, had similar restrictions on organisations receiving more than 15% of their money from abroad, and on working on issues such as women’s rights, child rights or peace building. What are the Government doing to help protect civil society space, particularly in countries with which the UK has a relationship?

Let me turn to concerns about sovereignty. If human rights are to be universal, the sovereignty of a country cannot be used as an excuse for ignoring them. We need to resist the growing argument that sovereignty is somehow paramount, and that that therefore allows countries to interpret human rights subjectively. If human rights are universal, they are universal. China cannot say that it is justified in incarcerating its human rights lawyers without due trial process, as it has recently, simply because it is a sovereign country and they have broken its laws. Nor can North Korean officials say, as they did to me only this morning, that they have their “own way” of interpreting human rights. They certainly do. When their view of human rights is state-sanctioned prohibition of freedom of expression, the imprisonment of anyone who utters even the slightest contradiction to the Government’s views and a host of atrocities, including against children, we need to stand up and speak out about them. Particularly when countries have recently signed up to the global goals, with their integral commitment to good governance and strong and stable institutions, we should speak out and challenge them on human rights.

It is a long time since 1948, and somebody asked me recently whether we would be able today to get the same broad sweep of clear human rights expressed in a document as we did then. We at least have the SDGs, or global goals, which were signed only in September; many of the statements in them re-express a clear commitment to human rights. Human rights should be not only universal but transparent. We should be transparent in how we challenge countries such as Saudi Arabia. We are challenging and should challenge it, as a country with which we trade, though it does not receive aid from us. It might be uncomfortable for those countries, and they might not like it, but the public require it, and it is right that we do it.

There are a number of other countries that I would have liked to have spoken about in more detail. The Conservative party human rights commission, which I chair, has done a lot of work to highlight the need to raise human rights and concerns about them across the world. Will Ministers reconsider some of the recommendations that our commission has made over time? For example, we recommended that there be a Minister responsible for international human rights in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, who could focus on this issue, and that he be supported by an ambassador at large for international human rights; perhaps there could also be a number of special representatives on issues such as genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and women’s rights—a model employed effectively in other countries.

Will Ministers consider a high-level international conference, in which the UK takes the lead, perhaps similar to the summit held last year on preventing sexual violence, to raise international attention of increasing concerns about human rights abuses? It could co-ordinate international strategies, and ensure that media institutions and Governments around the world both speak out for oppressed individuals and help to ensure that, in their lifetime, we can truly say:

“All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.”

15:39

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

I am pleased to follow the very thoughtful speech from the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), and I welcome the way in which the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) opened the debate.

There is no doubt that the publication of the universal declaration of human rights on 10 December 1948, 67 years ago, was a profoundly important moment in establishing the freedoms that men and women should expect to enjoy across the planet in the modern era. Eleanor Roosevelt, who chaired the drafting committee, made the comparison—the hon. Member for Strangford touched on this—with Magna Carta. She referred at the time to the universal declaration as the

“international Magna Carta for all”,

and in this 700th anniversary year of Magna Carta, it is right for us in this Chamber to underline that comparison. The universal declaration is a vitally important document around the planet.

One of the submissions sent to us ahead of this debate came from the British Institute of Human Rights, which published an advertisement today. I think a meeting is being held at this moment in the other place under its auspices, chaired by Sir Nicolas Bratza, who was the president of the European Court of Human Rights. It is drawing attention to the importance of our own Human Rights Act 1998. In its advertisement, the institute describes the legislation as

“the promise of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights made law here”

in the UK. I hope it will remain part of our law.

The Conservative manifesto pledged to scrap the Act. As others have suggested, that would be a terrible mistake, sending very bad signals around the world. I note that the Justice Secretary has delayed his consultation on this until the new year, no doubt reflecting serious, very proper concerns among Conservative Members about that course of action. I hope that the Human Rights Act will remain on our statute book.

Like the hon. Member for Strangford, I want to say something about article 18 of the universal declaration, which states:

“Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.”

There is growing concern that that article, as well as others, is being breached with increasing frequency around the world.

In September, along with the hon. Member for Strangford, I attended a conference in New York of the International Panel of Parliamentarians for Freedom of Religion or Belief, focused on that article. There was a big attendance of parliamentarians from a large group of countries, including European countries and Tunisia, Pakistan, Egypt, Iraq, Senegal, Malaysia and Turkey. It was good to hear a speaker from Iran addressing that conference on the subject of religious freedom. A strong case was made that more needs to be done to strengthen observation of adherence to that article around the world. It is increasingly clear that there is a link between religious freedom and prosperity. There is no doubt that over our history, economic growth has been bolstered by the ideas and inventiveness of people inspired by deep religious commitment. Prosperity has been increased by the contributions and brilliance of many people—including Protestants from France and Jews from central and eastern Europe—who fled to Britain to escape from religious persecution elsewhere, because they knew they would find freedom here to practise their beliefs.

Recent research has suggested that religious freedom more broadly can enable economic growth more directly. It can help create an environment in which wealth creation can flourish. Researchers in the US—the hon. Member for Strangford referred to research at Georgetown University—looked at GDP growth in 173 countries in 2011, controlling for a range of factors, and found a positive correlation between religious freedom and prosperity. That is another ground for us to support and promote article 18 of the universal declaration.

When the conference in New York concluded, the Members who attended sent out three letters. The first was sent to Vietnam, where there are proposals to restrict religious freedom in new legislation. The second was sent to Burma—my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) mentioned Burma—and concerned a member of the Myanmar Parliament who was being prevented from standing in the forthcoming election, which took place in November, because he is a Muslim from the Rohingya minority. We wrote to the President of Myanmar to complain about that, and to urge that people not be barred from standing for election on religious grounds. The third letter was sent to the Speaker of the Iranian Parliament, expressing grave concerns about restrictions on religious freedom in that country. In 2010, for example, seven Baha’i leaders were sentenced to 20 years in prison simply for exercising their faith.

We also wrote about a number of Christian figures imprisoned in Iran. I particularly want to mention Maryam Nagash Zargaran, who is serving a four-year prison sentence in the notorious Evin prison. Her sentence began in 2013. She suffers from a serious heart condition, which has significantly worsened in the two years she has served so far. I understand that she was recently allowed a short period in hospital for treatment, but she needs more. I would like the Minister to ask his right hon. and hon. Friends in the Foreign Office to raise her case with the Iranian authorities, because her only crime has been to practise her faith.

One of the submissions that I and, no doubt, others received ahead of this debate asked us to draw attention to human rights violations being suffered by the people of Palestine. It listed articles that are being breached there, such as article 9, which states:

“No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.”

I hope that we will see progress in that country as well.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. I have to reduce the time limit to seven minutes, as so many Members wish to speak.

15:47

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

It is a great honour to speak in this debate, and I very much welcome the speeches of all Members who have contributed to the debate so far. Indeed, I do not have an awful lot more to add, but I want to make some points about the relationship between freedom and development and, in particular, as my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) said, the importance of respecting, and taking great note of, freedom in international development. I do not see enough of that in the aims of the Department for International Development, much as I respect its work.

The right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) mentioned the huge contribution that people of religious faith have made to the development of this country, particularly those who fled persecution. He mentioned the Huguenots—I declare an interest, as I come from a Huguenot family—who were followed by the Jews and many others, including Asians from Uganda and, most recently, people from Somalia and Syria. They have all had a tremendous impact on the economic, cultural and social life of this country.

Freedom, in my view, is absolutely bound up with development. We cannot have long-term development without freedom. If we look at the four main aims of the Department for International Development’s strategy, as set out recently, we see how vital freedom is to them all. If we take the first two—strengthening global peace, security and governance, and strengthening resilience and response to crises—we see that it is often violations of freedom, whether religious or political, that lead to tensions and insecurity. Conversely, countries in which freedom is respected, despite—or perhaps because of—diversity, are often those that are most at peace. I had the honour of living in Tanzania for many years and I chair the all-party group on Tanzania, a country that has lived at peace since independence, even though it has a very wide variety of peoples, including very strong representations of both Christians and Muslims and, indeed, those of neither faith. They have lived at peace because they have respected the freedom of those people to practise their religion and faith. Indeed, more recently they have also respected political freedom since the mid-1990s.

The third and fourth aims of DFID are promoting global prosperity and tackling extreme poverty, and helping the world’s most vulnerable. The right hon. Member for East Ham has already referred to the work of Georgetown University. Amartya Sen’s book “Development as Freedom” was published in the late 1990s. He rightly points out that economic development entails a series of linked freedoms, including not only freedom of opportunity and economic freedom but political freedom and, by extension, religious freedom and freedom of thought.

If DFID is to achieve those four goals over the next five years, as I very much hope it will—it has some excellent Ministers and staff, both here and in the countries in which it operates—it needs to place the upholding of freedom and human rights at its core. I very much support the suggestions of my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton for human rights ambassadors and, indeed, a Minister with that specific responsibility.

In closing, I would like us to pay a little attention to our own record. We sometimes come here and talk about human rights and freedoms around the world, and that is absolutely vital, but we must make sure that we do not let those human rights and freedoms slip in our own country. I believe that sometimes it is necessary to take risks in order to maintain human rights. It is all too easy to think that, by clamping down a little here and with a bit more surveillance there, we are giving ourselves the security that we all desire for ourselves and our families, and yet, little by little, we are eroding those human rights that have taken so much pain and so much struggle over the centuries to realise in this country.

We also have to make sure that we do not consider security and economic progress to be the only goods—the only things—that we should strive for. There are many other things that are very important in life—friendship, family, the arts, laughter, the company of friends. Of course, those things do depend on and flourish with security and economic progress, but security and economic progress are not absolutely necessary to have them. It is vital that we ensure that freedoms and rights are placed above security and economic progress. We can run the risk of saying that unless we keep ourselves secure and unless we make ourselves more and more prosperous, we cannot be free. In fact, it is the other way around.

15:53

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

Today is international human rights day and I want to focus my attention on two communities that are at the heart of my constituency, namely the Ahmadiyya Muslim community and the Sri Lankan Tamils.

Britain’s Ahmadiyya Muslims contribute greatly to this country, and their belief in peace and religious tolerance is an example to us all, as we would expect from a community whose motto is “Love for all, hatred for none”. However, in Pakistan the very same peaceful community continues to be persecuted on a daily basis. It is the only religious community to be targeted by the state on the grounds of faith. In Pakistan, Ahmadis cannot call themselves Muslims and are forbidden by law to vote as Muslims. This state-sponsored persecution has been enshrined in the country’s constitution since 1974. On top of that, they are openly declared as “deserving to be killed”, with neither state nor civic society willing to stand up for them against extremists. Perpetrators are given free rein to attack Ahmadis, safe in the knowledge that they will not be prosecuted for their actions, and in the past few years alone, hundreds of Ahmadis have been murdered.

It is quite shocking to think that the persecution this community faces is enshrined in Pakistani law. It is a criminal offence, punishable by imprisonment, a fine or even death, for Ahmadis to call themselves Muslim, to refer to their faith as Islam, to call their place of worship a mosque or to say the Islamic greeting, “Peace be upon you”. The laws specifically against the Ahmadi Muslims also conflict with the constitutional right of Pakistani citizens to freedom of religion.

State laws have emboldened other state actors and extremists to harass, attack and kill Ahmadis. They are denied the right to life. Hundreds have been murdered on the grounds of their faith. The deadliest attack on the community occurred in 2010, when the Pakistani Taliban attacked worshippers during Friday prayers at two Ahmadi mosques in Lahore. In 2014 alone, 11 Ahmadis were killed solely because of their faith. This year, a vigilante mob targeted an Ahmadi family in Gujranwala, setting their home alight and killing three family members—a grandmother and her two little grandchildren. No arrests have been made, and Pakistani news channels refused to air bulletins about the incident.

Ahmadis are denied the right to vote—they are disfranchised unless they declare themselves as non-Muslims—and are the only disfranchised group in Pakistan. It is crucial to note that no prosecutions have been brought in relation to any of these murders, or indeed in respect of any killings of Ahmadi Muslims. Civic society fares little better. The Pakistani Urdu press continues to publish fabricated stories inciting violence against Ahmadis, who are often presented as the root cause of the problems in Pakistan. In 2014, at least 2,000 such reports were published. Article 20 of Pakistan’s constitution guarantees freedom of religion. The country is also a signatory to the UN universal declaration of human rights, which makes it obligatory for the Government to safeguard the fundamental rights of all, without any discrimination based on religion, faith or belief.

It is clear that Pakistan is systematically failing to uphold the human rights of all its citizens. The ongoing persecution of Ahmadi citizens undermines Pakistan’s progress and development, and stores up huge problems for the future stability of the country. Furthermore, state policies allow extremism to flourish, which threatens the security of Pakistan and the rest of the world. It is also clear that the international community has a moral responsibility to act and to apply pressure on Pakistan to abide by international conventions and treaties to uphold the human rights of all.

The UK Government should consider what further steps to take to ensure Ahmadis have the right to vote in Pakistan. They should think about how to guarantee that UK taxpayers’ money will not be used to promote intolerance and extremism in Pakistan. They should decide how to raise the specific issue of anti-Ahmadi laws and corruption that allow extremists to target and murder Ahmadis.

Very sadly, Pakistan is not the only country where we have to be watchful of violated human rights and reflect on the UK’s moral responsibility. I am in the process of writing to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office about my concerns regarding the release of UK Government funds to Sri Lanka. I have previously raised the ongoing inadequacy of justice mechanisms.

In Sri Lanka, the Tamil community has suffered greatly. This group continues to be the victim of ongoing security sector human rights abuses. Despite the recent change of Government in Sri Lanka, which may offer some hope, the charity Freedom from Torture has received seven referrals in relation to people tortured in the country since the January elections, including as recently as July 2015. Let us consider the significance of that evidence by comparison with the UK’s seemingly unwavering confidence in the new Sri Lankan Administration. This confidence has been expressed in terms of financial support, with our Government providing funds from UK taxpayers partly to fund military reform in Sri Lanka, without any proper safeguards as to how the money will be spent.

Six years after the end of the brutal civil war, not one person has been prosecuted for war crimes, despite the fact that 40,000 Tamils died in the final stages of war alone. Furthermore, contemporary evidence of secret torture camps, sexual violence against Tamil war widows and the militarisation of Tamil lands demonstrate that the UK Government’s optimism is unfounded, and their financial support questionable without explicit safeguards.

This example demonstrates that the UK has an incredibly important role to play in encouraging countries to do the right thing when it comes to human rights. Where it can choose between calling for justice against human rights abuses and turning a blind eye, I hope the content of this debate will make it clear what its moral responsibilities should be.

15:59

[Suella Fernandes (Fareham) (Con)]

In today’s world, most of the major human rights treaties have been ratified by the vast majority of countries, yet I believe that the human rights mission is struggling. Although I admire and am grateful for the aims, the means have faltered.

In much of the Islamic world, women lack equality, religious dissenters are persecuted and political freedoms are curtailed. Political authoritarianism has gained ground in Russia, Turkey, Hungary and Venezuela. Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender communities are treated inhumanely in countries as diverse as Russia and Nigeria. The United States, which denied a fair trial to detainees in Guantanamo Bay, has lost credibility on civil liberties. Even slavery, which was supposedly abolished, continues to exist, with nearly 30 million people being forced to work against their will. Why do more than 150 countries of the 193 that belong to the UN still engage in torture? Why do women remain subjugated in many parts of the world? Why do children continue to work in mines and factories in so many countries? It was not supposed to be like this.

Based on the plight of millions of people, I say that, sadly, human rights law has failed to accomplish its objectives. I have the sense from my experience as a barrister that human rights were never as universal as people had hoped. The belief that they could be forced on countries as a matter of international law was shot through with misguided assumptions from the very beginning. Part of the problem is the imposition of top-down solutions on developing countries. I believe that it is time for a new approach.

I applaud and respect the aspirations of the universal declaration of human rights by the UN General Assembly in 1948, which arose from the ashes of the second world war and heralded a new, brighter era of international relations. It provided a long list of rights, most of which are the familiar political rights that are set down in many conventions or that have been constructed by courts over the years.

The weaknesses that would go on to undermine human rights law were there from the start. The universal declaration was not a treaty in the formal sense. No one believed at the time that it created legally binding obligations. It was not ratified by nations, but approved by the General Assembly, and the UN charter did not give the General Assembly the power to make international law. Moreover, the rights were described in vague, aspirational terms that could be interpreted in multiple ways by national Governments, who were wary of enshrining duties. At that time, the US did not commit itself to eliminating racial segregation. Several countries, such as the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia and Saudi Arabia, refused to vote in favour of the universal declaration and instead abstained.

The words in the universal declaration may have been stirring, but I question how much they have influenced the behaviour of Governments. Yes, countries have changed, but in Saudi Arabia, which ratified a treaty banning discrimination against women in 2007, women are still treated unequally in all areas of life, and child labour exists in countries that have ratified the convention on the rights of the child, such as Uzbekistan, Tanzania and India. In a very rough sense, the world is a freer place than it was 50 years ago, but is that because of the human rights treaties or because of other events, such as economic growth and the collapse of communism?

There are three key problems. The first problem with human rights law is ambiguity. A lack of precision allows Governments to rationalise almost anything that they do, as a result not of sloppy draughtsmanship but of the choice to overload the treaties with hundreds of poorly defined obligations. The sheer quantity and variety of rights, which protect virtually all human interests, can provide no guidance to Governments. Given that all Governments have limited budgets, protecting one human right might prevent a Government from protecting another.

Let us take as an example the right not to be tortured. Brazil is one of the largest democracies, and it is rarely considered a human rights violator, but unfortunately the local police often use torture because they believe that it is an effective way to maintain order and solve crimes. If Brazil’s national Government decided to wipe out torture, they would need to create honest, well-paid investigatory units to monitor the police. They would also need to fire their police forces and increase the salaries of the replacements. They would probably need to overhaul the judiciary, and possibly the entire political system, as well. Such a Government might reasonably argue that their resources should be put to other uses, such as building schools and hospitals. Such value judgments compromise the universality of human rights and undermine the status that it supposedly possesses. Problems such as those arise because the task of interpreting human rights has been left to trusted institutions such as the United Nations. Sadly, the UN is weakened by a lack of consensus between the nations and the lack of an accountable structure and hierarchy.

The second problem is that there is a misassumption running through our rights culture relating to the predominance of the individual over the communal interest. The importance of the individual is seen as the defining axiom upon which we should base our policy and gauge its success. This assertion of individual instincts is frequently transposed into rights and is becoming paramount. It now prevails over consideration of how our choices might affect others and have consequences for those born later, and of how they might be measured by past experience. The third problem goes to the core of our social values. Where is the reverence and respect for the habits, cultures and customs of our country? Tradition has deteriorated, and British values have declined at the expense of permissiveness. I hope for a fairer society in which value is stored in the commonality of our men and women.

16:07

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

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate and I congratulate those hon. Members who secured it. It is also a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Fareham (Suella Fernandes). I actually thought that, for once, I was going to agree with everything she said, but as it turned out, that was not the case, even today.

It would be great if the whole world could celebrate international human rights day, but unfortunately too many countries are still blighted by regimes that ignore the human rights of their citizens and persecute ethnic and religious minorities. Last week, we had a debate on Syria. Despite all the human rights abuses in that country, we on these Benches opposed the bombing of Daesh in Syria. We did so for a variety of reasons, but mainly because there appears to be no co-ordinated political strategy, no exit strategy, no plans for rebuilding and no proper commitments from the coalition on any of those elements.

It is clear that any plans for Syria must be based on lessons learned from Iraq. The de-Ba’athification of Iraq helped to create the power vacuum that led to religious persecution and the rise of al-Qaeda. Now we have come full circle with the creation of al-Qaeda’s offshoot, Daesh. We must ensure that those mistakes are not repeated in Syria. A future Syria must enshrine religious freedom and human rights in its constitution and legal system and ensure that no minorities are excluded or persecuted in revenge.

We have already heard about Saudi Arabia today. I felt that Saudi Arabia was the elephant in the room when we were discussing Syria last week. Not only does it have appalling human rights abuses, but it is clearly a state sponsor of terrorism, given its involvement in Yemen and, of course, in Syria. And yet Britain continues to sell arms to the country. The use of the death penalty is still extensive there, political opposition is closed down, and women are not even allowed to drive cars and are still subordinate to men. We need to send a much stronger message to Saudi Arabia.

Neighbouring Iran also has serious human right breaches, including extensive use of the death penalty. In 2014, Iran had the second-highest number of executions after China, and it is one of the biggest jailers of journalists and bloggers. Over the years, there have been an estimated 120,000 political executions in Iran, and the UK must speak with a strong voice in negotiations with that country. In many of those countries, it is illegal to participate in homosexual sex and there is a risk of the death penalty if men are caught engaging in homosexual activity. When using examples of such abuses as an excuse to bomb Daesh, we should remember that some other countries still incorporate such things in their legal systems.

I do not have time to mention all the human rights abuses in different countries, but we have already heard about Burma, Sri Lanka, Chad and the Congo. Palestine has not yet been mentioned, although that issue is worthy of a debate in itself. As hon. Members have said, Amnesty International does a great job of publishing human rights assessments for 160 countries.

When talking about human rights we are talking about the great traditions of the UK, but it is worth also reflecting on some of the human rights abuses that have taken place under UK Governments and Administrations since world war two. In the Malayan emergency of 1948, 500,000 ethnic Chinese were forcibly removed from their homes and rehoused in new villages. Between 1952 and 1963, concentration camps in Kenya imprisoned up to 1.5 million people. When Cyprus was agitating for its independence, the story was the same. Suspected rebels or insurgents were rounded up and tortured, and it turned out that a lot of innocent people were wrongly tortured. The Aden emergency in Yemen also led to torture chambers. We must always be careful and never become complacent.

In modern times, we have the scandal of the Chagos islanders, who were forcibly evicted from their homeland so that Britain could allow the US to set up an air base at Diego Garcia. The Government told lies over the years, and there was obfuscation about what had happened. I call on the UK Government to start making proper plans to allow the Chagossians to return home if they wish to, to allocate funding from the aid budget towards that, and to discuss further funding arrangements with the US and the European Union. Diego Garcia reminds us of the UK Government’s compliance in US rendition flights, which included the use of Scottish airports such as Prestwick. By turning a blind eye, the UK was party to the US moving prisoners to places where their human rights would be breached.

Domestically, we have a UN investigation into the imposition of the bedroom tax, an ongoing UN investigation into whether welfare cuts impact on the rights of people with disabilities, and the Government’s out-and-out attack on the trade unions. Those matters are a wake-up call for those who say that we do not need a Human Rights Act. That Act must remain for there to be any chance of retaining social justice in this country.

Yesterday, the First Minister of Scotland gave a speech on international human rights, and I commend her comment that the protections offered under human rights should be a “floor not a ceiling”. If the UK is to be, and to remain, the beacon that we have heard it can be on these matters, it must lead by example both domestically and in its overseas territories, and it must talk much tougher on the international stage. Recent events in Paris have shown that there are many who want to take away our freedoms. We must do all we can to protect and enshrine our human rights, and the Government must play a part in that as well.

16:13

[Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown), and I congratulate the hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), and my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) on securing this debate.

The burden of the argument put forward by the hon. Member for Fareham (Suella Fernandes) seems to be that universal declarations and standards are of no use without the means of enforcing them—I think that was her argument, broadly speaking. We could turn that on its head and argue that without those principles there is no basis by which to bring about improvement around the world.

[Suella Fernandes]

indicated assent.

[Mr Howarth]

I am glad the hon. Lady agrees with that. It is important that we have the principles, even though they are not always enforceable at all times and in all places.

I decided to take part in the debate because a constituent contacted me earlier this week and I wanted to read out what he had written. I will not name him, because I have not asked his permission. He wrote:

“In 2015, thousands of Christians around the world have been victims of unspeakable violence. Over 200 Christians were abducted by self-proclaimed Islamic State (IS) in Syria. Some were released, others remained captive, and still others were brutally executed. Iraqi Christian and Yazidi women and girls have been traumatised and brutalised as sex slaves by IS.

Elsewhere, Christians were attacked, jailed, tortured and executed because of their faith. The global persecution of Christians has continued relentlessly and, without a sustained response, it will only get worse.”

That is absolutely true about the persecution of Christians.

Groups such as ISIL in the so-called caliphate, Boko Haram and al-Shabaab carry out atrocities, falsely in the name of Islam, that all too often involve brutality and the appalling treatment of women. In a very un-Islamic way, they invoke the great religion of Islam to justify their existence. We have to speak out about that and we have to be prepared to take action. I think in a way that that was what the hon. Lady was saying.

[Suella Fernandes]

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the aims are laudable but the means by which they have been implemented fall short, thereby undermining the method and the initial aspiration? We should be trusting in our traditional belief in our communal values.

[Mr Howarth]

I think I did summarise that point of view. That was the argument I understood the hon. Lady was making.

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that in relying on faith to commit human rights abuses, many faith groups and individuals are turning the fundamental tenets of their beliefs on their head?

[Mr Howarth]

I think I did make that point. If I did not, let me say that I agree with the hon. Gentleman.

Part of my argument, and why I feel strongly about these issues, is that I spent two years as a Minister in the Northern Ireland Office. It is fitting that the hon. Member for Strangford opened the debate. It is also fitting that the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) has been here for most of it. The lesson I took from that period in Northern Ireland is that where there has been division in the past and each community sees a radically different future for the communities they represent, focusing on what can unite people for the future instead of what divided them in the past is probably the best way forward. I do not take any great personal credit for it, but the people of Northern Ireland, having made that decision, were able to move forward. I think that lesson can be applied around the world.

I want to conclude by saying a few words about the Human Rights Act 1998. There are a lot of myths about the Act, as though it came out of the ether and was imposed on the British people. It did not. I was a Minister in the Home Office at the time. The Human Rights Act is modelled very closely on the European convention on human rights, which we have already talked about. It was brought into our domestic law so that it would be more convenient for people to access justice through human rights law in domestic courts, rather having to take their cases off to Europe at great expense. Courts sometimes do misinterpret it, and I understand why the Government get concerned about that, but the way to address it is by dealing with the way the courts operate, not by scrapping the Human Rights Act. I hope that whatever concerns the Government have, some of which may be legitimate, about the Human Rights Act in practice, they do not throw away the principles behind it by scrapping it, or even by the wholesale amendment of it. It is an important statement about the way in which we see ourselves in the world. I really do hope that it remains on the statute book as a strong statement about Britain and where we stand in the world.

16:20

[Kate Osamor (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank the hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon), for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) and for Ochil and South Perthshire (Ms Ahmed-Sheikh), and my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms), for leading this debate.

We as a nation take pride in our historical championing of liberal democracy and human rights. The two are placed side by side as though living in a democracy means automatically that we should have a strong human rights record, but that is not always the case. Simply celebrating the UK’s efforts is one sided and slightly misleading. We must recognise the contradictions at the heart of our human rights policy and beliefs.

Why do the Government continue to hold Saudi Arabia—a country that routinely commits the gravest violations of human rights—as one of their closest allies in the middle east? Why did we back its bid for the Human Rights Council, despite its systematic discrimination against women and religious minorities, and its awful track record of executions, including of those who took part in peaceful protests?

Our human rights failings occur not only in terms of international complicity but here at home. Our immigration detention system is inhumane and a violation of detainees’ human rights. We are unique in the EU in our policy of detaining people without a time limit—a policy the Government voted to uphold on Third Reading of the Immigration Bill. A recent parliamentary question I asked revealed that the longest a woman without outstanding criminal offences has been held in detention since 2010 is 588 days. This should never happen. The rights and dignity of people in this country should not depend on a piece of paper.

Why are the Government trying—although I would say unsuccessfully—to attack the Human Rights Act? We should be proud of what the Human Rights Act has achieved. It has upheld the right to peaceful protest, it has helped to defend journalistic freedom, and it has revealed the extent of racism in prisons. If we want to stand up today for human rights, we need to acknowledge the contradictions separating the Government’s rhetoric from their policy.

Human rights means human rights for everyone. It means standing up for ordinary people subjected to human rights abuses by our diplomatic allies. It means reforming our detention system. Fundamentally, it means saving our Human Rights Act.

16:23

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

I congratulate the hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms), and my hon. Friend the Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Ms Ahmed-Sheikh)—I am going to train everyone to say the “ch” in “Ochil” at some stage—on securing this important debate.

It is remarkable that out of the bloodshed and destruction of the second world war was forged perhaps the defining guarantee of all that allows democracy and liberty to be defended—the universal declaration of human rights, which we commemorate and reflect on today. What may prove even more remarkable in the long term is that this declaration was endorsed by member states reflecting all of humanity’s philosophies, religions and political systems. That in itself should be a positive and timely reminder of the values that we share right across the globe in the face of those who seek to spread division and discord from behind the barrel of a gun or from the top of a soap box. At its heart, the declaration is a recognition and codification of the inherent dignity and rights of all members of the human family. It is not a bestowal of rights by a generous overlord, state or international organisation.

We might wish to reflect on that as we consider the human rights situation in our own jurisdiction. The different parts of the UK have made their own contributions to the recognition of human rights: for English Members, there is the Magna Carta, to which the right hon. Member for East Ham referred, and for Scottish Members, there is the Declaration of Arbroath, which provided a fundamental recognition of the freedom from tyranny, usurpation and subjugation by foreign powers. However, just because these rights are timeless and universal, it does not mean they are always recognised in practice, as many have said today.

My party, my constituents and I are gravely concerned by the direction of travel, rhetoric and philosophy of the Government when it comes to human rights. Two of our finest organisations in this field, Amnesty International and Liberty, share those concerns and are already campaigning stridently to defend our Human Rights Act. While the British Government are moving in the wrong direction, however, let nobody think they are supported by the people of the countries of the UK or by civic society at large.

We are blessed on these islands to have produced some incredible charities, non-governmental organisations and community groups that provide lifelines for their fellow human beings with very little funding. I cannot name them all today, but I want to pay tribute to one, because today is the 30th anniversary of the Scottish Refugee Council, one of Scotland’s leading human rights agencies. I am proud to say it is recognised as an example of best practice in the UK, Europe and across the world. The SRC is known for its pioneering, holistic and asset-based approach to integration that recognises the dignity and resilience of refugees and works with them as actors in this through its holistic integration service. I am sure it would appreciate it if hon. Members signed my early-day motion marking its achievements.

I turn to the international context in which we operate and, in particular, the Saudi Arabians, who, as the hon. Member for Edmonton (Kate Osamor) said—I congratulate her on standing up again for people stuck in indefinite detention in the UK—are busy killing their own civilians and foreign nationals in the name of justice in the most barbaric ways possible: stoning, beheading and beheading followed by crucifixion. The Government argue that engagement with tyrannical regimes might help bring them back into the fold and towards a recognition of universal rights, and I have some sympathy with that view in principle, but in practice this strategy of engagement with Saudi Arabia is clearly not working. No matter how close our Governments and royals, the butchering of civilians in the name of justice increases.

Amnesty tells us that at least 151 people have been executed this year, with scores more due to be executed in the coming weeks. This is the worst rate of execution for 20 years and it includes many so-called crimes that are in fact the exercising of one’s right to free speech and protest. A Sri Lankan housemaid is about to be stoned to death in Saudi Arabia, and I thank the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) for raising the rights of Tamils and pointing out that we cannot yet be confident that a change of regime in Sri Lanka will help the Tamils in that country. We need to keep a watching eye on that.

I had never really thought through what stoning entailed until I read about it recently. This woman will be buried up to her neck in sand, and a bunch of men will hurl bricks at her head. She, of course, will be unable to lift a hand to protect herself. There will be nothing to prevent those bricks from smashing into her eyeballs, bursting her nose open and caving in her skull. It was due to happen towards the end of this week. For all we know, she might be buried up to her neck in sand right now, waiting. It is the very Saudi Arabian regime that the Government have befriended that is doing it to this poor woman.

Trying to bring such as wolf in sheep’s clothing back into the fold is not working. It is not pragmatism; it is veiled indifference. As my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) said, if the Government continue to choose receipts for arms sales over the defence of the declaration, any words they offer today will be empty and meaningless.

[Jim Shannon]

What comes to mind straight away when we are talking about Saudi Arabia are the 28 Christians —mostly women and children, but a few men—who were having a prayer meeting, but were arrested and then disappeared into the ether of Saudi Arabia. They have not been heard of since. That is another example of why Saudi Arabia needs to be taken to task.

[Anne McLaughlin]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that. People have disappeared in Saudi Arabia and indeed across the world and nobody seems to know where they are. It seems that we will never find them, yet all that they have done is practise their own religion and their own faith.

The Government were quick to condemn any opposition over the Syria vote last week, but if there is one example of appeasement in the face of tyranny, it is the UK’s relationship with Saudi Arabia. I—and, I am sure, Members of other parties—would welcome a statement from the Government on the role of British-made weapons in the deaths of innocent civilians at the hands of Saudi forces in Yemen. I have received many emails from constituents about that very point. Our constituents hear about people, regardless of where they are in the world.

What of human rights here in Britain? Thanks to groups such as Liberty, we have some examples of how human rights, and particularly the Human Rights Act, have made a real-life impact on our constituents. That is important because, as the right hon. Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth) said, there is a lot of confusion about what the Human Rights Act actually means.

Diana Bryant’s daughter Naomi was cruelly murdered by a convicted sex offender. Her daughter’s death was not going to be subject to an inquest because the murderer had already been identified. However, by using the Human Rights Act and article 2 on the right to life, Naomi Bryant’s mother, working with Liberty, managed to secure an inquest. That inquest identified a catalogue of failures by public agencies and other partners that allowed a known convicted sex offender to murder Naomi. Without the Human Rights Act, that inquest would not have happened and the victim’s family would have been denied the truth. All our constituents would still have been at risk from the same institutional malpractice that failed Naomi Bryant.

Who would not have supported that mother’s right? Who would not support the human rights of the families of our armed forces killed in action? Who would not support the right of Mr V, who successfully used the Human Rights Act to ensure that when his wife, living with Alzheimer’s, had to go into a nursing home, it was not one so far away as to make it impossible for him to visit her? Anyone who supports the repeal of the Human Rights Act, that is who.

Let me close with the words of Thomas Muir of Hunters Hill, educated at Glasgow University, which were subsequently cited on the high street of Glasgow at my constituency’s boundary. Muir was sentenced to transportation to Botany Bay for sedition, simply for exercising his right to free expression as it is now generally known—outside regimes such as Saudi Arabia, of course. Speaking from the dock, Muir said:

“I have devoted myself to the cause of The People. It is a good cause—it shall ultimately prevail—it shall finally triumph.”

Human rights and their international recognition, protection and fulfilment are the modern successor to that fight, protecting the voiceless, defending the vulnerable. Advocates such as the imprisoned Saudi human rights lawyer, Waleed Abu al-Khair, are the modern successors to Thomas Muir. My party will continue to fight with all its power to defend them, whether it be through the universal declaration, the European convention or our own Human Rights Act. To do otherwise would be an abdication of our responsibilities and would render pointless our time in this place.

16:33

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

This has been a thoughtful and measured debated—something that this Chamber does very well. I begin by thanking the Backbench Business Committee for sponsoring the debate and the right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken in it: the hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat), my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz), the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms), the hon. Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy), my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh), the hon. Members for Fareham (Suella Fernandes) and for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown), my right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth), my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Kate Osamor) and, last but not least, the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Anne McLaughlin). I am sure that they will forgive me, given the time constraints, if I do not draw more on their excellent contributions.

We are here because this is international human rights day. As has been said, we commemorate the day in 1948 when the UN General Assembly adopted the universal declaration of human rights. The UN wishes us to mark the 50th anniversary of two other international covenants on human rights: the covenant on economic, social and cultural rights and the covenant on civil and political rights. That is important, because together, the two covenants and the declaration form the international bill of human rights, which sets out the civil, political, cultural, economic and social rights that are the birthright of all human beings. I do not share the pessimism of the hon. Member for Fareham (Suella Fernandes): I do not think that those international treaties and statements of rights are in any sense a waste of breath or paper. They are the bedrock on which we build, and if we fail to achieve those ambitions, it simply means that we should strive harder to do so.

My right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) mentioned the full-page letter in The Times today, sponsored by the British Institute of Human Rights. It is a very short letter, so I shall read it out, because I think that it makes my central point. It states:

“Today is Human Rights Day. Across the globe, people are celebrating the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This international Magna Carta for all humanity has inspired so much, including our own Human Rights Act.

Today we celebrate the often overlooked everyday differences our Human Rights Act makes for people across the UK. Our examples are many, whether this is supporting children to access education, stopping inhuman treatment of older people, providing refugees with safety, preventing discrimination, or offering justice for victims and families failed by the system, and many more.

Today we celebrate how our Human Rights Act strengthens our democracy, giving everyone a voice, and ensuring the powerful do not go unchecked.

Today we celebrate how our Human Rights Act does more than defend our traditional liberties. It makes the universal human rights we share with people across the world part of our law here at home.

Today the future of human rights in the UK is uncertain. Today we stand with the Human Rights Act recognising it is the promise of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights made law here at home. We urge our political leaders to stand with us.”

We should not talk only about international obligations. We should celebrate the effect of those measures domestically, and understand why the Government’s decision to attempt to repeal the Human Rights Act is, at best, misguided. However, as international human rights have featured in the debate, I shall say a little about them.

Yesterday I had the privilege of attending a reception given by Amnesty International and hosted by Mr Speaker, who has a long-standing interest in human rights and has campaigned on them in Burma, Sudan, Zimbabwe and elsewhere. The reception was also attended by the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve)—it was a very ecumenical occasion—and we heard a speech from the Leader of the Opposition, who has a history of upholding human rights around the world for more than 30 years. He mentioned in particular the recent release of Shaker Aamer, who had been detained at Guantanamo Bay for 14 years without charge or trial. It is shocking that one of our allies, and one of the great democracies of this world, should have treated a British resident in that way.

Many countries around the world have been mentioned, and, sadly, many of them have very poor human rights records. A third of countries still maintain the death penalty, and 141 still practise torture in one way or another. Many eyes are now on the middle east, because human rights abuses are occurring in a number of middle eastern countries. We think, obviously, of Syria, where 250,000 people have been killed, a million injured, 4 million made refugees, and 7 million displaced. Today we may think particularly of the family—a mother and seven young children—who drowned while trying to travel the short distance between Turkey and Greece. I ask the Minister to consider whether we are doing all that we can to ensure that there is an effective search and rescue programme in that area, because the human rights of those people are as important as the human rights of anyone in this country or anywhere else in the world.

Syria is not alone, however. In Egypt, 40,000 political prisoners are detained, 2,500 political opponents have been killed, and 18 journalists are in jail. Palestine, which has been mentioned today, has undergone nearly 50 years of occupation, and there are more than 500,000 settlers, although that is illegal under international law. In Gaza, 1.8 million people have been blockaded, victims of collective punishment. We think, also, of the Gulf. Last night I had the privilege of chairing a meeting in the House on human rights in the United Arab Emirates. There was a live video link—because he is forbidden to leave the country—with Ahmed Mansoor, a very brave man who speaks out despite the risk of imprisonment, which he has already suffered, and indeed torture. I think also of Bahrain, which continues to practise torture, despite it being, the Government tell us, a firm ally, and a place where we are building a naval base.

I should also mention Saudi Arabia; it has been referred to several times, but I mention it particularly because on 27 November, the Leader of the Opposition wrote to the Prime Minister about the cases of Ali Mohammed al-Nimr, Dawoud Hussain al-Marhoon, and other young men who have been sentenced to some of the cruellest forms of punishment—death by crucifixion or beheading. I am afraid to say that the Leader of the Opposition has not yet received a response to that letter, but we know from the comments made by the hon. Member for Glasgow North East that over 50 Saudis are awaiting execution in Saudi, including people who were juveniles at the time of their detention, people detained for taking part in peaceful protests, people who have signed blank sheets of paper which were then rendered as confessions, and people who have been tortured and kept in solitary confinement. I ask the Minister and Government urgently to turn their attention towards that country.

I read the article by the Foreign Secretary in The Independent today, and I have to say that it filled me with dismay. The Foreign Secretary talks about

“Quiet and continued engagement behind the scenes”,

and says:

“Just because the British Government isn’t shouting about an issue from the rooftops, doesn’t mean we aren’t assiduously pursuing a case in private.”

Of course one uses all means to attempt to engage with human rights in countries abroad. He rightly mentioned that Karl Andree, a British citizen, has been released from the threat of being lashed many times in Saudi Arabia, but what about the cases the Leader of the Opposition raises? What about Raif Badawi and the others? We cannot rest on our laurels, we cannot be complacent about these matters, and we do have to speak up. I am afraid that the Foreign Secretary going to Saudi Arabia to apologise, as it were, for the Government not going ahead with the disgraceful prison contract, and saying that it was business as usual, does not set the right tone on human rights.

Let me return to domestic matters. It is right to say that this country, since Magna Carta, has a proud tradition of human rights under English common law, but the incorporation of the European convention through the Human Rights Act since 2000 has indeed been a sea change and a step forward, and it is shameful that repeal is being suggested. Who benefits from the Human Rights Act? Our armed forces, victims of crime, journalists, those engaged in peaceful protest, victims of homophobia and racism, those with mental health problems, those with disabilities, and those subject to unlawful or intrusive surveillance by the state. Those are the people who have been able to bring rights home, as the Government would put it—who are able to uphold their rights in UK law.

I wonder whether the Government even know what they are doing on this. In Justice questions earlier this week, several Members raised questions that the Government are frankly unable to answer at the moment. The hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) asked about the Sewel convention, and pointed out that the answers given by the Secretary of State for Justice to the House of Lords Constitution Committee show that he does not know whether this is a matter for the devolved Administrations or not. That is a key point that has to be answered.

Another key point is what rights will be excluded. I took part in a small act of civil disobedience earlier today, when, with Liberty, we unveiled a banner in Westminster Hall pointing out what rights were protected by the Human Rights Act, which the Government wished to repeal. I am glad to say that the House authorities treated us with their usual tolerance and politeness. This is a serious matter, however. Earlier this week, I raised with the Secretary of State the case of Andrew Waters, a person with Down’s syndrome who had a “Do not resuscitate” notice placed on his bed without the consent of his family, or indeed himself. That is the third of three cases, the others being those of Carl Winspear and Janet Tracey, involving unlawful acts under the Human Rights Act, as has now been determined by the courts.

Those article 8 rights are exactly the rights that the Government have complained about. The Secretary of State was perfectly right in saying that he would not expect such behaviour to be countenanced in law, whatever is in the Government’s proposals, but how do they square the circle? How can they say that article 8 rights—the ones particularly attacked by Conservative Back Benchers and Front Benchers—will be preserved if the rights of people such as Andrew Waters are not respected?

What is the answer? The Government have no answer on how to deal with the issue of supremacy—they do not seem to understand it. They have no answer to questions on devolution, and they do not have an answer on whether they will pick and choose which rights to implement. This week, the Duma—the Russian Parliament —decided to introduce a law allowing Russia to pick and choose which of the convention rights it implemented. I would not want to be part of a Parliament that endorsed that approach; I do not want to follow Mr Putin in deciding which rights set down in international law we decide to implement at home. I hope that the Minister and the Government will think again about their entire approach to the Human Rights Act.

16:45

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (James Duddridge)]

On international human rights day, I am grateful to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for bringing us this debate and to other hon. Members for giving me the opportunity to emphasise the importance that not only this House but the Government place on the promotion and protection of human rights around the world.

Hon. Members have made many valuable contributions today, and we have heard how everyday rights and freedoms that we take for granted are often denied or limited in far too many countries. The hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) described human rights work as the David to the Goliath of power, which puts it eloquently. There has been talk of the Human Rights Act, and I gently say to hon. Members that human rights existed before 1997, when the Bill that became that Act was put through, without proper consultation. Other hon. Members dated human rights back to the Magna Carta, but reference to more recent legislation and documents, such as the 1948 universal declaration, is perhaps the touchstone we all look towards.

I wish to set out this Government’s approach to human rights and then address as many as possible of the individual issues raised by hon. Members today. The Conservative manifesto contained a firm and clear commitment to support universal human rights. Members have noted that in many ways we are able to do that with our support for international human rights day. Only yesterday, Baroness Anelay hosted a meeting at the Foreign Office where she set out the UK’s pledge for our re-election to the UN Human Rights Council. Today I have published a blog, as have other Foreign Office Ministers. My blog is about the human rights situation in Burundi. Members who are interested in Burundi may wish to stay to hear the Adjournment debate secured by my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy), which I am sure will be interesting. I am proud to raise lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender issues whenever I can. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) urged me to do that, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Suella Fernandes). I urge those two to get together to discuss this, as they may find that they agree on a lot more and the world would be a better place if more people agreed with my hon. Friend. Our entire network of embassies and high commissions is holding events or issuing communications today to highlight the importance of human rights issues.

Most importantly, the Foreign Secretary today published an article which, although not fully satisfying the Opposition Front Bencher, the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter), aimed to set out our approach to human rights: how we raise difficult issues with international partners; how we work with partners whose values, histories and cultures are different from our own; and, crucially, how we enable our diplomatic network to flex its muscles where it can have most impact on the human rights of individuals. Many people implore us to speak out more critically and more often, and there are times when this is the right approach. But there are times when, if our goal is to promote the creation of conditions for the protection and promotion of universal rights, we need to balance the immediate instinct to react at all times, everywhere and in every case, with the potential gains of a more valued approach. It is not about building on foundations of sand, but more about building on foundations that enable us to have irreversible change. When states take actions that wilfully disregard human rights—as we have seen in Syria—we must speak out critically and clearly. However, where there is scope for working with international partners to improve human rights, we undermine ourselves and our position as a force for good if we alienate other countries through megaphone diplomacy.

Recently, we have hosted leaders from China, Kazakhstan and Egypt. Some commentators said that we pulled our punches, but they are wrong. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister discussed human rights with each and every one of them, and I think the hon. Member for Edmonton (Kate Osamor) would approve of what he said in private.

The issue of Saudi Arabia has been raised by a number of Members, including the hon. Members for Glasgow North (Anne McLaughlin), for Hammersmith and for Strangford. Despite what was said, we do have a strong relationship with Saudi Arabia, and it is in our national interest to do so. Our collaboration with the Saudis has foiled terrorist attacks, directly saving British lives.

There is a massive number of problems, including that of women’s rights in Saudi Arabia, but on that issue the Saudis are making gradual reforms. The UK opposes the death penalty in all circumstances and in every country, including Saudi Arabia. As for the Saudi Arabia’s membership of the United Nations Human Rights Council, there was no election, so the UK’s position was immaterial; Saudi Arabia was elected as part of the Asia-Pacific group’s block of votes.

Human rights remain an integral part of our work and a normal part of our dialogue with all countries. Without the “golden thread” of democracy, the rule of law and accountable institutions, we cannot have the dependable and stable partners on which our own security and prosperity depend. That is why, this year alone, with the co-operation of civil society partners, we have delivered 75 Foreign and Commonwealth Office-funded human rights projects in more than 40 countries. This year, within the UN Human Rights Council, we have used our influence to shine a light on human rights violations in many parts of the world, including Syria, South Sudan, Iran and North Korea. I am sure that this House will be unanimous in its support for the UK’s continued presence on the UN Human Rights Council and our re-election bid for a second term.

My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary stated at the UN General Assembly that

“the stability we seek in relations between nations is best realised through the framework of laws, norms and institutions that together constitute the rules-based international system”.

The national security strategy and the strategic defence and security review, which were published last month, underscore how important that and our human rights work are in the UK’s national interest. We make the point to our international partners that human rights are not just universal but vital to the success of any society. The Prime Minister has called that insight the “golden thread” of democracy, the rule of law and accountable institutions. I am proud that British advocacy has helped put those principles at the heart of the UN sustainable development goals.

I support this idea of a civil society, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce). In different ways, that term encompasses exactly what the Prime Minister meant by the “golden thread”.

To support the rules-based international system and the golden thread, we have reconfigured our foreign policy work on human rights around three broad themes: democratic values and the rule of law; strengthening the rules-based international order, for example through our membership of the UN Human Rights Council; and human rights for a stable world, which ensures that human rights are central to the global effort to prevent and resolve conflict, and to deal with terrorism and extremism.

The hon. Member for Strangford and a number of others mentioned freedom of religion and beliefs. There is far too much persecution, particularly of Christians, around the world and in the middle east and this is a profound concern of Her Majesty’s Government. At a senior level, we regularly urge Governments to uphold the rights of all minorities and religious beliefs and to support practical projects that support community dialogue and civil society.

We should also give praise when there are good examples. My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford praised Tanzania, a largely stable country where different religions peacefully co-exist. Our full-spectrum response to extremism contains at its heart support for freedom of religious beliefs. The right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) spoke about the international work he has done, as has the hon. Member for Strangford, in chairing the group here in the United Kingdom.

At the heart of this is opposition to religious intolerance, following the school of understanding, not of hatred, as my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat) put it. The right hon. Member for East Ham raised a specific Iranian case. Human rights in Iran are dire and I would be more than happy, if he wants to write to me about that specific case, to follow up in detail. We are working on a Muslim-led counter-extremism narrative to deal with all extremists. I would love Muslims around the world to follow the lead of the passenger at Leytonstone station last week, who so memorably remarked, “You ain’t no Muslim, bruv.” That was absolutely perfect and encapsulated the moment and what all British people think, regardless of their religion.

Religious tolerance is crucial in defeating extremists and we will not be divided by terrorists. We are under no illusion about the size of the task, but, equally, extremists and terrorists should be under no illusion about the strength of our resolve to dismantle the hatred. That is what our Prime Minister has called the struggle of a generation. It is an enormous threat, but we are up to sorting it out. The UN is committed to resolution 1618, which went through unanimously. We also need to consider a number of other issues.

I am conscious that I am running out of time, but I would like to address the point made by the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) about the Ahmadiyya people in Pakistan. DFID and the Foreign Office constantly raise the rights of minorities at the highest level in Pakistan, advocating greater tolerance and action against abuses when they occur. In fact, in August the Foreign Secretary discussed with the Interior Minister, Mr Chaudhry Nisar, the importance the UK attaches to the protection of religious minorities. The hon. Lady also mentioned Sri Lanka, and we regularly raise matters of concern with the Sri Lankan Government, although I disagree with a lot of what she said. I am happy to write to her in more detail about the points with which I disagree and exactly why I disagree, but given the time remaining it is important to establish on the record that Her Majesty’s Government does not take as fact everything presented as fact.

In conclusion, human rights are the responsibility not just of each and every state but of all states, and, by extension, of parliamentarians and civil society. We all have a responsibility to hold one another to account domestically and internationally. The House has today shown the key role that it plays in upholding human rights promotion and protection worldwide. I commend the motion to the House.

16:58

[Jim Shannon]

It is only right that we should thank the 17 right hon. and hon. Members who contributed to the debate. It was fitting that a range of Members from all parties made speeches. I thank the Minister for his detailed and positive response setting out how he will personally address those issues. This House and this great nation of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland excel on occasions such as this, which bring all the themes and thoughts together. Some of the speeches today were compassionate, inspirational and valuable. They are the sorts of speeches for which this House will be renowned and remembered.

If we focus on why we are here—international human rights day—we can see it as a catalyst for change. The aspirations that we have all expressed today are admirable and should be our goal. The Minister referred to the “golden thread”, which was the theme of his speech and of what the Prime Minister has said. The golden thread of human rights went through all the speeches we heard today. Our job, as I said at the beginning, is to be the voice for the voiceless. Today’s debate managed that, so I thank all right hon. and hon. Member for their contributions.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered International Human Rights Day.

Burundi

Thursday 10th December 2015 Commons Chamber

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Guy Opperman.)

17:00

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is a great honour to raise the subject of the political situation in Burundi under your chairmanship, particularly on international human rights day.

Last week we spent 10 and a half hours discussing Syria, the subject of United Nations resolution 2249, but I shall refer to United Nations resolution 2248, which relates to Burundi. Perhaps we in this House ought to pay more attention to resolutions of the Security Council, of which the United Kingdom is a permanent member, because they often highlight crises around the world.

Everyone I have met who has been to Burundi has returned with a love for the country and its people. I had the privilege of going there for the first time in 2011 with the International Development Committee and have returned several times since. I declare an interest in that I help to lead the Conservative party’s social action project Umubano in Burundi with my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), whom I am glad to see in her place. We worked in Burundi in 2013 and 2014. We had planned to go this year, but unfortunately the political situation there made that impossible.

All those who care deeply about Burundi have been greatly concerned by the violence of the past few months, which started before the presidential and parliamentary elections. We all long for it to come to an end and for stability to prevail. We also wish to see a return to the greater freedom of expression for which Burundi has rightly been commended in recent years, following the turbulent first 40 years after independence.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I asked his permission earlier to intervene. I understand that the UN says that since April this year 240 people have been killed. Just yesterday five people were taken away, beaten, shot and disappeared. Their only crime, if it is a crime, was that they spoke out against the president. It is clear to me that the vigilantes think they can do what they like. Does the hon. Gentleman think it is time the vigilantes were restricted and the Government took control?

[Jeremy Lefroy]

I totally agree. There are still killings almost every day in Burundi. I will come to that later.

I was talking about the first 40 years after independence, which saw several ethnically based mass killings, in particular during 1972, when between 150,000 and 300,000 people were murdered, mainly by Government or Government-inspired forces, including the elimination of almost the entire Hutu elite. I shall spend a little time going through history because it is so relevant to what is happening today. Whereas April 1994 is remembered as the beginning of Rwanda’s terrible genocide, it is often forgotten that the shooting down of the presidential plane that killed the Rwandan President Habyarimana and marked the start of the genocide also brought about the death of Burundi’s President, Cyprien Ntaryamira. He was the second Burundian leader to meet a violent end within six months, as the democratically elected Melchior Ndadaye had been murdered the previous September.

Violence escalated in 1995 and 1996 and there followed several years of civil conflict. A series of peace talks took place, sponsored by the regional peace initiative in Burundi, mediated by former Tanzanian President Julius Nyerere and held in Arusha, but not much progress was made. Some of the main political parties, including CNDD-FDD—the current governing party—were not involved at this point. In August 2000 a peace agreement, known as the Arusha accord, was signed by the Government, the National Assembly and a range of Hutu and Tutsi groups. This provided for the establishment of a transitional Government for three years, the creation for the first time of a genuinely mixed army, and a return to political power sharing. Neither the CNDD-FDD, nor the FNL—an armed wing of another political party—was involved in the agreement and military activity increased in 2001.

The CNDD-FDD eventually agreed to a ceasefire in December 2002, which came properly into effect in October 2003, when final agreement was reached on the terms of power sharing. The soldiers of the CNDD-FDD, led by Pierre Nkurunziza, the current President, were to be integrated into the national armed forces and given 40% of army officer posts. Negotiations in South Africa to agree a new constitution met with success in November 2004. It provided for a 60:40 power-sharing agreement and both Hutu and Tutsi Vice-Presidents. A minimum of 30% of the Government had to be women.

In 2005 elections were held under the new constitution, resulting in a decisive win for the CNDD-FDD, led by Nkurunziza. He was elected President indirectly, as the new constitution provided, by the National Assembly and Senate. The indirect election is the source of the controversy surrounding the 2015 elections.

This still left the FNL. Rwasa, its leader, announced in March 2006 that he would enter unconditional negotiations to end hostilities and a ceasefire agreement was signed in September 2006. However, talks on points of disagreement broke down and a formal end to the conflict did not come about until 2009. We can see how long the people of Burundi have suffered under various forms of civil conflict.

The presidential election in 2010 saw Nkurunziza returned with 91.6% of the votes cast. International observers believed that the election met international standards, but they expressed concern at the worsening political climate. Between the 2010 election and 2015, low-intensity violence—if there can ever be such a thing—continued. Rwasa had fled in June 2010 and was reported to have moved to the Democratic Republic of the Congo, where he was recruiting fighters. There were killings by rebels and by Government forces. In December 2011 UN Security Council resolution 2027 called on the Government to halt extrajudicial killings.

Amid all this there was real progress. The integration of the Burundian army was generally a great success. It began to take part in many peacekeeping operations, where its skills and discipline were respected. Most notably, it has played a huge role in AMISOM—the African Union Mission to Somalia—alongside the Ugandan and Sierra Leonean armies, and latterly the Kenyan army, in bringing stability to Mogadishu and other parts of Somalia. That cost the lives of more than 450 Burundian soldiers, and great credit and honour must be paid to them. Burundian press and civil society were generally free and active for some of that time. A national human rights commission was established, although the Government delayed setting up the truth and reconciliation commission and the special tribunal to prosecute crimes against humanity committed during the civil war.

With elections due in 2015, the question of President Nkurunziza’s eligibility for another term came sharply into focus. His supporters claimed that, due to an ambiguity in the constitution, his election in 2005 was by Parliament and not by the people, and therefore his election in 2010 marked the beginning of his first term, not his second. Opponents said that the Arusha agreement, on which the constitution was based, stipulated a maximum of two presidential terms, which he has completed this year.

The National Assembly narrowly defeated a proposal to revise the constitution in 2014. However, President Nkurunziza was officially announced as a candidate in April 2015 and the constitutional court validated that on 4 May. The vice-president of the court fled to Rwanda, maintaining that the decision had been made under duress and intimidation. Mass protests followed the decision and were met with very strong force by the police, which was condemned by regional and international figures. Election aid was suspended by the EU and Belgium.

On 13 May there was an attempted coup while President Nkurunziza was in Tanzania to discuss the crisis. It was led by the former head of Burundi’s army and, more recently, its intelligence service, who had been sacked earlier in the year. He specifically cited the President’s candidacy at the forthcoming election, which he blamed for instability. The coup attempt was unsuccessful.

The parliamentary elections were eventually held on 29 June and the presidential election on 21 July. Both were largely boycotted by the opposition parties and both resulted in the CNDD-FDD receiving just under 75% of the vote. According to the United Nations electoral mission, this time the elections were not free or fair. The electoral commission declared a victory for President Nkurunziza.

Since the election, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) has pointed out, violence has continued, with killings of unarmed civilians as well as armed opposition and Government security forces. This has sometimes been accompanied by rhetoric from political leaders that can only inflame the situation. In one speech on 29 October, a senior politician is reported to have said in respect of action against armed opposition members—this is translated from the Kirundi—

“you tell those who want to execute mission: on this issue, you have to pulverize, you have to exterminate—these people are only good for dying. I give you this order, go!”

The United Nations is rightly alarmed. In its resolution 2248, to which I have referred and which was adopted on 12 November, the Security Council expressed its

“deep concern about the ongoing escalation of insecurity and the continued rise in violence in Burundi, as well as the persisting political impasse in the country, marked by the lack of dialogue among Burundian stakeholders.”

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) is making a powerful speech and I know that the concern he is expressing today has endured for several years. Does he agree that addressing the issue is vital, because the political instability in what is already a very poor country is impacting on the poorest the most and in a devastating way?

If Members will bear with me, I would just like to refer to a report that I received this week relating to the children in an orphanage with which Project Umubano members who volunteer in Burundi have a relationship. It says that the children are so desperate for food and medicine that they are

“malnourished and often ill…can’t obtain medicines.. and there is a real risk that one or more may die.”

[Jeremy Lefroy]

I am most grateful to my hon. Friend, who has done a huge amount of work with Project Umubano. I have received the same report.

The Security Council resolution also strongly condemned

“the increased cases of human rights violations and abuses, including those involving extra-judicial killings, acts of torture and other cruel, inhuman and/or degrading treatment, arbitrary arrests”.

[Stephen Phillips (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

The Security Council resolution refers to the escalation of violence in Burundi. Is my hon. Friend as concerned as I am about reports this week—they have not made it into the press, but they are none the less coming out of Burundi—that armed murder gangs are again making their way across the border from the Democratic Republic of the Congo at the behest of those who would ensure that violence serves political ends in Burundi? Does he, like me, look forward to hearing what the Minister is doing about that?

[Jeremy Lefroy]

I am most grateful to my hon. and learned Friend, who has a very close interest in these matters. I am, indeed, very concerned. The people of Burundi have suffered too much over the past 50 years.

The Security Council resolution also condemns abuses,

“including those involving extra-judicial killings, acts of torture and other cruel, inhuman and/or degrading treatment, arbitrary arrests, illegal detentions, harassment and intimidation of human rights defenders and journalists, and all violations and abuses of human rights committed in Burundi both by security forces and by militias and other illegal armed groups”.

In particular, it strongly condemns

“all public statements, coming from in or outside of the country, that appear aimed at inciting violence or hatred towards different groups in Burundian society”.

That last point is very significant, given the history of Burundi and the wider region.

I have gone into considerable detail on the history of Burundi as an independent nation, as it is vital to understand the current crisis in its context. This is not something that has happened over the past year or two. I am most grateful to the Minister and, indeed, to his officials for their close attention to this crisis. I know that he and they take it very seriously, and I will now ask a number of questions.

First, can the Minister reassure me that the Government understand how important it is to solve the crisis in Burundi? The mediation efforts led by the East African Community and the African Union through President Museveni should be given the fullest possible support. The Burundian Government, and the opposition, need to co-operate fully with that process. The UN Secretary-General suggested looking at a peacekeeping force, and I urge for that process to be continued. As I have said, the people of Burundi have suffered enough. They are not interested in power struggles between elites who think it their right to rule; they want stability and the ability to live their lives free from fear. I urge President Nkurunziza, whom I have met on two occasions, to engage fully with such mediation. I understand that the Minister is considering a visit to the country. I welcome that: it is a very long time since a British Minister was there.

Secondly, will the Minister consider establishing in due course a full diplomatic mission in Burundi, which I know would be welcomed by many Burundians? They have appreciated UK support over the years. When the International Development Committee was in Liberia last year, we saw the great benefit that a small, cost-effective and influential mission, newly established by the FCO, can bring.

Thirdly, will the Minister encourage our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development and the Under-Secretary of State for International Development, my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (Mr Hurd), who has responsibility for Africa, to consider restoring bilateral aid to Burundi when a political settlement has been reached? It has the second lowest income per head on earth, and it is both fragile and conflict-affected, so it comes into every conceivable category that DFID treats as a priority. I appreciate that DFID works indirectly in Burundi through TradeMark East Africa and multilaterals, but that is not enough. We are often told, rightly, the respect in which DFID’s work is held and how much its involvement is appreciated. Nowhere would that be more the case than in Burundi. When we look at the map of east and central Africa, we can see that among the countries with which DFID works bilaterally are Tanzania, Kenya, Uganda, Rwanda, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and South Sudan. Only Burundi is missing; yet I would argue that Burundi needs assistance the most.

Fourthly, will the Minister ensure that the innocent refugees from this conflict and their host countries are properly supported through the UN institutions? It was estimated in August that 180,000 people had fled since April—75,000 to Rwanda, 89,000 to Tanzania, and the remainder to Uganda and the DRC. We should express our thanks to those host countries for taking them in. At a time when all eyes are on the Syrian refugee crisis, the world cannot forget such crises elsewhere.

Finally, will the Minister recognise that instability in Burundi, and indeed other countries, has had devastating effects on the people of the region, particularly in the DRC? Up to 6 million people are estimated to have died as a result of the conflicts, some of which had their source in this region, in the DRC during the past 20 years. With elections in the DRC due next year, it is all the more important for Burundi to be at peace.

Burundi is a beautiful county with some of the most hospitable people it has ever been my pleasure to meet. They simply want to live in peace, throw off the shackles of poverty and give their children the chance that all of us would wish to give to ours. What we need now is determination—from the East African Community, the African Union, the international community and, indeed, the United Kingdom—to ensure that the Government and opposition groups break the cycle of violence and breaches of human rights that has scarred Burundian politics and life for far too long.

17:17

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (James Duddridge)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) on securing this debate, and I commend him for his outstanding and tireless work on both the Joint Committee on Human Rights and the International Development Committee.

I am grateful to other hon. Members, including my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Stephen Phillips), who asked some specific questions, and my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire (Pauline Latham), who has certainly proved the point that one does not have to speak in the House of Commons to have an enormous influence. Her private lobbying, as well as the private and public lobbying of hon. Members in the Chamber, has been instrumental in my reaching the position I hold on Burundi and the actions I will take over the next month.

I first visited Burundi in 2006, and I have since followed the situation there closely. I was there with Christian Aid, along with another hon. Member. I can tell the House that, later this month, I intend to be in Burundi to discuss the situation there, but also in Uganda and Rwanda to discuss both domestic matters and the regional situation.

Before I respond to the specific points that have been raised, I will set out the Government’s position more generally. It is clear that there is a deepening political, humanitarian and security crisis in Burundi. The Burundian Government have refused to engage in substantive political dialogue. That, along with the inflammatory remarks made by senior members of the Burundian Government, has led to an increased risk of civil strife and a deepening refugee crisis, which is unacceptable. More than 200 people have been killed since April, including five people who have reportedly been killed in the past 48 hours or so, either in protests against President Nkurunziza’s third term or in targeted political assassinations. The killings continue daily, so we need a genuine and inclusive dialogue, based on respect for the Arusha accords. Such a dialogue would enable Burundian stakeholders to find a consensual solution to the crisis facing their country, preserve peace and consolidate democracy and the rule of law.

Clearly, the ongoing violence and insecurity are having an impact on the Burundian economy and the humanitarian situation. The Government have little income and livelihoods are being threatened. About 220,000 people have fled the country and are living in neighbouring Tanzania, Rwanda, Uganda and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Burundi has been blocking the flight of some refugees. The number of internally displaced people is therefore high in Burundi, although we do not have precise numbers. There is a risk of contagion. My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford is right to highlight the effect of the situation in Burundi on neighbouring countries, particularly the DRC.

The UK has played a leading role in building a single, consistent response from the international community. In January, we set up a group of international partners with interests in Burundi, which have since worked together to develop a common strategy. Collectively, we lobbied President Nkurunziza to engage with the international community and, crucially, accept the principles of the Arusha agreement. In June, I appointed a special envoy to the great lakes, Danae Dholakia. She is actively involved in delivering our messages in Burundi. I appreciate my hon. Friend’s communications with the Foreign Office, in which he has provided an insight into what is happening on the ground.

[Jeremy Lefroy]

May I express my thanks to the envoy, who has been assiduous in her work and incredibly helpful to me and, I believe, the people of Burundi?

[James Duddridge]

I am sure that those comments will be appreciated. They are certainly appreciated by me.

My hon. Friend spoke about the African Union and the EU, and the engagement between the two is incredibly important. We have supported the East African Community in trying to deliver a regional solution. I hope to meet President Museveni and to co-operate with his efforts to effect a regional solution to the crisis in Burundi. We will do everything we can to support him in those endeavours.

We encourage the whole region and the African Union to play a strong role in urging Burundi to take part in an inclusive dialogue outside Burundi. That would do much to pave the way for a substantive solution to the crisis. Peacekeeping will be part of that. I will also be discussing the possibility of a stand-by rapid reaction force with the region.

It was under the UK’s presidency of the UN Security Council that resolution 2248 was agreed. That resolution demonstrates the unity of the international community in its approach to the crisis. We continue to work with the African Union to mobilise financial and political resources to support the mediation process. We will continue to work with our colleagues around the world on contingency options in case things go wrong. We plan to make things go right, but we are also planning contingencies in case they do not.

The Department for International Development is providing nearly £15 million to support the international relief effort for refugees fleeing to countries like Tanzania. That will be channelled through the United Nations refugee agency and the World Food Programme. The Department for International Development is providing close to a further £4 million for the refugee response in Rwanda through the United Nations and non-governmental organisations. That has been used to fund refugee transport, medical care, shelters and food rations.

Perhaps this is a good point to respond to my hon. Friend’s plea for us to do more. I am sure that the Foreign Office would not want me to over-promise, but I think that now is the time to review this situation across the Foreign Office and across the Department for International Development. I am happy to pledge to have a meeting with the Minister in DFID to see whether our response is appropriate, proportionate and co-ordinated. We have made efforts to ensure that it is all of those things, but I am sure we could do more. I do not think that anyone who sat in my office before the Rwandan genocide would have regretted spending more time on that issue rather than less.

The UK strongly supports a sanctions regime for Burundi. Four individuals have been listed so far, and the European Union and the African Union are giving consideration to further sanctions against individuals. I personally have made a number of calls to the Burundian Foreign Minister, Alain Aimé Nyamitwe, following the inflammatory comments made by the President and the president of the Senate, some of which my hon. Friend read out. They were truly distressing and hauntingly similar to words that were uttered in Rwanda before the genocide.

Our work in the region, in the European Union and with the United Nations has undoubtedly had an impact. The Burundian Government have already shown increased restraint in their deployment of the police and security forces, and they have finally accepted the notion of inclusive dialogue through article 96 consultations with the European Union, for which the UK pushed very hard. Under those consultations, the European Union will press Burundi on a range of issues related to the current crisis, including press freedom, human rights defenders and the proper functioning of the judiciary.

Looking ahead, I will visit Uganda, Rwanda and Burundi this month. I will be looking at a broad range of issues, but the main reason for my going is the situation in Burundi and its regional implications. I will meet members of each Government and members of the Burundian opposition, humanitarian organisations and UN agencies. I will listen to regional views on the situation and discuss how the UK and the international community could further support steps towards political dialogue. I will emphasise that the eyes of the world are on Burundi. I will call for urgent action to prevent the country from descending into civil war. And I will give a strong message that the security and safety of the people of Burundi are ultimately the responsibility of the Burundian Government.

To conclude, the UK is doing everything possible to ensure peace and prosperity for the Burundian people, but to achieve that, Burundi must step up and engage with the international community. To that end, we will continue to work with international partners, the United Nations, the European Union, the African Union and the East African Community. I again thank my hon. Friend for giving us the opportunity to debate these important issues in the House, and for his lobbying, which is in large part what is leading me to go to those countries later this month to advocate Her Majesty’s Government’s, and his, cause.

Question put and agreed to.

17:28

House adjourned.

Petition

Thursday 10th December 2015 Petitions

Thursday 10 December 2015

Anti-social behaviour in Rushey Fields Park (Leicester)

Thursday 10th December 2015 Petitions

The petition of residents of Leicester,

Declares that urgent steps need to be taken to stop anti-social behaviour, attacks and robberies by groups of young people on users and nearby residents of Rushey Fields Park in Leicester and further that it is the only green space in the area and this kind of behaviour is discouraging people who are concerned for their safety and welfare from using the park.

The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges Leicester City Council to put CCTV security measures in place and increase police patrols to discourage anti-social behaviour, robberies and attacks on park users and nearby residents.

And the petitioners remain, etc.—[Presented by Keith Vaz, Official Report, 25 November 2015; Vol. 602, c. 1458.]

[P001572]

Observations from the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Karen Bradley):

The Government recognise that anti-social behaviour and associated criminality can have a significant impact on the quality of life in communities affected by it, and that left unchecked, it can make people’s lives a misery.

The Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 introduced new and flexible powers to enable the police, local authorities and other partners to take effective action to stop such behaviour and to protect our communities. A number of areas are making good use of these powers to address anti-social behaviour within their communities.

It must, however, be for the local authority and the police, using their professional expertise, knowledge and judgement, to determine whether to make use of the new powers to tackle the problems being experienced in Rushey Fields Park, and whether other responses, including the use of police patrols may be appropriate.

The possible use of CCTV in the area will be one of a number of competing priorities and demands upon the budget of Leicester City Council. CCTV systems are one of the tools available to the local authority and its partners to fulfil its statutory responsibilities under section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 to do all that it reasonably can to prevent crime and disorder in its area. It is, however, a matter for local partners to determine whether and how best to deploy and operate CCTV systems, taking into account the resources available and guidance in the surveillance camera code of practice.

Childcare Bill [ Lords ] (Third sitting)

Thursday 10th December 2015 Public Bill Committees

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chairs: †Nadine Dorries, Mr David Hanson

† Berry, James (Kingston and Surbiton) (Con)

† Cadbury, Ruth (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)

† Cunningham, Alex (Stockton North) (Lab)

† Donelan, Michelle (Chippenham) (Con)

† Drummond, Mrs Flick (Portsmouth South) (Con)

† Frazer, Lucy (South East Cambridgeshire) (Con)

† Glass, Pat (North West Durham) (Lab)

† Green, Chris (Bolton West) (Con)

† Gyimah, Mr Sam (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education)

† James, Margot (Stourbridge) (Con)

† Matheson, Christian (City of Chester) (Lab)

† Phillips, Jess (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)

† Smith, Chloe (Norwich North) (Con)

† Smith, Jeff (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)

† Tomlinson, Michael (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)

Walker, Mr Robin (Worcester) (Con)

Fergus Reid, Joanna Welham, Committee Clerks

† attended the Committee

Public Bill Committee

Thursday 10 December 2015

(Morning)

[Nadine Dorries in the Chair]

Childcare Bill [Lords]

11:30

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

On a point of order, Ms Dorries, may I seek your advice on the tabling of Government amendments, please, in the light of an occurrence overnight in the Housing and Planning Bill Committee? The Government tabled amendments for the last day of consideration that will fundamentally change the structure of the Bill and bring great insecurity to social housing tenants with the ending of long-term secure tenancies. Is it in order for me to seek an assurance from the Government that no such stunts will be pulled in this Committee? If the Government intend to table amendments that will fundamentally change the nature of the Bill, perhaps we will be given time to consider them properly, rather than doing so on the last day of consideration.

[The Chair]

That is not an issue for the Chair; the issue for the Chair is that amendments will be accepted for this, or presumably any other Bill Committee only if they are tabled three full working days before the next sitting. If the Minister wishes to table an amendment for Tuesday, as long as it is tabled by the rise of the House today, which will be three full working days before the Committee’s next sitting, he is quite within his rights to do so, as the hon. Gentleman or the Opposition spokesman would be. I hope that answers the hon. Gentleman’s question.

Clause 3

Non-compliance in the labour market etc: interpretation

[Pat Glass (North West Durham) (Lab)]

I beg to move amendment 14, in clause 3, page 3, line 14, at end insert—

“(bb) make provision to enable priority to be given to qualifying children who are also assessed as being disadvantaged in the allocation of childcare places in childcare settings that have been classed as outstanding (or equivalent) following inspection;”

To require priority to be given to children who have been assessed as disadvantaged in the allocation of childcare places in childcare settings that have been classed as outstanding (or equivalent) following inspection.

Many of us have sat on Bill Committees before, but I have never led on one before. As with so much in life, I actually understand what is going on now—at the end.

When I first came into Parliament in 2010, given my background of working in education for 25 years, the former Member for South Shields, David Miliband, used to send me his speeches on education occasionally, asking me to have a look at them. After the first couple of times of me going back to him and saying, “You know, this is really important, but it is not the most important issue in education”, he stopped sending them to me.

The most serious problem in education today is not the limited number of children from disadvantaged homes who are making it into Oxford and Cambridge, or even into Durham University, wonderful institution though it is; it is not the perception of grade creep at GCSE, whether real or not; and it is not how many of our children are achieving at grade A or A* at GCSE, or at the C-D or B-C borderline, undoubtedly serious as those issues are.

The most serious problem in education today is not even the number of children who get five A to Cs at GCSE; it is the number of children who do not. Decreasing, but still significantly large, numbers of children of average, close-to-average and above-average ability in this country are failing to achieve five good GCSEs, and an even larger number are failing to achieve five good GCSEs including English and maths. The most serious and worrying issue in education today is the percentage of those children who are on free school meals, and the percentage of those children who are assessed as having special educational needs, even the most minor SEN. I am not talking about children who have profound or even serious or moderate SEN; I am talking about those who fall in the wide band between close to average and above average. They can and should achieve five good GCSEs.

The attainment gap has narrowed slowly. It was narrowing slowly in the period 2007 to 2010 and continues to narrow marginally, but the rate at which it is closing has slowed down significantly. If that is not addressed, it will start to go the other way quite soon. That gap leaves us without the trained and experienced workforce that we need in industries such as engineering, construction, childcare, catering and many others. It is creating a widening gap in productivity between the UK and the rest of Europe and the far east. If the gap is not addressed, history tells us that it will lead to serious and costly social problems throughout society.

I already talked on Tuesday about the Ofsted report that was published last week, in which Sir Michael Wilshaw expresses concern about the number of disadvantaged two-year-olds who are still failing to access early education. He is concerned that even if disadvantaged two-year-olds are accessing early education, a large percentage are not getting access to the best and most outstanding provision.

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

I have heard it said that the higher the income a person has and the more articulate they are, the sharper their elbows are when it comes to fighting for their children. Parents at the other end of the scale, however, do not have the sharp elbows and they certainly do not have the income. That might be all the more reason why we have to give them and their children a helping hand at the earliest point in their lives.

[Pat Glass]

I do not think the sharp elbows are necessarily linked to income. I have met some very sharp-elbowed parents at the bottom of the income scale, and I certainly do not blame any parent for trying to get their child into the best provision that they can. However, too many of the children who need access to the best provision and the best teachers are simply not getting such access. Even in secondary schools where there is a particular issue—I know we are talking about early years—one of the arguments I used to have with headteachers, particularly in schools that required improvement, was about the tendency to put their best teachers at key stage 4 and not at key stage 3, which is where they need to be.

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

The hon. Lady makes the excellent point that early years provision is absolutely vital to give children the best start in life and to narrow the gap. Does she agree that introducing 15 hours of free early education for disadvantaged two-year-olds is a big step in that direction?

[Pat Glass]

I absolutely agree, but it is equally important that the children who need access to the best teachers are not pushed out of the system, or not pushed into provision that is not good or requires improvement. I do not know whether the Minister has had a chance to look at the Ofsted report, but the chief inspector of schools clearly says that far too many of our disadvantaged children are not getting access to the best provision and too many end up in childcare settings and schools that require improvement.

If we want to narrow the gap—clearly, we all do—it is not enough for the Government to simply will this. They have to will the means as well as the ends. Admissions is a key factor in making that happen. As somebody who has managed admissions over the years, I know they are tricky, but they came under one of the areas that I managed and quite liked. I understood why parents got really angry if they could not get their child into the school that they wanted. I had a huge amount of sympathy for them. When I managed admissions, I always tried to get a balance between having not too many surplus places but enough to give parents the access that they needed to the schools that they wanted. So I understand how tricky admissions can be.

Parental choice is a myth that continues to be talked about a lot. It is really parental preference, but in far too many cases it is not parental preference that presides, but school choice. Schools make choices about children.

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

The hon. Lady makes an excellent point: the sentiment is an honourable one. However, has she thought through the practicalities of the issue that she raises? I represent a rural constituency where there may be only one provider. We are operating in a sector in which many nursery providers are private providers. The Bill is permissive; it is not mandatory. People do not have to provide for 30 hours if they do not want to do so. Is not the answer to her point that we need to level up standards and ensure that all nurseries and all schools are good or outstanding? The Government have made significant progress, ensuring that 1 million more students are now getting outstanding or good education. Is not that the answer?

[The Chair]

Order. That is a long intervention.

[Pat Glass]

I would not disagree with the hon. Lady. She needs to make a speech, because she makes some good points. I am not for one moment underestimating the difficulties of doing this, and I will address the issue of admissions in early years. Such admissions are not statutory, which makes it even trickier. However, just because it is tricky, it does not mean to say that we should not at least try to address it.

[Mr Gyimah]

The hon. Lady has referred to Ofsted’s latest annual report a number of times, and I draw the Committee’s attention to what it says:

“Children in England now start their lives with a high chance of spending all of their early educational experiences up to the age of 11 in a good or outstanding early years provider and primary school.”

The report also says:

“Early education has never been stronger”.

[Pat Glass]

I am sure the report does say that, and I am sure I could go through the report, which is very thick, and pick out all kinds of things that support my argument. If the Minister goes straight to the main recommendations at the front, he will see that the chief inspector’s No. 1 recommendation—I have not had to scour the report to support my argument—is about disadvantaged two-year-olds getting access to the best provision. That is so much of an issue that the inspector has put it right there on the front page.

[Mr Gyimah]

The hon. Lady is aware that the Bill provides for 30 hours of childcare for three and four-year-olds, and is not about the two-year-old offer.

[Pat Glass]

I accept that. The issue of admissions is tricky, but that is not a reason to ignore it. I entirely accept that it becomes more complicated in the early years, pre-school and childcare sectors because there is no statutory requirement. Where there is a shortage of provision, such as in areas with just one provider, effective provisions choose children, and provision operates on a first come, first served basis everywhere else.

The most able, advantaged and well organised usually get their children’s names down first for outstanding provision, and it is equally true that the disadvantaged and less well organised tend to lose out. That is borne out by the Ofsted report. Children who would be assessed as disadvantaged do get access to provision that is good and outstanding—we are not saying that they do not—but far too many children from such disadvantaged homes end up in provision that is judged to be requiring improvement or failing, and the cycle of disadvantage and failure begins all over again. We accept the difficulties, but we have to intervene somewhere. We have to look at the best triggers for intervention to stop that cycle.

[Mr Gyimah]

I am listening to the hon. Lady’s speech with close interest, and I notice that she has not defined “disadvantage,” which is at the core of her amendment.

[Pat Glass]

I am using exactly the same definition of “disadvantage” as the Department does when it looks at disadvantaged two-year-olds. The amendment would require childcare providers to give priority for admission to children who have been assessed as disadvantaged in the allocation of childcare provision. We know who those children are. Health visitors and social workers are already identifying and assessing disadvantaged two-year-olds, so it is simply about taking that forward. Extending it to childcare provision for four and five-year-olds would require little effort. If the Government are serious about narrowing the gap, if they want to get the acceleration in narrowing that gap going again—the acceleration is slowing—if they are serious about making the step change that is needed to raise the achievement of all children and if they want more and more children to be educated in outstanding childcare provision, hopefully the Minister will support this amendment.

[The Chair]

Order. Ms Glass, do not beat yourself up too much about what happened on Tuesday. Although you strayed from the parameters of the debate, it is accepted practice to give whoever opens a debate, no matter which side of the Committee they are on, more leniency in setting the tone of the debate.

11:45

[Alex Cunningham]

I am pleased to support amendment 14, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham has outlined, would require children assessed as being disadvantaged to be given priority in the allocation of childcare places in settings that have been classed as outstanding. Members will recall from the Committee’s sitting on Tuesday that there is substantial evidence to show that high-quality early education and childcare have a positive impact on children’s development. Importantly in the context of amendment 14, that is particularly true for children from low-income families, who are more likely to fall behind. There is overwhelming evidence that children assessed as being disadvantaged are less likely to be able to access outstanding childcare provision, as my hon. Friend has said. Instead, they are much more likely to be able to access childcare that requires improvement.

We face the sorry reality of knowing that children from disadvantaged backgrounds are much more likely to fall behind. My hon. Friends and I have spelled out the facts in earlier Committee sittings. One in four children in England arrive at primary school without good early language development, and that figure rises to one in three for children from disadvantaged backgrounds, who, as I mentioned in support of new clause 1, start school on average 15 months behind their peers in language and vocabulary skills.

Many organisations with expertise in the sector have agreed that action is needed to close the attainment gap between the most disadvantaged children and their better-off peers. Closing the gap has been an aspiration of successive Governments over the last 20 years or so, but despite record levels of spending on education between 1997 and 2010, some of which the current Government have built on—a little, at least—that gap is still much in evidence. The Government will have the support of all Opposition Members if they can narrow it over the Parliament. The Minister knows, as does everyone else, that closing the gap has to start with our youngest. If he gets that right in the Bill, he will go down as a success, but if he does not, he will simply end up with a report card that says, “Could do better.”

[Mr Gyimah]

On the subject of successes, or perhaps I should say progress, is the hon. Gentleman aware that 85% of two-year-olds are taking their funded place in a good or outstanding setting already?

[Alex Cunningham]

Yes, and that is good news, but there are still 15% who are not. The organisations that we speak to and that brief us tell us that the most disadvantaged are still the most likely to lose out on the best provision. In the testimony given to the House of Lords Affordable Childcare Committee, published in February this year, there was strong consensus on the evidence for the persistence of the gap and its effects. Barnardo’s, for instance, noted the

“consistent and large gap in educational attainment in the UK, based on income”.

The Early Childhood Research Centre noted a

“19 month vocabulary gap at age 5 between children from the poorest and most affluent families”.

The Child Poverty Action Group spoke of intergenerational poverty being far greater in the UK than elsewhere, with children

“far more likely to follow in their parents’ footsteps in terms of income and educational level.”

For context, 53% of children in the 30% most deprived areas of England in 2014 achieved a good level of development in the early years foundation stage profile, compared with 65% of children in other areas. As the Minister knows, that gap of 12 percentage points has remained unchanged since 2011. That hiatus should be all the evidence we need to convince us that positive steps are required actively to address the sorry situation and revitalise efforts to close the attainment gap.

I am clear that the only route to resolving this unacceptable situation, and righting the inequality of opportunity that many children and young people from disadvantaged backgrounds face growing up, is to take action to level the playing field from the outset. We all accept that early education has a crucial role to play in helping disadvantaged children to catch up with their most advantaged peers. The Minister has accepted that as the case for investment, and he has made that clear. I do not need to remind him that in the light of the evidence of the difference to school readiness that early education makes, he suggested that

“being able to invest in it early, especially for the disadvantaged”

was key to narrowing the attainment gap. Indeed, the House of Lords Committee recommended that the Government consider targeting more resources at the most disadvantaged children because that is where the strongest evidence of the impact of high-quality education lies. It is not, however, clear that the Bill addresses that recommendation. I am therefore pleased to support the amendment to correct that oversight. It would give priority for high-quality childcare provision to those children identified as being from disadvantaged backgrounds and who are more likely to fall behind. Such a step would not only be a move towards closing the attainment gap, but would contribute to raising overall attainment levels. It is the right thing to do and I hope the Minister will join me in supporting the amendment.

[Mr Gyimah]

Once again, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Dorries. At the start of the line-by-line scrutiny of the Bill, I said that there were three aims behind our childcare policy: to enable parents to work more hours; to help parents with the cost of living; and to give children the best start in life with high-quality early education.

[Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)]

Does the Minister recognise that a mother’s education is the single biggest factor in how well her children go on to achieve? As we are focusing on children’s attainment, does he agree that helping women in education to access this childcare provision would be a step towards one of his three aims?

[Mr Gyimah]

Obviously helping women in education is a broad aim of the Government, but those are the three objectives of this particular Bill. The amendment addresses the third objective of giving children the best start in life, and I am grateful to hon. Members for tabling it, as it draws attention to the importance of closing the gap in achievement between disadvantaged children and their peers. I am pleased to say that more children, including those in receipt of free school meals, are now achieving a good level of development at the end of the early years foundation stage. In 2015, 66.3% of children achieved a good level of development. That figure was up from 51.7% in 2013. In 2015, 51% of children on free school meals achieved a good level of development compared with 45% in 2014. That is the equivalent of an extra 5,800 children. The gap in achievement between disadvantaged children and other children has narrowed from 18.9 percentage points in 2014 to 17.7 percentage points in 2015, which is welcome news. However, the gap is still too large and the Government are absolutely committed to narrowing it.

[Alex Cunningham]

As the Minister says, that development is very much to be welcomed. I appreciate that the current Government and the previous coalition Government built a little bit on what Labour achieved in government when we funded education properly for the first time in a generation. However, there is still the same attainment gap that there has been since 2011. There has been a slowdown. What will the Minister do about that? Backing the amendment would help.

[Mr Gyimah]

I will come to the practicalities and issues of the amendment, which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire pointed to so deftly in her comments. The hon. Gentleman asked what we are doing to help to narrow the attainment gap. That is the reason we extended the pupil premium into the early years with the introduction of the early years pupil premium this year, providing £50 million of additional funding to support the early education of disadvantaged three and four-year-olds. The extra funding, worth 53p an hour—about £300 a year—goes directly to providers to help them to increase the quality of their setting. I am pleased that the feedback from local authorities is that providers are using the additional funding to achieve exactly that.

[Pat Glass]

I thank the Minister; that was exactly what I was going to ask about. There is a lot of evidence currently emerging that shows that, when the pupil premium is being used and targeted at specific children and specific programmes, it is making a difference. When it is simply backfilling funding, as it appears the Minister is doing with this, it is not making any difference at all. Why is he so convinced that it will make a difference in the early years?

[Mr Gyimah]

The pupil premium is not backfilling funding. To re-hash the funding debate, the £300 million uplift that was provided by the Chancellor in his spending review excludes the pupil premium. The pupil premium is not being used to backfill core funding. It is a new initiative—I think it started earlier this year. I will be the first to admit that there is some way to go to ensure providers are using it for the right interventions. Regarding the amendment specifically, however, what the pupil premium does is to put a higher price on the heads of disadvantaged children. If someone is a provider and they take on disadvantaged children, they get more money as a result, so there is already an incentive built into the system for good and outstanding providers to take on more disadvantaged children. There are more funds attached to those children.

[Pat Glass]

I do not want to burst the Minister’s bubble at all, but the additional pupil premium is not convincing schools to take on more children in receipt of free school meals, so what makes him think it will convince providers of early years? If it is not working with schools, do we not need something else to ensure good providers take on disadvantaged children?

[Mr Gyimah]

On good providers taking on disadvantaged children, specifically in the early years, we must acknowledge that the early years setting is very different. Schools are in the maintained sector, but here we have private providers. There are parents who have different ideas of where they want their children to take their early education. Some parents prefer childminders because they want their children to have their early education in a domestic setting; some would prefer a private nursery; and some would prefer a nursery in a school. In practice, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire mentioned, making this proposal work would be tremendously difficult, because we would have to compel a private provider to take a specific type of child rather than operating on a “first come, first served” basis, which is how the system currently works.

The important news is that there are many good examples of how the pupil premium is working.

[Alex Cunningham]

rose—

[Mr Gyimah]

I would like to develop that argument, but I will take the intervention from the hon. Gentleman first.

[Alex Cunningham]

I thank the Minister for giving way. However, even if his figures from the former Deputy Prime Minister’s pupil premium initiative are correct, we have got to concentrate on what is happening long before the pupil premium kicks in for young children. We need to be kicking in at the offer for two, three and four-year-olds. That is where we need the quality and the funding.

[Mr Gyimah]

The hon. Gentleman is talking about having an intervention long before the early years pupil premium, which is for three and four-year-olds, kicks in. This is the Government who introduced for the first time ever early education for disadvantaged two-year-olds, spending something like £750 million a year on that. I would argue that we are already making that intervention. However, the Bill is about providing 30 hours for three and four-year-olds. I will just mention a few examples of how the early years pupil premium is helping disadvantaged three and four-year-olds.

In one nursery, the funding has been used for staff training and equipment, to help children achieving below their age-related averages on entry in mathematics, and in communication and language skills. Another provider has been able to employ a dedicated early years special educational co-ordinator and language specialist, to help children to develop attention skills, turn-taking and speaking in sentences. Another provider has put the funding towards the recruitment of specialist staff to communicate with the families and children who have English as an additional language, as well as to support their other learning needs. These are the sorts of interventions that really make a difference in narrowing the gap, and we will look to roll them out across the sector.

I am sure that hon. Members will share my view that the additional help and support can make a real difference to the most vulnerable children in our society, particularly as they get ready to start school. That is why the Conservative-led Government introduced the two-year-old entitlement, which has been maintained in the spending review. In June, local authorities reported that around 167,000 two-year-olds were already benefiting from a funded early education place, and that figure continues to rise.

That is an achievement for an entitlement that was only introduced as recently as three years ago, I think. We have seen rapid increases in take-up in local authorities that had initially struggled, with some remarkable increases in London, for example. However, we must remember that the offer to parents, as far as the education for two-year-olds is concerned, is voluntary. Parents do not have to enrol their two-year-olds in a nursery setting, and one of the projects that I worked on when I was first appointed as the childcare Minister was to consider how we can encourage more parents to take up the offer for two-year-olds.

12:00

Many parents thought that the age of two was too soon to enrol their children in early education. We noticed that there were some parents who did not even open the official envelope inviting them to take the offer that they received, because when they saw a brown envelope that looked as if it came from Government, it was the last envelope they wanted to open. We had to think about new techniques. We worked out that colourful envelopes were opened. We also realised that the messages made a big difference—saying to parents that their child can play and enjoy themselves with other children made a big difference.

We are coming from a position where for many people, a child being in an educational setting at the age of two is a big step. We are making huge progress on that. We should work with the grain of how parents want to take this, rather than trying to foist things on them as the amendment would do.

For some parents, cultural barriers are a challenge. We noticed that some local authorities were far more responsive to the offer for two-year-olds than others. Some said their demographics meant that parents did not want to take the offer, but we highlighted the comparison with local authorities with similar demographics, and then those parents began to take the offer. There is a lot of work going on, but there is no magic bullet to get parents to enrol in the offer for two-year-olds. We must get that right rather than impose further conditions, as the amendment suggests.

Ofsted’s early years report called for schools in particular to take more disadvantaged two-year-olds, as they generally have well-qualified staff and additional services in place to support those children. We have legislated to make it easier for schools to take two-year-olds by simplifying the registration process. Again, there is a need for a cultural change. There are a lot of headteachers of schools who do not want to get involved in day care, as they see it. They see working with two-year-olds as completely different from the well established pre-school work with three and four-year-olds.

Schools that have begun to take two-year-olds are seeing the benefits of working with children earlier and are able to help sooner when children and families need specific support. Importantly, we have changed the admissions code to enable schools to prioritise the most disadvantaged children. We are already giving those children priority access to outstanding provision.

Furthermore, two-year-olds benefit from the highest-quality early education, because local authorities can only fund places for them in settings with a grading of less than good if there is insufficient accessible good or outstanding provision. If there is insufficient good or outstanding provision, local authorities can fund a place in a setting that is on its way to improving its Ofsted rating. As I said, 85% of settings are currently good or outstanding.

Of course, we want all children to experience high-quality provision. The quality of the early years sector is improving. Our data show that more and more providers are rated good or outstanding—79% in the most disadvantaged areas. Hon. Members will be reassured to hear that in inspections, Ofsted puts an explicit focus on checking that disadvantaged children are making the progress that is expected and that additional funding for them, such as the EYPP, is being used well to close the gaps. Providers that do not deliver that are demonstrating inadequate performance.

Hon. Members will also be aware of the evidence that the biggest influence on the quality of a setting is the quality of the workforce. The quality of the workforce is improving, as we debated in the context of the amendment on workforce strategy. I am proud of the Government’s record in providing quality early education to disadvantaged children, and I support the motive behind the amendment, but I have some difficulties with the amendment itself. Neither local authorities nor the Government allocate early years places to children. Most free childcare places are provided by the private, voluntary and independent sector and are not, therefore, controlled by Government. Providers are not required by existing legislation or the Bill to deliver the free entitlement. They can do whatever they want.

It is important that parents, not Government, choose the provider that best meets the needs of their children. For example, parents may not want to be prioritised to a place that is many miles from their home or workplace and is not delivered by the type of provider that a parent would prefer to use. Our absolute priority must therefore be to drive up the quality of early years provision across the board, ensuring that all disadvantaged children are able to access and benefit from high-quality provision in a non-stigmatising way. I am confident that the Government’s significant additional investment in the early years, the policies that we have in place and the focus in the accountability framework on outcomes for disadvantaged children will increase our progress in narrowing the attainment gap and ensuring that the early years entitlement benefits all children.

Although we are clearly on a journey with the early years pupil premium, the early years foundation stage profile results show that school-readiness is increasing for the children in question and that the gaps are starting to close. In view of that, and of my commitment to focus relentlessly on the issue, I hope that the hon. Member for North West Durham will feel sufficiently reassured to withdraw the amendment.

[Pat Glass]

The Minister said right at the beginning that the Government had three aims in introducing the Bill: enabling parents to work, helping with the cost of living and giving children the best start in life. I think the amendment would fit in very nicely with that. This is the most serious issue in education today, and I remind the Minister that I said that it is not sufficient for the Government to will the ends; they have to will the means. The amendment would have been a useful way to do that. I accept the difficulties in achieving the aim, but this is about the sentiment rather than the amendment, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Pat Glass]

I beg to move amendment 15, in clause 3, page 3, line 14, at end insert—

“(bc) make provision to enable parents to use their total entitlement to free childcare per year flexibly for the purposes of reflecting variations in need effectively (for example school holidays).”

To allow parents to use their entitlement to 30 hours of free childcare flexibly throughout the year.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment 4.

[Pat Glass]

On a point of clarification, I will speak to amendment 15, Ms Dorries, but may I then raise any issues that I have with Government amendment 4 before the Minister speaks? It is only a couple of technicalities.

[The Chair]

Yes.

[Pat Glass]

Amendment 15 is a probing amendment. I hope that when the Minister gets to his feet, he will support my call for flexibility and deliver what I am asking for. I just have a feeling in my water that that will not be the case.

The need for childcare is different for different families. It is clear that most working families can find ways of boxing and coxing their childcare provision during the week. However, we have heard about the variable levels of occupancy, ranging from 75% to 95%. There is heavier childcare occupancy on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday, and lighter occupancy on a Monday and Friday as families find other solutions on those days.

Family solutions are as different as the families themselves. Some parents work part time, some work in job shares and, in many families, one parent works a regular pattern of nine-to-five or thereabouts—often the higher earner—while the other works an early morning or a late shift to ensure that there is childcare at the beginning and end of every day. That was the pattern in my home when I was growing up. My dad was pretty rubbish at breakfast, but we got used to it. [Laughter.] He was really rubbish at breakfast, but it allowed both parents to work, and that is what many families do. Some family solutions are dependent on grandparents from both sides of the family taking a share of the childcare. Indeed, in many families today, grandparents are the childcare. Other families do not live close enough to grandparents for that to be a regular, reliable solution.

Whatever childcare solutions families find from birth to the age of three, and from Monday to Friday, many parents tell me—I am sure they tell the Minister the same thing—that the biggest problem is how to manage school holidays. There are holidays at Christmas and Easter and half-term holidays in February, May and October, but what parents really worry about are the six-week summer holidays. Two working parents with 25 days of holiday entitlement each, and understanding and flexible colleagues, could theoretically cover all but three weeks of the school holidays, but that would mean giving up all their holiday entitlement and in most cases never having one day when all the family is on leave together. Many other families find themselves in situations that are not even as fortunate as that, and not all employers are accommodating. Most parents work alongside colleagues who also want time off during the school holidays, so they cannot depend on taking their full entitlement in the school holiday period.

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend describes the situation for a family with two parents in work. The situation is far, far worse for lone parents, not all of whom have local family support, particularly if they have had to move house to find somewhere affordable to live.

[Pat Glass]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I will touch on the situation of single-parent families in a moment. Even in the most flexible and helpful of employment situations, parents tell me that if they each take two weeks’ leave, that still leaves them with two weeks in the summer to cover, and they have to prevail on wider family or friends or other solutions for those remaining two weeks. Parents tell me that they dread that time, and that should not be the case. The six-week summer holiday should be a time when parents and children can be together, and it should be a good time, not something that parents dread. I have even been told by some parents that after struggling to put childcare solutions together—prevailing upon their friends, family and acquaintances to the point where those people avoid them—they have still had to take unpaid leave, or in some extreme cases give up their job to cope with the summer holidays.

While for many couples it is a case of misery being better shared, single parents do not even have that, as my hon. Friend said. There is no one to share the childcare management with and no one to share the worry and the stress. The last Labour Government introduced a childcare vouchers scheme that was based on employment. Parents and employers could buy into the scheme, but I understand that the Government are phasing out the scheme and not allowing new applicants, and that is a shame. Those who used the scheme have told me that what they liked best about it was its flexibility.

[Mr Gyimah]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right to say that the childcare vouchers scheme is being phased out, to be replaced with tax-free childcare. There were deficiencies in the childcare vouchers scheme. People had to have an employer that was willing to do the vouchers, which meant it was often only large employers. Self-employed people did not qualify, nor did people on the minimum wage. However, people who earned £1 million a year could still get the vouchers. Tax-free childcare strikes the right balance in focusing things on the parents who need it, while also having the same level of flexibility in the providers that parents can use and allowing different professions to use it. That means it applies to the self-employed and those on the national minimum wage.

[The Chair]

Order. Could we please keep the interventions a bit shorter, or we will never get to the end?

[Pat Glass]

The Minister is right. I am not pretending for one moment that the voucher scheme was perfect. It was far from perfect, but I am using it to illustrate what parents said they liked about it. Large employers that used the scheme, such as the John Lewis Partnership, said that they liked the flexibility.

The amendment would put flexibility into the system. We have already heard of many parents who use their childcare entitlement on certain days of the week and not on others. For many families, other childcare solutions can be found for Mondays and Fridays. The idea of being able to spread the childcare entitlement across 52 weeks, rather than 38 weeks, would take away an extreme worry for an awful lot of parents. They see the summer holidays coming, and they absolutely dread it, because they just do know what they are going to do.

Ultimately, all of us—including the Government, I presume—want to see a system in which childcare is not seen as an ever present worry and problem, so that parents can feel secure about going out to work knowing that there is sufficient good provision for their children irrespective of their needs. The amendment is intended simply to give parents some control over their childcare allocation. It would put some of it in the hands of parents so that it was not exclusively in the hands of providers, and it would enable parents to use it flexibly to meet their wider family needs.

We have already talked about changing patterns of work, such as part-time work, job shares, shift work, seasonal work, self-employment and zero-hours contracts. We are working very differently now, and the amendment would ensure that parents who have problems with childcare over the long summer holidays and the other school holidays could use their entitlement flexibly.

12:15

[Alex Cunningham]

I am pleased to support amendment 15, which would ensure that parents were given the flexibility to use their 30-day entitlement to free childcare throughout the year. It would ensure that they were not restricted in when and how they take the additional 15 hours.

As my hon. Friend said, the concept of flexibility is central to the success of the 30-hour offer. All children aged three and four are currently eligible for 15 hours of free early education each week, or 570 hours each year. That offer can be taken over the 38-week academic year or be stretched over the calendar year to provide roughly 11 hours of free childcare a week. Although those 15 hours are of some help to parents, we are all too aware that they are often available only in inflexible morning or afternoon sessions, and that they frequently do not correspond to parents’ child caring needs.

We have already heard that the availability of affordable and flexible childcare is widely recognised to be a central issue for families across the country. According to figures published by 4Children earlier this year, nearly one in five parents are considering reducing their hours or giving up work altogether because of the cost of childcare.

[Mr Gyimah]

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Bill doubles the entitlement to 30 hours, and that parents will be able to stretch it across the year and take it alongside tax-free childcare or the childcare element of universal credit—whichever applies to them? We are giving parents a lot more flexibility than he is acknowledging.

[Alex Cunningham]

That is extremely helpful. That is the reassurance we seek, but we need it to be spelled out in the Bill. Perhaps the Minister will say that in his speech.

When the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced in the summer Budget that the Government would extend free childcare, he said that there would be a pilot in 2016 and that it would be rolled out from 2017. The Minister has just said—this was not clear at the time—that there is elasticity around the additional provision. I hope he will reiterate that in his speech and tell us how he is going to spell it out in regulations—preferably, he will do it in the Bill—to give parents the flexibly that they need.

The 30-hour offer must account for parents who work atypical hours, irregular patterns and inconsistent shifts. The Family and Childcare Trust highlighted that 29% of mothers routinely work at atypical times, such as during the evening or at weekends. Childminders are the principal means through which flexibility is offered in formal childcare provision. Other parents—my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham referred to some of them—work full-time hours but are on zero-hours contracts, so they require even more flexibility in accessing childcare because they do not know when they will be working from one week to the next. I would welcome further clarification from the Minister on that issue.

There is also the challenge of ensuring that childminders have a role in providing flexible care. The Government’s proposals are not straightforward. Because of the increased competition from centre-based providers and the low levels of remuneration commonly available to childminders —often due to reduced fees from local authorities following central Government cuts—less than 1% of free early education for three and four-year-olds is currently delivered by childminders. If the Bill is to succeed in allowing parents to enter and stay in the kinds of jobs that are available to them, it is self-evident that childcare must be available to cover the hours they work. For that reason, it is important that free places are offered flexibly. The Minister has said that that is possible, but the sector must provide places when shorter or longer sessions are required. Parents must not be required to pay top-up fees because of when they need childcare.

It is also essential to get the balance right and ensure that quality is maintained as the free entitlement is extended. That means that the quality of the existing 15-hour entitlement should not be compromised by the reforms in the Bill. At the same time, questions remain on the pressing issue of how sessional and maintained providers will be both funded and supported to extend their offerings from part-time to full-time hours.

As the Committee has heard previously, 73% of three and four year-olds accessing free childcare at any one time are attending a school-based setting or sessional pre-school. Those schools and sessional pre-schools face barriers in extending provision to 30 hours each week.

[The Chair]

Order. Mr Cunningham, could you please stay within the scope of the amendment?

[Alex Cunningham]

I thought I was staying within the scope of the amendment, about the flexibility required for 30-hour provision.

For instance, if pre-schools are to extend childcare across the full day, they face having to dramatically reduce the number of places they can offer. Similarly, there are core logistical hurdles that need to be overcome. Many sessional pre-schools, for instance, use shared community premises for part of the day at vastly reduced rates of rent. Those institutions would need to move to new premises and access additional funding to extend their offerings and provide the flexibility that is needed, unless the funding is available to keep complexes accessible. In the same vein, nursery class facilities in schools may not be suitable for day care, with many lacking vital rest areas and requiring significant adaptation to cater for children across a full day.

It is important to be absolutely clear that the 30-hour offer is valuable, at least on the face of it, because it significantly increases the potential flexibility available to parents to go out to work or progress towards work. Certainly, the extension of the free childcare entitlement can play an important role in providing parents with the support they need to balance work and childcare responsibilities. However, the extent to which that potential is realised is, of course, dependent on the degree of support and malleability the Government offer providers.

It is therefore imperative that we do all we can to ensure that the Bill delivers provision that is inclusive, high-quality and supports good outcomes for all children. That, in my view, necessarily entails a comprehensive package that gives parents a realistic option of using their 30-hour entitlement flexibly. Of course, it is all very well being able to use entitlement flexibly, provided the facilities and the offer are there for the community to access.

[Mr Gyimah]

The amendments are focused on ensuring that the 30-hour entitlement delivers sufficient flexible childcare for working parents. I completely agree with the principle of the amendments tabled in the other place and by the hon. Members for North West Durham, for Birmingham, Yardley and for Stockton North, which is that the extended entitlement should be delivered flexibly to support working parents.

However, delivering flexible provision is not simply about ensuring that childcare is available outside the hours of nine to five, as the amendment made in the other place suggests, or during the school holidays, as suggested in this debate. Each parent has different needs. Some parents will need childcare to cover the period between leaving work and picking up their child, while a number of parents of children with special educational needs want their child to spend part of their time in a mainstream setting and part of their time in a special educational needs setting.

Real flexibility, therefore, is about responding to the specific requirements of working parents, and I am passionately committed to delivering that. I feel strongly that setting out in primary legislation a requirement for local authorities to secure provision to meet each parent’s individual needs will not work in practice.

[Alex Cunningham]

I am interested in the school-based settings for nurseries. What work is the Minister planning across Government, and with local government in particular, to see how the provision and facilities that exist can be utilised during school holidays, thus offering flexibility to parents?

[Mr Gyimah]

The hon. Gentleman is alluding to the announcement we made earlier this week on wrap-around care, which will allow private providers to bid to use a school site to provide care for school-age children during the holidays. So we are already working on that. I will come later to what we can do for children under five.

Local authorities depend on the market to supply childcare places. We want them to work with local providers to transform the market and increase flexible childcare provision for parents with out-of-hours working patterns. It would not be reasonable to place a statutory duty on them to guarantee out-of-hours or holiday provision for every parent who wants it, since their local childcare market may not be able to deliver that.

Returning to the hon. Gentleman’s point about school nurseries, there are a number of local authorities, particularly in the north-east, where the majority of childcare is delivered by sessional providers such as maintained schools or nurseries. A large number of those providers cannot offer out-of-hours or holiday provision. As Lord Sutherland said in the other place, for those providers

“to continue provision outside their normal hours may well stop them operating completely”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 14 October 2015; Vol. 765, c. 265.]

Placing a duty on local authorities will not change that overnight. It is also important to note that local authorities, rightly, cannot require private providers to deliver the free entitlement. Therefore it is simply not right to give them a legal duty to secure flexible provision for every parent in their area.

In my view, the way to promote flexible provision is to work with local authorities and providers to look for innovative ways to meet the needs of parents, and to encourage new providers to enter the market to give parents more choice. We should encourage provision to respond flexibly to demand. It does not make sense to require every local authority to secure a particular type of provision when parental working patterns and the type of demand for childcare will vary from area to area.

I reassure the Committee that there is already flexibility in the system used for the existing 15-hour entitlement, and we intend to build on that flexibility in delivering the extended entitlement. There is no requirement that free entitlement places can only be in line with school term dates, or during the hours of nine to five.

In fact, the previous Government changed the statutory guidance to enable local authorities to fund providers to allow parents to access places between 7 am and 7 pm, so that parents can drop off their children earlier in the day or collect them later. Providers can also stretch their entitlement across the full year rather than limiting them to term-time only provision, and a number already do that.

The Bill is very carefully drafted at clause 2(1) to say that the free childcare must be available for a period

“equivalent to 30 hours in…38 weeks”

so that the primary framework allows for the stretched offer. Some local authorities are already promoting flexible childcare provision, including Brighton and Hove City Council, where 82% of year-round nurseries offer a stretched entitlement; Blackpool local authority, where nurseries and childminders work in partnership to offer out-of-hours provision, including weekends and evenings; and Bradford Council, which offers a community nanny scheme, providing flexible childcare for lone parents struggling to access work or training. In Tuesday’s discussion of eligibility I mentioned the great work that Swindon Council is doing to offer weekend sessions from January 2016. In addition, we will set up a flexible funding model to support providers to deliver flexible provision to meet the needs of parents.

Although it is great that some local authorities are already delivering flexible provision to meet parents’ needs, I want more local authorities to deliverthe 30-hour entitlement in that way. I have been clear that the extended entitlement needs to support parents to work. We have been working with the Local Government Association to set up an expert local government working group in the new year, to build on existing flexible provision and make the extended entitlement even more flexible.

[Jess Phillips]

Is there anything to stop private providers just setting off a block of time within their timetable and saying that the free hours can be claimed in that time? That was certainly my experience of what happened under the 15-hour provision. They could say, “You can use your free hours only between nine and five.”

[Mr Gyimah]

The hon. Lady makes a good point—what sort of restrictions can private providers impose on parents taking the free entitlement? We want providers to deliver this more flexibly. Now that the offer is moving to 30 hours from 15 hours the scope for providers to say, “You can take it only at this time,” is significantly limited, because if a child is taking all of the 30 hours, that is most of the week.

The Department for Education will be working with the Local Government Association to enable the sector to take a leading role in expanding existing provision and responding effectively to emerging demand as the extended offer is rolled out. We will also review the statutory guidance to remove any barriers to the flexible delivery of childcare, such as those the hon. Lady mentioned. We will set out work that local authorities can do to enable parents to take the current entitlement in a pattern of hours that best meets their needs.

12:30

[Ruth Cadbury]

I appreciate the care that the Minister is taking in responding. How would the provision work for my constituents who work at the airport, for example, and have different work patterns, such as early mornings, normal days and late days, while working four days on and four days off? If they were only able to claim their 30 hours during the normal working day and could not claim the full amount, would they be disadvantaged because of the nature of their working patterns?

[Mr Gyimah]

The hon. Lady raises an important point. First, it is difficult to use legislation to clearly define flexibility. Indeed, doing so in primary legislation is almost a contradiction; it cannot work. Secondly, she points out why our approach is the right one. It allows local authorities to work with providers to deliver the sort of flexibility that works in their local area. The flexibility that her constituents will need will be quite different from that required by parents in a rural area, which is why we cannot define it in primary legislation. However, we want to ensure that the 30 hours is equally accessible by all parents, which brings me on to my next point.

It is clear that the market will need to adapt to support a flexible childcare offer in the extended entitlement, and we will encourage different types of providers to offer the additional hours. The hon. Member for Stockton North mentioned the role of childminders in flexibility, and I agree that they have important part to play. There are currently over 46,000 childminders on the early years register, but not all offer the free entitlement due to local authorities’ payment terms, for example. We want to consider that carefully to see how they can be encouraged to offer the entitlement, because they can contribute to flexible delivery. For example, some parents could use a school nursery and have a childminder either pick their children up or drop them off. A shift-worker at the airport might use a childminder during evening or weekend work alongside some nursery provision.

I have said to the Professional Association for Childcare and Early Years, which represents childminders, that there is a big opportunity for childminders to work with nurseries and schools to deliver a full offer of the 30 hours. In the previous Parliament, we allowed childminders to operate outside their domestic premises for 50% of the time. Childminders can now team up with schools to offer after-school provision. If a child does a morning session, they can be looked after by a childminder on school premises for the afternoon to allow parents to pick them up. That flexibility for childminders will come into force from January 2016 and will open up many new opportunities.

I also recognise that a number of parents already use multiple childcare providers, such as sending their child to a nursery and then getting someone else to pick them up, as I have said. I want to ensure that the system continues to allow parents to make the right decisions for their children and will encourage information sharing between different providers so that there is continuity for the child and that their best interests are taken into account when multiple providers are involved in childcare delivery. On Tuesday, we discussed the Government’s plans to introduce the 30-hour entitlement early in some areas, and flexibility will be a focus. The early implementers will look at ways to encourage different providers to enter the market, including childminders who are not currently offering the free entitlement.

I hope that Committee members are reassured that the Government are absolutely committed to ensuring that parents have access to flexible childcare to fit their working patterns. I would therefore encourage Committee members to support Government amendment 4 and urge the hon. Member for North West Durham to withdraw amendment 15. I emphasise that the Government are committed to delivering flexible childcare for children of all ages, as I said in response to an intervention from the hon. Member for Stockton North. That is why we will consult on parents having the right to request wraparound and holiday care at their child’s school, as the Prime Minister announced on Monday. Providers will also have a right to request use of a school’s facilities when the schools are not using them. That will help local authorities to ensure as far as possible that there is sufficient childcare in the area that responds to parental demand.

[Alex Cunningham]

What will happen when an agreement cannot be reached with a local school or local authority, or when the private provider is not prepared to be more flexible in its provision? How do we ensure parents’ needs are met if the system in their particular area is not flexible enough?

[Mr Gyimah]

My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North made an interesting point on Tuesday: we have significant additional investment in the sector which should be attractive to many new providers. If a provider does not want to offer flexible childcare to all parents in an area, they will struggle to find business somewhere else, because the majority of parents of three and four-year-olds will be entitled to the 30 hours of childcare. Providers that refuse to respond to parental demand may therefore struggle to stay in business.

[Alex Cunningham]

Government Members have talked about the particular challenges in rural areas, where there might be very little provision. Here we face a situation in which there might be 20 children in a local community who access care; all of a sudden the amount of available care will need to double, and yet there may not be the capacity in that small rural area to do so. How will we cope with that?

[Mr Gyimah]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, local authorities have a sufficiency duty. I hope that what we will do to encourage providers on the early years register that currently do not offer the free entitlement—such as childminders, who he pointed to—will work. We will also use £50 million of capital investment to target areas where there is a need for more places. Finally, local authorities can fund providers in a way that incentivises flexible provision, so a number of levers can be used to deliver flexible provision for parents.

[Pat Glass]

I am willing to listen to many of the arguments that the Minister makes, but he has singularly failed to convince me on this one. He gave us lots of examples of local authorities operating flexible systems, but this is not about the best authorities; it is about the worst. The amendment would go some way towards addressing the authorities that need incentivising.

I accept the Minister’s point about the wording of the amendment. It is not possible to require every local authority to provide every kind of flexibility for every child, but education legislation is littered with the word “reasonable”, and to ask local authorities to make reasonably flexible provision is not beyond the wit of the Minister.

I find myself in an unusual situation: I stand here as the person saying there are opportunities here for the market. We need to allow new entrants into the marketplace, and in my view, the best way to do that is to put some control in the hands of parents, who can then choose the best providers for their children. At the moment, we have an incredibly inflexible system that we need to move away from in order to help parents with things such as summer holidays.

Although it does not exactly fall within the scope of the amendment, I welcome what the Minister said about wraparound childcare and getting schools to open their incredibly expensive capital buildings, which often stand empty from 3 o’clock in the afternoon, all weekend and during summer holidays. It is amazing that someone has not done that long before now. Clearly, we will have to see the details, but it is a really good idea to open those buildings up to the marketplace. I understand the Minister’s concern about creating chaos in the market, but providers are making exactly the same arguments to him that providers made to previous Governments about things such as respite care and social care. We were told that putting the control in the hands of parents, disabled people or elderly people would create chaos in the market, and local authorities said the same, but there was not chaos, and it is a better system as a result.

[Mr Gyimah]

I agree with the hon. Lady on the principle—what we need here is parent power. However, does she recognise that it is surely not possible to set in primary legislation what flexibility is for every parent?

[Pat Glass]

I am not saying that we should do that, but if we say that local authorities must provide “reasonable flexibility”, that forces those who are not doing anything about that now to start to do something. Unless the Minister tells me that he is prepared to look at that flexibility in regulations, we may need to make an issue of this.

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

Does the hon. Lady agree that councils as public authorities have a duty in law to act reasonably, so the insertion of the word “reasonable” into legislation is superfluous?

[Pat Glass]

I suggest that the hon. Gentleman looks at the Education Act 2005, which has “reasonable” in every third sentence. It is not superfluous. It makes the point that this measure is not about giving everyone what they want or what they think they need; it is about giving something that is reasonable to the taxpayer and to the parent or child.

[Mr Gyimah]

The hon. Lady asked for assurance on what the Government will do in respect of flexibility. As I mentioned earlier, statutory guidance already enables providers to stretch hours across the full year and deliver provision from 7 am to 7 pm. We will work with the Local Government Association and local authorities to revise the statutory guidance to remove any perceived or actual barriers to flexible provision.

[Pat Glass]

Again, as we are talking about technical words such as “reasonable”, I point out that the amendment is about ensuring we “enable” parents. Will the Minister expect local authorities to do that?

[Jess Phillips]

And private providers.

[Pat Glass]

Indeed. I am happy for the Minister to intervene.

[Mr Gyimah]

Of course, we will expect flexibility in the market so that parents can access the 30 hours to make the policy successful.

[Pat Glass]

Does the Minister expect not just that there will be provision for 30 hours, but that that will be implemented flexibly?

[Mr Gyimah]

That is precisely what I said we would do with the early implementers. After we have tested the provision with the early implementers, we will expect all local authorities to implement it in a flexible way for parents.

[Pat Glass]

I thank the Minister. On that basis and because of his confirmation that the word “flexible” will be included in the regulations, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Pat Glass]

I beg to move amendment 13, in clause 3, page 3, line 32, at end insert

“and in connection with the unreasonable refusal of a childcare place to a qualifying child with a disability”.

To ensure that a disabled child is not refused a childcare place on the grounds of their disability.

The amendment would make it clear that a place could not be refused to a disabled child on the grounds of their disability. Members of the Committee will know that 41% of parents of disabled children cannot access the current 15 hours of provision and that of them 25% cannot do so because their child has been refused or excluded from a place purely on the grounds of their disabilities. I have gone on and on about this and I am probably boring members of the Committee, but it is important. It is illegal under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, yet it happens again and again. The stories I have heard from parents of disabled children have made me angry enough to want to take every opportunity to do something about it.

I welcome the Minister’s offer to work with me on this. His office has been in touch and we have set up a meeting early in the new year. I welcome that and I absolutely accept his commitment to change this. I know that the Minister for Children and Families is also keen to change this. This is clearly the direction of travel and we are all focused on this now. So I am hopeful for the future, but mindful of the past. I am sure the Minister will say the amendment is unnecessary because the issues are covered adequately in other legislation, and yet the situation for many parents of disabled children remains the same. It is covered, but it does not change anything.

12:45

Olivia McLeod, who was the director of early years and childcare in the Minister’s Department, gave evidence to the inquiry that we have talked about. She said:

“We know there is a general issue about the cost and affordability and choice of childcare for all parents and obviously that is exacerbated hugely when a child has a disability.”

I cannot help thinking, if it is so obvious, why have we not done something about it? How would we have felt if that sentence had ended with something else? Would we accept it if the sentence had said that obviously that is exacerbated hugely when a child is black, Jewish, Catholic, Muslim, or a girl? We simply would not accept that. We would be demonstrating outside Parliament, marching, holding candlelit vigils and throwing ourselves in front of the king’s horse—I am excited about this because I have been to see “Suffragette” this week. We would not accept those things. We would not say, “obviously, that is hugely exacerbated”; we would do something about it. Yet, in the second decade of the 21st century, it is obviously happening to families of disabled children, and we seem to be happy to let that continue, with the exception of we three: the Minister, me and the Minister for Children and Families.

[Alex Cunningham]

Does my hon. Friend agree that, although the vast majority of childcare providers do their very best, some will benefit from specifically knowing that discriminatory behaviour against children in the care setting will see them prosecuted?

[Pat Glass]

Unfortunately, it simply is not happening.

[Alex Cunningham]

It is not, but if it was specific, it might.

[Pat Glass]

The situation is so bad that we need to send out a strong message, which is why I want the amendment included in the Bill.

I will read from the parliamentary inquiry into childcare for disabled children. A parent told us:

“Even now, at age 3, we have only managed to secure 6 hours a week at a nursery, during term-time”.

One said:

“I feel like the 15 hours scheme at the moment is really invented for normally functioning kids”,

but it could be easily turned into something that could help children like hers. Another parent said:

“This is a nightmare. I have tried for a year to find an out of school provider that is suitable for my daughter...and...have not been successful.”

One told us:

“We have contacted every single private childcare provider (childminders, holiday clubs, day care nurseries etc) yet no one is willing to take on a disabled child”.

Another parent said:

“I have tried to access childcare. I contacted many child-minders and had a very negative experience. Some of the things they said were very hurtful and eventually I gave up as it was so demoralising.”

[Lucy Frazer]

In the previous sitting, the hon. Lady highlighted all the risks of creating criminal liability for a parent who might not satisfy the income threshold at a later date. Does the same principle not apply when she talks about criminal penalties on childcare providers?

[Pat Glass]

I am not creating criminal penalties. What I am describing is illegal now, yet it continues. All I want to do is to send out a very strong message in whatever way we can. At the moment, we have is a Bill—if I could find any other way of helping the situation, I would. It is illegal at the moment, and I am not seeking to create anything new.

[Mr Gyimah]

Amendment 13 would give the Secretary of State the power to create a criminal offence where a disabled child is unreasonably refused a childcare place. Was that the intention behind the amendment?

[Pat Glass]

I apologise if it is carelessly worded; that was not my intention. I simply want to make clear in the Bill that it is illegal to refuse a place on the grounds of a child’s disability, in exactly the same way as it is under the Disability Discrimination Act 2005. I do not know whether there is a criminal penalty attached to that, but that is the current legislation, and that was my intention.

[James Berry]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Alex Cunningham]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Pat Glass]

Before I give way, can I make it clear that we do not want to put anyone in prison? As I said to the Minister, if the amendment is carelessly worded, I am happy to change it. The current situation cannot continue and I simply want to change it, however that may be possible, so that it is line with Disability Discrimination Act.

[James Berry]

The examples the hon. Lady gave are horrific. However, if the measure is already on the statute book, should she not call for proper implementation of the legislation we already have, rather than duplicating it?

[Pat Glass]

That is exactly what I want to do. I have a Bill in front of me, and I want in some way to ensure that the current position—that what I have described is illegal—is used to improve the situation for the parents of disabled children, however we do that.

[Alex Cunningham]

I do not believe that the vast majority of care providers want to discriminate against children with disabilities. They do it possibly because they are ill equipped and do not have the experience, understanding and skills to cope with disabled children. Perhaps the answer is, as we discussed earlier, an upskilling programme across all situations, so that staff can feel confident that they can take on and deal with disabled children.

[Pat Glass]

I agree. I also think there is an element of childcare providers and even maintained settings not being aware of the law regarding refusal to take a child on grounds of disability. It is not absolutely clear to them.

I want to talk about the evidence given by one young couple. They had a lovely baby girl who had severe and multiple learning difficulties. The mother told me that she had approached every provider in her London borough. As soon as she explained the extent of her child’s problems, they were suddenly full. This young woman told me that she was attending mother and toddler groups with her child, and other mothers, who approached the same providers later, found they were not full. That is awful. One needs to sit face to face with this mother to understand how deeply she was disturbed and upset by that. It is wrong and should not be happening, but it is happening time and time again.

I appreciate that the childcare providers might be frightened. They will feel that they do not have the skills, knowledge or training to admit such children. However, when a child is born with a major disability the parents do not magically acquire skills and expertise. The NHS does not give parents special training.

[Lucy Frazer]

On a point of order, Ms Dorries. In my reading, the amendment should be to paragraph (h), which starts with the words

“create criminal offences in connection with”.

If the hon. Lady’s amendment were accepted it would create a criminal liability, which she states she does not intend to do. Given that the amendment would not achieve her objective, is it appropriate?

[The Chair]

It is up to the Opposition spokeswoman to request where she wants the amendment to be made. It has been accepted, and it is in order.

[Pat Glass]

Thank you, Ms Dorries. I think I have made my intentions perfectly clear.

Parents who have a disabled child do not magically acquire special skills and knowledge. The NHS does not give them special training before they leave hospital with their baby, when they are often in shock and grieving for the child they were expecting but did not get.

We need to ensure, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North said, that childcare providers can access the training that will give them the confidence they need. However that is done, the Government need to put down a huge marker that the current situation cannot continue.

[Mr Gyimah]

The amendment would ensure that a disabled child is not refused a childcare place on the grounds of their disability. As I highlighted on Tuesday, I absolutely agree that children with special educational needs or a disability should not be put at a disadvantage and that they should have the same access to high-quality childcare as children without disabilities. The Government are committed to ensuring that all families have access to high-quality, flexible and affordable childcare, and I am delighted that the hon. Lady has agreed to meet with me and the Minister for Children and Families to look at how we can improve access to childcare for children with special educational needs and disabilities.

As I pointed out in my intervention, the amendment would create a criminal offence if a disabled child were unreasonably refused a childcare place. Although I agree with the principle behind the amendment, and agree that all children should be able to access childcare, I do not agree that would be the right approach. I have been clear in our debates so far that local authorities are already required by law to secure free entitlement places.

[Ruth Cadbury]

One of the ways of encouraging childcare providers to be open and welcoming to children with disabilities is to ensure that funding is available for additional support—in large childcare settings, a disabled child might need one-to-one support—as well as for specialist training and, occasionally, specialist equipment. Will funding be available in the programme over and above the normal funding per child for the 30 hours?

[Mr Gyimah]

We covered the issue of funding on Tuesday, when I made it quite clear that the £5 billion high needs funding block applies to ages nought to 25. Funding will also be available to parents who have access to tax-free childcare up to £4,000. They can access that for children from the ages of nought to 18.

Amendment 13 is about what providers do when confronted with a child with special educational needs or disabilities. It is important that we are clear that the Equality Act 2010 sets out the legal obligations that early years providers and local authorities have towards disabled children and young children in their care. Refusing to admit a disabled child may amount to unlawful discrimination, if that refusal is as a direct result of their disability or something arising in consequence of their disability. The Equality Act applies to all early years settings, whether or not they are in receipt of Government funding.

If a parent of a disabled child believes that their child has been discriminated against by a school setting, they can appeal to the first-tier tribunal or, in certain cases, to local admissions panels. Where the case involves a provider that is not a school, a discrimination claim is heard in the county court.

I take on board the comment made by the hon. Member for North West Durham that she does not intend to create a criminal offence through the amendment. I therefore suggest that when we look at the model agreement that local authorities have with providers delivering the free entitlement, we make the situation quite clear to them and draw their attention to the Equality Act requirement.

The hon. Lady raised a point about the confidence of the workforce to deal with the situation, which is not strictly a legal matter. We intend to look at that as part of the workforce strategy that I committed to on Tuesday. That will build on the requirement that already exists in the early years foundation stage. The significant funding that we give to voluntary and community service organisations can support providers in the workforce to develop confidence and skills.

On that basis, and given that the hon. Lady’s amendment would not really achieve what she wanted to achieve, I urge her to withdraw it.

[Pat Glass]

I am happy to do that. I have made my point. We are going to talk about this collectively, and we will find a way forward. I just want to point out very clearly that the unreasonable refusal of childcare places for children with disabilities is covered in the Equality Act 2010 and the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, yet it still happens. We would not accept that if the child were black, or for any other kind of child. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: 4, in clause 3, page 3, line 46, leave out subsection (3).—(Mr Gyimah.)

This amendment removes the provision which requires the Secretary of State to make provision, in regulations, to ensure that childcare is made available for parents who have alternative working patterns and during the school holidays.

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Margot James.)

13:00

Adjourned till this day at Two o’clock.

Childcare Bill [ Lords ] (Fourth sitting)

Thursday 10th December 2015 Public Bill Committees

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chairs: Nadine Dorries, †Mr David Hanson

† Berry, James (Kingston and Surbiton) (Con)

Cadbury, Ruth (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)

Cunningham, Alex (Stockton North) (Lab)

† Donelan, Michelle (Chippenham) (Con)

Drummond, Mrs Flick (Portsmouth South) (Con)

† Frazer, Lucy (South East Cambridgeshire) (Con)

† Glass, Pat (North West Durham) (Lab)

† Green, Chris (Bolton West) (Con)

† Gyimah, Mr Sam (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education)

† James, Margot (Stourbridge) (Con)

† Matheson, Christian (City of Chester) (Lab)

† Phillips, Jess (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)

† Smith, Chloe (Norwich North) (Con)

† Smith, Jeff (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)

† Tomlinson, Michael (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)

Walker, Mr Robin (Worcester) (Con)

Fergus Reid, Joanna Welham, Committee Clerks

† attended the Committee

Public Bill Committee

Thursday 10 December 2015

(Afternoon)

[Mr David Hanson in the Chair]

Childcare Bill [Lords]

14:00

Clause 3, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5

Supplementary provision about regulations under sections 2 and 3

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

I beg to move amendment 5, in clause 5, page 5, line 30, leave out subsection (4) and insert—

“(4) A statutory instrument containing (whether alone or with other provision) regulations mentioned in subsection (5) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.

(5) The regulations referred to in subsection (4) are—

(a) the first regulations made under section 2;

(b) the first regulations made under section 3(1);

(c) any regulations under section 3(7);

(d) any other regulations that amend or repeal provision made by an Act.

(6) Any other statutory instrument containing regulations is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.”

This amendment removes the provision which subjects all regulations made under clauses 2 and 3 of the Bill to the affirmative procedure on every occasion they are made. Regulations made under clauses 2 and 3(1) would instead be subject to the affirmative procedure the first time they are made, and the negative procedure thereafter

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship once again, Mr Hanson. As currently drafted, clause 5 provides for all the regulations under clauses 2 and 3 of the Bill to be subject to the affirmative procedure every time the regulation-making power is exercised. That is as a result of an amendment made in the other place, and it provides a level of parliamentary scrutiny beyond the original intention behind the Bill.

We are in complete agreement with the intention behind the amendment made in the other place, and the Government welcome the opportunity for both Houses to have proper prior scrutiny before the regulations can be approved and added to the statute book. However, we do not believe it necessary or reasonable to make the regulations affirmative every time. That is why amendment 5 will allow the regulations to be debated the first time the powers are exercised, while subsequent changes will be subject to the negative resolution procedure.

The exception to that will be any instances where regulations seek to amend or repeal primary legislation, or in the case of regulations seeking to update the maximum level of any financial penalty set out on the face of the Bill. Any regulation made for those reasons will continue to be subject to the affirmative procedure and must be approved by Parliament each time the powers are exercised.

I will set out why we do not believe it necessary for the regulations to be subject to the affirmative procedure each time they are made. First, since we introduced the Bill over the summer, we have provided much more detail about how the Government intend to deliver their manifesto pledge and who will be eligible. That includes a recent policy statement and further details about eligibility as a result of the spending review announcement on 25 November. That additional information provides further clarity about what will be included in the regulations and addresses many of the concerns raised previously.

Secondly, we are committed to undertaking a formal public consultation on the draft regulations in 2016. Feedback from parents and providers will be taken into consideration as we develop the regulations, which will be revised as necessary in response to the consultation before they are laid before Parliament.

Thirdly, our proposal to make the regulations subject to the negative procedure reflects the precedent of parliamentary scrutiny adopted for comparable childcare and education legislation. We believe it is important to maintain the arrangements for approval used for the existing entitlement, which has been subject to the negative procedure since it was introduced in 2008.

The affirmative approval process requires the full involvement of both Houses and for time to be found for debates in both Houses, no matter how small the change. The Government being required to timetable a debate in both Houses when details need to be amended in regulations is likely to have a detrimental impact on the successful delivery of the new entitlement. We want the Secretary of State to be able to respond efficiently and effectively where it may be necessary to support local authorities, providers, parents and their children without seeking and receiving the approval of Parliament to do so.

Once the fundamental principles have been agreed, we do not believe it would be a good use of the parliamentary timetable to make changes that would ordinarily be dealt with under the negative resolution procedure. For example, consequential changes were made to the current entitlement to reflect the introduction of the education, health and social care plans and the replacement of residence orders with child arrangement orders. Those types of changes, which are straightforward and not controversial, can be made under the negative resolution procedure.

If the regulations under the Bill were to be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, which would be the case without my amendment, the types of consequential changes that I am talking about could not be made unless time was found for a debate in both Houses. We do not believe that that would be an appropriate use of the parliamentary timetable. I hope that I can reassure the Committee further by confirming that the Department will continue to consult on any material changes to the regulations under the negative resolution procedure, as it has done with the current entitlement. By the time they are laid, the regulations will have undergone a vast amount of scrutiny. We are confident that we will deliver a set of regulations that fairly delivers on the Government’s manifesto pledge to support hard-working families.

[Pat Glass (North West Durham) (Lab)]

Their lordships included this clause because they were concerned about the lack of detail in the Bill in relation to funding, workforce capacity, physical capacity, eligibility, accessibility and other areas. They were concerned that there would not be full and frank debate in relation to all those areas and that the regulations would simply be laid before Parliament—slipped out under the cover of darkness, as I think they said. However, the Minister has given assurances on that on Tuesday and today. He is an honourable man. I do not intend to detain the Committee on this matter. The Minister has given assurances for the first time that the regulations will get full debate in both Houses, and the negative procedure is normal practice in other areas, so I am happy with that.

Amendment 5 agreed to.

Clause 5, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 6 and 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 8

Commencement

Amendment made: 6, in clause 8, page 6, line 8, leave out from beginning to “come” in line 10 and insert—

“(1) The following provisions come into force on the day on which this Act is passed—

(a) section 2(4A);

(b) section 7;

(c) this section;

(d) section 9.

(2) The remaining provisions of this Act”.—(Mr Gyimah.)

This is consequential on amendment 3. HMRC’s power to carry out functions in connection with the making of determinations as to a child’s eligibility will come into force on Royal Assent.

Clause 8, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 9

Short title

[Mr Gyimah]

I beg to move amendment 7, in clause 9, page 6, line 19, leave out subsection (2).

This removes the provision which was inserted to avoid infringing the financial privileges of the Commons. Now that the money resolution has been passed this amendment can be removed.

This will be a very short speech. This technical amendment removes the privilege amendment made in the other place. As the Committee will be aware, this standard formula is incorporated in the Bill before it leaves the other place to avoid infringement of Commons financial privileges. A money resolution has now been passed conferring parliamentary approval of financial expenditure incurred as a result of the Bill, and the removal of the privilege amendment is a mere formality. I therefore hope that the Committee will accept the amendment.

Amendment 7 agreed to.

Clause 9, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause 2

Early years SEND co-ordinators

“(1) Relevant childcare providers of a size prescribed by Regulations must designate a member of staff at the setting (to be known as the “Early years SEND co-ordinator”) as having responsibility for co-ordinating the provision of childcare for children with special educational needs and/or a disability.

(2) Regulations may require relevant childcare settings to ensure that Early Years SEND co-ordinators have prescribed qualifications or prescribed experience or both.

(3) For the purpose of this section, relevant childcare providers are those funded to deliver early education or childcare provision free of charge under section 7(1) of the Childcare Act 2006 or section 2(1) of this Act.” —(Pat Glass.)

This amendment would require all early years providers of a certain size providing childcare under this Act to designate a member of staff to be the early years SEND co-ordinator, and to ensure that they are suitably experienced and/or qualified.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Pat Glass]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 3—Childcare inclusion plan—

“Local authorities must produce and maintain a childcare inclusion plan that sets out a strategy for how disabled children and those with special educational needs will be assisted to access childcare under this Act.”

This amendment requires local authorities to produce a local childcare inclusion plan that sets out how disabled children will be assisted to access childcare under this Act.

New clause 4—Number of SEND co-ordinators—

“(1) A local authority must secure there are sufficient SEND co-ordinators in the area to provide advice and guidance to childcare providers providing free childcare under this Act on how to provide inclusive childcare for disabled children and those with special educational needs.

(2) Area SEND co-ordinators must have prescribed qualifications or prescribed experience or both.

(3) A local authority must secure, so far as is reasonably practicable, one early years SEND needs co-ordinator for every 20 non-maintained childcare providers.”

This amendment requires local authorities to provide advice and guidance to childcare providers by providing sufficient Area SEND co-ordinators.

[Pat Glass]

New clauses 2, 3 and 4 all relate to children with SEN and therefore, I will speak to all of them at once.

The previous Labour Government’s early years strategy included provision to ensure that all early years providers of a certain size had a designated early years SEN co-ordinator who was able to work with staff and parents to identify, monitor and meet the needs of children with special educational needs in childcare settings, particularly in the private and voluntary sector. They were generally area special educational needs co-ordinators, who would provide advice to something like 20 providers. Local authorities were required, although by regulation and not by statute, to designate a suitably qualified SENCO to support providers in the discharge of that duty.

New clause 2 would put existing good practice on a statutory footing. It would enable all childcare provision of a certain size to have a suitably qualified SEN co-ordinator who would, on behalf of the provider, identify, monitor and meet the needs of children who are admitted with SEN or who, it subsequently becomes apparent, have SEN.

It is accepted wisdom, supported by a mountain and decades of empirical evidence, that children with SEN need to be identified at the earliest possible opportunity, if they are to make suitable progress and have any chance of reaching their potential. I think that everybody, on both sides of the Committee, would agree with that.

One in 20 children will be identified as having SEN at some time in their educational career. For many children, it will be a temporary issue. If a child breaks their leg and cannot get to school, in a sense, that is a temporary SEN; they have a special educational need that the local authority or the school has to meet. For many children, however, it will not be temporary. Not all children with SEN will be identified at the point of birth—very few are. If a child is born with profound and multiple learning difficulties, it is fairly easy to identify. If a child is deaf, that is usually identified within a couple of days, but for many other SEN, that happens when they get to school, and that is much too late. We should have been intervening much earlier.

We have talked a number of times in the Committee about the barriers that disabled children and their parents face in gaining admission to childcare provision. Some of that, as we have discussed, is the lack of confidence from providers that they will be able to meet the child’s needs. They are just worried—for many of them, it is about being really frightened. This is about finding a way of delivering what we have all said that we think needs to be there: access to the appropriate training and the confidence that providers need to admit children with SEN. It therefore makes sense that at the earliest point, childcare providers have access to the skills and abilities to identify SEN, and that is what this proposal seeks to provide. To leave children until they start school is too late; it damages their ability to make progress and will ultimately result in far greater problems down the line.

A suitably qualified member of staff in a childcare provider, or to which the childcare provider has access, can open up lines early with the appropriate medical staff, health visitors, speech and language therapists, occupational therapists, educational psychologists, specialist learning support teachers, child and adolescent mental health workers—in some cases, although I know from experience that that is often very hard to access—clinical psychologists and a range of people who can make a real difference, particularly if they have access to the child at the earliest possible point. This person—the SENCO, or whatever we choose to call them—can secure the training that is needed to give confidence to staff working with and caring for children with disabilities, and can make all the difference in the long term to their development.

14:15

New clause 3 concerns the childcare inclusion plan. Only 20% of local authorities report that they have sufficient childcare for disabled children, in comparison with 54% for all children under the age of two, 69% for children aged three and four and 35% for children aged five to 16%. Financial support for childcare for most families fell in the last Parliament, and at the same time, childcare costs have rocketed. The number of early years childcare places has fallen by more than 40,000 since 2009, and Sure Start centres are closing. We know that 41% of children with disabilities cannot access the 15 hours that they are currently entitled to. The new clause is designed to ensure that local authorities must produce and maintain a childcare inclusion plan—a strategy for ensuring that in the future they have sufficient local childcare to meet the needs of disabled children and their parents.

My experience, which I am sure is shared by many others in the room, suggests that if we are going to make a difference—if we are going to increase and improve childcare provision and make sure that every disabled child can access it—we need to know the size of the gap in provision and we have to have a plan for getting where we want to be. The new clause would simply ask local authorities to have a plan setting out what they have got, where they need to get to and, over time, how they will achieve that.

We do not want a plan full of nice warm words that sits on a shelf in the office of the director of children’s services, because there are already far too many such plans. I am asking for a plan with clear goals, setting out what will be achieved, by when and at what cost. That plan needs to be monitored by Ofsted. As I know from experience, whatever Ofsted measures gets done. If something is not measured by Ofsted, it takes a back seat. It is clear that the situation will not move forward and the provision for disabled children will not improve unless there are clear requirements for it to do so and penalties if it does not, and that is what the new clause is designed to achieve.

New clause 4 follows on from the previous new clauses and is a natural extension of what we have already debated. If we agree that staff in private, voluntary and independent settings need training to raise their confidence, and if we believe that we must stop the current situation in which disabled children are refused admission or children are excluded on the grounds of their disability, local authorities should play a role in that. That role needs to include training and co-ordination around inclusion and area SENCOs, and ensuring that they are suitably qualified.

I do not underestimate the size of the financial difficulties faced by local authorities; my local authority has had a 40% cut in its budget, and its ability to take on new work is limited. However, our proposal need not involve new staff. Every school has a SENCO. I believe they are all teachers—there was some discussion some years ago about whether they need to be teachers, but I think they still have to be—but in any case, they will all be suitably qualified; at least, all the ones that I have come across are. It is possible for local authorities to ensure that local schools work with the PVI settings in their area. It is in the interests of schools to do so, because the children we are discussing will go on to school. I have often found that secondary schools are keen to put down resources at the earliest point, because they know that they will get these children eventually, and I know that the same is true of primary schools. If we want to stop what is currently happening in childcare and not just wring our hands about it, we will have to legislate.

The new clauses would ensure that local authorities were required to produce and maintain a childcare inclusion plan and strategy, and to have SENCOs who are suitably qualified to deliver. The three new clauses go together. The Minister has talked a lot about the current situation for disabled children and their families. We heard some awful examples when you were not here this morning, Mr Hanson, of what is currently happening to disabled children in the childcare sector—not everywhere, but in too many cases. As I have said to the Minister on numerous occasions, if we want to do something about it, these are the practical steps that we will need to take.

[Mr Gyimah]

The new clauses are about special educational needs in the early years setting. The hon. Lady must be congratulated on the ingenious and persistent way in which she has focused our attention throughout the scrutiny of the Bill on children with special educational needs and disabilities. I agree with her that that is the right thing to do as far as the Bill is concerned.

We have heard a lot in this debate about access to the free entitlement for children with special educational needs and disabilities. The hon. Lady’s amendments seek to propose that all childcare providers have access to suitably qualified SEND co-ordinators and to place a requirement on local authorities to produce and maintain a childcare inclusion plan. I agree with her that early identification of additional needs is extremely important. It is central to the SEND reforms, and it includes specific requirements in health to refer children who might have SEND to the local authority, recognising that in the early years, especially before age three, health visitors or GPs can pick up concerns before anyone else.

With that in mind, I reassure Members that we all want childcare that meets the needs of working parents and their children, including those with SEND. It is therefore the Government’s intention to ensure high-quality childcare that meets the needs of all children. We recognise that staff need to have the right skills and knowledge to deliver that care.

The Government continue to support the development of the early years sector with a broader self-improvement education system, to which I alluded during our discussion on an earlier amendment. We invested £5.3 million through our voluntary and community sector grant scheme in 2015-16, of which about £4 million was invested in early years projects to support SEND reform implementation. A number of those programmes deliver SEND training to the early years workforce. In particular, the National Day Nurseries Association’s current SEND champions grant has proved very popular among the workforce.

We have also provided £5 million to support partnerships between teaching schools and PVI providers, which have also enabled good practice in supporting children with SEND. For example, the Solent Teaching School Alliance is delivering support for PVIs that includes a focus on children with SEND. It is leading to improved identification of children and better tracking of their progress towards more aspirational targets.

Obviously, local authorities have a key role to play. As I mentioned, the Children and Families Act 2014 sets out how the needs of children with SEND must be met. As is set out in the code of practice, in order to fulfil their role in identifying and planning for the needs of children with SEND, local authorities should ensure that there is sufficient expertise and experience among local early years providers to support those children.

Local authorities often make use of area SENCOs to provide advice and guidance to early years providers on developing inclusive early learning environments. The area SENCO helps make the links between education, health and social care to facilitate appropriate early provision for children with SEND and their transition to compulsory schooling. A recent SEND reform implementation survey that received responses from 104 local authorities indicated that 78% already have an area SENCO that early years providers can access. We are confident that that number will continue to grow as the reforms are embedded.

I do not believe that the number of area SENCOs needs to be required, as set out in new clause 4. I believe that it would be more appropriate to consider how we can learn from local authorities with area SENCOs and encourage other areas to follow that example, building on the model of the local authorities from which we heard in our recent survey.

As we heard at Tuesday’s session, the early years market is diverse; it is made up mostly of small, single-site private, voluntary and independent institutions. It would be challenging to require every provider to have a suitably qualified member of staff, or a SENCO, as set out in the new clause.

As I have said, we require every provider delivering the early years foundation stage, regardless of their size, to have arrangements in place to support children with special educational needs and disabilities. Under the Children and Families Act, a maintained nursery must ensure that there is a qualified teacher designated as the SENCO in order to ensure the detailed implementation of support for children with SEND. In addition, the EYFS framework requires other early years providers to have arrangements in place for meeting children’s special educational needs. Those in group provision are expected to identify a SENCO. Childminders are encouraged to identify a person to act as SENCO, and childminders who are registered with a childminder agency or who are part of a network may wish to share that role between them.

I recognise that the new clause would allow the Government to set a prescribed size for a childcare provider that must have a SENCO, but I am concerned about the potential perverse incentives that it could create if we placed requirements on different sizes of providers. For example, it could create incentives for a provider not to take more than 49 children if at 50 children the regulations would become more burdensome.

SENCOs are already a valued part of the landscape, but we want to develop and test other innovative ways of meeting the needs of children with SEND, in particular through the early implementer areas, as I have said a number of times. We do not want to prejudge the learning that we will gain from the early implementers, and I hope that the Committee will understand why we do not want to close down other potential options by settling on a single solution now.

New clause 3 seeks to place a requirement on local authorities to produce and maintain a childcare inclusion plan. I recognise that the intention of the hon. Member for North West Durham is to assist disabled children to access a further 15 hours of free childcare under the Bill. As I have stated clearly in Committee, I agree that all families should have access to high-quality, flexible and affordable childcare. I also agree that parents with disabled children should have the same choice and access to high-quality childcare. We want our early years to be inclusive—for children to learn and play together—but I do not agree that the answer is to place a new duty on local authorities to produce and maintain a childcare inclusion plan that sets out a strategy for how disabled children and those with SEN will be assisted to access childcare under the Bill.

The Children and Families Act already requires local authorities to have a local offer, which includes information as to the special educational provision that a local authority expects to be made available to children in its area by relevant childcare providers, and information as to how those providers tailor the childcare on offer to meet the needs of children with SEN. In preparing their local offer, local authorities must consult with the children and young people with SEND and their families to find out what sort of support and services they need. To ensure that the local offer is made available to all, local authorities must publish their offer on the internet and ensure that those families without access to the internet can also see it. The local authority must also tell children and young people and their families how they can find out more about the local offer.

I hope that I have made it clear that I absolutely agree that all eligible children should have access.

[Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)]

Speaking as quite a sharp-elbowed mum of children with SEN, I did not know that any of what the Minister read out existed, so it is clearly not working. My children have been through all sorts of different provision. Wanting this is a bit like Miss World wanting world peace. If the Government actually want it, why do we not do something about it?

[Mr Gyimah]

The Children and Families Act which came into force in 2014 was the biggest reform to SEND for 30 years. It is still being embedded in the system and that is precisely my point: we have made significant reforms, which are being embedded. I hope that what I am saying reassures Members. Rather than having another duty on SEND provision for local authorities, let us ensure that the reforms already passed on a cross-party basis become embedded and truly work for children, so that the parents, whether sharp-elbowed or not, may feel reassured that their children will get access to the childcare they need. I therefore hope that the shadow Minister will withdraw her new clauses.

14:30

[Pat Glass]

My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley is right. We have all recognised here that there is a problem. We are not going to change things unless we do something to change them. At the moment, the system simply is not working for parents. The Minister and I agree that the role of SENCOs is crucial. The SENCO in the school and the area SENCO have crucial roles. They are almost the translator between the child and their difficulties and the rest of the provision. They work in relation to access and admission, to the training of staff and getting access to trained staff, to inclusive practices and, more importantly, to provisions to the curriculum in schools and in childcare. The SENCO is the translator of the curriculum for those children who have difficulties.

[Mr Gyimah]

The hon. Lady is arguing that the role of the SENCO is not working—

[Pat Glass]

No, I am not saying that.

[The Chair]

Order. Continue, Minister.

[Mr Gyimah]

The hon. Lady is being critical of the system in place for area SENCOs. What gives her confidence that having SENCOs at the provider level would change anything?

[Pat Glass]

The Minister misunderstands what I am saying. I am saying that the system is not working for disabled children if they are not getting access. I am not criticising the role of SENCOs or area SENCOs. The confidence I have is because I have seen that the role is crucial and huge, not only in translating the curriculum and so on, but in supporting parents. SENCOs have a strong role in supporting parents.

The Minister said that 78% of local authorities have a plan. That means that 22%—that is more than a fifth—do not. I worry about the children living in those local authorities that do not have a plan. I take on board his point on perverse incentives. I would hate to see a situation in which childcare providers, particularly those that are good or outstanding, suddenly decided not to take more children because of a cut-off point. I understand that concern, but I am not sure that that is sufficient reason not to have a requirement in the Bill to ensure that there is at least someone who is suitably trained in a provision or someone who knows where to go to get help.

I have been at it quite a long time, and I remember taking over SEN in an authority where SEN was failing badly. I had absolutely no experience in that. I had worked in school improvement and other areas of education, and I was suddenly asked to take over SEN. SEN has always been and remains something of a secret garden in local authorities. It is the province of all those professionals, such as educational psychologists and clinical psychologists, and is not for people like me.

[Mr Gyimah]

The hon. Lady is making an eloquent case, as she has done throughout our scrutiny of the Bill and this issue. While we both agree on the problem we are trying to solve, if she thinks that an Act that came into force a year ago is not sufficient, why would another Act address the problem?

[Pat Glass]

If I can finish the point I was making, I took over SEN. I feel ashamed that I sat in meetings at that time—it was quite a long time ago—and said to parents things like, “Do you know what? Your child will be better in this special school”, when they were fighting to have their child in mainstream education. I went along to a conference somewhere—I cannot remember what conference it was—and there was a disability discrimination officer who had severe cerebral palsy. He got up on the stage, and it was almost a road to Damascus moment. He said something like, “People like you made me special by making me different”, and I can remember thinking, “Oh my God.”

I set off from there to find out about inclusion. We were right at the beginning of things. If a child fell off a step, they were placed in a special school. It was that bad in those days. No one was being included. I learned an awful lot of things along the way, such as that pushing children through the door and having them there is not the same as having them included. There is a great difference between having them there and having them welcomed and wanted. That is what inclusivity is. The point that, in a very long-winded way, I am trying to make to the Minister is that we have to start somewhere, and forcing something is the first step towards making the system much more inclusive.

[Mr Gyimah]

Once again, the hon. Lady makes a very strong point. Is she aware that, in addition to the requirement to publish a local offer for children with SEND, in the case of a provider that “requires improvement” or is “inadequate” the local authority must provide information and advice training specifically on meeting the needs of children with SEND? Given that that measure is in place, should we not make sure it works rather than putting more stuff into legislation?

[Pat Glass]

I take the Minister’s point, and I appreciate that his colleague introduced major reforms in this area a year ago. We want them to work, because they are long overdue. We want to move away from a system in which statements took forever to one in which there is much more co-ordination between health, education and social care. We want that to happen. I worry about the cuts to local authorities’ budgets, because they must be able to deliver this. I am aware of the local offer, but in too many local authorities it is not a proper offer to parents, but a list of what is available if they bother to ring around, so we are some way from what the Government want to realise.

[Mr Gyimah]

I would just like to draw the hon. Lady’s attention to the section in the EYFS that states:

“Each child must be assigned a key person…The key person must seek to engage and support parents and/or carers in guiding their child’s development at home. They should also help families engage with more specialist support if appropriate.”

Once again, does the hon. Lady think that what she is proposing will lead only to more law? There is enough law already to make what she wants happen.

[Pat Glass]

I am aware of that, but if the key person measures were working, children with disabilities would not be being refused admission to childcare providers. We know that the SENCO role works incredibly well, and I just want to build on what works. I understand that we need to embed the things that are in the SEN legislation. We want them to work. I am happy not to press the new clauses if the Minister agrees to monitor this area and revisit it if it does not improve.

[Mr Gyimah]

By way of reply to the hon. Lady’s concluding remarks, I assure her and the Committee that this will be a priority in the early implementers. We will also put in place an evaluation system to ensure we are learning the right lessons, not only from that but afterwards, to improve the system. I think the hon. Lady agrees that this is a practical, rather than a legal, problem. We have got to work with local authorities to ensure this works for parents, and I assure her that that is our priority.

[Pat Glass]

The Minister is absolutely right. The amendments that I tabled about disabled children do not require a legal response; they require funding to be put in to ensure that this is monitored and policed. Something must be done to make the changes that will have to happen, because the current situation is unacceptable. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the Chair do report the Bill, as amended, to the House.

[Mr Gyimah]

Thank you for your expert and expeditious chairmanship of our proceedings, Mr Hanson. I thank the officials, who are seen but not heard, and who have worked incredibly hard since the start of this Parliament to turn our manifesto pledge into a Bill and into reality for working parents. I thank my colleagues, who have been very supportive, and the Opposition for ensuring that we focused not on the party-political knockabout but on what we can do to help children and families.

A lot of points have been made. As the hon. Member for North West Durham said, not all of them require a legal response, but a lot of them require a practical response. I thank hon. Members for raising those issues, and I look forward to working with them over the next weeks and months to make this Bill work for parents.

[Pat Glass]

I, too, thank both Chairmen for their excellent chairmanship. I thank the Clerks and officials for supporting us. They supported me, in particular—I struggled a little, because this is my first Bill Committee. I thank my colleagues on both sides of the Committee. There was very little to disagree with in this Bill. It is a good Bill and we want to make it work for parents. I think I have made my point about disabled children.

[The Chair]

I thank hon. Members for finishing early, because I have the opportunity to see the pupils of Ysgol Rhos Helyg of Rhosesmor, who have come 220 miles from north Wales to see their MP. I shall see them very shortly.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill, as amended, accordingly to be reported.

16:41

Committee rose.

Written evidence reported to the House

CB 10 Local Government Association

CB 11 Independent Association of Prep Schools

CB 12 Independent Schools Council

CB 13 Shirley Jenkins

CB 14 Catholic Education Service

CB 15 Early Education

CB 16 Mencap

CB 17 National Day Nurseries Association

CB 18 National Association of Head Teachers (NAHT)

CB 19 Professional Association for Childcare and Early Years (PACEY)

CB 20 DFE—application of Standing Order 83L to the Childcare Bill as amended

CB 21a Letter from the Department for Education

CB 21b Letter from the Department for Education

CB 21c Letter from the Department for Education

CB 21d Letter from the Department for Education

CB 21e Letter from the Department for Education

CB 22 Jean Kemp

Housing and Planning Bill (Sixteenth sitting)

Thursday 10th December 2015 Public Bill Committees

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chairs: Mr James Gray †, Sir Alan Meale

† Bacon, Mr Richard (South Norfolk) (Con)

† Blackman-Woods, Dr Roberta (City of Durham) (Lab)

† Caulfield, Maria (Lewes) (Con)

† Dowd, Peter (Bootle) (Lab)

† Griffiths, Andrew (Burton) (Con)

† Hammond, Stephen (Wimbledon) (Con)

† Hayes, Helen (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)

† Hollinrake, Kevin (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)

† Jackson, Mr Stewart (Peterborough) (Con)

† Jones, Mr Marcus (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government)

† Kennedy, Seema (South Ribble) (Con)

† Lewis, Brandon (Minister for Housing and Planning)

† Morris, Grahame M. (Easington) (Lab)

† Pearce, Teresa (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)

† Pennycook, Matthew (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)

† Philp, Chris (Croydon South) (Con)

† Smith, Julian (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)

† Thomas, Mr Gareth (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)

Glen McKee, Helen Wood, Committee Clerks

† attended the Committee

Public Bill Committee

Thursday 10 December 2015

(Morning)

[Mr James Gray in the Chair]

Housing and Planning Bill

11:30

[The Chair]

I welcome the Committee to the final day of its consideration of the Housing and Planning Bill. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] I remind Members that, under the programme motion, the Bill has to be out by 5 pm.

New Clause 2

Revocation or variation of banning orders

“(1) A person against whom a banning order is made may apply to the First-tier Tribunal for an order under this section revoking or varying the order.

(2) If the banning order was made on the basis of one or more convictions all of which are overturned on appeal, the First-tier Tribunal must revoke the banning order.

(3) If the banning order was made on the basis of more than one conviction and some of them (but not all) have been overturned on appeal, the First-tier Tribunal may—

(a) vary the banning order, or

(b) revoke the banning order.

(4) If the banning order was made on the basis of one or more convictions that have become spent, the First-tier Tribunal may—

(a) vary the banning order, or

(b) revoke the banning order.

(5) The power to vary a banning order under (3)(a) or (4)(a) may be used to add new exceptions to a ban or to vary—

(a) the banned activities,

(b) the length of a ban, or

(c) existing exceptions to a ban.

(6) In this section ‘spent’, in relation to a conviction, means spent for the purposes of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974.”—(Mr Marcus Jones.)

This amendment allows a banning order to be revoked or varied in certain circumstances.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 3

Offence of breach of banning order

“(1) A person who breaches a banning order commits an offence.

(2) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a period not exceeding 51 weeks or to a fine or to both.

(3) If a financial penalty under section 17 has been imposed in respect of the breach, the person may not be convicted of an offence under this section.

(4) In relation to an offence committed before section 281(5) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 comes into force, the reference in subsection (2) to 51 weeks is to be read as a reference to 6 months.”—(Mr Marcus Jones.)

This amendment makes it an offence to breach a banning order.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 4

Offences by bodies corporate

“(1) Where an offence under section (Offence of breach of banning order) committed by a body corporate is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of, or to be attributable to any neglect on the part of, an officer of a body corporate, the officer as well as the body corporate commits the offence and is liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.

(2) Where the affairs of a body corporate are managed by its members, subsection (1) applies in relation to the acts and defaults of a member in connection with the member’s functions of management as if the member were an officer of the body corporate.”—(Mr Marcus Jones.)

This amendment ensures that officers of a body corporate can be prosecuted for offences committed by it under NC3. “Officer” is given a broad definition by clause 48 of the Bill.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 5

Power to require information

“(1) A local housing authority may require a person to provide specified information for the purpose of enabling the authority to decide whether to apply for a banning order against the person. It is an offence for the person to fail to comply with a requirement, unless the person has a reasonable excuse for the failure. It is an offence for the person to provide information that is false or misleading if the person knows that the information is false or misleading or is reckless as to whether it is false or misleading.

(2) A person who commits an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to a fine.”—(Mr Marcus Jones.)

This amendment allows a local housing authority to require a person to provide information for the purpose of deciding whether to apply for a banning order. For example, the number of properties that a landlord has may be relevant to whether an authority applies for a banning order. The power would allow the authority to require the landlord to provide that information.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 6

Removal or variation of entries made under section 24

“(1) An entry made in the database under section 24 may be removed or varied in accordance with this section.

(2) If the entry was made on the basis of one or more convictions all of which are overturned on appeal, the responsible local housing authority must remove the entry.

(3) If the entry was made on the basis of more than one conviction and some of them (but not all) have been overturned on appeal, the responsible local housing authority may—

(a) remove the entry, or

(b) reduce the period for which the entry must be maintained.

(4) If the entry was made on the basis of one or more convictions that have become spent, the responsible local housing authority may—

(a) remove the entry, or

(b) reduce the period for which the entry must be maintained.

(5) If a local housing authority removes an entry in the database, or reduces the period for which it must be maintained, it must notify the person to whom the entry relates.

(6) In this section—

‘responsible local housing authority’ means the local housing authority by which the entry was made;

‘spent’, in relation to a conviction, means spent for the purposes of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974.”—(Mr Marcus Jones.)

This amendment allows a local housing authority to remove an entry in the database of rogue landlords and property agents or reduce the time for which the entry must be maintained in certain circumstances. See also NC7. There is no mention of clause 23 as an entry under that clause is maintained for as long as the banning order has effect.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 7

Requests for exercise of powers under section (Removal or variation of entries made under section 24) and appeals

“(1) A person in respect of whom an entry is made in the database under section 24 may request the responsible local housing authority to use its powers under section (Removal or variation of entries made under section 24) to—

(a) remove the entry, or

(b) reduce the period for which the entry must be maintained.

(2) The request must be in writing.

(3) Where a request is made, the local housing authority must—

(a) decide whether to comply with the request, and

(b) give the person notice of its decision.

(4) If the local housing authority decides not to comply with the request the notice must include—

(a) reasons for that decision, and

(b) a summary of the appeal rights conferred by this section.

(5) Where a person is given notice that the responsible local housing authority has decided not to comply with the request the person may appeal to the First-tier Tribunal against that decision.

(6) An appeal to the First-tier Tribunal under subsection (5) must be made before the end of the period of 21 days beginning with the day on which the notice was given.

(7) The First-tier Tribunal may allow an appeal to be made to it after the end of that period if satisfied that there is a good reason for the person’s failure to appeal within the period (and for any subsequent delay).

(8) On an appeal under this section the tribunal may order the local housing authority to—

(a) remove the entry, or

(b) reduce the period for which the entry must be maintained.” —(Mr Marcus Jones.)

This amendment allows a person to request a local housing authority to use its powers to remove or vary an entry in the database of rogue landlords and property agents (see NC6). If the local housing authority refuses, the person may appeal to the First-tier Tribunal.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 8

Meaning of “property manager” and related expressions

“(1) In this Part ‘property manager’ means a person who engages in English property management work.

(2) In this Part ‘English property management work’ means things done by a person in the course of a business in response to instructions received from another person (‘the client’) where—

(a) the client wishes the person to arrange services, repairs, maintenance, improvements or insurance in respect of, or to deal with any other aspect of the management of, premises on the client’s behalf, and

(b) the premises consist of housing in England let under a tenancy.”—(Mr Marcus Jones.)

This and related amendments are intended to ensure that a banning order can be made against any person who engages in property management work, not just letting agents who engage in such work.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 17

Default powers exercisable by Mayor of London or combined authority

“(1) After section 27 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 insert—

‘27A Default powers exercisable by Mayor of London or combined authority

Schedule A1 (default powers exercisable by Mayor of London or combined authority) has effect.’

(2) Before Schedule 1 to that Act insert, as Schedule A1, the Schedule set out in Schedule (Default powers exercisable by Mayor of London or combined authority: Schedule to be inserted in the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004) to this Act.

(3) In section 17 of that Act (local development documents), at the end of subsection (8) insert—

‘(c) is approved by the Mayor of London under paragraph 2 of Schedule A1;

(d) is approved by a combined authority under paragraph 6 of that Schedule.’”—(Mr Marcus Jones.)

This new Clause and NS2 make provision for the Secretary of State to invite the Mayor of London or a combined authority to prepare or revise a development plan document for a local planning authority in their area that is failing to progress the document.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 18

Amendments to do with section 111 to 117

“Schedule (Right to enter and survey land: consequential amendments) amends legislation conferring rights of entry relating to the acquisition of an interest in or a right over land in England and Wales.”—(Mr Marcus Jones.)

This amendment, together with amendment 257 and new Schedule (Right to enter and survey land: consequential amendments), clarifies how the new right of entry in clause 111 will interact with a number of existing rights of entry.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 23

Procedure for redeeming English rentcharges

“(1) The Rentcharges Act 1977 is amended in accordance with subsections (2) to (5).

(2) Before section 8 (but after the italic heading before section 8) insert—

‘7A Power to make procedure for redeeming English rentcharges

(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision allowing the owner of land in England affected by a rentcharge to redeem it.

(2) Regulations under subsection (1) may not make provision in relation to—For the purposes of subsection (2)(d) a rentcharge is variable if the amount of the rentcharge will, or may, vary in the future in accordance with the provisions of the instrument under which it is payable.

(a) a rentcharge that could be redeemed by making an application under section 8(1A),

(b) a rentcharge of a kind mentioned in section 2(3) or section 3(3)(a),

(c) a rentcharge in respect of which the period for which it is payable cannot be ascertained, or

(d) a variable rentcharge.

(3) Regulations under subsection (1) may, in particular—

(a) provide for the owner of land affected by a rentcharge to be able to redeem a rentcharge by taking specified steps, including making payments determined in accordance with the regulations;

(b) require a rent owner or other person to take specified steps to facilitate the redemption of a rentcharge, such as providing information or executing a deed of release;

(c) where the documents of title of the owner of land affected by a rentcharge are in the custody of a mortgagee, require the mortgagee to make those documents or copies of those documents available in accordance with the regulations;

(d) permit or require a person specified in the regulations to design the form of any document to be used in connection with the redemption of rentcharges under the regulations;

(e) provide for a court or tribunal to—

(i) determine disputes about or in relation to the redemption of a rentcharge;

(ii) make orders about the redemption of a rentcharge;

(iii) issue a redemption certificate;

(f) make provision corresponding to any of the provisions of section 10(2) to (4).

(4) Nothing in this section prevents the redemption of a rentcharge otherwise than in accordance with regulations under subsection (1).’

(3) In section 8—

(a) in subsection (1)—

(i) after ‘land’ insert ‘in Wales’;

(ii) for the words from ‘a certificate’ to the end substitute ‘a redemption certificate’;

(b) after subsection (1) insert—

‘(1A) The owner of any land in England affected by a rentcharge which has been apportioned to that land by an apportionment order with a condition under—

(a) section 7(2) above, or

(b) section 20(1) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1927,

may apply to the Secretary of State, in accordance with this section, for a redemption certificate.’

(4) In section 12—

(a) in subsection (1), after ‘this Act’ insert ‘, apart from regulations under section 7A,’;

(b) after subsection (1) insert—

‘(1A) Regulations under section 7A are to be made by statutory instrument.

(1B) A statutory instrument containing regulations under section 7A may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.’

(5) In section 13(1), in the definition of ‘redemption certificate’, for the words from ‘has’ to the end substitute ‘means a certificate certifying that a rentcharge has been redeemed’.

(6) The Leasehold Reform Act 1967 is amended in accordance with subsections (7) and (8).

(7) In section 8(4)(b), for ‘8’ substitute ‘7A’.

(8) In section 11—

(a) in subsection (6), after ‘1977’ insert ‘or the amount that would have to be paid to secure the redemption of that rentcharge in accordance with regulations made under section 7A of that Act’;

(b) in subsection (7)(a), after ‘specified’ insert ‘or required’;

(c) in subsection (8), for ‘8’ substitute ‘7A’.”—(Mr Marcus Jones.)

This amendment will permit the Secretary of State to make regulations allowing the owner of land in England that is affected by a rentcharge to redeem that rentcharge without making an application to the Secretary of State as the procedure in section 8 of the Rentcharges Act 1977 would involve.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr Marcus Jones)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr Gray, it has been a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship these past few weeks, and it remains so today. With your permission, before I speak to new clause 23, I would like to inform the Committee that last night I sent the Clerks an updated assessment of the Bill’s legislative competence, following the amendments agreed so far and those being discussed today. I trust that it will help to inform Mr Speaker when he comes to re-certify the Bill at the appropriate time.

New clause 23 give the Secretary of State a power to make regulations setting out a new statutory redemption procedure for rentcharges, excluding those specified in new section 7A(2) of the Rentcharges Act 1977, as inserted by subsection (2) of the new clause. Currently, a rent payer can apply to the Secretary of State under section 8 of the 1977 Act for a redemption certificate. The rentcharge team will carry out the necessary checks and advise the rent payer on the amount needed for redemption. Once that amount has been paid, the team will issue a certificate of redemption.

We do not believe it appropriate in this day and age, and especially in the current financial climate, for the Government to continue to have a role in the redemption of rentcharges. The clause will allow the current procedure to be replaced with a mechanism that will be set out in regulations. The new procedure will no longer involve the Secretary of State in the redemption of rentcharges. Instead, the rent owner and the rent payer will be required to take certain steps for the redemption of a rentcharge. [Interruption.]

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

On a point of order, Mr Gray. I am trying to listen to the Minister with great interest, but there is clearly a conversation going on elsewhere within the room that is preventing me from listening to what feels like an excellent contribution.

[The Chair]

I am grateful for that point of order from the Opposition Back Benches. The Government Whip might like to take note—[Interruption.] I repeat: the Government Whip might like to take note of the point of order, which is that there are too many conversations—mainly involving the Government Whip—happening on the Back Benches.

[Mr Jones]

Thank you, Mr Gray.

It will still be possible for the parties to reach a private agreement on redemption voluntarily outside the statutory regime. The existing redemption procedure is set out in primary legislation. The power to set out the new procedure in regulation provides the flexibility to make changes with greater ease than would otherwise be the case. The new regime is likely to contain a level of detail not suited to primary legislation, as the regulations will be concerned with substantive matters, such as the property rights of both the rent payer and the rent owner, and will include provision on dispute resolution. It seems appropriate for the regulations to be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.

[Dr Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)]

I do not wish to say too much about the new clause at this stage, because I am conscious that much of the detail will come in regulations, and I am partly assured by the fact that the regulations will be affirmative. Presumably, we will get an opportunity at a later stage to consider the implications of the new clause in more detail.

[Mr Jones]

I thank the hon. Lady for her contribution. On the basis of the assurance that we have provided to her, I commend the new clause to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

New clause 23 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 32

Secure tenancies etc: phasing out of tenancies for life

“Schedule (Secure tenancies etc: phasing out of tenancies for life) changes the law about secure tenancies, introductory tenancies and demoted tenancies to phase out tenancies for life.”—(Mr Marcus Jones.)

A secure tenant can currently live in a property for life. This amendment and NS4 phase out lifetime tenancies. In future secure tenancies will generally have to be for a fixed term of 2 to 5 years and will not automatically be renewed. Towards the end of the term, the landlord will have to do a review to decide whether to grant a new tenancy or recover possession.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Mr Jones]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government new clause 33—Succession to secure tenancies and related tenancies.

Government new schedule 4—Secure tenancies etc: phasing out of tenancies for life.

Government new schedule 5—Succession to secure tenancies and related tenancies.

[Mr Jones]

New clause 32 and new schedule 4 together prevent local authorities in England from offering secure tenancies for life in most circumstances. They deliver on a commitment in the July Budget to review the use of lifetime tenancies, with a view to limiting their use. Currently, the vast majority of new social housing tenancies are offered on a lifetime basis, meaning tenants have the right to live in their social home for the rest of their lives, provided they keep to the conditions of their tenancy.

Since April 2012, following changes introduced by the coalition Government’s Localism Act 2011, local authorities have been able to offer so-called flexible tenancies—tenancies of a fixed term of no less than two years. However, they are not taking advantage of that flexibility. In 2014-15, only 8% of social tenancies granted by local authorities were flexible tenancies. That is only just over than 9,000 in all. At present, 236,000 social tenants are forced to live in overcrowded conditions due to the lack of suitably sized properties, while 380,000 households occupy social housing with two or more spare bedrooms. Under those circumstances, we believe that continuing to offer social tenancies on a lifetime basis is not an efficient use of scarce social housing.

The new clauses will significantly improve landlords’ ability to get the best use out of social housing by focusing it on those who need it most for as long as they need it. That will ensure that people who need long-term support are provided with more appropriate tenancies as their needs change over time and will support households to make the transition into home ownership where they can. In future, with limited exceptions, local authority landlords will only be able to grant tenancies with a fixed term of between two and five years, and will be required to use tenancy review points to support tenants’ move towards home ownership where appropriate.

Let me be clear: we are not taking away security of tenure from existing lifetime tenants who remain in their home. Moreover, these amendments will ensure that where existing lifetime tenants are moved by their landlord—for example, as part of an estate regeneration—they will retain their lifetime tenancy. We want to ensure that fixed-term tenancies do not act as a barrier to mobility.

Where lifetime tenants choose to move, local authority landlords will have limited discretion to offer further lifetime tenancies. We will prescribe the circumstances in which local authorities may exercise that discretion in regulations. We expect that such circumstances will include tenants downsizing to a smaller property and moving for work. We will obviously ensure that we develop the regulations in discussion with local authorities. Outside those limited exceptions, if local authorities try to offer a lifetime tenancy or one that is shorter than two years or longer than five, whether deliberately or by mistake, the tenancy will default to a five-year fixed term.

In the main, the statutory protections that the amendments provide for those granted a fixed-term tenancy are similar to those currently enjoyed by flexible tenants. A person who is offered a fixed-term tenancy by a prospective landlord may request a review of the landlord’s decision on the length of term offered. The landlord will be required to look at their decision again and explain how it was reached in the light of their published tenancy policy.

[Mr Thomas]

For an amendment or something as substantial as what the Minister is proposing, an impact assessment would normally be published. Do the Government intend to do anything like that?

[Mr Jones]

The hon. Gentleman raises a good question, which I will come to later in my remarks.

Tenants will usually be able to terminate their tenancy at any stage, while enjoying protection from eviction during the fixed term. The local authority landlord will need to demonstrate to the court that one or more of the grounds for possession is proven and that they are acting reasonably in seeking possession.

The amendments will introduce an important new statutory protection. Local authority landlords will be required to carry out a review of the tenant’s circumstances between six and nine months before the end of the fixed term, so that they can take an appropriate decision about the household’s housing need and advise the tenant on their housing options. That will include moving into home ownership where that is a realistic option. The new review process will also apply to existing flexible tenants unless they have less than nine months to go on their tenancy agreement.

11:45

In the review, the landlord will need to consider whether to renew the tenancy, offer the tenant another, more suitable social home or terminate the tenancy. We expect that in many cases the tenancy will be renewed, but where the landlord decides that it should not be, it is essential that the tenant be given the opportunity to challenge that decision, as well as sufficient time to find alternative accommodation, following advice and support from their landlord.

Where the landlord is minded not to grant a further tenancy at the end of the fixed term, they will need to serve a notice on the tenant six months before the end of the flexible tenancy, setting out the reasons for the decision, which should reflect the landlord’s published policy and give the tenant the opportunity to seek an internal review. Where that review upholds the landlord’s original decision, the tenant will have the right to challenge the landlord’s right of possession as part of the possession proceedings in the county court, on the grounds that the landlord has failed to conduct the review properly or made an error of law.

Currently, where landlords grant flexible tenancies, the tenancy will automatically become a lifetime tenancy at the end of the fixed term unless the landlord grants a new tenancy or obtains possession. These amendments ensure that that cannot happen in the future. Instead, unless the landlord grants a new tenancy, a further five-year fixed-term tenancy will arise automatically at the end of the fixed term. That does not prevent the landlord from bringing the original tenancy to an end, but it gives the tenant some protection, while ensuring that the tenancy does not roll over into a lifetime tenancy.

During a fixed-term tenancy, tenants will have the same rights as most secure and flexible tenants do now. As with existing flexible tenants, however, the right to improve and to be compensated for improvements will not apply to fixed-term tenancies. Landlords will still be able to grant such rights within the tenancy agreement if they so choose.

[Teresa Pearce (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)]

I am intrigued by what the Minister means when he talks about having the same rights. We have heard a lot in the past few weeks about how the Government want all social tenants to have the right to buy, but is it not the case that social tenants who have less than a three-year tenancy will not have the right to buy? Is that not a clear difference between those two different types of social tenant?

[Mr Jones]

I thank the hon. Lady for her question. She makes a very good point, to which I will return.

We are including protections for existing introductory and demoted tenants at the time that the Bill comes into force. Where tenants have a legitimate expectation that they would be granted a lifetime tenancy at the end of the tenancy—because, in the case of demoted tenants, they were previously lifetime tenants, or because, in the case of introductory tenants, the tenancy would otherwise automatically convert to a lifetime tenancy—they will still be given a lifetime tenancy.

I believe that, taken together, the amendments strike the right balance between stability and quality for tenants—new and existing—flexibility for the landlord and a move towards home ownership.

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

Will the Minister clarify the previous point? If a tenant is currently a local authority tenant with a lifetime tenancy and they move within the stock, does the lifetime tenancy move with them or will they then have to be offered a two to five-year tenancy?

[Mr Jones]

In my comments earlier, I set out clearly that that can be the case, but that will depend on the circumstances of the tenant at the time and the policy of the local authority.

We want housing association landlords and tenants to reap the benefits from shorter-term tenancies as well. However, we clearly need to consider any changes to housing associations in the light of the recent decision of the Office for National Statistics on classification. We are working through the ONS reclassification decision and considering the options but, given the complexity of the matter, careful consideration is needed. We will continue to work closely with the housing association sector, the social housing regulator and other stakeholders to finalise the deregulatory package, and we will consider any changes to lifetime tenancies in the context of that work.

New clause 33 and new schedule 5 change the rules on succession to secure tenancies and make equivalent changes for introductory and demoted tenancies. Currently there are significant differences between the succession rights for secure tenancies granted before April 2012 and those for tenancies granted after the date when changes under the Localism Act 2011 came into force.

For secure tenancies granted before April 2012 there is a limit of one succession. Spouses and civil partners qualify to succeed automatically, while other family members, including cohabitees, also qualify but only if they have lived with the tenant for at least 12 months immediately before his or her death.

Since April 2012, only spouses, civil partners and those living together as spouse or civil partner have a statutory right to succeed. However, local authorities can provide any additional succession rights that they think appropriate, including to people who have already succeeded, and to non-family members such as live-in carers.

We do not think that there is a justification for retaining the inconsistency of approach between pre-2012 and post-2012 local authority tenancies. We therefore propose that the succession rights for secure tenancies granted before April 2012 be aligned with those granted after that date. The amendments will deliver a consistent approach across all secure tenancies and ensure that common-law partners are put on an equal footing with married couples and civil partners.

Other family members who may have had an expectation of succeeding to a secure tenancy granted before April 2012, having lived with the tenant for at least 12 months, will lose their statutory right to succeed. We do not think that it is right that those who may not need social housing, because, for example, they can rent or buy privately, should have the automatic right to succeed to a social home when nearly 1.4 million households are on council waiting lists.

[Mr Thomas]

Perhaps I can take the Minister briefly back to his reference to the deregulation agenda in relation to housing associations. Is he minded to apply his proposed measures affecting council housing tenants to housing association tenants as well?

[Mr Jones]

As I said a few minutes ago, we clearly need to consider any changes that we might want to make. As I intimated, we would consider that, but we need to make any changes in the light of the reclassification. That is why we are saying that we want to consider the position extremely carefully. We expect to work closely with the housing association sector and the social housing regulator, and other stakeholders, to finalise any deregulatory package. We will consider—and we are considering—changes. That will happen in the context of the work I have mentioned.

I was explaining that family members other than common-law partners, married couples and civil partners will lose any statutory right they may have had to succeed to a secure tenancy granted before April 2012. Instead, local authorities will have the discretion to grant them succession rights, which must be written into the tenancy agreement. Where local authorities grant additional succession rights, we expect they will apply the same rules to tenancies granted before and after April 2012. However, we will provide guidelines to assist local authorities to exercise their discretion.

[Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)]

As you know, Mr Gray, I listen avidly to what the Prime Minister says on these matters. In August 2010, in a speech in Birmingham, he said of this proposal that

“not everyone will support this and there will be quite a big argument”.

Well, he is right on that one: there will be a big argument. More importantly, however, he also said that the proposal would help with social mobility. It would be helpful if the Minister, in the absence of the Prime Minister, could explain why it will help with social mobility in any way whatever.

[Mr Jones]

The measure will help with social mobility—all the policies in the Bill are aimed at helping with social mobility. We want people who are able to purchase their own property—to exercise the right to buy—to do so and to exercise what we see as a right to social mobility. Within this policy, in many cases, the circumstances of tenants will be reviewed; in certain cases, it may prompt people who may otherwise not have thought about purchasing their own home to do so where they feel they are able to. That is an important thing for everybody to have the opportunity to do if they are able to.

[Mr Thomas]

Does the Minister envisage any exemptions for households where there are young children? One thinks, for example, of the need to offer young children stability of schooling, allowing them to go through primary school or to complete their passage through GCSEs. Might there be flexibility on secure tenancies in that situation?

[Mr Jones]

When a housing authority is doing a review of the circumstances of tenants who are in that position—where their bedrooms are fully occupied, and where they have children at schools—we would not expect it to assess their circumstances in the context that they have changed significantly enough to mean that those people would not be able to take a further tenancy from that authority. It is important to stress to the hon. Gentleman that this is all about trying to free up social housing for the people who really need it; this is not about taking away social housing from people whose circumstances have not changed significantly.

To come back to the point I was making about succession, even where family members do not benefit from additional succession rights, the landlord will still be able to issue them with a new tenancy in the same or a different property if they have had sufficient priority under the council’s allocation scheme. That will ensure that landlords take account of particularly hard cases. That feeds into the point made by the hon. Member for Harrow West.

The proposals ensure that spouses, civil partners and those who live together as such continue to have an automatic right to succeed to a lifetime tenancy. That seems only fair, particularly as, in many cases, they will be joint tenants. However, it is difficult to justify why other people should succeed to a lifetime tenancy, particularly when most new tenants will receive a five-year fixed-term tenancy. The proposals ensure, therefore, that anyone other than a spouse or partner will no longer be able to inherit a lifetime tenancy. Instead, if they qualify to succeed, they will be given a five-year fixed-term tenancy. At the end of the fixed-term period, the landlord will be required to carry out a review of their circumstances, as they would need to do for any new fixed-term tenant. If the tenant is still in need of social housing, the landlord will be able to grant a further fixed-term tenancy of between two and five years. We think that, taken together, the amendments strike the right balance between protection for the tenants and their families, and flexibility for landlords.

12:00

[Mr Thomas]

May I offer the Minister the example of a person who has a long-term disability and is in a specially adapted council property? Will there be an exemption for that person under the exemptions that the Minister says may be on offer through the regulations?

[Mr Jones]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. There are people who have certain needs, and he mentioned somebody who is disabled and in a property that has been specially adapted to deal with that disability. He needs to realise that the amendments are not couched in terms of automatically asking somebody in those circumstances who comes to the end of a fixed-term tenancy to move on. They are about reviewing circumstances. If, after that review, it is found that the disability of the person in question has not changed and that they still need that type of property with the housing adaptations that have been made, the local authority should not do anything other than renew the tenancy, as long as the person who is occupying the property has fulfilled the obligations under their tenancy agreement.

Let me come on to one or two of the questions that were asked during the debate. A question was asked about the impact assessment. We will publish a revised Bill impact assessment, and this will certainly be included in that.

[Mr Thomas]

When?

[Mr Jones]

I assure the hon. Gentleman that it will be published before the Bill goes to the Lords.

On the right to buy, the answer is yes, the tenant will still be able to exercise their right to buy. They must have had three years in social housing to be eligible. That is the same for flexible tenancies. Part of the purpose of the review at the end of the tenancy is to consider whether a person can exercise the right to buy if they are eligible to do so.

[Teresa Pearce]

Will the Minister explain something? If somebody has less than a three-year tenancy, they will not have the right to buy. If they have a two-year tenancy, then a break and then another two-year tenancy, they will not have the right to buy. Is it possible that some local authorities will not grant longer tenancies as a way of not extending the right to buy to some tenants? Has the Minister looked at that to see whether it is a possible loophole?

[Mr Jones]

I am trying to think carefully about the hon. Lady’s logic. I think that the circumstances she mentioned would apply to people who have a lifetime tenancy. If a person does two years and, by their own volition, whether they are on a lifetime tenancy or a fixed tenancy, moves into private rented accommodation and then comes back to the local authority for rehousing, they would not have built up the three years that makes them eligible to take on the right to buy.

This issue has come up several times. The hon. Lady is saying that the local authority moves them out of the property after two years, but at the end of the two-year fixed tenancy, the situation is reviewed and the people’s circumstances are taken into account. I cannot see that this policy will stop people being able to take up right to buy.

The provisions also align the succession rights of introductory and demoted tenants with those of secure tenants. Spouses, civil partners and those living together as a married couple will have a statutory right to succeed and the landlord will be able to grant additional succession rights in the tenancy agreement. None of the changes will apply where the tenant died before the Bill comes into force. I therefore hope that hon. Members will take the measures in the spirit in which they are intended and accept them.

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

I will be very measured in my comments on the two new clauses, but I want to say to the Minister and put on the record that I am extremely angry about what is contained in the new clauses. I am angry in terms of process and in terms of content. I do not think it is helpful to the deliberations of this Committee to have had these extremely controversial and wide-ranging new clauses added on the last day of the Committee. I am also angry because, as far as I can see, there has been—

[Mr Jones]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

I will give way to the Minister.

[Mr Jones]

I am looking at the new clauses before us today and the ones that the Committee has not dealt with previously. I can see only a small number of new clauses tabled by the Government, but a significantly greater number of new clauses submitted at this stage to the Committee. I ask the hon. Lady: is not what is good for the goose good for the gander?

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

I thought the Minister was going to make a serious intervention about the content of the new clauses. The point I was making is that the Government new clauses, which are wide ranging and controversial and have an impact on lots of people’s lives, should not have been brought to this Committee on the last day of its deliberations without any consultation, without an impact assessment and without any background information. It really is extraordinary. It is extremely bad practice and not good policy making.

It is the content of the clauses that concerns and outrages me. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) said this morning:

“People will be astonished that Ministers are legislating to deny families a stable home. This will cause worry and upheaval for tenants, and break up communities.”

Because the new clauses have not been in the public domain for long, people are only now trying to catch up with what the impact might mean for people. However, some housing lawyers have contacted us to say:

“Presently, local authorities generally grant periodic secure tenancies. Such tenancies have no automatic end date, rather, they end only when the court makes an order for possession or when a tenant gives up the tenancy. Moreover, if you are the spouse or civil partner of a local authority tenant then, on the death of that tenant, you can succeed to the tenancy on the same terms.”

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

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment. I want to finish what I am saying about this particular issue. The housing lawyers who have contacted us said:

“The new clauses end both of these rights. If the new clauses are accepted, local authorities will only (save for limited exceptions which will mostly be dealt with in secondary legislation)”—

as we heard from the Minister earlier—

“be able to grant tenancies for a fixed term of between 2 and 5 years. Towards the end of the fixed term (defined as between 9 and 6 months before it ends) the landlord will decide whether to offer another fixed term. Whilst there is a right to ask a landlord to review a decision not to offer another fixed term, there is no right to challenge the decision, e.g. by appeal to a court.”

Therefore, the spouse or civil partner of a local authority tenant, on death of that tenant, might get a five-year tenancy, or they might not.

The lawyers continue:

“This is a major reform of housing law, probably the most important since local authority tenants were given security of tenure in the Housing Act 1980. It requires much more detailed (and technical) consideration than just being dropped in for debate on the last day of the Committee Stage. There are, for example, two unintended consequences”—

my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West has just raised one. There is great concern about the potential impact on the right to buy, but there is also major concern about provisions for recovery of possession at the end of the fixed term and for recovery of possession against a successor.

The lawyers say that the current proposals are simply unworkable because

“where a local authority grants a fixed term tenancy, possession proceedings operate by way of forfeiture. Yet the Bill excludes forfeiture from the remedies available against these fixed term tenancies.”

The lawyers direct the Minister to read “Flexible Tenancies and Forfeiture” by Andrew Dymond in volume 17 of the Journal of Housing Law so that he can see how the drafting is flawed.

The lawyers continue:

“a 2 year fixed term means, in reality, only 15 months of security (since the decision whether to extend your tenancy can start with 9 months remaining on the term)”.

A two-to-five-year churn, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West pointed out, has huge implications for the stability of families and communities. It is important that the Minister addresses some of the points about what churn could mean in practice for the stability of families.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

As my hon. Friend the Minister pointed out, there are 1.4 million people on the housing waiting list. Does the hon. Lady recognise that there is a real need to make the best use of our housing stock? People’s lifestyles change, as they go from living in a larger family to perhaps living on their own in a house that is larger than they need. Are these not sensible proposals to make sure we make best use of our housing stock?

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

Local authorities already have the power to grant fixed-term tenancies if they wish to do so. The issue we have been struggling somewhat to get across in the Committee to date is that, if there is a huge need for social rented housing, the way to deal with that need is to build more social rented housing units, not to make life more difficult for those who already occupy social rented housing by kicking them out using a whole variety of mechanisms.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

Let me finish the point.

Increasing rents to a level that people will not be able to afford and having the bedroom tax in place means that a lot of people have to move out of their homes. Now, on the last day of our deliberations, we have this extraordinary set of measures, which seek to take secure tenancies away from people in the social rented sector. This is an extraordinary change. What I would say to the hon. Gentleman is that the way of dealing with acute housing need is to build more housing across all tenures, including for social rent, and I hope he will accept that.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I absolutely accept that. Does the hon. Lady therefore welcome the 55% rise in the number of affordable houses—25,000 more properties— built in 2014-15 versus 2013-14?

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

A further thing I have been trying to do in the Committee is to make it clear that there are social rents and there are affordable rents. Affordable rents are not necessarily what we would all understand as affordable, because, in a lot of areas, 80% of the market rent is not affordable. Of course, that also applies to other measures for low-cost home ownership. Throughout the Committee’s deliberations, we have been questioning whether the Government’s definition of low-cost home ownership actually is low-cost home ownership.

12:15

[Mr Thomas]

Taking at face value the question from the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton—and given the conversations on the Government Benches, one should perhaps be cautious about doing that—might he not be tempted to support new clause 37, which would make it easier for councils to build more homes and thus deal with the backlog of people on waiting lists?

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. I hope that we are able look at that this afternoon, because it would be interesting to hear what the Minister has to say about it.

Traditional secured tenancies are not tenancies for life. They are invariably subject to a probation period of at least a year. If there is antisocial behaviour during the tenancy, the court has the power to take away security of tenure and reduce the tenant’s rights in a demoted tenancy, so there are already measures that enable local authorities to end tenancies if there is a problem with the tenant. Indeed, the Local Government Association wrote to us to say:

“The Localism Act 2011 introduced flexible tenancies in acknowledgement that ‘a one size fits all model on rents and tenancies is not the best answer to the wide range of needs and circumstances of those accessing the social rented sector’. Councils should retain this freedom to manage locally their Tenancy Policy and decisions over tenancies. Every housing market is different and blanket national enforcements may risk impacting on coordinated local efforts to balance efficient use of stock while building stable neighbourhoods and communities. The requirement to review each tenancy every five years would be a significant administrative burden on councils. We would like to support the Government to work with councils in order for it to understand the impact of fixed-term tenancies and to then be able to use the information to inform future tenancy strategy.”

The new clause is not only profoundly unfair and unjust for people who need and are fortunate enough to get social rented tenancies, but profoundly anti-localist. That is what the local councils themselves say.

The 2011 Act gave local authorities flexibility. If, because of local circumstances, they have not used that flexibility to the degree that the Minister would like, under localism that should not give the Minister the right to legislate for them to do things differently. I want the Minister to explain why he thinks it is appropriate to introduce these new clauses on the last day of Committee stage. What work has been carried out with local authorities and tenants’ organisations to understand the impact of the proposals? What is he going to do from now on in terms of both the impact assessment and having the important discussions that must take place before the proposals go any further?

[Peter Dowd]

If a 46-year-old woman becomes a war widow, and her family fly the nest with the exception of one child, would she be asked to move out with the remaining child in due course? Would she pay the price of the Government’s social mobility policy by losing her marital and family home? What would she say to the child? Does my hon. Friend have any advice on that?

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

At this point, I do not—in fact, I was going to ask the Minister about that. Another question is: what about adult children who have been living in the house as their home for a very long time?

I shall finish with the following point. The reason why Margaret Thatcher offered secure tenancies in the 1980s is that she understood the need for tenancies that would offer families stability. There was a lot of discussion in the run-up to the 1979 election about what would happen to people in the social rented sector, and it was a good thing. It was the result of many years of lobbying and of knowing how important secure tenancies are to the stability not only of households but of communities that the legislation was introduced. It was introduced after a long period and a lot of deliberation, and it is critical that we do not legislate this morning to just get rid of it on what appears to be the whim of a Minister, a particular set of Ministers, or even the Prime Minister. It requires careful consideration, and we have not had the opportunity to consider the full implications of the measures.

My family had years of private rented accommodation and of being moved on, with young children. Getting a secure council tenancy was critical in giving all of us stability and good opportunities for social mobility. I cannot see where social mobility comes into these clauses. We know that making life more insecure does not lead to greater social mobility.

[Teresa Pearce]

I am very interested in what my hon. Friend is saying about social mobility. When I was granted a social tenancy at 21, I was on my own with my daughter. I stayed there for two years. In those two years, due to the lower rent and my increased job prospects, I was able to save enough to move out and buy my own property. Had I had a tenancy that I knew would end, I probably would not have been in a position to do that, because I would have been so fearful of where I would go next that it would have held back my social mobility.

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

I thank my hon. Friend for that helpful intervention, which demonstrates the clear difference between Opposition and Government Members: we appreciate the value of social rented housing to many individuals and families in this country, and how important it often is in enabling people to turn their lives around and in giving stability, particularly to families on low incomes seeking to do their best in difficult circumstances. It is not simply a product that can be used one way and then another; it is important for whole families and for their life choices.

Security of tenure often gives people time, as my hon. Friend said, to think about what options and opportunities might be available to them, such as education or retraining. It is critical that we do not remove that important support mechanism and pull the rug from under people, particularly when they might be facing difficulties. We should ensure that they get the support they need.

[Peter Dowd]

The more I think about it, the closer I come to the word to describe it. Does my hon. Friend agree that asking local authorities and registered social landlords to go to people and effectively move them out of their houses is pusillanimous, to say the least?

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

Yes. If this is the result, the circumstances will be absolutely dreadful. Whether or not families are ultimately moved on, they will now have to live with the insecurity of knowing that they could be moved on at any time. That is what is particularly pernicious about the measures. They are part of a continuing vendetta against social tenants in this country. That is what we must assume from how the measures have been introduced and their content.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead made the point beautifully. We all understand the need for social housing. She needed social housing at one time in her life, and the property was available. The measure is about making the best use of our housing stock.

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

We dealt with that earlier. I ask the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues to turn their attention to how we can deliver more social rented housing.

[Mr Jones]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

I will give way to the Minister once I have dealt with the intervention by the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton. The way to deal with the huge demand for social rented housing is to build more of it. The figures I gave much earlier showed that last year the lowest number of homes for social rent in decades was built—I think it was 10,000 units.

[Mr Jones]

We have heard the heartening story of the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead. If she had chosen to, with a lifetime tenancy, she could by definition still be living in that house today while earning £74,000 a year as a Member of Parliament. Does the hon. Member for City of Durham think that it is right for someone to hold on to a lifetime tenancy in those circumstances, when people in housing need have nowhere near that income?

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

The Minister is sidestepping the point—for a change. We need to build more homes that are genuinely affordable—social homes, to rent. The Government are just making life more difficult for council tenants, trying to get them to move on somehow or other, rather than addressing the fundamental underlying problem, which is the lack of genuinely affordable housing.

[Teresa Pearce]

Just to clarify, I did have a lifetime tenancy, and my options were either to stay, to buy the property—which I did not do—or to save up, buy something, and leave the tenancy for someone else. Since then four other families have had the flat, because I did not remove it from the social stock by buying it. I do not understand the point about what I could have done if I had had a lifetime tenancy, because I did have one.

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

I am sure that that clarification is helpful.

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman and then I am anxious to conclude because other Members want to speak.

[Chris Philp]

The hon. Lady is very kind to give way. Of course Conservative Members agree that we should build more social or affordable housing, and the Bill will achieve that. Does she agree, however, that cases such as that of the former Member for Holborn and St Pancras, Frank Dobson, who occupied a council house for 30-odd years despite being a Cabinet Minister, are poor use of housing stock, and that a family in Camden on a low income would have been much better off occupying that council property?

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

The hon. Gentleman needs to turn his attention to what the Local Government Association has said on the matter:

“The Localism Act 2011 introduced flexible tenancies in acknowledgement that ‘a one size fits all model on rents and tenancies is not the best answer to the wide range of needs and circumstances’”.

Local authorities already can offer flexible tenancies if they want to. The provisions before the Committee would force all councils to do it, and do it in a particular way, whether or not that accorded with local circumstances and met tenants’ needs.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne said that the provisions are a continuation of a “vendetta against council tenants”. The manner in which they have been tabled, and the lack of consultation with the housing sector, tenants or anyone who might be affected, show that he is probably right. I look forward to the Minister’s having the good sense to withdraw them and to allow proper discussion of such a key issue before a decision is made.

12:30

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

It is absolutely shameful that the Government have tabled this new clause so late in the Committee’s deliberations, without time for tenants to be consulted, without time for the Committee to take evidence orally or in writing from tenants and from those who represent tenants, and without the opportunity to hear the views of the social housing sector and of councils. The proposal is yet another radical reform and a forceful attack on social housing as we know it.

Southwark Council, one of the councils that I represent, consulted during the previous Parliament on the Government’s proposed flexibility to change the form of council tenancies. It consulted extensively with its tenants and in the end it decided to take advantage of the proposal to introduce introductory tenancies, but not to remove lifetime tenancies. That was because of the views that residents expressed during the consultation.

I recall a conversation with a woman who lives on one of my council estates. She was an original right-to-buy tenant. She bought her flat and brought up her family there. She has lived on the estate for more than 40 years and has been the life and soul of the community; she has been chair and vice-chair of her tenants and residents association. She said to me, “If you as the council introduce this proposal, we are finished as a community, because you will be undermining the stability of our community. You will be destabilising. We will have a much more rapid turnover. Our ability to be a cohesive, strong, stable and long-term community on this estate will be gone.” That is the significance of this proposed reform of social housing. It denies stability and security to households on low and moderate incomes, who cannot afford to buy.

I do not understand why the Government are so set on making a distinction between the aspirations of people who can afford to buy and those of everybody else. I do not understand why the Government are bent on denying people on lower incomes the stability of knowing that they can live in their community for the long term; that they can send their children to the local school for as long as they need to be there; that they can invest in that community and play an active role in supporting their neighbours and in giving back. I do not understand why the Government are making that distinction on income grounds alone.

I am concerned that a consequence of the proposal will be to force tenants, for whom home ownership is not sustainable in the long term, to consider the right to buy. In my nearly six years as a councillor, many residents have come to me in deep distress because of the cost of major works bills and the cost of service charges, which they did not necessarily anticipate were coming and which they had not set aside the money for. They had 95% mortgages and they did not have the equity in their home to be able to borrow to cover those costs. Their home is threatened as a consequence of the financial strain. I am concerned that if people think they have only two, three or five years to live in their social home, and that the way to achieve longevity is to buy their home, they will be forced to take up the right-to-buy option when it is not in their long-term financial interests to do so.

It is worth rehearsing exactly how many and varied the ways are in which the Government seem bent on an attack on social tenants. We have the high income tenant provision for tenants who are not actually recognised as high earners by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs under the pay to stay clauses. We are still living with the pernicious bedroom tax. We have absolutely no funding line at all in the comprehensive spending review to deliver a Government subsidy for new social housing, the delivery of which—not the punishment of existing tenants—is the key to solving the social housing crisis. The forced sale of council homes will reduce the number of those homes available to meet the need that is there. This is a race to the bottom on housing for those on low to moderate incomes. It seems to me that the poor standards and insecurity of tenure of the private rented sector are the standards the Government are aiming for, rather than an aspiration to raise standards and security of tenure, and the availability of secure tenure, for those on low to moderate incomes.

New clause 32 is a further pernicious measure that simply punishes those who, through no fault of their own, are on low to moderate incomes. It shows absolute contempt for social tenants that the new clause has been introduced with no opportunity for tenants or their representatives to be consulted and make their views known, and with no opportunity for the Government to hear from them at first hand. Many times during Committee I have referred to my constituents—the people who, every week, come to my surgeries and write to me. Week in, week out, many people raise issues relating to security of tenure. They worry and are caused great anxiety—in fact, it affects their mental health to know that they might have to take their children out of school to move to a more affordable area. Insecurity of tenure undermines people’s ability to save for the future, the strength of community connections, and the ability of people to support each other in a mixed, balanced and diverse community. These things matter to all residents, not only those who can afford to buy their own home.

I would like the Committee and the Government to hear at first hand from tenants and leaseholders—those who live alongside tenants on our mixed and diverse estates—about the effect the new clause will have on them. I hope that the Government will withdraw the new clause so that tenants’ views on it can be heard and can inform the debate.

[Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship once again, Mr Gray.

I rise to oppose the new clauses and new schedules. In doing so, I will try to be as measured as my hon. Friends the Members for City of Durham and for Dulwich and West Norwood, but I too am angry. Let us be clear: this is not just one group of a bunch of new provisions that have been tabled; taken together, the new clauses and new schedules represent a significant reform of housing law—probably, as my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham said, the most important since local authority tenants were given security of tenure by the Thatcher Government in the Housing Act 1980. We can have a robust debate about the rationale for the Government’s policy, but whatever the views of individual Members on the Government and Opposition Benches, there is absolutely no justification for the shabby way that these provisions have been brought before the Committee. There has been no consultation or impact assessment. The Minister says we will get one sometime before the Bill goes to the House of Lords, but that will not give the Committee an opportunity to scrutinise this important legislation properly.

[Mr Thomas]

Is it not all the more disappointing that the Minister has confirmed that housing association tenants also face the potential loss of their secure tenancies? We do not know when there will be a consultation on that either, in the same way as there has not yet been a consultation on the provisions before us now.

[Matthew Pennycook]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. If I was a housing association tenant, or if I ran a housing association, I would be worried by the implications of the new clause and new schedules for tenants and for the sector as a whole.

Turning to some of the specifics, I have a number of concerns about the consequences, intended or otherwise, of the proposals. The most important is that the new clauses are yet another example of the centralising nature of the Bill. Perhaps that is the weakest part of the Government’s argument. The Minister argued that the measures are intended to promote the more efficient use of council housing, and the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton said that they are designed to make better use of stock, but the Localism Act 2011 already allows local authorities to grant fixed-term tenancies.

Currently, it is left to local councils to decide whether to grant traditional secure tenancies or fixed-term tenancies. The Minister touched on the fact that there will be freedom and opportunity for local authorities. If that is the aim, why the need for legislation? They have that as things stand. More telling was his staggering comment that the measures are needed because local authorities are not taking advantage of the freedoms available to them. What kind of localism is it that says to a local authority, “Here is a power that you can use if you decide, as a democratically elected local authority, that the housing needs in your area demand it, but if you don’t use it, we are going to take it away, make you look at it again and force you to use it”? That is not localism. As the Conservative party has championed localism, I thought that the Government might have thought about this measure a little more carefully.

My hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham has already said that the provisions for recovery of possession at the end of the fixed term and against a successor are not workable. Where a local authority grants a fixed-term tenancy, possession proceedings operate by way of forfeiture, yet the Bill excludes forfeiture from the remedies available against fixed-term tenancies. That is unsurprising, because the provisions have been introduced so hastily that the drafting is flawed and will need to be reviewed at a later date.

Perhaps the most important point is the one made powerfully by my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood. The new clauses and new schedules will have implications for the building and maintaining of stable and secure communities. I return to a point that we have touched on several times previously, including in our discussion of the pay to stay clauses. When we look at social and public housing as a zero sum game, through the lens of dependency and economic subsidy, as Government Members clearly do, we are into a world where we are undermining mixed communities. I thought that the Government—the coalition Government certainly stated this—believed in sustainable, inclusive, mixed communities. How can we have mixed communities if anyone who does well, who saves and gets a better job, is encouraged to move on?

As my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead, who has actually experienced living in social housing, has said, if they have the opportunity and the security and stability on which to do it, most people will take the opportunity to buy their own home and move out at some point in the future. Coercing people or applying pressure on them to do so is not the way to encourage them to move on. That is what the provisions will do.

The new clauses do not, as the Minister said, strike the right balance; they will be deeply damaging to communities throughout England, including those I represent in Plumstead, Charlton, Woolwich and Greenwich. I encourage the Minister to visit some of the estates and talk to the people there, who will say exactly as my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood did: the people who hold these communities together—the glue, if you like—are those tenants who have perhaps done a little better than others but have stayed and are trusted and looked to as community figures.

The measures will increase transience and churn and undermine mixed communities. They are conclusive proof that the central thrust of the Bill is an attack on public housing and the families who rely on it. It is bad policy and, more important, it is bad policy making. The Government should go away and look again and at least, at a minimum, if they really believe in this, come back to us after a consultation when we can look at a proper impact assessment. They should not be introducing these new clauses in such a shabby way.

[Mr Jones]

rose—

[The Chair]

I call the Minister.

[Peter Dowd]

rose—

[The Chair]

Order. The hon. Gentleman should realise that if he wants to catch my eye, he must stand up in his place.

[Peter Dowd]

Okay. Thank you very much, Mr Gray. I tried to catch your eye earlier, but, regrettably, I obviously did not.

[The Chair]

When an hon. Member wishes to speak, he stands in his place and I then call him. If he does not stand in his place, I presume he no longer wishes to speak. He cannot do it by waving.

[Peter Dowd]

I was trying, Mr Gray.

[The Chair]

I am sorry, I do not intend to argue about it, but I will say it again: if an hon. Member wishes to speak, they stand in their place. If they do not, they do not get called, for the very simple reason that for all I know he or she may well have changed their mind. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to be called, he must stand in his place.

[Peter Dowd]

Thank you for your advice, Mr Gray, which I genuinely appreciate.

My hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham made a powerful case about the contradictions between the provisions in the new clauses and localism. As a council leader, I experienced such contradictions many times. We were constantly being told about all these local powers and having the discretion to do this or that, but of course it was only if it was what the Government wanted us to do. If we did not do what the Government wanted, they forced us to, and if we did, they said, “There you are, you’ve volunteered to do it.” I therefore completely understand and accept my hon. Friend’s contention that this localism policy is not really a localism policy.

12:45

The Government have the powers, attitude and guile of Cardinal Richelieu, but want to act like a country vicar when it suits them. They cannot have it both ways. The bottom line is that this is a modern version of a tied cottage, but without noblesse oblige from the landowner. That is what is before us. In effect, we are discussing the threat of eviction after five years. Let us not dress it up in any other way—it is a threat of eviction. People might be able to go through some processes, but in reality that is what the new clause is. It is an extension of the concept of the bedroom tax. Not content with saying, “If you have three bedrooms, you’ll have to pay for two of them, or move out,” the Government are extending that by not even giving people the opportunity to pay, but instead saying that after a certain number of years, “You’re out of this property.”

I asked my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham about the case of a 46-year-old widow because it is a real case about which we have to get answers or assurances from the Government. That could be what will happen to that widow, and the sort of answer we need is that she will be able to stay in her home with her family. We need those answers not next week or in six weeks’ time, but today. The Government constantly tell us about the military covenant in this day and age, and that is the sort of issue that goes to the heart of it. There are lots of warm words, but the Government must guarantee that such things as I have described will not happen, because any breach is a breach of the covenant. In Committee we must think of precisely such things when we make our decisions.

I do not mind a law of intended consequences, as long as people are clear about them, but the new clause might be a law of unintended consequences. It is coming to something when the Government are rolling back some of the social provisions added by Mrs Thatcher. That is a remarkable movement backwards—quite incredible.

I ask the Government to consider the new clause carefully. It is not about emotion and bluff; it will be affecting people’s lives day in, day out. I ask them to consider carefully the impact on communities and their cohesion in coming years—not in two or three years, but in five or 10 years’ time, when most of us—or at least most of the Opposition Members—will be retired, including me.

[Mr Jones]

I have heard the comments of Opposition Members, including the hon. Member for City of Durham. The hon. Lady seems to be most surprised that the Government are introducing these measures, but I am surprised that she is surprised. In August 2010 the Prime Minister first mentioned that the Government of the day were thinking of such provisions—the hon. Member for Bootle even highlighted that in his earlier intervention—and that was followed by the Localism Act 2011, which took the proposals further, and by the Chancellor’s announcement in this year’s summer Budget. The Labour party should not be surprised.

[Teresa Pearce]

I hear what the Minister is saying, but given that the measure has been in the pipeline since 2010, why was it not in the Bill?

[Mr Jones]

Obviously it will be in the Bill now.

[Teresa Pearce]

Why was it not in the Bill?

[Mr Jones]

Because we want to get such things right. We believe that we have now put a good package together—

[Peter Dowd]

rose—

[Mr Jones]

I am not going to give way at the moment. I want to read from a newspaper article quoting a Minister:

“the minister did say the current system had to be re-thought as it concentrated dependency and disadvantage in particular estates, frustrating people’s attempts to either get out of social housing or to get into it.”

I completely agree with that statement, but it was said in 2008 by the right hon. Member for Derby South (Margaret Beckett), when she was a Minister in the Department in which I am privileged to serve. She said:

“What we have at the moment is not effective or sustainable and it seems to me that people deserve better.”

The article states that she

“indicated that she wanted to encourage social tenants or would-be social tenants to look beyond social housing to the private sector”.

It quotes her saying:

“If people could find greater stability and security in the private rented sector, or could take advantage of low cost home ownership, then maybe fewer would think that social housing was their only option.”

It is telling that that was the thinking in 2008 of the Labour Government and the Department for Communities and Local Government, in which the shadow Housing and Planning Minister, the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey), served as a Minister.

The thinking of the Labour Government at the time was similar to our thinking now and seemed to be in the centre ground. If the Labour party had won in 2010—if the electorate had not seen fit to throw out that discredited shambles of a Labour Government—and the country had had the misfortune of having another Labour Government, there is every possibility that they would have taken a similar approach to the one we are taking now.

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

rose—

[Mr Jones]

I am interested in hearing the hon. Lady’s view on that.

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

The Minister must really be struggling to defend this policy if the best he can come up with is a Minister many, many years ago making what we all thought were personal comments. They were never accepted as Labour party policy or proposed in legislation. That was a speech in which she made personal comments. [Laughter.] I find it pretty shocking that Government Members are laughing, given that these clauses seek to take important rights from people. Labour did not take that approach either in government or in opposition, and the Minister should not suggest that we did.

[Andrew Griffiths (Burton) (Con)]

rose—

[Mr Jones]

My hon. Friend the Member for Burton wants to intervene on the hon. Member for City of Durham, and I understand why he wishes to do so. The then Housing Minister made those comments at a housing conference at the Adam Smith Institute in her capacity as a Minister of the Government of the time. I find it difficult to square that with the fact that the hon. Lady just said that they were personal comments. They were not personal comments; they were the comments of the Labour Government at the time. That is the direction that the Labour Government would have taken if they had been re-elected in 2010. The hon. Lady said that I am struggling to defend the policy—in a moment, I will give her some more detail about why I am confident in defending it—but I think she is struggling to put up an argument against it.

[Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)]

rose—

[Peter Dowd]

rose—

[Mr Jones]

I will take an intervention from the Government side first.

[Stephen Hammond]

I just want to put on the record that the only reason why I and several colleagues laughed was the shadow Minister’s shocking response and the fact that she dared to disown comments that were clearly made at an official conference by an official representative of the Government of the time. It is an extraordinarily inadequate response.

[Mr Jones]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. It is an indication either of how far to the left the Labour party has gone or that, as usual, Labour Members have selective amnesia about the views their party held when they were in government. Time is pressing, so I shall move on.

The hon. Lady mentioned the protection for tenants who do not have their tenancy renewed. The Protection from Eviction Act 1977 means that if a person is being evicted, a court hearing will always be required. Human rights issues can be considered at that hearing. In my initial remarks, I also said that before any court hearing there would be an internal review so that the local authority in question could ensure that it had complied with its own housing policy on evicting a tenant.

A comment was made about the policy being burdensome. The legislation is all about making better use of social housing, and it will certainly save on temporary accommodation costs and the need to manage waiting lists. Our assessment of the policy’s impact will be revised, but we need to consider the family who have been in high-rent temporary accommodation for years. The Government have already shown a commitment to such people by allowing those in temporary accommodation to move into the private rented sector, which means that people who have to use such accommodation now do so for, on average, seven months less than was the case in 2010. That shows that the Conservative party is interested in getting the most vulnerable people housed, not in a policy built on ideology, as the Labour party seems to be.

[Mr Thomas]

The Minister was asked specifically why there has been no consultation on the proposal in the new clause. Will he answer that question now?

[Mr Jones]

I think I have said at some length, not just in this debate, that we have been consulting on our intentions since 2010. We believe the policy is the right thing to do, so I commend the new clause to the Committee.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

Division 14

Ayes: 11

---

Conservative: 11

Noes: 7

---

Labour: 5

New clause 32 read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 33

Succession to secure tenancies and related tenancies

“Schedule (Succession to secure tenancies and related tenancies) changes the law about succession to secure tenancies, introductory tenancies and demoted tenancies.”—(Mr Marcus Jones.)

Certain people have the right to inherit a secure tenancy when the tenant dies. At the moment the successor could live in the property for life. This amendment and NS5 change the succession rules. Where a person other than a spouse or partner inherits a periodic tenancy, it will be converted into a 5 year fixed term. Where a person other than a spouse or partner inherits a fixed term tenancy, it will not automatically be renewed when it comes to an end.

Brought up, and read the First time.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

Division 15

Ayes: 11

---

Conservative: 11

Noes: 7

---

Labour: 5

New clause 33 read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 9

Duty to promote lending to small and medium sized house builders

“(1) The Secretary of State shall have a duty to promote lending by banks to small and medium sized house builders.

(2) A small or medium sized builder in subsection (1) is a builder that has fewer than 250 employees.”—(Mr Gareth Thomas.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

13:00

[Mr Thomas]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

New clause 9 would add to the Bill a duty to promote lending to small and medium-sized house builders. There has already been some conversation in Committee about the need to do a little more to help a sector of the house building industry that has been struggling in recent years. Small firms lack many of the advantages of scale of larger house builders, particularly in terms of access to finance and access to land and other assets against which to borrow that finance on good terms.

Small builders are often very dependent on a smaller number of land sites and face, in the words of an economics report,

“lumpy, volatile cash flows as land is purchased, sites developed and sales made”.

Equally, small and medium-sized house builders are surely a crucial part of the sector, given their appetite for developing smaller sites that larger firms often do not want to develop themselves. SME house builders can often be more agile players in the housing market and can use local knowledge and expertise to make the most of small sites. In that way, the contribution of SME house builders also provides an opportunity to increase the number of jobs, to help economic growth and, obviously, to ensure that additional homes get built.

The National House-Building Council has charted the decline in the number of SME house builders from the mid-1980s. It notes that, in the mid-1980s, there were some 12,000 SME house builders, which by 2013 had declined to just under 4,000. Evidence presented to Labour’s Lyons review by the Home Builders Federation suggested that there were some 7,600 dormant SME house builders that were doing other kinds of construction work. The crucial point is that there is capacity that could be drawn back into the housing market to build additional homes in the right circumstance. The Lyons review heard that access to development finance, and its cost, was the key problem preventing many SME house builders from coming back into the market.

The current Federation of Master Builders survey, which came out in September, continues to highlight the scale of the problems that many house builders have in accessing finance. The responses to that survey from different house building firms might give hon. Members an additional indication of the scale of the difficulty. One talked about the disproportionate and high interest charges in relation to security held by lenders. One simply said that there is no finance available for small companies. Another said, “Unless you are an established developer with at least five years of profitable developments under your belt and are cash rich, there really isn’t any finance available to grow. The banks just aren’t interested.”

[Chris Philp]

I draw hon. Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. What the hon. Gentleman says is laudable, but I am unsure how the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government can promote bank lending when he has no power to direct banks. Moreover, banks are constrained by Basel III, a set of international banking regulations, so I would be interested to hear the hon. Gentleman’s commentary on how the Secretary of State can influence bank activity.

[Mr Thomas]

There are a number of ways in which the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government can intervene and promote lending to small and medium-sized businesses. Simply convening meetings with banks to encourage them and talking through the issues that they have in lending to small and medium-sized construction companies would be a start. The hon. Gentleman raises a separate point about Basel III, which I accept was a sensible reform, but the Secretary of State’s friend in the Treasury has introduced other measures that have also had an impact on the availability of cash for lending to small and medium-sized house builders, which the Secretary of State might be able to challenge more easily if the duty were in the legislation.

One way to help small firms to access the credit that they need might be to provide more guarantees for bank lending. A guarantor bank is one suggestion and would guarantee certain tranches of loans to small and medium-sized builders with the condition that funding be used to develop homes, helping to lower the cost of finance as well as increasing the availability of finance to small and medium-sized builders. That was proposed by Capital Economics to the Lyons review and mirrors the Government’s existing Help to Buy scheme. It would essentially be a help-to-build scheme—[Interruption.] I hear the hon. Gentleman heckling me from a sedentary position. If he wants to intervene to make a point, I am happy to take his intervention.

[Chris Philp]

The funding for lending scheme is already doing very effectively exactly what the hon. Gentleman describes.

[Mr Thomas]

I say gently to the hon. Gentleman that I have not made up the Home Builders Federation’s concerns. The quotes that I have just given are real. There is a real problem preventing many small and medium-sized house builders from accessing finance. I suggest to him that more needs to be done and the new clause is a way of doing that.

Finally, there is one other option available if a guarantor bank or a help-to-build scheme were not acceptable. Government and Opposition Members will be familiar with the regional growth fund. A series of community development finance institutions occasionally work with construction firms but have difficulty in building their capital base. Regional growth fund moneys might be better used in increasing their ability to lend money to small businesses in their communities. In the context of the new clause, some of that financing could be directed at helping small and medium-sized house builders.

[Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Thomas]

How could I not give way to the hon. Gentleman?

[Mr Bacon]

I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman is prepared to give way. I am worried for the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich, who looks very hungry, but the hon. Member for Harrow West is so interesting that we have to keep going. He will be interested to know that the Minister for Housing and Planning, the leader of South Norfolk Council and I were at a self-build summit yesterday at which we heard financiers from Lloyds bank and Nationwide Building Society talking about such issues. It is really not about legislation. The hon. Gentleman needs to know that it is about de-risking. Does he not understand that, were we to have large projects with local development orders, as has been done by Cherwell District Council with the largest self-build project in the country, for example, that automatically de-risks things and makes automatically coming forward much more attractive to lenders?

[The Chair]

Order. You must be brief.

[Mr Thomas]

I am sorry that you cut the hon. Gentleman short, Mr Gray. Perhaps a speech might allow him to give the Committee a bit more information. I simply bring him back to the evidence from the Federation of Master Builders, which said that, if the small and medium-sized house building sector’s access to finance was improved, it could deliver an additional 20,000 homes per year. I gently suggest to the hon. Gentleman, with whom I have happily worked on self-build, custom build and housing co-operatives, that here might be an issue for us to co-operate on. We could champion the needs of small and medium-sized builders and address the problems of access to finance. That is the spirit of the new clause.

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Julian Smith.)

13:10

Adjourned till this day at Two o’clock.

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chairs: Mr James Gray †, Sir Alan Meale

† Bacon, Mr Richard (South Norfolk) (Con)

† Blackman-Woods, Dr Roberta (City of Durham) (Lab)

† Caulfield, Maria (Lewes) (Con)

† Dowd, Peter (Bootle) (Lab)

† Griffiths, Andrew (Burton) (Con)

† Hammond, Stephen (Wimbledon) (Con)

† Hayes, Helen (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)

† Hollinrake, Kevin (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)

† Jackson, Mr Stewart (Peterborough) (Con)

† Jones, Mr Marcus (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government)

† Kennedy, Seema (South Ribble) (Con)

† Lewis, Brandon (Minister for Housing and Planning)

† Morris, Grahame M. (Easington) (Lab)

† Pearce, Teresa (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)

† Pennycook, Matthew (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)

† Philp, Chris (Croydon South) (Con)

† Smith, Julian (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)

† Thomas, Mr Gareth (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)

Glen McKee, Helen Wood, Committee Clerks

† attended the Committee

Public Bill Committee

Thursday 10 December 2015

(Morning)

[Mr James Gray in the Chair]

Housing and Planning Bill

11:30

I welcome the Committee to the final day of its consideration of the Housing and Planning Bill. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] I remind Members that, under the programme motion, the Bill has to be out by 5 pm.

New Clause 2

Revocation or variation of banning orders

“(1) A person against whom a banning order is made may apply to the First-tier Tribunal for an order under this section revoking or varying the order.

(2) If the banning order was made on the basis of one or more convictions all of which are overturned on appeal, the First-tier Tribunal must revoke the banning order.

(3) If the banning order was made on the basis of more than one conviction and some of them (but not all) have been overturned on appeal, the First-tier Tribunal may—

(a) vary the banning order, or

(b) revoke the banning order.

(4) If the banning order was made on the basis of one or more convictions that have become spent, the First-tier Tribunal may—

(a) vary the banning order, or

(b) revoke the banning order.

(5) The power to vary a banning order under (3)(a) or (4)(a) may be used to add new exceptions to a ban or to vary—

(a) the banned activities,

(b) the length of a ban, or

(c) existing exceptions to a ban.

(6) In this section ‘spent’, in relation to a conviction, means spent for the purposes of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974.”—(Mr Marcus Jones.)

This amendment allows a banning order to be revoked or varied in certain circumstances.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 3

Offence of breach of banning order

“(1) A person who breaches a banning order commits an offence.

(2) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a period not exceeding 51 weeks or to a fine or to both.

(3) If a financial penalty under section 17 has been imposed in respect of the breach, the person may not be convicted of an offence under this section.

(4) In relation to an offence committed before section 281(5) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 comes into force, the reference in subsection (2) to 51 weeks is to be read as a reference to 6 months.”—(Mr Marcus Jones.)

This amendment makes it an offence to breach a banning order.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 4

Offences by bodies corporate

“(1) Where an offence under section (Offence of breach of banning order) committed by a body corporate is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of, or to be attributable to any neglect on the part of, an officer of a body corporate, the officer as well as the body corporate commits the offence and is liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.

(2) Where the affairs of a body corporate are managed by its members, subsection (1) applies in relation to the acts and defaults of a member in connection with the member’s functions of management as if the member were an officer of the body corporate.”—(Mr Marcus Jones.)

This amendment ensures that officers of a body corporate can be prosecuted for offences committed by it under NC3. “Officer” is given a broad definition by clause 48 of the Bill.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 5

Power to require information

“(1) A local housing authority may require a person to provide specified information for the purpose of enabling the authority to decide whether to apply for a banning order against the person. It is an offence for the person to fail to comply with a requirement, unless the person has a reasonable excuse for the failure. It is an offence for the person to provide information that is false or misleading if the person knows that the information is false or misleading or is reckless as to whether it is false or misleading.

(2) A person who commits an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to a fine.”—(Mr Marcus Jones.)

This amendment allows a local housing authority to require a person to provide information for the purpose of deciding whether to apply for a banning order. For example, the number of properties that a landlord has may be relevant to whether an authority applies for a banning order. The power would allow the authority to require the landlord to provide that information.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 6

Removal or variation of entries made under section 24

“(1) An entry made in the database under section 24 may be removed or varied in accordance with this section.

(2) If the entry was made on the basis of one or more convictions all of which are overturned on appeal, the responsible local housing authority must remove the entry.

(3) If the entry was made on the basis of more than one conviction and some of them (but not all) have been overturned on appeal, the responsible local housing authority may—

(a) remove the entry, or

(b) reduce the period for which the entry must be maintained.

(4) If the entry was made on the basis of one or more convictions that have become spent, the responsible local housing authority may—

(a) remove the entry, or

(b) reduce the period for which the entry must be maintained.

(5) If a local housing authority removes an entry in the database, or reduces the period for which it must be maintained, it must notify the person to whom the entry relates.

(6) In this section—

‘responsible local housing authority’ means the local housing authority by which the entry was made;

‘spent’, in relation to a conviction, means spent for the purposes of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974.”—(Mr Marcus Jones.)

This amendment allows a local housing authority to remove an entry in the database of rogue landlords and property agents or reduce the time for which the entry must be maintained in certain circumstances. See also NC7. There is no mention of clause 23 as an entry under that clause is maintained for as long as the banning order has effect.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 7

Requests for exercise of powers under section (Removal or variation of entries made under section 24) and appeals

“(1) A person in respect of whom an entry is made in the database under section 24 may request the responsible local housing authority to use its powers under section (Removal or variation of entries made under section 24) to—

(a) remove the entry, or

(b) reduce the period for which the entry must be maintained.

(2) The request must be in writing.

(3) Where a request is made, the local housing authority must—

(a) decide whether to comply with the request, and

(b) give the person notice of its decision.

(4) If the local housing authority decides not to comply with the request the notice must include—

(a) reasons for that decision, and

(b) a summary of the appeal rights conferred by this section.

(5) Where a person is given notice that the responsible local housing authority has decided not to comply with the request the person may appeal to the First-tier Tribunal against that decision.

(6) An appeal to the First-tier Tribunal under subsection (5) must be made before the end of the period of 21 days beginning with the day on which the notice was given.

(7) The First-tier Tribunal may allow an appeal to be made to it after the end of that period if satisfied that there is a good reason for the person’s failure to appeal within the period (and for any subsequent delay).

(8) On an appeal under this section the tribunal may order the local housing authority to—

(a) remove the entry, or

(b) reduce the period for which the entry must be maintained.” —(Mr Marcus Jones.)

This amendment allows a person to request a local housing authority to use its powers to remove or vary an entry in the database of rogue landlords and property agents (see NC6). If the local housing authority refuses, the person may appeal to the First-tier Tribunal.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 8

Meaning of “property manager” and related expressions

“(1) In this Part ‘property manager’ means a person who engages in English property management work.

(2) In this Part ‘English property management work’ means things done by a person in the course of a business in response to instructions received from another person (‘the client’) where—

(a) the client wishes the person to arrange services, repairs, maintenance, improvements or insurance in respect of, or to deal with any other aspect of the management of, premises on the client’s behalf, and

(b) the premises consist of housing in England let under a tenancy.”—(Mr Marcus Jones.)

This and related amendments are intended to ensure that a banning order can be made against any person who engages in property management work, not just letting agents who engage in such work.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 17

Default powers exercisable by Mayor of London or combined authority

“(1) After section 27 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 insert—

‘27A Default powers exercisable by Mayor of London or combined authority

Schedule A1 (default powers exercisable by Mayor of London or combined authority) has effect.’

(2) Before Schedule 1 to that Act insert, as Schedule A1, the Schedule set out in Schedule (Default powers exercisable by Mayor of London or combined authority: Schedule to be inserted in the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004) to this Act.

(3) In section 17 of that Act (local development documents), at the end of subsection (8) insert—

‘(c) is approved by the Mayor of London under paragraph 2 of Schedule A1;

(d) is approved by a combined authority under paragraph 6 of that Schedule.’”—(Mr Marcus Jones.)

This new Clause and NS2 make provision for the Secretary of State to invite the Mayor of London or a combined authority to prepare or revise a development plan document for a local planning authority in their area that is failing to progress the document.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 18

Amendments to do with section 111 to 117

“Schedule (Right to enter and survey land: consequential amendments) amends legislation conferring rights of entry relating to the acquisition of an interest in or a right over land in England and Wales.”—(Mr Marcus Jones.)

This amendment, together with amendment 257 and new Schedule (Right to enter and survey land: consequential amendments), clarifies how the new right of entry in clause 111 will interact with a number of existing rights of entry.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 23

Procedure for redeeming English rentcharges

“(1) The Rentcharges Act 1977 is amended in accordance with subsections (2) to (5).

(2) Before section 8 (but after the italic heading before section 8) insert—

‘7A Power to make procedure for redeeming English rentcharges

(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision allowing the owner of land in England affected by a rentcharge to redeem it.

(2) Regulations under subsection (1) may not make provision in relation to—For the purposes of subsection (2)(d) a rentcharge is variable if the amount of the rentcharge will, or may, vary in the future in accordance with the provisions of the instrument under which it is payable.

(a) a rentcharge that could be redeemed by making an application under section 8(1A),

(b) a rentcharge of a kind mentioned in section 2(3) or section 3(3)(a),

(c) a rentcharge in respect of which the period for which it is payable cannot be ascertained, or

(d) a variable rentcharge.

(3) Regulations under subsection (1) may, in particular—

(a) provide for the owner of land affected by a rentcharge to be able to redeem a rentcharge by taking specified steps, including making payments determined in accordance with the regulations;

(b) require a rent owner or other person to take specified steps to facilitate the redemption of a rentcharge, such as providing information or executing a deed of release;

(c) where the documents of title of the owner of land affected by a rentcharge are in the custody of a mortgagee, require the mortgagee to make those documents or copies of those documents available in accordance with the regulations;

(d) permit or require a person specified in the regulations to design the form of any document to be used in connection with the redemption of rentcharges under the regulations;

(e) provide for a court or tribunal to—

(i) determine disputes about or in relation to the redemption of a rentcharge;

(ii) make orders about the redemption of a rentcharge;

(iii) issue a redemption certificate;

(f) make provision corresponding to any of the provisions of section 10(2) to (4).

(4) Nothing in this section prevents the redemption of a rentcharge otherwise than in accordance with regulations under subsection (1).’

(3) In section 8—

(a) in subsection (1)—

(i) after ‘land’ insert ‘in Wales’;

(ii) for the words from ‘a certificate’ to the end substitute ‘a redemption certificate’;

(b) after subsection (1) insert—

‘(1A) The owner of any land in England affected by a rentcharge which has been apportioned to that land by an apportionment order with a condition under—

(a) section 7(2) above, or

(b) section 20(1) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1927,

may apply to the Secretary of State, in accordance with this section, for a redemption certificate.’

(4) In section 12—

(a) in subsection (1), after ‘this Act’ insert ‘, apart from regulations under section 7A,’;

(b) after subsection (1) insert—

‘(1A) Regulations under section 7A are to be made by statutory instrument.

(1B) A statutory instrument containing regulations under section 7A may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.’

(5) In section 13(1), in the definition of ‘redemption certificate’, for the words from ‘has’ to the end substitute ‘means a certificate certifying that a rentcharge has been redeemed’.

(6) The Leasehold Reform Act 1967 is amended in accordance with subsections (7) and (8).

(7) In section 8(4)(b), for ‘8’ substitute ‘7A’.

(8) In section 11—

(a) in subsection (6), after ‘1977’ insert ‘or the amount that would have to be paid to secure the redemption of that rentcharge in accordance with regulations made under section 7A of that Act’;

(b) in subsection (7)(a), after ‘specified’ insert ‘or required’;

(c) in subsection (8), for ‘8’ substitute ‘7A’.”—(Mr Marcus Jones.)

This amendment will permit the Secretary of State to make regulations allowing the owner of land in England that is affected by a rentcharge to redeem that rentcharge without making an application to the Secretary of State as the procedure in section 8 of the Rentcharges Act 1977 would involve.

Brought up, and read the First time.

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr Gray, it has been a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship these past few weeks, and it remains so today. With your permission, before I speak to new clause 23, I would like to inform the Committee that last night I sent the Clerks an updated assessment of the Bill’s legislative competence, following the amendments agreed so far and those being discussed today. I trust that it will help to inform Mr Speaker when he comes to re-certify the Bill at the appropriate time.

New clause 23 give the Secretary of State a power to make regulations setting out a new statutory redemption procedure for rentcharges, excluding those specified in new section 7A(2) of the Rentcharges Act 1977, as inserted by subsection (2) of the new clause. Currently, a rent payer can apply to the Secretary of State under section 8 of the 1977 Act for a redemption certificate. The rentcharge team will carry out the necessary checks and advise the rent payer on the amount needed for redemption. Once that amount has been paid, the team will issue a certificate of redemption.

We do not believe it appropriate in this day and age, and especially in the current financial climate, for the Government to continue to have a role in the redemption of rentcharges. The clause will allow the current procedure to be replaced with a mechanism that will be set out in regulations. The new procedure will no longer involve the Secretary of State in the redemption of rentcharges. Instead, the rent owner and the rent payer will be required to take certain steps for the redemption of a rentcharge. [Interruption.]

On a point of order, Mr Gray. I am trying to listen to the Minister with great interest, but there is clearly a conversation going on elsewhere within the room that is preventing me from listening to what feels like an excellent contribution.

I am grateful for that point of order from the Opposition Back Benches. The Government Whip might like to take note—[Interruption.] I repeat: the Government Whip might like to take note of the point of order, which is that there are too many conversations—mainly involving the Government Whip—happening on the Back Benches.

Thank you, Mr Gray.

It will still be possible for the parties to reach a private agreement on redemption voluntarily outside the statutory regime. The existing redemption procedure is set out in primary legislation. The power to set out the new procedure in regulation provides the flexibility to make changes with greater ease than would otherwise be the case. The new regime is likely to contain a level of detail not suited to primary legislation, as the regulations will be concerned with substantive matters, such as the property rights of both the rent payer and the rent owner, and will include provision on dispute resolution. It seems appropriate for the regulations to be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.

I do not wish to say too much about the new clause at this stage, because I am conscious that much of the detail will come in regulations, and I am partly assured by the fact that the regulations will be affirmative. Presumably, we will get an opportunity at a later stage to consider the implications of the new clause in more detail.

I thank the hon. Lady for her contribution. On the basis of the assurance that we have provided to her, I commend the new clause to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

New clause 23 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 32

Secure tenancies etc: phasing out of tenancies for life

“Schedule (Secure tenancies etc: phasing out of tenancies for life) changes the law about secure tenancies, introductory tenancies and demoted tenancies to phase out tenancies for life.”—(Mr Marcus Jones.)

A secure tenant can currently live in a property for life. This amendment and NS4 phase out lifetime tenancies. In future secure tenancies will generally have to be for a fixed term of 2 to 5 years and will not automatically be renewed. Towards the end of the term, the landlord will have to do a review to decide whether to grant a new tenancy or recover possession.

Brought up, and read the First time.

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government new clause 33—Succession to secure tenancies and related tenancies.

Government new schedule 4—Secure tenancies etc: phasing out of tenancies for life.

Government new schedule 5—Succession to secure tenancies and related tenancies.

New clause 32 and new schedule 4 together prevent local authorities in England from offering secure tenancies for life in most circumstances. They deliver on a commitment in the July Budget to review the use of lifetime tenancies, with a view to limiting their use. Currently, the vast majority of new social housing tenancies are offered on a lifetime basis, meaning tenants have the right to live in their social home for the rest of their lives, provided they keep to the conditions of their tenancy.

Since April 2012, following changes introduced by the coalition Government’s Localism Act 2011, local authorities have been able to offer so-called flexible tenancies—tenancies of a fixed term of no less than two years. However, they are not taking advantage of that flexibility. In 2014-15, only 8% of social tenancies granted by local authorities were flexible tenancies. That is only just over than 9,000 in all. At present, 236,000 social tenants are forced to live in overcrowded conditions due to the lack of suitably sized properties, while 380,000 households occupy social housing with two or more spare bedrooms. Under those circumstances, we believe that continuing to offer social tenancies on a lifetime basis is not an efficient use of scarce social housing.

The new clauses will significantly improve landlords’ ability to get the best use out of social housing by focusing it on those who need it most for as long as they need it. That will ensure that people who need long-term support are provided with more appropriate tenancies as their needs change over time and will support households to make the transition into home ownership where they can. In future, with limited exceptions, local authority landlords will only be able to grant tenancies with a fixed term of between two and five years, and will be required to use tenancy review points to support tenants’ move towards home ownership where appropriate.

Let me be clear: we are not taking away security of tenure from existing lifetime tenants who remain in their home. Moreover, these amendments will ensure that where existing lifetime tenants are moved by their landlord—for example, as part of an estate regeneration—they will retain their lifetime tenancy. We want to ensure that fixed-term tenancies do not act as a barrier to mobility.

Where lifetime tenants choose to move, local authority landlords will have limited discretion to offer further lifetime tenancies. We will prescribe the circumstances in which local authorities may exercise that discretion in regulations. We expect that such circumstances will include tenants downsizing to a smaller property and moving for work. We will obviously ensure that we develop the regulations in discussion with local authorities. Outside those limited exceptions, if local authorities try to offer a lifetime tenancy or one that is shorter than two years or longer than five, whether deliberately or by mistake, the tenancy will default to a five-year fixed term.

In the main, the statutory protections that the amendments provide for those granted a fixed-term tenancy are similar to those currently enjoyed by flexible tenants. A person who is offered a fixed-term tenancy by a prospective landlord may request a review of the landlord’s decision on the length of term offered. The landlord will be required to look at their decision again and explain how it was reached in the light of their published tenancy policy.

For an amendment or something as substantial as what the Minister is proposing, an impact assessment would normally be published. Do the Government intend to do anything like that?

The hon. Gentleman raises a good question, which I will come to later in my remarks.

Tenants will usually be able to terminate their tenancy at any stage, while enjoying protection from eviction during the fixed term. The local authority landlord will need to demonstrate to the court that one or more of the grounds for possession is proven and that they are acting reasonably in seeking possession.

The amendments will introduce an important new statutory protection. Local authority landlords will be required to carry out a review of the tenant’s circumstances between six and nine months before the end of the fixed term, so that they can take an appropriate decision about the household’s housing need and advise the tenant on their housing options. That will include moving into home ownership where that is a realistic option. The new review process will also apply to existing flexible tenants unless they have less than nine months to go on their tenancy agreement.

11:45

In the review, the landlord will need to consider whether to renew the tenancy, offer the tenant another, more suitable social home or terminate the tenancy. We expect that in many cases the tenancy will be renewed, but where the landlord decides that it should not be, it is essential that the tenant be given the opportunity to challenge that decision, as well as sufficient time to find alternative accommodation, following advice and support from their landlord.

Where the landlord is minded not to grant a further tenancy at the end of the fixed term, they will need to serve a notice on the tenant six months before the end of the flexible tenancy, setting out the reasons for the decision, which should reflect the landlord’s published policy and give the tenant the opportunity to seek an internal review. Where that review upholds the landlord’s original decision, the tenant will have the right to challenge the landlord’s right of possession as part of the possession proceedings in the county court, on the grounds that the landlord has failed to conduct the review properly or made an error of law.

Currently, where landlords grant flexible tenancies, the tenancy will automatically become a lifetime tenancy at the end of the fixed term unless the landlord grants a new tenancy or obtains possession. These amendments ensure that that cannot happen in the future. Instead, unless the landlord grants a new tenancy, a further five-year fixed-term tenancy will arise automatically at the end of the fixed term. That does not prevent the landlord from bringing the original tenancy to an end, but it gives the tenant some protection, while ensuring that the tenancy does not roll over into a lifetime tenancy.

During a fixed-term tenancy, tenants will have the same rights as most secure and flexible tenants do now. As with existing flexible tenants, however, the right to improve and to be compensated for improvements will not apply to fixed-term tenancies. Landlords will still be able to grant such rights within the tenancy agreement if they so choose.

I am intrigued by what the Minister means when he talks about having the same rights. We have heard a lot in the past few weeks about how the Government want all social tenants to have the right to buy, but is it not the case that social tenants who have less than a three-year tenancy will not have the right to buy? Is that not a clear difference between those two different types of social tenant?

I thank the hon. Lady for her question. She makes a very good point, to which I will return.

We are including protections for existing introductory and demoted tenants at the time that the Bill comes into force. Where tenants have a legitimate expectation that they would be granted a lifetime tenancy at the end of the tenancy—because, in the case of demoted tenants, they were previously lifetime tenants, or because, in the case of introductory tenants, the tenancy would otherwise automatically convert to a lifetime tenancy—they will still be given a lifetime tenancy.

I believe that, taken together, the amendments strike the right balance between stability and quality for tenants—new and existing—flexibility for the landlord and a move towards home ownership.

Will the Minister clarify the previous point? If a tenant is currently a local authority tenant with a lifetime tenancy and they move within the stock, does the lifetime tenancy move with them or will they then have to be offered a two to five-year tenancy?

In my comments earlier, I set out clearly that that can be the case, but that will depend on the circumstances of the tenant at the time and the policy of the local authority.

We want housing association landlords and tenants to reap the benefits from shorter-term tenancies as well. However, we clearly need to consider any changes to housing associations in the light of the recent decision of the Office for National Statistics on classification. We are working through the ONS reclassification decision and considering the options but, given the complexity of the matter, careful consideration is needed. We will continue to work closely with the housing association sector, the social housing regulator and other stakeholders to finalise the deregulatory package, and we will consider any changes to lifetime tenancies in the context of that work.

New clause 33 and new schedule 5 change the rules on succession to secure tenancies and make equivalent changes for introductory and demoted tenancies. Currently there are significant differences between the succession rights for secure tenancies granted before April 2012 and those for tenancies granted after the date when changes under the Localism Act 2011 came into force.

For secure tenancies granted before April 2012 there is a limit of one succession. Spouses and civil partners qualify to succeed automatically, while other family members, including cohabitees, also qualify but only if they have lived with the tenant for at least 12 months immediately before his or her death.

Since April 2012, only spouses, civil partners and those living together as spouse or civil partner have a statutory right to succeed. However, local authorities can provide any additional succession rights that they think appropriate, including to people who have already succeeded, and to non-family members such as live-in carers.

We do not think that there is a justification for retaining the inconsistency of approach between pre-2012 and post-2012 local authority tenancies. We therefore propose that the succession rights for secure tenancies granted before April 2012 be aligned with those granted after that date. The amendments will deliver a consistent approach across all secure tenancies and ensure that common-law partners are put on an equal footing with married couples and civil partners.

Other family members who may have had an expectation of succeeding to a secure tenancy granted before April 2012, having lived with the tenant for at least 12 months, will lose their statutory right to succeed. We do not think that it is right that those who may not need social housing, because, for example, they can rent or buy privately, should have the automatic right to succeed to a social home when nearly 1.4 million households are on council waiting lists.

Perhaps I can take the Minister briefly back to his reference to the deregulation agenda in relation to housing associations. Is he minded to apply his proposed measures affecting council housing tenants to housing association tenants as well?

As I said a few minutes ago, we clearly need to consider any changes that we might want to make. As I intimated, we would consider that, but we need to make any changes in the light of the reclassification. That is why we are saying that we want to consider the position extremely carefully. We expect to work closely with the housing association sector and the social housing regulator, and other stakeholders, to finalise any deregulatory package. We will consider—and we are considering—changes. That will happen in the context of the work I have mentioned.

I was explaining that family members other than common-law partners, married couples and civil partners will lose any statutory right they may have had to succeed to a secure tenancy granted before April 2012. Instead, local authorities will have the discretion to grant them succession rights, which must be written into the tenancy agreement. Where local authorities grant additional succession rights, we expect they will apply the same rules to tenancies granted before and after April 2012. However, we will provide guidelines to assist local authorities to exercise their discretion.

As you know, Mr Gray, I listen avidly to what the Prime Minister says on these matters. In August 2010, in a speech in Birmingham, he said of this proposal that

“not everyone will support this and there will be quite a big argument”.

Well, he is right on that one: there will be a big argument. More importantly, however, he also said that the proposal would help with social mobility. It would be helpful if the Minister, in the absence of the Prime Minister, could explain why it will help with social mobility in any way whatever.

The measure will help with social mobility—all the policies in the Bill are aimed at helping with social mobility. We want people who are able to purchase their own property—to exercise the right to buy—to do so and to exercise what we see as a right to social mobility. Within this policy, in many cases, the circumstances of tenants will be reviewed; in certain cases, it may prompt people who may otherwise not have thought about purchasing their own home to do so where they feel they are able to. That is an important thing for everybody to have the opportunity to do if they are able to.

Does the Minister envisage any exemptions for households where there are young children? One thinks, for example, of the need to offer young children stability of schooling, allowing them to go through primary school or to complete their passage through GCSEs. Might there be flexibility on secure tenancies in that situation?

When a housing authority is doing a review of the circumstances of tenants who are in that position—where their bedrooms are fully occupied, and where they have children at schools—we would not expect it to assess their circumstances in the context that they have changed significantly enough to mean that those people would not be able to take a further tenancy from that authority. It is important to stress to the hon. Gentleman that this is all about trying to free up social housing for the people who really need it; this is not about taking away social housing from people whose circumstances have not changed significantly.

To come back to the point I was making about succession, even where family members do not benefit from additional succession rights, the landlord will still be able to issue them with a new tenancy in the same or a different property if they have had sufficient priority under the council’s allocation scheme. That will ensure that landlords take account of particularly hard cases. That feeds into the point made by the hon. Member for Harrow West.

The proposals ensure that spouses, civil partners and those who live together as such continue to have an automatic right to succeed to a lifetime tenancy. That seems only fair, particularly as, in many cases, they will be joint tenants. However, it is difficult to justify why other people should succeed to a lifetime tenancy, particularly when most new tenants will receive a five-year fixed-term tenancy. The proposals ensure, therefore, that anyone other than a spouse or partner will no longer be able to inherit a lifetime tenancy. Instead, if they qualify to succeed, they will be given a five-year fixed-term tenancy. At the end of the fixed-term period, the landlord will be required to carry out a review of their circumstances, as they would need to do for any new fixed-term tenant. If the tenant is still in need of social housing, the landlord will be able to grant a further fixed-term tenancy of between two and five years. We think that, taken together, the amendments strike the right balance between protection for the tenants and their families, and flexibility for landlords.

12:00

May I offer the Minister the example of a person who has a long-term disability and is in a specially adapted council property? Will there be an exemption for that person under the exemptions that the Minister says may be on offer through the regulations?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. There are people who have certain needs, and he mentioned somebody who is disabled and in a property that has been specially adapted to deal with that disability. He needs to realise that the amendments are not couched in terms of automatically asking somebody in those circumstances who comes to the end of a fixed-term tenancy to move on. They are about reviewing circumstances. If, after that review, it is found that the disability of the person in question has not changed and that they still need that type of property with the housing adaptations that have been made, the local authority should not do anything other than renew the tenancy, as long as the person who is occupying the property has fulfilled the obligations under their tenancy agreement.

Let me come on to one or two of the questions that were asked during the debate. A question was asked about the impact assessment. We will publish a revised Bill impact assessment, and this will certainly be included in that.

When?

I assure the hon. Gentleman that it will be published before the Bill goes to the Lords.

On the right to buy, the answer is yes, the tenant will still be able to exercise their right to buy. They must have had three years in social housing to be eligible. That is the same for flexible tenancies. Part of the purpose of the review at the end of the tenancy is to consider whether a person can exercise the right to buy if they are eligible to do so.

Will the Minister explain something? If somebody has less than a three-year tenancy, they will not have the right to buy. If they have a two-year tenancy, then a break and then another two-year tenancy, they will not have the right to buy. Is it possible that some local authorities will not grant longer tenancies as a way of not extending the right to buy to some tenants? Has the Minister looked at that to see whether it is a possible loophole?

I am trying to think carefully about the hon. Lady’s logic. I think that the circumstances she mentioned would apply to people who have a lifetime tenancy. If a person does two years and, by their own volition, whether they are on a lifetime tenancy or a fixed tenancy, moves into private rented accommodation and then comes back to the local authority for rehousing, they would not have built up the three years that makes them eligible to take on the right to buy.

This issue has come up several times. The hon. Lady is saying that the local authority moves them out of the property after two years, but at the end of the two-year fixed tenancy, the situation is reviewed and the people’s circumstances are taken into account. I cannot see that this policy will stop people being able to take up right to buy.

The provisions also align the succession rights of introductory and demoted tenants with those of secure tenants. Spouses, civil partners and those living together as a married couple will have a statutory right to succeed and the landlord will be able to grant additional succession rights in the tenancy agreement. None of the changes will apply where the tenant died before the Bill comes into force. I therefore hope that hon. Members will take the measures in the spirit in which they are intended and accept them.

I will be very measured in my comments on the two new clauses, but I want to say to the Minister and put on the record that I am extremely angry about what is contained in the new clauses. I am angry in terms of process and in terms of content. I do not think it is helpful to the deliberations of this Committee to have had these extremely controversial and wide-ranging new clauses added on the last day of the Committee. I am also angry because, as far as I can see, there has been—

Will the hon. Lady give way?

I will give way to the Minister.

I am looking at the new clauses before us today and the ones that the Committee has not dealt with previously. I can see only a small number of new clauses tabled by the Government, but a significantly greater number of new clauses submitted at this stage to the Committee. I ask the hon. Lady: is not what is good for the goose good for the gander?

I thought the Minister was going to make a serious intervention about the content of the new clauses. The point I was making is that the Government new clauses, which are wide ranging and controversial and have an impact on lots of people’s lives, should not have been brought to this Committee on the last day of its deliberations without any consultation, without an impact assessment and without any background information. It really is extraordinary. It is extremely bad practice and not good policy making.

It is the content of the clauses that concerns and outrages me. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) said this morning:

“People will be astonished that Ministers are legislating to deny families a stable home. This will cause worry and upheaval for tenants, and break up communities.”

Because the new clauses have not been in the public domain for long, people are only now trying to catch up with what the impact might mean for people. However, some housing lawyers have contacted us to say:

“Presently, local authorities generally grant periodic secure tenancies. Such tenancies have no automatic end date, rather, they end only when the court makes an order for possession or when a tenant gives up the tenancy. Moreover, if you are the spouse or civil partner of a local authority tenant then, on the death of that tenant, you can succeed to the tenancy on the same terms.”

Will the hon. Lady give way?

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment. I want to finish what I am saying about this particular issue. The housing lawyers who have contacted us said:

“The new clauses end both of these rights. If the new clauses are accepted, local authorities will only (save for limited exceptions which will mostly be dealt with in secondary legislation)”—

as we heard from the Minister earlier—

“be able to grant tenancies for a fixed term of between 2 and 5 years. Towards the end of the fixed term (defined as between 9 and 6 months before it ends) the landlord will decide whether to offer another fixed term. Whilst there is a right to ask a landlord to review a decision not to offer another fixed term, there is no right to challenge the decision, e.g. by appeal to a court.”

Therefore, the spouse or civil partner of a local authority tenant, on death of that tenant, might get a five-year tenancy, or they might not.

The lawyers continue:

“This is a major reform of housing law, probably the most important since local authority tenants were given security of tenure in the Housing Act 1980. It requires much more detailed (and technical) consideration than just being dropped in for debate on the last day of the Committee Stage. There are, for example, two unintended consequences”—

my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West has just raised one. There is great concern about the potential impact on the right to buy, but there is also major concern about provisions for recovery of possession at the end of the fixed term and for recovery of possession against a successor.

The lawyers say that the current proposals are simply unworkable because

“where a local authority grants a fixed term tenancy, possession proceedings operate by way of forfeiture. Yet the Bill excludes forfeiture from the remedies available against these fixed term tenancies.”

The lawyers direct the Minister to read “Flexible Tenancies and Forfeiture” by Andrew Dymond in volume 17 of the Journal of Housing Law so that he can see how the drafting is flawed.

The lawyers continue:

“a 2 year fixed term means, in reality, only 15 months of security (since the decision whether to extend your tenancy can start with 9 months remaining on the term)”.

A two-to-five-year churn, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West pointed out, has huge implications for the stability of families and communities. It is important that the Minister addresses some of the points about what churn could mean in practice for the stability of families.

As my hon. Friend the Minister pointed out, there are 1.4 million people on the housing waiting list. Does the hon. Lady recognise that there is a real need to make the best use of our housing stock? People’s lifestyles change, as they go from living in a larger family to perhaps living on their own in a house that is larger than they need. Are these not sensible proposals to make sure we make best use of our housing stock?

Local authorities already have the power to grant fixed-term tenancies if they wish to do so. The issue we have been struggling somewhat to get across in the Committee to date is that, if there is a huge need for social rented housing, the way to deal with that need is to build more social rented housing units, not to make life more difficult for those who already occupy social rented housing by kicking them out using a whole variety of mechanisms.

Will the hon. Lady give way?

Let me finish the point.

Increasing rents to a level that people will not be able to afford and having the bedroom tax in place means that a lot of people have to move out of their homes. Now, on the last day of our deliberations, we have this extraordinary set of measures, which seek to take secure tenancies away from people in the social rented sector. This is an extraordinary change. What I would say to the hon. Gentleman is that the way of dealing with acute housing need is to build more housing across all tenures, including for social rent, and I hope he will accept that.

I absolutely accept that. Does the hon. Lady therefore welcome the 55% rise in the number of affordable houses—25,000 more properties— built in 2014-15 versus 2013-14?

A further thing I have been trying to do in the Committee is to make it clear that there are social rents and there are affordable rents. Affordable rents are not necessarily what we would all understand as affordable, because, in a lot of areas, 80% of the market rent is not affordable. Of course, that also applies to other measures for low-cost home ownership. Throughout the Committee’s deliberations, we have been questioning whether the Government’s definition of low-cost home ownership actually is low-cost home ownership.

12:15

Taking at face value the question from the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton—and given the conversations on the Government Benches, one should perhaps be cautious about doing that—might he not be tempted to support new clause 37, which would make it easier for councils to build more homes and thus deal with the backlog of people on waiting lists?

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. I hope that we are able look at that this afternoon, because it would be interesting to hear what the Minister has to say about it.

Traditional secured tenancies are not tenancies for life. They are invariably subject to a probation period of at least a year. If there is antisocial behaviour during the tenancy, the court has the power to take away security of tenure and reduce the tenant’s rights in a demoted tenancy, so there are already measures that enable local authorities to end tenancies if there is a problem with the tenant. Indeed, the Local Government Association wrote to us to say:

“The Localism Act 2011 introduced flexible tenancies in acknowledgement that ‘a one size fits all model on rents and tenancies is not the best answer to the wide range of needs and circumstances of those accessing the social rented sector’. Councils should retain this freedom to manage locally their Tenancy Policy and decisions over tenancies. Every housing market is different and blanket national enforcements may risk impacting on coordinated local efforts to balance efficient use of stock while building stable neighbourhoods and communities. The requirement to review each tenancy every five years would be a significant administrative burden on councils. We would like to support the Government to work with councils in order for it to understand the impact of fixed-term tenancies and to then be able to use the information to inform future tenancy strategy.”

The new clause is not only profoundly unfair and unjust for people who need and are fortunate enough to get social rented tenancies, but profoundly anti-localist. That is what the local councils themselves say.

The 2011 Act gave local authorities flexibility. If, because of local circumstances, they have not used that flexibility to the degree that the Minister would like, under localism that should not give the Minister the right to legislate for them to do things differently. I want the Minister to explain why he thinks it is appropriate to introduce these new clauses on the last day of Committee stage. What work has been carried out with local authorities and tenants’ organisations to understand the impact of the proposals? What is he going to do from now on in terms of both the impact assessment and having the important discussions that must take place before the proposals go any further?

If a 46-year-old woman becomes a war widow, and her family fly the nest with the exception of one child, would she be asked to move out with the remaining child in due course? Would she pay the price of the Government’s social mobility policy by losing her marital and family home? What would she say to the child? Does my hon. Friend have any advice on that?

At this point, I do not—in fact, I was going to ask the Minister about that. Another question is: what about adult children who have been living in the house as their home for a very long time?

I shall finish with the following point. The reason why Margaret Thatcher offered secure tenancies in the 1980s is that she understood the need for tenancies that would offer families stability. There was a lot of discussion in the run-up to the 1979 election about what would happen to people in the social rented sector, and it was a good thing. It was the result of many years of lobbying and of knowing how important secure tenancies are to the stability not only of households but of communities that the legislation was introduced. It was introduced after a long period and a lot of deliberation, and it is critical that we do not legislate this morning to just get rid of it on what appears to be the whim of a Minister, a particular set of Ministers, or even the Prime Minister. It requires careful consideration, and we have not had the opportunity to consider the full implications of the measures.

My family had years of private rented accommodation and of being moved on, with young children. Getting a secure council tenancy was critical in giving all of us stability and good opportunities for social mobility. I cannot see where social mobility comes into these clauses. We know that making life more insecure does not lead to greater social mobility.

I am very interested in what my hon. Friend is saying about social mobility. When I was granted a social tenancy at 21, I was on my own with my daughter. I stayed there for two years. In those two years, due to the lower rent and my increased job prospects, I was able to save enough to move out and buy my own property. Had I had a tenancy that I knew would end, I probably would not have been in a position to do that, because I would have been so fearful of where I would go next that it would have held back my social mobility.

I thank my hon. Friend for that helpful intervention, which demonstrates the clear difference between Opposition and Government Members: we appreciate the value of social rented housing to many individuals and families in this country, and how important it often is in enabling people to turn their lives around and in giving stability, particularly to families on low incomes seeking to do their best in difficult circumstances. It is not simply a product that can be used one way and then another; it is important for whole families and for their life choices.

Security of tenure often gives people time, as my hon. Friend said, to think about what options and opportunities might be available to them, such as education or retraining. It is critical that we do not remove that important support mechanism and pull the rug from under people, particularly when they might be facing difficulties. We should ensure that they get the support they need.

The more I think about it, the closer I come to the word to describe it. Does my hon. Friend agree that asking local authorities and registered social landlords to go to people and effectively move them out of their houses is pusillanimous, to say the least?

Yes. If this is the result, the circumstances will be absolutely dreadful. Whether or not families are ultimately moved on, they will now have to live with the insecurity of knowing that they could be moved on at any time. That is what is particularly pernicious about the measures. They are part of a continuing vendetta against social tenants in this country. That is what we must assume from how the measures have been introduced and their content.

The hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead made the point beautifully. We all understand the need for social housing. She needed social housing at one time in her life, and the property was available. The measure is about making the best use of our housing stock.

We dealt with that earlier. I ask the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues to turn their attention to how we can deliver more social rented housing.

Will the hon. Lady give way?

I will give way to the Minister once I have dealt with the intervention by the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton. The way to deal with the huge demand for social rented housing is to build more of it. The figures I gave much earlier showed that last year the lowest number of homes for social rent in decades was built—I think it was 10,000 units.

We have heard the heartening story of the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead. If she had chosen to, with a lifetime tenancy, she could by definition still be living in that house today while earning £74,000 a year as a Member of Parliament. Does the hon. Member for City of Durham think that it is right for someone to hold on to a lifetime tenancy in those circumstances, when people in housing need have nowhere near that income?

The Minister is sidestepping the point—for a change. We need to build more homes that are genuinely affordable—social homes, to rent. The Government are just making life more difficult for council tenants, trying to get them to move on somehow or other, rather than addressing the fundamental underlying problem, which is the lack of genuinely affordable housing.

Just to clarify, I did have a lifetime tenancy, and my options were either to stay, to buy the property—which I did not do—or to save up, buy something, and leave the tenancy for someone else. Since then four other families have had the flat, because I did not remove it from the social stock by buying it. I do not understand the point about what I could have done if I had had a lifetime tenancy, because I did have one.

I am sure that that clarification is helpful.

Will the hon. Lady give way?

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman and then I am anxious to conclude because other Members want to speak.

The hon. Lady is very kind to give way. Of course Conservative Members agree that we should build more social or affordable housing, and the Bill will achieve that. Does she agree, however, that cases such as that of the former Member for Holborn and St Pancras, Frank Dobson, who occupied a council house for 30-odd years despite being a Cabinet Minister, are poor use of housing stock, and that a family in Camden on a low income would have been much better off occupying that council property?

The hon. Gentleman needs to turn his attention to what the Local Government Association has said on the matter:

“The Localism Act 2011 introduced flexible tenancies in acknowledgement that ‘a one size fits all model on rents and tenancies is not the best answer to the wide range of needs and circumstances’”.

Local authorities already can offer flexible tenancies if they want to. The provisions before the Committee would force all councils to do it, and do it in a particular way, whether or not that accorded with local circumstances and met tenants’ needs.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne said that the provisions are a continuation of a “vendetta against council tenants”. The manner in which they have been tabled, and the lack of consultation with the housing sector, tenants or anyone who might be affected, show that he is probably right. I look forward to the Minister’s having the good sense to withdraw them and to allow proper discussion of such a key issue before a decision is made.

12:30

It is absolutely shameful that the Government have tabled this new clause so late in the Committee’s deliberations, without time for tenants to be consulted, without time for the Committee to take evidence orally or in writing from tenants and from those who represent tenants, and without the opportunity to hear the views of the social housing sector and of councils. The proposal is yet another radical reform and a forceful attack on social housing as we know it.

Southwark Council, one of the councils that I represent, consulted during the previous Parliament on the Government’s proposed flexibility to change the form of council tenancies. It consulted extensively with its tenants and in the end it decided to take advantage of the proposal to introduce introductory tenancies, but not to remove lifetime tenancies. That was because of the views that residents expressed during the consultation.

I recall a conversation with a woman who lives on one of my council estates. She was an original right-to-buy tenant. She bought her flat and brought up her family there. She has lived on the estate for more than 40 years and has been the life and soul of the community; she has been chair and vice-chair of her tenants and residents association. She said to me, “If you as the council introduce this proposal, we are finished as a community, because you will be undermining the stability of our community. You will be destabilising. We will have a much more rapid turnover. Our ability to be a cohesive, strong, stable and long-term community on this estate will be gone.” That is the significance of this proposed reform of social housing. It denies stability and security to households on low and moderate incomes, who cannot afford to buy.

I do not understand why the Government are so set on making a distinction between the aspirations of people who can afford to buy and those of everybody else. I do not understand why the Government are bent on denying people on lower incomes the stability of knowing that they can live in their community for the long term; that they can send their children to the local school for as long as they need to be there; that they can invest in that community and play an active role in supporting their neighbours and in giving back. I do not understand why the Government are making that distinction on income grounds alone.

I am concerned that a consequence of the proposal will be to force tenants, for whom home ownership is not sustainable in the long term, to consider the right to buy. In my nearly six years as a councillor, many residents have come to me in deep distress because of the cost of major works bills and the cost of service charges, which they did not necessarily anticipate were coming and which they had not set aside the money for. They had 95% mortgages and they did not have the equity in their home to be able to borrow to cover those costs. Their home is threatened as a consequence of the financial strain. I am concerned that if people think they have only two, three or five years to live in their social home, and that the way to achieve longevity is to buy their home, they will be forced to take up the right-to-buy option when it is not in their long-term financial interests to do so.

It is worth rehearsing exactly how many and varied the ways are in which the Government seem bent on an attack on social tenants. We have the high income tenant provision for tenants who are not actually recognised as high earners by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs under the pay to stay clauses. We are still living with the pernicious bedroom tax. We have absolutely no funding line at all in the comprehensive spending review to deliver a Government subsidy for new social housing, the delivery of which—not the punishment of existing tenants—is the key to solving the social housing crisis. The forced sale of council homes will reduce the number of those homes available to meet the need that is there. This is a race to the bottom on housing for those on low to moderate incomes. It seems to me that the poor standards and insecurity of tenure of the private rented sector are the standards the Government are aiming for, rather than an aspiration to raise standards and security of tenure, and the availability of secure tenure, for those on low to moderate incomes.

New clause 32 is a further pernicious measure that simply punishes those who, through no fault of their own, are on low to moderate incomes. It shows absolute contempt for social tenants that the new clause has been introduced with no opportunity for tenants or their representatives to be consulted and make their views known, and with no opportunity for the Government to hear from them at first hand. Many times during Committee I have referred to my constituents—the people who, every week, come to my surgeries and write to me. Week in, week out, many people raise issues relating to security of tenure. They worry and are caused great anxiety—in fact, it affects their mental health to know that they might have to take their children out of school to move to a more affordable area. Insecurity of tenure undermines people’s ability to save for the future, the strength of community connections, and the ability of people to support each other in a mixed, balanced and diverse community. These things matter to all residents, not only those who can afford to buy their own home.

I would like the Committee and the Government to hear at first hand from tenants and leaseholders—those who live alongside tenants on our mixed and diverse estates—about the effect the new clause will have on them. I hope that the Government will withdraw the new clause so that tenants’ views on it can be heard and can inform the debate.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship once again, Mr Gray.

I rise to oppose the new clauses and new schedules. In doing so, I will try to be as measured as my hon. Friends the Members for City of Durham and for Dulwich and West Norwood, but I too am angry. Let us be clear: this is not just one group of a bunch of new provisions that have been tabled; taken together, the new clauses and new schedules represent a significant reform of housing law—probably, as my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham said, the most important since local authority tenants were given security of tenure by the Thatcher Government in the Housing Act 1980. We can have a robust debate about the rationale for the Government’s policy, but whatever the views of individual Members on the Government and Opposition Benches, there is absolutely no justification for the shabby way that these provisions have been brought before the Committee. There has been no consultation or impact assessment. The Minister says we will get one sometime before the Bill goes to the House of Lords, but that will not give the Committee an opportunity to scrutinise this important legislation properly.

Is it not all the more disappointing that the Minister has confirmed that housing association tenants also face the potential loss of their secure tenancies? We do not know when there will be a consultation on that either, in the same way as there has not yet been a consultation on the provisions before us now.

My hon. Friend makes a good point. If I was a housing association tenant, or if I ran a housing association, I would be worried by the implications of the new clause and new schedules for tenants and for the sector as a whole.

Turning to some of the specifics, I have a number of concerns about the consequences, intended or otherwise, of the proposals. The most important is that the new clauses are yet another example of the centralising nature of the Bill. Perhaps that is the weakest part of the Government’s argument. The Minister argued that the measures are intended to promote the more efficient use of council housing, and the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton said that they are designed to make better use of stock, but the Localism Act 2011 already allows local authorities to grant fixed-term tenancies.

Currently, it is left to local councils to decide whether to grant traditional secure tenancies or fixed-term tenancies. The Minister touched on the fact that there will be freedom and opportunity for local authorities. If that is the aim, why the need for legislation? They have that as things stand. More telling was his staggering comment that the measures are needed because local authorities are not taking advantage of the freedoms available to them. What kind of localism is it that says to a local authority, “Here is a power that you can use if you decide, as a democratically elected local authority, that the housing needs in your area demand it, but if you don’t use it, we are going to take it away, make you look at it again and force you to use it”? That is not localism. As the Conservative party has championed localism, I thought that the Government might have thought about this measure a little more carefully.

My hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham has already said that the provisions for recovery of possession at the end of the fixed term and against a successor are not workable. Where a local authority grants a fixed-term tenancy, possession proceedings operate by way of forfeiture, yet the Bill excludes forfeiture from the remedies available against fixed-term tenancies. That is unsurprising, because the provisions have been introduced so hastily that the drafting is flawed and will need to be reviewed at a later date.

Perhaps the most important point is the one made powerfully by my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood. The new clauses and new schedules will have implications for the building and maintaining of stable and secure communities. I return to a point that we have touched on several times previously, including in our discussion of the pay to stay clauses. When we look at social and public housing as a zero sum game, through the lens of dependency and economic subsidy, as Government Members clearly do, we are into a world where we are undermining mixed communities. I thought that the Government—the coalition Government certainly stated this—believed in sustainable, inclusive, mixed communities. How can we have mixed communities if anyone who does well, who saves and gets a better job, is encouraged to move on?

As my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead, who has actually experienced living in social housing, has said, if they have the opportunity and the security and stability on which to do it, most people will take the opportunity to buy their own home and move out at some point in the future. Coercing people or applying pressure on them to do so is not the way to encourage them to move on. That is what the provisions will do.

The new clauses do not, as the Minister said, strike the right balance; they will be deeply damaging to communities throughout England, including those I represent in Plumstead, Charlton, Woolwich and Greenwich. I encourage the Minister to visit some of the estates and talk to the people there, who will say exactly as my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood did: the people who hold these communities together—the glue, if you like—are those tenants who have perhaps done a little better than others but have stayed and are trusted and looked to as community figures.

The measures will increase transience and churn and undermine mixed communities. They are conclusive proof that the central thrust of the Bill is an attack on public housing and the families who rely on it. It is bad policy and, more important, it is bad policy making. The Government should go away and look again and at least, at a minimum, if they really believe in this, come back to us after a consultation when we can look at a proper impact assessment. They should not be introducing these new clauses in such a shabby way.

rose—

I call the Minister.

rose—

Order. The hon. Gentleman should realise that if he wants to catch my eye, he must stand up in his place.

Okay. Thank you very much, Mr Gray. I tried to catch your eye earlier, but, regrettably, I obviously did not.

When an hon. Member wishes to speak, he stands in his place and I then call him. If he does not stand in his place, I presume he no longer wishes to speak. He cannot do it by waving.

I was trying, Mr Gray.

I am sorry, I do not intend to argue about it, but I will say it again: if an hon. Member wishes to speak, they stand in their place. If they do not, they do not get called, for the very simple reason that for all I know he or she may well have changed their mind. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to be called, he must stand in his place.

Thank you for your advice, Mr Gray, which I genuinely appreciate.

My hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham made a powerful case about the contradictions between the provisions in the new clauses and localism. As a council leader, I experienced such contradictions many times. We were constantly being told about all these local powers and having the discretion to do this or that, but of course it was only if it was what the Government wanted us to do. If we did not do what the Government wanted, they forced us to, and if we did, they said, “There you are, you’ve volunteered to do it.” I therefore completely understand and accept my hon. Friend’s contention that this localism policy is not really a localism policy.

12:45

The Government have the powers, attitude and guile of Cardinal Richelieu, but want to act like a country vicar when it suits them. They cannot have it both ways. The bottom line is that this is a modern version of a tied cottage, but without noblesse oblige from the landowner. That is what is before us. In effect, we are discussing the threat of eviction after five years. Let us not dress it up in any other way—it is a threat of eviction. People might be able to go through some processes, but in reality that is what the new clause is. It is an extension of the concept of the bedroom tax. Not content with saying, “If you have three bedrooms, you’ll have to pay for two of them, or move out,” the Government are extending that by not even giving people the opportunity to pay, but instead saying that after a certain number of years, “You’re out of this property.”

I asked my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham about the case of a 46-year-old widow because it is a real case about which we have to get answers or assurances from the Government. That could be what will happen to that widow, and the sort of answer we need is that she will be able to stay in her home with her family. We need those answers not next week or in six weeks’ time, but today. The Government constantly tell us about the military covenant in this day and age, and that is the sort of issue that goes to the heart of it. There are lots of warm words, but the Government must guarantee that such things as I have described will not happen, because any breach is a breach of the covenant. In Committee we must think of precisely such things when we make our decisions.

I do not mind a law of intended consequences, as long as people are clear about them, but the new clause might be a law of unintended consequences. It is coming to something when the Government are rolling back some of the social provisions added by Mrs Thatcher. That is a remarkable movement backwards—quite incredible.

I ask the Government to consider the new clause carefully. It is not about emotion and bluff; it will be affecting people’s lives day in, day out. I ask them to consider carefully the impact on communities and their cohesion in coming years—not in two or three years, but in five or 10 years’ time, when most of us—or at least most of the Opposition Members—will be retired, including me.

I have heard the comments of Opposition Members, including the hon. Member for City of Durham. The hon. Lady seems to be most surprised that the Government are introducing these measures, but I am surprised that she is surprised. In August 2010 the Prime Minister first mentioned that the Government of the day were thinking of such provisions—the hon. Member for Bootle even highlighted that in his earlier intervention—and that was followed by the Localism Act 2011, which took the proposals further, and by the Chancellor’s announcement in this year’s summer Budget. The Labour party should not be surprised.

I hear what the Minister is saying, but given that the measure has been in the pipeline since 2010, why was it not in the Bill?

Obviously it will be in the Bill now.

Why was it not in the Bill?

Because we want to get such things right. We believe that we have now put a good package together—

rose—

I am not going to give way at the moment. I want to read from a newspaper article quoting a Minister:

“the minister did say the current system had to be re-thought as it concentrated dependency and disadvantage in particular estates, frustrating people’s attempts to either get out of social housing or to get into it.”

I completely agree with that statement, but it was said in 2008 by the right hon. Member for Derby South (Margaret Beckett), when she was a Minister in the Department in which I am privileged to serve. She said:

“What we have at the moment is not effective or sustainable and it seems to me that people deserve better.”

The article states that she

“indicated that she wanted to encourage social tenants or would-be social tenants to look beyond social housing to the private sector”.

It quotes her saying:

“If people could find greater stability and security in the private rented sector, or could take advantage of low cost home ownership, then maybe fewer would think that social housing was their only option.”

It is telling that that was the thinking in 2008 of the Labour Government and the Department for Communities and Local Government, in which the shadow Housing and Planning Minister, the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey), served as a Minister.

The thinking of the Labour Government at the time was similar to our thinking now and seemed to be in the centre ground. If the Labour party had won in 2010—if the electorate had not seen fit to throw out that discredited shambles of a Labour Government—and the country had had the misfortune of having another Labour Government, there is every possibility that they would have taken a similar approach to the one we are taking now.

rose—

I am interested in hearing the hon. Lady’s view on that.

The Minister must really be struggling to defend this policy if the best he can come up with is a Minister many, many years ago making what we all thought were personal comments. They were never accepted as Labour party policy or proposed in legislation. That was a speech in which she made personal comments. [Laughter.] I find it pretty shocking that Government Members are laughing, given that these clauses seek to take important rights from people. Labour did not take that approach either in government or in opposition, and the Minister should not suggest that we did.

rose—

My hon. Friend the Member for Burton wants to intervene on the hon. Member for City of Durham, and I understand why he wishes to do so. The then Housing Minister made those comments at a housing conference at the Adam Smith Institute in her capacity as a Minister of the Government of the time. I find it difficult to square that with the fact that the hon. Lady just said that they were personal comments. They were not personal comments; they were the comments of the Labour Government at the time. That is the direction that the Labour Government would have taken if they had been re-elected in 2010. The hon. Lady said that I am struggling to defend the policy—in a moment, I will give her some more detail about why I am confident in defending it—but I think she is struggling to put up an argument against it.

rose—

rose—

I will take an intervention from the Government side first.

I just want to put on the record that the only reason why I and several colleagues laughed was the shadow Minister’s shocking response and the fact that she dared to disown comments that were clearly made at an official conference by an official representative of the Government of the time. It is an extraordinarily inadequate response.

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. It is an indication either of how far to the left the Labour party has gone or that, as usual, Labour Members have selective amnesia about the views their party held when they were in government. Time is pressing, so I shall move on.

The hon. Lady mentioned the protection for tenants who do not have their tenancy renewed. The Protection from Eviction Act 1977 means that if a person is being evicted, a court hearing will always be required. Human rights issues can be considered at that hearing. In my initial remarks, I also said that before any court hearing there would be an internal review so that the local authority in question could ensure that it had complied with its own housing policy on evicting a tenant.

A comment was made about the policy being burdensome. The legislation is all about making better use of social housing, and it will certainly save on temporary accommodation costs and the need to manage waiting lists. Our assessment of the policy’s impact will be revised, but we need to consider the family who have been in high-rent temporary accommodation for years. The Government have already shown a commitment to such people by allowing those in temporary accommodation to move into the private rented sector, which means that people who have to use such accommodation now do so for, on average, seven months less than was the case in 2010. That shows that the Conservative party is interested in getting the most vulnerable people housed, not in a policy built on ideology, as the Labour party seems to be.

The Minister was asked specifically why there has been no consultation on the proposal in the new clause. Will he answer that question now?

I think I have said at some length, not just in this debate, that we have been consulting on our intentions since 2010. We believe the policy is the right thing to do, so I commend the new clause to the Committee.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

Division 14

Ayes: 11

---

Conservative: 11

Noes: 7

---

Labour: 5

New clause 32 read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 33

Succession to secure tenancies and related tenancies

“Schedule (Succession to secure tenancies and related tenancies) changes the law about succession to secure tenancies, introductory tenancies and demoted tenancies.”—(Mr Marcus Jones.)

Certain people have the right to inherit a secure tenancy when the tenant dies. At the moment the successor could live in the property for life. This amendment and NS5 change the succession rules. Where a person other than a spouse or partner inherits a periodic tenancy, it will be converted into a 5 year fixed term. Where a person other than a spouse or partner inherits a fixed term tenancy, it will not automatically be renewed when it comes to an end.

Brought up, and read the First time.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

Division 15

Ayes: 11

---

Conservative: 11

Noes: 7

---

Labour: 5

New clause 33 read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 9

Duty to promote lending to small and medium sized house builders

“(1) The Secretary of State shall have a duty to promote lending by banks to small and medium sized house builders.

(2) A small or medium sized builder in subsection (1) is a builder that has fewer than 250 employees.”—(Mr Gareth Thomas.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

13:00

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

New clause 9 would add to the Bill a duty to promote lending to small and medium-sized house builders. There has already been some conversation in Committee about the need to do a little more to help a sector of the house building industry that has been struggling in recent years. Small firms lack many of the advantages of scale of larger house builders, particularly in terms of access to finance and access to land and other assets against which to borrow that finance on good terms.

Small builders are often very dependent on a smaller number of land sites and face, in the words of an economics report,

“lumpy, volatile cash flows as land is purchased, sites developed and sales made”.

Equally, small and medium-sized house builders are surely a crucial part of the sector, given their appetite for developing smaller sites that larger firms often do not want to develop themselves. SME house builders can often be more agile players in the housing market and can use local knowledge and expertise to make the most of small sites. In that way, the contribution of SME house builders also provides an opportunity to increase the number of jobs, to help economic growth and, obviously, to ensure that additional homes get built.

The National House-Building Council has charted the decline in the number of SME house builders from the mid-1980s. It notes that, in the mid-1980s, there were some 12,000 SME house builders, which by 2013 had declined to just under 4,000. Evidence presented to Labour’s Lyons review by the Home Builders Federation suggested that there were some 7,600 dormant SME house builders that were doing other kinds of construction work. The crucial point is that there is capacity that could be drawn back into the housing market to build additional homes in the right circumstance. The Lyons review heard that access to development finance, and its cost, was the key problem preventing many SME house builders from coming back into the market.

The current Federation of Master Builders survey, which came out in September, continues to highlight the scale of the problems that many house builders have in accessing finance. The responses to that survey from different house building firms might give hon. Members an additional indication of the scale of the difficulty. One talked about the disproportionate and high interest charges in relation to security held by lenders. One simply said that there is no finance available for small companies. Another said, “Unless you are an established developer with at least five years of profitable developments under your belt and are cash rich, there really isn’t any finance available to grow. The banks just aren’t interested.”

I draw hon. Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. What the hon. Gentleman says is laudable, but I am unsure how the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government can promote bank lending when he has no power to direct banks. Moreover, banks are constrained by Basel III, a set of international banking regulations, so I would be interested to hear the hon. Gentleman’s commentary on how the Secretary of State can influence bank activity.

There are a number of ways in which the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government can intervene and promote lending to small and medium-sized businesses. Simply convening meetings with banks to encourage them and talking through the issues that they have in lending to small and medium-sized construction companies would be a start. The hon. Gentleman raises a separate point about Basel III, which I accept was a sensible reform, but the Secretary of State’s friend in the Treasury has introduced other measures that have also had an impact on the availability of cash for lending to small and medium-sized house builders, which the Secretary of State might be able to challenge more easily if the duty were in the legislation.

One way to help small firms to access the credit that they need might be to provide more guarantees for bank lending. A guarantor bank is one suggestion and would guarantee certain tranches of loans to small and medium-sized builders with the condition that funding be used to develop homes, helping to lower the cost of finance as well as increasing the availability of finance to small and medium-sized builders. That was proposed by Capital Economics to the Lyons review and mirrors the Government’s existing Help to Buy scheme. It would essentially be a help-to-build scheme—[Interruption.] I hear the hon. Gentleman heckling me from a sedentary position. If he wants to intervene to make a point, I am happy to take his intervention.

The funding for lending scheme is already doing very effectively exactly what the hon. Gentleman describes.

I say gently to the hon. Gentleman that I have not made up the Home Builders Federation’s concerns. The quotes that I have just given are real. There is a real problem preventing many small and medium-sized house builders from accessing finance. I suggest to him that more needs to be done and the new clause is a way of doing that.

Finally, there is one other option available if a guarantor bank or a help-to-build scheme were not acceptable. Government and Opposition Members will be familiar with the regional growth fund. A series of community development finance institutions occasionally work with construction firms but have difficulty in building their capital base. Regional growth fund moneys might be better used in increasing their ability to lend money to small businesses in their communities. In the context of the new clause, some of that financing could be directed at helping small and medium-sized house builders.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

How could I not give way to the hon. Gentleman?

I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman is prepared to give way. I am worried for the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich, who looks very hungry, but the hon. Member for Harrow West is so interesting that we have to keep going. He will be interested to know that the Minister for Housing and Planning, the leader of South Norfolk Council and I were at a self-build summit yesterday at which we heard financiers from Lloyds bank and Nationwide Building Society talking about such issues. It is really not about legislation. The hon. Gentleman needs to know that it is about de-risking. Does he not understand that, were we to have large projects with local development orders, as has been done by Cherwell District Council with the largest self-build project in the country, for example, that automatically de-risks things and makes automatically coming forward much more attractive to lenders?

Order. You must be brief.

I am sorry that you cut the hon. Gentleman short, Mr Gray. Perhaps a speech might allow him to give the Committee a bit more information. I simply bring him back to the evidence from the Federation of Master Builders, which said that, if the small and medium-sized house building sector’s access to finance was improved, it could deliver an additional 20,000 homes per year. I gently suggest to the hon. Gentleman, with whom I have happily worked on self-build, custom build and housing co-operatives, that here might be an issue for us to co-operate on. We could champion the needs of small and medium-sized builders and address the problems of access to finance. That is the spirit of the new clause.

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Julian Smith.)

13:10

Adjourned till this day at Two o’clock.

Housing and Planning Bill (Seventeenth sitting)

Thursday 10th December 2015 Public Bill Committees

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chairs: Mr James Gray †, Sir Alan Meale

† Bacon, Mr Richard (South Norfolk) (Con)

† Blackman-Woods, Dr Roberta (City of Durham) (Lab)

† Caulfield, Maria (Lewes) (Con)

† Dowd, Peter (Bootle) (Lab)

† Griffiths, Andrew (Burton) (Con)

† Hammond, Stephen (Wimbledon) (Con)

† Hayes, Helen (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)

† Hollinrake, Kevin (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)

† Jackson, Mr Stewart (Peterborough) (Con)

† Jones, Mr Marcus (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government)

† Kennedy, Seema (South Ribble) (Con)

† Lewis, Brandon (Minister for Housing and Planning)

† Morris, Grahame M. (Easington) (Lab)

† Pearce, Teresa (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)

† Pennycook, Matthew (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)

† Philp, Chris (Croydon South) (Con)

† Smith, Julian (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)

† Thomas, Mr Gareth (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)

Glenn McKee, Katy Stout, Committee Clerks

† attended the Committee

Public Bill Committee

Thursday 10 December 2015

(Afternoon)

[Mr James Gray in the Chair]

Housing and Planning Bill

14:00

[The Chair]

Order. One of the doors is locked. I am advised that I ought to suspend the sitting until it has been opened and the public and others can get in.

Sitting suspended.

14:01

On resuming—

[The Chair]

Order. When we broke for lunch, I had proposed the question that new clause 9 be read a Second time.

[Dr Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Gray. As you will be aware, this morning it was suggested that the proposals in new clauses 32 and 33 were at some stage being considered as policy by the last Labour Government. Over the lunch break I was able to check, and the Minister at the time, my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby South (Margaret Beckett), made it absolutely clear that the proposal for fixed-term contracts was made by the Chartered Institute of Housing as part of a consultation on a housing reform Green Paper. She stated categorically that it was not Government policy. There had been some unhelpful speculation following an inaccurate report that appeared in a national newspaper, but she made it absolutely clear that she was not sympathetic to the notion that council residents should somehow lose their security of tenure—

[The Chair]

Order. The hon. Lady knows well that that is not a point of order and not a matter for the Chair, but she has by that mechanism made her views known to the Committee.

New Clause 9

Duty to promote lending to small and medium sized house builders

‘(1) The Secretary of State shall have a duty to promote lending by banks to small and medium sized house builders.

(2) A small or medium sized builder in subsection (1) is a builder that has fewer than 250 employees.”—(Mr Gareth Thomas.)

Brought up, read the First time, and Question proposed (this day), That the clause be read a Second time.

Question again proposed.

[The Minister for Housing and Planning (Brandon Lewis)]

As you mentioned this morning, Mr Gray, this is the final day of the Committee. We have finished scrutinising the Government’s proposals for the Bill; for the rest of the day, we will focus on the propositions from the Opposition. The hon. Member for Harrow West and others might be particularly focused on the rest of our deliberations and indeed on Parliament for the next few days, but people generally and the members of the Committee might also thinking about and looking forward to Christmas, so I wish everyone well for Christmas.

As I said, we have completed our consideration of the Government’s proposals for the Bill at this stage, but Opposition Members keep surprising us—I suppose in the Christmas spirit—with gifts on the amendment paper. The hon. Member for Harrow West is a gift that just keeps on giving. I am of course more than happy to accept his offer of gifts and to spend the rest of our time in Committee considering the Opposition’s suggestions for the Bill, now that we are done considering the Bill as drafted. Never let it be said that we are not happy to accept and enjoy the good will of all Committee members.

The new clause tabled by the hon. Member for Harrow West would introduce a statutory duty in respect of lending to small and medium-sized house builders. I have said clearly on the record that we recognise that the lack of availability of development finance can be and has been a major barrier to smaller firms that are looking to expand and develop their building activity. Indeed, as outlined earlier, in the survey conducted by the Federation of Master Builders this year, more than 62% of respondents thought that the availability of finance was a constraint on housing supply.

I am concerned to ensure that we do all we can to help small and medium-sized house builders, because they are key to delivering the housing we need throughout the country. Nevertheless, introducing a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to promote lending by banks to small and medium-sized companies simply will not address the problem. We share the desire to see it happen, but I suspect the hon. Gentleman realises that such a duty would not work. As my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South said, the Secretary of State has no power to force banks to lend to small businesses, so the new clause is technically unworkable. However, it may please the hon. Gentleman to know that the Government are already taking action.

In July I launched the £100 million housing growth fund, which is a partnership between the Homes and Communities Agency and Lloyds Banking Group, to help smaller builders to get access to the finance they need to build more homes and grow their businesses. In the autumn statement, the Chancellor announced further measures to support small and medium-sized builders, including a housing development fund that will provide access to £1 billion of loan finance over up to five years. The new fund brings together and expands the builders finance fund and custom build serviced plots loan fund as well, providing more flexibility for Government support in those emerging markets.

We have also created the British Business Bank for £782 million of facilitated lending and investment. That aims to unlock £10 billion of financing for smaller businesses over the next five years. The Chancellor also announced support for small and medium-sized house builders specifically through amending planning policy to promote the delivery of small schemes, some of which we have debated in the Committee in the past few weeks.

Other proposals announced in the autumn statement will halve the length of the planning guarantee for non-major developments from 26 weeks to 13 weeks, ensuring that those smaller builders are not slowed down by an unnecessarily bureaucratic and slow planning system. With those assurances on Government activity, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his new clause.

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

It is lovely to have the Minister of State back in his place. We all noticed that he effortlessly passed the hospital pass of the ending of secure tenancies to the Under-Secretary of State, which was a skilful dodge—the Under-Secretary had better watch his back in the Department.

I welcome the Minister’s detailing of the various measures that he and the Chancellor of the Exchequer have set out to help small and medium-sized builders. I leave him with the thought that perhaps not enough has been done yet to end the concerns of many in that part of the house building market about the shortage of finance. I welcome the steps taken, but I encourage him to keep this matter in close view. In that spirit, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 10

Planning obligations in respect of apprenticeships

‘In section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (planning obligations), after subsection (12) insert—

“(12A) The Secretary of State may by regulations require planning obligations to include a requirement to offer apprenticeships to local people on sites where 50 or more dwellings are to be constructed.”’—(Mr Gareth Thomas.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Mr Thomas]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

I am delighted to move the new clause and highlight the need for more construction apprenticeships. The new clause, which for want of a better phrase is a probing new clause, suggests that in proposals for sites where 50 or more dwellings are to be constructed, there should be a guarantee that local people can be offered apprenticeships. The Minister should take that seriously.

The Federation of Master Builders highlighted the shortage of skilled workers in the construction industry, which could scupper the vision for the new affordable homes that we all want. Brian Berry, the chief executive of the FMB, said last month:

“Unless we see a massive uplift in apprenticeship training in our industry, there won’t be enough pairs of hands to deliver more housing on this scale.”

I looked in detail to see where the shortages lay. According to the FMB’s state of trades survey:

“In Q2 of 2015 49% of FMB members were having difficulties recruiting bricklayers and 47% carpenters and joiners.”

The FMB also said:

“Another recent FMB poll of members found that two thirds had had to turn down work because of their inability to recruit the skilled labour they need.”

A significant number of its members saw that as a “major barrier” to their ability to build more homes in the next 12 months, and a third were worried looking three years ahead.

One worries that small and medium-sized house builders will suffer most from the shortage of skilled labour. I remind the Committee of my previous comments about the decline in the number of small and medium-sized house builders over the past 25 years or more. A shortage of labour is no doubt an issue for small and medium-sized house builders. We have the problem of access to finance on the one hand, and if we add to that the shortage of skilled labour, we risk seeing even greater concentration in the house building sector.

Just before he stepped down from Parliament earlier this year, the excellent Nick Raynsford, then the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich, chaired a cross-party parliamentary inquiry into apprenticeships with the noble Lord Best. The inquiry drew attention to the 1 million 16 to 24-year-olds who are not in education, employment or training, as well as the fact that we will need an extra 182,000 construction workers by 2018. It also highlighted that just 7,280 people had completed a construction apprenticeship in 2013, and that even though there had been a rise in the number of apprenticeships in other areas, there continued to be a significant shortage in the construction industry.

Between 2008 and 2011, the Homes and Communities Agency had guidelines that required housing associations to initiate apprenticeships as they got money to build new homes, which helped to generate more than 4,000 apprenticeships in that three-year period. The guidelines were lifted in 2011, when, as the agency said in evidence to the cross-party inquiry, they were clearly beginning to make a significant difference. That is a disappointment.

[Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)]

The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors construction market survey says the skills shortage has reached its highest levels since the survey was launched 18 years ago. Do you see anything in the Bill or any policy that will help to address that?

[The Chair]

I do not, but Mr Gareth Thomas might.

[Mr Thomas]

Mr Gray, if you have not seen any evidence, and I certainly have not seen any evidence—

[The Chair]

I have not been looking for evidence. I take no view on the matter.

[Mr Thomas]

Very wise, Mr Gray; leave it to us and trust our judgment instead. I have not seen anything specific in the Bill that offers improvement regarding the worrying shortage of skilled construction workers. I tabled this probing new clause because it is worth raising the need for more apprenticeships, particularly in the construction sector.

[Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con)]

rose—

[Mr Thomas]

I look forward, as ever, to the contribution from the hon. Member for South Norfolk.

[Mr Bacon]

The hon. Gentleman is, as usual, ineffably kind, but I wonder why he looks to the Bill for a solution to his problem. Were he to look at the website of the excellent Easton and Otley College in my constituency, he would see that with the opening of its modern, well equipped £3.75 million construction centres, it aims to lay the foundations for a more secure future by trebling the number of construction students. It does not have to be legislation that does it.

[Mr Thomas]

The hon. Gentleman is right in the sense that legislation is not the answer to everything. Although I am glad to give him the opportunity to praise a provider of apprenticeships in his constituency, I simply make the point, which I am sure he would not try to counter completely, that at the moment we do not have enough skilled workers in the construction industry in this country. All the fine words that we have exchanged over the past four weeks about how we might get more people into their own home are surely put at risk if we cannot find the people to build those homes in the first place.

14:15

I gently urge the Minister to do more to champion the take-up of apprenticeships by the construction industry. There has been concern in the past that, where construction apprenticeships have been on offer, they have not been of the quality that might have tempted people into them. There has been concern on occasion that people have been too quickly moved away from sites, and that some of the specialists in the provision of apprenticeships have continued to be undercut by those who do not provide such high quality training programmes.

I am grateful to Joe Brennan of Denbury Ltd, which is based in my constituency. It has provided for many years high quality apprenticeships to local people, usually on housing association building projects, but not exclusively. I ask the Minister: what more can be done to get more people into construction apprenticeships?

[Brandon Lewis]

I find myself in a worrying position, because I agree with the hon. Member for Harrow West on two clauses running. I am not sure where to go from there.

One of our biggest challenges to get the homes that we want built across our country is the skills shortage. When we talk to developers and housing associations, some will talk about access to finance and some will talk about access to land and the planning system, but they will all talk about the skills challenge. Putting this matter on the record is useful, so I thank the hon. Gentleman for making the point. The industry is fantastic to work in. To be part of an industry that creates a home for people in the future is a special thing to be able to do.

[Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)]

I agree with both my hon. Friend and with the hon. Member for Harrow West. Does my hon. Friend think that registered providers—housing associations—have a vital role to play? I commend my local registered provider, Cross Keys Homes in Peterborough, that works with the Mears construction company to run an apprenticeship school. Apprentices go straight back into working for that housing association in its remedial work and new build.

[Brandon Lewis]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. I suspect many of us in Committee today can find local housing associations doing excellent work with apprentices. I have certainly found that when I have met housing associations. There are good examples in the private sector as well. At Derby College recently I met Ian Hodgkinson and his team who encourage people particularly into brickwork. We all want to see more people going into bricklaying. Fantastic work is being done, and the more we can do to promote that, the better.

[Peter Dowd]

At the risk of breaking into the love-in, what role does the Minister feel that immigration may have in helping to sort out the skills shortage?

[Brandon Lewis]

Actually, I think the hon. Gentleman does not go too far in breaking into the love-in. People should bear in mind that a lot of the building work we are getting done at the moment is thanks to some very positive work migration. That free movement of labour has been very useful to the construction industry over the past few years.

We want to make sure that the public sector plays a full part. I am proud to be a member of the Government that want to deliver 3 million apprentices in this Parliament, building on the 2 million in the previous Parliament, and we have changed Government procurement rules. The hon. Member for Harrow West talked about what could be done directly. We have changed Government procurement rules so that all relevant bids for central Government contracts worth £10 million or more and lasting more than 12 months must demonstrate a clear commitment to apprenticeships.

[Mr Thomas]

Might I ask the Minister, while there is a period of friendliness between us, to look at the guidelines that the HCA used to have, which encouraged housing associations to offer quality apprenticeships, and consider whether there might be scope for encouraging the HCA to bring them back?

[Brandon Lewis]

Worryingly, I am going to say yes. I would agree with the hon. Gentleman again. I am very happy to look at that. There is obviously a balance at the moment in working with housing associations and the HCA. We have made it clear that we want housing associations to be declassified by the Office for National Statistics, but the housing association sector is keen on the area in question, and I have been speaking to David Orr, the chief executive of the National Housing Federation, about the skills issue. We will be doing a piece of work on that, and I am happy to liaise directly with the housing associations as well as with the HCA.

More specifically on construction apprenticeships, we are supporting initiatives of the Construction Industry Training Board and those that flow from the work of the Construction Leadership Council. In addition, the CITB has developed a range of initiatives, working closely with the Department for Work and Pensions and the armed forces, through the resettlement service, and with local enterprise partnerships.

A legal requirement for all section 106 agreements on sites with 50 or more dwellings to include a requirement to offer apprenticeships to local people would not necessarily support apprenticeships. It could be detrimental. Experience has shown us that without effective dialogue such as the work we are doing with the housing associations and indeed with people doing apprenticeships, some of the objectives that have been set out, which I know have the best intentions—I take the hon. Gentleman’s comments absolutely—can have unintended consequences and result in apprentices being unable to complete their apprenticeships.

I will briefly explain that. It is important to remember that apprenticeships are real, proper jobs, with a structured training to prescribed standards, which require a significant time investment from the employee as much as the employer. The taking on of an apprentice must fit the employer’s work patterns and skill needs. In construction, where work happens from project to project, consideration must be given to the labour skills and general skills needs for each project, and what is therefore practical and capable of delivery.

For example, smaller projects, but even projects of more than 50 homes, may not be able fully to support apprenticeships, especially as an apprentice cannot transfer between trade frameworks. It is not the length of the project but the analysis of the length of the trade activity undertaken within the project that establishes the number of apprenticeships it can support.

Also, requirements to recruit from the local area can in some circumstances be unsustainable. To pick up the point made by the hon. Member for Bootle highlighting mobility, the construction industry workforce is one of our most mobile, and many contractors operate across the country. It may not be feasible for a company based in a different area of the country to support a locally-recruited apprentice once their element of the project is completed. I want to work directly with the sector on that issue.

I hope that those assurances and my explanation will lead the hon. Gentleman to accept our determination of the matter, and to withdraw the new clause.

[Mr Thomas]

I am grateful to the Minister for his reply and his willingness to look at the issue of HCA guidance. A number of contractors and social landlords told the inquiry to which I referred that the framework had worked well, and I gently suggest that that might be another reason for looking at the matter again.

I welcome the Minister’s personal commitment to the area in question. As a last point, I would urge him to consider the point that he ended on—the quality of construction apprenticeships. I worry that, in the past, some apprenticeships on offer have not been of high quality, which might have been a factor in putting some people off going into the construction industry. However, given the Minister’s helpful remarks, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 12

Tenants’ rights to new management in property sold under LSVT

“(1) This section applies to housing which—

(a) was previously owned by a local authority;

(b) was part of a large scale voluntary transfer falling within the definition of section 32(4AB) of the Housing Act 1985; and

(c) the disposal of which was subject to the consent of the Secretary of State under section 32 of the 1985 Act.

(2) Where the transfer took place more than five years before this section comes into operation the current owner of the transferred housing shall consult the current tenants on their satisfaction with the management of that property.

(3) Where the transfer took place less than five years after this section comes into operation the current owner of the transferred housing shall not more than every five years consult the current tenants on their satisfaction with the management of that property.

(4) If more than 50% of tenants responding to the consultation under subsections (2) or (3) are dissatisfied with the management of the property, the owner of the housing must carry out a competitive tender for the management of the property and report the outcome to the tenants.”—(Dr Blackman-Woods.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The new clause is intended to ensure that tenants will be consulted about their satisfaction with management arrangements for their properties and tenancies where there has been a large-scale voluntary transfer. If, after five years, more than 50% of tenants are not happy with the arrangements, it provides for a competitive tendering exercise. This is largely a probing amendment to check whether the Government think it important to gauge tenant satisfaction with the LSVT arrangements, and to provide a mechanism to change them if tenants are not happy.

[Brandon Lewis]

Local authority stock transfer can take place only if the majority of the tenants vote in a ballot, as required by statute. Indeed, the Secretary of State’s consent to the transfer can be given only after he is satisfied of two things: first, that the local authority’s consultation exercise has been adequate; and, secondly, that the majority of tenants voting are in favour of transfer. Furthermore, the Secretary of State will ensure that the acquiring landlord is registered with the regulator, so that he can be satisfied that the organisation is viable and will look after the stock in the long term, to the benefit of the tenants.

Although there are no powers currently available to tenants to sack or fire their housing association, the rights of housing association tenants, including ex-council tenants, are protected through a range of mechanisms. The Localism Act 2011 placed the power to scrutinise landlords’ performance and hold them to account back into the hands of tenants and their elected representatives. That can include referring complaints to the housing ombudsman if issues have not been resolved locally. Many tenant panels already play a key role in scrutinising landlords’ performance, challenging poor service and holding landlords of all types to account for delivery and value for money. The regulator’s tenant involvement and empowering standard requires landlords to offer tenants a wide range of opportunities to play that bigger role locally, including by forming tenant panels.

The regulator does not have powers to mediate or resolve individual cases, but it can and will investigate where there is evidence of serious detriment. The regulator also has the power to institute a statutory inquiry if necessary. Where a merger is proposed, housing associations are already required to consult with all stakeholders. I appreciate, as the hon. Member for City of Durham said, that this is a probing amendment. Hopefully she will accept and acknowledge that it is not necessary, as current tenants already have a number of sufficient and wide-ranging instruments enabling them to scrutinise their landlords and hold them to account, and rightly so, in addition to the HCA’s regulatory standards.

Furthermore, the proposed amendment will affect only some tenants in England: namely, ex-council tenants transferred to new housing association landlords. It does not make sense for that whole group to be treated differently from other housing association tenants. I appreciate that this is a probing amendment, and I hope she will feel able to withdraw it.

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

I have heard what the Minister has said. It is a particular concern of my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick), who was keen to have something on the record about the need for some trigger mechanism in place for tenants unhappy with LSVT arrangements. I have heard what the Minister has said. Perhaps we will come back at a later stage to reconsider the issue. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the new clause.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 13

Conversion of leasehold to commonhold for interdependent properties

“(1) On 1 January 2020 long leases of residential property in interdependent properties shall cease to be land tenure capable of conveyance.

(2) On 1 January 2020 long leases as set out in subsection (1) shall become commonholds to which Part 1 of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 (‘the 2002 Act’) shall apply, subject to the modifications set out in this section.

(3) Leaseholders, freeholders and those with an interest in an interdependent property are required to facilitate the transfer to commonhold, in particular they shall:

(a) by 1 January 2018 draw-up an agreed plan for the transfer;

(b) by 1 October 2018 value any interests to be extinguished by the transfer where the interest is held by a person who after transfer will not be a unit-holder; and

(c) by 1 January 2019 draw up a commonhold community statement for the purposes of—

(i) defining the extent of each commonhold unit;

(ii) defining the extent of the common parts and their respective uses;

(iii) defining the percentage contributions that each unit will contribute to the running costs of the building;

(iv) defining the voting rights of the members of the commonhold association; and

(v) specifying the rights and duties of the commonhold association, the unit-holders and their tenants.

(4) In any case where the parties at subsection (3) cannot or refuse to agree arrangements to facilitate the transfer any of the parties can make an application to the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) for a determination of the matter.

(5) Section 3 [Consent] of the 2002 Act shall cease to have effect on 1 January 2017.

(6) In subsection (1) ‘long lease’ means—

(a) a lease granted for a term certain exceeding 21 years, whether or not it is (or may become) terminable before the end of that term by notice given by the tenant or by re-entry or forfeiture; or

(b) a lease for a term fixed by law under a grant with a covenant or obligation for perpetual renewal, other than a lease by sub-demise from one which is not a long lease.”—(Dr Blackman-Woods.)

This New Clause would end the tenure of residential leasehold by 1 January 2020 by converting residential leases into commonhold.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

I will be extremely brief. New clause 13 seeks greater clarity on how the use of commonhold and leasehold tenancies are mentioned and dealt with in practice by the Department. I would be grateful to hear the Minister’s comments on how the current situation can be improved.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr Marcus Jones)]

New clause 13 seeks to replace long residential leasehold with commonhold. As hon. Members know, leasehold is a long-established way of owning property, supported by a framework of rights and protections that aims to deliver the appropriate balance between providing leaseholders with the rights and protections that they need and recognising the legitimate interest of landlords.

Commonhold is subject to a different statutory framework of rights and protections. It has its benefits, but there are important differences between commonhold and leasehold. That is partly why commonhold is and was intended to be a voluntary alternative to long leasehold ownership—a choice. There are no plans to abolish residential leasehold.

14:30

Abolishing leasehold and forcing leaseholders into commonhold may seem attractive to some, but would that be the right thing to do in all circumstances? The Government believe that it would not. Removing choice in this instance and, with it, the rights and protections currently afforded to leasehold homeowners and at the same time forcing existing leaseholders to become commonholders against their will would not be desired by all. Considerable care needs to be taken before embarking on legislation that would force existing leaseholders and landlords to transfer to the commonhold model, which would not in all cases be appropriate. Commonhold should remain a voluntary alternative to long leasehold ownership.

On that basis, I hope that the hon. Lady will, as she says, withdraw the motion.

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

With this probing new clause, we were seeking greater clarity. Some of that clarity has been provided by the Minister this afternoon. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 21

Planning obligations: local first-time buyers

“After section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (planning obligations) insert—

‘106ZA Planning obligations in respect of local first-time buyers

(1) When granting planning permission under 70(1)(a), or permission in principle under 70(1A)(a), for the construction of new dwellings for sale, the local planning authority may require that a proportion of the dwellings are marketed exclusively to local first-time buyers for a specified period.

(2) The “specified period” in subsection (1) must start no earlier than six months before the new dwellings have achieved, or are likely to, practical completion.

(3) “First-time buyer” in subsection (1) has the meaning given by section 57AA(2) of the Finance Act 2003.

(4) The Secretary of State may by regulations—

(a) define the “specified period” in subsection (1);

(b) define “local” in subsection (1), and

(c) the definition “local” may vary according to specified circumstances.

(5) The regulations in subsection (4) so far as they apply to local planning authorities in Greater London will not apply to these authorities unless the Secretary of State has consulted and received the consent of the Greater London Authority.’”— (Dr Blackman-Woods.)

This amendment would empower local planning authorities to impose a planning obligation when giving planning permission for the construction of new housing for sale requiring that a proportion of the housing is marketed exclusively to local first-time buyers.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The new clause would apply to all new homes for sale given planning permission by local authorities, as well as those given permission in principle, under provisions in the Housing and Planning Bill. The new clause would give local authorities the power to require a proportion of new homes for sale to be marketed exclusively to local first-time buyers for a specified period. Local authorities could make a judgment call about what proportion was reasonable. The new clause would allow the Secretary of State or, in Greater London, the Mayor of London, to make reasonable definitions of the time period for exclusive local marketing and to make definitions of what “local” means.

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

I entirely agree with the hon. Lady’s desire to encourage first-time buyers. Does she not agree, though, that the starter home provisions that we agreed some weeks ago will go a very long way towards doing that?

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

What the new clause is designed to do, which I think the hon. Gentleman has probably realised—I am not totally sure—is to ensure that where new homes are available, they go to local people. There would be a period of time during which they were marketed to local people. This is particularly a London issue, and I will go on to talk about why it is so critical in London.

In many parts of the country, local first-time buyers compete for new homes with second-home buyers and buy-to-let investors. There is wide concern that the problem affecting first-time buyers is growing and that something needs to be done. The director of research at Countrywide was reported in the Daily Express as saying that

“landlords and first-time buyers are now in direct competition because they tend to look for homes that are smaller and cheaper than average.”

The trend has been confirmed by the mortgage search tracker from Mortgage Advice Bureau, whose data in November showed that the number of buy-to-let landlords searching for mortgages on cheaper properties was up 17% on the same quarter last year.

The property website Rightmove was reported in The Guardian in October as saying:

“First-time buyers are facing asking prices almost 10% higher than a year ago because of demand from buy-to-let investors”.

In February 2015, the rural housing policy review, chaired by Lord Richard Best and sponsored by Hastoe housing association, recommended that, in areas of high second-home ownership, the Government should require

“a proportion of new…homes granted planning permission…to be with the condition that they can only be used as principal residences.”

There are, as we know, particular impacts in London from the non-availability of homes for first-time buyers. In London, the problem of first-time buyers being squeezed out is particularly acute, with high proportions of new homes sold to investors, including off-plan overseas investors.

[Mr Jackson]

The hon. Lady will know that the Chancellor of the Exchequer made some fiscal changes in the autumn statement that specifically focused on the difficulties encountered by first-time buyers in London vis-à-vis buy-to-let landlords. I just wonder—I may have missed something—why the new clause does not apply just to London. Is she saying that the problem is nationwide?

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

I am saying that the problem is particularly acute in London, but housing stress and difficulty getting on the housing ladder not only affect people in London. It happens in a lot of our cities, and it happens in rural areas, too. There is a particularly acute situation in London, which I will talk about in a moment or two.

[Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)]

I thought I would give my hon. Friend a useful illustration from my constituency. Overseas buyers regularly turn up at City airport, get the docklands light railway over to Greenwich and buy off-plan—not buy to let but off-plan, and sometimes in cash—just to hold the property as an asset, rather than seeking to rent it out.

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for that extremely helpful intervention highlighting some of the difficulties in London, which enables me to respond further to the intervention of the hon. Member for Peterborough. The autumn statement included some measures that might affect buy to let. We do not know what the full outcome of those measures will be, but they do not address the issue of overseas investors buying up properties to keep them empty.

[Mr Jackson]

Taking on board the comments of the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich, surely the issue is wider than that. It is about tax changes and fiscal policy for overseas buyers, rather than adding quite a prescriptive new clause to the Bill in respect of first-time buyers. There is a difference between those who are purchasing properties from overseas and those who are seeking to become first-time buyers.

[The Chair]

Order. We are straying slightly wide of the new clause. In the context of planning obligations for first-time buyers, I call Roberta Blackman-Woods.

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

I was going to say to the hon. Member for Peterborough that I would be ruled out of order if I went too far down the fiscal route. The new clause primarily seeks to probe the Minister on what more can be done to ensure that first-time buyers are not priced out of the housing market and to ensure that their needs are considered in order to encourage them into the housing market.

Research by Molior London Ltd for the British Property Federation shows that, in 2013, 61% of new homes in London went to investors and 49% of all new homes in central London were bought by overseas buyers. Londoners are competing with wealthy buyers who are being actively targeted across the world. Housing stock is being sold so many years in advance of being built that cash buyers are favoured over those buying with a mortgage, and a number of us have seen examples in the press of that happening throughout the capital. Councils are powerless to prevent it from happening, even though the phenomenon is widespread and growing. For example, when someone clicks on the “enquire” tab of the website for the new 624-apartment Wardian development on the Isle of Dogs, they are asked to choose their location from London, Kuala Lumpur, Singapore, Hong Kong, Qatar, Abu Dhabi and Dubai. The scheme is not due for completion until 2019.

In 2014, the Mayor of London announced a mayoral concordat that would commit signatories to marketing new homes to Londoners first or first equal, yet that has failed to offer Londoners any meaningful first choice. Even if homes are technically available to Londoners on a first equal basis, the homes are being marketed across the world many years ahead of being completed. By ensuring that the period of exclusive marketing to local first-time buyers starts no earlier than six months before completion, the new clause would ensure that a proportion of new homes for first-time buyers are held back to be sold as they near completion, which would help people who are trying to buy with a mortgage.

As the Minister will know, the new clause seeks to address the horrible reality, faced by many people in London and other cities, of being priced out of the housing market because of overseas buyers coming in and snapping up the properties. If the Minister does not think that the new clause provides the way forward, it will be interesting to hear what he thinks will tackle the problem.

[Brandon Lewis]

We clearly need a radical shift in how housing markets support young first-time buyers, otherwise we will condemn a whole generation to further uncertainty and insecurity. On the hon. Lady’s point about buy to let and overseas investment, which my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough touched on, there are two things we need to bear in mind.

First, we need to be cautious about always falling into the trap of attacking overseas investment, because we have to remember that, during the economic crash of 2008, a great deal of building in this country, in London in particular, would not have happened had it not been for overseas money. Projects such as Battersea would not be going ahead where no English money was bidding to come forward. There is a part for overseas investment to play.

Secondly, it is also right to do what we can to deliver the homes that we need for young people in this country. That is why we saw the changes in the Budget this year to the tax relief for buy to lets, as well as the changes announced in the autumn statement only a few weeks ago, which made a substantial statement about where the Government are going and about our determination to deliver for people who want to buy their own home. I am therefore pleased that the Government have already made tremendous strides making mortgage lending available again to first-time buyers through the Help to Buy scheme. The number of first-time buyers has now increased by 68% since 2010.

I also recognise, however, the point made very well by the hon. Member for City of Durham: more needs to be done. We have to be clear and honest with ourselves that young people are struggling to buy their first home as house prices have continued to increase. Over the past 20 years, the proportion of under-40s who own their own home has been on a downward trend, so I fully understand and endorse the underlying policy objective of the new clause.

I believe, however, that promoting starter homes, as part 1 of the Bill does, is a much better way of achieving that objective. Not only will developers be required to build a proportion of starter homes on all suitable, reasonably sized sites in future, but those starter homes will be at least 20% cheaper than the going market price. That will give more prospective first-time buyers the opportunity to buy an affordable home of their own, especially if linked with Help to Buy and the 5% deposit, which the new clause would not necessarily achieve.

That is why we want 200,000 new starter homes built over the Parliament, with a minimum of a 20% discount. The Bill sets the framework for delivering our commitment. In November we debated in Committee the starter homes clauses extensively and the new clause would not add further value given the reforms we are putting in place. With that assurance, I hope the hon. Lady will withdraw the new clause.

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

I want to make it clear that, in moving the motion, we were not in any way suggesting that we were against a degree of overseas investment. The new clause is clear that the provisions would relate to a proportion of the dwellings that are marketed. It was simply intended to allow local people to have a way in to some of the new developments and to ensure that the new homes were not totally unavailable to them because they had all been bought up by overseas investors.

I have heard the Minister’s comments, however, and I think the Government are seeking to find a way of addressing the issue. We will mull over his comments and decide whether to investigate things at a later stage. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 22

Security of tenure

“After section 19A of the Housing Act 1988 insert—

‘(1) Any assured shorthold tenancy (other than one where the landlord is a private registered provider of social housing) granted on or after April 1, 2018 must be for a fixed term of at least thirty six months. It is an implied term of such a tenancy that the tenant may terminate the tenancy by giving two months’ written notice to the landlord.’

(2) In section 21 Housing Act 1988 insert—

‘(4ZA) In the case of a dwelling-house in England no notice under subsection (4) may be given for thirty six months after the beginning of the tenancy.’”—(Teresa Pearce.)

This amendment would prevent private sector landlords from using the ‘notice only’ grounds for possession for the first three years of a tenancy, without affecting the rights of tenants to give notice and leave the tenancy early.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Teresa Pearce (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The new clause would have the effect of making longer-term tenancy much more common. Landlords and tenants would both have stability, but with the ability to terminate contracts early with proper notice, if they have to, just as they can now.

The private rented sector is an important and growing part of the housing sector. The number of people living in the private rented sector has increased by 2.5 million since 2010. Now, 1.5 million families with children are renting from a private landlord and could be evicted with as little as two months’ notice. Some 9 million people now rent privately. Almost half of those who rent are over 35. Many of them want the same security and stability that they would have if they owned their own home but the rules on private renting have not caught up with the way people live now.

14:45

Historically, private renting was mainly for students or was temporary. For example, if someone moved house from one place to another, they might rent temporarily for six months. Now, families live in the private rented sector. Private rents have risen massively—by more than 20% since 2010. While costs rise in the private sector, insecurity also rises. Assured shorthold tenancies have quickly become the most common type of tenancy, accounting for the majority of all private rental agreements, yet those tenancies have only provided security of tenure for less than 12 months.

Privately renting households, including many families with children, are moving between properties with much greater regularity now than 20 years ago. That clearly suits some people. Many private renters are young and move between properties for job-related reasons. At the other end of the sector, many struggle on low incomes, under further pressure from increasing rents and with the uncertainty of insecure tenancies looming on the horizon.

Most landlords seek good tenants and want them to stay for a long time. They want to build up a relationship with tenants who pay their rent on time and treat the property respectfully as their home. Most tenants seek a place with security in their tenancy, where they can plan for the future and build a home, but the current legislation leaves tenants with permanent uncertainty over their future and an inability to commit to a property and to a local community.

Insecurity manifests itself by restricting tenants. They might feel unable to commit to work or other opportunities for fear of the looming end of their tenancy. They might feel unable to start a family, worrying about the insecurity the future may bring. Insecurity might mean that tenants refrain from spending money on the property to redecorate, if allowed, and to make it a home for fear or losing out if forced to move on within the year.

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

I am very supportive of the principle of longer tenancies, but should that not be the option of the landlord as well? Has the hon. Lady considered the impact on landlords and on supply in the private rented sector if conditions on landlords are made too onerous? Does she understand that that might restrict supply and mean that properties are not there to rent in the first place?

[Teresa Pearce]

I recall in an earlier debate on rogue landlords that we also said that there were rogue tenants. There needs to be security on both sides. Later, I will come to the fact that the Residential Landlords Association supports the measure. It needs to be done sensibly, but I take the hon. Gentleman’s point.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The RLA supports this measure—a minimum of three years on a tenancy agreement? The hon. Lady must give us more details.

[Teresa Pearce]

I will, later in my speech. The RLA supports the Government looking into the ability to have longer tenancies as a more normal structure. It is particularly bothered about the situation where a landlord has a leasehold property bought from a local authority freeholder, and the local authority will not allow that landlord to let for longer than a year. The association just wants a discussion about that sort of thing, which is why I am bringing the matter to the Committee today.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I am aware of its proposals in that regard, but that is optional, not compulsory. The new clause would make it compulsory for a landlord to give a three-year agreement. I do not know any landlord association that would support that.

[Teresa Pearce]

This is a probing amendment to see what we agree on. I am glad that you do think that longer tenancies—

[The Chair]

I don’t think that—the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton does.

[Teresa Pearce]

I note that the hon. Gentleman does think that longer tenancies can be a good thing. The purpose of the amendment is to have that debate and to understand the Government’s direction of travel—possibly with longer tenancies in the future. I completely accept what you say.

[The Chair]

No, you completely accept what he says.

[Teresa Pearce]

I completely accept what the hon. Gentleman says.

Insecurity in housing affects not only individuals—tenants or landlords—but our whole society. There is a small school in my area that is in a fairly settled part of my constituency, and yet staff there told me that they had a whole class of pupils—30 pupils—that had churned in and out since September. It really affects the way that teachers can make progress with a class when there are new children coming in and out all the time, and the staff put that churn down to the private rented sector.

There is also a doctors’ surgery in my constituency that has 14,000 patients, and every year 4,000 of those patients move on and move to a different practice. A third of patients coming and going makes it nigh-on impossible for the doctors to deal with long-term health issues. They cannot run campaigns on diabetes, obesity or smoking with any success, because a third of their patients are constantly churning in and out. Many of the patients are living in bad conditions with mould and damp, and suffering from asthma, which puts more pressure on GP services.

Also, more secure tenancies and housing will allow families to become more settled, which I believe would help the local economy. Many employers, small and large, that I go to see tell me that they have a problem with recruitment, and it is because of the insecurity in the housing sector.

New clause 22 is designed to encourage longer-term tenancies and to make them much more common, so that both landlords and tenants have more stability. It is important to note that that should not penalise responsible landlords who may need to evict tenants, perhaps because their own financial position has changed or perhaps because they are unhappy with the way the tenant is treating the property. These are legitimate circumstances in which landlords should still be able to evict tenants by providing proper notice.

Measures to increase long-term tenancies are supported not only by me personally but across the industry. In particular, I will highlight some of the written evidence that the Residential Landlords Association gave to the Committee. The RLA wrote:

“We believe that reforms are needed to encourage a culture of long termism within the private rented sector which would play a significant part in stabilising rents for tenants.”

It also wrote:

“Too often letting agents base their business models on short term tenancies, charging fees (and thereby increasing rents) when they are renewed.”

It continued:

“The evidence shows that where tenants stay in their properties for longer periods, landlords are reluctant to increase rents, at least beyond inflation…Landlords often want to offer longer tenancies…Many landlords are prevented from voluntarily providing for tenancies longer than a year by mortgage lenders and the owners of blocks of flats”,

including the freehold owners of blocks of flats. Those were the words of the RLA.

I raised this issue in the most recent Department for Communities and Local Government oral questions with the Minister, and I hope that I might hear more today about what conversations are being had with mortgage providers. I know that the Nationwide now does not have a clause in buy-to-let mortgages whereby it will not allow lettings for longer than a year. However, other lenders have not been as enlightened, so I would be interested to know whether Ministers have had any discussions with the Treasury regarding this issue.

Finally, it is worth noting that many other countries already have longer-term tenancies. I accept that in some other countries in Europe there is not the same attitude towards home ownership that we have in this country, and that renting is a much more normal way of life there. However, in countries such as Germany, Switzerland and Belgium, long-term contracts and more flexibility give tenants the chance to plan for the future. In Germany, leases are usually signed for an unlimited period of time, and in France, where one in five people rent, longer leases are always available.

I am sure that Members from all parties have been contacted in the past by tenants who are struggling because they cannot find stable housing. I think we all agree that we want stability in housing, and longer-term tenancies could be a way of securing that stability. So we hope that we find some common ground with the Minister, and I am very interested to hear the Government thinking regarding longer tenancies becoming more of a norm than they are at the moment.

[Mr Jones]

Let me make it clear that this Government are committed to building a bigger and better private rented sector, which provides security and stability. We have taken action to support the supply and quality of private rented accommodation by resisting unnecessary and unhelpful regulation, while cracking down on the worst practices of some rogue landlords. Our model tenancy agreement, which was introduced in September 2014, promotes longer tenancies for landlords and tenants who vote to sign up to them.

However, there is no one-size-fits-all approach to tenancy length. Many landlords are looking to rent out a property for the longer term, but there will be some for whom letting a property is a short-term plan and who need the property back at some point, perhaps even for their own family to live in. Although I understand the spirit in which the amendment has been tabled, I think it would be counter-productive and would overburden the market with restrictive red tape, stifling investment and the supply of rented housing at a time when we most need to encourage it. That would not help tenants or landlords.

[Peter Dowd]

I can accept the assertion that the Minister is making, but actually, all the evidence from continental Europe points in the opposite direction. Investment is not stifled—quite the opposite. Secure tenancies often give the security to people investing in them, so the evidence continentally does not indicate that.

[Mr Jones]

The hon. Gentleman gives me a very good opportunity to segue into explaining that before assured shorthold tenancies were introduced by the Housing Act 1988, the private rental market was in severe decline. Lifetime tenancies and regulated rents meant that being a landlord was simply not commercially viable for many property owners. Since 1988, however, the private rented sector has grown steadily, increasing from just over 9% of the market in 1988 to 19% today. Landlords, and in many cases tenants, welcome the flexibility of the current assured shorthold tenancy regime, which does not lock the parties into long-term commitments and promotes mobility. Without the certainty that landlords can seek repossession when required, many, I am sure, would be reluctant to let their properties. I believe that the current framework strikes the right balance between the rights of landlords and tenants. With those points in mind, I hope that the hon. Lady will withdraw her amendment.

[Teresa Pearce]

I am interested in what the Minister said, but he has not responded to the point about the artificial barriers to some landlords, who want the choice to have either a short let or a longer let, but who are restricted by the freeholder—often the local authority—or the mortgage lender. Perhaps he would like to answer that or write to me about it at some future point.

[Mr Jones]

I will certainly undertake to write to the hon. Lady on that, but I also say that in reality, figures show that the length of time that somebody takes a tenancy from a landlord is, on average, three and a half years.

[Teresa Pearce]

That is not the case in my constituency, I assure him; that is very rare.

I believe that longer tenancies are a very good idea. It is interesting that in the heated debate we had this morning, tenancies of two to five years were meant to be the right thing for social tenants, but for private rented tenants, there is resistance to it. However, given that the Minister is going to write to me regarding the particular issue I am concerned about, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 24

Local Authorities and Development Control Services

“(1) A local planning authority may set a charging regime in relation to their development control services to allow for the cost of providing the development control service to be recouped.

(2) Such a charging regime will be subject to statutory consultation.”—(Helen Hayes.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

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

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 31—Local authority planning fees cost recovery schemes—

“Local authorities shall be given powers to operate full cost recovery schemes with regard to fee levels relating to planning applications”.

This amendment would allow local authorities to develop a planning fees schedule that would enable the full costs of processing planning applications to be recovered.

[Helen Hayes]

Since 2010, spending on planning by local authorities has almost halved, from £2.2 billion in 2010 to £1.2 billion this year—a decline second only to that in spending on cultural services. In previous sittings of the Committee, Government Members have dismissed the situation as simply being down to the choices of local authorities, but in reality, many councils have faced a Hobson’s choice. The extent of cuts to local authority budgets has been so great over the past five years that councils have had to cut across all areas of expenditure, and most have made the entirely rational and appropriate choice, when pressed, to protect where they can the services on which the most vulnerable residents rely—adult social services and children’s services. That has resulted in a situation where areas such as planning and cultural services have taken a disproportionate level of the cuts.

15:00

No one’s life is put in jeopardy as a consequence of planning cuts, unlike in areas such as adult social care or children’s services. The consequences of poor-quality or untimely planning decisions are felt by communities many years down the line, so it is important that planning services are resourced, but that resourcing should absolutely not be at the expense of services on which our most vulnerable residents rely.

We heard from the Royal Town Planning Institute in oral evidence that it believes councils should be allowed to recoup the full costs of providing planning services. The point has rightly been made that good, well-run planning departments contribute to economic development and growth. The proper resourcing of planning departments is essential to their being able to do that.

The new clause is supported by the Local Government Association, which writes:

“The LGA broadly supports new clause 24…which would enable local planning authorities to set a charging regime in relation to their development control service to allow for the cost of providing the service to be recovered. Councils have been forced to spend in excess of £450 million covering the cost of planning applications over the last three years. Currently year on year taxpayers are subsidising 30 per cent of the estimated cost of processing all planning applications in England because nationally set planning fees do not cover the full costs. Introducing locally-set planning fees would enable councils to deliver responsive council planning services that are crucial to growth and building the homes we need.”

Together with new clause 31, on which my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham will speak shortly, new clause 24 is supported by London Councils, which writes:

“We believe the government should localise fee setting and scheduling controls so as to support boroughs that commit to boost the supply of housing. This would produce a more effective, swifter and consistent planning service, and ensure a properly resourced and more efficient planning system in the context of development control in London having seen an estimated net shortfall of around £37-£45 million annually between 2012-13 and 2014-15.”

London Councils published the results of research on charges last year. This found that,

“if planning fees for large scale housing regeneration projects were charged on a full cost recovery system enabling councils to meet all 13 week planning targets, this would save developers up to £486 million per year in delayed development costs, while adding only £65 million in planning fees.”

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The hon. Lady talks about efficiency and cost. There is a connection between the two. Does she agree that local planning authorities should be more creative in how they share services, in order to become more efficient and lower costs?

[Helen Hayes]

I agree that local authorities should be as efficient as possible wherever they can, and that in some cases economies of scale can be derived from sharing services. I also believe, however, that a certain volume of work is created by large-scale planning applications and by our need to deliver new homes across the country that must be properly resourced; I am suggesting to the Government a creative way in which that might be achieved.

[Mr Jackson]

I am slightly disappointed that the Local Government Association supported the new clause, because it is incumbent upon the LGA to understand that the cumulative impact of regeneration, much of which is housing, is beneficial to local authorities; it is an investment. This should be seen in the context of non-domestic rates, the new homes bonus or sales-related taxes—the long-term capital investment—rather than just a one-off negative cost.

[Helen Hayes]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that this is an investment. It is, however, an investment that many local authorities do not have the luxury of being able to make in the context of the stretching of their resources across other very important statutory areas of service.

I will complete the quotation from London Councils:

“Full cost charging could also be used to fund the kind of pro-active multi-borough teams that supported”

the work of the Olympic Delivery Authority. Where we have large-scale regeneration across a wide area, London Councils supports the principle that local authorities should share that resource and be able to recoup the costs of it.

The new clause makes sense for councils, who would be able to raise the resources that they need without jeopardising vital statutory services such as children’s and adults’ social care; for communities, who will get higher-quality decisions; and for developers, who will get the speed of service they need to bring forward development. I hope that the Government will support it.

[Chris Philp]

It is an exquisite pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I shall be extremely brief.

Again, I draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I spent the past five years financing developers, and must say that they commonly complain that local authority planning departments are both insufficiently resourced in terms of the number of people they employ and inadequately resourced in terms of the quality of those people, because so many move into private practice.

I fully accept the points, made in interventions by my colleagues on the Government Benches, that local authority planning departments should be made more efficient by sharing services and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough said, that local authorities enjoy financial benefit when development takes place, but I do know that developers would, in principle, be prepared to pay higher fees in exchange for better levels of service, which they can currently do via agreements for larger schemes. There might be some concern that local authorities would simply take the extra fees and spend them on something else, so will the Ministers consider whether in future local authorities could be permitted to charge a specific higher fee in exchange for a guaranteed service level? If that service level was not delivered, the fee could be refundable so that there would be a direct and explicit link between the fee and the service. I understand, though, that this is a complicated subject area and there are views on both sides.

[Peter Dowd]

I am exquisitely pleased that you have given way on that point.

[The Chair]

I have not given way.

[Peter Dowd]

That the hon. Gentleman has given way.

Here we go again with the issue of localism. The bottom line is that, whether we like it or not, we are going to have to trust local authorities to make decisions and deliver. The new clause would just give us the ability to make those decisions in the best interests of the local area. I do not like the idea—through you, Mr Gray—of Ministers yet again saying one thing and doing another.

[Chris Philp]

It is reasonable to want to ensure that developers are not simply treated as cash cows and penalised with unlimited fees, which is why I was suggesting that the Ministers might in future consider a fixed-fee schedule related to specific service delivery, with the extra fees being refunded if that delivery is not made. Having uncapped fees so that developers could simply be bled dry would be a retrograde step.

[Helen Hayes]

The text of the new clause is explicit in saying that the schedule of charges should be set in a transparent way. To my mind, that would include setting out the level of service that would be expected to be delivered, as well as the full cost of that service, and undertaking consultation with the wider development industry prior to setting the schedule of charges. I hope that answers the hon. Gentleman’s point.

[Chris Philp]

Before one could sign up to the new clause, one would want to see the detail, which clearly is not there. I think I have made my point in general terms.

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

I have been momentarily knocked off track by the hon. Gentleman’s final comments. We have been debating most of the Bill without the detail we need because most of it is coming in regulations, so I hope he will address those comments to his Ministers.

I rise to support new clause 24, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood, and to speak briefly to new clause 31. The hon. Member for Croydon South might want to think about why so many planners from local authorities are leaving to join the private sector, because that used not to happen. It is a fairly recent phenomenon that so many local authority planners have been moving on. The reason is that local authority planning departments are in a very, very pressed situation, with reduced resources, greater pressure and increasing insecurity because they do not know when the next round of Government cuts is going to mean that they will lose their job. The only way to address that is to resource local authority planning departments properly—something that developers speak to me about all the time.

If the hon. Member for Peterborough is upset by the Local Government Association backing my hon. Friend’s new clause, he will be even more upset by the fact that the District Councils Network has come out very strongly in favour of the idea that there should be some cost recovery at a local level:

“Having a system where Whitehall dictates to local councils what planning fees they can charge is very unfair for local taxpayers around the country who are left paying the shortfall where fees don’t cover costs. Letting councils set their own fees is a much fairer system for both the applicant and the local taxpayer and will ensure there is flexibility in the system to recover the actual costs of applications.”

In 2010, a major review, which was instigated by the last Labour Government, was carried out of how local planning fees should operate. Instead of bringing forward a plan for the localisation of planning fees, as had been suggested throughout the consultation exercise before 2010, the Government merely revised the fee levels in 2012. That did not carry with it the degree of localism that we all wanted to see. As my hon. Friend has pointed out, London Councils has stressed that point recently, because of the impact of the increasing number of planning applications that local authorities are having to deal with, particularly in the London area:

“We believe the government should localise fee setting and scheduling controls so as to support boroughs that commit to boost the supply of housing. This would produce a more effective, swifter and consistent planning service, and ensure a properly resourced and more efficient planning system in the context of development control in London having seen an estimated net shortfall of around £37-£45 million annually”.

London Councils has stated that,

“if planning fees for large scale housing regeneration projects were charged on a full cost recovery system enabling councils to meet all 13 week planning targets, this would save developers up to £486 million per year in delayed development costs, while adding only £65 million in planning fees. Full cost charging could also be used to fund the kind of pro-active multi-borough teams that supported the work”

of the Olympic Delivery Authority. Developers, the LGA, London Councils and the District Councils Network —more or less everyone involved in the planning and development system—think that local authorities should be able to set planning fees locally, but the Government do not. We can find no rationale for that. The District Councils Network has helpfully set out for the Government some principles that could be applied.

[Peter Dowd]

Does my hon. Friend agree that there are contradictions all over the place? For example, the Government are quite happy to let local authorities raise 2% for social care, but they do not seem to take the same view on matters such as this.

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. As we have discussed several times in Committee, the Government’s approach is not necessarily consistent.

The District Councils Network has requested that four common principles be adopted. Principle 1 is the ability to have full cost recovery as a minimum, with full transparency as to method of fee calculation, which could be achieved through an earned autonomy approach. Principle 2 is that council tax payers should not subsidise commercial activities or companies. Principle 3 is that, wherever possible, charges should be determined locally. Principle 4 is that if central Government continue to determine charges at a national level, there should be an agreed annual indexation mechanism. If we do not want to go all the way down the road of local charging, some of those principles could be applied to move us some of the way down that road. I am interested to hear what the Minister has to say about that, particularly as the Government seem to be in an isolated position once again.

15:15

[Mr Jackson]

It is obviously being so cheerful that keeps the hon. Lady going.

I want to briefly add my comments to the debate. The hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood has experience in the field and proceeded on the basis of a very reasoned and moderate argument, with which many Government Members agree. We were looking forward—still look forward— to hearing the Minister respond in a similar vein. It is unfortunate that the hon. Member for City of Durham—she was rather sparky today and I do not know why; perhaps it is end-of-term blues—has sought to—

[Mr Thomas]

Get a move on!

[Mr Bacon]

Pot, kettle, black.

[Mr Jackson]

I think Hansard can record “Pot, kettle, black” there. The loquacity of the hon. Member for Harrow West in this Committee is legendary. I defer to no one in my admiration for him.

There is a good reason why there should be consistency in charging across the country. That said, some years ago I had the experience of visiting Medway unitary authority, which had significant numbers of large infrastructure projects that were beyond the capacity of the planning and development control teams in Medway and many other local authorities, and it got some big construction companies to effectively second services to the planning department, so that the services were offered in a non-monetised way. That was a good compromise, which shows that the very best and visionary local planning officers—head of planning, city council, borough councillors and civic leaders—do make the effort to involve their staff with developers and with big regeneration projects.

The Committee will be interested to know that in my own local authority, Peterborough city council, at the planning and environmental protection committee on Tuesday, the Fletton Quays project was agreed with 285 homes, a hotel, shops and restaurants on the south bank of the River Nene. It is a bit naughty, because technically it is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Mr Vara), but I am sure my hon. Friend will forgive me on this occasion for drawing it to the Committee’s attention. However, that was an example of a joint venture partnership between the planning department and the developer, Lucent, and others.

The point is that there are different ways to access money from developers without putting in the Bill a prescriptive way forward.

[Mr Bacon]

I am listening with great interest to my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough, who, unlike the hon. Member for Harrow West, has been contributing in a powerful way this afternoon. My hon. Friend mentioned a joint venture between planning departments and others. Does he share my view that the problem is not what is or is not in the Bill, but the lack of innovation and dynamism from some of the planning departments controlled by the sclerotic Opposition?

[Hon. Members]

Speech!

[The Chair]

Order. I do not need any help from Back Benchers to keep order in this Committee, as they no doubt will have discovered already.

[Mr Jackson]

The hon. Member for Harrow West has obviously got a tiger in his tank this afternoon as well.

My hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk is absolutely spot-on. It is no good whining about funding constantly and saying, “It is not as it used to be.” We have to go out and attract forward-looking, intelligent, smart planning officers. They are out there. I give way to the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood, who I am sure is in that category.

[Helen Hayes]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. The new clause is not about constantly whining about funding. It is about putting the absolutely vital task of securing the new homes that we need through the planning system on a sustainable financial footing, without placing an additional burden on the public purse. He would surely agree with that.

[Mr Jackson]

I would not agree with that, but we all see issues in politics through the prism of our constituencies, which is quite natural. In my constituency, we have a target to build 25,500 homes between 2001 and 2031, which is enormous growth. We are the second-fastest-growing city in England, and our planning department, in only a medium-sized unitary authority, is award-winning because it has worked with developers and it has delivered its structure plan, local plan, site location plans, city centre area action plan and other supplementary development on time. It has managed to recruit good people. I gently suggest to the LGA and the District Councils Network that we should be encouraging best practice in recruiting really good planning officers, rather than trying to legislate for it on the face of a Housing and Planning Bill.

[The Chair]

Order. I have been reasonably accommodating, but the new clause under consideration is about charging for planning. I think that general debate on the way in which planning departments work is perhaps a little wide of the mark.

[Mr Jackson]

Mr Gray, I accept your admonition. I am just reaching a crescendo in my remarks.

[Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)]

Just before my hon. Friend does, will he give way?

[Mr Jackson]

Before I reach that crescendo, I will give way to my hon. Friend.

[Stephen Hammond]

I am very much looking forward to my hon. Friend’s crescendo. Will he reflect in his closing remarks on the fact that the planning system, via the pre-application process, already contains the chance for small developers to pay to get developments brought forward more quickly, and that does reflect the full cost to the authority?

[Mr Jackson]

Not for the first time, my hon. Friend rescues me from falling into your disregard, Mr Gray, and gets me back on track. There is full cost recovery at pre-application, and one of the most useful aspects of planning and development control is the help and assistance that developers get from good, experienced, knowledgeable planning officers at the pre-application stage, leading them to make timely, properly costed applications that will be expedited through the planning system. The new clause may be probing, but it is superfluous and unnecessary and if it is pressed to a vote, I suggest that the Committee reject it.

[The Chair]

Helen Hayes.

[Helen Hayes]

rose—

[The Chair]

I am sorry, the Minister.

[Brandon Lewis]

Thank you, Mr Gray. I was already looking forward to an early Christmas finish.

Before discussing the new clauses’ merit, I should highlight to hon. Members who may not have noticed that section 303 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 already provides for the Secretary of State to allow, by regulations, local planning authorities to set their own level of fees up to cost recovery. We are therefore already technically in possession of the powers to enable local fee setting.

Authorities have a crucial role to play in providing services, none more so than enabling development to encourage home ownership, building homes people can afford to buy, and supporting economic growth and job creation. An effective and efficient planning system is essential to support that. Authorities have done a lot of work to find savings and efficiencies over the past few years, but fees for making planning applications have been set nationally and make an important contribution to meeting the costs of development management services. As has been outlined, they were last revised in 2012, and that revision was substantial.

I hear the call from professional bodies and developers that action is needed to ensure that local planning departments are resourced properly. My hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon pointed out that we already have planning performance agreements that developers will take forward in order to have a guaranteed level of service. However, the level of planning application fees is only one side of the resourcing equation. Local government must drive down its costs, too. I am clear that any changes in fees should go hand in hand with the provision of an effective service. Giving local government a completely blank cheque, as the new clauses would do, could bring about unintended risks, as touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough.

Many more local authorities can do much more to transform their planning departments. I actually thank the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood for tabling her new clause as it gives me the chance, as I had on the Floor of the House just a few weeks ago, to reconfirm that, although some authorities have introduced new ways of delivering planning services through outsourcing and shared service arrangements, showing that costs can be saved and services can be improved, more should be following that lead. The research shows that there is a saving of 5% to 20% for competitively tendered or completely shared services. More local authorities need to do that, not just because it brings efficiencies but because it brings better resource, particularly for small districts that will be challenged to find the best players. Coming together gives them a better career opportunity, and there is also an opportunity for planners. Not enough local authorities have moved down that road.

I do not disagree with the hon. Members who spoke in favour of the proper resourcing of planning services, but local government and councils need to understand that their planning department is also their economic regeneration department, and they should focus clearly on it. Going further must go hand in hand with local authorities driving forward those service improvements and cost reductions.

We heard from my hon. Friends in Committee last week interesting ideas about fast-track planning applications and having a more competitive planning process. I made a commitment at the time, and I do so again today, to consider them before the end of this Bill process. That, rather than a focus on raising fees alone, is the type of innovative thinking that needs to be brought to the resourcing debate.

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

I hear what the Minister is saying about driving efficiency. Nevertheless, we have to ask what the Government can possibly mean by devolution if they do not even trust planning authorities to set their own fee levels.

[Brandon Lewis]

Finally, I will respond to the many references that hon. Members have made throughout the Committee proceedings, in one form or another, to resourcing—in fact, the hon. Lady just referred to it. The spending review provides a reasonable offer to local government and an increase in resources over this Parliament in cash terms. By the end of this Parliament, local government will be able to retain 100% of local taxes to spend on local services. We have to be honest and clear about this: local authorities have been able to increase their reserves over the past few years from about £13 billion to £22 billion. Although they should retain sensible reserves, they should also look at how to prioritise the funding they have, and they must see planning as a core and important department. As I said at the start of my speech, we already have the powers to allow local planning authorities to set fees locally. I have undertaken to look at some of the suggestions that my hon. Friends made last week. With that, I ask the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood to withdraw the new clause.

[Helen Hayes]

I thank the Minister for his response, and in particular for agreeing that planning services should be properly resourced in local authorities. I agree that there is scope for innovation. I saw innovation during my work in planning, but I think that the task of delivering the new homes that we need through the planning system cannot be fulfilled by innovation alone. Those services must be resourced on a basis that is proper, modern and fit for purpose, given that local authority resources are very stretched and that planning is competing with services that are of a different order of magnitude. I therefore wish to press new clause 24 to a Division.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

Division 16

Ayes: 7

---

Labour: 5

Noes: 11

---

Conservative: 11

New Clause 25

Implied term of fitness for human habitation in residential lettings

“Implied term of fitness for human habitation in residential lettings

‘(1) Section 8 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (c.70) is amended as follows.

(2) Leave out subsection (3) and insert—

“(3) Subject to subsection (7), this section applies to any tenancy or licence under which a dwelling house is let wholly or mainly for human habitation.”

(3) Leave out subsections (4) to (6).

(4) After subsection (3), insert—

“(3ZA) Subsection 1 does not apply where the condition of the dwelling-house or common parts is due to—

(a) a breach by the tenant of the duty to use the dwelling-house in a tenant-like manner, or often express term of the tenancy to the same effect; or

(b) damage by fire, flood, tempest or other natural cause or inevitable accident.

(3ZB) Subsection 1 shall not require the landlord or licensor of the dwelling house to carry out works—

(a) which would contravene any statutory obligation or restriction; or

(b) which require the consent of a superior landlord, provided that such consent has been refused and the landlord or licensor has no right of action on the basis that such refusal of consent is unreasonable.

(3ZC) Any provision of or relating to a tenancy or licence is void insofar as it purports—

(a) to exclude or limit the obligations of the landlord or licensor under this section; or

(b) to permit any forfeiture or impose on the tenant or licensee any penalty or disadvantage in the event of his seeking to enforce the obligation under subsection (1).

(3ZD) Regulations may make provision for the exclusion of certain classes of letting from subsection (1).

(3ZE) In this section “house” has the same meaning as “dwelling house” and includes—

(a) a part of a house, and

(b) any yard, garden, outhouses and appurtenances belonging to the house or usually enjoyed with it.”

(5) In section 10 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, after “waste water”, insert—

“any other matter or thing that may amount, singly or cumulatively, to a Category 1 hazard within the meaning of section 2 of the Housing Act 2004.”

(6) Regulations may make provision for guidance as to the operation of the matters set out in section 10 which are relevant to the assessment of fitness for human habitation.

(7) This section shall come into force—

(a) In England at the end of the period of three months from the date on which this Act receives Royal Assent and shall apply to all tenancies licences and agreements for letting made on or after that date; and

(b) In Wales on a date to be appointed by the Welsh Ministers.”—(Teresa Pearce.)

This new Clause would place a duty on landlords to ensure that their properties are fit for habitation when let and remain fit during the course of the tenancy.

Brought up, and read the First time.

15:30

[Teresa Pearce]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 26—Requirement to carry out electrical safety checks—

‘(1) A landlord of a rental property shall ensure that there is maintained in a safe condition—

(a) any electrical installation; and

(b) any electrical appliances supplied by the landlord so as to prevent the risk of injury to any person in lawful occupation or relevant premises.

(2) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1), a landlord shall—

(a) ensure that the electrical installation and any electrical appliances supplied by the landlord are checked for safety within 12 months of initial leasing and thereafter at intervals of not more than 5 years since they were last checked for safety (whether such check was made pursuant to this Act or not);

(b) in the case of a lease commencing after the coming into force of this Act, ensure that the electrical installation and each electrical appliance to which the duty extends has been checked for safety within a period of 12 months before the lease commences or has been or is so checked within 12 months after the electrical installation or electrical appliance has been installed, whichever is later; and

(c) ensure that a record in respect of any electrical installation or electrical appliance so checked is made and retained for a period of 6 years from the date of that check and which shall include the following information—

(i) the date on which the electrical installation or electrical appliance was checked;

(ii) the address of the premises at which the electrical installation or electrical appliance is installed;

(iii) the name and address of the landlord of the premises (or, where appropriate, his agent) at which the electrical installation or electrical appliance is installed;

(iv) a description of and the location of the electrical installation or electrical appliance checked;

(v) any defect identified;

(vi) any remedial action taken;

(vii) the name and signature of the individual carrying out the check; and

(viii) the registration number with which that individual’s firm is registered with a Part P competent persons scheme approved by the Department for Communities and Local Government and certified as being competent in periodic inspection and testing.

(3) Every landlord shall ensure that any work in relation to a relevant electrical installation or electrical appliance carried out pursuant to subsection (1) or (2) above is carried out by a firm registered with a Part P competent persons scheme approved for the time being by the Department for Communities and Local Government.

(4) The record referred to in (2)(c), or a copy thereof, shall be made available upon request and upon reasonable notice for the inspection of any person in lawful occupation of relevant premises who may be affected by the use or operation of any electrical installation or electrical appliance to which the record relates.

(5) Notwithstanding subsection (4), every landlord shall ensure that—

(a) a copy of the record made pursuant to the requirements of (3)(c) is given to each existing tenant of premises to which the record relates within 28 days of the date of the check; and

(b) a copy of the last record made in respect of each electrical installation or electrical appliance is given to any new tenant of premises to which the record relates before that tenant occupies those premises save that, in respect of a tenant whose right to occupy those premises is for a period not exceeding 28 days, a copy of the record may instead be prominently displayed within those premises.

(6) A landlord who fails to comply with this section commits an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale”.

This new clause would introduce a requirement for landlords to undertake electrical safety checks.

[Teresa Pearce]

Both new clauses in this group relate to standards in the private rented sector.

New clause 25 would place a duty on landlords to ensure that their properties are fit for habitation when let and remain fit during the course of a tenancy. The new clause is largely about probing the Minister to see whether he is open to putting that duty into legislation and follows on from the private Member’s Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck), which had a similar aim but which was talked out by the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies)—a fate that befalls some of the worthiest private Members’ Bills, including my own.

Before moving on to the detail of new clause 25, I note that the majority of landlords let property that is and remains of a decent standard. Many good landlords go out of their way to ensure that even the slightest safety hazard is sorted and that any repairs are attended to, so it is even more distressing when we see reports of homes that are frankly unfit for human habitation being let, often at high prices.

Parliament has for more than 100 years considered and legislated for standards in the private rented sector. The Housing of the Working Classes Act 1885 and, 100 years later, the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 placed obligations on landlords regarding safety in their properties. Indeed, the 1985 Act placed a statutory duty on landlords covering issues such as damp, mould and infestation, yet that duty applies only to those fulfilling a rent criterion, and that criterion has not been changed since 1957, so the duty now applies only to properties where the annual rent is less than £80. The new clause would remove those limits to allow the 1985 Act to fulfil the intention and place a duty on landlords to provide a safe, secure environment.

I am sure that all Members in their casework receive letters from constituents living in poor conditions—indeed, it is one of the biggest issues in my constituency. My office phone rings every day with people calling about mould and infestation in their property, the impact that has on their health and the inaction of some landlords in rectifying the situation. It is also a consumer issue, because where else in the modern day could one buy something that is not fit for purpose? If someone buys a television that does not work, they can take it back and get a refund. We are pretty much assured that the food in a food shop is safe to eat—if it was unsafe to eat, the food premises would be shut down. Yet a landlord can let a property that is unfit for human habitation and there is no easy recourse.

About this time last year, I was asked by a family in my constituency to visit the property that had been occupied by their father, who had just passed away from a respiratory illness. They wanted me to see at first hand the conditions he had lived in. The walls were so thick with mould that it looked like flock wallpaper. The air just smelled of damp. This man had died on his sofa on a Saturday night from lung disease while living in that accommodation. His family lived some distance away, which is why they were not fully aware of the conditions he was living in. They had contacted the landlord on numerous occasions, and the landlord failed to assist. Nothing could be done.

I am sure the Government will want to consider the new clause. It would only affect a small number of tenants in the few properties let by bad landlords that are unfit for human habitation, but it would change the lives of many tenants. Earlier in our consideration of the Bill, we discussed rogue landlords and banning orders, but the new clause would try to alleviate suffering before we got to that position. It is a basic consumer, health and productivity issue. It is hard for someone to be productive at work when they live in a property which is not fit to live in. It is also a moral issue where children and elderly people are concerned, so I am interested to hear what the Minister has to say on the new clause.

New clause 26 would introduce a requirement for landlords to undertake electrical safety checks. Electrical Safety First has been leading the way on the issue by raising awareness and lobbying parliamentarians—I think it was in Parliament this week doing that very thing—on the need to ensure that the private rented sector is fire-safe. Many other organisations support the measure, and the Local Government Association, the London fire brigade, Shelter, the Association of Residential Letting Agents, British Gas, Crisis and the Fire Officers Association have all supported previous measures to introduce mandatory electrical safety checks.

It is estimated that each year electrical faults cause more than 20,000 house fires and lead to around 350,000 serious injuries and 70 deaths. It is worth noting those figures, because we now see fewer deaths and injuries—only 300 injuries and 18 deaths—caused by gas and carbon monoxide, on which action has been taken. The risks remain serious, so it is right that we continue to monitor that, but those figures show what is at stake when we discuss electrical fires in the home.

Although landlords have a duty to keep electrical installations in proper working order and to ensure that any electrical appliances they supply are safe, poorly maintained installations remain in the sector and there is no explicit requirement for landlords to prove to tenants that a property is electrically safe. Landlords of houses in multiple occupation are required to have a periodic inspection every five years, but those whose properties are not HMOs are not legally obliged to do that. It is not right that people would be safer in a bed and breakfast or an HMO than in a privately rented home. What is the difference in fire risk between a property that meets the HMO requirements in which a landlord lets to six people and a property that is not an HMO where six different people live? The standards should be the same because the risk is the same.

Of course, many good landlords ensure that their properties are safe. The property is their asset, so they have as much interest in keeping it safe as their tenants. Many good landlords run electrical safety checks and ensure that all appliances are tested at the beginning of the tenancy and at points during it, but there is growing consensus that the introduction of mandatory electrical safety checks is a worthy cause.

We have seen action on the issue in Scotland, where the Scottish Government have introduced fire safety requirements for private rented properties, and the authorities in Northern Ireland are currently running a review of the private rented sector which includes a consultation on mandatory fire checks. In Wales, we have growing cross-party support and we hope that the Welsh Government will introduce such requirements.

[Helen Hayes]

I want to share an example of a constituent who emailed me recently. She is a private tenant in Lambeth who told me how she lies awake at night going over and over in her mind her worries about the electrical safety in her property and the lack of fire safety in general, and about how she would get out with her children if there was a fire. Does my hon. Friend agree that the clause would provide great comfort to tenants in that situation?

[Teresa Pearce]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. That is the exact scenario. People have said to me, “If that is the case, why don’t they move somewhere else?” but particularly in London housing is scarce, so sometimes people have to take whatever is available and thereby risk their and their family’s safety if the place is not safe to live in.

We have mandatory annual gas checks in the private rented sector, and secondary legislation has added regulation for smoke detectors and carbon monoxide detectors, so I hope that the Minister will consider accepting new clause 26. There is growing support for the measure across the UK, in Parliaments and with landlords. In fact, Janet Finch-Saunders, the Welsh Conservative spokesperson on this issue in the Welsh Parliament, has pledged her support and she also happens to be a landlord. We have broad support.

To recap, new clause 25 would introduce a duty on landlords to ensure that their properties are fit for human habitation, which would drive up standards. New clause 26 would introduce a requirement for landlords to undertake electrical safety checks. I hope that the Minister will accept that new clause.

[Brandon Lewis]

I have enjoyed listening to the hon. Lady’s thoughts. I have some sympathy with the points she made in the latter part of her speech. We have listened to hon. Members talk at length about the private rented sector in the past few weeks, so I apologise to those listening now or reading our deliberations later in Hansard, because some of the points I will make have been made before. If the hon. Lady had tabled the new clauses for consideration when we debated the private rented sector, we could have saved ourselves some time and had a more focused debate at a relevant point.

The new clauses cover—once again—property condition in the private rented sector. The hon. Lady outlined new clause 25. I agree that all homes should be of a decent standard and that all tenants have the right and should expect to be able to live in a safe place, regardless of tenure. However, we do not consider that amending the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 in the way proposed would ensure that.

Local authorities already have strong and effective powers to deal with poor-quality, unsafe accommodation and we expect them to use those powers. Where tenants raise concerns, they can carry out an inspection using the housing health and safety ratings system introduced in the Housing Act 2004, which assesses 29 categories of hazard found in a property. Local authorities can issue an improvement notice or a hazard awareness notice, or prohibit the property from being rented out. In serious cases, the local authority may decide to make repairs itself.

The Government want to crack down on the small minority of rogue and criminal landlords who exploit their tenants by renting out unsafe and substandard accommodation and who fail to comply with statutory notices. Measures in the Bill that we have already debated will ensure that our powers against rogue and bad landlords go further than ever before. I hope that Members are advising their constituents with bad electrics or mould that they are covered in that way, and telling them to contact their local authority so that the local authority can use its powers. In addition, the Government have a wide range of policy initiatives to improve existing properties in the private rented sector. New clause 25 would result in unnecessary regulation and cost to landlords, which would deter further investment and push up rents for tenants. I ask the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead to withdraw it.

The hon. Lady outlined how new clause 26 would introduce a requirement for landlords to undertake electrical safety checks. I support measures to help safeguard tenants in their homes, so I will consider it. Any new legislation must strike the right balance, protecting tenants without over-regulating or causing unnecessary burdens for landlords. I remind hon. Members of all parties that landlords are already under a general legal duty to ensure that electrical installations are safe, but we are committed to creating a strong and professional private rented sector that works for all, where good landlords can prosper and tenants are protected.

We will carry out further work to understand what legislative amendments for undertaking electrical safety checks, if any, would be beneficial and appropriate to the private rented sector, and ensure that they do not harm the sector by stifling it with red tape. With that assurance, I hope that the hon. Lady will not press the new clause.

[Teresa Pearce]

I thank the Minister for his response. On the point about late tabling, the reason why the new clauses were tabled when they were is that I did not have time to table them. Knives were put in that I did not expect. I apologise for the fact that they are at the end of the Bill.

[Brandon Lewis]

I am just wondering what the hon. Lady means by unexpected knives. We have gone late some nights and moved things around to suit the Opposition, so I am not quite sure what she is referring to.

[Teresa Pearce]

Because the Minister at the time seemed to understand that we had moved further on the Bill than the Opposition expected, he accepted starred amendments, for which I thank him. I was trying to point out that we did not deliberately put the new clauses at the end of the Bill; it was because we moved much more swiftly through the Bill than I had expected. That was my explanation.

On new clause 25, I understand what the Minister says about existing ways for tenants to get in touch with their local authority and get it to come inspect a property, but one problem is that there are so few people working in local authority departments at the moment who can carry out such checks that often it is a feeble hope that somebody will come inspect a property. When we considered banning orders and fines, I hoped that the fines could be ring-fenced to employ people to go out and do that work. I hope that the Government will take that on board as a possibility.

On new clause 26, I am heartened by what the Minister has said. I am pleased that he will consider it. I think that there is consensus across all parties that it would be a good thing to do. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 27

Description of HMOs

“(1) The Licensing of Houses in Multiple Occupation (Prescribed Descriptions) England Order 2006 is amended as follows.

(2) Clause 3, subsection (2), leave out paragraph (a).

(3) Clause 3, leave out subsection (3)”.—(Teresa Pearce.)

This new clause would remove the three storeys condition from the conditions HMOs must satisfy in order to be of a description prescribed by article 3(1) of the Housing Act 2004.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Teresa Pearce]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

This is a probing amendment, and it is quite short. I am aware that the Government have published a consultation on houses in multiple occupation, and I was pleased to see it. HMOs come in a variety of forms. In the past, they were accommodation mainly for students, or for lots of single people, and they were basically tenement buildings, but increasingly in crowded cities, HMOs can be just a three-bedroom semi or similar building.

In my street, there is a bungalow that is an HMO, with about 10 people living in it, but because it does not have three storeys it does not fall within the definition of an HMO. That means many people living in HMOs and bed and breakfasts now have a better standard of safety than people who live in a private rented property that is clearly an HMO by every other definition, but not under the current definition because it has only one or two storeys, not three.

I am sure the Minister will say he needs to wait for the consultation to end, but I hope he will agree that the HMO sector needs revisiting. I would like to hear a little more about why the consultation has gone out now and what his intentions are for changes to the management and licensing of HMOs.

15:45

[Brandon Lewis]

The hon. Lady is right; there is a technical consultation out at the moment. We recognise that not all local authorities have made additional licensing schemes. It is well known that some of the worst management standards, living conditions, disrepair and overcrowding in the sector are found in smaller HMOs, which is why we issued the technical discussion paper. We wanted to seek views on whether mandatory licensing should be extended to smaller HMOs. The closing date for those responses is 18 December. I do not want to pre-empt at this stage how the proposals will be taken forward; I want to wait and get the final remarks from the consultation.

I can assure the hon. Lady and the Committee that the Government are committed to tackling abuse in the HMO market as we are in any other part of the private rented sector. Extending mandatory licensing is an option to achieve that, but I want to fully consider all responses before announcing how I will proceed. I can give the Committee some assurance about how we may do that. Any change to the scope of mandatory licensing can be achieved through secondary legislation. With that assurance, and given our commitment to stamping out abuse in the HMO market, I hope the hon. Lady is willing to withdraw her new clause.

[Teresa Pearce]

I thank the Minister for his response. I am sure we will return to this issue at a later stage, and I look forward to seeing the results of the consultation. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 28

Reporting of Housing Benefit Paid

‘(1) Each local housing authority must disclose information quarterly to HMRC regarding any monies paid to landlords through Housing Benefit in accordance with the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992.

(2) In this section—

“HMRC” means the Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs;

“local housing authority” has the meaning given by section 1 of the Housing Act 1985”.

This new clause would require local housing authorities to disclose the amount of Housing Benefit paid to landlords to HMRC quarterly.—(Teresa Pearce.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Teresa Pearce]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The new clause is largely a probing one, but it raises an important issue. In many cases up and down the country, someone making a claim for housing benefit has to send in a copy of their lease or tenancy agreement, on which the landlord is named. I would like local authorities and housing benefit departments to ensure there is quarterly or annual reporting to HMRC of the moneys paid when they pay out housing benefit.

The overwhelming majority of landlords pay their taxes in a timely and correct fashion. However, a few choose not to. I have seen evidence of that myself, where tenants have to pay every Sunday, when the landlord comes round and collects the money in cash. That is public money—housing benefit money—but it goes into the landlord’s pocket, and they do not pay any tax on it.

I was so concerned about this issue that I wrote to Lin Homer at Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and to HM Treasury. I got a reply from a Minister and Lin Homer, both of whom estimated that the tax gap for letting income could be as high as £500 million a year. Something needs to be done about that, because housing benefit is public money—it is taxpayers’ money, and we should ensure that where it goes to a landlord, it is treated with the respect it deserves.

If HMRC had quarterly or annual reporting of the moneys paid, it would have more information to allow it to track down certain individuals, ensuring that those who are not being proper landlords and acting as decent citizens are caught up with much sooner. At the moment, we all know that HMRC is running on less resources, but it is clear that it wants to tackle tax evasion wherever that occurs. Where someone evades tax on public money they have received, it is even more important that HMRC does that.

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful case. The Government want to set up a whole public body to transfer information about tenants’ incomes from landlords to HMRC. Does she agree that this is another thing the body could do? That would be helpful for recouping much-needed money for the taxpayer.

[Teresa Pearce]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend. We are talking about people who are receiving taxpayers’ money, taking it as income and not paying tax on it. We should do whatever we can to tackle those people, because they are exactly the same group of people who will not be carrying out electrical safety checks on the properties they rent out and who are cramming people into bedrooms that are too small. They are exactly the rogue landlords that this Bill seeks to ban, so we should also be ensuring that they are not profiting from this.

This is a probing new clause to raise the issue for consideration by the Committee. I look forward to the Minister’s response, and I hope that something can be done to ensure that every citizen of this country who gets income pays the right amount of tax on that income.

[Mr Jones]

The new clause would place an additional requirement on each local authority to collect information about housing benefit paid to landlords and to disclose that information to Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs on a quarterly basis. Local authorities are already accountable to the Department for Work and Pensions for their housing benefit expenditure as part of the subsidy scheme, which is subject to an annual audit. For claimants in social housing, housing benefit is often paid directly to the landlord, although that is starting to change with the roll-out of universal credit, which pays benefits directly to the claimant in most cases. For claimants in the private rented sector, housing benefit is not, for the most part, paid directly to private landlords but is paid to the claimant, who is then responsible for the rent, so any reporting would only provide a partial picture.

Universal credit, which is replacing housing benefit for working-age claimants, is currently being rolled out across the country and is not administered by local authorities, which means that the proposal would become of diminishing relevance in the medium to short term. On that basis, I urge the hon. Lady to withdraw her motion.

[Teresa Pearce]

I understand what the Minister says about the roll-out of universal credit but, at present, every local authority has a payroll department and has to make annual reports of payments made outside of the payroll to contractors and people like that. The proposal is not that onerous on councils, but I accept that it might not fix the problem, so I ask the Minister to go away and consider what would fix the problem. There clearly is an issue, and I would like to think that the Government will consider it and try to find some way of ensuring that such people are not avoiding their due taxes. In the spirit of accepting that he may do that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 29

Accreditation and licensing for private landlords

“Local authorities shall be required to operate an accreditation and licensing scheme for private landlords.”—(Dr Blackman-Woods.)

This amendment would require local authorities in England and Wales to put in place a scheme to license and provide for the accreditation of private sector landlords in their area.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

New clause 29 would introduce an accreditation and licensing scheme for private landlords. It is possible to argue that we would not have needed to table so many new clauses to improve the quality of much of our private rented sector and to improve the way in which landlords operate if we had followed the excellent example of some of our devolved Administrations by having a proper register of landlords. I will use the scheme set up and operated by the Scottish Government since 2006 as an example. That register is extremely straightforward. Anyone who owns residential property in Scotland that is let must apply to register with the local authority for the area in which the property is located unless the property is covered by one of the exemptions. It is the owner of the property who must register, and in some cases that may not be the landlord who has the letting agreement, but they must declare that information. The scheme is very straightforward, and it is operated online. The exemptions are very clear and it is the property that is exempt from registration: it is the only or main residence of the landlord; there are not more than two lodgers; it is let under an agricultural tenancy; it is let under a crofting tenancy; it is used for holiday lets; it is regulated by the Care Commission; it is owned by a religious organisation; it is occupied only by members of a religious order; or it is let to members of the landlord’s family. We can see that those are very sensible and straightforward exemptions.

[Mr Jackson]

I do not instinctively have any objection to the hon. Lady’s new clause, but I wonder about the payment regime and who funds the administration and management of the scheme. As she knows, selected licensing under the Housing Act 2004 is in effect self-financing and any money goes back into ameliorating the impacts of antisocial landlords and tenants. The funding is not on the face of her new clause, so how would the scheme be funded? Would the funding fall disproportionately on the taxpayer?

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

Absolutely not. I will come to the matter of payment in a moment or two.

The scheme is very straightforward. The information is given online and all the council has to do is to check that there is documentation to back up an exemption if a landlord asks for one. Furthermore, the person letting must be fit and proper according to three categories. They are considered not to be a fit and proper person if they have committed an offence involving fraud, dishonesty, violence, drugs, discrimination, firearms or sexual offences; if they have practised unlawful discrimination in connection with any business; or if they have contravened any provision of the law relating to housing or landlord and tenant law.

As the hon. Gentleman said, I was keen to find out how such a straightforward scheme was funded. It is funded by the application of a fee, which is extraordinarily low; it is £55. Often what we hear back from the Conservative party is, “Oh, we couldn’t possibly have a landlord register operating, because it’s so expensive, puts unreasonable charges on to landlords and is much too complicated”, but in Scotland an excellent, straight- forward and reasonably charged scheme is in operation. I can see no landlord who would be unable to pay £55. I would like to hear from the Minister why such a scheme cannot operate in the UK.

Alongside that we could have an accreditation system. We already have the London Landlords Accreditation Scheme, which seeks to enable landlords to register and get accreditation to show that they are fit and proper persons who operate as good landlords. Some other such schemes operate locally—for example, Oxford City Council has a landlord accreditation scheme.

Those are examples of good practice, often carried out by Labour authorities. It would be excellent if such good practice could be rolled out nationally. I look forward to hearing from the Minister why we do not have the ability to operate in this country schemes that operate easily in Scotland and under other devolved Administrations.

[Mr Jones]

The new clause would require all local authorities to operate an accreditation and licensing scheme for private landlords. The existing licensing arrangements for the private rented sector were introduced to give local authorities the ability to deal with problems that might arise in connection with rented property. Three types of licensing are provided for: mandatory licensing of larger homes in multiple occupation; additional licensing of smaller houses in multiple occupation; and selective licensing of all types of private rented sector housing.

Additional and selective licensing are discretionary powers. Additional licensing may be introduced by a local authority for smaller houses in multiple occupation in all or part of its area where there are significant management issues, or the properties are in poor condition. Selective licensing allows local authorities to license all private rented housing in a designated area that suffers issues such as low housing demand and/or significant antisocial behaviour.

16:00

A major drawback of licensing is that it impacts on all landlords and places additional burdens on reputable landlords who are already fully compliant with their obligations. This creates additional unnecessary costs for reputable landlords, which tend to be passed on to tenants. The majority of landlords provide a good service and the Government do not want to impose unnecessary additional costs on them or on their tenants, who would inevitably see rents rise as a result of the additional costs.

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

Will the Minister outline what is burdensome about filling in an online form, which takes about 10 minutes, and paying £55 to do so, given that that scheme operates effectively elsewhere in the country?

[Mr Jones]

I thank the hon. Lady for that question. It was typical of the last Labour Government that more and more bureaucracy was layered on to business. The problem is that the more bureaucracy that is layered on, particularly to decent business people who are doing the right thing, the more it discourages them from investing and running businesses and, in this case, from housing people. It is apparent that where this system has been or is being used—Scotland—the additional required administration has resulted in increased rents for tenants.

Several voluntary landlord accreditation schemes have already been introduced by many local authorities and are promoted by the main landlord associations. We strongly encourage that approach. The aim of voluntary accreditation is to raise standards by providing education and training to landlords, identifying poor practice and generally increasing the levels of professionalism among landlords. However, I do not believe that local authorities should be required to operate an accreditation scheme in their area. Accreditation is only of interest to good landlords who rent out decent accommodation, so it does not help to identify and tackle criminal landlords. Local authorities are in the best position to decide whether there is a need for an accreditation scheme in their area. On that basis and following that explanation, I hope the hon. Lady will withdraw the new clause.

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

The Minister gave exactly the response that I thought he would and that we have heard a number of times from this Government. The lack of consistency in approach is pretty breathtaking. Earlier in our discussions, we found out that local authorities have been given powers to offer fixed-term tenancies to their tenants. Local authorities do not think that is a good idea and they do not want to do it, so what are the Government doing? They are making them do it through this legislation. Exactly the same situation pertains to the registration of landlords.

It is extremely difficult for local authorities to run selective licensing schemes and, in this instance, any sensible Government would say, “We would want to ensure that we have maximum protection and ease of information for tenants. Therefore, we will set up a very cheap, easy-to-administer national scheme.” I just do not understand the logic, but it is getting late in the deliberation of the Committee. No doubt we can return to the issue at some later stage in our deliberations. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 30

Restrictions to granting permission in principle

“Permission in principle shall apply—

(a) to brownfield sites only for the provision of housing, and

(b) to sites that have already been approved in an adopted local plan for the provision of housing”.—(Dr Blackman-Woods.)

This amendment would restrict the circumstances in which permission in principle can be applied to brownfield sites for housing and to sites that have already been approved in an adopted local plan for the provision of housing.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The new clause was tabled to put on the record—or at least to try again to elicit from the Minister—exactly how wide the permission in principle outlined in clause 102 of the Bill will be applied. Will it be applied to brownfield sites and to sites that have been approved in the adopted local plan for the provision of housing? What we are trying to elicit through this new clause is some clarity from the Minister about what brownfield sites will be used for in terms of getting permission in principle.

[Brandon Lewis]

I am very happy to put on the record today that the Government obviously have no intention of allowing, for example, planning in principle to be used for some of the things that I know some people may be concerned about, such as fracking or waste development. However, we want to ensure that the local authorities are able to grant permission in principle for mixed-use developments that promote balanced and sustainable places, as I outlined last week.

The hon. Lady did not quite use the phrase “probing amendment”, but she wanted to have another go at making a point, which I appreciate. I am pleased she made that point, because I was somewhat surprised that she had tabled this new clause, bearing in mind that, in effect, we have already debated these issues quite heavily in two previous Committee sittings.

Both parts of this new clause would restrict the granting of permission in principle. As I outlined when we had those lengthy debates in those two Committee sittings, we want to ensure that there is a flexible system that delivers for people. That is where we are, and that is why I ask the hon. Lady to withdraw her new clause. If she does not do so, we will oppose it.

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

As I suggested earlier to the Minister, this new clause is very much about getting further clarity from him about the extent of land, and the purpose, that could be behind permission in principle. It appears that it goes beyond housing and the Minister has helpfully clarified that this afternoon. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the new clause.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 34

Extension of the Housing Ombudsman to cover the Private Rented Sector

“(1) The Secretary of State shall by regulations introduce a scheme to extend the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, as set out in section 51 and Schedule 2 of the Housing Act 1996, to cover disputes between tenants and private landlords in the Greater London Authority.

(2) The scheme under subsection (1) shall—

(a) last at least one year and no longer than two years; and

(b) come into effect within 6 months of this Act receiving Royal Assent.

(3) The Secretary of State shall lay before each House of Parliament a report of the scheme under subsection (1) alongside any statement he thinks appropriate, within 3 months of the closing date of the scheme.

(4) The Secretary of State may by regulations extend the powers of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme as set out in section 51 and Schedule 2 of the Housing Act 1996, to cover disputes between tenants and private landlords nationwide.”—(Teresa Pearce.)

This new clause would give the Secretary of State the power to introduce a pilot scheme which would see the Housing Ombudsman extend its cover in London to private sector housing and disputes between tenants and private landlords, to require that the Secretary of State reports on the pilot scheme, and to give the Secretary of State power through regulations to extend the Housing Ombudsman to cover private sector housing and disputes between tenants and private landlords nationwide.

[Teresa Pearce]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The new clause would give the Secretary of State power to introduce a pilot scheme that would see the housing ombudsman extend its cover in London to the private sector. That would require a report from the Secretary of State following the pilot, and would give the Secretary of State the ability to extend the powers of the housing ombudsman to the private sector nationwide if that pilot is successful.

In London, the private rented sector is growing and is a significant proportion of the housing market. Extending the ombudsman scheme to cover the private rented sector would be a big change. That is why this new clause proposes a pilot to establish whether such an extension would be worth while.

Most landlords are effective and efficient in letting their property, but disputes between landlords and tenants can and do occur. They could be about a delay in responding to a situation in a flat. Perhaps there could be problems with electrics, gas or heating, or there could be a concern that the property is dangerous. A tenant could be concerned that part of the tenancy agreement or lease has not been upheld. The housing ombudsman is a fantastic independent service that helps to resolve many such complaints and concerns.

The ombudsman considers complaints about how a landlord has responded to reports of a problem, and considers what is fair in all circumstances. The ombudsman does not look at the original problem. For example, it does not decide whether or not a property is damp. What they look at is whether or not the landlord has done what he needs to do in line with the tenancy agreement and the ombudsman’s policies. It helps to defuse disputes by having an independent person look at them.

All local authorities and housing associations must be a member of the ombudsman scheme. At present, private sector landlords can join on a voluntary basis, but not nearly enough of them do so, leaving many tenants in a position where they have nowhere left to turn when things go wrong.

In total, 87% of cases referred to the housing ombudsman were resolved by landlords and tenants with the support of the ombudsman. Many of those landlords and tenants have gone on to build and keep good relations, and they continue to rent from and let to each other.

The measures in the Bill will bring about a decline in social housing, whether it is managed by the local authority or a housing association. As a result, the private rented sector, particularly in London, will increase its share of the housing market. Surely, therefore, it is right to ensure that all tenants across the sector are afforded the same protections and dispute resolution service.

That is why I have tabled new clause 34, which would extend the housing ombudsman scheme as a pilot in London. I hope the Minister will look favourably on it and let me know whether he sees any merit in this scheme. If he does, I hope he will accept the new clause.

[Brandon Lewis]

Of course, private sector landlords can already join the housing ombudsman scheme on a voluntary basis. Many landlords who wish to assure their tenants of the quality of their services already do so. I suggest that tenants reading Hansard in their quiet moments this weekend might take that on board and ensure that they look for landlords who are members of that scheme and the housing ombudsman scheme, because it sends a clear signal. The Greater London Authority would need to take a view on whether it would be appropriate for the housing ombudsman to expand its role in London, given the linkages with the London rental standards.

I have made it clear that we have absolutely no intention of introducing unnecessary regulation on landlords or a national register of landlords. If the new clause were agreed, all landlords would be required to sign up to the scheme in order for it to work. Despite the excellent work of the housing ombudsman to resolve complaints, membership in the scheme for private landlords should remain voluntary at present, and we encourage private sector landlords to sign up.

Private landlords who have signed up voluntarily are signalling to their tenants that they are committed to a high level of service and can be expected to comply with any determination. Were they to be required to sign up, we would not expect the same level of engagement in the process or the same level of compliance. Indeed, the rogue landlords whom we want to target are the landlords who would ignore and avoid such a measure in the first place. Determinations would not therefore be enforceable, and we could risk increasing costs while tenants of reluctant landlords might not see any benefit. Although we accept and acknowledge the ethos of the hon. Lady’s new clause, I hope she will agree to withdraw it at this stage.

[Teresa Pearce]

I thank the Minister for his response. Given that in London we have the GLA, I hope that, in conversations with the GLA and the next Mayor of London, whoever that might be, the Minister will press them to publicise the scheme and ensure that private landlords sign up for it. I agree that the rogue landlords that we discussed some weeks ago do not pay their tax or look after their tenants, and are not likely to sign up to the scheme. That is why we asked for a pilot scheme. In the hope that the Minister will take on board what we are trying to do, which is to raise the standard in the sector, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 35

Cover for money received or held by lettings agents in the course of business

“(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, a person may not accept money from any person who seeks residential accommodation which is to let or who has a tenancy of a residential premises, or other right or permission to occupy, in the course of lettings agency work unless there are in force authorised arrangements under which, in the event of his failing to account for such money to the person entitled to it, his liability will be made good by another.

(2) In this section ‘lettings agency work’ has the same meaning as in section 83 of the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013 and a ‘lettings agent’ is a person who engages in lettings agency work.

(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations made by statutory instrument, which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament—

(a) specify any persons or classes of persons to whom subsection (1) does not apply;

(b) specify arrangements which are authorised for the purposes of this section including arrangements to which a enforcement authority nominated for the purpose by the Secretary of State or any other person so nominated is a party;

(c) specify the terms and conditions upon which any payment is to be made under such arrangements and any circumstances in which the right to any such payment may be excluded or modified;

(d) provide that any limit on the amount of any such payment is to be not less than a specified amount; and

(e) require a person providing authorised arrangements covering any person carrying on lettings agency work to issue a certificate in a form specified in the regulations certifying that arrangements complying with the regulations have been made with respect to that person.

(4) Every guarantee entered into by a person who provides authorised arrangements covering a lettings agent shall tenure for the benefit of every person from whom the lettings agent has received a relevant payment as if the guarantee were contained in a contract made by the insurer with every such person.

(5) A ‘relevant payment’ means any sum of money which is received in the circumstances described in subsection (1).”—(Teresa Pearce.)

This new clause would require lettings agents to have Client Money Protection to cover all money received in the course of business.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Teresa Pearce]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

New clause 35 would require letting agents to have client money protection to cover all money received in the course of their business. Client money protection is an issue of which the sector has been incredibly supportive, and I thank those who have been in touch with me to share their support for the new clause.

It is estimated that letting agents currently hold approximately £2.7 billion in clients’ funds. The figure has been derived from the assumption that letting agents will potentially have a tenant’s deposit and one month’s rent in their client account at any given time, yet if a letting agent is not covered by client money protection, both the landlord and the tenant stand to lose their money. The new clause is designed to protect both parties in the unlikely event that an agent goes into administration or misappropriates the client’s funds. Any losses could be recovered through the scheme. The Bill’s extension of banning orders to letting agents has acknowledged that there are times when letting agents do not act in the best interests of landlords or tenants.

The new clause would provide a type of consumer protection to the financial services industry’s Financial Services Compensation Scheme, but it would be financed by the industry itself. We have a tenancy deposit scheme, which has been influential in ensuring that tenants’ deposits are fairly and securely held, so why are letting agents and the tenants who use them not granted the same protections? The Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013 already requires all letting and managing agents to be members of a redress scheme. The new clause would simply complement that.

I have spoken about the industry support for the clause. Indeed the Association of Residential Letting Agents believes that

“the client money protection scheme is fundamental for tenants and landlords to ensure that they have peace of mind should an agent go bust or take off with their funds...Last year’s move for all letting agents and property management agents in England to be a member of an approved redress scheme is a welcome step but essentially is only a half measure without a Client Money Protection scheme in place to ensure that, if necessary, we can cover losses for both the landlord and tenants...To not include such an amendment would be a missed opportunity.”

The introduction of a CMP would clearly be a positive step towards enhancing the professional reputation of letting agents across the board and for protecting clients’ money. I hope the Committee and the Minister will consider the new clause and that, in his response, the Minister will indicate whether he is minded to proceed in this direction and ensure that landlords’ and tenants’ money is protected when letting agencies are in administration or make off with the money.

16:15

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I will keep my comments brief. I draw the Committee’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

I am delighted that Members on the Opposition Benches have tabled a measure that will actually protect landlords, rather than just tenants. It really is a problem for the landlord that if money has been paid by a tenant to a landlord through the intermediary of a letting agent, the agent might disappear with it. That has happened in the past. I hope that the Minister looks carefully at the new clause, because it would raise standards in the property, estate agents and lettings industry, among which it is a popular measure. We have to be careful, though, that we do not drive competition out of the market. There should be a proper impact assessment of how the proposal would affect the overall industry. The Government have introduced other measures to protect deposits, which protect both tenants and landlords, but client moneys—moneys paid in rent—are not currently protected. I hope that the Minister looks at the idea in more detail.

[Brandon Lewis]

I am aware that there is some support for the new clause in the housing sector, as the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead and my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton have just outlined, but I am concerned that requiring letting agents to belong to a client money protection scheme at this stage could introduce into the sector significant costs, which would have implications on many levels.

We want to ensure that we have a strong and thriving private rented sector that is not tied up in excessive regulation. Requiring agents to pay to belong to a client money protection scheme would force honest agents to buy insurance against the risk that they themselves were fraudulent, when, as the hon. Lady said, the vast majority of agencies are not. Introducing a mandatory client money protection scheme at this point would be a step too far and would overburden a market that is perfectly capable of self-regulation. However, in May 2016 we will review the impact of the transparency measures that were put in place only recently. At that stage, I will take due consideration of whether any further action is needed, and obviously I will take into account the comments made this afternoon. I hope that, with those points in mind, the hon. Lady will withdraw the new clause.

[Teresa Pearce]

I thank the Minister for his response. When people are handling money that does not belong to them, it is important that it is ring-fenced and safeguarded. For example, solicitors have to keep a completely separate client account, which is audited, because it is not their money. That principle is important with letting agents as well. Nevertheless, I hear what the Minister says and look forward to what may happen in 2016. With that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 36

Restriction on permitted changes of use

Where the Secretary of State has exercised or exercises his powers conferred by sections 59, 60, 61, 74 or 333(7) of the Town and Country Planning 1990 Act to make an Order in respect of change of use from office buildings (currently Class B1(a) of the Schedule to the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (as amended)) to use as dwelling-houses, the Order shall have no effect in respect of any building situated within Greater London as provided in the London Government Act 1963.”—(Mr Gareth Thomas.)

This new clause would exclude from the permitted changes of use provided in a Permitted Development Order made, or to be made, by the Secretary of State changes of use from offices to housing in London. Such changes would require planning permission from the local authority.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Mr Thomas]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The new clause would require proposals to change offices in London into homes to go through a planning application process. Greater London has been particularly badly affected by the introduction of permitted development rights for those wanting to convert office accommodation into residential dwellings without seeking planning permission. There is a significant difference between office and residential values, which, combined with the high demand for housing and the scarcity of land, has created big incentives for landlords to convert, without planning permission, viable and occupied offices into homes. London Councils estimates that between May 2013 and April this year, at least 100,000 square feet of office floor space was lost. It argues that one consequence of that had been to drive up office rents in some parts of London, increasing costs for businesses; hon. Members know about all the implications of that.

London Councils has expressed concerns about the impact of the provisions on affordable housing in such developments. Because developers do not have to go through section 106 agreements when offices are converted into flats, there is no requirement to provide any affordable housing. London Councils estimates that some 16,000 new dwellings have avoided the full planning process and, as a result, many affordable homes that could have been built, had a planning application been required, have not been built. The LGA and London Councils have argued for change, and they support the intent of the new clause.

[Chris Philp]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the permitted development rights legislation has enabled the creation of thousands of new units in London, which have all been very affordable? What would he say to the thousands of Londoners who have been able to buy relatively cheap flats using that excellent provision?

[Mr Thomas]

On occasion, conversion from office accommodation into residential accommodation may well be justified. My point is simply that that should go through a proper planning application process, partly because of the impact on affordable housing and partly because it is necessary to consider the impact on jobs and the business community of the loss of office space. However, I entirely accept the hon. Gentleman’s broader point that there is a huge shortage of housing, and on occasion it may well be entirely appropriate to convert offices into flats.

I will give the Committee some examples of where the ability to convert without planning permission has had an adverse impact on the business community. In Barnet, more than 100 small businesses were given as little as four to six weeks’ notice to leave the premises they were in, Premier House, because the developers wanted to turn it into 112 flats. Another example, which the hon. Member for Wimbledon may be aware of, involved Merton Council—

[Seema Kennedy (South Ribble) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Thomas]

I will just give the hon. Member for Wimbledon this example, because he may also want to intervene, and I will happily take the hon. Lady’s intervention when I have done so. On Willow Lane industrial estate, some 40 small businesses with 150 employees were told to search for new premises, because there was a desire to convert the premises that they occupied into flatted accommodation.

[Stephen Hammond]

The industrial estate that the hon. Gentleman cites is not in my constituency; it is in that of his colleague the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh). As I pointed out earlier, a derelict office building has been brought into use to create 70 new flats for tenants who have come, I think, from the borough of Tower Hamlets. Before he prays too much against it, I think we need to be careful, because it is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South has pointed out, creating real opportunities for low-cost housing.

[Mr Thomas]

The hon. Gentleman’s example of a derelict office block being brought into use as housing is absolutely encouraging. There is nothing to say that had it gone through the planning application process, those flats or other forms of accommodation could not have been provided. The planning application process allows the local community to think about the impact on jobs and the business community of particular applications. I apologise to the hon. Member for South Ribble; I am happy to give way to her.

[Seema Kennedy]

The hon. Gentleman raised a point about a notice period of as little as four weeks. That was done on the basis of a lease that had been agreed between two commercial parties. Surely, he is not suggesting that we legislate to interfere in the privity of contract.

[Mr Thomas]

Absolutely not. I am simply saying that when there is a proposal to convert a big office block into residential accommodation, it is sensible to consider the full impact on the local community, both the benefit of the conversion to housing and the effect on jobs and businesses. The Opposition are pro-business, particularly pro-small business, and I am surprised that the Government want to damage the business communities in the boroughs in my examples.

In that spirit, I gently suggest to Government Members that the new clause would not stop conversions from office use to residential accommodation, but it would allow proper discussions to take place about the benefits and the balance between business and housing need.

[Chris Philp]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that article 4 directions can address the hon. Gentleman’s concern about that balance? Local authorities can exclude town centre areas, for example, from the provisions, as many London boroughs have. Islington, Richmond and I think Southwark and Croydon, actually, have all done that.

[Mr Thomas]

The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point about the degree to which the exemption process is working. London Councils has pointed out many other examples of where local authorities have sought exemptions, such as those he describes, but have been rejected.

[Chris Philp]

Typically where they have been unreasonable by requesting whole-borough exemptions, which have been quite rightly turned down.

[Mr Thomas]

With respect, I do not think that is accurate. The hon. Gentleman is perhaps rushing to read the Whip’s script a bit too quickly.

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

Is it not another curious inconsistency in the Government’s approach that they are happy to add to the bureaucratic burden of local authorities by making them go through a tortuous article 4 direction application, which may or may not be allowed, to carry out the most basic of planning functions?

[Mr Thomas]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. The hon. Member for Croydon South may want to seek the help of the hon. Member for Wimbledon in looking in a little more detail at the example of the Willow Lane trading estate and the conversion of business accommodation into flats there. According to the Local Government Association, Merton Council had attempted without success to get the industrial estate exempt from the Government’s rules.

I introduce this new clause in the spirit of concern about the impact on the business community, while still wanting office accommodation to be converted into housing, where appropriate, as long as there is a full discussion involving the local community.

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

I rise to support my hon. Friend’s new clause and to ask the Minister a very straightforward question. In October, he said that the changes in the policy on permitted development of office blocks from office to residential were to be made permanent. Will he clarify whether there has been any secondary legislation to bring that about?

[Brandon Lewis]

The office-to-residential policy has been successful in achieving what it was intended to do. It has helped to simplify the planning process to encourage more development on brownfield land and to deliver additional new homes, including in London, where housing need is particularly acute. I should also make it clear that it has helped to reduce the pressure to build on brownfield land. The data show that we have seen a 65% increase in the number of new homes created through change of use. Furthermore, since April 2014, nearly 4,000 permissions have been granted under permitted development rights for office-to-residential conversion, showing that it is delivering much-needed homes for Londoners.

To continue to boost the supply of housing, we have announced that we will make the permitted development right permanent. However, we also understand the need to protect the vitality of key economic areas. The current exemption areas, including the City of London and the central activity zone, will be extended until 30 May 2019 to allow time for those authorities to consider whether it is necessary to make an article 4 direction to remove the right. As I set out in my response to new clauses 19 and 20 on Tuesday, the article 4 process is straightforward. Local authorities, including a number of London boroughs, as my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South outlined, have already used that process. I think the new clause is unnecessary, and I invite the hon. Member for Harrow West to withdraw it.

[Mr Thomas]

Even though the Minister has gone back to his Mr Grumpy mood, with some reluctance I have decided not to seek to divide the Committee on this new clause. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 37

Removal of limit on debt where an authority has a housing revenue account

The Localism Act 2011 is amended as follows.

Leave out section 171 (Limits on indebtedness).”—(Mr Gareth Thomas.)

This new Clause would remove the Secretary of State’s power to make determinations about the housing debt that may be held by a local housing authority that keeps a Housing Revenue Account.

Brought up, and read the First time.

16:30

[Mr Thomas]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

This new clause seeks to remove the limit on debt where an authority has a housing revenue account. I hope that it will attract the support of the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton, who rightly reminded the Committee of the 1.4 million households on council waiting lists and the need for urgent action to tackle the scale of housing need those waiting lists represent. Crucially, we need to do more to build homes that those on the waiting lists can afford. Rents have rocketed because of the shortage of supply, as we have discussed, which is another factor necessitating urgent action. Hon. Members will be more than well aware of the particularly acute shortage of housing in London, where, even according to the Mayor of London’s planning documents, we are building only half of the housing we need.

In April 2012, the Government gave councils that own their own housing full control over their stock for the first time, although it was planned under the previous Labour Government. That meant that councils have the right to keep and manage all their rental income. In exchange for that right, councils in London agreed to take on billions of pounds of the nation’s housing debt. One of the benefits of giving councils full control of their own housing stock is that councils can borrow money against their assets to invest in new housing. However, as part of the agreement, the Government sadly imposed a cap on such borrowing. That cap was over and above the Treasury’s normal prudential borrowing rules that apply to most local authority borrowing. That artificial cap effectively halved the potential cash available for councils in London to invest in new homes.

London Councils has estimated that aligning the housing borrowing cap with the Treasury’s prudential borrowing rules—that is the purpose of my new clause—could generate an additional £3.2 billion of sustainable borrowing, which could potentially pay for an additional 54,000 extra affordable homes for Londoners over and above those already planned.

I understand that the reason—or at least the reason that was given in public—for the introduction of that cap was the worry that even prudential borrowing by local authorities might have an impact on the national deficit. But work by Capital Economics was drawn to the attention of the Lyons review, which made clear, from a series of conversations with City interviewers, that the amount of money that is likely to be borrowed would not be sufficient for the markets to worry, irrespective of any changes in accounting methods.

I understand that, on occasion, some flexibility around the cap has been on offer to local authorities. I hope the Minister, if he does not feel that he can support new clause 37 in its entirety, might be willing to look at the possibility of giving further flexibility to local authorities that have clear, sensible and thought-through plans to build additional homes so they can use their borrowing powers.

It is worth pointing out that a number of councils are seeking to get around the existing borrowing cap by setting up additional partnerships with developers and housing companies that are often wholly run by the local authority. Sheffield Housing Company, which will build some 2,300 homes over the next 15 years, is a particularly interesting example. It has had to go down the housing company route in order to get access to finance from the market. Having to go down such a bureaucratic route by setting up a company would not be necessary if there was no borrowing cap, or indeed, if the Ministers showed more flexibility.

[Mr Bacon]

I do not quite understand what the hon. Gentleman’s problem is with having to set up a company. When I worked in property banking as a young man, I would run five or six annual general meetings for different special purpose vehicle companies before breakfast on one day—literally.

[Mr Thomas]

With all due respect to the hon. Gentleman, it is a long time since he was a young man, and things have changed somewhat since then. Despite that gentle riposte, I bring the Committee’s attention back to what I hope will be a positive reply from the Minister.

[Brandon Lewis]

I have always felt that my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk is, at the very least, young at heart.

The indebtedness limits were put in place as part of the self-financing settlement with local authorities back in 2012. The financial freedoms provided by the settlement were widely welcomed by local government. However, as part of that, it was necessary to place a limit on the amount of housing debt that can be held, given the potential impact on the public sector borrowing requirement.

The limits do not mean there is no flexibility for local authorities to borrow. Indeed, at the time of self-financing, there was borrowing headroom of about £2.8 billion. That figure has increased as local authorities have reduced their debt levels. At the end of 2014-15, the headroom had increased to almost £3.4 billion. We were aware that the headroom was not evenly spread and that some councils needed additional borrowing headroom to build more homes, which is why we made available £221 million of extra borrowing headroom to 36 councils in England, to support thousands of new affordable homes in 2015-16 and 2016-17.

Much as I support the hon. Member for Harrow West on seeing more homes built, I cannot agree to the unrestricted increase of housing debt that would result from the amendment, given the implications for the public sector borrowing requirement, so I urge him to withdraw his new clause.

[Mr Thomas]

The Minister worries unnecessarily, given the comments put to us in the Lyons review. Nevertheless, I do not intend at this point to seek a Division, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 38

Extension of Help to Buy schemes to tenants receiving support for the voluntary right to buy

‘(1) This section applies to a tenant purchasing a dwelling-house in respect of which the Secretary of State makes a grant to a private registered provider in respect of a right to buy discount provided at section 56.

(2) The tenant shall be entitled to the same support provided under a help to buy scheme supported or underwritten by the Government as a tenant exercising right to buy of a dwelling- house from a local authority.”—(Mr Gareth Thomas.)

This new clause would extend the Government’s Help to Buy schemes to those exercising the right to buy under the voluntary scheme supported by Government grants, to put housing association purchasers in the same position as those buying their homes under right to buy from local authorities.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Mr Thomas]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

I tabled the new clause in a spirit of wanting to finally flush the Minister out on why he was so opposed to the proposal from the Mayor of London and, indeed, the noble Lord Kerslake about the potential for equity loans—an extension of the Government’s Help to Buy scheme—to help pay for the sale of council homes.

It is worth referencing the huge waiting lists that many councils have and the large number of people in temporary accommodation and bed and breakfasts, which represents a huge cost for council tax payers. It is also worth mentioning that last year, for every 11 council homes sold off, just one new property was built.

The proposal from the Mayor of London and the noble Lord Kerslake might be a potential solution that obviates the need to sell off council housing in particular areas—notably in central London, where it will be very difficult to replace—while allowing the Government to move forward with their agenda of offering housing association tenants the right to buy their flat. If the only motivation for including the forced sale of council homes is to pay for the cost of the discounts that housing association tenants will get through the right to buy, the option of extending the Government’s own Help to Buy scheme to housing association tenants might provide a genuinely new route to avoid the sale of council homes, and, as a result, exacerbate the housing crisis in London. In that spirit, I move this new clause.

[Brandon Lewis]

I appreciate the intent behind the new clause, and I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s conversion and support for our home ownership policies. However, I can assure him that it is completely unnecessary to put his new clause in the Bill, despite Labour building only one home for every 170 that were sold under right to buy. Our new revitalised right-to-buy scheme is delivering one for one, and is reaching two for one in London. We want to support people who work hard and save up for the deposit to buy their own home. That is why there is nothing to prevent the Help to Buy individual savings account being used with other Government schemes, helping people to achieve their home ownership aspirations. I encourage people to look at that, including the voluntary right to buy.

The Help to Buy equity loan scheme can only be used for new build properties, so would not apply to either local authority or housing association tenants looking to buy their own home. I hope the hon. Gentleman will agree to withdraw his new clause.

[Mr Thomas]

I am a bit disappointed that the Minister did not say he had at least discussed with the Treasury the possibility of extending the scheme to cover housing association tenants. I can see no reason why not. Nevertheless, I am not at this point of a mind to press the new clause to a Division, but perhaps it is a good time to commend you, Mr Gray, for your chairmanship.

[The Chair]

Order. That will come later. At the moment we are discussing new clause 38.

[Mr Thomas]

I will not press it to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Schedule 2

Default powers exercisable by Mayor of London or combined authority: Schedule to be inserted in the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004

“SCHEDULE A1

Section 27A

Default powers exercisable by Mayor of London or combined authority

Default powers exercisable by Mayor of London

1 If the Secretary of State—

(a) thinks that a London borough council, in their capacity as local planning authority, are failing or omitting to do anything it is necessary for them to do in connection with the preparation, revision or adoption of a development plan document, and

(b) invites the Mayor of London to prepare or revise the document,

the Mayor of London may prepare or revise (as the case may be) the development plan document.

2 (1) This paragraph applies where a development plan document is prepared or revised by the Mayor of London under paragraph 1.

(2) The Mayor of London must hold an independent examination.

(3) The Mayor of London—

(a) must publish the recommendations and reasons of the person appointed to hold the examination, and

(b) may also give directions to the council in relation to publication of those recommendations and reasons.

(4) The Mayor of London may—

(a) approve the document, or approve it subject to specified modifications, as a local development document, or

(b) direct the council to consider adopting the document by resolution of the council as a local development document.

3 (1) Subsections (4) to (7C) of section 20 apply to an examination held under paragraph 2(2)—

(a) with the reference to the local planning authority in subsection (7C) of that section being read as a reference to the Mayor of London, and

(b) with the omission of subsections (5)(c), (7)(b)(ii) and (7B)(b).

(2) The Mayor of London must give reasons for anything he does in pursuance of paragraph 1 or 2(4).

(3) The council must reimburse the Mayor of London—

(a) for any expenditure that the Mayor incurs in connection with anything which is done by him under paragraph 1 and which the council failed or omitted to do as mentioned in that paragraph;

(b) for any expenditure that the Mayor incurs in connection with anything which is done by him under paragraph 2(2).

Default powers exercisable by combined authority

4 In this Schedule—

“combined authority” means a combined authority established under section 103 of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009;

“constituent planning authority”, in relation to a combined authority, means—

(a) a county council, metropolitan district council or non-metropolitan district council which is the local planning authority for an area within the area of the combined authority, or

(b) a joint committee established under section 29 whose area is within, or the same as, the area of the combined authority.

5 If the Secretary of State—

(a) thinks that a constituent planning authority are failing or omitting to do anything it is necessary for them to do in connection with the preparation, revision or adoption of a development plan document, and

(b) invites the combined authority to prepare or revise the document,

the combined authority may prepare or revise (as the case may be) the development plan document

6 (1) This paragraph applies where a development plan document is prepared or revised by a combined authority under paragraph 5.

(2) The combined authority must hold an independent examination.

(3) The combined authority—

(a) must publish the recommendations and reasons of the person appointed to hold the examination, and

(b) may also give directions to the constituent planning authority in relation to publication of those recommendations and reasons.

(4) The combined authority may—

(a) approve the document, or approve it subject to specified modifications, as a local development document, or

(b) direct the constituent planning authority to consider adopting the document by resolution of the authority as a local development document.

7 (1) Subsections (4) to (7C) of section 20 apply to an examination held under paragraph 6(2)—

(a) with the reference to the local planning authority in subsection (7C) of that section being read as a reference to the combined authority, and

(b) with the omission of subsections (5)(c), (7)(b)(ii) and (7B)(b).

(2) The combined authority must give reasons for anything they do in pursuance of paragraph 5 or 6(4).

(3) The constituent planning authority must reimburse the combined authority—

(a) for any expenditure that the combined authority incur in connection with anything which is done by them under paragraph 5 and which the constituent planning authority failed or omitted to do as mentioned in that paragraph;

(b) for any expenditure that the combined authority incur in connection with anything which is done by them under paragraph 6(2).

Intervention by Secretary of State

8 (1) This paragraph applies to a development plan document that has been prepared or revised—

(a) under paragraph 1 by the Mayor of London, or

(b) under paragraph 5 by a combined authority.

(2) If the Secretary of State thinks that a development plan document to which this paragraph applies is unsatisfactory—

(a) he may at any time before the document is adopted under section 23, or approved under paragraph 2(4)(a) or 6(4)(a), direct the Mayor of London or the combined authority to modify the document in accordance with the direction;

(b) if he gives such a direction he must state his reasons for doing so.

(3) Where a direction is given under sub-paragraph (2)—

(a) the Mayor of London or the combined authority must comply with the direction;

(b) the document must not be adopted or approved unless the Secretary of State gives notice that the direction has been complied with.

(4) Sub-paragraph (3) does not apply if or to the extent that the direction under sub-paragraph (2) is withdrawn by the Secretary of State.

(5) At any time before a development plan document to which this paragraph applies is adopted under section 23, or approved under paragraph 2(4)(a) or 6(4)(a), the Secretary of State may direct that the document (or any part of it) is submitted to him for his approval.

(6) In relation to a document or part of a document submitted to him under sub-paragraph (5) the Secretary of State—

(a) may approve the document or part;

(b) may approve it subject to specified modifications;

(c) may reject it.

The Secretary of State must give reasons for his decision under this sub-paragraph.

(7) The Secretary of State may at any time—

(a) after a development plan document to which this paragraph applies has been submitted for independent examination, but

(b) before it is adopted under section 23 or approved under paragraph 2(4)(a) or 6(4)(a),

direct the Mayor of London or the combined authority to withdraw the document.

9 (1) This paragraph applies if the Secretary of State gives a direction under paragraph 8(5).

(2) No steps are to be taken in connection with the adoption or approval of the document until the Secretary of State gives his decision, or withdraws the direction.

(3) If the direction is given, and not withdrawn, before the document has been submitted for independent examination, the Secretary of State must hold an independent examination.

(4) If the direction—

(a) is given after the document has been submitted for independent examination but before the person appointed to carry out the examination has made his recommendations, and

(b) is not withdrawn before those recommendations are made,

the person must make his recommendations to the Secretary of State.

(5) The document has no effect unless the document or (as the case may be) the relevant part of it has been approved by the Secretary of State, or the direction is withdrawn.

The “relevant part” is the part of the document that—

(a) is covered by a direction under paragraph 8(5) which refers to only part of the document, or

(b) continues to be covered by a direction under paragraph 8(5) following the partial withdrawal of the direction.

(6) The Secretary of State must publish the recommendations made to him by virtue of sub-paragraph (3) or (4) and the reasons of the person making the recommendations.

(7) In considering a document or part of a document submitted under paragraph 8(5) the Secretary of State may take account of any matter which he thinks is relevant.

(8) It is immaterial whether any such matter was taken account of by the Mayor of London or the combined authority.

10 Subsections (4) to (7C) of section 20 apply to an examination held under paragraph 9(3)—

(a) with the reference to the local planning authority in subsection (7C) of that section being read as a reference to the Secretary of State, and

(b) with the omission of subsections (5)(c), (7)(b)(ii) and (7B)(b).

11 In the exercise of any function under paragraph 8 or 9 the Secretary of State must have regard to the local development scheme.

12 The Mayor of London or the combined authority must reimburse the Secretary of State for any expenditure incurred by the Secretary of State under paragraph 8 or 9 that is specified in a notice given by him to the Mayor or the authority.

Temporary direction pending possible use of intervention powers

13 (1) If the Secretary of State is considering whether to give a direction to the Mayor of London or a combined authority under paragraph 8 in relation to a development plan document, he may direct the Mayor or the authority not to take any step in connection with the adoption or approval of the document—

(a) until the time (if any) specified in the direction, or

(b) until the direction is withdrawn.

(2) A document to which a direction under this paragraph relates has no effect while the direction is in force.

(3) A direction given under this paragraph in relation to a document ceases to have effect if a direction is given under paragraph 8 in relation to that document.”” —(Mr Marcus Jones.)

This new Schedule inserts a new Schedule A1 to the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 which makes detailed provision for the intervention in local plan-making by the Mayor of London or a combined authority described in NC17.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Schedule 3

“Right to enter and survey land: consequential amendments

Defence Act 1842 (5&6 Vict c. 94)

1 In section 16 of the Defence Act 1842, at the end insert—

“(3) A person may not be authorised under subsection (1) to enter and survey or value land in England and Wales in connection with a proposal to acquire an interest in or a right over land (but see section 111 of the Housing and Planning Act 2015).”

Coast Protection Act 1949 (12 & 13 Geo 6 c. 74)

2 In section 25 of the Coast Protection Act 1949, after subsection (1) insert—

“(1A) A person may not be authorised under subsection (1) to enter and survey or value land in England and Wales in connection with a proposal to acquire an interest in or a right over land (but see section 111 of the Housing and Planning Act 2015).”

National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 (12, 13 & 14 Geo 6 c. 97)

3 (1) Section 108 of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (1)(a), after “therein” insert “in relation to land in Scotland”.

(3) After subsection (1) insert—

“(1A) A person may not be authorised under subsection (1) to enter and survey or value land in England and Wales in connection with a proposal to acquire an interest in or a right over land (but see section 111 of the Housing and Planning Act 2015).”

Land Powers (Defence) Act 1958 (6 & 7 Eliz 2 c. 30)

4 In section 21 of the Land Powers (Defence) Act 1958, after subsection (1) insert—

“(1A) A person may not be authorised under subsection (1) to enter and survey or value land in England and Wales in connection with a proposal to acquire an interest in or a right over land (but see section 111 of the Housing and Planning Act 2015).”

Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 (8 & 9 Eliz 2 c. 62)

5 In section 26 of the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960, after subsection (1) insert—

“(1A) A person may not be authorised under subsection (1) to enter and survey or value land in England and Wales in connection with a proposal to acquire an interest in or a right over land (but see section 111 of the Housing and Planning Act 2015).”

Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 (c. 56)

6 In section 11(3) of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 for “surveying and taking levels” substitute “surveying, valuing or taking levels”.

Criminal Justice Act 1972 (c. 71)

7 In the Criminal Justice Act 1972 omit section 60.

Welsh Development Agency Act 1975 (c. 70)

8 In Schedule 4 to the Welsh Development Agency Act 1975 omit paragraph 14(1).

Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 (c. 57)

9 In the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 omit section 15.

Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979 (c. 46)

10 In section 43 of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979, for subsection (1) substitute—

“(1) Any person authorised under this section may at any reasonable time enter any land in Scotland for the purpose of surveying it, or estimating its value, in connection with any proposal to acquire that or any other land under this Act or in connection with any claim for compensation under this Act in respect of any such acquisition.

(1A) Any person authorised under this section may at any reasonable time enter any land in England and Wales or Scotland for the purpose of surveying it, or estimating its value, in connection with any claim for compensation under this Act for any damage to that or any other land.

(1B) See section 111 of the Housing and Planning Act 2015 for a power to enter and survey or value land in England and Wales in connection with a proposal to acquire an interest in or a right over land.”

Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 (c. 65)

11 (1) Section 167 of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 is amended as follows.

(2) In the heading, after “land” insert “in Scotland”.

(3) In subsection (1)—

(a) in paragraph (a) after “any land” insert “in Scotland”;

(b) in paragraph (b) after “other land” insert “in Scotland”.

(4) In subsection (7)—

(a) for the words before paragraph (a) substitute “Where it is proposed to search or bore in pursuance of this section in a road within the meaning of Part 4 of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991—”;

(b) in paragraph (a) omit “55 or”;

(c) in paragraph (b) omit “69 or”;

(d) in paragraph (c) omit “82 or”;

(e) for the words after paragraph (c) substitute “have effect in relation to the searching or boring as if they were road works within the meaning of Part 4 of that Act.”

(5) In subsection (9)—

(a) for “Upper Tribunal” substitute “Lands Tribunal for Scotland”;

(b) for the words from “section 4” to “costs)” substitute “sections 9(2) to (5) and 11 of the Land Compensation (Scotland) Act 1963 (procedure and expenses)”.

(6) Omit subsection (13).

Highways Act 1980 (c. 66)

12 In section 289 of the Highways Act 1980, after subsection (1) insert—

“(1A) A person may not be authorised under subsection (1) to enter and survey or value land in connection with a proposal to acquire an interest in or a right over land (but see section 111 of the Housing and Planning Act 2015).”

New Towns Act 1981 (c. 64)

13 In section 73(1) of the New Towns Act 1981 omit paragraph (b) (and the “or” before it).

Civil Aviation Act 1982 (c. 16)

14 (1) Section 50 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982 is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (1), for paragraph (e) substitute—

“(e) in any case not falling within paragraphs (a) to (d) above where the Secretary of State has made an order under or in pursuance of this Part of this Act—

(i) authorising the compulsory purchase of land,

(ii) providing for the creation in favour of a particular person of a right in or in relation to land, or

(iii) declaring that an area of land shall be subject to control by directions.

(f) in any case not falling within paragraphs (a) to (d) above where the Secretary of State is considering making an order under or in pursuance of this Part of this Act—

(i) authorising the compulsory purchase of land in Scotland or Northern Ireland,

(ii) providing for the creation in favour of a particular person of a right in or in relation to land in Scotland or Northern Ireland, or

(iii) declaring that an area of land in England and Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland shall be subject to control by directions.”

(3) In subsection (3)(e), after “(1)(e)” insert “or (f)”.

(4) In subsection (4)(b), after “(1)(e)” insert “or (f)”.

(5) In subsection (7)(c), after “(1)(e)” insert “or (f)”.

Industrial Development Act 1982 (c. 52)

15 In section 14 of the Industrial Development Act 1982 omit subsection (6).

Housing Act 1985 (c. 68)

16 In section 54 of the Housing Act 1985, after subsection (2) insert—

“(3) A person may not be authorised by a local housing authority under subsection (1)(a) to enter and survey or value land in connection with a proposal to acquire an interest in or a right over land (but see section 111 of the Housing and Planning Act 2015).”

Local Government and Housing Act 1989 (c. 42)

17 In section 97 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989, after subsection (1) insert—

“(1A) A person may not be authorised by a local housing authority under subsection (1)(a) to enter and survey or value land in connection with a proposal to acquire an interest in or a right over land (but see section 111 of the Housing and Planning Act 2015).”

Electricity Act 1989 (c. 29)

18 In Schedule 4 to the Electricity Act 1989, in paragraph 10, after sub-paragraph (1) insert—

“(1A) A person may not be authorised under sub-paragraph (1) to enter and survey or value land in England and Wales in connection with a proposal to acquire an interest in or a right over land (but see section 111 of the Housing and Planning Act 2015).”

Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (c. 8)

19 In section 324 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 omit subsection (6).

Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (c. 9)

20 In section 88 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 omit subsection (5).

Land Drainage Act 1991 (c. 59)

21 In section 64 of the Land Drainage Act 1991, after subsection (1) insert—

“(1A) A person may not be authorised under subsection (1)(a) or (b) to enter and survey or value land in connection with a proposal to acquire an interest in or a right over land (but see section 111 of the Housing and Planning Act 2015).”

Water Industry Act 1991 (c. 56)

22 (1) Section 169 of the Water Industry Act 1991 is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (2) omit paragraph (a) (and the “or” at the end of it).

(3) In subsection (4), for the words before paragraph (a) substitute “The powers conferred by this section or section 111 of the Housing and Planning Act 2015 shall not be exercised on behalf of a water undertaker in any case for purposes connected with the determination of—”.

Water Resources Act 1991 (c. 57)

23 (1) Section 171 of the Water Resources Act 1991 is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (2) omit paragraph (a) (and the “or” at the end of it).

(3) In subsection (4), for the words before paragraph (a) substitute “The powers conferred by this section or section 111 of the Housing and Planning Act 2015 shall not be exercised on behalf of the Agency or the NRBW in any case for purposes connected with the determination of—”.

Environment Act 1995 (c. 25)

24 (1) Schedule 8 to the Environment Act 1995 is amended as follows.

(2) In paragraph 1(2) omit paragraph (b).

(3) In paragraph 2(3)—

(a) at the end of paragraph (a) insert “and”;

(b) omit paragraph (c) (and the “and” before it).

Greater London Authority Act 1999 (c. 29)

25 In the Greater London Authority Act 1999 omit section 333ZD.

Postal Services Act 2000 (c. 26)

26 In Schedule 6 to the Postal Services Act 2000, in paragraph 2, after sub-paragraph (2) insert—

“(2A) A person may not be authorised under sub-paragraph (1) to enter and survey or value land in England and Wales in connection with a proposal to acquire an interest in or a right over land (but see section 111 of the Housing and Planning Act 2015).”

Housing and Regeneration Act 2008 (c. 17)

27 In the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008 omit sections 17 and 18.

Localism Act 2011 (c. 20)

28 In the Localism Act 2011 omit section 210. —(Mr Marcus Jones.)

See Member’s explanatory statement for NC18.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Schedule 4

“Secure tenancies etc: phasing out of tenancies for life

Law of Property Act 1925 (c.20)

1 (1) Section 52 of the Law of Property Act 1925 (conveyances to be by deed, unless excepted by subsection (2) of that section) is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (2), after paragraph (db) insert—

“(dc) secure tenancies of dwellings in England granted on or after the day on which paragraph 4 of Schedule (Secure tenancies etc: phasing out of tenancies for life) to the Housing and Planning Act 2015 comes fully into force, other than old-style secure tenancies;”.

(3) In subsection (3)—

(a) in the definition of “flexible tenancy”, for “107A” substitute “115B”;

(b) at the appropriate place insert—

““secure tenancy” has the meaning given by section 79 of the Housing Act 1985 and “old style-secure tenancy” has the meaning given by section 115C of that Act;”.

Housing Act 1985 (c. 68)

2 The Housing Act 1985 is amended as follows.

3 For the italic heading before section 79 substitute—

“Secure tenancies”

4 After section 81 insert—

“Grant of new secure tenancies in England

81A New English secure tenancies to be between 2 and 5 years in general

‘(1) A person may grant a secure tenancy of a dwelling-house in England only if it is a tenancy for a fixed term that is—

(a) at least 2 years, and

(b) no more than 5 years.

(2) If a person purports to grant a secure tenancy in breach of subsection (1), it takes effect as a tenancy for a fixed term of 5 years.

(3) This section does not apply to the grant of an old-style secure tenancy (as to which, see section 81B).

81B Cases where old-style English secure tenancies may be granted

‘(1) A person may grant an old style-secure tenancy of a dwelling-house in England only—

(a) in circumstances specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State, or

(b) in accordance with subsection (2).

(2) A local housing authority that grants a secure tenancy of a dwelling-house in England must grant an old-style secure tenancy if—

(a) the tenancy is offered as a replacement for an old-style secure tenancy of some other dwelling-house, and

(b) the tenant has not made an application to move.

(3) Other provisions of this Part set out the consequences of a tenancy being an old-style secure tenancy.

(4) Regulations under subsection (1) may include transitional or saving provision.

(5) Regulations under subsection (1) are to be made by statutory instrument.

(6) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (1) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.

81C Duty to offer new secure tenancy in limited circumstances

‘(1) This section applies where a change in circumstances means that a tenancy that is not a secure tenancy would become a secure tenancy but for the exception in paragraph 1ZA of Schedule 1.

(2) The landlord must, within the period of 28 days, make the tenant a written offer of a secure tenancy in return for the tenant surrendering the original tenancy.

(3) If the tenant accepts in writing within the period of 28 days beginning with the day on which the tenant receives the offer, the landlord must grant the secure tenancy on the tenant surrendering the original tenancy.

81D Review of decisions about length of secure tenancies in England

‘(1) A person who is offered a secure tenancy of a dwelling- house in England (under section 81C or otherwise) may request a review under this section, unless the tenancy on offer is an old-style secure tenancy.

(2) The sole purpose of a review under this section is to consider whether the length of the tenancy is in accordance with any policy that the prospective landlord has about the length of secure tenancies it grants.

(3) The request must be made before the end of—

(a) the period of 21 days beginning with the day on which the person making the request first receives the offer, or

(b) such longer period as the prospective landlord may allow in writing.

(4) On receiving the request the prospective landlord must carry out the review.

(5) On completing the review the prospective landlord must —

(a) notify the tenant in writing of the outcome,

(b) revise its offer or confirm its original decision about the length of the tenancy, and

(c) if it decides to confirm its original decision, give reasons.

(6) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about the procedure to be followed in connection with a review under this section.

(7) The regulations may, in particular—

(a) require the review to be carried out by a person of appropriate seniority who was not involved in the original decision;

(b) make provision as to the circumstances in which the person who requested the review is entitled to an oral hearing, and whether and by whom that person may be represented.

(8) Regulations under this section may include transitional or saving provision.

(9) Regulations under this section are to be made by statutory instrument which is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.”

5 In section 82 (security of tenure), in subsection (3), for the words from “section 86” to the end substitute “section 86 or 86D shall apply”.

6 (1) Section 82A (demoted tenancy) is amended as follows.

(2) After subsection (4) insert—

“(4A) The court may not make a demotion order in relation to a secure tenancy of a dwelling-house in England if—

(a) the landlord is a local housing authority or housing action trust, and

(b) the term has less than 1 year and 9 months left to run

(4B) But subsection (4A) does not apply to a tenancy to which an exception in section 86A(2) or (3) applies.”

(3) In subsection (5), for paragraph (b) substitute—

“(b) the period or term of the tenancy (but see subsection (6));”.

(4) For subsection (6) substitute—

“(6) Subsection (5)(b) does not apply if—

(a) the secure tenancy was for a fixed term and was an old-style secure tenancy or a flexible tenancy, or

(b) the secure tenancy was for a fixed term and was a tenancy of a dwelling-house in Wales,

and in such a case the demoted tenancy is a weekly periodic tenancy.”

7 After section 82 insert—

“Orders for possession and expiry of term etc”

8 In section 83 (proceedings for possession or termination: general notice requirements), in subsection (A1), for paragraph (b) substitute—

“(b) proceedings for possession of a dwelling-house under section 86E (recovery of possession on expiry of certain English secure tenancies).”

9 In section 84 (grounds and orders for possession), in subsection (1), for “section 107D (recovery of possession on expiry of flexible tenancy)” substitute “section 86E (recovery of possession on expiry of certain English secure tenancies)”.

10 (1) Section 86 (periodic tenancy arising on termination of fixed term) is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (1), after “secure tenancy” insert “to which this section applies”.

(3) After subsection (1) insert—

“(1A) This section applies to a secure tenancy of a dwelling- house in Wales.

(1B) This section also applies to a secure tenancy of a dwelling- house in England that is—

(a) an old-style secure tenancy, or

(b) a flexible tenancy the term of which ends within the period of 9 months beginning with the day on which paragraph 4 of Schedule (Secure tenancies etc: phasing out of tenancies for life) to the Housing and Planning Act 2015 comes fully into force,

unless it is a tenancy excluded by subsection (1C).”

(4) In subsection (2), for “this section” substitute “subsection (1)”.

11 After section 86 insert—

“English secure tenancies: review, renewal and possession

86A English tenancies: review to determine what to do at end of fixed term

‘(1) The landlord under a fixed term secure tenancy of a dwelling-house in England must carry out a review to decide what to do at the end of the term, unless one of the following exceptions applies.

(2) Exception 1 is where the tenancy is an old-style secure tenancy.

(3) Exception 2 is where the tenancy is a flexible tenancy the term of which ends within the period of 9 months beginning with the day on which paragraph 4 of Schedule (Secure tenancies etc: phasing out of tenancies for life) to the Housing and Planning Act 2015 comes fully into force.

(4) A review under this section must be carried out while the term has 6 to 9 months left to run.

(5) On a review under this section the landlord must decide which of the following options to take.

[The Chair]

The final question I must put to the Committee, after what has been a long and exciting deliberation of the Bill, is that I do report the Bill, as amended, to the House.

[Brandon Lewis]

On a point of order, Mr Gray. If you will indulge me for a few moments, I want to thank Members of all parties for a constructive debate over the past few weeks. This has been a good opportunity, as we head into Christmas, to get to know each other that little bit better, which in almost all cases has been a good thing. Some of us may have moved our views from time to time in order to make the passage of the Bill work. I genuinely appreciate that hon. Members have made some very powerful speeches, and we have seen strong contributions from both sides of the Committee by Members working to ensure that we end up with a Bill of which we can all hopefully be very proud and that delivers more housing across this country. I thank all Members, both Opposition Members and my hon. Friends, for their part in that.

I thank both Whips for helping us all to take the Bill through Committee in a timely manner, and I particularly thank my brilliant Government Whip. I also thank my colleague, the Under-Secretary of State, who has been a fantastic Minister to work with throughout the passage of the Bill. It would be inappropriate not to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Burton for keeping us inspired from time to time, and other Members have, too. I thank all hon. Members for their contributions and for the manner in which this debate has been held. I thank the Opposition Front-Bench Members for a constructive and useful debate.

I also want to thank the Clerks, Glenn McKee and the team, for the way in which they have worked with us to make sure that we have had everything we need. Mr Chairman, I thank you and your colleague, Sir Alan, for your work in getting through these sessions, not only on the days we finished early but on the days we finished late, to make sure that we were able to get the Bill through in a good, strong manner. I thank the Chair and the team of Clerks.

I thank the Doorkeepers, who have managed to keep us safe and secure when we vote and more generally, for their perseverance over the past few weeks. I also thank the team from Hansard, who have had the unenviable job of ensuring that all our words look as eloquent as possible on the page when it is published a short while after we finish. I am sure that is less of a challenge in some cases than in others, but I thank them for that.

Penultimately, I thank all my officials and our Department’s team who have worked so closely on the policy and the Bill. I thank the preparation team, the lawyers and parliamentary counsel, my private office and the Under-Secretary of State’s private office. They have all persevered and worked for many months to get the Bill to this stage. I thank everybody who has in any way played a part, large or small, in getting us here—finishing early on our final day.

Finally, I thank everybody who gave evidence, both written and oral, and who took the time to put forward their views and to contribute to the Bill. I am sure we will see each other on Monday for oral questions, which we will all be looking forward to, and excited about, over the weekend. With that in mind, I wish everybody a very happy Christmas and a very exciting 2016. I look forward to taking this debate further on Report.

[Dr Blackman-Woods]

Further to that point of order, Mr Gray. I wonder whether the Minister is inviting me to speak for another 12 minutes so that we do not finish early. I, too, want to start by thanking you, Mr Gray, and Sir Alan Meale for chairing this Committee fairly and graciously, which is much appreciated. I also thank the Clerks for their excellent service in getting amendments in the right order and in the right place so that we could debate them.

I marvel that the Doorkeepers sit here through hours and hours of deliberation with such good humour to keep us safe and secure, but mostly they prevent us from dying of dehydration, which is much appreciated. I thank Hansard for turning around a great deal of material in such a short space of time. I thank the many organisations that have sent detailed evidence into the Committee or that have turned up to give oral evidence. I assure them that, at least on the Opposition side of the Committee, we have read all their evidence and taken it on board in our comments. It is excellent that they take such time to engage with our democracy in that way.

I thank my fellow shadow Minister for her input into the Bill, and I thank our Whip for always maintaining good humour whatever the circumstances. I thank members of the Committee, on both sides, who gave excellent speeches, with much passion at times. I highlight the interventions by Opposition Members, particularly by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West, who challenged Government Members on everything from the nature of their lunch and their lunch arrangements to how to improve their chances of being elected in future. As always in such Committees, Members emerged who keep us entertained, and this time it was the hon. Member for South Norfolk for the Conservative party and my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West on the Opposition side. We should commend them for keeping us amused at key points in our debate.

We know that some of the Bills we debate in Committee have a great deal of consensus, but that is not always the case. We have strong differences on this Bill, but I think we have managed to proceed with a great deal of civility on both sides of the Committee at all times, despite—I say this gently, having been in this place for nearly 11 years—now knowing what it is like to experience a hyperactive Whip. I am not sure that I want to experience it ever again, so I hope the hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon has a really, really chilled Christmas and comes back with a degree of levity to our proceedings in the main Chamber on Report.

I, too, thank the Ministers for their helpful responses at times and for disagreeing with us so civilly. I wish everyone a merry Christmas and a happy new year.

[The Chair]

I am most grateful to both hon. Members for their kind remarks. On behalf of Sir Alan Meale, I add our warm thanks to the Clerks. It may appear that we know the finer points of procedure, but we do not; we merely read out what they tell us. We are extremely grateful to you for all your hard work. I thank the Committee for being extremely courteous and largely in order. These proceedings have been very worth while.

Bill, as amended, to be reported.

16:52

Committee rose.

Written evidence reported to the House

HPB 113 East London Housing Partnership

HPB 114 Camden Association of Street Properties

HPB 115 Longlife Housing Co-operative Limited

HPB 116 The City of London Law Society

HPB 117 Legal Services, Birmingham City Council

HPB 118 London Borough of Camden Council

HPB 119 Lewes Price, Ex Health and Safety consultant on fire prevention

HPB 120 Leila Allen

HPB 121 London Borough of Barnet Council

HPB 122 Northern Housing Consortium

HPB 123 Rescue (The British Archaeological Trust)

HPB 124 Architects for Social Housing (ASH)

HPB 125 Peabody

HPB 126 Quakers in Britain

HPB 127 South Norfolk Council

HPB 128 Jack Straw, Chair of the Surrey Planning Working Group

HPB 129 Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA)

HPB 130 The City of London Law Society - further submission

HPB 131 Sandra Wheen (this individual wishes to remain anonymous)

HPB 132 Councillors Duffin and Hannaford, Cabinet Members of Cornwall Council

HPB 133 Councillor Gary Suttle, Leader of Purbeck District Council

HPB 134 Herbert Smith Freehills LLP

HPB 135 Greater Manchester Combined Authority

HPB 136 DCLG - application of Standing Order 83L to the Housing and Planning Act as amended

HPB 137 Durham County Council

HPB 138 igloo Regeneration

HPB 139 Cllr Armorel J Carlyon, Truro City Council

HPB 140 Levitt Bernstein

HPB 141 Unit Eleven Housing Co-operative

HPB 142 Fowzia Hoosain

HPB 143 Tristan Mackie, Gweek Parish Councillor, and Steering Group Member for Cornwall for Change

HPB 144 Councillor Saima Ashraf, Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Housing, Barking and Dagenham Council

HPB 145 Places for People

HPB 146 The Theatres Trust

HPB 147 Core Cities

HPB 148 Generation Rent

HPB 149 The Intergenerational Foundation

HPB 150 North East Chamber of Commerce

HPB 151 London Borough of Islington Council

HPB 152 Southwark Group of Tenants Organisations

HPB 153 Federation of Small Businesses

HPB 154 Councillor Philip Glanville, Cabinet Member for Housing, Hackney Council - further submission

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chairs: Mr James Gray †, Sir Alan Meale

† Bacon, Mr Richard (South Norfolk) (Con)

† Blackman-Woods, Dr Roberta (City of Durham) (Lab)

† Caulfield, Maria (Lewes) (Con)

† Dowd, Peter (Bootle) (Lab)

† Griffiths, Andrew (Burton) (Con)

† Hammond, Stephen (Wimbledon) (Con)

† Hayes, Helen (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)

† Hollinrake, Kevin (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)

† Jackson, Mr Stewart (Peterborough) (Con)

† Jones, Mr Marcus (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government)

† Kennedy, Seema (South Ribble) (Con)

† Lewis, Brandon (Minister for Housing and Planning)

† Morris, Grahame M. (Easington) (Lab)

† Pearce, Teresa (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)

† Pennycook, Matthew (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)

† Philp, Chris (Croydon South) (Con)

† Smith, Julian (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)

† Thomas, Mr Gareth (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)

Glenn McKee, Katy Stout, Committee Clerks

† attended the Committee

Public Bill Committee

Thursday 10 December 2015

(Afternoon)

[Mr James Gray in the Chair]

Housing and Planning Bill

14:00

Order. One of the doors is locked. I am advised that I ought to suspend the sitting until it has been opened and the public and others can get in.

Sitting suspended.

14:01

On resuming—

Order. When we broke for lunch, I had proposed the question that new clause 9 be read a Second time.

On a point of order, Mr Gray. As you will be aware, this morning it was suggested that the proposals in new clauses 32 and 33 were at some stage being considered as policy by the last Labour Government. Over the lunch break I was able to check, and the Minister at the time, my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby South (Margaret Beckett), made it absolutely clear that the proposal for fixed-term contracts was made by the Chartered Institute of Housing as part of a consultation on a housing reform Green Paper. She stated categorically that it was not Government policy. There had been some unhelpful speculation following an inaccurate report that appeared in a national newspaper, but she made it absolutely clear that she was not sympathetic to the notion that council residents should somehow lose their security of tenure—

Order. The hon. Lady knows well that that is not a point of order and not a matter for the Chair, but she has by that mechanism made her views known to the Committee.

New Clause 9

Duty to promote lending to small and medium sized house builders

‘(1) The Secretary of State shall have a duty to promote lending by banks to small and medium sized house builders.

(2) A small or medium sized builder in subsection (1) is a builder that has fewer than 250 employees.”—(Mr Gareth Thomas.)

Brought up, read the First time, and Question proposed (this day), That the clause be read a Second time.

Question again proposed.

As you mentioned this morning, Mr Gray, this is the final day of the Committee. We have finished scrutinising the Government’s proposals for the Bill; for the rest of the day, we will focus on the propositions from the Opposition. The hon. Member for Harrow West and others might be particularly focused on the rest of our deliberations and indeed on Parliament for the next few days, but people generally and the members of the Committee might also thinking about and looking forward to Christmas, so I wish everyone well for Christmas.

As I said, we have completed our consideration of the Government’s proposals for the Bill at this stage, but Opposition Members keep surprising us—I suppose in the Christmas spirit—with gifts on the amendment paper. The hon. Member for Harrow West is a gift that just keeps on giving. I am of course more than happy to accept his offer of gifts and to spend the rest of our time in Committee considering the Opposition’s suggestions for the Bill, now that we are done considering the Bill as drafted. Never let it be said that we are not happy to accept and enjoy the good will of all Committee members.

The new clause tabled by the hon. Member for Harrow West would introduce a statutory duty in respect of lending to small and medium-sized house builders. I have said clearly on the record that we recognise that the lack of availability of development finance can be and has been a major barrier to smaller firms that are looking to expand and develop their building activity. Indeed, as outlined earlier, in the survey conducted by the Federation of Master Builders this year, more than 62% of respondents thought that the availability of finance was a constraint on housing supply.

I am concerned to ensure that we do all we can to help small and medium-sized house builders, because they are key to delivering the housing we need throughout the country. Nevertheless, introducing a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to promote lending by banks to small and medium-sized companies simply will not address the problem. We share the desire to see it happen, but I suspect the hon. Gentleman realises that such a duty would not work. As my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South said, the Secretary of State has no power to force banks to lend to small businesses, so the new clause is technically unworkable. However, it may please the hon. Gentleman to know that the Government are already taking action.

In July I launched the £100 million housing growth fund, which is a partnership between the Homes and Communities Agency and Lloyds Banking Group, to help smaller builders to get access to the finance they need to build more homes and grow their businesses. In the autumn statement, the Chancellor announced further measures to support small and medium-sized builders, including a housing development fund that will provide access to £1 billion of loan finance over up to five years. The new fund brings together and expands the builders finance fund and custom build serviced plots loan fund as well, providing more flexibility for Government support in those emerging markets.

We have also created the British Business Bank for £782 million of facilitated lending and investment. That aims to unlock £10 billion of financing for smaller businesses over the next five years. The Chancellor also announced support for small and medium-sized house builders specifically through amending planning policy to promote the delivery of small schemes, some of which we have debated in the Committee in the past few weeks.

Other proposals announced in the autumn statement will halve the length of the planning guarantee for non-major developments from 26 weeks to 13 weeks, ensuring that those smaller builders are not slowed down by an unnecessarily bureaucratic and slow planning system. With those assurances on Government activity, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his new clause.

It is lovely to have the Minister of State back in his place. We all noticed that he effortlessly passed the hospital pass of the ending of secure tenancies to the Under-Secretary of State, which was a skilful dodge—the Under-Secretary had better watch his back in the Department.

I welcome the Minister’s detailing of the various measures that he and the Chancellor of the Exchequer have set out to help small and medium-sized builders. I leave him with the thought that perhaps not enough has been done yet to end the concerns of many in that part of the house building market about the shortage of finance. I welcome the steps taken, but I encourage him to keep this matter in close view. In that spirit, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 10

Planning obligations in respect of apprenticeships

‘In section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (planning obligations), after subsection (12) insert—

“(12A) The Secretary of State may by regulations require planning obligations to include a requirement to offer apprenticeships to local people on sites where 50 or more dwellings are to be constructed.”’—(Mr Gareth Thomas.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

I am delighted to move the new clause and highlight the need for more construction apprenticeships. The new clause, which for want of a better phrase is a probing new clause, suggests that in proposals for sites where 50 or more dwellings are to be constructed, there should be a guarantee that local people can be offered apprenticeships. The Minister should take that seriously.

The Federation of Master Builders highlighted the shortage of skilled workers in the construction industry, which could scupper the vision for the new affordable homes that we all want. Brian Berry, the chief executive of the FMB, said last month:

“Unless we see a massive uplift in apprenticeship training in our industry, there won’t be enough pairs of hands to deliver more housing on this scale.”

I looked in detail to see where the shortages lay. According to the FMB’s state of trades survey:

“In Q2 of 2015 49% of FMB members were having difficulties recruiting bricklayers and 47% carpenters and joiners.”

The FMB also said:

“Another recent FMB poll of members found that two thirds had had to turn down work because of their inability to recruit the skilled labour they need.”

A significant number of its members saw that as a “major barrier” to their ability to build more homes in the next 12 months, and a third were worried looking three years ahead.

One worries that small and medium-sized house builders will suffer most from the shortage of skilled labour. I remind the Committee of my previous comments about the decline in the number of small and medium-sized house builders over the past 25 years or more. A shortage of labour is no doubt an issue for small and medium-sized house builders. We have the problem of access to finance on the one hand, and if we add to that the shortage of skilled labour, we risk seeing even greater concentration in the house building sector.

Just before he stepped down from Parliament earlier this year, the excellent Nick Raynsford, then the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich, chaired a cross-party parliamentary inquiry into apprenticeships with the noble Lord Best. The inquiry drew attention to the 1 million 16 to 24-year-olds who are not in education, employment or training, as well as the fact that we will need an extra 182,000 construction workers by 2018. It also highlighted that just 7,280 people had completed a construction apprenticeship in 2013, and that even though there had been a rise in the number of apprenticeships in other areas, there continued to be a significant shortage in the construction industry.

Between 2008 and 2011, the Homes and Communities Agency had guidelines that required housing associations to initiate apprenticeships as they got money to build new homes, which helped to generate more than 4,000 apprenticeships in that three-year period. The guidelines were lifted in 2011, when, as the agency said in evidence to the cross-party inquiry, they were clearly beginning to make a significant difference. That is a disappointment.

The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors construction market survey says the skills shortage has reached its highest levels since the survey was launched 18 years ago. Do you see anything in the Bill or any policy that will help to address that?

I do not, but Mr Gareth Thomas might.

Mr Gray, if you have not seen any evidence, and I certainly have not seen any evidence—

I have not been looking for evidence. I take no view on the matter.

Very wise, Mr Gray; leave it to us and trust our judgment instead. I have not seen anything specific in the Bill that offers improvement regarding the worrying shortage of skilled construction workers. I tabled this probing new clause because it is worth raising the need for more apprenticeships, particularly in the construction sector.

rose—

I look forward, as ever, to the contribution from the hon. Member for South Norfolk.

The hon. Gentleman is, as usual, ineffably kind, but I wonder why he looks to the Bill for a solution to his problem. Were he to look at the website of the excellent Easton and Otley College in my constituency, he would see that with the opening of its modern, well equipped £3.75 million construction centres, it aims to lay the foundations for a more secure future by trebling the number of construction students. It does not have to be legislation that does it.

The hon. Gentleman is right in the sense that legislation is not the answer to everything. Although I am glad to give him the opportunity to praise a provider of apprenticeships in his constituency, I simply make the point, which I am sure he would not try to counter completely, that at the moment we do not have enough skilled workers in the construction industry in this country. All the fine words that we have exchanged over the past four weeks about how we might get more people into their own home are surely put at risk if we cannot find the people to build those homes in the first place.

14:15

I gently urge the Minister to do more to champion the take-up of apprenticeships by the construction industry. There has been concern in the past that, where construction apprenticeships have been on offer, they have not been of the quality that might have tempted people into them. There has been concern on occasion that people have been too quickly moved away from sites, and that some of the specialists in the provision of apprenticeships have continued to be undercut by those who do not provide such high quality training programmes.

I am grateful to Joe Brennan of Denbury Ltd, which is based in my constituency. It has provided for many years high quality apprenticeships to local people, usually on housing association building projects, but not exclusively. I ask the Minister: what more can be done to get more people into construction apprenticeships?

I find myself in a worrying position, because I agree with the hon. Member for Harrow West on two clauses running. I am not sure where to go from there.

One of our biggest challenges to get the homes that we want built across our country is the skills shortage. When we talk to developers and housing associations, some will talk about access to finance and some will talk about access to land and the planning system, but they will all talk about the skills challenge. Putting this matter on the record is useful, so I thank the hon. Gentleman for making the point. The industry is fantastic to work in. To be part of an industry that creates a home for people in the future is a special thing to be able to do.

I agree with both my hon. Friend and with the hon. Member for Harrow West. Does my hon. Friend think that registered providers—housing associations—have a vital role to play? I commend my local registered provider, Cross Keys Homes in Peterborough, that works with the Mears construction company to run an apprenticeship school. Apprentices go straight back into working for that housing association in its remedial work and new build.

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. I suspect many of us in Committee today can find local housing associations doing excellent work with apprentices. I have certainly found that when I have met housing associations. There are good examples in the private sector as well. At Derby College recently I met Ian Hodgkinson and his team who encourage people particularly into brickwork. We all want to see more people going into bricklaying. Fantastic work is being done, and the more we can do to promote that, the better.

At the risk of breaking into the love-in, what role does the Minister feel that immigration may have in helping to sort out the skills shortage?

Actually, I think the hon. Gentleman does not go too far in breaking into the love-in. People should bear in mind that a lot of the building work we are getting done at the moment is thanks to some very positive work migration. That free movement of labour has been very useful to the construction industry over the past few years.

We want to make sure that the public sector plays a full part. I am proud to be a member of the Government that want to deliver 3 million apprentices in this Parliament, building on the 2 million in the previous Parliament, and we have changed Government procurement rules. The hon. Member for Harrow West talked about what could be done directly. We have changed Government procurement rules so that all relevant bids for central Government contracts worth £10 million or more and lasting more than 12 months must demonstrate a clear commitment to apprenticeships.

Might I ask the Minister, while there is a period of friendliness between us, to look at the guidelines that the HCA used to have, which encouraged housing associations to offer quality apprenticeships, and consider whether there might be scope for encouraging the HCA to bring them back?

Worryingly, I am going to say yes. I would agree with the hon. Gentleman again. I am very happy to look at that. There is obviously a balance at the moment in working with housing associations and the HCA. We have made it clear that we want housing associations to be declassified by the Office for National Statistics, but the housing association sector is keen on the area in question, and I have been speaking to David Orr, the chief executive of the National Housing Federation, about the skills issue. We will be doing a piece of work on that, and I am happy to liaise directly with the housing associations as well as with the HCA.

More specifically on construction apprenticeships, we are supporting initiatives of the Construction Industry Training Board and those that flow from the work of the Construction Leadership Council. In addition, the CITB has developed a range of initiatives, working closely with the Department for Work and Pensions and the armed forces, through the resettlement service, and with local enterprise partnerships.

A legal requirement for all section 106 agreements on sites with 50 or more dwellings to include a requirement to offer apprenticeships to local people would not necessarily support apprenticeships. It could be detrimental. Experience has shown us that without effective dialogue such as the work we are doing with the housing associations and indeed with people doing apprenticeships, some of the objectives that have been set out, which I know have the best intentions—I take the hon. Gentleman’s comments absolutely—can have unintended consequences and result in apprentices being unable to complete their apprenticeships.

I will briefly explain that. It is important to remember that apprenticeships are real, proper jobs, with a structured training to prescribed standards, which require a significant time investment from the employee as much as the employer. The taking on of an apprentice must fit the employer’s work patterns and skill needs. In construction, where work happens from project to project, consideration must be given to the labour skills and general skills needs for each project, and what is therefore practical and capable of delivery.

For example, smaller projects, but even projects of more than 50 homes, may not be able fully to support apprenticeships, especially as an apprentice cannot transfer between trade frameworks. It is not the length of the project but the analysis of the length of the trade activity undertaken within the project that establishes the number of apprenticeships it can support.

Also, requirements to recruit from the local area can in some circumstances be unsustainable. To pick up the point made by the hon. Member for Bootle highlighting mobility, the construction industry workforce is one of our most mobile, and many contractors operate across the country. It may not be feasible for a company based in a different area of the country to support a locally-recruited apprentice once their element of the project is completed. I want to work directly with the sector on that issue.

I hope that those assurances and my explanation will lead the hon. Gentleman to accept our determination of the matter, and to withdraw the new clause.

I am grateful to the Minister for his reply and his willingness to look at the issue of HCA guidance. A number of contractors and social landlords told the inquiry to which I referred that the framework had worked well, and I gently suggest that that might be another reason for looking at the matter again.

I welcome the Minister’s personal commitment to the area in question. As a last point, I would urge him to consider the point that he ended on—the quality of construction apprenticeships. I worry that, in the past, some apprenticeships on offer have not been of high quality, which might have been a factor in putting some people off going into the construction industry. However, given the Minister’s helpful remarks, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 12

Tenants’ rights to new management in property sold under LSVT

“(1) This section applies to housing which—

(a) was previously owned by a local authority;

(b) was part of a large scale voluntary transfer falling within the definition of section 32(4AB) of the Housing Act 1985; and

(c) the disposal of which was subject to the consent of the Secretary of State under section 32 of the 1985 Act.

(2) Where the transfer took place more than five years before this section comes into operation the current owner of the transferred housing shall consult the current tenants on their satisfaction with the management of that property.

(3) Where the transfer took place less than five years after this section comes into operation the current owner of the transferred housing shall not more than every five years consult the current tenants on their satisfaction with the management of that property.

(4) If more than 50% of tenants responding to the consultation under subsections (2) or (3) are dissatisfied with the management of the property, the owner of the housing must carry out a competitive tender for the management of the property and report the outcome to the tenants.”—(Dr Blackman-Woods.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The new clause is intended to ensure that tenants will be consulted about their satisfaction with management arrangements for their properties and tenancies where there has been a large-scale voluntary transfer. If, after five years, more than 50% of tenants are not happy with the arrangements, it provides for a competitive tendering exercise. This is largely a probing amendment to check whether the Government think it important to gauge tenant satisfaction with the LSVT arrangements, and to provide a mechanism to change them if tenants are not happy.

Local authority stock transfer can take place only if the majority of the tenants vote in a ballot, as required by statute. Indeed, the Secretary of State’s consent to the transfer can be given only after he is satisfied of two things: first, that the local authority’s consultation exercise has been adequate; and, secondly, that the majority of tenants voting are in favour of transfer. Furthermore, the Secretary of State will ensure that the acquiring landlord is registered with the regulator, so that he can be satisfied that the organisation is viable and will look after the stock in the long term, to the benefit of the tenants.

Although there are no powers currently available to tenants to sack or fire their housing association, the rights of housing association tenants, including ex-council tenants, are protected through a range of mechanisms. The Localism Act 2011 placed the power to scrutinise landlords’ performance and hold them to account back into the hands of tenants and their elected representatives. That can include referring complaints to the housing ombudsman if issues have not been resolved locally. Many tenant panels already play a key role in scrutinising landlords’ performance, challenging poor service and holding landlords of all types to account for delivery and value for money. The regulator’s tenant involvement and empowering standard requires landlords to offer tenants a wide range of opportunities to play that bigger role locally, including by forming tenant panels.

The regulator does not have powers to mediate or resolve individual cases, but it can and will investigate where there is evidence of serious detriment. The regulator also has the power to institute a statutory inquiry if necessary. Where a merger is proposed, housing associations are already required to consult with all stakeholders. I appreciate, as the hon. Member for City of Durham said, that this is a probing amendment. Hopefully she will accept and acknowledge that it is not necessary, as current tenants already have a number of sufficient and wide-ranging instruments enabling them to scrutinise their landlords and hold them to account, and rightly so, in addition to the HCA’s regulatory standards.

Furthermore, the proposed amendment will affect only some tenants in England: namely, ex-council tenants transferred to new housing association landlords. It does not make sense for that whole group to be treated differently from other housing association tenants. I appreciate that this is a probing amendment, and I hope she will feel able to withdraw it.

I have heard what the Minister has said. It is a particular concern of my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick), who was keen to have something on the record about the need for some trigger mechanism in place for tenants unhappy with LSVT arrangements. I have heard what the Minister has said. Perhaps we will come back at a later stage to reconsider the issue. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the new clause.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 13

Conversion of leasehold to commonhold for interdependent properties

“(1) On 1 January 2020 long leases of residential property in interdependent properties shall cease to be land tenure capable of conveyance.

(2) On 1 January 2020 long leases as set out in subsection (1) shall become commonholds to which Part 1 of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 (‘the 2002 Act’) shall apply, subject to the modifications set out in this section.

(3) Leaseholders, freeholders and those with an interest in an interdependent property are required to facilitate the transfer to commonhold, in particular they shall:

(a) by 1 January 2018 draw-up an agreed plan for the transfer;

(b) by 1 October 2018 value any interests to be extinguished by the transfer where the interest is held by a person who after transfer will not be a unit-holder; and

(c) by 1 January 2019 draw up a commonhold community statement for the purposes of—

(i) defining the extent of each commonhold unit;

(ii) defining the extent of the common parts and their respective uses;

(iii) defining the percentage contributions that each unit will contribute to the running costs of the building;

(iv) defining the voting rights of the members of the commonhold association; and

(v) specifying the rights and duties of the commonhold association, the unit-holders and their tenants.

(4) In any case where the parties at subsection (3) cannot or refuse to agree arrangements to facilitate the transfer any of the parties can make an application to the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) for a determination of the matter.

(5) Section 3 [Consent] of the 2002 Act shall cease to have effect on 1 January 2017.

(6) In subsection (1) ‘long lease’ means—

(a) a lease granted for a term certain exceeding 21 years, whether or not it is (or may become) terminable before the end of that term by notice given by the tenant or by re-entry or forfeiture; or

(b) a lease for a term fixed by law under a grant with a covenant or obligation for perpetual renewal, other than a lease by sub-demise from one which is not a long lease.”—(Dr Blackman-Woods.)

This New Clause would end the tenure of residential leasehold by 1 January 2020 by converting residential leases into commonhold.

Brought up, and read the First time.

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

I will be extremely brief. New clause 13 seeks greater clarity on how the use of commonhold and leasehold tenancies are mentioned and dealt with in practice by the Department. I would be grateful to hear the Minister’s comments on how the current situation can be improved.

New clause 13 seeks to replace long residential leasehold with commonhold. As hon. Members know, leasehold is a long-established way of owning property, supported by a framework of rights and protections that aims to deliver the appropriate balance between providing leaseholders with the rights and protections that they need and recognising the legitimate interest of landlords.

Commonhold is subject to a different statutory framework of rights and protections. It has its benefits, but there are important differences between commonhold and leasehold. That is partly why commonhold is and was intended to be a voluntary alternative to long leasehold ownership—a choice. There are no plans to abolish residential leasehold.

14:30

Abolishing leasehold and forcing leaseholders into commonhold may seem attractive to some, but would that be the right thing to do in all circumstances? The Government believe that it would not. Removing choice in this instance and, with it, the rights and protections currently afforded to leasehold homeowners and at the same time forcing existing leaseholders to become commonholders against their will would not be desired by all. Considerable care needs to be taken before embarking on legislation that would force existing leaseholders and landlords to transfer to the commonhold model, which would not in all cases be appropriate. Commonhold should remain a voluntary alternative to long leasehold ownership.

On that basis, I hope that the hon. Lady will, as she says, withdraw the motion.

With this probing new clause, we were seeking greater clarity. Some of that clarity has been provided by the Minister this afternoon. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 21

Planning obligations: local first-time buyers

“After section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (planning obligations) insert—

‘106ZA Planning obligations in respect of local first-time buyers

(1) When granting planning permission under 70(1)(a), or permission in principle under 70(1A)(a), for the construction of new dwellings for sale, the local planning authority may require that a proportion of the dwellings are marketed exclusively to local first-time buyers for a specified period.

(2) The “specified period” in subsection (1) must start no earlier than six months before the new dwellings have achieved, or are likely to, practical completion.

(3) “First-time buyer” in subsection (1) has the meaning given by section 57AA(2) of the Finance Act 2003.

(4) The Secretary of State may by regulations—

(a) define the “specified period” in subsection (1);

(b) define “local” in subsection (1), and

(c) the definition “local” may vary according to specified circumstances.

(5) The regulations in subsection (4) so far as they apply to local planning authorities in Greater London will not apply to these authorities unless the Secretary of State has consulted and received the consent of the Greater London Authority.’”— (Dr Blackman-Woods.)

This amendment would empower local planning authorities to impose a planning obligation when giving planning permission for the construction of new housing for sale requiring that a proportion of the housing is marketed exclusively to local first-time buyers.

Brought up, and read the First time.

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The new clause would apply to all new homes for sale given planning permission by local authorities, as well as those given permission in principle, under provisions in the Housing and Planning Bill. The new clause would give local authorities the power to require a proportion of new homes for sale to be marketed exclusively to local first-time buyers for a specified period. Local authorities could make a judgment call about what proportion was reasonable. The new clause would allow the Secretary of State or, in Greater London, the Mayor of London, to make reasonable definitions of the time period for exclusive local marketing and to make definitions of what “local” means.

I entirely agree with the hon. Lady’s desire to encourage first-time buyers. Does she not agree, though, that the starter home provisions that we agreed some weeks ago will go a very long way towards doing that?

What the new clause is designed to do, which I think the hon. Gentleman has probably realised—I am not totally sure—is to ensure that where new homes are available, they go to local people. There would be a period of time during which they were marketed to local people. This is particularly a London issue, and I will go on to talk about why it is so critical in London.

In many parts of the country, local first-time buyers compete for new homes with second-home buyers and buy-to-let investors. There is wide concern that the problem affecting first-time buyers is growing and that something needs to be done. The director of research at Countrywide was reported in the Daily Express as saying that

“landlords and first-time buyers are now in direct competition because they tend to look for homes that are smaller and cheaper than average.”

The trend has been confirmed by the mortgage search tracker from Mortgage Advice Bureau, whose data in November showed that the number of buy-to-let landlords searching for mortgages on cheaper properties was up 17% on the same quarter last year.

The property website Rightmove was reported in The Guardian in October as saying:

“First-time buyers are facing asking prices almost 10% higher than a year ago because of demand from buy-to-let investors”.

In February 2015, the rural housing policy review, chaired by Lord Richard Best and sponsored by Hastoe housing association, recommended that, in areas of high second-home ownership, the Government should require

“a proportion of new…homes granted planning permission…to be with the condition that they can only be used as principal residences.”

There are, as we know, particular impacts in London from the non-availability of homes for first-time buyers. In London, the problem of first-time buyers being squeezed out is particularly acute, with high proportions of new homes sold to investors, including off-plan overseas investors.

The hon. Lady will know that the Chancellor of the Exchequer made some fiscal changes in the autumn statement that specifically focused on the difficulties encountered by first-time buyers in London vis-à-vis buy-to-let landlords. I just wonder—I may have missed something—why the new clause does not apply just to London. Is she saying that the problem is nationwide?

I am saying that the problem is particularly acute in London, but housing stress and difficulty getting on the housing ladder not only affect people in London. It happens in a lot of our cities, and it happens in rural areas, too. There is a particularly acute situation in London, which I will talk about in a moment or two.

I thought I would give my hon. Friend a useful illustration from my constituency. Overseas buyers regularly turn up at City airport, get the docklands light railway over to Greenwich and buy off-plan—not buy to let but off-plan, and sometimes in cash—just to hold the property as an asset, rather than seeking to rent it out.

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for that extremely helpful intervention highlighting some of the difficulties in London, which enables me to respond further to the intervention of the hon. Member for Peterborough. The autumn statement included some measures that might affect buy to let. We do not know what the full outcome of those measures will be, but they do not address the issue of overseas investors buying up properties to keep them empty.

Taking on board the comments of the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich, surely the issue is wider than that. It is about tax changes and fiscal policy for overseas buyers, rather than adding quite a prescriptive new clause to the Bill in respect of first-time buyers. There is a difference between those who are purchasing properties from overseas and those who are seeking to become first-time buyers.

Order. We are straying slightly wide of the new clause. In the context of planning obligations for first-time buyers, I call Roberta Blackman-Woods.

I was going to say to the hon. Member for Peterborough that I would be ruled out of order if I went too far down the fiscal route. The new clause primarily seeks to probe the Minister on what more can be done to ensure that first-time buyers are not priced out of the housing market and to ensure that their needs are considered in order to encourage them into the housing market.

Research by Molior London Ltd for the British Property Federation shows that, in 2013, 61% of new homes in London went to investors and 49% of all new homes in central London were bought by overseas buyers. Londoners are competing with wealthy buyers who are being actively targeted across the world. Housing stock is being sold so many years in advance of being built that cash buyers are favoured over those buying with a mortgage, and a number of us have seen examples in the press of that happening throughout the capital. Councils are powerless to prevent it from happening, even though the phenomenon is widespread and growing. For example, when someone clicks on the “enquire” tab of the website for the new 624-apartment Wardian development on the Isle of Dogs, they are asked to choose their location from London, Kuala Lumpur, Singapore, Hong Kong, Qatar, Abu Dhabi and Dubai. The scheme is not due for completion until 2019.

In 2014, the Mayor of London announced a mayoral concordat that would commit signatories to marketing new homes to Londoners first or first equal, yet that has failed to offer Londoners any meaningful first choice. Even if homes are technically available to Londoners on a first equal basis, the homes are being marketed across the world many years ahead of being completed. By ensuring that the period of exclusive marketing to local first-time buyers starts no earlier than six months before completion, the new clause would ensure that a proportion of new homes for first-time buyers are held back to be sold as they near completion, which would help people who are trying to buy with a mortgage.

As the Minister will know, the new clause seeks to address the horrible reality, faced by many people in London and other cities, of being priced out of the housing market because of overseas buyers coming in and snapping up the properties. If the Minister does not think that the new clause provides the way forward, it will be interesting to hear what he thinks will tackle the problem.

We clearly need a radical shift in how housing markets support young first-time buyers, otherwise we will condemn a whole generation to further uncertainty and insecurity. On the hon. Lady’s point about buy to let and overseas investment, which my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough touched on, there are two things we need to bear in mind.

First, we need to be cautious about always falling into the trap of attacking overseas investment, because we have to remember that, during the economic crash of 2008, a great deal of building in this country, in London in particular, would not have happened had it not been for overseas money. Projects such as Battersea would not be going ahead where no English money was bidding to come forward. There is a part for overseas investment to play.

Secondly, it is also right to do what we can to deliver the homes that we need for young people in this country. That is why we saw the changes in the Budget this year to the tax relief for buy to lets, as well as the changes announced in the autumn statement only a few weeks ago, which made a substantial statement about where the Government are going and about our determination to deliver for people who want to buy their own home. I am therefore pleased that the Government have already made tremendous strides making mortgage lending available again to first-time buyers through the Help to Buy scheme. The number of first-time buyers has now increased by 68% since 2010.

I also recognise, however, the point made very well by the hon. Member for City of Durham: more needs to be done. We have to be clear and honest with ourselves that young people are struggling to buy their first home as house prices have continued to increase. Over the past 20 years, the proportion of under-40s who own their own home has been on a downward trend, so I fully understand and endorse the underlying policy objective of the new clause.

I believe, however, that promoting starter homes, as part 1 of the Bill does, is a much better way of achieving that objective. Not only will developers be required to build a proportion of starter homes on all suitable, reasonably sized sites in future, but those starter homes will be at least 20% cheaper than the going market price. That will give more prospective first-time buyers the opportunity to buy an affordable home of their own, especially if linked with Help to Buy and the 5% deposit, which the new clause would not necessarily achieve.

That is why we want 200,000 new starter homes built over the Parliament, with a minimum of a 20% discount. The Bill sets the framework for delivering our commitment. In November we debated in Committee the starter homes clauses extensively and the new clause would not add further value given the reforms we are putting in place. With that assurance, I hope the hon. Lady will withdraw the new clause.

I want to make it clear that, in moving the motion, we were not in any way suggesting that we were against a degree of overseas investment. The new clause is clear that the provisions would relate to a proportion of the dwellings that are marketed. It was simply intended to allow local people to have a way in to some of the new developments and to ensure that the new homes were not totally unavailable to them because they had all been bought up by overseas investors.

I have heard the Minister’s comments, however, and I think the Government are seeking to find a way of addressing the issue. We will mull over his comments and decide whether to investigate things at a later stage. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 22

Security of tenure

“After section 19A of the Housing Act 1988 insert—

‘(1) Any assured shorthold tenancy (other than one where the landlord is a private registered provider of social housing) granted on or after April 1, 2018 must be for a fixed term of at least thirty six months. It is an implied term of such a tenancy that the tenant may terminate the tenancy by giving two months’ written notice to the landlord.’

(2) In section 21 Housing Act 1988 insert—

‘(4ZA) In the case of a dwelling-house in England no notice under subsection (4) may be given for thirty six months after the beginning of the tenancy.’”—(Teresa Pearce.)

This amendment would prevent private sector landlords from using the ‘notice only’ grounds for possession for the first three years of a tenancy, without affecting the rights of tenants to give notice and leave the tenancy early.

Brought up, and read the First time.

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The new clause would have the effect of making longer-term tenancy much more common. Landlords and tenants would both have stability, but with the ability to terminate contracts early with proper notice, if they have to, just as they can now.

The private rented sector is an important and growing part of the housing sector. The number of people living in the private rented sector has increased by 2.5 million since 2010. Now, 1.5 million families with children are renting from a private landlord and could be evicted with as little as two months’ notice. Some 9 million people now rent privately. Almost half of those who rent are over 35. Many of them want the same security and stability that they would have if they owned their own home but the rules on private renting have not caught up with the way people live now.

14:45

Historically, private renting was mainly for students or was temporary. For example, if someone moved house from one place to another, they might rent temporarily for six months. Now, families live in the private rented sector. Private rents have risen massively—by more than 20% since 2010. While costs rise in the private sector, insecurity also rises. Assured shorthold tenancies have quickly become the most common type of tenancy, accounting for the majority of all private rental agreements, yet those tenancies have only provided security of tenure for less than 12 months.

Privately renting households, including many families with children, are moving between properties with much greater regularity now than 20 years ago. That clearly suits some people. Many private renters are young and move between properties for job-related reasons. At the other end of the sector, many struggle on low incomes, under further pressure from increasing rents and with the uncertainty of insecure tenancies looming on the horizon.

Most landlords seek good tenants and want them to stay for a long time. They want to build up a relationship with tenants who pay their rent on time and treat the property respectfully as their home. Most tenants seek a place with security in their tenancy, where they can plan for the future and build a home, but the current legislation leaves tenants with permanent uncertainty over their future and an inability to commit to a property and to a local community.

Insecurity manifests itself by restricting tenants. They might feel unable to commit to work or other opportunities for fear of the looming end of their tenancy. They might feel unable to start a family, worrying about the insecurity the future may bring. Insecurity might mean that tenants refrain from spending money on the property to redecorate, if allowed, and to make it a home for fear or losing out if forced to move on within the year.

I am very supportive of the principle of longer tenancies, but should that not be the option of the landlord as well? Has the hon. Lady considered the impact on landlords and on supply in the private rented sector if conditions on landlords are made too onerous? Does she understand that that might restrict supply and mean that properties are not there to rent in the first place?

I recall in an earlier debate on rogue landlords that we also said that there were rogue tenants. There needs to be security on both sides. Later, I will come to the fact that the Residential Landlords Association supports the measure. It needs to be done sensibly, but I take the hon. Gentleman’s point.

The RLA supports this measure—a minimum of three years on a tenancy agreement? The hon. Lady must give us more details.

I will, later in my speech. The RLA supports the Government looking into the ability to have longer tenancies as a more normal structure. It is particularly bothered about the situation where a landlord has a leasehold property bought from a local authority freeholder, and the local authority will not allow that landlord to let for longer than a year. The association just wants a discussion about that sort of thing, which is why I am bringing the matter to the Committee today.

I am aware of its proposals in that regard, but that is optional, not compulsory. The new clause would make it compulsory for a landlord to give a three-year agreement. I do not know any landlord association that would support that.

This is a probing amendment to see what we agree on. I am glad that you do think that longer tenancies—

I don’t think that—the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton does.

I note that the hon. Gentleman does think that longer tenancies can be a good thing. The purpose of the amendment is to have that debate and to understand the Government’s direction of travel—possibly with longer tenancies in the future. I completely accept what you say.

No, you completely accept what he says.

I completely accept what the hon. Gentleman says.

Insecurity in housing affects not only individuals—tenants or landlords—but our whole society. There is a small school in my area that is in a fairly settled part of my constituency, and yet staff there told me that they had a whole class of pupils—30 pupils—that had churned in and out since September. It really affects the way that teachers can make progress with a class when there are new children coming in and out all the time, and the staff put that churn down to the private rented sector.

There is also a doctors’ surgery in my constituency that has 14,000 patients, and every year 4,000 of those patients move on and move to a different practice. A third of patients coming and going makes it nigh-on impossible for the doctors to deal with long-term health issues. They cannot run campaigns on diabetes, obesity or smoking with any success, because a third of their patients are constantly churning in and out. Many of the patients are living in bad conditions with mould and damp, and suffering from asthma, which puts more pressure on GP services.

Also, more secure tenancies and housing will allow families to become more settled, which I believe would help the local economy. Many employers, small and large, that I go to see tell me that they have a problem with recruitment, and it is because of the insecurity in the housing sector.

New clause 22 is designed to encourage longer-term tenancies and to make them much more common, so that both landlords and tenants have more stability. It is important to note that that should not penalise responsible landlords who may need to evict tenants, perhaps because their own financial position has changed or perhaps because they are unhappy with the way the tenant is treating the property. These are legitimate circumstances in which landlords should still be able to evict tenants by providing proper notice.

Measures to increase long-term tenancies are supported not only by me personally but across the industry. In particular, I will highlight some of the written evidence that the Residential Landlords Association gave to the Committee. The RLA wrote:

“We believe that reforms are needed to encourage a culture of long termism within the private rented sector which would play a significant part in stabilising rents for tenants.”

It also wrote:

“Too often letting agents base their business models on short term tenancies, charging fees (and thereby increasing rents) when they are renewed.”

It continued:

“The evidence shows that where tenants stay in their properties for longer periods, landlords are reluctant to increase rents, at least beyond inflation…Landlords often want to offer longer tenancies…Many landlords are prevented from voluntarily providing for tenancies longer than a year by mortgage lenders and the owners of blocks of flats”,

including the freehold owners of blocks of flats. Those were the words of the RLA.

I raised this issue in the most recent Department for Communities and Local Government oral questions with the Minister, and I hope that I might hear more today about what conversations are being had with mortgage providers. I know that the Nationwide now does not have a clause in buy-to-let mortgages whereby it will not allow lettings for longer than a year. However, other lenders have not been as enlightened, so I would be interested to know whether Ministers have had any discussions with the Treasury regarding this issue.

Finally, it is worth noting that many other countries already have longer-term tenancies. I accept that in some other countries in Europe there is not the same attitude towards home ownership that we have in this country, and that renting is a much more normal way of life there. However, in countries such as Germany, Switzerland and Belgium, long-term contracts and more flexibility give tenants the chance to plan for the future. In Germany, leases are usually signed for an unlimited period of time, and in France, where one in five people rent, longer leases are always available.

I am sure that Members from all parties have been contacted in the past by tenants who are struggling because they cannot find stable housing. I think we all agree that we want stability in housing, and longer-term tenancies could be a way of securing that stability. So we hope that we find some common ground with the Minister, and I am very interested to hear the Government thinking regarding longer tenancies becoming more of a norm than they are at the moment.

Let me make it clear that this Government are committed to building a bigger and better private rented sector, which provides security and stability. We have taken action to support the supply and quality of private rented accommodation by resisting unnecessary and unhelpful regulation, while cracking down on the worst practices of some rogue landlords. Our model tenancy agreement, which was introduced in September 2014, promotes longer tenancies for landlords and tenants who vote to sign up to them.

However, there is no one-size-fits-all approach to tenancy length. Many landlords are looking to rent out a property for the longer term, but there will be some for whom letting a property is a short-term plan and who need the property back at some point, perhaps even for their own family to live in. Although I understand the spirit in which the amendment has been tabled, I think it would be counter-productive and would overburden the market with restrictive red tape, stifling investment and the supply of rented housing at a time when we most need to encourage it. That would not help tenants or landlords.

I can accept the assertion that the Minister is making, but actually, all the evidence from continental Europe points in the opposite direction. Investment is not stifled—quite the opposite. Secure tenancies often give the security to people investing in them, so the evidence continentally does not indicate that.

The hon. Gentleman gives me a very good opportunity to segue into explaining that before assured shorthold tenancies were introduced by the Housing Act 1988, the private rental market was in severe decline. Lifetime tenancies and regulated rents meant that being a landlord was simply not commercially viable for many property owners. Since 1988, however, the private rented sector has grown steadily, increasing from just over 9% of the market in 1988 to 19% today. Landlords, and in many cases tenants, welcome the flexibility of the current assured shorthold tenancy regime, which does not lock the parties into long-term commitments and promotes mobility. Without the certainty that landlords can seek repossession when required, many, I am sure, would be reluctant to let their properties. I believe that the current framework strikes the right balance between the rights of landlords and tenants. With those points in mind, I hope that the hon. Lady will withdraw her amendment.

I am interested in what the Minister said, but he has not responded to the point about the artificial barriers to some landlords, who want the choice to have either a short let or a longer let, but who are restricted by the freeholder—often the local authority—or the mortgage lender. Perhaps he would like to answer that or write to me about it at some future point.

I will certainly undertake to write to the hon. Lady on that, but I also say that in reality, figures show that the length of time that somebody takes a tenancy from a landlord is, on average, three and a half years.

That is not the case in my constituency, I assure him; that is very rare.

I believe that longer tenancies are a very good idea. It is interesting that in the heated debate we had this morning, tenancies of two to five years were meant to be the right thing for social tenants, but for private rented tenants, there is resistance to it. However, given that the Minister is going to write to me regarding the particular issue I am concerned about, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 24

Local Authorities and Development Control Services

“(1) A local planning authority may set a charging regime in relation to their development control services to allow for the cost of providing the development control service to be recouped.

(2) Such a charging regime will be subject to statutory consultation.”—(Helen Hayes.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 31—Local authority planning fees cost recovery schemes—

“Local authorities shall be given powers to operate full cost recovery schemes with regard to fee levels relating to planning applications”.

This amendment would allow local authorities to develop a planning fees schedule that would enable the full costs of processing planning applications to be recovered.

Since 2010, spending on planning by local authorities has almost halved, from £2.2 billion in 2010 to £1.2 billion this year—a decline second only to that in spending on cultural services. In previous sittings of the Committee, Government Members have dismissed the situation as simply being down to the choices of local authorities, but in reality, many councils have faced a Hobson’s choice. The extent of cuts to local authority budgets has been so great over the past five years that councils have had to cut across all areas of expenditure, and most have made the entirely rational and appropriate choice, when pressed, to protect where they can the services on which the most vulnerable residents rely—adult social services and children’s services. That has resulted in a situation where areas such as planning and cultural services have taken a disproportionate level of the cuts.

15:00

No one’s life is put in jeopardy as a consequence of planning cuts, unlike in areas such as adult social care or children’s services. The consequences of poor-quality or untimely planning decisions are felt by communities many years down the line, so it is important that planning services are resourced, but that resourcing should absolutely not be at the expense of services on which our most vulnerable residents rely.

We heard from the Royal Town Planning Institute in oral evidence that it believes councils should be allowed to recoup the full costs of providing planning services. The point has rightly been made that good, well-run planning departments contribute to economic development and growth. The proper resourcing of planning departments is essential to their being able to do that.

The new clause is supported by the Local Government Association, which writes:

“The LGA broadly supports new clause 24…which would enable local planning authorities to set a charging regime in relation to their development control service to allow for the cost of providing the service to be recovered. Councils have been forced to spend in excess of £450 million covering the cost of planning applications over the last three years. Currently year on year taxpayers are subsidising 30 per cent of the estimated cost of processing all planning applications in England because nationally set planning fees do not cover the full costs. Introducing locally-set planning fees would enable councils to deliver responsive council planning services that are crucial to growth and building the homes we need.”

Together with new clause 31, on which my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham will speak shortly, new clause 24 is supported by London Councils, which writes:

“We believe the government should localise fee setting and scheduling controls so as to support boroughs that commit to boost the supply of housing. This would produce a more effective, swifter and consistent planning service, and ensure a properly resourced and more efficient planning system in the context of development control in London having seen an estimated net shortfall of around £37-£45 million annually between 2012-13 and 2014-15.”

London Councils published the results of research on charges last year. This found that,

“if planning fees for large scale housing regeneration projects were charged on a full cost recovery system enabling councils to meet all 13 week planning targets, this would save developers up to £486 million per year in delayed development costs, while adding only £65 million in planning fees.”

The hon. Lady talks about efficiency and cost. There is a connection between the two. Does she agree that local planning authorities should be more creative in how they share services, in order to become more efficient and lower costs?

I agree that local authorities should be as efficient as possible wherever they can, and that in some cases economies of scale can be derived from sharing services. I also believe, however, that a certain volume of work is created by large-scale planning applications and by our need to deliver new homes across the country that must be properly resourced; I am suggesting to the Government a creative way in which that might be achieved.

I am slightly disappointed that the Local Government Association supported the new clause, because it is incumbent upon the LGA to understand that the cumulative impact of regeneration, much of which is housing, is beneficial to local authorities; it is an investment. This should be seen in the context of non-domestic rates, the new homes bonus or sales-related taxes—the long-term capital investment—rather than just a one-off negative cost.

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that this is an investment. It is, however, an investment that many local authorities do not have the luxury of being able to make in the context of the stretching of their resources across other very important statutory areas of service.

I will complete the quotation from London Councils:

“Full cost charging could also be used to fund the kind of pro-active multi-borough teams that supported”

the work of the Olympic Delivery Authority. Where we have large-scale regeneration across a wide area, London Councils supports the principle that local authorities should share that resource and be able to recoup the costs of it.

The new clause makes sense for councils, who would be able to raise the resources that they need without jeopardising vital statutory services such as children’s and adults’ social care; for communities, who will get higher-quality decisions; and for developers, who will get the speed of service they need to bring forward development. I hope that the Government will support it.

It is an exquisite pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I shall be extremely brief.

Again, I draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I spent the past five years financing developers, and must say that they commonly complain that local authority planning departments are both insufficiently resourced in terms of the number of people they employ and inadequately resourced in terms of the quality of those people, because so many move into private practice.

I fully accept the points, made in interventions by my colleagues on the Government Benches, that local authority planning departments should be made more efficient by sharing services and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough said, that local authorities enjoy financial benefit when development takes place, but I do know that developers would, in principle, be prepared to pay higher fees in exchange for better levels of service, which they can currently do via agreements for larger schemes. There might be some concern that local authorities would simply take the extra fees and spend them on something else, so will the Ministers consider whether in future local authorities could be permitted to charge a specific higher fee in exchange for a guaranteed service level? If that service level was not delivered, the fee could be refundable so that there would be a direct and explicit link between the fee and the service. I understand, though, that this is a complicated subject area and there are views on both sides.

I am exquisitely pleased that you have given way on that point.

I have not given way.

That the hon. Gentleman has given way.

Here we go again with the issue of localism. The bottom line is that, whether we like it or not, we are going to have to trust local authorities to make decisions and deliver. The new clause would just give us the ability to make those decisions in the best interests of the local area. I do not like the idea—through you, Mr Gray—of Ministers yet again saying one thing and doing another.

It is reasonable to want to ensure that developers are not simply treated as cash cows and penalised with unlimited fees, which is why I was suggesting that the Ministers might in future consider a fixed-fee schedule related to specific service delivery, with the extra fees being refunded if that delivery is not made. Having uncapped fees so that developers could simply be bled dry would be a retrograde step.

The text of the new clause is explicit in saying that the schedule of charges should be set in a transparent way. To my mind, that would include setting out the level of service that would be expected to be delivered, as well as the full cost of that service, and undertaking consultation with the wider development industry prior to setting the schedule of charges. I hope that answers the hon. Gentleman’s point.

Before one could sign up to the new clause, one would want to see the detail, which clearly is not there. I think I have made my point in general terms.

I have been momentarily knocked off track by the hon. Gentleman’s final comments. We have been debating most of the Bill without the detail we need because most of it is coming in regulations, so I hope he will address those comments to his Ministers.

I rise to support new clause 24, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood, and to speak briefly to new clause 31. The hon. Member for Croydon South might want to think about why so many planners from local authorities are leaving to join the private sector, because that used not to happen. It is a fairly recent phenomenon that so many local authority planners have been moving on. The reason is that local authority planning departments are in a very, very pressed situation, with reduced resources, greater pressure and increasing insecurity because they do not know when the next round of Government cuts is going to mean that they will lose their job. The only way to address that is to resource local authority planning departments properly—something that developers speak to me about all the time.

If the hon. Member for Peterborough is upset by the Local Government Association backing my hon. Friend’s new clause, he will be even more upset by the fact that the District Councils Network has come out very strongly in favour of the idea that there should be some cost recovery at a local level:

“Having a system where Whitehall dictates to local councils what planning fees they can charge is very unfair for local taxpayers around the country who are left paying the shortfall where fees don’t cover costs. Letting councils set their own fees is a much fairer system for both the applicant and the local taxpayer and will ensure there is flexibility in the system to recover the actual costs of applications.”

In 2010, a major review, which was instigated by the last Labour Government, was carried out of how local planning fees should operate. Instead of bringing forward a plan for the localisation of planning fees, as had been suggested throughout the consultation exercise before 2010, the Government merely revised the fee levels in 2012. That did not carry with it the degree of localism that we all wanted to see. As my hon. Friend has pointed out, London Councils has stressed that point recently, because of the impact of the increasing number of planning applications that local authorities are having to deal with, particularly in the London area:

“We believe the government should localise fee setting and scheduling controls so as to support boroughs that commit to boost the supply of housing. This would produce a more effective, swifter and consistent planning service, and ensure a properly resourced and more efficient planning system in the context of development control in London having seen an estimated net shortfall of around £37-£45 million annually”.

London Councils has stated that,

“if planning fees for large scale housing regeneration projects were charged on a full cost recovery system enabling councils to meet all 13 week planning targets, this would save developers up to £486 million per year in delayed development costs, while adding only £65 million in planning fees. Full cost charging could also be used to fund the kind of pro-active multi-borough teams that supported the work”

of the Olympic Delivery Authority. Developers, the LGA, London Councils and the District Councils Network —more or less everyone involved in the planning and development system—think that local authorities should be able to set planning fees locally, but the Government do not. We can find no rationale for that. The District Councils Network has helpfully set out for the Government some principles that could be applied.

Does my hon. Friend agree that there are contradictions all over the place? For example, the Government are quite happy to let local authorities raise 2% for social care, but they do not seem to take the same view on matters such as this.

My hon. Friend makes a good point. As we have discussed several times in Committee, the Government’s approach is not necessarily consistent.

The District Councils Network has requested that four common principles be adopted. Principle 1 is the ability to have full cost recovery as a minimum, with full transparency as to method of fee calculation, which could be achieved through an earned autonomy approach. Principle 2 is that council tax payers should not subsidise commercial activities or companies. Principle 3 is that, wherever possible, charges should be determined locally. Principle 4 is that if central Government continue to determine charges at a national level, there should be an agreed annual indexation mechanism. If we do not want to go all the way down the road of local charging, some of those principles could be applied to move us some of the way down that road. I am interested to hear what the Minister has to say about that, particularly as the Government seem to be in an isolated position once again.

15:15

It is obviously being so cheerful that keeps the hon. Lady going.

I want to briefly add my comments to the debate. The hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood has experience in the field and proceeded on the basis of a very reasoned and moderate argument, with which many Government Members agree. We were looking forward—still look forward— to hearing the Minister respond in a similar vein. It is unfortunate that the hon. Member for City of Durham—she was rather sparky today and I do not know why; perhaps it is end-of-term blues—has sought to—

Get a move on!

Pot, kettle, black.

I think Hansard can record “Pot, kettle, black” there. The loquacity of the hon. Member for Harrow West in this Committee is legendary. I defer to no one in my admiration for him.

There is a good reason why there should be consistency in charging across the country. That said, some years ago I had the experience of visiting Medway unitary authority, which had significant numbers of large infrastructure projects that were beyond the capacity of the planning and development control teams in Medway and many other local authorities, and it got some big construction companies to effectively second services to the planning department, so that the services were offered in a non-monetised way. That was a good compromise, which shows that the very best and visionary local planning officers—head of planning, city council, borough councillors and civic leaders—do make the effort to involve their staff with developers and with big regeneration projects.

The Committee will be interested to know that in my own local authority, Peterborough city council, at the planning and environmental protection committee on Tuesday, the Fletton Quays project was agreed with 285 homes, a hotel, shops and restaurants on the south bank of the River Nene. It is a bit naughty, because technically it is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Mr Vara), but I am sure my hon. Friend will forgive me on this occasion for drawing it to the Committee’s attention. However, that was an example of a joint venture partnership between the planning department and the developer, Lucent, and others.

The point is that there are different ways to access money from developers without putting in the Bill a prescriptive way forward.

I am listening with great interest to my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough, who, unlike the hon. Member for Harrow West, has been contributing in a powerful way this afternoon. My hon. Friend mentioned a joint venture between planning departments and others. Does he share my view that the problem is not what is or is not in the Bill, but the lack of innovation and dynamism from some of the planning departments controlled by the sclerotic Opposition?

Speech!

Order. I do not need any help from Back Benchers to keep order in this Committee, as they no doubt will have discovered already.

The hon. Member for Harrow West has obviously got a tiger in his tank this afternoon as well.

My hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk is absolutely spot-on. It is no good whining about funding constantly and saying, “It is not as it used to be.” We have to go out and attract forward-looking, intelligent, smart planning officers. They are out there. I give way to the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood, who I am sure is in that category.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. The new clause is not about constantly whining about funding. It is about putting the absolutely vital task of securing the new homes that we need through the planning system on a sustainable financial footing, without placing an additional burden on the public purse. He would surely agree with that.

I would not agree with that, but we all see issues in politics through the prism of our constituencies, which is quite natural. In my constituency, we have a target to build 25,500 homes between 2001 and 2031, which is enormous growth. We are the second-fastest-growing city in England, and our planning department, in only a medium-sized unitary authority, is award-winning because it has worked with developers and it has delivered its structure plan, local plan, site location plans, city centre area action plan and other supplementary development on time. It has managed to recruit good people. I gently suggest to the LGA and the District Councils Network that we should be encouraging best practice in recruiting really good planning officers, rather than trying to legislate for it on the face of a Housing and Planning Bill.

Order. I have been reasonably accommodating, but the new clause under consideration is about charging for planning. I think that general debate on the way in which planning departments work is perhaps a little wide of the mark.

Mr Gray, I accept your admonition. I am just reaching a crescendo in my remarks.

Just before my hon. Friend does, will he give way?

Before I reach that crescendo, I will give way to my hon. Friend.

I am very much looking forward to my hon. Friend’s crescendo. Will he reflect in his closing remarks on the fact that the planning system, via the pre-application process, already contains the chance for small developers to pay to get developments brought forward more quickly, and that does reflect the full cost to the authority?

Not for the first time, my hon. Friend rescues me from falling into your disregard, Mr Gray, and gets me back on track. There is full cost recovery at pre-application, and one of the most useful aspects of planning and development control is the help and assistance that developers get from good, experienced, knowledgeable planning officers at the pre-application stage, leading them to make timely, properly costed applications that will be expedited through the planning system. The new clause may be probing, but it is superfluous and unnecessary and if it is pressed to a vote, I suggest that the Committee reject it.

Helen Hayes.

rose—

I am sorry, the Minister.

Thank you, Mr Gray. I was already looking forward to an early Christmas finish.

Before discussing the new clauses’ merit, I should highlight to hon. Members who may not have noticed that section 303 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 already provides for the Secretary of State to allow, by regulations, local planning authorities to set their own level of fees up to cost recovery. We are therefore already technically in possession of the powers to enable local fee setting.

Authorities have a crucial role to play in providing services, none more so than enabling development to encourage home ownership, building homes people can afford to buy, and supporting economic growth and job creation. An effective and efficient planning system is essential to support that. Authorities have done a lot of work to find savings and efficiencies over the past few years, but fees for making planning applications have been set nationally and make an important contribution to meeting the costs of development management services. As has been outlined, they were last revised in 2012, and that revision was substantial.

I hear the call from professional bodies and developers that action is needed to ensure that local planning departments are resourced properly. My hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon pointed out that we already have planning performance agreements that developers will take forward in order to have a guaranteed level of service. However, the level of planning application fees is only one side of the resourcing equation. Local government must drive down its costs, too. I am clear that any changes in fees should go hand in hand with the provision of an effective service. Giving local government a completely blank cheque, as the new clauses would do, could bring about unintended risks, as touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough.

Many more local authorities can do much more to transform their planning departments. I actually thank the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood for tabling her new clause as it gives me the chance, as I had on the Floor of the House just a few weeks ago, to reconfirm that, although some authorities have introduced new ways of delivering planning services through outsourcing and shared service arrangements, showing that costs can be saved and services can be improved, more should be following that lead. The research shows that there is a saving of 5% to 20% for competitively tendered or completely shared services. More local authorities need to do that, not just because it brings efficiencies but because it brings better resource, particularly for small districts that will be challenged to find the best players. Coming together gives them a better career opportunity, and there is also an opportunity for planners. Not enough local authorities have moved down that road.

I do not disagree with the hon. Members who spoke in favour of the proper resourcing of planning services, but local government and councils need to understand that their planning department is also their economic regeneration department, and they should focus clearly on it. Going further must go hand in hand with local authorities driving forward those service improvements and cost reductions.

We heard from my hon. Friends in Committee last week interesting ideas about fast-track planning applications and having a more competitive planning process. I made a commitment at the time, and I do so again today, to consider them before the end of this Bill process. That, rather than a focus on raising fees alone, is the type of innovative thinking that needs to be brought to the resourcing debate.

I hear what the Minister is saying about driving efficiency. Nevertheless, we have to ask what the Government can possibly mean by devolution if they do not even trust planning authorities to set their own fee levels.

Finally, I will respond to the many references that hon. Members have made throughout the Committee proceedings, in one form or another, to resourcing—in fact, the hon. Lady just referred to it. The spending review provides a reasonable offer to local government and an increase in resources over this Parliament in cash terms. By the end of this Parliament, local government will be able to retain 100% of local taxes to spend on local services. We have to be honest and clear about this: local authorities have been able to increase their reserves over the past few years from about £13 billion to £22 billion. Although they should retain sensible reserves, they should also look at how to prioritise the funding they have, and they must see planning as a core and important department. As I said at the start of my speech, we already have the powers to allow local planning authorities to set fees locally. I have undertaken to look at some of the suggestions that my hon. Friends made last week. With that, I ask the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood to withdraw the new clause.

I thank the Minister for his response, and in particular for agreeing that planning services should be properly resourced in local authorities. I agree that there is scope for innovation. I saw innovation during my work in planning, but I think that the task of delivering the new homes that we need through the planning system cannot be fulfilled by innovation alone. Those services must be resourced on a basis that is proper, modern and fit for purpose, given that local authority resources are very stretched and that planning is competing with services that are of a different order of magnitude. I therefore wish to press new clause 24 to a Division.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

Division 16

Ayes: 7

---

Labour: 5

Noes: 11

---

Conservative: 11

New Clause 25

Implied term of fitness for human habitation in residential lettings

“Implied term of fitness for human habitation in residential lettings

‘(1) Section 8 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (c.70) is amended as follows.

(2) Leave out subsection (3) and insert—

“(3) Subject to subsection (7), this section applies to any tenancy or licence under which a dwelling house is let wholly or mainly for human habitation.”

(3) Leave out subsections (4) to (6).

(4) After subsection (3), insert—

“(3ZA) Subsection 1 does not apply where the condition of the dwelling-house or common parts is due to—

(a) a breach by the tenant of the duty to use the dwelling-house in a tenant-like manner, or often express term of the tenancy to the same effect; or

(b) damage by fire, flood, tempest or other natural cause or inevitable accident.

(3ZB) Subsection 1 shall not require the landlord or licensor of the dwelling house to carry out works—

(a) which would contravene any statutory obligation or restriction; or

(b) which require the consent of a superior landlord, provided that such consent has been refused and the landlord or licensor has no right of action on the basis that such refusal of consent is unreasonable.

(3ZC) Any provision of or relating to a tenancy or licence is void insofar as it purports—

(a) to exclude or limit the obligations of the landlord or licensor under this section; or

(b) to permit any forfeiture or impose on the tenant or licensee any penalty or disadvantage in the event of his seeking to enforce the obligation under subsection (1).

(3ZD) Regulations may make provision for the exclusion of certain classes of letting from subsection (1).

(3ZE) In this section “house” has the same meaning as “dwelling house” and includes—

(a) a part of a house, and

(b) any yard, garden, outhouses and appurtenances belonging to the house or usually enjoyed with it.”

(5) In section 10 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, after “waste water”, insert—

“any other matter or thing that may amount, singly or cumulatively, to a Category 1 hazard within the meaning of section 2 of the Housing Act 2004.”

(6) Regulations may make provision for guidance as to the operation of the matters set out in section 10 which are relevant to the assessment of fitness for human habitation.

(7) This section shall come into force—

(a) In England at the end of the period of three months from the date on which this Act receives Royal Assent and shall apply to all tenancies licences and agreements for letting made on or after that date; and

(b) In Wales on a date to be appointed by the Welsh Ministers.”—(Teresa Pearce.)

This new Clause would place a duty on landlords to ensure that their properties are fit for habitation when let and remain fit during the course of the tenancy.

Brought up, and read the First time.

15:30

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 26—Requirement to carry out electrical safety checks—

‘(1) A landlord of a rental property shall ensure that there is maintained in a safe condition—

(a) any electrical installation; and

(b) any electrical appliances supplied by the landlord so as to prevent the risk of injury to any person in lawful occupation or relevant premises.

(2) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1), a landlord shall—

(a) ensure that the electrical installation and any electrical appliances supplied by the landlord are checked for safety within 12 months of initial leasing and thereafter at intervals of not more than 5 years since they were last checked for safety (whether such check was made pursuant to this Act or not);

(b) in the case of a lease commencing after the coming into force of this Act, ensure that the electrical installation and each electrical appliance to which the duty extends has been checked for safety within a period of 12 months before the lease commences or has been or is so checked within 12 months after the electrical installation or electrical appliance has been installed, whichever is later; and

(c) ensure that a record in respect of any electrical installation or electrical appliance so checked is made and retained for a period of 6 years from the date of that check and which shall include the following information—

(i) the date on which the electrical installation or electrical appliance was checked;

(ii) the address of the premises at which the electrical installation or electrical appliance is installed;

(iii) the name and address of the landlord of the premises (or, where appropriate, his agent) at which the electrical installation or electrical appliance is installed;

(iv) a description of and the location of the electrical installation or electrical appliance checked;

(v) any defect identified;

(vi) any remedial action taken;

(vii) the name and signature of the individual carrying out the check; and

(viii) the registration number with which that individual’s firm is registered with a Part P competent persons scheme approved by the Department for Communities and Local Government and certified as being competent in periodic inspection and testing.

(3) Every landlord shall ensure that any work in relation to a relevant electrical installation or electrical appliance carried out pursuant to subsection (1) or (2) above is carried out by a firm registered with a Part P competent persons scheme approved for the time being by the Department for Communities and Local Government.

(4) The record referred to in (2)(c), or a copy thereof, shall be made available upon request and upon reasonable notice for the inspection of any person in lawful occupation of relevant premises who may be affected by the use or operation of any electrical installation or electrical appliance to which the record relates.

(5) Notwithstanding subsection (4), every landlord shall ensure that—

(a) a copy of the record made pursuant to the requirements of (3)(c) is given to each existing tenant of premises to which the record relates within 28 days of the date of the check; and

(b) a copy of the last record made in respect of each electrical installation or electrical appliance is given to any new tenant of premises to which the record relates before that tenant occupies those premises save that, in respect of a tenant whose right to occupy those premises is for a period not exceeding 28 days, a copy of the record may instead be prominently displayed within those premises.

(6) A landlord who fails to comply with this section commits an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale”.

This new clause would introduce a requirement for landlords to undertake electrical safety checks.

Both new clauses in this group relate to standards in the private rented sector.

New clause 25 would place a duty on landlords to ensure that their properties are fit for habitation when let and remain fit during the course of a tenancy. The new clause is largely about probing the Minister to see whether he is open to putting that duty into legislation and follows on from the private Member’s Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck), which had a similar aim but which was talked out by the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies)—a fate that befalls some of the worthiest private Members’ Bills, including my own.

Before moving on to the detail of new clause 25, I note that the majority of landlords let property that is and remains of a decent standard. Many good landlords go out of their way to ensure that even the slightest safety hazard is sorted and that any repairs are attended to, so it is even more distressing when we see reports of homes that are frankly unfit for human habitation being let, often at high prices.

Parliament has for more than 100 years considered and legislated for standards in the private rented sector. The Housing of the Working Classes Act 1885 and, 100 years later, the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 placed obligations on landlords regarding safety in their properties. Indeed, the 1985 Act placed a statutory duty on landlords covering issues such as damp, mould and infestation, yet that duty applies only to those fulfilling a rent criterion, and that criterion has not been changed since 1957, so the duty now applies only to properties where the annual rent is less than £80. The new clause would remove those limits to allow the 1985 Act to fulfil the intention and place a duty on landlords to provide a safe, secure environment.

I am sure that all Members in their casework receive letters from constituents living in poor conditions—indeed, it is one of the biggest issues in my constituency. My office phone rings every day with people calling about mould and infestation in their property, the impact that has on their health and the inaction of some landlords in rectifying the situation. It is also a consumer issue, because where else in the modern day could one buy something that is not fit for purpose? If someone buys a television that does not work, they can take it back and get a refund. We are pretty much assured that the food in a food shop is safe to eat—if it was unsafe to eat, the food premises would be shut down. Yet a landlord can let a property that is unfit for human habitation and there is no easy recourse.

About this time last year, I was asked by a family in my constituency to visit the property that had been occupied by their father, who had just passed away from a respiratory illness. They wanted me to see at first hand the conditions he had lived in. The walls were so thick with mould that it looked like flock wallpaper. The air just smelled of damp. This man had died on his sofa on a Saturday night from lung disease while living in that accommodation. His family lived some distance away, which is why they were not fully aware of the conditions he was living in. They had contacted the landlord on numerous occasions, and the landlord failed to assist. Nothing could be done.

I am sure the Government will want to consider the new clause. It would only affect a small number of tenants in the few properties let by bad landlords that are unfit for human habitation, but it would change the lives of many tenants. Earlier in our consideration of the Bill, we discussed rogue landlords and banning orders, but the new clause would try to alleviate suffering before we got to that position. It is a basic consumer, health and productivity issue. It is hard for someone to be productive at work when they live in a property which is not fit to live in. It is also a moral issue where children and elderly people are concerned, so I am interested to hear what the Minister has to say on the new clause.

New clause 26 would introduce a requirement for landlords to undertake electrical safety checks. Electrical Safety First has been leading the way on the issue by raising awareness and lobbying parliamentarians—I think it was in Parliament this week doing that very thing—on the need to ensure that the private rented sector is fire-safe. Many other organisations support the measure, and the Local Government Association, the London fire brigade, Shelter, the Association of Residential Letting Agents, British Gas, Crisis and the Fire Officers Association have all supported previous measures to introduce mandatory electrical safety checks.

It is estimated that each year electrical faults cause more than 20,000 house fires and lead to around 350,000 serious injuries and 70 deaths. It is worth noting those figures, because we now see fewer deaths and injuries—only 300 injuries and 18 deaths—caused by gas and carbon monoxide, on which action has been taken. The risks remain serious, so it is right that we continue to monitor that, but those figures show what is at stake when we discuss electrical fires in the home.

Although landlords have a duty to keep electrical installations in proper working order and to ensure that any electrical appliances they supply are safe, poorly maintained installations remain in the sector and there is no explicit requirement for landlords to prove to tenants that a property is electrically safe. Landlords of houses in multiple occupation are required to have a periodic inspection every five years, but those whose properties are not HMOs are not legally obliged to do that. It is not right that people would be safer in a bed and breakfast or an HMO than in a privately rented home. What is the difference in fire risk between a property that meets the HMO requirements in which a landlord lets to six people and a property that is not an HMO where six different people live? The standards should be the same because the risk is the same.

Of course, many good landlords ensure that their properties are safe. The property is their asset, so they have as much interest in keeping it safe as their tenants. Many good landlords run electrical safety checks and ensure that all appliances are tested at the beginning of the tenancy and at points during it, but there is growing consensus that the introduction of mandatory electrical safety checks is a worthy cause.

We have seen action on the issue in Scotland, where the Scottish Government have introduced fire safety requirements for private rented properties, and the authorities in Northern Ireland are currently running a review of the private rented sector which includes a consultation on mandatory fire checks. In Wales, we have growing cross-party support and we hope that the Welsh Government will introduce such requirements.

I want to share an example of a constituent who emailed me recently. She is a private tenant in Lambeth who told me how she lies awake at night going over and over in her mind her worries about the electrical safety in her property and the lack of fire safety in general, and about how she would get out with her children if there was a fire. Does my hon. Friend agree that the clause would provide great comfort to tenants in that situation?

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. That is the exact scenario. People have said to me, “If that is the case, why don’t they move somewhere else?” but particularly in London housing is scarce, so sometimes people have to take whatever is available and thereby risk their and their family’s safety if the place is not safe to live in.

We have mandatory annual gas checks in the private rented sector, and secondary legislation has added regulation for smoke detectors and carbon monoxide detectors, so I hope that the Minister will consider accepting new clause 26. There is growing support for the measure across the UK, in Parliaments and with landlords. In fact, Janet Finch-Saunders, the Welsh Conservative spokesperson on this issue in the Welsh Parliament, has pledged her support and she also happens to be a landlord. We have broad support.

To recap, new clause 25 would introduce a duty on landlords to ensure that their properties are fit for human habitation, which would drive up standards. New clause 26 would introduce a requirement for landlords to undertake electrical safety checks. I hope that the Minister will accept that new clause.

I have enjoyed listening to the hon. Lady’s thoughts. I have some sympathy with the points she made in the latter part of her speech. We have listened to hon. Members talk at length about the private rented sector in the past few weeks, so I apologise to those listening now or reading our deliberations later in Hansard, because some of the points I will make have been made before. If the hon. Lady had tabled the new clauses for consideration when we debated the private rented sector, we could have saved ourselves some time and had a more focused debate at a relevant point.

The new clauses cover—once again—property condition in the private rented sector. The hon. Lady outlined new clause 25. I agree that all homes should be of a decent standard and that all tenants have the right and should expect to be able to live in a safe place, regardless of tenure. However, we do not consider that amending the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 in the way proposed would ensure that.

Local authorities already have strong and effective powers to deal with poor-quality, unsafe accommodation and we expect them to use those powers. Where tenants raise concerns, they can carry out an inspection using the housing health and safety ratings system introduced in the Housing Act 2004, which assesses 29 categories of hazard found in a property. Local authorities can issue an improvement notice or a hazard awareness notice, or prohibit the property from being rented out. In serious cases, the local authority may decide to make repairs itself.

The Government want to crack down on the small minority of rogue and criminal landlords who exploit their tenants by renting out unsafe and substandard accommodation and who fail to comply with statutory notices. Measures in the Bill that we have already debated will ensure that our powers against rogue and bad landlords go further than ever before. I hope that Members are advising their constituents with bad electrics or mould that they are covered in that way, and telling them to contact their local authority so that the local authority can use its powers. In addition, the Government have a wide range of policy initiatives to improve existing properties in the private rented sector. New clause 25 would result in unnecessary regulation and cost to landlords, which would deter further investment and push up rents for tenants. I ask the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead to withdraw it.

The hon. Lady outlined how new clause 26 would introduce a requirement for landlords to undertake electrical safety checks. I support measures to help safeguard tenants in their homes, so I will consider it. Any new legislation must strike the right balance, protecting tenants without over-regulating or causing unnecessary burdens for landlords. I remind hon. Members of all parties that landlords are already under a general legal duty to ensure that electrical installations are safe, but we are committed to creating a strong and professional private rented sector that works for all, where good landlords can prosper and tenants are protected.

We will carry out further work to understand what legislative amendments for undertaking electrical safety checks, if any, would be beneficial and appropriate to the private rented sector, and ensure that they do not harm the sector by stifling it with red tape. With that assurance, I hope that the hon. Lady will not press the new clause.

I thank the Minister for his response. On the point about late tabling, the reason why the new clauses were tabled when they were is that I did not have time to table them. Knives were put in that I did not expect. I apologise for the fact that they are at the end of the Bill.

I am just wondering what the hon. Lady means by unexpected knives. We have gone late some nights and moved things around to suit the Opposition, so I am not quite sure what she is referring to.

Because the Minister at the time seemed to understand that we had moved further on the Bill than the Opposition expected, he accepted starred amendments, for which I thank him. I was trying to point out that we did not deliberately put the new clauses at the end of the Bill; it was because we moved much more swiftly through the Bill than I had expected. That was my explanation.

On new clause 25, I understand what the Minister says about existing ways for tenants to get in touch with their local authority and get it to come inspect a property, but one problem is that there are so few people working in local authority departments at the moment who can carry out such checks that often it is a feeble hope that somebody will come inspect a property. When we considered banning orders and fines, I hoped that the fines could be ring-fenced to employ people to go out and do that work. I hope that the Government will take that on board as a possibility.

On new clause 26, I am heartened by what the Minister has said. I am pleased that he will consider it. I think that there is consensus across all parties that it would be a good thing to do. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 27

Description of HMOs

“(1) The Licensing of Houses in Multiple Occupation (Prescribed Descriptions) England Order 2006 is amended as follows.

(2) Clause 3, subsection (2), leave out paragraph (a).

(3) Clause 3, leave out subsection (3)”.—(Teresa Pearce.)

This new clause would remove the three storeys condition from the conditions HMOs must satisfy in order to be of a description prescribed by article 3(1) of the Housing Act 2004.

Brought up, and read the First time.

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

This is a probing amendment, and it is quite short. I am aware that the Government have published a consultation on houses in multiple occupation, and I was pleased to see it. HMOs come in a variety of forms. In the past, they were accommodation mainly for students, or for lots of single people, and they were basically tenement buildings, but increasingly in crowded cities, HMOs can be just a three-bedroom semi or similar building.

In my street, there is a bungalow that is an HMO, with about 10 people living in it, but because it does not have three storeys it does not fall within the definition of an HMO. That means many people living in HMOs and bed and breakfasts now have a better standard of safety than people who live in a private rented property that is clearly an HMO by every other definition, but not under the current definition because it has only one or two storeys, not three.

I am sure the Minister will say he needs to wait for the consultation to end, but I hope he will agree that the HMO sector needs revisiting. I would like to hear a little more about why the consultation has gone out now and what his intentions are for changes to the management and licensing of HMOs.

15:45

The hon. Lady is right; there is a technical consultation out at the moment. We recognise that not all local authorities have made additional licensing schemes. It is well known that some of the worst management standards, living conditions, disrepair and overcrowding in the sector are found in smaller HMOs, which is why we issued the technical discussion paper. We wanted to seek views on whether mandatory licensing should be extended to smaller HMOs. The closing date for those responses is 18 December. I do not want to pre-empt at this stage how the proposals will be taken forward; I want to wait and get the final remarks from the consultation.

I can assure the hon. Lady and the Committee that the Government are committed to tackling abuse in the HMO market as we are in any other part of the private rented sector. Extending mandatory licensing is an option to achieve that, but I want to fully consider all responses before announcing how I will proceed. I can give the Committee some assurance about how we may do that. Any change to the scope of mandatory licensing can be achieved through secondary legislation. With that assurance, and given our commitment to stamping out abuse in the HMO market, I hope the hon. Lady is willing to withdraw her new clause.

I thank the Minister for his response. I am sure we will return to this issue at a later stage, and I look forward to seeing the results of the consultation. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 28

Reporting of Housing Benefit Paid

‘(1) Each local housing authority must disclose information quarterly to HMRC regarding any monies paid to landlords through Housing Benefit in accordance with the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992.

(2) In this section—

“HMRC” means the Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs;

“local housing authority” has the meaning given by section 1 of the Housing Act 1985”.

This new clause would require local housing authorities to disclose the amount of Housing Benefit paid to landlords to HMRC quarterly.—(Teresa Pearce.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The new clause is largely a probing one, but it raises an important issue. In many cases up and down the country, someone making a claim for housing benefit has to send in a copy of their lease or tenancy agreement, on which the landlord is named. I would like local authorities and housing benefit departments to ensure there is quarterly or annual reporting to HMRC of the moneys paid when they pay out housing benefit.

The overwhelming majority of landlords pay their taxes in a timely and correct fashion. However, a few choose not to. I have seen evidence of that myself, where tenants have to pay every Sunday, when the landlord comes round and collects the money in cash. That is public money—housing benefit money—but it goes into the landlord’s pocket, and they do not pay any tax on it.

I was so concerned about this issue that I wrote to Lin Homer at Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and to HM Treasury. I got a reply from a Minister and Lin Homer, both of whom estimated that the tax gap for letting income could be as high as £500 million a year. Something needs to be done about that, because housing benefit is public money—it is taxpayers’ money, and we should ensure that where it goes to a landlord, it is treated with the respect it deserves.

If HMRC had quarterly or annual reporting of the moneys paid, it would have more information to allow it to track down certain individuals, ensuring that those who are not being proper landlords and acting as decent citizens are caught up with much sooner. At the moment, we all know that HMRC is running on less resources, but it is clear that it wants to tackle tax evasion wherever that occurs. Where someone evades tax on public money they have received, it is even more important that HMRC does that.

My hon. Friend makes a powerful case. The Government want to set up a whole public body to transfer information about tenants’ incomes from landlords to HMRC. Does she agree that this is another thing the body could do? That would be helpful for recouping much-needed money for the taxpayer.

I completely agree with my hon. Friend. We are talking about people who are receiving taxpayers’ money, taking it as income and not paying tax on it. We should do whatever we can to tackle those people, because they are exactly the same group of people who will not be carrying out electrical safety checks on the properties they rent out and who are cramming people into bedrooms that are too small. They are exactly the rogue landlords that this Bill seeks to ban, so we should also be ensuring that they are not profiting from this.

This is a probing new clause to raise the issue for consideration by the Committee. I look forward to the Minister’s response, and I hope that something can be done to ensure that every citizen of this country who gets income pays the right amount of tax on that income.

The new clause would place an additional requirement on each local authority to collect information about housing benefit paid to landlords and to disclose that information to Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs on a quarterly basis. Local authorities are already accountable to the Department for Work and Pensions for their housing benefit expenditure as part of the subsidy scheme, which is subject to an annual audit. For claimants in social housing, housing benefit is often paid directly to the landlord, although that is starting to change with the roll-out of universal credit, which pays benefits directly to the claimant in most cases. For claimants in the private rented sector, housing benefit is not, for the most part, paid directly to private landlords but is paid to the claimant, who is then responsible for the rent, so any reporting would only provide a partial picture.

Universal credit, which is replacing housing benefit for working-age claimants, is currently being rolled out across the country and is not administered by local authorities, which means that the proposal would become of diminishing relevance in the medium to short term. On that basis, I urge the hon. Lady to withdraw her motion.

I understand what the Minister says about the roll-out of universal credit but, at present, every local authority has a payroll department and has to make annual reports of payments made outside of the payroll to contractors and people like that. The proposal is not that onerous on councils, but I accept that it might not fix the problem, so I ask the Minister to go away and consider what would fix the problem. There clearly is an issue, and I would like to think that the Government will consider it and try to find some way of ensuring that such people are not avoiding their due taxes. In the spirit of accepting that he may do that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 29

Accreditation and licensing for private landlords

“Local authorities shall be required to operate an accreditation and licensing scheme for private landlords.”—(Dr Blackman-Woods.)

This amendment would require local authorities in England and Wales to put in place a scheme to license and provide for the accreditation of private sector landlords in their area.

Brought up, and read the First time.

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

New clause 29 would introduce an accreditation and licensing scheme for private landlords. It is possible to argue that we would not have needed to table so many new clauses to improve the quality of much of our private rented sector and to improve the way in which landlords operate if we had followed the excellent example of some of our devolved Administrations by having a proper register of landlords. I will use the scheme set up and operated by the Scottish Government since 2006 as an example. That register is extremely straightforward. Anyone who owns residential property in Scotland that is let must apply to register with the local authority for the area in which the property is located unless the property is covered by one of the exemptions. It is the owner of the property who must register, and in some cases that may not be the landlord who has the letting agreement, but they must declare that information. The scheme is very straightforward, and it is operated online. The exemptions are very clear and it is the property that is exempt from registration: it is the only or main residence of the landlord; there are not more than two lodgers; it is let under an agricultural tenancy; it is let under a crofting tenancy; it is used for holiday lets; it is regulated by the Care Commission; it is owned by a religious organisation; it is occupied only by members of a religious order; or it is let to members of the landlord’s family. We can see that those are very sensible and straightforward exemptions.

I do not instinctively have any objection to the hon. Lady’s new clause, but I wonder about the payment regime and who funds the administration and management of the scheme. As she knows, selected licensing under the Housing Act 2004 is in effect self-financing and any money goes back into ameliorating the impacts of antisocial landlords and tenants. The funding is not on the face of her new clause, so how would the scheme be funded? Would the funding fall disproportionately on the taxpayer?

Absolutely not. I will come to the matter of payment in a moment or two.

The scheme is very straightforward. The information is given online and all the council has to do is to check that there is documentation to back up an exemption if a landlord asks for one. Furthermore, the person letting must be fit and proper according to three categories. They are considered not to be a fit and proper person if they have committed an offence involving fraud, dishonesty, violence, drugs, discrimination, firearms or sexual offences; if they have practised unlawful discrimination in connection with any business; or if they have contravened any provision of the law relating to housing or landlord and tenant law.

As the hon. Gentleman said, I was keen to find out how such a straightforward scheme was funded. It is funded by the application of a fee, which is extraordinarily low; it is £55. Often what we hear back from the Conservative party is, “Oh, we couldn’t possibly have a landlord register operating, because it’s so expensive, puts unreasonable charges on to landlords and is much too complicated”, but in Scotland an excellent, straight- forward and reasonably charged scheme is in operation. I can see no landlord who would be unable to pay £55. I would like to hear from the Minister why such a scheme cannot operate in the UK.

Alongside that we could have an accreditation system. We already have the London Landlords Accreditation Scheme, which seeks to enable landlords to register and get accreditation to show that they are fit and proper persons who operate as good landlords. Some other such schemes operate locally—for example, Oxford City Council has a landlord accreditation scheme.

Those are examples of good practice, often carried out by Labour authorities. It would be excellent if such good practice could be rolled out nationally. I look forward to hearing from the Minister why we do not have the ability to operate in this country schemes that operate easily in Scotland and under other devolved Administrations.

The new clause would require all local authorities to operate an accreditation and licensing scheme for private landlords. The existing licensing arrangements for the private rented sector were introduced to give local authorities the ability to deal with problems that might arise in connection with rented property. Three types of licensing are provided for: mandatory licensing of larger homes in multiple occupation; additional licensing of smaller houses in multiple occupation; and selective licensing of all types of private rented sector housing.

Additional and selective licensing are discretionary powers. Additional licensing may be introduced by a local authority for smaller houses in multiple occupation in all or part of its area where there are significant management issues, or the properties are in poor condition. Selective licensing allows local authorities to license all private rented housing in a designated area that suffers issues such as low housing demand and/or significant antisocial behaviour.

16:00

A major drawback of licensing is that it impacts on all landlords and places additional burdens on reputable landlords who are already fully compliant with their obligations. This creates additional unnecessary costs for reputable landlords, which tend to be passed on to tenants. The majority of landlords provide a good service and the Government do not want to impose unnecessary additional costs on them or on their tenants, who would inevitably see rents rise as a result of the additional costs.

Will the Minister outline what is burdensome about filling in an online form, which takes about 10 minutes, and paying £55 to do so, given that that scheme operates effectively elsewhere in the country?

I thank the hon. Lady for that question. It was typical of the last Labour Government that more and more bureaucracy was layered on to business. The problem is that the more bureaucracy that is layered on, particularly to decent business people who are doing the right thing, the more it discourages them from investing and running businesses and, in this case, from housing people. It is apparent that where this system has been or is being used—Scotland—the additional required administration has resulted in increased rents for tenants.

Several voluntary landlord accreditation schemes have already been introduced by many local authorities and are promoted by the main landlord associations. We strongly encourage that approach. The aim of voluntary accreditation is to raise standards by providing education and training to landlords, identifying poor practice and generally increasing the levels of professionalism among landlords. However, I do not believe that local authorities should be required to operate an accreditation scheme in their area. Accreditation is only of interest to good landlords who rent out decent accommodation, so it does not help to identify and tackle criminal landlords. Local authorities are in the best position to decide whether there is a need for an accreditation scheme in their area. On that basis and following that explanation, I hope the hon. Lady will withdraw the new clause.

The Minister gave exactly the response that I thought he would and that we have heard a number of times from this Government. The lack of consistency in approach is pretty breathtaking. Earlier in our discussions, we found out that local authorities have been given powers to offer fixed-term tenancies to their tenants. Local authorities do not think that is a good idea and they do not want to do it, so what are the Government doing? They are making them do it through this legislation. Exactly the same situation pertains to the registration of landlords.

It is extremely difficult for local authorities to run selective licensing schemes and, in this instance, any sensible Government would say, “We would want to ensure that we have maximum protection and ease of information for tenants. Therefore, we will set up a very cheap, easy-to-administer national scheme.” I just do not understand the logic, but it is getting late in the deliberation of the Committee. No doubt we can return to the issue at some later stage in our deliberations. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 30

Restrictions to granting permission in principle

“Permission in principle shall apply—

(a) to brownfield sites only for the provision of housing, and

(b) to sites that have already been approved in an adopted local plan for the provision of housing”.—(Dr Blackman-Woods.)

This amendment would restrict the circumstances in which permission in principle can be applied to brownfield sites for housing and to sites that have already been approved in an adopted local plan for the provision of housing.

Brought up, and read the First time.

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The new clause was tabled to put on the record—or at least to try again to elicit from the Minister—exactly how wide the permission in principle outlined in clause 102 of the Bill will be applied. Will it be applied to brownfield sites and to sites that have been approved in the adopted local plan for the provision of housing? What we are trying to elicit through this new clause is some clarity from the Minister about what brownfield sites will be used for in terms of getting permission in principle.

I am very happy to put on the record today that the Government obviously have no intention of allowing, for example, planning in principle to be used for some of the things that I know some people may be concerned about, such as fracking or waste development. However, we want to ensure that the local authorities are able to grant permission in principle for mixed-use developments that promote balanced and sustainable places, as I outlined last week.

The hon. Lady did not quite use the phrase “probing amendment”, but she wanted to have another go at making a point, which I appreciate. I am pleased she made that point, because I was somewhat surprised that she had tabled this new clause, bearing in mind that, in effect, we have already debated these issues quite heavily in two previous Committee sittings.

Both parts of this new clause would restrict the granting of permission in principle. As I outlined when we had those lengthy debates in those two Committee sittings, we want to ensure that there is a flexible system that delivers for people. That is where we are, and that is why I ask the hon. Lady to withdraw her new clause. If she does not do so, we will oppose it.

As I suggested earlier to the Minister, this new clause is very much about getting further clarity from him about the extent of land, and the purpose, that could be behind permission in principle. It appears that it goes beyond housing and the Minister has helpfully clarified that this afternoon. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the new clause.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 34

Extension of the Housing Ombudsman to cover the Private Rented Sector

“(1) The Secretary of State shall by regulations introduce a scheme to extend the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, as set out in section 51 and Schedule 2 of the Housing Act 1996, to cover disputes between tenants and private landlords in the Greater London Authority.

(2) The scheme under subsection (1) shall—

(a) last at least one year and no longer than two years; and

(b) come into effect within 6 months of this Act receiving Royal Assent.

(3) The Secretary of State shall lay before each House of Parliament a report of the scheme under subsection (1) alongside any statement he thinks appropriate, within 3 months of the closing date of the scheme.

(4) The Secretary of State may by regulations extend the powers of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme as set out in section 51 and Schedule 2 of the Housing Act 1996, to cover disputes between tenants and private landlords nationwide.”—(Teresa Pearce.)

This new clause would give the Secretary of State the power to introduce a pilot scheme which would see the Housing Ombudsman extend its cover in London to private sector housing and disputes between tenants and private landlords, to require that the Secretary of State reports on the pilot scheme, and to give the Secretary of State power through regulations to extend the Housing Ombudsman to cover private sector housing and disputes between tenants and private landlords nationwide.

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The new clause would give the Secretary of State power to introduce a pilot scheme that would see the housing ombudsman extend its cover in London to the private sector. That would require a report from the Secretary of State following the pilot, and would give the Secretary of State the ability to extend the powers of the housing ombudsman to the private sector nationwide if that pilot is successful.

In London, the private rented sector is growing and is a significant proportion of the housing market. Extending the ombudsman scheme to cover the private rented sector would be a big change. That is why this new clause proposes a pilot to establish whether such an extension would be worth while.

Most landlords are effective and efficient in letting their property, but disputes between landlords and tenants can and do occur. They could be about a delay in responding to a situation in a flat. Perhaps there could be problems with electrics, gas or heating, or there could be a concern that the property is dangerous. A tenant could be concerned that part of the tenancy agreement or lease has not been upheld. The housing ombudsman is a fantastic independent service that helps to resolve many such complaints and concerns.

The ombudsman considers complaints about how a landlord has responded to reports of a problem, and considers what is fair in all circumstances. The ombudsman does not look at the original problem. For example, it does not decide whether or not a property is damp. What they look at is whether or not the landlord has done what he needs to do in line with the tenancy agreement and the ombudsman’s policies. It helps to defuse disputes by having an independent person look at them.

All local authorities and housing associations must be a member of the ombudsman scheme. At present, private sector landlords can join on a voluntary basis, but not nearly enough of them do so, leaving many tenants in a position where they have nowhere left to turn when things go wrong.

In total, 87% of cases referred to the housing ombudsman were resolved by landlords and tenants with the support of the ombudsman. Many of those landlords and tenants have gone on to build and keep good relations, and they continue to rent from and let to each other.

The measures in the Bill will bring about a decline in social housing, whether it is managed by the local authority or a housing association. As a result, the private rented sector, particularly in London, will increase its share of the housing market. Surely, therefore, it is right to ensure that all tenants across the sector are afforded the same protections and dispute resolution service.

That is why I have tabled new clause 34, which would extend the housing ombudsman scheme as a pilot in London. I hope the Minister will look favourably on it and let me know whether he sees any merit in this scheme. If he does, I hope he will accept the new clause.

Of course, private sector landlords can already join the housing ombudsman scheme on a voluntary basis. Many landlords who wish to assure their tenants of the quality of their services already do so. I suggest that tenants reading Hansard in their quiet moments this weekend might take that on board and ensure that they look for landlords who are members of that scheme and the housing ombudsman scheme, because it sends a clear signal. The Greater London Authority would need to take a view on whether it would be appropriate for the housing ombudsman to expand its role in London, given the linkages with the London rental standards.

I have made it clear that we have absolutely no intention of introducing unnecessary regulation on landlords or a national register of landlords. If the new clause were agreed, all landlords would be required to sign up to the scheme in order for it to work. Despite the excellent work of the housing ombudsman to resolve complaints, membership in the scheme for private landlords should remain voluntary at present, and we encourage private sector landlords to sign up.

Private landlords who have signed up voluntarily are signalling to their tenants that they are committed to a high level of service and can be expected to comply with any determination. Were they to be required to sign up, we would not expect the same level of engagement in the process or the same level of compliance. Indeed, the rogue landlords whom we want to target are the landlords who would ignore and avoid such a measure in the first place. Determinations would not therefore be enforceable, and we could risk increasing costs while tenants of reluctant landlords might not see any benefit. Although we accept and acknowledge the ethos of the hon. Lady’s new clause, I hope she will agree to withdraw it at this stage.

I thank the Minister for his response. Given that in London we have the GLA, I hope that, in conversations with the GLA and the next Mayor of London, whoever that might be, the Minister will press them to publicise the scheme and ensure that private landlords sign up for it. I agree that the rogue landlords that we discussed some weeks ago do not pay their tax or look after their tenants, and are not likely to sign up to the scheme. That is why we asked for a pilot scheme. In the hope that the Minister will take on board what we are trying to do, which is to raise the standard in the sector, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 35

Cover for money received or held by lettings agents in the course of business

“(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, a person may not accept money from any person who seeks residential accommodation which is to let or who has a tenancy of a residential premises, or other right or permission to occupy, in the course of lettings agency work unless there are in force authorised arrangements under which, in the event of his failing to account for such money to the person entitled to it, his liability will be made good by another.

(2) In this section ‘lettings agency work’ has the same meaning as in section 83 of the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013 and a ‘lettings agent’ is a person who engages in lettings agency work.

(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations made by statutory instrument, which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament—

(a) specify any persons or classes of persons to whom subsection (1) does not apply;

(b) specify arrangements which are authorised for the purposes of this section including arrangements to which a enforcement authority nominated for the purpose by the Secretary of State or any other person so nominated is a party;

(c) specify the terms and conditions upon which any payment is to be made under such arrangements and any circumstances in which the right to any such payment may be excluded or modified;

(d) provide that any limit on the amount of any such payment is to be not less than a specified amount; and

(e) require a person providing authorised arrangements covering any person carrying on lettings agency work to issue a certificate in a form specified in the regulations certifying that arrangements complying with the regulations have been made with respect to that person.

(4) Every guarantee entered into by a person who provides authorised arrangements covering a lettings agent shall tenure for the benefit of every person from whom the lettings agent has received a relevant payment as if the guarantee were contained in a contract made by the insurer with every such person.

(5) A ‘relevant payment’ means any sum of money which is received in the circumstances described in subsection (1).”—(Teresa Pearce.)

This new clause would require lettings agents to have Client Money Protection to cover all money received in the course of business.

Brought up, and read the First time.

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

New clause 35 would require letting agents to have client money protection to cover all money received in the course of their business. Client money protection is an issue of which the sector has been incredibly supportive, and I thank those who have been in touch with me to share their support for the new clause.

It is estimated that letting agents currently hold approximately £2.7 billion in clients’ funds. The figure has been derived from the assumption that letting agents will potentially have a tenant’s deposit and one month’s rent in their client account at any given time, yet if a letting agent is not covered by client money protection, both the landlord and the tenant stand to lose their money. The new clause is designed to protect both parties in the unlikely event that an agent goes into administration or misappropriates the client’s funds. Any losses could be recovered through the scheme. The Bill’s extension of banning orders to letting agents has acknowledged that there are times when letting agents do not act in the best interests of landlords or tenants.

The new clause would provide a type of consumer protection to the financial services industry’s Financial Services Compensation Scheme, but it would be financed by the industry itself. We have a tenancy deposit scheme, which has been influential in ensuring that tenants’ deposits are fairly and securely held, so why are letting agents and the tenants who use them not granted the same protections? The Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013 already requires all letting and managing agents to be members of a redress scheme. The new clause would simply complement that.

I have spoken about the industry support for the clause. Indeed the Association of Residential Letting Agents believes that

“the client money protection scheme is fundamental for tenants and landlords to ensure that they have peace of mind should an agent go bust or take off with their funds...Last year’s move for all letting agents and property management agents in England to be a member of an approved redress scheme is a welcome step but essentially is only a half measure without a Client Money Protection scheme in place to ensure that, if necessary, we can cover losses for both the landlord and tenants...To not include such an amendment would be a missed opportunity.”

The introduction of a CMP would clearly be a positive step towards enhancing the professional reputation of letting agents across the board and for protecting clients’ money. I hope the Committee and the Minister will consider the new clause and that, in his response, the Minister will indicate whether he is minded to proceed in this direction and ensure that landlords’ and tenants’ money is protected when letting agencies are in administration or make off with the money.

16:15

I will keep my comments brief. I draw the Committee’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

I am delighted that Members on the Opposition Benches have tabled a measure that will actually protect landlords, rather than just tenants. It really is a problem for the landlord that if money has been paid by a tenant to a landlord through the intermediary of a letting agent, the agent might disappear with it. That has happened in the past. I hope that the Minister looks carefully at the new clause, because it would raise standards in the property, estate agents and lettings industry, among which it is a popular measure. We have to be careful, though, that we do not drive competition out of the market. There should be a proper impact assessment of how the proposal would affect the overall industry. The Government have introduced other measures to protect deposits, which protect both tenants and landlords, but client moneys—moneys paid in rent—are not currently protected. I hope that the Minister looks at the idea in more detail.

I am aware that there is some support for the new clause in the housing sector, as the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead and my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton have just outlined, but I am concerned that requiring letting agents to belong to a client money protection scheme at this stage could introduce into the sector significant costs, which would have implications on many levels.

We want to ensure that we have a strong and thriving private rented sector that is not tied up in excessive regulation. Requiring agents to pay to belong to a client money protection scheme would force honest agents to buy insurance against the risk that they themselves were fraudulent, when, as the hon. Lady said, the vast majority of agencies are not. Introducing a mandatory client money protection scheme at this point would be a step too far and would overburden a market that is perfectly capable of self-regulation. However, in May 2016 we will review the impact of the transparency measures that were put in place only recently. At that stage, I will take due consideration of whether any further action is needed, and obviously I will take into account the comments made this afternoon. I hope that, with those points in mind, the hon. Lady will withdraw the new clause.

I thank the Minister for his response. When people are handling money that does not belong to them, it is important that it is ring-fenced and safeguarded. For example, solicitors have to keep a completely separate client account, which is audited, because it is not their money. That principle is important with letting agents as well. Nevertheless, I hear what the Minister says and look forward to what may happen in 2016. With that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 36

Restriction on permitted changes of use

Where the Secretary of State has exercised or exercises his powers conferred by sections 59, 60, 61, 74 or 333(7) of the Town and Country Planning 1990 Act to make an Order in respect of change of use from office buildings (currently Class B1(a) of the Schedule to the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (as amended)) to use as dwelling-houses, the Order shall have no effect in respect of any building situated within Greater London as provided in the London Government Act 1963.”—(Mr Gareth Thomas.)

This new clause would exclude from the permitted changes of use provided in a Permitted Development Order made, or to be made, by the Secretary of State changes of use from offices to housing in London. Such changes would require planning permission from the local authority.

Brought up, and read the First time.

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The new clause would require proposals to change offices in London into homes to go through a planning application process. Greater London has been particularly badly affected by the introduction of permitted development rights for those wanting to convert office accommodation into residential dwellings without seeking planning permission. There is a significant difference between office and residential values, which, combined with the high demand for housing and the scarcity of land, has created big incentives for landlords to convert, without planning permission, viable and occupied offices into homes. London Councils estimates that between May 2013 and April this year, at least 100,000 square feet of office floor space was lost. It argues that one consequence of that had been to drive up office rents in some parts of London, increasing costs for businesses; hon. Members know about all the implications of that.

London Councils has expressed concerns about the impact of the provisions on affordable housing in such developments. Because developers do not have to go through section 106 agreements when offices are converted into flats, there is no requirement to provide any affordable housing. London Councils estimates that some 16,000 new dwellings have avoided the full planning process and, as a result, many affordable homes that could have been built, had a planning application been required, have not been built. The LGA and London Councils have argued for change, and they support the intent of the new clause.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the permitted development rights legislation has enabled the creation of thousands of new units in London, which have all been very affordable? What would he say to the thousands of Londoners who have been able to buy relatively cheap flats using that excellent provision?

On occasion, conversion from office accommodation into residential accommodation may well be justified. My point is simply that that should go through a proper planning application process, partly because of the impact on affordable housing and partly because it is necessary to consider the impact on jobs and the business community of the loss of office space. However, I entirely accept the hon. Gentleman’s broader point that there is a huge shortage of housing, and on occasion it may well be entirely appropriate to convert offices into flats.

I will give the Committee some examples of where the ability to convert without planning permission has had an adverse impact on the business community. In Barnet, more than 100 small businesses were given as little as four to six weeks’ notice to leave the premises they were in, Premier House, because the developers wanted to turn it into 112 flats. Another example, which the hon. Member for Wimbledon may be aware of, involved Merton Council—

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

I will just give the hon. Member for Wimbledon this example, because he may also want to intervene, and I will happily take the hon. Lady’s intervention when I have done so. On Willow Lane industrial estate, some 40 small businesses with 150 employees were told to search for new premises, because there was a desire to convert the premises that they occupied into flatted accommodation.

The industrial estate that the hon. Gentleman cites is not in my constituency; it is in that of his colleague the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh). As I pointed out earlier, a derelict office building has been brought into use to create 70 new flats for tenants who have come, I think, from the borough of Tower Hamlets. Before he prays too much against it, I think we need to be careful, because it is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South has pointed out, creating real opportunities for low-cost housing.

The hon. Gentleman’s example of a derelict office block being brought into use as housing is absolutely encouraging. There is nothing to say that had it gone through the planning application process, those flats or other forms of accommodation could not have been provided. The planning application process allows the local community to think about the impact on jobs and the business community of particular applications. I apologise to the hon. Member for South Ribble; I am happy to give way to her.

The hon. Gentleman raised a point about a notice period of as little as four weeks. That was done on the basis of a lease that had been agreed between two commercial parties. Surely, he is not suggesting that we legislate to interfere in the privity of contract.

Absolutely not. I am simply saying that when there is a proposal to convert a big office block into residential accommodation, it is sensible to consider the full impact on the local community, both the benefit of the conversion to housing and the effect on jobs and businesses. The Opposition are pro-business, particularly pro-small business, and I am surprised that the Government want to damage the business communities in the boroughs in my examples.

In that spirit, I gently suggest to Government Members that the new clause would not stop conversions from office use to residential accommodation, but it would allow proper discussions to take place about the benefits and the balance between business and housing need.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that article 4 directions can address the hon. Gentleman’s concern about that balance? Local authorities can exclude town centre areas, for example, from the provisions, as many London boroughs have. Islington, Richmond and I think Southwark and Croydon, actually, have all done that.

The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point about the degree to which the exemption process is working. London Councils has pointed out many other examples of where local authorities have sought exemptions, such as those he describes, but have been rejected.

Typically where they have been unreasonable by requesting whole-borough exemptions, which have been quite rightly turned down.

With respect, I do not think that is accurate. The hon. Gentleman is perhaps rushing to read the Whip’s script a bit too quickly.

Is it not another curious inconsistency in the Government’s approach that they are happy to add to the bureaucratic burden of local authorities by making them go through a tortuous article 4 direction application, which may or may not be allowed, to carry out the most basic of planning functions?

My hon. Friend makes a good point. The hon. Member for Croydon South may want to seek the help of the hon. Member for Wimbledon in looking in a little more detail at the example of the Willow Lane trading estate and the conversion of business accommodation into flats there. According to the Local Government Association, Merton Council had attempted without success to get the industrial estate exempt from the Government’s rules.

I introduce this new clause in the spirit of concern about the impact on the business community, while still wanting office accommodation to be converted into housing, where appropriate, as long as there is a full discussion involving the local community.

I rise to support my hon. Friend’s new clause and to ask the Minister a very straightforward question. In October, he said that the changes in the policy on permitted development of office blocks from office to residential were to be made permanent. Will he clarify whether there has been any secondary legislation to bring that about?

The office-to-residential policy has been successful in achieving what it was intended to do. It has helped to simplify the planning process to encourage more development on brownfield land and to deliver additional new homes, including in London, where housing need is particularly acute. I should also make it clear that it has helped to reduce the pressure to build on brownfield land. The data show that we have seen a 65% increase in the number of new homes created through change of use. Furthermore, since April 2014, nearly 4,000 permissions have been granted under permitted development rights for office-to-residential conversion, showing that it is delivering much-needed homes for Londoners.

To continue to boost the supply of housing, we have announced that we will make the permitted development right permanent. However, we also understand the need to protect the vitality of key economic areas. The current exemption areas, including the City of London and the central activity zone, will be extended until 30 May 2019 to allow time for those authorities to consider whether it is necessary to make an article 4 direction to remove the right. As I set out in my response to new clauses 19 and 20 on Tuesday, the article 4 process is straightforward. Local authorities, including a number of London boroughs, as my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South outlined, have already used that process. I think the new clause is unnecessary, and I invite the hon. Member for Harrow West to withdraw it.

Even though the Minister has gone back to his Mr Grumpy mood, with some reluctance I have decided not to seek to divide the Committee on this new clause. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 37

Removal of limit on debt where an authority has a housing revenue account

The Localism Act 2011 is amended as follows.

Leave out section 171 (Limits on indebtedness).”—(Mr Gareth Thomas.)

This new Clause would remove the Secretary of State’s power to make determinations about the housing debt that may be held by a local housing authority that keeps a Housing Revenue Account.

Brought up, and read the First time.

16:30

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

This new clause seeks to remove the limit on debt where an authority has a housing revenue account. I hope that it will attract the support of the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton, who rightly reminded the Committee of the 1.4 million households on council waiting lists and the need for urgent action to tackle the scale of housing need those waiting lists represent. Crucially, we need to do more to build homes that those on the waiting lists can afford. Rents have rocketed because of the shortage of supply, as we have discussed, which is another factor necessitating urgent action. Hon. Members will be more than well aware of the particularly acute shortage of housing in London, where, even according to the Mayor of London’s planning documents, we are building only half of the housing we need.

In April 2012, the Government gave councils that own their own housing full control over their stock for the first time, although it was planned under the previous Labour Government. That meant that councils have the right to keep and manage all their rental income. In exchange for that right, councils in London agreed to take on billions of pounds of the nation’s housing debt. One of the benefits of giving councils full control of their own housing stock is that councils can borrow money against their assets to invest in new housing. However, as part of the agreement, the Government sadly imposed a cap on such borrowing. That cap was over and above the Treasury’s normal prudential borrowing rules that apply to most local authority borrowing. That artificial cap effectively halved the potential cash available for councils in London to invest in new homes.

London Councils has estimated that aligning the housing borrowing cap with the Treasury’s prudential borrowing rules—that is the purpose of my new clause—could generate an additional £3.2 billion of sustainable borrowing, which could potentially pay for an additional 54,000 extra affordable homes for Londoners over and above those already planned.

I understand that the reason—or at least the reason that was given in public—for the introduction of that cap was the worry that even prudential borrowing by local authorities might have an impact on the national deficit. But work by Capital Economics was drawn to the attention of the Lyons review, which made clear, from a series of conversations with City interviewers, that the amount of money that is likely to be borrowed would not be sufficient for the markets to worry, irrespective of any changes in accounting methods.

I understand that, on occasion, some flexibility around the cap has been on offer to local authorities. I hope the Minister, if he does not feel that he can support new clause 37 in its entirety, might be willing to look at the possibility of giving further flexibility to local authorities that have clear, sensible and thought-through plans to build additional homes so they can use their borrowing powers.

It is worth pointing out that a number of councils are seeking to get around the existing borrowing cap by setting up additional partnerships with developers and housing companies that are often wholly run by the local authority. Sheffield Housing Company, which will build some 2,300 homes over the next 15 years, is a particularly interesting example. It has had to go down the housing company route in order to get access to finance from the market. Having to go down such a bureaucratic route by setting up a company would not be necessary if there was no borrowing cap, or indeed, if the Ministers showed more flexibility.

I do not quite understand what the hon. Gentleman’s problem is with having to set up a company. When I worked in property banking as a young man, I would run five or six annual general meetings for different special purpose vehicle companies before breakfast on one day—literally.

With all due respect to the hon. Gentleman, it is a long time since he was a young man, and things have changed somewhat since then. Despite that gentle riposte, I bring the Committee’s attention back to what I hope will be a positive reply from the Minister.

I have always felt that my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk is, at the very least, young at heart.

The indebtedness limits were put in place as part of the self-financing settlement with local authorities back in 2012. The financial freedoms provided by the settlement were widely welcomed by local government. However, as part of that, it was necessary to place a limit on the amount of housing debt that can be held, given the potential impact on the public sector borrowing requirement.

The limits do not mean there is no flexibility for local authorities to borrow. Indeed, at the time of self-financing, there was borrowing headroom of about £2.8 billion. That figure has increased as local authorities have reduced their debt levels. At the end of 2014-15, the headroom had increased to almost £3.4 billion. We were aware that the headroom was not evenly spread and that some councils needed additional borrowing headroom to build more homes, which is why we made available £221 million of extra borrowing headroom to 36 councils in England, to support thousands of new affordable homes in 2015-16 and 2016-17.

Much as I support the hon. Member for Harrow West on seeing more homes built, I cannot agree to the unrestricted increase of housing debt that would result from the amendment, given the implications for the public sector borrowing requirement, so I urge him to withdraw his new clause.

The Minister worries unnecessarily, given the comments put to us in the Lyons review. Nevertheless, I do not intend at this point to seek a Division, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 38

Extension of Help to Buy schemes to tenants receiving support for the voluntary right to buy

‘(1) This section applies to a tenant purchasing a dwelling-house in respect of which the Secretary of State makes a grant to a private registered provider in respect of a right to buy discount provided at section 56.

(2) The tenant shall be entitled to the same support provided under a help to buy scheme supported or underwritten by the Government as a tenant exercising right to buy of a dwelling- house from a local authority.”—(Mr Gareth Thomas.)

This new clause would extend the Government’s Help to Buy schemes to those exercising the right to buy under the voluntary scheme supported by Government grants, to put housing association purchasers in the same position as those buying their homes under right to buy from local authorities.

Brought up, and read the First time.

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

I tabled the new clause in a spirit of wanting to finally flush the Minister out on why he was so opposed to the proposal from the Mayor of London and, indeed, the noble Lord Kerslake about the potential for equity loans—an extension of the Government’s Help to Buy scheme—to help pay for the sale of council homes.

It is worth referencing the huge waiting lists that many councils have and the large number of people in temporary accommodation and bed and breakfasts, which represents a huge cost for council tax payers. It is also worth mentioning that last year, for every 11 council homes sold off, just one new property was built.

The proposal from the Mayor of London and the noble Lord Kerslake might be a potential solution that obviates the need to sell off council housing in particular areas—notably in central London, where it will be very difficult to replace—while allowing the Government to move forward with their agenda of offering housing association tenants the right to buy their flat. If the only motivation for including the forced sale of council homes is to pay for the cost of the discounts that housing association tenants will get through the right to buy, the option of extending the Government’s own Help to Buy scheme to housing association tenants might provide a genuinely new route to avoid the sale of council homes, and, as a result, exacerbate the housing crisis in London. In that spirit, I move this new clause.

I appreciate the intent behind the new clause, and I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s conversion and support for our home ownership policies. However, I can assure him that it is completely unnecessary to put his new clause in the Bill, despite Labour building only one home for every 170 that were sold under right to buy. Our new revitalised right-to-buy scheme is delivering one for one, and is reaching two for one in London. We want to support people who work hard and save up for the deposit to buy their own home. That is why there is nothing to prevent the Help to Buy individual savings account being used with other Government schemes, helping people to achieve their home ownership aspirations. I encourage people to look at that, including the voluntary right to buy.

The Help to Buy equity loan scheme can only be used for new build properties, so would not apply to either local authority or housing association tenants looking to buy their own home. I hope the hon. Gentleman will agree to withdraw his new clause.

I am a bit disappointed that the Minister did not say he had at least discussed with the Treasury the possibility of extending the scheme to cover housing association tenants. I can see no reason why not. Nevertheless, I am not at this point of a mind to press the new clause to a Division, but perhaps it is a good time to commend you, Mr Gray, for your chairmanship.

Order. That will come later. At the moment we are discussing new clause 38.

I will not press it to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Schedule 2

Default powers exercisable by Mayor of London or combined authority: Schedule to be inserted in the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004

“SCHEDULE A1

Section 27A

Default powers exercisable by Mayor of London or combined authority

Default powers exercisable by Mayor of London

1 If the Secretary of State—

(a) thinks that a London borough council, in their capacity as local planning authority, are failing or omitting to do anything it is necessary for them to do in connection with the preparation, revision or adoption of a development plan document, and

(b) invites the Mayor of London to prepare or revise the document,

the Mayor of London may prepare or revise (as the case may be) the development plan document.

2 (1) This paragraph applies where a development plan document is prepared or revised by the Mayor of London under paragraph 1.

(2) The Mayor of London must hold an independent examination.

(3) The Mayor of London—

(a) must publish the recommendations and reasons of the person appointed to hold the examination, and

(b) may also give directions to the council in relation to publication of those recommendations and reasons.

(4) The Mayor of London may—

(a) approve the document, or approve it subject to specified modifications, as a local development document, or

(b) direct the council to consider adopting the document by resolution of the council as a local development document.

3 (1) Subsections (4) to (7C) of section 20 apply to an examination held under paragraph 2(2)—

(a) with the reference to the local planning authority in subsection (7C) of that section being read as a reference to the Mayor of London, and

(b) with the omission of subsections (5)(c), (7)(b)(ii) and (7B)(b).

(2) The Mayor of London must give reasons for anything he does in pursuance of paragraph 1 or 2(4).

(3) The council must reimburse the Mayor of London—

(a) for any expenditure that the Mayor incurs in connection with anything which is done by him under paragraph 1 and which the council failed or omitted to do as mentioned in that paragraph;

(b) for any expenditure that the Mayor incurs in connection with anything which is done by him under paragraph 2(2).

Default powers exercisable by combined authority

4 In this Schedule—

“combined authority” means a combined authority established under section 103 of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009;

“constituent planning authority”, in relation to a combined authority, means—

(a) a county council, metropolitan district council or non-metropolitan district council which is the local planning authority for an area within the area of the combined authority, or

(b) a joint committee established under section 29 whose area is within, or the same as, the area of the combined authority.

5 If the Secretary of State—

(a) thinks that a constituent planning authority are failing or omitting to do anything it is necessary for them to do in connection with the preparation, revision or adoption of a development plan document, and

(b) invites the combined authority to prepare or revise the document,

the combined authority may prepare or revise (as the case may be) the development plan document

6 (1) This paragraph applies where a development plan document is prepared or revised by a combined authority under paragraph 5.

(2) The combined authority must hold an independent examination.

(3) The combined authority—

(a) must publish the recommendations and reasons of the person appointed to hold the examination, and

(b) may also give directions to the constituent planning authority in relation to publication of those recommendations and reasons.

(4) The combined authority may—

(a) approve the document, or approve it subject to specified modifications, as a local development document, or

(b) direct the constituent planning authority to consider adopting the document by resolution of the authority as a local development document.

7 (1) Subsections (4) to (7C) of section 20 apply to an examination held under paragraph 6(2)—

(a) with the reference to the local planning authority in subsection (7C) of that section being read as a reference to the combined authority, and

(b) with the omission of subsections (5)(c), (7)(b)(ii) and (7B)(b).

(2) The combined authority must give reasons for anything they do in pursuance of paragraph 5 or 6(4).

(3) The constituent planning authority must reimburse the combined authority—

(a) for any expenditure that the combined authority incur in connection with anything which is done by them under paragraph 5 and which the constituent planning authority failed or omitted to do as mentioned in that paragraph;

(b) for any expenditure that the combined authority incur in connection with anything which is done by them under paragraph 6(2).

Intervention by Secretary of State

8 (1) This paragraph applies to a development plan document that has been prepared or revised—

(a) under paragraph 1 by the Mayor of London, or

(b) under paragraph 5 by a combined authority.

(2) If the Secretary of State thinks that a development plan document to which this paragraph applies is unsatisfactory—

(a) he may at any time before the document is adopted under section 23, or approved under paragraph 2(4)(a) or 6(4)(a), direct the Mayor of London or the combined authority to modify the document in accordance with the direction;

(b) if he gives such a direction he must state his reasons for doing so.

(3) Where a direction is given under sub-paragraph (2)—

(a) the Mayor of London or the combined authority must comply with the direction;

(b) the document must not be adopted or approved unless the Secretary of State gives notice that the direction has been complied with.

(4) Sub-paragraph (3) does not apply if or to the extent that the direction under sub-paragraph (2) is withdrawn by the Secretary of State.

(5) At any time before a development plan document to which this paragraph applies is adopted under section 23, or approved under paragraph 2(4)(a) or 6(4)(a), the Secretary of State may direct that the document (or any part of it) is submitted to him for his approval.

(6) In relation to a document or part of a document submitted to him under sub-paragraph (5) the Secretary of State—

(a) may approve the document or part;

(b) may approve it subject to specified modifications;

(c) may reject it.

The Secretary of State must give reasons for his decision under this sub-paragraph.

(7) The Secretary of State may at any time—

(a) after a development plan document to which this paragraph applies has been submitted for independent examination, but

(b) before it is adopted under section 23 or approved under paragraph 2(4)(a) or 6(4)(a),

direct the Mayor of London or the combined authority to withdraw the document.

9 (1) This paragraph applies if the Secretary of State gives a direction under paragraph 8(5).

(2) No steps are to be taken in connection with the adoption or approval of the document until the Secretary of State gives his decision, or withdraws the direction.

(3) If the direction is given, and not withdrawn, before the document has been submitted for independent examination, the Secretary of State must hold an independent examination.

(4) If the direction—

(a) is given after the document has been submitted for independent examination but before the person appointed to carry out the examination has made his recommendations, and

(b) is not withdrawn before those recommendations are made,

the person must make his recommendations to the Secretary of State.

(5) The document has no effect unless the document or (as the case may be) the relevant part of it has been approved by the Secretary of State, or the direction is withdrawn.

The “relevant part” is the part of the document that—

(a) is covered by a direction under paragraph 8(5) which refers to only part of the document, or

(b) continues to be covered by a direction under paragraph 8(5) following the partial withdrawal of the direction.

(6) The Secretary of State must publish the recommendations made to him by virtue of sub-paragraph (3) or (4) and the reasons of the person making the recommendations.

(7) In considering a document or part of a document submitted under paragraph 8(5) the Secretary of State may take account of any matter which he thinks is relevant.

(8) It is immaterial whether any such matter was taken account of by the Mayor of London or the combined authority.

10 Subsections (4) to (7C) of section 20 apply to an examination held under paragraph 9(3)—

(a) with the reference to the local planning authority in subsection (7C) of that section being read as a reference to the Secretary of State, and

(b) with the omission of subsections (5)(c), (7)(b)(ii) and (7B)(b).

11 In the exercise of any function under paragraph 8 or 9 the Secretary of State must have regard to the local development scheme.

12 The Mayor of London or the combined authority must reimburse the Secretary of State for any expenditure incurred by the Secretary of State under paragraph 8 or 9 that is specified in a notice given by him to the Mayor or the authority.

Temporary direction pending possible use of intervention powers

13 (1) If the Secretary of State is considering whether to give a direction to the Mayor of London or a combined authority under paragraph 8 in relation to a development plan document, he may direct the Mayor or the authority not to take any step in connection with the adoption or approval of the document—

(a) until the time (if any) specified in the direction, or

(b) until the direction is withdrawn.

(2) A document to which a direction under this paragraph relates has no effect while the direction is in force.

(3) A direction given under this paragraph in relation to a document ceases to have effect if a direction is given under paragraph 8 in relation to that document.”” —(Mr Marcus Jones.)

This new Schedule inserts a new Schedule A1 to the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 which makes detailed provision for the intervention in local plan-making by the Mayor of London or a combined authority described in NC17.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Schedule 3

“Right to enter and survey land: consequential amendments

Defence Act 1842 (5&6 Vict c. 94)

1 In section 16 of the Defence Act 1842, at the end insert—

“(3) A person may not be authorised under subsection (1) to enter and survey or value land in England and Wales in connection with a proposal to acquire an interest in or a right over land (but see section 111 of the Housing and Planning Act 2015).”

Coast Protection Act 1949 (12 & 13 Geo 6 c. 74)

2 In section 25 of the Coast Protection Act 1949, after subsection (1) insert—

“(1A) A person may not be authorised under subsection (1) to enter and survey or value land in England and Wales in connection with a proposal to acquire an interest in or a right over land (but see section 111 of the Housing and Planning Act 2015).”

National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 (12, 13 & 14 Geo 6 c. 97)

3 (1) Section 108 of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (1)(a), after “therein” insert “in relation to land in Scotland”.

(3) After subsection (1) insert—

“(1A) A person may not be authorised under subsection (1) to enter and survey or value land in England and Wales in connection with a proposal to acquire an interest in or a right over land (but see section 111 of the Housing and Planning Act 2015).”

Land Powers (Defence) Act 1958 (6 & 7 Eliz 2 c. 30)

4 In section 21 of the Land Powers (Defence) Act 1958, after subsection (1) insert—

“(1A) A person may not be authorised under subsection (1) to enter and survey or value land in England and Wales in connection with a proposal to acquire an interest in or a right over land (but see section 111 of the Housing and Planning Act 2015).”

Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 (8 & 9 Eliz 2 c. 62)

5 In section 26 of the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960, after subsection (1) insert—

“(1A) A person may not be authorised under subsection (1) to enter and survey or value land in England and Wales in connection with a proposal to acquire an interest in or a right over land (but see section 111 of the Housing and Planning Act 2015).”

Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 (c. 56)

6 In section 11(3) of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 for “surveying and taking levels” substitute “surveying, valuing or taking levels”.

Criminal Justice Act 1972 (c. 71)

7 In the Criminal Justice Act 1972 omit section 60.

Welsh Development Agency Act 1975 (c. 70)

8 In Schedule 4 to the Welsh Development Agency Act 1975 omit paragraph 14(1).

Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 (c. 57)

9 In the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 omit section 15.

Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979 (c. 46)

10 In section 43 of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979, for subsection (1) substitute—

“(1) Any person authorised under this section may at any reasonable time enter any land in Scotland for the purpose of surveying it, or estimating its value, in connection with any proposal to acquire that or any other land under this Act or in connection with any claim for compensation under this Act in respect of any such acquisition.

(1A) Any person authorised under this section may at any reasonable time enter any land in England and Wales or Scotland for the purpose of surveying it, or estimating its value, in connection with any claim for compensation under this Act for any damage to that or any other land.

(1B) See section 111 of the Housing and Planning Act 2015 for a power to enter and survey or value land in England and Wales in connection with a proposal to acquire an interest in or a right over land.”

Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 (c. 65)

11 (1) Section 167 of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 is amended as follows.

(2) In the heading, after “land” insert “in Scotland”.

(3) In subsection (1)—

(a) in paragraph (a) after “any land” insert “in Scotland”;

(b) in paragraph (b) after “other land” insert “in Scotland”.

(4) In subsection (7)—

(a) for the words before paragraph (a) substitute “Where it is proposed to search or bore in pursuance of this section in a road within the meaning of Part 4 of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991—”;

(b) in paragraph (a) omit “55 or”;

(c) in paragraph (b) omit “69 or”;

(d) in paragraph (c) omit “82 or”;

(e) for the words after paragraph (c) substitute “have effect in relation to the searching or boring as if they were road works within the meaning of Part 4 of that Act.”

(5) In subsection (9)—

(a) for “Upper Tribunal” substitute “Lands Tribunal for Scotland”;

(b) for the words from “section 4” to “costs)” substitute “sections 9(2) to (5) and 11 of the Land Compensation (Scotland) Act 1963 (procedure and expenses)”.

(6) Omit subsection (13).

Highways Act 1980 (c. 66)

12 In section 289 of the Highways Act 1980, after subsection (1) insert—

“(1A) A person may not be authorised under subsection (1) to enter and survey or value land in connection with a proposal to acquire an interest in or a right over land (but see section 111 of the Housing and Planning Act 2015).”

New Towns Act 1981 (c. 64)

13 In section 73(1) of the New Towns Act 1981 omit paragraph (b) (and the “or” before it).

Civil Aviation Act 1982 (c. 16)

14 (1) Section 50 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982 is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (1), for paragraph (e) substitute—

“(e) in any case not falling within paragraphs (a) to (d) above where the Secretary of State has made an order under or in pursuance of this Part of this Act—

(i) authorising the compulsory purchase of land,

(ii) providing for the creation in favour of a particular person of a right in or in relation to land, or

(iii) declaring that an area of land shall be subject to control by directions.

(f) in any case not falling within paragraphs (a) to (d) above where the Secretary of State is considering making an order under or in pursuance of this Part of this Act—

(i) authorising the compulsory purchase of land in Scotland or Northern Ireland,

(ii) providing for the creation in favour of a particular person of a right in or in relation to land in Scotland or Northern Ireland, or

(iii) declaring that an area of land in England and Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland shall be subject to control by directions.”

(3) In subsection (3)(e), after “(1)(e)” insert “or (f)”.

(4) In subsection (4)(b), after “(1)(e)” insert “or (f)”.

(5) In subsection (7)(c), after “(1)(e)” insert “or (f)”.

Industrial Development Act 1982 (c. 52)

15 In section 14 of the Industrial Development Act 1982 omit subsection (6).

Housing Act 1985 (c. 68)

16 In section 54 of the Housing Act 1985, after subsection (2) insert—

“(3) A person may not be authorised by a local housing authority under subsection (1)(a) to enter and survey or value land in connection with a proposal to acquire an interest in or a right over land (but see section 111 of the Housing and Planning Act 2015).”

Local Government and Housing Act 1989 (c. 42)

17 In section 97 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989, after subsection (1) insert—

“(1A) A person may not be authorised by a local housing authority under subsection (1)(a) to enter and survey or value land in connection with a proposal to acquire an interest in or a right over land (but see section 111 of the Housing and Planning Act 2015).”

Electricity Act 1989 (c. 29)

18 In Schedule 4 to the Electricity Act 1989, in paragraph 10, after sub-paragraph (1) insert—

“(1A) A person may not be authorised under sub-paragraph (1) to enter and survey or value land in England and Wales in connection with a proposal to acquire an interest in or a right over land (but see section 111 of the Housing and Planning Act 2015).”

Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (c. 8)

19 In section 324 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 omit subsection (6).

Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (c. 9)

20 In section 88 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 omit subsection (5).

Land Drainage Act 1991 (c. 59)

21 In section 64 of the Land Drainage Act 1991, after subsection (1) insert—

“(1A) A person may not be authorised under subsection (1)(a) or (b) to enter and survey or value land in connection with a proposal to acquire an interest in or a right over land (but see section 111 of the Housing and Planning Act 2015).”

Water Industry Act 1991 (c. 56)

22 (1) Section 169 of the Water Industry Act 1991 is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (2) omit paragraph (a) (and the “or” at the end of it).

(3) In subsection (4), for the words before paragraph (a) substitute “The powers conferred by this section or section 111 of the Housing and Planning Act 2015 shall not be exercised on behalf of a water undertaker in any case for purposes connected with the determination of—”.

Water Resources Act 1991 (c. 57)

23 (1) Section 171 of the Water Resources Act 1991 is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (2) omit paragraph (a) (and the “or” at the end of it).

(3) In subsection (4), for the words before paragraph (a) substitute “The powers conferred by this section or section 111 of the Housing and Planning Act 2015 shall not be exercised on behalf of the Agency or the NRBW in any case for purposes connected with the determination of—”.

Environment Act 1995 (c. 25)

24 (1) Schedule 8 to the Environment Act 1995 is amended as follows.

(2) In paragraph 1(2) omit paragraph (b).

(3) In paragraph 2(3)—

(a) at the end of paragraph (a) insert “and”;

(b) omit paragraph (c) (and the “and” before it).

Greater London Authority Act 1999 (c. 29)

25 In the Greater London Authority Act 1999 omit section 333ZD.

Postal Services Act 2000 (c. 26)

26 In Schedule 6 to the Postal Services Act 2000, in paragraph 2, after sub-paragraph (2) insert—

“(2A) A person may not be authorised under sub-paragraph (1) to enter and survey or value land in England and Wales in connection with a proposal to acquire an interest in or a right over land (but see section 111 of the Housing and Planning Act 2015).”

Housing and Regeneration Act 2008 (c. 17)

27 In the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008 omit sections 17 and 18.

Localism Act 2011 (c. 20)

28 In the Localism Act 2011 omit section 210. —(Mr Marcus Jones.)

See Member’s explanatory statement for NC18.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Schedule 4

“Secure tenancies etc: phasing out of tenancies for life

Law of Property Act 1925 (c.20)

1 (1) Section 52 of the Law of Property Act 1925 (conveyances to be by deed, unless excepted by subsection (2) of that section) is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (2), after paragraph (db) insert—

“(dc) secure tenancies of dwellings in England granted on or after the day on which paragraph 4 of Schedule (Secure tenancies etc: phasing out of tenancies for life) to the Housing and Planning Act 2015 comes fully into force, other than old-style secure tenancies;”.

(3) In subsection (3)—

(a) in the definition of “flexible tenancy”, for “107A” substitute “115B”;

(b) at the appropriate place insert—

““secure tenancy” has the meaning given by section 79 of the Housing Act 1985 and “old style-secure tenancy” has the meaning given by section 115C of that Act;”.

Housing Act 1985 (c. 68)

2 The Housing Act 1985 is amended as follows.

3 For the italic heading before section 79 substitute—

“Secure tenancies”

4 After section 81 insert—

“Grant of new secure tenancies in England

81A New English secure tenancies to be between 2 and 5 years in general

‘(1) A person may grant a secure tenancy of a dwelling-house in England only if it is a tenancy for a fixed term that is—

(a) at least 2 years, and

(b) no more than 5 years.

(2) If a person purports to grant a secure tenancy in breach of subsection (1), it takes effect as a tenancy for a fixed term of 5 years.

(3) This section does not apply to the grant of an old-style secure tenancy (as to which, see section 81B).

81B Cases where old-style English secure tenancies may be granted

‘(1) A person may grant an old style-secure tenancy of a dwelling-house in England only—

(a) in circumstances specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State, or

(b) in accordance with subsection (2).

(2) A local housing authority that grants a secure tenancy of a dwelling-house in England must grant an old-style secure tenancy if—

(a) the tenancy is offered as a replacement for an old-style secure tenancy of some other dwelling-house, and

(b) the tenant has not made an application to move.

(3) Other provisions of this Part set out the consequences of a tenancy being an old-style secure tenancy.

(4) Regulations under subsection (1) may include transitional or saving provision.

(5) Regulations under subsection (1) are to be made by statutory instrument.

(6) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (1) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.

81C Duty to offer new secure tenancy in limited circumstances

‘(1) This section applies where a change in circumstances means that a tenancy that is not a secure tenancy would become a secure tenancy but for the exception in paragraph 1ZA of Schedule 1.

(2) The landlord must, within the period of 28 days, make the tenant a written offer of a secure tenancy in return for the tenant surrendering the original tenancy.

(3) If the tenant accepts in writing within the period of 28 days beginning with the day on which the tenant receives the offer, the landlord must grant the secure tenancy on the tenant surrendering the original tenancy.

81D Review of decisions about length of secure tenancies in England

‘(1) A person who is offered a secure tenancy of a dwelling- house in England (under section 81C or otherwise) may request a review under this section, unless the tenancy on offer is an old-style secure tenancy.

(2) The sole purpose of a review under this section is to consider whether the length of the tenancy is in accordance with any policy that the prospective landlord has about the length of secure tenancies it grants.

(3) The request must be made before the end of—

(a) the period of 21 days beginning with the day on which the person making the request first receives the offer, or

(b) such longer period as the prospective landlord may allow in writing.

(4) On receiving the request the prospective landlord must carry out the review.

(5) On completing the review the prospective landlord must —

(a) notify the tenant in writing of the outcome,

(b) revise its offer or confirm its original decision about the length of the tenancy, and

(c) if it decides to confirm its original decision, give reasons.

(6) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about the procedure to be followed in connection with a review under this section.

(7) The regulations may, in particular—

(a) require the review to be carried out by a person of appropriate seniority who was not involved in the original decision;

(b) make provision as to the circumstances in which the person who requested the review is entitled to an oral hearing, and whether and by whom that person may be represented.

(8) Regulations under this section may include transitional or saving provision.

(9) Regulations under this section are to be made by statutory instrument which is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.”

5 In section 82 (security of tenure), in subsection (3), for the words from “section 86” to the end substitute “section 86 or 86D shall apply”.

6 (1) Section 82A (demoted tenancy) is amended as follows.

(2) After subsection (4) insert—

“(4A) The court may not make a demotion order in relation to a secure tenancy of a dwelling-house in England if—

(a) the landlord is a local housing authority or housing action trust, and

(b) the term has less than 1 year and 9 months left to run

(4B) But subsection (4A) does not apply to a tenancy to which an exception in section 86A(2) or (3) applies.”

(3) In subsection (5), for paragraph (b) substitute—

“(b) the period or term of the tenancy (but see subsection (6));”.

(4) For subsection (6) substitute—

“(6) Subsection (5)(b) does not apply if—

(a) the secure tenancy was for a fixed term and was an old-style secure tenancy or a flexible tenancy, or

(b) the secure tenancy was for a fixed term and was a tenancy of a dwelling-house in Wales,

and in such a case the demoted tenancy is a weekly periodic tenancy.”

7 After section 82 insert—

“Orders for possession and expiry of term etc”

8 In section 83 (proceedings for possession or termination: general notice requirements), in subsection (A1), for paragraph (b) substitute—

“(b) proceedings for possession of a dwelling-house under section 86E (recovery of possession on expiry of certain English secure tenancies).”

9 In section 84 (grounds and orders for possession), in subsection (1), for “section 107D (recovery of possession on expiry of flexible tenancy)” substitute “section 86E (recovery of possession on expiry of certain English secure tenancies)”.

10 (1) Section 86 (periodic tenancy arising on termination of fixed term) is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (1), after “secure tenancy” insert “to which this section applies”.

(3) After subsection (1) insert—

“(1A) This section applies to a secure tenancy of a dwelling- house in Wales.

(1B) This section also applies to a secure tenancy of a dwelling- house in England that is—

(a) an old-style secure tenancy, or

(b) a flexible tenancy the term of which ends within the period of 9 months beginning with the day on which paragraph 4 of Schedule (Secure tenancies etc: phasing out of tenancies for life) to the Housing and Planning Act 2015 comes fully into force,

unless it is a tenancy excluded by subsection (1C).”

(4) In subsection (2), for “this section” substitute “subsection (1)”.

11 After section 86 insert—

“English secure tenancies: review, renewal and possession

86A English tenancies: review to determine what to do at end of fixed term

‘(1) The landlord under a fixed term secure tenancy of a dwelling-house in England must carry out a review to decide what to do at the end of the term, unless one of the following exceptions applies.

(2) Exception 1 is where the tenancy is an old-style secure tenancy.

(3) Exception 2 is where the tenancy is a flexible tenancy the term of which ends within the period of 9 months beginning with the day on which paragraph 4 of Schedule (Secure tenancies etc: phasing out of tenancies for life) to the Housing and Planning Act 2015 comes fully into force.

(4) A review under this section must be carried out while the term has 6 to 9 months left to run.

(5) On a review under this section the landlord must decide which of the following options to take.

Option 1:offer to grant a new secure tenancy of the dwelling-house at the end of the current tenancy.Option 2:seek possession of the dwelling house at the end of the current tenancy but offer to grant a secure tenancy of another dwelling-house instead.Option 3:seek possession of the dwelling-house at the end of the current tenancy without offering to grant a secure tenancy of another dwelling-house.

(6) The landlord must also—

(a) offer the tenant advice on buying a home if the landlord considers that to be a realistic option for the tenant, and

(b) in appropriate cases, offer the tenant advice on other housing options.

86B Notification of outcome of review under section 86A

‘(1) On completing a review under section 86A the landlord must notify the tenant in writing of the outcome of the review.

(2) The notice must be given by no later than 6 months before the end of the term of the current tenancy.

(3) The notice must state which of the options mentioned in section 86A the landlord has decided to take.

(4) If the landlord has decided to seek possession of the dwelling-house at the end of the secure tenancy the notice must also—

(a) inform the tenant of the right under section 86C to request the landlord to reconsider, and

(b) specify the time limit for making a request under that section.

(5) If the notice states that the landlord has decided to offer a new tenancy and the tenant accepts in writing before the end of the current tenancy, the landlord must grant the new tenancy in accordance with the offer.

86C Reconsideration of decision not to grant a tenancy

‘(1) Where a tenant is notified that the outcome of a review under section 86A is that the landlord has decided to seek possession of the dwelling-house at the end of the current tenancy, the tenant may request the landlord to reconsider its decision.

(2) The request must be made before the end of the period of 21 days beginning with the day on which tenant was notified of the decision.

(3) On receiving the request, the landlord must reconsider its decision.

(4) The landlord must, in particular, consider whether the original decision is in accordance with any policy that the landlord has about the circumstances in which it will grant a further tenancy on the coming to an end of an existing fixed term tenancy.

(5) Once the landlord has reconsidered the decision the landlord must—

(a) notify the tenant in writing of the outcome,

(b) revise or confirm its original decision, and

(c) if it decides to confirm its original decision, give reasons.

(6) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about the procedure to be followed in connection with reconsidering a decision for the purposes of this section.

(7) The regulations may, in particular—

(a) require the original decision to be reconsidered by a person of appropriate seniority who was not involved in the original decision, and

(b) make provision as to the circumstances in which the person who requested the landlord to reconsider the original decision is entitled to an oral hearing, and whether and by whom that person may be represented.

(8) Regulations under this section may include transitional or saving provision.

(9) Regulations under this section are to be made by statutory instrument which is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.

86D Fixed term tenancy arising on termination of previous fixed term

‘(1) This section applies to a secure tenancy of a dwelling-house in England other than—

(a) an old-style secure tenancy, or

(b) a flexible tenancy the term of which ends within the period of 9 months beginning with the day on which paragraph 4 of Schedule (Secure tenancies etc: phasing out of tenancies for life) to the Housing and Planning Act 2015 comes fully into force.

(2) If the tenancy comes to an end by virtue of the term expiring, or by virtue of an order under section 82(3), a new tenancy of the same dwelling-house arises by virtue of this subsection.

(3) Where the landlord has offered the tenant a new tenancy of the same dwelling-house following a review under section 86A but the tenant has failed to accept, the new tenancy that arises by virtue of subsection (2) is a fixed term tenancy of whatever length the landlord offered.

(4) In any other case, the new tenancy that arises by virtue of subsection (2) is a 5 year fixed term tenancy.

(5) The parties and other terms of a new tenancy that arises by virtue of subsection (2) are the same as those of the tenancy that it replaces, except that the terms—

(a) are confined to those which are compatible with a tenancy of the length determined in accordance with subsection (3) or (4), and

(b) do not include any provision for re-entry or forfeiture.

(6) A new tenancy does not arise by virtue of subsection (2) if the tenant has been granted another secure tenancy of the same dwelling-house to begin at the same time as the earlier tenancy ends.

86E Recovery of possession of secure tenancies in England

‘(1) The landlord under a secure tenancy of a dwelling-house in England may bring proceedings for possession under this section if—

(a) the landlord has decided on a review under section 86A to seek possession at the end of the tenancy, and

(b) the landlord has not subsequently revised the decision under section 86C.

(2) If the landlord brings proceedings under this section the court must make an order for possession if satisfied that—

(a) the landlord has complied with all of the requirements of sections 86A to 86C,

(b) the tenancy that was the subject of the review section 86A has ended,

(c) the proceedings were commenced before the end of the period of 3 months beginning with the day on which the tenancy ended, and

(d) the only fixed term tenancy still in existence is a new secure tenancy arising by virtue of section 86D.

(3) But the court may refuse to grant an order for possession under this section if the court considers that a decision of the landlord under section 86A or 86C was wrong in law.

(4) Where a court makes an order for possession of a dwelling-house under this section, any fixed term tenancy arising by virtue of section 86D on the coming to an end of the tenancy that was the subject of the review under section 86A comes to an end (without further notice) in accordance with section 82(2).

(5) This section does not limit any right of the landlord under a secure tenancy to recover possession of the dwelling-house let on the tenancy in accordance with other provisions of this Part.

Termination of English secure tenancies by tenant

86F Termination of English secure tenancies by tenant

‘(1) It is a term of every secure tenancy of a dwelling-house in England, other than an old-style secure tenancy, that the tenant may terminate the tenancy in accordance with the following provisions of this section.

(2) The tenant must serve a notice in writing on the landlord stating that the tenancy will be terminated on the date specified in the notice.

(3) That date must be after the end of the period of four weeks beginning with the date on which the notice is served.

(4) The landlord may agree with the tenant to dispense with the requirement in subsection (2) or (3).

(5) The tenancy is terminated on the date specified in the notice or (as the case may be) determined in accordance with arrangements made under subsection (4) only if on that date—

(a) no arrears of rent are payable under the tenancy, and

(b) the tenant is not otherwise materially in breach of a term of the tenancy.”

12 (1) Section 97 (tenant’s improvements require consent) is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (1), after “secure tenancy” insert “to which this section applies”.

(3) After subsection (1) insert—

“(1A) This section applies to—

(a) a secure tenancy of a dwelling-house in Wales, or

(b) an old-style secure tenancy of a dwelling-house in England.”

(4) Omit subsection (5).

13 (1) Section 99A (right to compensation for improvements) is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (1)(c), after “secure tenancy” insert “to which this section applies”.

(3) After subsection (1) insert—

“(1A) This section applies to—

(a) a secure tenancy of a dwelling-house in Wales, or

(b) an old-style secure tenancy of a dwelling-house in England.”

(4) Omit subsection (9).

14 Omit sections 107A to 107E (flexible tenancies).

15 After section 115A insert—

“115B Meaning of “flexible tenancy”

(1) For the purposes of this Act, a flexible tenancy is a secure tenancy to which any of the following subsections applies.

(2) This subsection applies to a secure tenancy if—This subsection applies to a secure tenancy if—

(a) it was granted by a landlord in England for a fixed term of not less than two years,

(b) it was granted before the day on which paragraph 4 of Schedule (Secure tenancies etc: phasing out of tenancies for life) to the Housing and Planning Act 2015 came fully into force, and

(c) before it was granted the person who became the landlord under the tenancy served a written notice on the person who became the tenant under the tenancy stating that the tenancy would be a flexible tenancy.

(d) it became a secure tenancy by virtue of a notice under paragraph 4ZA(2) of Schedule 1 (family intervention tenancies becoming secure tenancies),

(e) the notice was given before the day on which paragraph 4 of Schedule (Secure tenancies etc: phasing out of tenancies for life) to the Housing and Planning Act 2015 came fully into force,

(f) the landlord under the family intervention tenancy in question was a local housing authority in England,

(g) the family intervention tenancy was granted to a person on the coming to an end of a flexible tenancy under which the person was a tenant,

(h) the notice states that the tenancy is to become a secure tenancy that is a flexible tenancy for a fixed term of the length specified in the notice, and sets out the other express terms of the tenancy, and

(i) the length of the term specified in the notice is at least two years.

(3) The length of the term of a flexible tenancy that becomes such a tenancy by virtue of subsection (3) is that specified in the notice under paragraph 4ZA(2) of Schedule 1.

(4) The other express terms of the flexible tenancy are those set out in the notice, so far as those terms are compatible with the statutory provisions relating to flexible tenancies; and in this subsection “statutory provision” means any provision made by or under an Act.

(5) This subsection applies to a secure tenancy if—

(a) it is created by virtue of section 137A of the Housing Act 1996 (introductory tenancies becoming flexible tenancies), or

(b) it arises by virtue of section 143MA or 143MB of that Act (demoted tenancies becoming flexible tenancies).”

115C Meaning of “old-style secure tenancy” in England

‘(none) In this Part “old-style secure tenancy” means a secure tenancy of a dwelling-house in England that—

(a) is a secure tenancy, other than a flexible tenancy, granted before the day on which paragraph 4 of Schedule (Secure tenancies etc: phasing out of tenancies for life) to the Housing and Planning Act 2015 came fully into force,

(b) is a secure tenancy granted on or after that date that contains an express term stating that it is an old-style secure tenancy, or

(c) is a tenancy that arose by virtue of section 86 on the coming to an end of a secure tenancy within paragraph (a) or (b).”

16 (1) Section 117 (index of defined expressions) is amended as follows.

(2) In the entry relating to flexible tenancies, for “section 107A” substitute “section 115B”.

(3) At the appropriate place insert—

“old-style secure tenancysection 115C”

17 (1) Schedule 1 (tenancies which are not secure tenancies) is amended as follows.

(2) After paragraph 1 insert—

“Certain English tenancies that were not secure tenancies when originally granted

1ZA A tenancy of a dwelling-house in England cannot become a secure tenancy if—

(a) it was granted on or after the day on which paragraph 4 of Schedule (Secure tenancies etc: phasing out of tenancies for life) to the Housing and Planning Act 2015 came fully into force,

(b) it was not a secure tenancy or an introductory tenancy at the time it was granted, and

(c) it is a periodic tenancy or a tenancy for a fixed term of less than 2 years or more than 5 years.”

(3) In paragraph 4ZA, after sub-paragraph (2) insert—

“(2A) A notice under sub-paragraph (2) that relates to a tenancy of a dwelling-house in England must—

(a) state that the tenancy is to become a secure tenancy for a fixed term of a length specified in the notice, and

(b) set out the other express terms of the tenancy.

(2B) The length of the term specified in a notice in accordance with sub-paragraph (2A) must not be less than 2 or more than 5 years.

(2C) Where a notice is given in accordance with sub-paragraph (2A) the length of the secure tenancy, and the other terms, are those set out in the notice.

(2D) Sub-paragraphs (2A) to (2C) do not apply to notices given before the day on which paragraph 4 of Schedule (Secure tenancies etc: phasing out of tenancies for life) to the Housing and Planning Act 2015 comes fully into force.”

Housing Act 1996 (c. 52)

18 The Housing Act 1996 is amended as follows.

19 (1) Section 124 (introductory tenancies) is amended as follows.

(2) After subsection (1) insert—

“(1A) When such an election is in force, every fixed term tenancy of a dwelling-house in England entered into or adopted by the authority or trust shall, if it would otherwise be a secure tenancy, be an introductory tenancy, unless section 124A(4) applies or immediately before the tenancy was entered into or adopted the tenant or, in the case of joint tenants, one or more of them was—

(a) a secure tenant of the same or another dwelling-house, or

(b) a tenant under a relevant assured tenancy, other than an assured shorthold tenancy, of the same or another dwelling-house.”

(3) In subsection (2), in the words before paragraph (a), after “dwelling-house” insert “in Wales”.

(4) In subsection (2A), for “subsection (2)(b)” substitute “subsections (1A)(b) and (2)(b)”.

(5) In subsection (3), for “subsection (2)” substitute “subsections (1A) and (2)”.

(6) After subsection (5) insert—

“(6) In relation to a tenancy entered into or adopted by a local housing authority or a housing action trust before the day on which paragraph 4 of Schedule (Secure tenancies etc: phasing out of tenancies for life) to the Housing and Planning Act 2015 comes fully into force, this section has effect—

(a) as if subsection (1A) were omitted, and

(b) as if, in subsection (2), the words “in Wales” were omitted.

20 After section 124 insert—

“124A New introductory tenancies in England: overall length

(1) A local housing authority or a housing action trust may enter into an introductory tenancy of a dwelling-house in England only if it is a tenancy for a fixed term that is—

(a) at least 2 years, and

(b) no more than 5 years.

(2) If a local housing authority or a housing action trust purports to enter into an introductory tenancy in breach of subsection (1), it takes effect as a tenancy for a fixed term of 5 years.

(3) Subsections (1) and (2) apply only to tenancies entered into on or after the day on which paragraph 4 of Schedule (Secure tenancies etc: phasing out of tenancies for life) to the Housing and Planning Act 2015 comes fully into force.

(4) A tenancy of a dwelling-house in England that is adopted by a local housing authority or a housing action trust does not become an introductory tenancy if—

(a) it is adopted on or after the day on which paragraph 4 of Schedule (Secure tenancies etc: phasing out of tenancies for life) to the Housing and Planning Act 2015 came fully into force, and

(b) the tenancy is a periodic tenancy or it is a tenancy for a fixed term of less than 2 years or more than 5 years.

(5) Subsections (6) and (7) apply where a tenancy that has been adopted by a local housing authority or a housing action trust is not an introductory tenancy but would (on adoption or at any later time) become a secure tenancy but for subsection (4).

(6) The local housing authority or housing action trust must, within the period of 28 days, make the tenant a written offer of an introductory tenancy in return for the tenant surrendering the original tenancy.

(7) If the tenant accepts in writing within the period of 28 days beginning with the day on which the tenant receives the offer, the local housing authority or housing action trust must grant an introductory tenancy on the tenant surrendering the original tenancy.

124B Review of decisions about length of introductory tenancies in England

‘(1) A person who is offered an introductory tenancy of a dwelling-house in England may request a review under this section.

(2) The sole purpose of a review under this section is to consider whether the length of the tenancy is in accordance with any policy that the prospective landlord has about the length of introductory tenancies it grants.

(3) The request must be made before the end of—

(a) the period of 21 days beginning with the day on which the person making the request first receives the offer, or

(b) such longer period as the prospective landlord may allow in writing.

(4) On receiving the request the prospective landlord must carry out the review.

(5) On completing the review the prospective landlord must —

(a) notify the tenant in writing of the outcome,

(b) revise its offer or confirm its original decision about the length of the tenancy, and

(c) if it decides to confirm its original decision, give reasons.

(6) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about the procedure to be followed in connection with a review under this section.

(7) The regulations may, in particular—

(a) require the review to be carried out by a person of appropriate seniority who was not involved in the original decision;

(b) make provision as to the circumstances in which the person who requested the review is entitled to an oral hearing, and whether and by whom that person may be represented.”

21 (1) Section 125A (extension of trial period by 6 months) is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (1), for “both” substitute “each”.

(3) After subsection (3) insert—

“(3A) The third condition must be met only if the introductory tenancy —

(a) is one to which section 124A(1) or (2) applies, or

(b) is adopted by a local housing authority or housing action trust on or after the day on which paragraph 4 of Schedule (Secure tenancies etc: phasing out of tenancies for life) came fully into force.

(3B) The third condition is that the new expiry date would be before the period mentioned in section 86A(3) of the Housing Act 1985 (review to determine what to do at end of fixed term secure tenancy); and for this purpose “the new expiry date” means the last day of the 6 month extension period mentioned in subsection (1).”

22 In section 128 (notice of proceedings for possession), in subsection (4), for the second sentence substitute—

(a) in a case where the introductory tenancy is a periodic tenancy, must not be earlier than the date on which the tenancy could, apart from this Chapter, be brought to an end by notice to quit given by the landlord on the same date as the proceedings, and

(b) in a case where the introductory tenancy is a fixed term tenancy, must not be earlier than the end of the period of 6 weeks beginning with the date on which the notice of proceedings is served.”

23 In section 137A (introductory tenancies that are to become flexible tenancies), in subsection (2), for “, before entering into or adopting the introductory tenancy” substitute “the introductory tenancy was entered into or adopted before the day on which paragraph 4 of Schedule (Secure tenancies etc: phasing out of tenancies for life) to the Housing and Planning Act 2015 came fully into force and, before entering into or adopting it,”.

24 In section 143A (demoted tenancies), in subsection (1), omit “periodic”.

25 In section 143E (notice of proceedings for possession), for subsection (3) substitute—

(a) in a case where the demoted tenancy is a periodic tenancy, must not be earlier than the date on which the tenancy could, apart from this Chapter, be brought to an end by notice to quit given by the landlord on the same date as the proceedings, and

(b) in a case where the demoted tenancy is a fixed term tenancy, must not be earlier than the end of the period of 6 weeks beginning with the date on which the notice of proceedings is served.”

26 (1) Section 143MA (demoted tenancies that are to become flexible tenancies) is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (1), for “section 107A of the Housing Act 1985” substitute “section 115B of the Housing Act 1985 (certain tenancies granted etc before the day on which paragraph 4 of Schedule (Secure tenancies etc: phasing out of tenancies for life) to the Housing and Planning Act 2015 came fully into force)”.

(3) After subsection (3) insert—

“(3A) If the notice is given on or after the day on which paragraph 4 of Schedule (Secure tenancies etc: phasing out of tenancies for life) to the Housing and Planning Act 2015 comes fully into force, the period specified under subsection (3)(b) must be no more than five years.”

27 After section 143MA insert—

“143MB Default flexible tenancies when no notice given under section 143MA

(1) This section applies where—

(a) a landlord has the power to serve a notice under section 143MA on the tenant under a demoted tenancy but fails to do so, and

(b) the tenancy comes to an end on or after the day on which paragraph 4 of Schedule (Secure tenancies etc: phasing out of tenancies for life) to the Housing and Planning Act 2015 comes fully into force.

(2) On ceasing to be a demoted tenancy, the tenancy becomes a secure tenancy for a fixed term of 5 years that is a flexible tenancy.

(3) The terms of the new tenancy are the same as those of the tenancy that it replaces, so far as those terms are compatible with—

(a) a tenancy for a fixed term of 5 years, and

(b) the statutory provisions relating to flexible tenancies (within the meaning given by section 143MA(5).”

Land Registration Act 2002 (c. 9)

28 In section 132 of the Land Registration Act 2002 (interpretation), in the definition of “flexible tenancy” in subsection (1), for “107A” substitute “115B”.

Localism Act 2011 (c. 20)

29 The Localism Act 2011 (flexible tenancies: other amendments) is amended as follows.

30 In section 155, omit subsections (3) and (4).

31 In section 159 (further provisions about transfer of tenancy under section 158), in subsection (6)(b), for “107A” substitute “115B”.

Savings for flexible tenancies with only 9 months left to run

32 (1) Despite the repeal of sections 107D and 107E of the Housing Act 1985 (flexible tenancies: recovery of possession) by paragraph 14 above, those sections continue to apply in relation to a flexible tenancy the term of which ends within the period of 9 months beginning with the day on which paragraph 4 of this Schedule comes fully into force.

(2) The amendments made by paragraphs 8 and 9 (which replace references to proceedings for possession under section 107D of the Housing Act 1985) do not apply in relation to such a tenancy.”—(Mr Marcus Jones.)

See Member’s explanatory statement for NC32.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Schedule 5

“Succession to secure tenancies and related tenancies

Housing Act 1985 (c. 68)

1 The Housing Act 1985 is amended as follows.

2 In section 86 (periodic tenancy arising on termination of fixed term), after subsection (1B) (inserted by Schedule (Secure tenancies etc: phasing out of tenancies for life) insert—

“(1C) This section does not apply to a secure tenancy of a dwelling-house in England if—

(a) the original secure tenant has died,

(b) the tenancy has been vested in, or otherwise disposed of to, the current tenant in the course of the administration of the original tenant’s estate, and

(c) the current tenant qualified to succeed the original tenant under section 86G(2) or (4).”

3 (1) Section 86A (persons qualified to succeed: England) as inserted by the Localism Act 2011—

(a) is renumbered section 86G (so that it follows on from section 86F as inserted by Schedule (Secure tenancies etc: phasing out of tenancies for life) without making the numbering more complex than it has to be), and

(b) is amended as follows.

(2) After subsection (7) insert—

“(8) This section applies to a tenancy that was granted before 1 April 2012, or that arose by virtue of section 86 on the coming to the end of a secure tenancy granted before 1 April 2012, as it applies to a secure tenancy granted on or after that day.”

4 In section 88 (cases where the tenant is a successor), in subsection (1), after paragraph (b) insert—

“(ba) the tenancy arose by virtue of section 89(2A) (fixed term tenancy arising in certain cases following succession to periodic tenancy), or”.

5 (1) Section 89 (succession to period tenancy) is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (1A), for “section 86A” substitute “section 86G”.

(3) After subsection (2) insert—

“(2A) Where the tenancy vests in a person qualified to succeed the tenant under section 86G(2) or (4) and continues to be a secure tenancy—

(a) the periodic tenancy comes to an end immediately after vesting, and

(b) a new tenancy of the same dwelling-house arises by virtue of this subsection for a fixed term of 5 years.

(2B) The parties and terms of a tenancy arising by virtue of subsection (2A) are the same as those of the tenancy that it replaces, except that the terms—

(a) are confined to those which are compatible with a tenancy for a fixed term of 5 years, and

(b) do not include any provision for re-entry or forfeiture.”

6 In section 117 (index of defined expressions), in the entry relating to persons qualified to succeed , for “section 87” substitute “sections 86G and 87”.

Housing Act 1996 (c. 52)

7 Before section 131 (but after the italic heading) insert—

“130A Persons qualified to succeed to introductory tenancy: England

(1) A person is qualified to succeed the tenant under an introductory tenancy of a dwelling-house in England if—

(a) the person occupies the dwelling-house as his or her only or principal home at the time of the tenant’s death, and

(b) the person is the tenant’s spouse or civil partner.

(2) A person is qualified to succeed the tenant under an introductory tenancy of a dwelling-house in England if—

(a) at the time of the tenant’s death the dwelling-house is not occupied by a spouse or civil partner of the tenant as his or her only or principal home,

(b) an express term of the tenancy makes provision for a person other than such a spouse or civil partner of the tenant to succeed to the tenancy, and

(c) the person’s succession is in accordance with that term.

(3) Subsection (1) or (2) does not apply if the tenant was a successor as defined in section 132.

(4) In such a case, a person is qualified to succeed the tenant if—

(a) an express term of the tenancy makes provision for a person to succeed a successor to the tenancy, and

(b) the person’s succession is in accordance with that term.

(5) For the purposes of this section a person who was living with the tenant as the tenant’s wife or husband is to be treated as the tenant’s spouse.

(6) Subsection (7) applies if, on the death of the tenant, there is by virtue of subsection (5) more than one person who fulfils the condition in subsection (1)(b).

(7) Such one of those persons as may be agreed between them or as may, where there is no such agreement, be selected by the landlord is for the purpose of this section to be treated as the fulfilling that condition.”

8 (1) Section 131 (persons qualified to succeed tenant) is amended as follows.

(2) At the end of the heading for “tenant” substitute “to introductory tenancy: Wales”.

(3) After “introductory tenancy” insert “of a dwelling-house in Wales”.

9 (1) Section 133 (succession to introductory tenancy) is amended as follows.

(2) After subsection (1) insert—

“(1A) Where there is a person qualified to succeed the tenant under section 130A, the tenancy vests by virtue of this section—

(a) in that person, or

(b) if there is more than one such person, in such one of them as may be agreed between them or as may, where there is no agreement, be selected by the landlord.”

(3) In subsection (2), after ““tenant” insert “under section 131”.

10 Before section 143H (but after the italic heading) insert—

“143GA  Persons qualified to succeed to demoted tenancy: England

(1) A person is qualified to succeed the tenant under a demoted tenancy of a dwelling-house in England if—

(a) the person occupies the dwelling-house as his or her only or principal home at the time of the tenant’s death, and

(b) the person is the tenant’s spouse or civil partner.

(2) A person is qualified to succeed the tenant under a demoted tenancy of a dwelling-house in England if—

(a) at the time of the tenant’s death the dwelling-house is not occupied by a spouse or civil partner of the tenant as his or her only or principal home,

(b) an express term of the tenancy makes provision for a person other than such a spouse or civil partner of the tenant to succeed to the tenancy, and

(c) the person’s succession is in accordance with that term.

(3) Subsection (1) or (2) does not apply if the tenant was a successor as defined in section 132.

(4) In such a case, a person is qualified to succeed the tenant if—

(a) an express term of the tenancy makes provision for a person to succeed a successor to the tenancy, and

(b) the person’s succession is in accordance with that term.

(5) For the purposes of this section a person who was living with the tenant as the tenant’s wife or husband is to be treated as the tenant’s spouse.

(6) Subsection (7) applies if, on the death of the tenant, there is by virtue of subsection (5) more than one person who fulfils the condition in subsection (1)(b).

(7) Such one of those persons as may be agreed between them or as may, where there is no such agreement, be selected by the landlord is for the purpose of this section to be treated as fulfilling that condition.

(8) This section applies to a tenancy that became a demoted tenancy before or after Schedule (Succession to secure tenancies and related tenancies) of the Housing Act 2015 comes into force.

143GB  Succession to demoted tenancy: England

‘(1) This section applies if the tenant under a demoted tenancy of a dwelling-house in England dies.

(2) Where there is a person qualified to succeed the tenant under section 143GA, the tenancy vests by virtue of this section—

(a) in that person, or

(b) if there is more than one such person, in such one of them as may be agreed between them or as may, where there is no agreement, be selected by the landlord.

(3) Where a periodic demoted tenancy vests in a person qualified to succeed the tenant under section 143GA(2) or (4) and continues to be a demoted tenancy—

(a) the tenancy comes to an end immediately after vesting, and

(b) a new tenancy of the same dwelling-house arises by virtue of this subsection for a fixed term of 5 years.

(4) The parties and terms of a tenancy arising by virtue of subsection (3) are the same as those of the tenancy that it replaces, except that the terms—

(a) are confined to those which are compatible with a tenancy for a fixed term of 5 years[, and

(b) do not include any provision for re-entry or forfeiture.]

(5) Where a demoted tenancy comes to an end and a new tenancy arises by virtue of subsection (3), as from that time the demotion order is to be treated for all purposes as it had been made in relation to the new tenancy (and the demotion period remains the same).”

11 (1) Section 143H (succession to demoted tenancy) is amended as follows.

(2) At the heading insert “: Wales”.

(3) In subsection (1), after “tenancy” insert “of a dwelling-house in Wales”.

12 In section 143I (no successor tenant: termination), after “section” insert “143GA or”.

13 (1) Section 143J of the Housing Act 1996 (demoted tenancies: successor tenants) is amended as follows.

(2) After subsection (3) insert—

“(3A) The tenancy arose by virtue of section 89(2A) of the Housing Act 1985.”

(3) For subsection (7) substitute—

“(7) A person is the successor to a demoted tenancy if—

(a) the tenancy vests in the person by virtue of section 143GB(2) or 143H(4) or (5), or

(b) the tenancy arose by virtue of section 143GB(3).”

Localism Act 2011 (c. 20)

14 In section 160 of the Localism Act 2011 (succession to secure tenancies), omit subsection (6).

Savings

15 The amendments made by this Schedule do not apply in relation to cases where the tenant under a secure tenancy dies before it comes into force.

16 The amendments made by paragraphs 7 and 8 do not apply in relation to an introductory tenancy granted before the day on which this Schedule comes into force.

17 The amendments made by paragraphs 10 to 13 do not apply in relation to cases where the tenant under a demoted tenancy dies before this Schedule comes into force.”—(Mr Marcus Jones.)

See Member’s explanatory statement for NC33.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

The final question I must put to the Committee, after what has been a long and exciting deliberation of the Bill, is that I do report the Bill, as amended, to the House.

On a point of order, Mr Gray. If you will indulge me for a few moments, I want to thank Members of all parties for a constructive debate over the past few weeks. This has been a good opportunity, as we head into Christmas, to get to know each other that little bit better, which in almost all cases has been a good thing. Some of us may have moved our views from time to time in order to make the passage of the Bill work. I genuinely appreciate that hon. Members have made some very powerful speeches, and we have seen strong contributions from both sides of the Committee by Members working to ensure that we end up with a Bill of which we can all hopefully be very proud and that delivers more housing across this country. I thank all Members, both Opposition Members and my hon. Friends, for their part in that.

I thank both Whips for helping us all to take the Bill through Committee in a timely manner, and I particularly thank my brilliant Government Whip. I also thank my colleague, the Under-Secretary of State, who has been a fantastic Minister to work with throughout the passage of the Bill. It would be inappropriate not to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Burton for keeping us inspired from time to time, and other Members have, too. I thank all hon. Members for their contributions and for the manner in which this debate has been held. I thank the Opposition Front-Bench Members for a constructive and useful debate.

I also want to thank the Clerks, Glenn McKee and the team, for the way in which they have worked with us to make sure that we have had everything we need. Mr Chairman, I thank you and your colleague, Sir Alan, for your work in getting through these sessions, not only on the days we finished early but on the days we finished late, to make sure that we were able to get the Bill through in a good, strong manner. I thank the Chair and the team of Clerks.

I thank the Doorkeepers, who have managed to keep us safe and secure when we vote and more generally, for their perseverance over the past few weeks. I also thank the team from Hansard, who have had the unenviable job of ensuring that all our words look as eloquent as possible on the page when it is published a short while after we finish. I am sure that is less of a challenge in some cases than in others, but I thank them for that.

Penultimately, I thank all my officials and our Department’s team who have worked so closely on the policy and the Bill. I thank the preparation team, the lawyers and parliamentary counsel, my private office and the Under-Secretary of State’s private office. They have all persevered and worked for many months to get the Bill to this stage. I thank everybody who has in any way played a part, large or small, in getting us here—finishing early on our final day.

Finally, I thank everybody who gave evidence, both written and oral, and who took the time to put forward their views and to contribute to the Bill. I am sure we will see each other on Monday for oral questions, which we will all be looking forward to, and excited about, over the weekend. With that in mind, I wish everybody a very happy Christmas and a very exciting 2016. I look forward to taking this debate further on Report.

Further to that point of order, Mr Gray. I wonder whether the Minister is inviting me to speak for another 12 minutes so that we do not finish early. I, too, want to start by thanking you, Mr Gray, and Sir Alan Meale for chairing this Committee fairly and graciously, which is much appreciated. I also thank the Clerks for their excellent service in getting amendments in the right order and in the right place so that we could debate them.

I marvel that the Doorkeepers sit here through hours and hours of deliberation with such good humour to keep us safe and secure, but mostly they prevent us from dying of dehydration, which is much appreciated. I thank Hansard for turning around a great deal of material in such a short space of time. I thank the many organisations that have sent detailed evidence into the Committee or that have turned up to give oral evidence. I assure them that, at least on the Opposition side of the Committee, we have read all their evidence and taken it on board in our comments. It is excellent that they take such time to engage with our democracy in that way.

I thank my fellow shadow Minister for her input into the Bill, and I thank our Whip for always maintaining good humour whatever the circumstances. I thank members of the Committee, on both sides, who gave excellent speeches, with much passion at times. I highlight the interventions by Opposition Members, particularly by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West, who challenged Government Members on everything from the nature of their lunch and their lunch arrangements to how to improve their chances of being elected in future. As always in such Committees, Members emerged who keep us entertained, and this time it was the hon. Member for South Norfolk for the Conservative party and my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West on the Opposition side. We should commend them for keeping us amused at key points in our debate.

We know that some of the Bills we debate in Committee have a great deal of consensus, but that is not always the case. We have strong differences on this Bill, but I think we have managed to proceed with a great deal of civility on both sides of the Committee at all times, despite—I say this gently, having been in this place for nearly 11 years—now knowing what it is like to experience a hyperactive Whip. I am not sure that I want to experience it ever again, so I hope the hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon has a really, really chilled Christmas and comes back with a degree of levity to our proceedings in the main Chamber on Report.

I, too, thank the Ministers for their helpful responses at times and for disagreeing with us so civilly. I wish everyone a merry Christmas and a happy new year.

I am most grateful to both hon. Members for their kind remarks. On behalf of Sir Alan Meale, I add our warm thanks to the Clerks. It may appear that we know the finer points of procedure, but we do not; we merely read out what they tell us. We are extremely grateful to you for all your hard work. I thank the Committee for being extremely courteous and largely in order. These proceedings have been very worth while.

Bill, as amended, to be reported.

16:52

Committee rose.

Written evidence reported to the House

HPB 113 East London Housing Partnership

HPB 114 Camden Association of Street Properties

HPB 115 Longlife Housing Co-operative Limited

HPB 116 The City of London Law Society

HPB 117 Legal Services, Birmingham City Council

HPB 118 London Borough of Camden Council

HPB 119 Lewes Price, Ex Health and Safety consultant on fire prevention

HPB 120 Leila Allen

HPB 121 London Borough of Barnet Council

HPB 122 Northern Housing Consortium

HPB 123 Rescue (The British Archaeological Trust)

HPB 124 Architects for Social Housing (ASH)

HPB 125 Peabody

HPB 126 Quakers in Britain

HPB 127 South Norfolk Council

HPB 128 Jack Straw, Chair of the Surrey Planning Working Group

HPB 129 Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA)

HPB 130 The City of London Law Society - further submission

HPB 131 Sandra Wheen (this individual wishes to remain anonymous)

HPB 132 Councillors Duffin and Hannaford, Cabinet Members of Cornwall Council

HPB 133 Councillor Gary Suttle, Leader of Purbeck District Council

HPB 134 Herbert Smith Freehills LLP

HPB 135 Greater Manchester Combined Authority

HPB 136 DCLG - application of Standing Order 83L to the Housing and Planning Act as amended

HPB 137 Durham County Council

HPB 138 igloo Regeneration

HPB 139 Cllr Armorel J Carlyon, Truro City Council

HPB 140 Levitt Bernstein

HPB 141 Unit Eleven Housing Co-operative

HPB 142 Fowzia Hoosain

HPB 143 Tristan Mackie, Gweek Parish Councillor, and Steering Group Member for Cornwall for Change

HPB 144 Councillor Saima Ashraf, Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Housing, Barking and Dagenham Council

HPB 145 Places for People

HPB 146 The Theatres Trust

HPB 147 Core Cities

HPB 148 Generation Rent

HPB 149 The Intergenerational Foundation

HPB 150 North East Chamber of Commerce

HPB 151 London Borough of Islington Council

HPB 152 Southwark Group of Tenants Organisations

HPB 153 Federation of Small Businesses

HPB 154 Councillor Philip Glanville, Cabinet Member for Housing, Hackney Council - further submission

Westminster Hall

Thursday 10th December 2015 Westminster Hall

Thursday 10 December 2015

[Mr Andrew Turner in the Chair]

Backbench Business

Thursday 10th December 2015 Westminster Hall

Protection of Ancient Woodland and Trees

Thursday 10th December 2015 Westminster Hall

13:30

[Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered protection of ancient woodland and trees.

I thank not only the Chair and the Minister, but the Back Benchers who have turned up today in support of the debate, which struck an enormous chord when I first started talking to people about it. I also thank the Woodland Trust, which has championed the cause not only of trees, but of ancient woodland and veteran trees for so many years.

Mr Turner, I want to begin by taking us on a magical mystery tour, if you would like to come with me. Imagine that we are walking down a track through a dense coniferous and mixed-species forest. After crunching leaves underfoot for some time, we dive off into the denser part of the forest and suddenly come upon a glade with dappled light filtering through the canopy. There is a carpet of mixed plants beneath our feet. Wild flowers are bursting into bloom and birds are singing. All of a sudden, we see these gargantuan sentries, as if guarding time itself. Huge, enormous oak trees rise out of the carpet. They have a sort of mystery about them, an air of knowingness. They are covered in nooks and crannies. They are filled with creatures such as the vulnerable cardinal click beetle, woodpeckers, brown long-eared bats, wood mice, stag beetles, tawny owls and hornets, and multifarious fungi, moss and lichen, all taking advantage of the antiquated bark. It is reminiscent of Enid Blyton’s “The Magic Faraway Tree”—I do not know whether you have ever read it, Mr Turner.

Those were the first ancient trees that I ever encountered. They were 500 years old and part of the ancient forest of Neroche close to where I live in the Blackdown hills. I was filming them for “Saving the Best Bits”, a film about the special habitats of Somerset, and I have never forgotten the experience. Ancient trees, which form only part of today’s debate, are living relics. The age at which a tree becomes ancient varies with the species as some live longer than others, but the oldest ancient tree, the Fortingall yew in Scotland, is said to be 2,000 to 3,000 years old. Veteran trees are also included in today’s debate. They are not quite as old, but they are on their way to becoming ancient trees. More than 120,000 such trees are listed on the ancient tree inventory.

However, we are talking today about not only specimens, but ancient woodland as a whole. Ancient woodland is our richest terrestrial habitat, but the sad situation is that only 2% of it remains. Something is classed as ancient woodland if it has been on the map since 1600 in England. In Scotland, it is slightly later at 1750. The date is when good maps first came into use, so we were obviously slightly ahead in England. I regard ancient woodland as our equivalent of the rainforest. It represents the last fragments of the wildwood that cloaked the land after the ice age. It is a biodiverse and rich habitat that is home to animals and plants that depend on the stable conditions that ancient woodland provides. It is so rare, however, that it contains many threatened species. The loss of ancient woodlands over the past 100 years has meant that 45 species associated with them have disappeared, which is an absolute tragedy. The woods are not just biodiverse; they are living history books, because they contain fascinating historical features such as medieval boundaries, charcoal hearths and old coppice stools, all of which provide a window into past lives. They are irreplaceable parts of our heritage.

[Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Rebecca Pow]

I will of course give way to my hon. Friend from over the hill.

[Neil Parish]

I very much like the way that my hon. Friend is presenting this debate. We are neighbours and our constituencies share the Blackdown hills. There is ancient woodland there and all across Devon. We need to protect it, and when we need to do something such as dual the A303 or A30, we must find ways of ensuring that we go around ancient woodland rather than through it. We need infrastructure, but we need to maintain our ancient woodland.

[Mr Andrew Turner (in the Chair)]

Order. I have to say that that was a pretty generous intervention, so let us not be quite as generous in future.

[Rebecca Pow]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, because I entirely agree. I will be referring to his point later in respect of the reference to green infrastructure in our manifesto. I know the roads he mentions well and know the debates that have gone on for years about dualling the A30, but it has to fit in with the environment. All things are possible, so we have to get round these things.

To be clear, we are discussing not only the trees themselves, but the soils underneath them, too. The soils have built up over centuries and, just like the woods, cannot be recreated. The soils are equivalent to those in the rainforest and are just as precious. They contain genetic material and biodiversity that could be the key to life-saving treatments or combating pests. We remove them at our peril.

Turning to the detail, there are two types of ancient woodland. The first is ancient semi-natural woods, which are composed predominantly of trees and shrubs native to the site that do not obviously originate from planting and have grown up from the beginning. Often, such woods have been managed through coppicing or pollarding, but they still count as ancient woodland. The second type is plantations on ancient woodland sites, which are where former native tree cover has been felled and replaced by planted trees predominantly of species not native to the site. Such sites can include pine, so coniferous forests can be classed as ancient, or sweet chestnut, forests of which I believe exist in Scotland. The soil under such trees is also significant.

People might ask, “Why worry about these small areas? Woods that are planted today will become ancient woodlands in 400 years’ time,” but it does not work that way. The way we are changing land use due to agriculture and industry means that the woods we plant today will never turn into the equivalent of the ancient forests of yesterday.

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

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Rebecca Pow]

I will give way to my hon. Friend whom I know has many ancient trees and woodland up there in Yorkshire.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I thank my hon. Friend and London neighbour. My constituency has 1,400 ancient trees, but we have also had one of the UK’s first applications for shale gas fracking. Will she join me in pressing for a change to include ancient woodland in the protected areas specified by the new Government regulations?

[Rebecca Pow]

My hon. Friend’s point is pertinent and one that I hope the Minister will take on board. Fracking in such areas would seriously disturb the glorious biodiversity and we should think seriously about protecting them. He makes an important point.

We might assume that something as precious as ancient woodland would already be protected, but that is not the case—although I am delighted that the Government have stated on many occasions their support for and appreciation of the value of ancient woodland and the need to protect it. Sites of special scientific interest offer protection, but they cover only 17% of ancient woodland. Some ancient woodland comes into areas of outstanding natural beauty and national parks, which give extra recognition, but they do not guarantee that the protection cannot be removed for other reasons. The planned High Speed 2 route, for example, threatens many areas of ancient woodland in the Chilterns AONB.

[Scott Mann (North Cornwall) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Rebecca Pow]

I would love to give way to my hon. Friend from Padstow.

[Scott Mann]

I thank my hon. Friend. A balance definitely needs to be struck between protecting our environment and the building necessary to get our economy moving. Does she agree that the balance we have at the moment seems to be skewed? Protections to ancient woodland in the national planning policy framework could do with being bolstered.

[Rebecca Pow]

I thank my shrewd hon. Friend for his intervention, although I think he must have been looking over my shoulder, because I am coming to that point—he has hit the nail absolutely on the head. Unlike many other precious habitats, ancient woodland is not a statutory designation and therefore suffers from a lack of protection.

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

Does my hon. Friend agree that if we are going to build large infrastructure projects it is essential that we observe the national designations given to areas of land that include ancient woodland, such as the AONB in the Chilterns to which she referred? It makes a mockery of any environmental credentials or policy if we do not protect the nationally designated areas while going ahead with the project.

[Rebecca Pow]

My right hon. Friend makes a valid point, which I will address in a moment. She is right; if we cannot stand by the designations, we might ask what the point of having them is. I put that to the Minister.

I thought that the Minister responsible for forestry would reply to the debate, but I am pleased to see the Minister of State with responsibility for farming in his place. The whole of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is especially committed to trees and woodland, but the Forestry Minister admitted in the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs—I was at the inquiry meeting at which he said this—that

“ancient woodland, as a category, is not a protected category”.

I am now coming on to what many of my hon. Friends are referring to—everything is about paragraph 118 of the national planning policy framework, which allows for the destruction or loss of

“ancient woodland and…aged or veteran trees”

if

“the need for, and benefits of, the development in that location clearly outweigh the loss”.

As a result of that loophole, as I would describe it, hundreds of ancient woodlands and trees are being lost or threatened in the planning system every single year. Since the national planning policy framework was introduced in March 2012, more than 40 ancient woods have suffered from loss or damage.

[Marcus Fysh (Yeovil) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the problems in planning assessments is that much reliance is placed on professional reports and assessments of one kind or another that are challengeable, although they seem to persist from development to development with a life of their own? We need decision makers who will actually challenge such things and not allow them to take on a life of their own.

[Rebecca Pow]

My hon. Friend makes a good point, which I will come on to later with reference to the idea of natural capital and how much value we put on the natural world versus development. The Woodland Trust is dealing with an incredible 560 threats to ancient woods; November saw the biggest escalation ever of the number of threats being registered—14 in one month, which is shocking. Threats can come from mineral extraction, installation of electricity or gas pipelines, housing, leisure proposals, roads, golf courses or even sites for war-gaming and paintballing.

Other ancient woodland areas are under threat from local area plans, which are falling through the net and we hardly know anything about. I have one such near me at Ash Priors, where houses were built on ancient woodland because the local plan could not really stand up for it. We do not know exactly how many ancient woods there are, let alone how many are threatened, because we rely on the dear old Woodland Trust to gather such data. I ask the Minister for a proper database to collate all such information, because then we would be on stronger ground.

Interestingly, the motion we are debating has not been far from the thoughts and considerations of others in this place. Only one year ago, in December 2014, the Select Committee on Communities and Local Government called for ancient woodland to be awarded the same level of protection as designated heritage assets in the built environment, which include scheduled monuments, wreck sites, battlefields, and grade I and II listed buildings—my own house is grade II and, small and humble as it is, I cannot knock it down to build a road. Do my hon. Friends agree that the CLG Committee proposal seems eminently sensible?

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on how she is presenting her powerful case. Ancient woodland exists not only in rural constituencies, but in urban areas such as Cheltenham and, as such, can be particularly precious to local communities. Does she agree that there is a powerful case for providing strong and explicit planning protection for ancient woodland, particularly in towns?

[Rebecca Pow]

My hon. Friend makes another excellent point. Some trees have preservation orders on them, but by no means all do. Trees in the urban environment, as I am sure the Minister will say, are important for things such as controlling rainwater and flooding, taking carbon dioxide out of the air and the feelgood factor of seeing a lovely tree as we walk past.

According to the Communities and Local Government Committee, the national planning policy framework ought to be amended. The Select Committee stated that any loss of ancient woodland should be termed as “wholly exceptional”—that is, it cannot be got rid of unless that is absolutely and utterly essential. I will be grateful to hear the Minister’s view of such a change, because ancient woods are national treasures. Scotland has a similar planning framework, but a slightly softer approach to trees and development. I will be pleased to hear about that later from the Scottish Members present.

The CLG Committee also called for an increase in the number of SSSIs covering ancient woodland, because that would surely help. Perhaps the Minister will comment on that proposal as well. In addition, we must not forget that we ought to thank many landowners for managing the SSSIs and to ensure that they have adequate funding to keep the woodland as it should be kept for the nation. The success of such woodland depends on that management. There is also real concern about the march of awful diseases such as chalara, or ash dieback, in ancient woods, which could present us with another threat to them in future.

I do not want to sound too much like a stick-in-the-mud, because I understand that we need a balance. On the one hand, we want to protect the environment and on the other we want a thriving economy, which the Government are pursuing positively and with great effect. However, I remind the Minister of the green infrastructure commitment in our manifesto in which we said that we would try to make our roads and developments more environmentally friendly. We need to start doing that somehow.

My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis) wanted to raise the issue of planning in particular, but she cannot be here. If we have to steamroller through a piece of ancient woodland because it is unavoidable, often the suggestion is to ameliorate the situation by planting trees elsewhere. She says that that is fine, but we need to take real care about how that is done. At Mixbury, HS2 will plough through some woodland, so it has been recommended that new trees are planted. However, guess where that will be? On a patch of ancient pasture! It is ridiculous that more thought was not put into that decision. I call for a much more sensible approach and for caution.

The spin-off of woods’ biodiversity value is their glorious, natural benefits, which we call natural capital. Should we put a value on our woods? We need to start thinking about that. They reward us in spades through making us feel good—by raising our spirits and inspiring us, as well as through their biodiversity. I know that the Government are thinking about that and that the Natural Capital Committee, which will report back shortly, is looking at setting an economic value on nature. That is tricky—no one says that is easy—but should we not apply that concept right now to ancient and veteran tree cover? That is a prime example of where it could be applied.

Natural capital is not an idea that Rebecca Pow has come up with; it is really being talked about. In January the Natural Capital Committee said that ancient trees are “priceless”. That is there in writing and that is the root of my debate.

The all-party group on ancient woodland was formed recently and I am pleased to be its chairman. Since its formation, I have been contacted by so many people who are at their wits’ end and want to know what to do about an area of threatened woodland near them. They are usually really passionate about these places. Whole communities will be campaigning to try to keep them, but they do not have the teeth to do it. These places are threatened by quarrying, roads and other such things, but as my hon. Friends the Members for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) and for North Cornwall (Scott Mann) asked, can we not try to work such thoughts into our development plans so that somehow we can have both?

I will give a few examples of threatened areas. Just last month, a proposal to destroy part of the beautiful and ancient Bluebell wood near Maidstone went through, with permission granted for housing without any recognition of the loss to nature, despite a huge local campaign. I have mentioned HS2 already and I think we might hear more examples about that. In the south-west, a pipeline in Torridge in Devon will go right through the Buck’s Valley wood. Mineral extraction in Dorset is going though Honeycomb and Downshay woods and ancient woodland between junctions 5 and 6 of the M42 near Solihull in the west midlands is threatened by an application for an extension to a service station—the list goes on and on.

I have raised a number of issues that I would like the Minister to consider. In particular, it would be great to get a database going. Will he also look at updating the standing advice for ancient woodland? Developers need to look at that advice to see whether what they are doing tallies up with Natural England’s instructions, but that barely covers matters. It needs to be updated for English planning authorities to include veteran trees and historic wood pasture, because sadly many developers are exploiting the advice.

I cannot stress strongly enough that once this glorious natural wonder is gone, it is gone—we cannot recreate it. Trees, as we all know, cannot speak for themselves—unless they are Ents in “The Lord of the Rings”, which I love—so I am speaking for them. At the rate we are going, soon none of this precious woodland will be left. Only 2% is left, which is so minuscule. How quickly could all that be whittled away?

I urge the Minister to consider my suggestions for ensuring that we do not get rid of all this woodland. We must give it some chance of surviving for hundreds more years. We need to deal with this root and branch. I urge him to give more consideration to the protection of our glorious, awe-inspiring ancient woodlands.

13:56

[John Mc Nally (Falkirk) (SNP)]

I am delighted to support the hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow), who secured this debate on the protection of ancient woodlands and trees. We are all impressed with her passion for the countryside and rural and urban nature. She has raised my awareness of the ancient and veteran trees in my area: I had probably ignored it, but there are 65 ancient trees and 44% of my constituents live within 500 metres of ancient woodlands—I was not aware of that until I met the redoubtable Member.

I am fortunate to represent a constituency that has a great variety of accessible woodlands located close to its population centres. I will give a wee bit of background on my area and do as best I can—the hon. Lady is a difficult act to follow. The picturesque Callendar wood in Falkirk is at least 500 years old. The trees, woods and adjacent parkland were once the gardens and grounds of Callendar house, a family home for centuries. The wood probably evolved from a medieval hunting park, although there is also evidence of working forestry and coalmining. It is a complex, cultural woodland that is rich in archaeology and veteran trees. Through protection, it has become an island of archaeological preservation and biodiversity.

Torwood, also in my constituency, was a large forested area in the 12th century that stretched from the River Carron in the west and north towards Stirling and inland towards the Campsie fells. At that time it was traversed by an old Roman road, which I have walked many times with my dad, my brothers and my sisters over many years. In preparation for the battle of Bannockburn it was used as the encampment for the men of James Douglas, one of the leaders of King Robert the Bruce’s army. In the wood stood an oak tree that, allegedly, Bruce and William Wallace met under—they probably had a cup of tea or something similar—and which gave Wallace shelter. In 1680 the wood is said to have been the site of the excommunication of King Charles II by Donald Cargill.

My constituency is also blessed with the natural beauty of the Carron glen, which has a magnificent stretch of woodland with a beautiful, steep-sided gorge that supports a large tract of ancient deciduous woodland. I spent most of my childhood in the glen, swimming in the Red Brae and the Black Lynn, probably climbing over ancient dykes and generally mucking about. It was a natural place where I could go and enjoy myself and it will never be forgotten. To this day it is a site of special scientific interest that should be preserved at all costs. It supports oak, birch, alder, goat willow and ash, as well as a variety of woodland flora. We now have otters frequenting the area. If someone sits there long enough, they will see deer walking past in the same area. It is an absolutely outstanding, peaceful area of tranquillity.

Not far from that is a tree locally referred to as a Spanish chestnut tree. Its actual species is not known for certain; we are still investigating that. That tree is the symbol of the Denny and Dunipace Heritage Society, of which myself and Charles McAteer—not the Charles mentioned earlier—were founder members. The tree is more than 400 years old and was part of the Herbertshire estate owned by the Forbes family. The castle on the estate was burnt to the ground in 1914—I was not around at that time, before the hon. Member for Taunton Deane says anything. The tree is still standing and is still known locally as the “hanging tree”.

A number of local conservation groups help to protect the ancient trees and woodland in my constituency, such as the Communities Along the Carron Association, which is run by a group of local volunteers who are committed to the regeneration of the River Carron, its communities and its ancient land. It is led by a remarkable woman called Christine Bell. There is also the local Community Green Initiative, which is run by a group of volunteers. One of its aims is to ensure that the woodland areas are kept litter-free and accessible for everyone. That group is extremely active, with all the schools across Falkirk using the local woodlands. This is about looking to the future and the long term.

As a keen cyclist and walker, I have taken full advantage of those natural amenities. I am well aware that woodlands ancient and modern are more than a source of timber, more than a habitat of flora and fauna and more than a pleasant vista. Although they are and should continue to be all those things, they are also a destination for all groups, families and communities to enjoy. The protection of this natural asset is vital. Ancient woodland is our richest habitat for wildlife and is home to more threatened species than any other habitat. It represents the last fragments of the wildwood that once covered all of the UK thousands of years ago.

When I was doing some research this morning, I came across an article by Scottish Natural Heritage on hen harriers, which are a rare bird of prey. There were only 505 pairs left at the time of the last survey, in 2010, and another survey will be done next year. Those birds leave the highlands of Scotland and come down south for the winter. We are still not sure where they go, but if we cut down these trees, they will not go there again; that is a certainty. We need to be mindful of that at all times.

Our ancient woodland has now diminished to a fraction of its former extent. We have lost forever an irreplaceable part of our natural heritage. The nation’s remaining ancient woodlands are increasingly under threat from development. As the hon. Member for Taunton Deane mentioned, the Woodland Trust reports that it has responded to 14 cases of woods under threat in just the last month and is currently dealing with a total of 561 such cases. That is an unacceptable number of threats, and I do not know how the Woodland Trust will cope. There is a genuine increase in threats to ancient woodland, and the UK Government are simply not doing enough about it.

[Scott Mann]

While the national planning policy framework affects England, I understand that Scotland has devolved powers in planning. Will the hon. Gentleman expand a little on how Scotland has dealt with this issue?

[John Mc Nally]

I can give the hon. Gentleman a brief answer, but I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (Calum Kerr) will answer that later. The Scottish Government have developed a policy direction for decisions on woodland removal in Scotland and will apply the policy to decisions within the areas of competence. Unlike England, Scotland has an ancient woodland inventory, to which the hon. Member for Taunton Deane referred. We are making progress. There is a lot more information to read, which I advise hon. Members to do. We can all learn lessons from one another. This is not a political matter; it is about doing the best we can.

Within my constituency, more than 7.5% of the ancient woodland is under threat, while more than 40% of constituents live near woodland. That amounts to only 15.6% of woodland, old and new, which is quite scary. However, the quantity of ancient woodland under threat is not the only issue; the irreplaceable nature of that woodland is the significant point. The hon. Member for Taunton Deane mentioned a Fortingall tree earlier of between 3,000 and 3,500 years old, which I have visited many times. It is believed that Pontius Pilate was born underneath it—never let the facts get in the way of the truth. In Scotland, we define ancient woodland as having existed since around 1750 AD, so what takes minutes to cut down takes centuries to grow. The loss is immeasurable; imagine cutting down the Fortingall tree.

Existing protection for ancient woodland is insufficient. The UK Government have stated on many occasions their support for and appreciation of the value of ancient woodland and the need to protect it. In Scotland, as I mentioned, we are making significant efforts to change that and address these problems, although we are not without our problems. Unlike many precious habitats, however, ancient woodland is not a statutory designation in law and therefore suffers from a lack of protection.

The Minister responsible for forestry, the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart), for whom I have a lot of time—he is an excellent guy who knows his brief exceedingly well—recently admitted:

“ancient woodland, as a category, is not a protected category”.

That is quite a statement.

Paragraph 118 of the national planning policy framework allows for the destruction or loss of ancient woodland and aged or veteran trees if

“the need for, and benefits of, the development in that location clearly outweigh the loss”.

That is a total contradiction, because we can never get that woodland back. As a result of that loophole, hundreds of ancient woods and trees are lost or threatened in the planning system every year. Since the NPPF was introduced in March 2012, more than 40 ancient woods across the UK have suffered loss or damage from development. Hundreds more ancient woods are at risk within areas of land allocated for development through site allocations as part of local plans. As admitted by the Forestry Minister under the previous Administration, the Government do not collect data relating to the loss of trees and woods, so a complete picture of the scale of losses in any given year is currently impossible—I totally agree with the hon. Member for Taunton Deane on that.

In December last year, the Select Committee on Communities and Local Government called for ancient woodland to be awarded the same level of protection as designated heritage assets—that includes the house owned by the hon. Member for Taunton Deane. The Committee also called for work to be undertaken to increase the number of ancient woods with statutory designations, to further increase protection. However, in response to the Committee’s report, the Government ruled out changing the wording, arguing that

“existing protection for ancient woodland in the Framework is strong and it is very clear that development of these areas should be avoided.”

Again, that seems a wee bit contradictory. I urge the Government to follow the Communities and Local Government Committee’s recommendations.

In addition to the previously mentioned comments, the Forestry Minister went on to say that

“an enormous amount of our ancient woodland is already protected within our national parks and within AONBs. A lot of it is covered by natural sites under European legislation and a lot of it is protected under SSSI legislation.”

In a response to a parliamentary question on 23 November, corrected on 24 November, the Forestry Minister set out how much ancient woodland is in fact located within designated areas:

“Natural England estimates that 15% of ancient woodland is located within national parks and 30% is located within areas of outstanding natural beauty (AONBs). In national parks, 29% of this woodland has site of special scientific interest (SSSI) status; in AONBs, 13% of this woodland has SSSI status.”

Unfortunately, while some ancient woodland is indeed located within a national park or area of outstanding natural beauty, that is simply not good enough protection to ensure ancient woodland is not impacted by or lost to development. I absolutely agree with the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), who mentioned the issue of fracking in such areas.

The HS2 route, as has been mentioned, is a notable example of woodland located within designated areas being threatened by development. Although I do not know it, the Chilterns is an area of outstanding natural beauty, well known throughout the world. Another example provided by the Woodland Trust is a hydroelectric scheme currently being proposed in north Wales at Fairy Glen near Betws-y-Coed—are there any Welsh Members here?

[Richard Arkless (Dumfries and Galloway) (SNP)]

You got away with it.

[John Mc Nally]

Thanks. No one can contradict me.

The scheme threatens to damage the ancient woodland located in the Snowdonia national park. The Cairngorms national park local development plan expressly backs potential development sites that could cause damage to ancient woodland, including at An Camas Mòr, Carrbridge and Nethy Bridge. Indeed, in 2014 the installation of a micro-hydroelectric turbine in the Cairngorms was approved, which could also damage ancient woodland.

I could go on and list more examples of ancient woodlands in designated areas that have been removed or are threatened by development. I think everyone in the room shares the concerns of the hon. Member for Taunton Deane about such matters, and I go along with her too. I am happy to support her as best I possibly can. I had more to say, but I think I have spoken for long enough.

14:10

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner, and to follow the hon. Member for Falkirk (John Mc Nally). I looked up his biography, as he is a new Member of the House, and I understand that he was a barber in a former life, so he will probably well know that his predecessors had their instruments forged from charcoal that came from our ancient woodland. In a way, his calling is linked to the woodlands that he has been speaking so eloquently about. I am also so glad that he has learnt about his constituency. I can honestly say that it does not matter how long he is here in the House, he will never stop learning—I learn something new every week about my constituency.

What a pleasure it is to have my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow) be successful in securing the debate. I congratulate her not only on securing it, but on the way in which she introduced the subject. She is, of course, a new Member of the House. She has worked with the National Farmers Union for a while and is a trustee of the Somerset Wildlife Trust. However, she also brought her skills as a journalist to her powerful descriptions, as she walked us through the wonderlands of her childhood. She reminded me of my childhood in Wales, when I used to be taken for holidays to my uncle’s farm near Usk and I would play in the woodlands, which were charmingly called the Dingle. I used to think that I could get lost in those woods, and that nobody could find me—but the Dingle was a pretty small standing of trees, so I reckon that if someone had been really looking for me, they would have been able to find me.

I am grateful for the way in which my hon. Friend introduced the subject, because I seem to have been in touch with the Woodland Trust, which we are all so proud of, for at least 22 of my 23 years in the House. I need to declare an interest in that under her chairmanship, I am a vice-chair of the all-party group on ancient woodland and veteran trees, and I am pleased to be so.

I first came across the Woodland Trust some 22 years ago, when a substantial woodland in my constituency, Penn wood, came under threat. A six-year battle commenced when planning permission was granted for a golf club. Many of the people who lived in and around the area got very hot under the collar about that use of that precious area of woodland, which is so distinctive of the Chilterns and the Chiltern hills. After all, much of our industry and business used to come from the woodlands and the beech woods that surround the area, which is famous for its furniture-making.

Over the six years, the Woodland Trust had to have a national appeal to raise the phenomenal sum of £1.2 million that was needed to secure the whole wood. It was finally successful in doing so in 1999. The funding came from all sorts of sources, but particularly important at the time was the grant made by the Heritage Lottery Fund of £288,000, which was one of the largest. Local residents raised over £200,000 to help the trust finally to purchase the wood. Interestingly enough, five gifts were left in people’s wills. So important were the woods to people in the Chilterns that they were willing to put those specific legacies into their wills to ensure that the woods would be there, in perpetuity, for our children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren.

In securing the whole 436-acre site, we have been able to ensure that the wood is now a powerful part of local recreation and local facilities, which are available not just to people who live around the woods, but to people who come out to the Chilterns for recreation, particularly Londoners. They take the Metropolitan line out to Metro-land, then nip off it and go out into the Chiltern hills and the area of outstanding natural beauty.

The 15th anniversary of Penn wood showed the many things that can be done with woodlands, with some tremendous activities including children’s environmental games, woodland art and fire-lighting. More excitingly, the Woodland Trust was able to show the removal of trees with heavy horses, which is something we have long lost, but which is still being retained in heritage works locally. It is rather wonderful for children to see how woodland was managed long before we had those terrible machines that make a lot of noise and chew logs and wood up into tiny little bits to be used on gardens or pathways.

There are more ongoing plans for the wood, and the investment that the Woodland Trust has made in it has really paid dividends. In fact, I was in the woods recently with the Woodland Trust; we were looking at the first stage of a £200,000 investment in Penn and Common woods in Buckinghamshire which is helping to make the woods more accessible. I looked at some of the new surfaced pathways, the existing surface tracks and the link that had been introduced. That is really exciting, because it is making the woods accessible to people who are disabled and people using wheelchairs. That is a very important move, because it means that the woods are accessible to all.

Once again, the Heritage Lottery Fund, which deserves a great deal of praise in this area, has come up with £68,800. The Veolia Environmental Trust has put a considerable sum of nearly £35,000 towards the improvements that are being made to the wood. With grants from the Forestry Commission, which are really important, it has been possible to continue the programme of improvement, including improving the signage, including in various places an interpretation of the woods for people visiting them. That makes it a tremendous experience for anybody coming out to see Penn wood.

There is a lot more work to be done on Penn wood. I think it is important that work is done on the history of the woods, and I know that the Woodland Trust has plans to look more into the historical usage of the woods. However, that takes me from the large wood that has been saved by raising a large amount of money and which will be an ongoing project, hopefully in perpetuity, to one of the latest little projects on woodland in my constituency. I had the pleasure of visiting it the other day—it is called the Little Chalfont nature park.

The Little Chalfont nature park is a small area of land that lies between some houses and the Little Chalfont library and which has been bought by the community. I had a terrific visit there, with the chair of trustees of the Little Chalfont Charitable Trust, Roger Funk, and three of his compatriots, Gill Roberts, Rob Rolls and Mandy Rooke. Mandy has been a key member of the team that is saving this piece of land for the community and contributing to the design. The area is only small, but it means that a nature park is being created actually in the heart of the village of Little Chalfont. It is being done partly from original, preserved natural grassland, but it also contains a beautiful, small piece of woodland, which is being gradually restored and made accessible to people in Little Chalfont and any visitors who want to come.

The nature park is not open yet, but it will be in 2016. Once it is fully opened, I hope that everybody will be able to enjoy it as much as I enjoyed my visit. We can all help, of course, by going on to the website for the Little Chalfont nature park and making a contribution, because nothing comes free in this day and age. If people can help to support that, we will have, in the heart of a small village in the Chilterns, yet another piece of preserved woodland together with a nature park that had me spellbound when visiting, because it contains such a wide variety of fungi, flowers and features. On the edge are the old clay pits, from which the brickworks excavated the clay to make bricks locally. There is a tiny bit of the cherry orchard that used to belong to the original Snells farm. There are the amazing mounds that were the edges of the wood, which have all been revealed by some heavy-duty work by volunteers, who are also cataloguing exactly what is contained in the heart of the village. I think that it will be a very good addition.

Our woodlands are not just places to visit. I also have in my constituency some 72 acres of woodland that is now the GreenAcres woodland burials site. It is a living, active woodland in which burials are taking place and where people can appreciate the peace, quiet, tranquillity and elements of nature that contribute to the end-of-life experience for their loved ones, which I think makes it a very special place. We must remember that we are talking not about fossilised bits of land or areas that we are protecting just out of stubbornness, but about living woods that right up to this day provide a service to the community.

That is why I feel so passionate about the woodlands that are being affected by HS2. My hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane referred to HS2, and I would not speak in a debate such as this without referring to HS2. It is predictable, but that does not make it any the less important. The Government really need to listen to the issues being raised about the destruction of woodland through the development of infrastructure. None of us here is a philistine. We want infrastructure to be built. We want this country to progress. We want a solid and firm economy. However, that must not be at the price of some of our most fragile and precious landscapes, which is what is happening with HS2.

Having said that, I have some praise, not particularly for the Government but certainly for the HS2 hybrid Bill Committee, because it has granted yet another extension to the Chilterns tunnel. The Minister should know that that extension means that Mantle’s wood, Sibley’s coppice and Farthings wood have all been saved from the bulldozer. Sitting in the middle of Mantle’s wood, I shed a tear when I thought that HS2 was going to devastate and demolish most of that wood, which people have been walking in for centuries. However, the area of outstanding natural beauty that is most of my constituency is still exposed to HS2. Jones’ Hill wood, in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr Lidington), will lose about 0.7 hectares. Although the impact has been reduced by the plans currently on the drawing board, it will still be affected. Other ancient woodlands in the AONB will be indirectly affected by the works or are directly adjacent to the construction boundary and will be damaged. I am referring to Jenkins wood, Havenfield wood, Stockings wood and Oaken corner.

A Government who have been rightly trumpeting their environmental credentials should now step up to the plate and ensure that they go the whole mile and protect the whole of the AONB and those ancient woodlands against HS2. That may cost a little more, but the costs are in doubt and arguable. It is possible from an engineering standpoint and certainly desirable to tunnel the whole of HS2 under the AONB and come out without damaging the AONB, as will be the case with the current plans.

I have some amazing constituents who have been working on the issue of HS2. It is always an unequal battle, because whereas the Government have access to taxpayers’ money and have already spent some £14.5 million on legal fees alone—paying lawyers—on HS2, my constituents, who after all are only fighting to protect their homes, land and businesses and the environment of the Chiltern hills, have to raise every penny voluntarily. There is no Heritage Lottery Fund for them. There are no grants coming from any esteemed bodies. They have to raise every single penny and pay out of their back pockets not only for the luxury of being heard at the petition stage in the hybrid Bill Committee—they all have to pay £20 to put their piece of paper in—but to get the advice that they need.

One of my constituents is a tremendous landscape historian. Alison Doggett has studied a 500-year-old map and revealed that the Misbourne valley, across which HS2 will slash a swathe, has barely changed since medieval times. She described her work in an article called “A Lost Valley?” in the May 2014 edition of the BBC’s Countryfile magazine, which I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane, from her previous life, is familiar with. The ancient map was drawn up in 1620 for Dame Mary Wolley, who owned the Chequers estate, which in those days included the northern part of the Misbourne valley. Nowadays, as everyone knows, Chequers is the Prime Minister’s rural retreat. It is vastly diminished. The current boundaries of the estate do not encompass the original, historical boundaries of the older Chequers estate.

Alison’s comparison of the field boundaries, woodlands, lanes and farmsteads as depicted in 1620 has shown that in many cases very little has changed. Thanks to the good stewardship of the people who have lived in the area and worked the land, and its status as part of a nationally protected landscape—the AONB—since 1965, any visitor today will find the valley very little changed from 1620. Unfortunately, the merits of good stewardship and national protection through the AONB have been ignored by the HS2 project. I therefore ask that the Minister and his Department, which is crucial to the protection of our environment, ask the Department for Transport to step up to the plate, protect that AONB and go for the long tunnel, which will protect the ancient woodlands to which I have referred so that they are still a valuable part of the landscape.

I will give Alison Doggett the last word, because her article concludes:

“Landscapes are granted protected status for characteristics that make them unique. The protection ensures we tread lightly so that we may share the landscapes with future generations, just as past generations shared them with us. We need to ask why protections on historical landscapes are being overturned. Is this trampling of our rural inheritance part of a bigger picture: a calculated indifference to the value of countryside in the name of progress?”

I hope that the answer to that question is no and that the Minister’s Department will go and champion the area of outstanding natural beauty and our ancient woodlands in the Chilterns.

14:29

[Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to appear before a fellow member of the Hampshire caucus, Mr Turner.

“Rapunzel was the most beautiful child in the world. When she was 12 years old, the witch shut her up in a tower in the midst of a wood.”

“When Little Red Riding Hood entered the woods, a wolf came up to her; she did not know what a wicked animal he was and was not afraid of him.”

“At last, the Queen said to the huntsman, ‘Take Snow White out into the woods, so that I might set eyes on her no more. You must put her to death and bring me her heart as a token.’”

Those stories are universal. They evoke in us a sense of mystery and a shiver. It is no coincidence that they are all set in the subject of today’s debate: ancient woods, dark and forbidding. To the brothers Grimm, those old forests set the boundaries of human control. The world has changed, but while the whirlwind of human life has careered on, the same ancient woodlands have stood, silently watching. We feel smaller next to them and humbled by their age—feelings not often associated with our modern times. Untouched by us, ancient woodlands are the perfect antithesis of our technologically advanced, man-made world.

Today, science says that everything is explicable, and it may well be right. We are not entirely built that way, however. Somehow, we are healthier when nature is visible and in our lives. Our ancient woodlands will always hold wonder for us, and they are a reminder that no matter how far our knowledge and understanding progress, there is always the chance of getting lost and not knowing the way. We should do our best to preserve that sense, for it is part of what makes us human.

Many Members have focused, and no doubt others will focus, on the biological and environmental value of woodlands, and they are right to do so. Those environments are complex and unspoiled, and they provide habitats for wildlife and rare species. As my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow) has said, they cannot be recreated if they are destroyed. If I may, however, I will leave that aspect to others and focus on the role that ancient woodlands play in our national psyche and our relationship to our history, and on the effect on our psychology of our ever-growing command of the natural world, even if we only rarely notice it or get the chance to experience it.

As the fairy tales that I quoted illustrate, it cannot be denied that those ancient woodlands stir something deep within us—something that we would be foolish to lose. But we are already losing it. As others have said, the Woodland Trust is already ringing alarm bells. It states that we have lost some 1,000 hectares of ancient woodland in the last decade, and that some 500 sites are threatened by planned development. We will lose it all if we do not take measures now, when there is urgency in our building for various reasons, to ensure that we meet our housing and infrastructure needs responsibly. Do we really want to see those living links to our history destroyed to make way for golf courses and paintballing? In my constituency, 60% of which is in an area of outstanding natural beauty, we certainly do not.

No one really planned how we got here. We barrelled forward, not knowing what lay ahead, and never stopped along the way to take account of what we had left behind. Many prophesied—rightly or wrongly, for good or ill—what would happen, but life went on. Jobs have become more specialised and technology has improved. Our population has grown; the demand for land has grown with it and continues to grow. It has brought us to this. As grassy hills and wooded glens become rarer and suburbs sprawl, we risk losing sight of what we actually value. Few would say that the ancient woodlands, the protection of which we discuss today, are not important, but it is far too easy to get caught up in the processes that put them in danger.

The crux of the matter is that failure to protect this ancient treasure will turn us into the kind of country that we do not want to be. It will not have escaped hon. Members that the quotes with which I began my speech came from the brothers Grimm, and that they spoke of forests in Germany; just as in our legends, the forests have deep value in German culture. However, the Germans recognise that value by having the most protected woods in Europe. It has never been more pressing for us to follow their example.

Our forests have borne witness to our island’s history. They have seen war and peace, the sparks of invention, the birth of our democracy and the scores of generations who made them happen and made Britain what it is today. The very youngest of those woodlands were born in a Britain that would—apart from the Misbourne valley—be unrecognisable today. They remind us that we come and go, but there are countless generations behind us and countless more ahead of us.

We know that we have a debt to past generations and a duty to those in the future. Natural treasures such as our ancient woodland are evidence of that connection and contract. If we lose them, life will be less rich, our experience of the world a little bit more desolate and our society more disconnected from itself. If we become the kind of country that takes no notice of such things, or that shrugs and says that we can merely offset the loss by planting more somewhere else, no summer’s bloom will lie ahead of us. To do so would be to accept a Britain where we had broken cleanly with our past and our heritage. The mystery would have gone, and we would be diminished.

14:35

[Amanda Milling (Cannock Chase) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow) on securing the debate and giving such a passionate and entertaining speech.

My constituency, Cannock Chase, takes its name from the beautiful landscape that was designated as an area of outstanding natural beauty in 1958. A large part of the chase is made up of natural deciduous woodland and coniferous plantations. Trees are an important part of the chase AONB landscape—how it looks, the views and the history of the place—and they are an important habitat for the birds in the area.

Only last Friday, I joined the AONB team on a tour of the chase, which gave me an opportunity to see at first hand the wide variety in the landscape and habitat, and to discuss many of the challenges of balancing the human use of the chase and the protection of the natural environment. I want to take this opportunity to commend the team from the AONB and thank them for that tour.

Despite the fact that a large part of my constituency is made up of forest—perhaps I should say trees—it contains a relatively small number of areas of ancient woodland. There are more in the seat of my neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy), with whom I discussed this topic earlier today. One of the few ancient sites in my constituency is Chetwynd coppice, which is just outside the village of Brereton. Interestingly, we do not know where all the ancient trees are, because they have not all been identified yet, but some keen volunteers have expressed a wish to seek them out.

Ancient trees in woodlands are more than just plants: they reflect the landscape and tell stories about the culture of a place and the people around them. We have heard from fellow Members today about the various benefits of ancient woodlands and the real dangers that they face from construction and development. Green spaces such as forests, woodlands and ancient woodlands provide real social benefits and improve humans’ physical and mental wellbeing. I will take a few moments to discuss that topic.

Cannock Chase attracts tourists from far and wide, as well as being enjoyed by locals. Whether you are a keen walker, cyclist, runner or horse rider, Mr Turner, there are plenty of activities on offer across the chase. Birches valley, just outside Rugeley, is home to Go Ape and Swinnerton Cycles. In the summer of this year, Cannock Chase hosted the cycling leg of the inaugural Staffordshire Ironman 70.3.

With tourism come challenges, however, as the team from the Cannock Chase AONB discussed with me on Friday. Although we must encourage people to enjoy our natural environment, whether it be forests, woodlands or even ancient woodlands, it is imperative that we do so in a responsible way. In Birches valley, the Forestry Commission has worked hard to manage tourism by signposting visitors to trails and paths to ensure that they can enjoy the area without the natural habitat and its inhabitants, which include a herd of fallow deer, being unduly affected by tourism. I understand that the Forestry Commission has undertaken work on the dangers of tree and plant disease for the long-term sustainability of the woodland landscape, which will be all-important to protecting commercial forestry and the much-loved ancient woodlands of the chase. One of the key parts of protection from such diseases is ensuring that professionals and the public stick to some basic biosecurity measures such as washing boots when they come in after being out for a walk.

Like many of the residents of Cannock Chase, I am passionate about the chase. It is not surprising that the idea that Staffordshire County Council might sell off its land was met with a public outcry. I welcome the news that the current county council’s consultation on the management of the Staffordshire countryside estate recognised that outcry, and that it is looking into maintaining the current management and ownership arrangements, which it sees as the most appropriate option. I encourage residents to take part in the ongoing consultation regarding the management of country parks to ensure that their voices are heard loud and clear.

Ancient woodland and areas of outstanding natural beauty are important national assets and hugely beneficial to our wellbeing. Although visitors and tourism to those areas provide real benefits to our local economies, we must ensure that we balance that with the need to protect and conserve the areas for future generations. We must ensure that our ancient trees live on.

14:41

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Turner, for the opportunity to contribute briefly to the debate. I, as one of the last of the Back-Bench contributors, have the great pleasure of congratulating all those who have spoken before me, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow), who has done a wonderful job not only of securing the debate, but of alerting other right hon. and hon. Members to the fact that it was going to take place. It has certainly been very well attended so far.

I note that until very recently the Scottish National party was well represented in this debate. I understand that the party is not fully represented at the moment, for good reasons, and I know that it is the long-term aim of its Members to cease to be represented entirely at Westminster. All I can say is that, while they are here, their contributions to our debates are greatly appreciated.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan) managed to marry with the topic of this debate the relentless and gallant campaign that she has been waging to preserve so much of our precious rural heritage against the depredations of HS2. I am sure that this phase of her parliamentary career will be well remembered by future generations who benefit from the restrictions and reductions in the devastation that building HS2 along its original planned route would otherwise have inflicted. Those reductions are greatly to be welcomed, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend has many more in mind before she desists.

My hon. Friends the Members for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) and for Cannock Chase (Amanda Milling) embodied something that I have noticed about the whole debate. We are all used to having fraught debates and arguments in this Chamber and in the main Chamber of the House, but something seemed to come over every contributor to this debate as soon as they became involved and engrossed in the topic: a quality of content and delivery that was almost poetic. That speaks to the vital importance not only physically, but psychologically, of our valued, treasured and wonderful ancient woodlands to the people who have the privilege of enjoying them.

I understand that the definition that woodlands must meet to qualify as ancient is that the site must have existed since at least 1600 AD. Given that the New Forest dates from 1079, it clearly qualifies very easily, although it must be borne in mind that it is called the New Forest precisely because it was a creation by man to supply fresh meat to William the Conqueror and his entourage. Hence, the term “new” in our history means approaching merely 1,000 years old, which I suppose is new on some basis of terminology.

The networks of woodland in and around the New Forest collectively form one of the largest extents of lowland forest remaining in western Europe. I am indebted to the New Forest National Park Authority for providing me with a briefing on some of the main aspects of what I am about to say. There are 4,800 hectares of the ancient and ornamental woodlands in the Open Forest alone and there are many privately owned fragments within the New Forest national park boundary. While their communities of plants and animals, many now rare, are an echo of the prehistoric wildwoods that covered much of Britain, they have since been uniquely shaped by farmers, commoners, local people, livestock and wild animals, resulting in the complex landscape and ecological patterns that we see today.

About 1,500 ancient or veteran trees have been recorded so far in the New Forest, most within the ancient and ornamental woodlands in the heart of the New Forest, but many on private land. Those trees have a feeling of great age and character, with gnarled and twisted trunks, crevices and hollows and a large girth, some more than 8 metres around—hon. Members can tell that I did not draft those words myself, as I would have been most unlikely to have used metres rather than more traditional measures. Oaks and ash trees will be at least 400 years old, while yews can live for over 1,000 years.

The character of the New Forest has been well summed up by Mr Oliver Crosthwaite-Eyre, who is not only the current chairman of the New Forest National Park Authority, but a distinguished former official verderer of the New Forest. In connection with the topic we are debating, he said to me:

“The New Forest is believed to have one of the largest extents of Ancient Woodland in Western Europe. Immensely old, and full of character, some of the ancient trees within these woodlands are especially rare. Our Ancient Woodlands have been sculpted by man, revered by generations of local people and survived through remarkable changes in the world around them. They are unique and cannot be replaced. In the New Forest we are working together to protect, enhance and manage our Ancient Woodlands; they are such an important part of our living, working landscape and we want them to remain so for future generations.”

For people in the modern age, ancient woodlands are a retreat from hustle and bustle—somewhere it is possible to find peace and inspiration, and to get closer to nature. There is strong evidence supporting the idea that the use and enjoyment of woodlands improves people’s overall health and wellbeing. Indeed, they have been described as a natural health service.

Although the UK was covered in woodland 10,000 years ago, after the last ice age, woodland now covers only about 2% of the land area of the UK. That is why it is so vital that it must be protected for future generations. There is not only the question of the physical destruction of ancient woodland, but a risk of tree pests and diseases entering the country from abroad, as well as non-native invasive plants that spread within woodlands and put native wildlife at risk. Natural England estimates that 15% of ancient woodland is located within national parks and 30% is located within areas of outstanding natural beauty. In national parks, 29% of the woodland has site of special scientific interest status, as does 13% of woodland in areas of outstanding natural beauty.

One thing I have found, as a city boy who was fortunate enough to be selected to represent a wonderful rural constituency, is that for all the peace, tranquillity and beauty of the gorgeous New Forest, it is not without controversy. There are many organisations and people with a long history of interest and participation in the activities of the New Forest. I think I am right in saying that, of all the national parks, the New Forest is the most densely populated.

Among the commentators with long experience and great reputation on matters concerning the New Forest is Mr Anthony Pasmore, who regularly writes an expert column in the local press on current affairs affecting the welfare of the forest environment. He has drawn to my attention the danger of trying to be what could almost be described as “too naturalistic” in the conservation of the forest. For example, when we have storms—as inevitably occur from time to time—that cause windfall destruction of parts of the forest, ancient and not so ancient, there is now a tendency to leave all the fallen trees where they lie. I understand that, traditionally, it has always been understood that some 20% of windfall trees should be left behind to create beneficial habitats for beetles and other wildlife. There is always a slight tension between trying to interfere to the minimum amount necessary and remembering that the New Forest is a living, working forest. He raised with me the fact that there is an almost blanket ban on the withdrawing and removal of tree debris following such destruction, which is actually making the forest less habitable and less accessible to human beings by overdoing the environment that one wishes to preserve for the beetles and other wildlife.

[Rebecca Pow]

My right hon. Friend is waxing so lyrical and making such a good point that I cannot resist joining in. Many of these ancient woods are not just old relics with rotting wood; they are managed landscapes, many of which have been coppiced over time so that man can use the wood for other purposes. These ancient woodlands are still valuable, and I am sure that large tracts of the New Forest are included in that.

[Mr Charles Walker in the Chair]

[Dr Lewis]

That is precisely the point that I was endeavouring to make, and my hon. Friend makes it with far greater fluency than my poor efforts.

Anthony Pasmore draws attention to the fact that the New Forest is just that: it is ancient, but it is also new. It is what it is because, as he puts it, there is a “question of balance”. There has to be a question of balance between letting nature take its course and managing the forest in such ways as go with the grain of beauty and accessibility, rather than always trying to take too rigid a stance, which might inhibit the ability of the community that lives and works there to enjoy the New Forest. Those are secondary issues; the most important fact is that we have this wonderful asset.

I shall conclude with a rather modern controversy, namely, the possibility of hydraulic fracturing taking place underneath a national park at some stage. We have heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham about how it is possible to preserve and save woodlands by driving tunnels deep beneath them, and therefore, in principle, it might well be possible to extract valuable energy assets from a long way below the surface even of sensitive areas. We know that hydraulic fracturing may well yield great dividends for our country’s economy, but there are plenty of parts of the United Kingdom where we can master the technology long before we need to bring it anywhere near those particularly precious areas that have been designated as national parks. This is my appeal: the Government should by all means explore fracking technology, but they should make sure that they know what they are doing, by practice and by developing a successful industry based on hydraulic fracturing in less sensitive areas of the country, before approaching anywhere near our ancient woodlands and national parks.

14:55

[Calum Kerr (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (SNP)]

Mr Walker, you have just missed a consensual and uplifting debate. Mr Turner and I sit on the European Scrutiny Committee, and if only that Committee were equally consensual and uplifting on occasion.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow) and my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk (John Mc Nally)—he has gone off to catch a train, and not of the high-speed variety—on securing this debate, which has been a most uplifting experience. The hon. Lady kicked us off with a truly evocative and passionate speech that drove home why we are having this debate: the power, beauty and importance of our natural environment. She outlined a powerful case for special recognition for ancient woodland and called for a much more sensible approach.

The good news is that we have an eminently sensible Minister before us today—as the Scottish National party’s DEFRA spokesman, I am used to standing up and making requests of him—although it is unfortunate that the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart), who has responsibility for forests, could not be here today. He is my neighbouring MP, and he has a very valid reason for not being here, because of the level of flooding in his constituency, but I am sure he would be delighted for the Minister, in his absence, to commit him heavily to far greater protection of our ancient woodland. I look forward to the Minister’s positive response.

My hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk told us a lot about his history and the role of woodland in his life and in his community. I sense that he has many a personal story of his courting days beneath the canopy that perhaps might be better exchanged in the Sports and Social than in Westminster Hall, but he made a number of excellent supportive points, including highlighting one or two things that we specifically do in Scotland.

The right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan) gave a wonderful overview of the central role that woodland can play in our communities when protected and fostered. She also highlighted the dangers of HS2 and the impact it could have on our landscape if we get our priorities wrong. She also put in a most excellent, yet shameless, plug for a community cause in her constituency, which is always a good way to end a week in Westminster.

The hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) did something that I would not have thought possible, which was to get Little Red Riding Hood and Snow White into a speech. That set the tone for another excellent, evocative and moving contribution. I apologise to the following two speakers because a different call of nature meant that I missed elements of their speeches. The hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Amanda Milling) made an important point about visiting a woodland site, and those of us who are involved in setting policy should always remember to go and understand the beauty and impact of such environments first hand—I thank her for making that point. I apologise to the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) for missing the start of his speech, but he correctly reflected on the consensual nature of this debate and on the psychological benefits of the very woodland that we are discussing today, regardless of whether we measure it in feet, metres or yards.

Across the country, our ancient woodlands are more than just a component of our landscape; they are part of its very soul. They go beyond living history; as we have heard, their importance to biodiversity makes them part of our breathing history too. Our connection with them is long, deep and emotional. Writing in 1936, slightly before my time, the chronicler Arthur Mee talked of our old trees in the introductory volume to his great book series “The King’s England”:

“Silent sentinels of the simple pageant of our nation’s life, they saw the knight come back from the Holy Land…they gave their bows to the men who fought at Agincourt.”

Those words are of their time, but they convey the affection that we all still feel for our woodlands, which cover 500,000 hectares, or just 2% of the UK. Roughly half that coverage needs restoration to safeguard its cultural and natural heritage for future generations. In Scotland, the geographical area taken up is rather less—1% of the land is covered by native species—but the Scottish tree is just as important and loved as the English, Welsh or Northern Irish one. That reminds me: a Northern Ireland Member asked me to point out—if hon. Members will allow me a slight educational aside—that the wonderful ancient trees that we witness on “Game of Thrones” are in Northern Ireland.

Ancient woodland is just that: very old indeed. As we have heard, the Fortingall yew in Perthshire is perhaps the oldest tree in the UK. Modern experts estimate it to be between 2,000 and 3,000 years old, but some think it could be far older, possibly even 5,000 years old. I hope that we never decide to cut it to find out for sure. Our woodlands have been under threat for almost as long as humankind has populated Scotland, or indeed other parts of the UK. By the year 82, at the time of Scotland’s invasion by the Roman legions, at least half had disappeared due to the demands of early agriculture. Since then, weather conditions have been cooler and wetter, meaning that much of the woodland has been replaced by peatland. During the 17th and 18th centuries, many of the remaining woods were heavily exploited for timber, charcoal and tanbark.

It is clear that our ancient woodlands have always faced a fragile and precarious existence. As speakers in this debate have pointed out, the risk of erosion of that valuable heritage continues, most particularly because of urban growth and transport schemes. New road developments and High Speed 2 pose ongoing threats, although the latter does not apply in Scotland. Future high-speed rail in particular may well be damaging; the Woodland Trust suggests that it will result in direct loss to 39 ancient woodlands and damage to 23 sites. Woodlands present remarkably diverse ecosystems, are hugely valued for their wildlife and are of significant cultural value. Plus, of course, they are integral parts of our landscapes and natural vistas of often compelling beauty. Their role in raising the human spirit cannot be underestimated.

It has been estimated that some 28,000 hectares of ancient woodland have been lost since the 1930s. That is a huge impoverishment in every way. The one bit of good news is that it is probably harder than ever for developers and farming interests to exploit our remaining assets. However, it is not impossible, and I sincerely hope that Government plans to allow developers to build in the green belt will not lead to cherry-picking of the best sites and new threats to our woodland heritage. It is also a matter of concern that there is no central Government database of ancient woodland, and that no recent analysis has been undertaken of how much has been lost. That needs to be addressed.

North of the border, forestry is devolved to the Scottish Parliament, and ancient woodland is defined as an area that has been wooded continuously since 1750. As in England, there is no statutory protection, but there is a clear intent to preserve if at all possible.

[Richard Arkless]

Therein lies the difference in approach between the UK and Scotland. In the jurisdiction of Scotland, which prefers statutory certainty to convention and presumption, it is actually a series of conventions and presumptions that give planning authorities more tools to resist the felling of ancient woodlands. The Scottish Government produce planning guidance and a whole range of other documents. Does my hon. Friend agree—I say this in a spirit of cross-party co-operation—that even if the Government are not minded to confer statutory protection on ancient woodlands, there are a series of other techniques that could be used?

[Calum Kerr]

I thank my hon. Friend for that excellent, long and valuable contribution. In fairness, he has earned the right to a long intervention, considering that the five-a-side football team belonging to the hon. Member for Taunton Deane left early. I congratulate my hon. Friend on that excellent addition to the debate. He is correct, of course, that in Scotland there is no statutory protection. However, Scottish planning policy does identify woodlands as an important and irreplaceable national resource that should be protected and enhanced.

Scottish Natural Heritage also seeks to use the planning system to protect those assets, and the Scottish Government operate a strong presumption against removing ancient semi-natural woodland or plantations on ancient woodland sites. In addition, the Scottish Government have produced a biodiversity route map, which has been presented to the Scottish Parliament’s Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee. It is an ambitious programme that aims to increase the amount of native woodland in good condition from the 46% notified by the native woodland survey of Scotland. It also plans to restore some 10,000 hectares of native woodland to satisfactory condition in partnership with private woodland owners through deer management planning, as well as improving the condition of designated sites. A good proportion of those locations and native woodlands will be ancient woodlands. The will is there, and much good has been done.

[Rebecca Pow]

I am fascinated by the biodiversity route map. Can the hon. Gentleman expand a tiny bit on that? Is it voluntary, or is it put upon the good people of Scotland, who must come up with it?

[Calum Kerr]

The hon. Lady raises a good question. In the tradition of a Minister, if she will indulge me, I will get back to her on that, because I cannot tell her. I will happily confer with the Scottish Government and get back to her. It is a good question.

It is important to remain vigilant and consider, as the Woodland Trust has urged, stronger and explicit protections for these precious areas of land that we value so dearly. That should include, as ConFor suggests, greater protection through the planning system.

As Arthur Mee reminded us 80 years ago, a number of our trees might have watched a millennium pass. Some, he told us, might have seen the men counting the acres for the Conqueror’s Domesday Book. In Scotland, as we have heard, they could have reached their branches over William Wallace’s betrayal, the Bruce’s victory at Bannockburn and Bonnie Prince Charlie’s flight from Culloden. Across these islands, they make our landscapes and cleave us to our history. Their forms and shadows are beautiful still, their value beyond price or measure. Let us cherish them and guard their futures, for in protecting them, we protect who we are too.

15:08

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to be in Westminster Hall for a third time this week, and to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Walker. I apologise for leaving the room; my cough got the better of me.

I am pleased to see the Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice) yet again; I had expected to welcome the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart) back to his place after a challenging few days in his home county of Cumbria, devastated by recent floods. I visited on Monday to see what the Cumbrian people were facing. Although we will continue to challenge the Government on their response to and funding for flooding, we will also work with them in the best interests of the affected communities.

The issues that have been raised today are of considerable importance to our natural environment and the biodiversity it supports. That is not to mention the public interest in these issues, with more than 60,000 people responding to the Woodland Trust’s Enough is Enough campaign to urge the Prime Minister to shore up protection for ancient woodland.

Before I offer my thoughts, I, too, would like to congratulate the hon. Members for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow) and for Falkirk (John Mc Nally) on securing the debate and on giving us the opportunity to discuss these matters fully. I am also grateful to the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (Calum Kerr) for his summary of the debate and for reminding me yet again of my Scottish heritage. He remarked that this has been a consensual debate, and that is not going to change in the next 10 minutes.

Several Members eloquently told us of their favourite, treasured woodlands and of the need to save them. I think I will be looking at the Hansard record of our debate and planning my walking itinerary for the next two or three years, having been provided with such excellent suggestions. However, the hon. Member for Falkirk reminded me of the ancient woodlands and glens not so far from where I spent my childhood, so perhaps that will be well up the list of the places on my tour.

[Mrs Gillan]

The hon. Gentleman would be very welcome to visit some of our woods in the Chilterns, but he needs to hurry. If the construction of HS2 starts as planned in 2017, they will not be there much longer.

[Alex Cunningham]

Given that I return to the homeland regularly, I will perhaps need to take up the right hon. Lady’s invitation a bit earlier than I might have planned.

The hon. Member for Taunton Deane tempted me into a false sense of relaxation. That was not because her speech was 28 minutes long, but because she took us on that walk through the wood to Enid Blyton’s faraway tree. Then, of course, she brought me back to reality very quickly. Given that the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs confirmed to the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee just weeks ago that

“ancient woodland, as a category, is not a protected category”,

today’s debate could not be more timely. This is the second debate in two days in which we will reach consensus—perhaps because we are working off some of the same briefing notes.

That ancient woodland is not a statutory designation in law sets it apart from many other precious habitats, and means that it is liable to suffer from a lack of protection. The hon. Member for Falkirk quoted paragraph 118 of the national planning policy framework, and it is worth quoting it again, because it actually allows for the loss or destruction, in England, of ancient woodland and aged or veteran trees in cases where

“the need for, and benefits of, the development in that location clearly outweigh the loss”—

a sad business.

It is important to be clear from the outset that if we lose the ancient woodlands we have left, they are gone forever, as others have said. Our varied climate and geology have gifted us a diversity of ancient woodland forms, whose composition is a product of environmental conditions and historical management that will simply not occur again. Our ancient woodlands cannot, therefore, by definition, be recreated.

As we have heard, the Woodland Trust has identified that, as a result of the planning loophole I mentioned, hundreds of ancient trees and woods are being lost or threatened in the planning system every year. To put that into context, more than 40 ancient woods have suffered loss or damage from development since the framework was introduced just three years ago, in March 2012. As others have mentioned, the Woodland Trust is dealing with more than 600 ancient woods that are under threat. That is the highest number in the trust’s history, and it is increasing all the time.

The situation is not markedly better elsewhere in the UK. Scottish policy, for instance, recognises only somewhat loosely that the value of ancient woods should be considered in planning decisions, while Welsh policy affirms that ancient woods should be protected from development that would result in significant damage.

It is interesting to note that the Minister with responsibility for forests in the previous coalition Administration revealed in an answer to a parliamentary question that the Government do not collect data about the loss of trees and woods. A complete and precise picture of the scale of losses in any given year is therefore impossible, and the task of protection is made markedly more complicated. With areas of ancient woodland having originally been mapped to act as a proxy for areas of high biodiversity, rather than for their inherent value, it is difficult to conclusively identify and value ancient woodland. Although the modest protections currently available are undoubtedly well-intentioned, such inherent difficulties in conclusively identifying and valuing ancient woodlands make those safeguards almost impossible to implement coherently.

That highlights an important point. Although organisations such as the Woodland Trust are well attuned to up-to-date threats and to the latest developments, the Government are, sadly, lagging behind. Not only is there no central database of ancient woodlands, but no recent analysis has been undertaken of the amount of ancient woodland lost year on year to development, infrastructure projects and other causes, such as unapproved felling.

I therefore hope to hear the Minister confirm that his Department has a plan to take immediate steps to rectify these information gaps. I would be interested to hear what consideration he has given to compiling such figures—possibly as part of his Department’s 25-year plan. Addressing that information gap is of central importance if we are to protect our ancient woodlands and the rich biodiversity they support, not to mention the valuable environmental and social wellbeing they provide.

On that point, it is worth while highlighting the distinctive communities of plants and animals that populate many ancient woodlands, some of which, such as the lichen in some ancient Scottish pinewoods, are of international importance. At the same time, the soils in many ancient woodlands are relatively undisturbed and may preserve distinct species communities and natural ecological processes, such as decomposition and nutrient cycling, all of which it is important to protect.

For reasons such as those, the Communities and Local Government Committee called 12 months ago for ancient woodland to be awarded the same protection as designated heritage assets in the built environment. That proposal would have seen the national planning policy framework amended to require any loss of ancient woodland to be wholly exceptional. The Committee also called for work to be undertaken to increase the number of ancient woodlands with statutory designations, such as site of special scientific interest designation, to further boost the protection of these important habitats. However, in response to the Committee’s report, the Government rejected any change to the framework’s wording, giving the opinion that the protections already in place for ancient woodlands under the framework are strong and make it clear that development should be avoided in such areas.

When the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs gave evidence to the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, he suggested that “an enormous amount” of ancient woodland in the UK is

“already protected within our national parks and within AONBs”,

with much covered by Natura sites under European legislation and even more falling under regulations that protect sites of special scientific interest. However, in response to a parliamentary question just last month, he confirmed that evaluations from Natural England estimated that only 15% of ancient woodland is located in national parks, and 30% in areas of outstanding natural beauty.

Despite statutory designation offering the strongest legal protection from loss and deterioration in condition, only 20% of ancient woods in the UK are designated as sites of special scientific interest. In addition, there is no equivalent for woods deemed to be culturally important, potentially leaving sites with high historic—but low ecological—value with less protection. Furthermore, within national parks, only 29% of woodland has site of special scientific interest status, although even that compares favourably with the 13% of woodland in areas of outstanding natural beauty that is similarly designated.

With those figures in mind, I hope that the Minister will look again at the Communities and Local Government Committee recommendation to designate more ancient woodlands as sites of special scientific interest and that he will support such action to strengthen the legal protection of ancient woodland. Doing so is important, not least because the evidence highlights that even those ancient woodlands located in a national park or an area of outstanding natural beauty are not wholly protected against the threat of being impacted by, or lost to, development.

To take HS2 as an example—and we have heard plenty about it today—phase 1 of that significant project, as it is currently planned, directly threatens 39 ancient woods, with a further 23 at risk of secondary effects such as disturbance, noise and pollution, including woods within the Chilterns area of outstanding natural beauty. We might perhaps also consider the hydroelectric scheme proposed at Fairy Glen in north Wales, which threatens ancient woodland within Snowdonia national park. The Cairngorms national park local development plan expressly backs potential development sites that could cause damage to ancient woodland, including at An Camas Mòr, Carrbridge and Nethy Bridge. Indeed, I understand the installation of a micro-hydroelectric turbine within the Cairngorms, for which approval was granted in 2014, will damage ancient woodland, while neither Snowdonia national park authority nor Natural Resources Wales highlighted concerns about the impact on ancient woodland of the Fairy Glen scheme.

As I mentioned at the outset, the risk of allowing such damage is that if we lose the ancient woodlands that we have left they are gone forever. They cannot be replaced. However, that is not to say that we cannot do more to protect vulnerable ancient woodlands and wildlife by creating new woodland and other habitats around the remaining fragments of ancient woodland, thereby shielding them from the effects of neighbouring land use. Members have already mentioned that small ancient woods are particularly vulnerable to impacts from surrounding land uses—chemical pollutants from development, agriculture and the like. Research shows us that fertiliser from cropland can alter the soil chemistry, plant species presence and plant growth as much as 100 metres into an adjacent ancient wood. I would be interested to hear what thought the Minister has given to the potential for utilising such buffer zones around ancient woodlands to help mitigate any such damage, and whether his Department intends to look into that option further to determine its viability.

A number of organisations do important work in restoring, managing and conserving ancient woodland to help it survive, but that work will ultimately prove futile while those habitats remain insufficiently protected in the planning system. I am sure that the recommendations of the Select Committee on Communities and Local Government were appropriately considered, but I would welcome hearing from the Minister what steps the Government are willing to take so that the loss of ancient woodland becomes wholly exceptional. In the light of this week’s events, we should not forget that the loss of tree and plant coverage, along with changes in land use in rural and urban areas, has been a significant contributing factor in the increased risk of flooding, particularly in rural areas.

I know that I am asking the Minister to do more with fewer resources, particularly after the comprehensive spending review made further huge cuts to DEFRA’s budgets, but I would be pleased to hear that his Department will work alongside DCLG colleagues to bolster the protection available to ancient woodland as part of the planning framework and ensure that planning departments are required to protect existing woodland while working with developers to include trees as part of sustainable urban drainage proposals.

15:22

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow) on securing the debate. As the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham), said, this is the third time I have faced him in this role in Westminster Hall—but it is my fourth time if I include another debate when a colleague of his stepped in.

I should begin by apologising for the fact that the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart), cannot respond to the debate. He has responsibility for the relevant part of the portfolio, but he has been drawn back to Cumbria because of the flooding there, for reasons that I am sure hon. Members will understand. I have had to step into his place at quite short notice, but no one should think that he has no passion for the subject of the debate. I was shown a draft of his speech a little earlier today, and there were some characteristically poetic passages about trees and the passion that he feels for them.

I, too, am passionate about trees. I studied horticulture, and my thesis was on the physiology of deciduous trees in the temperate zone—particularly the issue of how they regulate dormancy. That is an important point: trees define our seasons. They have a remarkable ability accurately to measure day length so that at the same time of the year—every year, whether it is cold or hot—they decide to drop their leaves. They also have a remarkable ability to measure the length of the winter and know when it is safe to burst bud again and start spring. Trees do not get tricked by false springs. No warm snap in January will cause a tree to break dormancy early. They have a remarkable ability to measure the seasons accurately, and they define them.

As we have heard today, our ancient woodlands are highly valued and cherished. We have heard heartfelt contributions from, among others, my hon. Friends the Members for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) and for Cannock Chase (Amanda Milling), the hon. Member for Falkirk (John Mc Nally) and my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) about ancient woodlands and habitats in their areas. Those woodlands are a resource rich in life, providing homes and food for animals, birds and insects. They store carbon, produce oxygen and filter out pollution. Of course, they also provide some of the most fantastic places for us to enjoy.

England’s woodland coverage is as high as it has been since the 14th century, totalling a little more than 1.3 million hectares, which equates to 41% of the UK total or 10% of England’s land area. Of course, we must not forget the position we were left with after the second world war, when, sadly, much of our ancient woodland was felled and replaced with non-native conifers.

That conifer planting was carried out on a large scale by the public and private sectors as a result of a policy drive to replenish the national timber reserve and to improve the economics of ancient woodlands. Since then we have made huge strides, and throughout the 1970s and 1980s we established the concept of ancient woodland, rich in plant diversity and managed through traditional practices. We now know, of course, that ancient woodlands are an irreplaceable habitat, which is why we recognise their special status in the national planning policy framework, which was last updated in 2012.



Since the last war, great efforts have been made to restore and actively manage our ancient woodlands. Estimates of ancient woodland coverage vary, but the ancient woodland inventory identifies approximately 340,000 hectares of woodland in England that is ancient. Nearly 200,000 hectares of that is semi-natural and 140,000 hectares is in plantations on ancient woodland sites. Subsequent estimates suggest that there are about 210,000 hectares of native woodland not on ancient woodland sites. Taken together, those three categories of woodland comprise just over half of England’s woodlands, at about 550,000 hectares.

We continue to work to restore our native and ancient woodlands on the public forest estate and many private woodland owners are motivated and incentivised to do likewise. We are committed to ensuring that our ancient woodlands are adequately protected and sustainably managed to provide a wide range of social, environmental and economic benefits to society. An example is the Government’s contribution to Grown in Britain, which includes helping owners of small woodland businesses who develop products such as high-end wood furniture from woodlands managed to the UK forestry standard. The value to society of the 40 million recreational visits to forests and woodlands is put at about £484 million per year; 65% of the population visited English woodland in 2013.

We are all aware, however, that there are many competing demands on our resources. We are a small island, more densely populated than India, and there are competing pressures on how we use the land that is our most precious resource. We have ambitions to increase woodland cover and improve the quality of our woodland management, but we must be mindful that those ambitions sit alongside a need to increase food production, create renewable energy and capture carbon, while also maintaining the mosaic of habitats that our wildlife depends on, such as our ancient woodlands. As my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane pointed out, we recognise that to compete globally we need to update and upgrade our ageing infrastructure, and foster development that enables our economic growth to be sustained.

We have, however, always made a special case for our ancient woodlands—and rightly so. That is why, as I said earlier, they are protected in the NPPF. The passage that deals with them states clearly and unambiguously that

“planning permission should be refused for development resulting in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats, including ancient woodland and…veteran trees…unless the need for, and benefits of, the development in that location clearly outweigh the loss”.

The position is very clear—there is protection—and I am not certain what more could be done; the Government certainly have no plans to undermine or change that position. However, I am aware that a number of hon. Members have made some suggestions about how things could be improved and I will return to those suggestions later.

We do not believe that we should simply look to protect our woodlands; we also want to invest in them. Sensitive management of our ancient woodlands can contribute to the challenges I have just mentioned—both capturing carbon and, through wood fuel, biomass-based renewable energy. Effective management can ensure protection against more subtle threats, such as shading of ancient woodland ground flora resulting from lack of management, in order to build resilience to climate change.

Our management continues to promote greater biological and structural diversity in England’s woodlands. In total, 75% of the public forest estate was identified in the Lawton review in 2010 as being critical to supporting the wildlife network and biodiversity in England. That is why the Government have invested more than £60 million in forestry during the past five years.

Private woodland owners continue to be motivated to bring unmanaged and under-managed woodlands back into management, reacting to demand-side initiatives such as Grown in Britain and the renewable heat incentive. Now, 58% of England’s woodlands are in active management, and to support our manifesto commitment we will continue to invest £31 million per annum during the new rural development programme for England, which will see a further 11 million trees planted during this Parliament.

As part of that commitment, we are working with the Woodland Trust to provide more opportunities for schoolchildren to plant, care for and learn about trees. That will give young children the chance to understand and connect with nature, and play a role in making their school grounds and local communities cleaner and greener, helping them to grow the ancient woodlands of the future.

[Rebecca Pow]

My hon. Friend makes that point about education extremely eloquently, and it is important. Will these children be educated about the immense benefits of ancient woodlands in particular, because, as we have heard today, there is so much involved in them that children could learn from?

[George Eustice]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. I certainly hope that schoolchildren learn about ancient woodlands because, as a number of hon. Members have said, those trees have seen major chapters of our history during their lifetime.

I will also point out that when it comes to the rural development programme, we are doing some direct work on ancient woodlands. More than 4,200 hectares of planted ancient woodland sites owned by the private sector were restored on ancient semi-natural woodlands between 2011 and 2014, and more than 6,500 hectares of plantations on ancient woodland sites have been worked on since April 2011 on the public forest estate.

I turn now to some of the points made by hon. Members in their contributions. The hon. Member for Taunton Deane talked about the importance of urban trees, and I agree. They are very important, and the Natural Capital Committee has noted that in its own report. It is also important to recognise that the NPPF covers both urban and rural areas, so the same protections apply whether trees are in rural or urban areas.

My hon. Friend and a number of other hon. Members talked about databases. We are interested in databases, so I would be interested to see the evidence about how one defines a “threat”, if one is identifying trees that might be under threat. We also recognise that local planning authorities, which ultimately take these decisions, do not report or collate data on ancient woodlands. As far as we are aware, there is no reporting or collating of information, and the shadow Minister raised that issue, too. We are certainly happy to look at it.

Of course, we have the ancient woodland inventory, which was developed in the 1980s. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase pointed out, we also have the Tree Register, a registered charity that updates a register on notable trees. That is very important, providing information on the size and growth of trees, as well as details of historical, rare or unusually significant trees. It, too, makes an important contribution.

My hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane and others also mentioned sites of special scientific interest and asked whether there could be designations of ancient woodlands as “triple SIs”. As a number of Members have already noted, many of our ancient woodlands are already designated as SSSIs, and Natural England is constantly looking for additional areas that should be so designated. Its work at the moment includes looking at additional ancient woodlands to be designated as SSSIs.

One point to note is that although designating an area as an SSSI is a stronger form of protection, in that there is a statutory role for Natural England if there is to be any development on those sites, the test is still quite similar: if the benefits of development outweigh any damage they can be considered. The test itself is broadly the same, but I accept that the level of protection is higher.

My hon. Friend also talked about strengthening the presumption to “wholly exceptional” when development is considered. I know that the Government have considered the issue before; they have taken the view that that change is not necessary because the existing protections are adequate. Nevertheless, I take on board the points she has made today and I am sure my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will read a transcript of this debate. He may want to look further at the arguments that she has so forcefully made about that issue.

I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane that we should accept that although planting new trees is important, and we will plant 11 million new trees during the course of this Parliament, it does not fully mitigate the loss of trees. In fact, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan) pointed out, even though we are doing lots of planting and mitigation work—that work is important, particularly when it comes to High Speed 2—it cannot replace our ancient woodlands, which are irreplaceable. I accept that.

I move on to the comments made by my right hon. Friend. I know that she has been a tireless campaigner on the issue of HS2 and has many deep concerns about its impact on her constituency. I am pleased that some of the woodlands that she mentioned, such as Mantles wood, have been protected as a result of the decision to put a tunnel underneath the woodlands rather than through them. However, she has made a point today about the areas of outstanding natural beauty sites and other sites affected by that tunnel. I will take her concerns back to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and we will raise those concerns with colleagues in other Departments, notably the Department for Transport, which is making these decisions. We will write to her with our feedback on that process.

[Mrs Gillan]

The Minister may not be the woodland Minister, but given the position that he occupies in the Department, I am very grateful that he will discuss that matter with his colleague and take it up with the DFT. It is not as if I am asking for the world; I am just asking to save a little bit of it, which is so important.

[George Eustice]

I am sure—and it is the little bit of it in my right hon. Friend’s constituency that is especially important, as all hon. Members will understand all too well. Of course, my right hon. Friend will be aware that a hybrid Bill is also going through Parliament at the moment in a very long-drawn-out process, as is often the case with such Bills. A number of these matters will be considered by that Bill Committee.

On HS2, I will summarise by saying that the company has stated that it will plant 7 million trees, as a mixture of landscaping and screening and to compensate for the loss of some trees. There has also been a survey. Natural England reviewed the ancient woodland inventory last spring and determined that 16 woodland sites along the phase 1 route of the proposed rail scheme should be added to the inventory. Although they are small sites—there are 10 woods of less than 2 hectares—they have been added to the inventory in order to address some of the concerns that exist. That is a good example of where the Government continue to look sensitively and carefully at these issues, to make sure that we get a decision right.

Finally, a number of hon. Members mentioned the issue of pests and disease, which is a challenge we take very seriously. The Animal and Plant Health Agency monitors diseases such as ash dieback, or chalara, which is of particular concern at the moment. It is true that older trees can often survive infection for a number of years; in some cases older trees are more resilient to disease, particularly when it comes to diseases such as ash dieback.

Fighting disease is a very important part of what the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs does. We have committed more than £21 million to tree health research, which includes £3.5 million for studies that are being undertaken to identify what can make trees tolerant to ash dieback, for instance.

In conclusion, we are continually striving to improve things in this area, but we acknowledge that this issue is complex. The challenge for us today is totally different from the challenges of the 1920s. That is why we need to balance forestry interests with our global responsibilities and our wider needs on UK land use. The Government consider that the existing protection for ancient woodland in the NPPF is strong and is protecting our ancient woodlands and veteran trees, but as I said earlier, Members have made some powerful points today. I am sure that my colleague, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, will read the transcript of the debate carefully, and I will relay some of the concerns expressed and proposals made in that spirit.

[Mr Charles Walker (in the Chair)]

I understand that the opening 28 minutes by the hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow) were brilliant, and I am sure her closing two minutes will be equally excellent.

15:40

[Rebecca Pow]

I am sorry you missed it, Mr Walker. There was such eloquence and passion in the room. I had lots of interventions, so it was not just me talking for 28 minutes. I honestly and genuinely thank all the Chairs who have sat through the debate. I also thank the Backbench Business Committee, to which we had to make representations to secure the debate. When I went there, I had 76 MPs supporting me. Sadly, there is a one-line Whip on a Thursday, and there are floods and all sorts of other reasons why lots of them are not here, but I genuinely had loads of texts and emails from them saying, “I wish I could be there,” and, “Can you say this and can you say that?” I thank them.

I also thank my hon. Friends and other Members who have spoken today. My football team has left, but they did a grand job earlier. What passion and poetry we have had! How lovely! It showed the strength of feeling about the issue. We have had stories and images. We have had my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan) in her Dingle and the hon. Member for Falkirk (John Mc Nally) swimming in his glen. We had Red Riding Hood with my hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) and so much more. We had my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Amanda Milling) walking through the woods, and I am so pleased that she got out to the area of outstanding natural beauty to find out what it is really about. We have waxed lyrical, but it has been obvious that we have great cross-party consensus on this issue. My hon. Friends from Wales could not come, but I had a big Welsh contingent who truly support a lot of the ideas.

I thank the Farming Minister in particular. I am not sorry that he was the Minister who responded today. We would have loved to have had the Forestry Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart), but the Farming Minister has embraced the debate in a masterly fashion. I have learned something new about him. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham said, we learn something new every day: I did not realise that the Minister had studied horticulture. That was interesting.

I am heartened that there are a few chinks of light—possibly they are splinters—that we can work away at. The Minister is not saying no to everything, and I like the fact that he will look at the “wholly exceptional” wording and that he might look at the database and the collection of data, which we all mentioned. I urge him to continue with that work. Let us harness the passion and improve the protection. If we want not only our children, but our children’s children to experience some of the wonderful things that we have all talked about today, we have to save the 2% of ancient woodland that is left.

[Mr Charles Walker (in the Chair)]

Having heard the hon. Lady’s generous winding-up speech, I am genuinely sorry that I missed the first 28 minutes.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered protection of ancient woodland and trees.

15:43

Sitting adjourned.

Written Statements

Thursday 10th December 2015 Written Statements

Thursday 10 December 2015

Foreign Affairs Council (Trade)

Thursday 10th December 2015 Written Statements

[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.

The EU Foreign Affairs Council (Trade) will meet in Nairobi during the 10th ministerial conference of the World Trade Organisation (WTO).

The Council will meet on the 15 December before the formal opening of the ministerial conference. I will represent the UK.

We expect the Council to meet again during the ministerial conference, at least once, possibly more, but the date of subsequent meetings of Council has not yet been set.

The only substantive item on the agenda for the Council in Nairobi is the 10th ministerial conference of the WTO.

The Nairobi ministerial will be the first WTO ministerial conference in Africa. WTO members meeting in Nairobi will reflect on the achievements of the WTO in the twenty years since its founding in 1995, will discuss potential outcomes on export competition in agriculture, on development and on transparency, and consider how the WTO organises its negotiations going forward. WTO members will also welcome the accessions of Afghanistan and Liberia.

The UK wants to see substantive outcomes on export competition, development and transparency to promote flexibility in the way the WTO organises its negotiations following Nairobi and will welcome the accessions of Afghanistan and Liberia.

[HCWS376]

Consultant Lobbyists Regulation

Thursday 10th December 2015 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (John Penrose)]

Part 1 of the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Act provides for a statutory register of consultant lobbyists. The statutory register came into force on 1 April 2015 and has increased transparency by requiring those who lobby on behalf of a third party to publicly disclose the names of their clients.

Section 22 of the Transparency Act provides that the costs of the register may be recovered from registrants via a charge. Today I have laid the Registration of Consultant Lobbyists (Amendment) (No.2) Regulations 2015 which amend regulation 5 of the Registration of Consultant Lobbyists 2015 (SI 2015/379) to increase the annual charge per registered consultant lobbyist in connection with the maintenance of the register from £700 to £950.

[HCWS385]

Telecommunications Council

Thursday 10th December 2015 Written Statements

[The Minister for Culture and the Digital Economy (Mr Edward Vaizey)]

The Telecommunications Council will take place in Brussels on 11 December 2015. The UK’s Deputy Permanent Representative to the EU, Shan Morgan, will represent the UK. Below are the agenda items and the positions we intend to adopt.

The first item is a progress report from the presidency on state of play on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the accessibility to public sector bodies’ websites (First reading—EM16006/11). We do not expect a debate on this item. However, if there is a debate, the intervention will outline the UK’s support for this directive in general, but state our concerns about the European Parliament’s and some member states’ desire to increase the scope of the directive beyond the Commission’s stated aims of creating a harmonised minimum EU standard.

The second item is a report from the presidency on the state of play on the negotiation in trilogues of the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning measures to ensure a high level of network and information security across the Union (this is sometimes referred to as the cyber security directive—First reading—EM6342/13). We do not expect a debate on this item.

These items will be followed by a debate on the review of the European electronic communications framework. The framework’s aim is to harmonise the regulation of electronic communications services across all EU member states. The UK’s intervention will say that the UK places high priority on access to high-quality fixed and mobile connectivity for consumers and business; and the framework must also continue to encourage competition as the main driver for private investment in infrastructure, but the limits of competition need to be understood.

We will also advocate a principled proportionate approach to ensuring consumers are protected from harm when using communications services. This is important to avoid stifling innovation and unnecessary regulatory burdens. We will also outline the UK priorities for the framework review, including investment and competition, innovation and consumer protection; and note that it is also important that we work together to conclude the review as soon as possible and ensure coherency with the other digital single market work strands.

This will be followed by two items under AOB led by the Commission, the first being information from the Commission on current internet governance issues and the second an update on the telecommunication and ICT aspects of the negotiation of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). We do not intend to intervene on either of these items.

Finally, the Dutch delegation will inform the Council of their priorities for their forthcoming presidency before Council adjourns until the next meeting in May 2016.

[HCWS384]

Armed Forces Convenant

Thursday 10th December 2015 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Defence (Michael Fallon)]

I am today laying before both Houses the 2015 Armed Forces Covenant annual report. The covenant is a promise by the nation to ensure that those who serve, or have served, and their families are treated fairly. They protect the nation with honour, courage and commitment, and deserve to be treated with fairness and respect.

The report sets out what the Government have done to uphold the principles of the covenant. The Armed Forces Act 2011 enshrined the covenant into law, setting out the requirement for the Defence Secretary to report progress annually to Parliament.

Last year we reported that every local authority in mainland Great Britain had signed the covenant, and I can confirm that over 750 employers have also now signed up.

This year particular emphasis has been given to supporting armed forces families. The Department of Health has embedded the principles of the covenant into the NHS constitution to ensure service families access healthcare where and when they need it. The schools admissions code has been amended to prioritise service children, and service families can now apply for, and be allocated a school place before they move to the area. Over 5,000 personnel have also been helped into homeownership through the forces help to buy scheme. We will aim to double this number to 10,000 by next year.

A further significant change is the inclusion of veterans from the merchant navy and Royal Fleet Auxiliary as core members of the armed forces community.

The report has been compiled in consultation with other Government Departments, representatives from the devolved Governments in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, and the external members of the Covenant Reference Group, which includes the three Service Families Federations, the Confederation of Service Charities, the Royal British Legion, the Soldiers Sailors Airman’s and Families Association, the War Widows Association and Professor Hugh Strachan.

[HCWS381]

Defence Infrastructure Organisation

Thursday 10th December 2015 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mark Lancaster)]

On 9 June 2014, Official Report, column 23WS, the then Secretary of State for Defence, my right hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr Hammond), announced the intention to examine whether the Defence Infrastructure Organisation (DIO), currently part of the Ministry of Defence, should incorporate into a Government-owned company in 2016.

We have completed this assessment and concluded that, at the present time, the MOD’S business interests are best served by the DIO retaining its current status within the Department. We assess that this will achieve further transformation by delivering rationalisation and improvements to the way the DIO delivers infrastructure to support defence capability, without the risks and costs associated with incorporation. We shall, therefore, not be pursuing incorporation.

[HCWS379]

Victims of Terrorist Incidents Overseas

Thursday 10th December 2015 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr Philip Hammond)]

For just over 10 years the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) has offered special assistance, on a case-by-case basis, to British nationals involved in a terrorist incident overseas. Since 2008, this type of assistance has been known as “Exceptional Assistance Measures” (EAM). It allows Ministers to activate special measures which go above our normal level of consular support which vary according to the circumstances of each situation. It is only activated in extremis and once other financial avenues have been exhausted.

In 2010, the policy was updated by the then Minister of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to include those British nationals who had not taken out travel insurance prior to travelling. In line with standard consular policy, EAM has been applied in cases only when a British national has been directly affected, often injured or killed, in a terrorist incident. It has not been offered to British relatives of a foreign national directly involved in a terrorist incident overseas.

We have applied EAM in 2015 for a number of terrorist incidents, including the attack in Sousse in June in which 30 British nationals were killed, and most recently for the response to the attacks in Paris on 13 November. For the Sousse attack, EAM was used to repatriate the bodies of British nationals killed and to arrange medical evacuations for British nationals injured in the incident.

The FCO conducted a review of the EAM policy in 2015 involving interested parties and stakeholders. We concluded that, while there would be no changes to the overall policy, the FCO should improve the information we provide internally and externally on EAM. We will update FCO consular public advice on EAM accordingly through future publications.

[HCWS380]

Child Safeguarding: St Helena and Ascension Island

Thursday 10th December 2015 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (James Duddridge)]

Last year the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs announced the establishment of an independent inquiry into alleged child abuse and associated cover up on the British Overseas Territory of St Helena and Ascension Island, Official Report, column 13-14WS, 20 November 2014, to be led by Sasha Wass QC. Today, the UK Government have published her report. I would like to thank Sasha Wass QC and her inquiry team for producing this detailed and comprehensive report.

I welcome this independent, comprehensive report and the inquiry’s finding that there is no evidence of corruption or cover up in the St Helena Police Service, the St Helena and Ascension Island Governments, the FCO or Department for International Development. The inquiry also found that there is no evidence that child abuse is either endemic or routine in St Helena or Ascension Island. These are the key issues that the inquiry was constituted to investigate and it is an important milestone for the people of St Helena and Ascension, and for those with whom the inquiry engaged that these serious allegations have been found to be without any basis.

But we cannot be complacent. The inquiry found evidence of systemic failings by social services and police in the past, although noted the significant progress in safeguarding in general, and social services provision in particular, since May 2014. The inquiry makes a number of recommendations in relation to child safeguarding institutions and procedures; the recruitment and induction of key staff; and the implementation of specialist advice on child safeguarding.

Protecting children from abuse is an absolute priority. We will continue to build on the progress that has been achieved in recent years. DFID has allocated an additional £1.2 million for safeguarding in 2015-16 on top of its contribution (£4.0 million) to the funding of the St Helena Government health and social care, leading to: the creation of a new safeguarding directorate; a reinvigorated child safeguarding board; more police officers, social workers, family centres for victims; and training for all St Helena Government employees who work with children.

The Government accept all the recommendations in this report. We intend to appoint a senior UK official, to be based in St Helena, specifically to oversee the implementation of the recommendations in the report. We will announce the details shortly, and expect the appointee to be on island in early 2016. We will update the House on implementation of these recommendations within six months.

More broadly, we are determined to build on the foundations already in place to address issues raised by the report, and to continue to meet the reasonable assistance needs of the population of the island.

I want to underscore the UK Government’s commitment to working in partnership with all territories to build vibrant and flourishing communities. I convened a joint ministerial Council last week of the elected leaders of the overseas territory Governments, where we reiterated our shared commitment to a zero-tolerance approach to child abuse in all its forms, and to ensuring a child-centred and co-ordinated approach to safeguarding based on multi-agency working, information sharing and robust risk assessment.

There are ongoing police investigations relating to issues addressed in the report. There is also the possibility of further police investigations into serious criminal offences in the future. In order to avoid prejudice to current and future investigations, the published version of the report has been redacted to remove much of the contents of Chapter 9 and associated references in the body of the report. The report will be re-published with the redactions related to Chapter 9 removed as soon as circumstances permit.

[HCWS378]

Justice and Home Affairs Council

Thursday 10th December 2015 Written Statements

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

A meeting of the Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) Council was held on 3 and 4 December: 3 December was the justice day, and the Minister for Immigration, my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire) and my noble Friend Lord Faulks QC, Minister for Civil Justice, attended; 4 December was the interior day, and I attended on behalf of the UK.

The justice day began with the Council reaching political agreement on a regulation on promoting the free movement of citizens and businesses by simplifying the acceptance of certain public documents in the EU, a successful outcome for the UK. The regulation covers a number of civil status documents and will reduce the bureaucratic and financial burden on citizens who need to show such documents issued by one member state to the authorities of another member state. The Commission urged swift implementation and a future review to consider including business documents.

On the directive for the protection of the Union’s financial interests, the presidency updated Ministers on progress since the October JHA Council. Negotiations on this directive will now be taken up by the Dutch presidency, with the issue of VAT fraud remaining the main area of contention.

Ministers reached agreement in principle on articles of the proposed regulation to establish the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO), covering the EPPO’s competence and related matters. The UK is clear that it will not participate in an EPPO.

During lunch, the presidency facilitated a discussion on the fight against online hate speech which was broadly welcomed by the UK, in particular the voluntary notice and take-down procedures. The UK maintained that the EU should consider this work stream within its broader extremism strategy to avoid separate discussions and duplication of work. The UK also spoke against moving towards common European standards on hate speech, and reminded others of the continuum between illegal and simply unpleasant behaviour. The UK suggested that the take-down procedure should be speeded up, and that the EU should provide support in maintaining pressure on the IT industry to continue to improve the process.

The Council discussed the proposed regulations on matrimonial property and the property consequences of registered partnerships. The UK has not opted in to either proposal. Two member states made it clear that they could not accept the latter proposal because, in their view, it would require indirect recognition of same-sex relationships that are not provided for under their national laws. Given that unanimity was required, and the desire for the proposals to be agreed as a package, the presidency concluded that agreement was not possible. Other members states expressed their profound disappointment at this negative outcome to such a long and difficult negotiation. A significant number of member states confirmed that they would be willing to pursue enhanced co-operation, work on which will be taken forward under the Dutch presidency.

The presidency put a number of questions to Ministers about the situation across member states on the collection and retention of communications data, in the wake of the invalidation of the data retention directive by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) ruling in the case of Digital Rights Ireland (C-293/12). The presidency noted that the picture was fragmented across the EU, with some member states maintaining their domestic legislation, some introducing new measures, and a few finding their frameworks struck down by their domestic courts. Ministers were asked several questions including whether an EU or member state response was the best approach, and whether the Commission should be invited to present new legislation. The Commission stated that it had no intention of coming forward with a new proposal.

The UK, supported by four member states, urged caution, noting that access to communications data was of utmost importance and we should not rush to implement a measure if this risked ultimately reducing our operational capabilities. A number of member states supported new EU legislation, but many stressed the need to at least await the outcome of cases pending before the CJEU before proceeding. The presidency concluded that member states agreed on the legality of bulk data retention itself and that while many supported an EU measure, there was also a desire among many to await the outcome of those cases currently before the CJEU.

The presidency presented a paper on the challenges of evidence in the digital age, an issue to which the Dutch presidency will return at the informal Justice and Home Affairs Council in January. The Commission reminded member states of the importance in this context of implementing the European investigation order in full and to time. The Commission expressed concern about direct approaches to internet service providers, arguing that it could be outside a legal framework and could violate EU rules and undermine the new data protection regime. There was consensus on the need to address the challenges posed by e-evidence. The UK intervened to support looking at alternatives to formal mutual legal assistance where appropriate, acknowledging the importance of safeguards and oversight.

The presidency presented a paper on the migration crisis: judicial co-operation and the fight against xenophobia, updating Ministers on actions discussed at the October JHA Council.

The presidency and Commission provided an update on current legislative proposals. The Commission highlighted in particular the importance of reaching agreement swiftly on the data protection regulation and directive, and its optimism that this was possible before the end of the year.

The presidency noted that the western Balkans conference on 7 and 8 December will focus on migratory flows, terrorism, trafficking, firearms and judicial co-operation.

Finally, the Netherlands presented their three justice priorities: criminal co-operation on cybercrime, victims’ rights and a European forensic science area. Regarding the legislative agenda, the focus of the Dutch presidency will be the consolidation and implementation of existing instruments.

The interior day began with a discussion on passenger name records where I urged member states to take the opportunity to conclude the proposed directive. The Council agreed the compromise text negotiated with the European Parliament. Over lunch, Ministers agreed a Council declaration that all member states would make use of the option to collect data on internal EU flights and allow collection from non-carrier economic operators such as travel agencies and tour operators, with the aim of sending a strong message about the necessity of processing PNR, in advance of a vote in the European Parliament, scheduled for 10 December.

The Council approved the compromise text agreed with the European Parliament on a draft regulation on Europol. Formal adoption of the regulation is expected in the coming months. The UK has not opted in to this regulation, but will consider opting in post adoption.

Denmark updated the Council on the outcome of their referendum on moving from a block opt out of all EU Justice and Home Affairs measures to the UK and Irish opt-in model. Denmark expressed regret at the “no” vote and noted that this would make it very difficult for Denmark to participate in important EU initiatives, in particular co-operation with Europol. Denmark explained that the referendum had been heavily influenced by the uncertainty created by the situation at the borders.

The presidency updated Council on the implementation of the internal security strategy.

The presidency reminded Ministers of the strong commitments made in the 20 November Council conclusions in response to the terrorist attacks in Paris and called for rapid implementation. I noted the positive progress made, citing the Syria strategic communications advisory team, Europol’s internet referral unit and stronger standards for deactivation of firearms, but stressed that further work was required on a number of fronts: first, to reduce terrorists’ access to weapons, particularly through improving our collective understanding of firearms trafficking through better exchange of information, including on ballistics. Secondly, it was necessary to make enhanced use of existing systems; in particular the Schengen information system, and to improve the interoperability of the various EU databases, including SISII and Eurodac . Thirdly, member states needed to step up co-operation with middle east and north African states to improve their capabilities, especially on aviation security. Finally, I stressed that all of this had to be underpinned by strong strategies to challenge extremist ideologies and prevent people from turning to terrorism in the first place.

Ministers were briefed on the EU-US dialogue which took place in Washington on 13 November.

The Council received an update on the migration situation, with the Commission calling for implementation of measures already agreed, and the EU agencies (EASO; Frontex: EU-Lisa) providing updates on their efforts regarding the external borders. Some progress was reported on hotspots but as there had been over 800,000 arrivals this year the situation remained critical.

There was broad support for the need to strengthen the external borders of the EU, with some member states advocating the development of a proposal for a European border guard.

I joined others in pressing for further, immediate progress on hotspots, reiterating the UK’s willingness to provide practical assistance. I stressed that it was critical for member states to tackle abuse of the asylum system by economic migrants, and that the principles underlying the Dublin regulation remained sound and should be retained. I set out that we are making good progress in our national resettlement scheme; but stressed that any further expansion of resettlement activity should be linked to actions by third countries to reduce illegal migration flows and avoid unintended “pull factors”.

The presidency provided an update on the negotiations on the permanent crisis relocation mechanism. Three meetings had taken place at technical level. However, several member states were against such a mechanism and wanted to wait to evaluate and draw lessons from the temporary mechanism. The Government do not support relocation as it is the wrong response to the migratory pressures the EU faces. It undermines the important principle that asylum should be claimed in the first safe country and does not address the causes of illegal migration.

The presidency said it would continue to progress proposals for a common EU list of safe countries of origin. Three areas for discussion were fundamental rights assessments, the interaction with national lists and the nature of implementing acts.

The Council reached political agreement on a directive on the admission of third country student and researchers, which is aimed at harmonising member states’ requirements governing the entry and stay of these groups. The United Kingdom has not opted in to the measure.

Under AOB, the presidency noted the outcomes from the Valletta conference and the EU-US ministerial meeting. The presidency also noted the upcoming EU-western Balkans forum meeting in Sarajevo on 13 December.

[HCWS386]

Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures

Thursday 10th December 2015 Written Statements

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

Section 19(1) of the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011 (the Act) requires the Secretary of State to report to Parliament as soon as reasonably practicable after the end of every relevant three-month period on the exercise of her TPIM powers under the Act during that period.

The level of information provided will always be subject to slight variations based on operational advice.

Tackling Violence Against Women and Girls Overseas

Thursday 10th December 2015 Written Statements

[The Minister of State, Department for International Development (Mr Desmond Swayne)]

My Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Baroness Verma) has today made the following statement:

I am pleased to take this opportunity to update the House on my plans following my appointment as Ministerial Champion for Tackling Violence Against Women and Girls Overseas.

It is an honour to be appointed to this position. I have been personally committed to tackling violence against women and girls for a long time and given my role as Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Department for International Development (DFID), I have identified some significant opportunities for pushing forwards this agenda.

I have chosen to issue this statement today because the 10 December marks the end of the formal 16 days of activism that the UN leads, to address the human rights abuse that is violence against women and girls. It also formally marks the beginning of an even more concerted effort from myself to lead work to tackle this issue.

Violence against women and girls is a systematic, widespread human rights violation, faced by one in three women worldwide in their lifetime. Tackling violence is essential: to women and girls, their families and communities. It is critical to sustained poverty reduction and the achievement of the new Global Goals. Furthermore, it is a top priority for the UK Government and DFID.

The 25 November marked the international day to eliminate violence against women and girls, followed by 16 days of activism that culminate today, on international human rights day. Ministers across the UK Government, myself included, have done a number of things to mark this period, including pushing for change through a number of events. On 25 November, I spoke at a Parliamentary panel discussion hosted by ActionAid UK, outlining the importance of empowering women’s organisations in order to tackle violence against women and girls. I was delighted to see such a large and engaged audience at this event, reflecting the huge strides we have taken in raising awareness of violence against women and girls. We heard first-hand accounts from women who have experienced and witnessed such violence. I was proud to share the important work that DFID and the UK have done to empower and protect women and girls in these situations.

I have been championing the White Ribbon Campaign within DFID during the 16 days of activism, an international campaign that mobilises men to stand up to violence against women and girls. I have spread the message in DFID and on social media, shown solidary for this by wearing a white ribbon, and encouraged pledging to never to commit, excuse or remain silent about violence against women and girls. I encourage parliamentarians to do the same. You can do so here: http://www.whiteribboncampaign.co.uk/.

This period of focused activities provides a strong foundation from which to begin my role as Ministerial Champion and I have every intention to build on the momentum that we have created here in the UK and across the world.

Looking forward, I would like to take this opportunity to announce my new objectives for the Ministerial Champion role, which build on the work done by my predecessors. My objectives are:

1. Securing and defending the rights of women and girls to live free from violence, through international frameworks;

2. Further linking and ensuring policy coherence across the entire UK efforts to end violence against women and girls overseas;

3. Forging strategic partnerships and influencing the international system to increase financial, political and technical commitment for tackling all forms of violence against women and girls in all contexts;

4. Leading step change in galvanising the use of evidence of what we know works to prevent violence against women and girls;

5. Eliminating FGM and child, early and forced marriage (CEFM) within a generation;

6. Driving forward a new and significant push on all forms of domestic and intimate partner violence as a policy and programme priority for the international community;

7. Stepping up global leadership on tackling violence and abuse against adolescent girls overseas.

I look forward to driving forward work on this agenda, and working with Ministers and parliamentarians to achieve our ambitious, but ultimately achievable goal of eradicating violence against women and girls for good.

[HCWS383]

Universal Credit: Local Authorities

Thursday 10th December 2015 Written Statements

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

The full universal credit service will be rolled out nationally for all types of claimants from May 2016, completing in June 2018. At this point we will start to move the people receiving legacy benefits to universal credit. This carefully managed process will finish by early 2021.

This means the need for local authorities to administer housing benefit for working age people will progressively reduce. Local authorities need to plan for the future and have sought clarity about implications for their staff currently administering housing benefit.

Today I can confirm that my Department does not propose to make any staff transfer arrangements for local authority staff who currently work on housing benefit for people of working age.

There has been extensive consideration of this issue and engagement with the local authority associations. As universal credit is a new benefit, delivered in a new and fundamentally different way, my Department has concluded that there will be no “relevant transfer” within the meaning of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 (as amended). Any such transfer would anyway be exempt as a transfer of administrative functions between public administrative authorities. My Department has also considered the requirements of the Cabinet Office statement of practice (COSOP). My Department has concluded that COSOP does not apply where, as here, there is no “relevant transfer” for the purposes of TUPE; and that the new and fundamentally different delivery model for universal credit makes staff transfers inappropriate.

The phased nature of this process means that the impact on local authorities can be managed in a way which minimises the need for any redundancies. Where this does not prove possible, after the exercise of all reasonable efforts to redeploy people, the Department has given local authorities a commitment that we will meet their costs of any residual redundancies.

[HCWS377]

Welfare Reform

Thursday 10th December 2015 Written Statements

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

Later today I will be launching a consultation on how the use of aids and appliances is taken into account when determining eligibility for the daily living component of PIP.

This is in light of concerns that the current policy in this area may not be working as intended, as was highlighted by the first independent review of the PIP assessment undertaken by Paul Gray. Evidence suggests that significant numbers of people who are likely to have low or minimal additional costs are being awarded the daily living component of the benefit solely because they may benefit from aids and appliances across a number of the activities. There have also been a number of recent judicial decisions, based on the current legislation, that have broadened the scope of aids and appliances to include articles, such as beds and chairs, that are unlikely to be a reliable indicator of extra costs.

These developments are inconsistent with the original policy intent of awarding the benefit to claimants with the greatest need to help them meet the extra costs arising from their disability or long-term health condition.

The consultation will therefore seek views on whether we should make changes to the current policy on aids and appliances in relation to the daily living component and, if we do, what these should be. The consultation document outlines five broad options for making changes but also welcomes other suggestions.

The consultation is available at: https://www.gov.uk.

[HCWS387]

Grand Committee

Thursday 10th December 2015 Grand Committee

Thursday, 10 December 2015.

Official Histories

Thursday 10th December 2015 Grand Committee

Question for Short Debate

13:00

Asked by

[Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their latest assessment of the process for preparing official histories.

[Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank (LD)]

My Lords, it is a little over two years ago, on 10 July 2013, that I last raised the future of the Government’s Official History Programme, and well over 100 new Peers have arrived at the House since then. In the circumstances, I think it is justified to pursue a matter I first raised in the House on 8 February 2008, and twice, briefly, in 2012. I am grateful to colleagues who have supported me before and I welcome those who, now or later, may share my thoughts.

The Cabinet Office leaflet of the Official History Programme reminds us of the background. The work on official histories began under the auspices of the Committee of Imperial Defence as long ago as 1908, with responsibility for,

“compiling the naval and military history of the nation”.

After 1945, responsibility was extended to cover wartime civil issues such as food and health. The first official history I read was Problems of Social Policy by R M —Richard—Titmuss, published in 1950. It is a seminal text on poverty and deprivation in wartime, by which the author made his distinguished name.

As the post-war period of official histories came to an end, the Prime Minister, Harold Wilson, following discussions with the Cabinet Secretary, Sir Burke Trend, announced that the range of official histories would now include selected periods and episodes in our peacetime history. So official histories continued and in 1997 the Prime Minister, Tony Blair, decided to renew the project.

I should explain my particular involvement. At that time, in 1997, I was appointed by the Prime Minister, together with Lord Healey and Lord Howe, as one of the three privy counsellors to approve the authors of official histories. Beyond those very limited responsibilities, I became interested in the planning and overall management of official histories. I was puzzled by what appeared to be two different series of books: the Official Histories Programme, with which I was involved, and a similar series published by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. I enjoyed the official histories as they were eclectic, but there was no obvious logic in their character, sequence and timing, with some authors taking many years to complete their writing, or even dying on duty. I was very uneasy about the publication arrangements, including the marketing.

The then head of the Histories, Openness and Records Unit at the Cabinet Office, Tessa Stirling, was very helpful, as she had been to authors, but following further correspondence and discussion, I decided to seek a debate. That occurred in February 2008. The ministerial reply was bland, but as a consequence of the debate, within a year, a report on the official histories was commissioned which turned out to be positive and important. The report was written by Sir Joe Pilling, a retired civil servant who took evidence widely and quickly, concluding that,

“the overwhelming weight of evidence supported the continuation of the programme”.

To summarise, he said:

“I recommend that the official history programme should continue”.

He also made some suggestions on how to make the programme,

“better, stronger and more useful”.

Despite that, in August 2010, in a letter to the three privy counsellors, the Cabinet Secretary, Sir Gus O’Donnell, said that since the current Official History Programme was coming to an end. He said:

“Given the current challenging economic climate, I am sure that there is likely to be a hiatus in commissioning titles”.

That is how it was; there was no further explanation and nothing further about how to implement the Pilling report.

That brings me to the debate on 10 July 2013. In the course of my remarks, I asked several questions. Who decided to make a hiatus? Was it a ministerial decision and, if so, by whom and when? If we are in a hiatus or, alternatively, considering a new Official History Programme, precisely what are the financial consequences? As for the “current challenging economic climate”, how was it measured and does it seem the same as in 2010? At what point would it be judged appropriate to end the hiatus? After all, the Government are telling us that we are in happier economic circumstances. The Minister’s reply was unsatisfactory. There was no answer to my question on who made the hiatus, and so I ask again today: who decided? My following question is therefore: who can restore the Official History Programme?

As for the finances, without incurring disproportionate expenses, it is not possible to determine the overall cost of the current series of official histories. Further, the last year for which published costs were available was 2006-07. In the absence of these figures, how could a responsible decision have been made?

Almost four years ago, my noble friend Lord McNally, speaking on behalf of the Government on official histories, said:

“It would be a tragedy if we were to allow them to wither on the vine”.—[Official Report, 17/2/12; col. 547.]

I hope that the Minister today will endorse that sentiment. As an initial step towards reviving the official histories, the Government could agree the Pilling report, arrange for the Cabinet Office to discuss this with other departments, work out the financial implications and review the present publishing contract arrangements. My Lords, why not?

13:08

[Lord Lexden (Con)]

My Lords:

“We need a sustaining stream of Official Histories”.

So wrote our esteemed colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy of Nympsfield, who sadly cannot be with us today, in one of his recent books, which never fail to stimulate and entertain, as well as inform. Even a historian operating on a much more modest scale, as I do, knows what riches are to be found within the covers of the official histories. No other nation has ever produced an official history explicitly dedicated to wartime intelligence that approaches in magnitude Britain’s five volumes, amounting to more than 3,000 pages, published between 1978 and 1990. There is so much to relish and, naturally, historians in this House, in academic life and elsewhere feel strongly that the programme must endure and look forward to its relaunch.

We all tend to have particular projects that we would like to see proceed, so that the distinctive, complex, and often secretive processes of government in our country can be understood better. In all of this, a study of what the great HAL Fisher called,

“the play of the contingent and the unforeseen”,

so often turns out to be particularly momentous.

In an earlier debate on this subject, my noble friend Lord Bew referred to the case for an official history of the Northern Ireland Office. I strongly agree: the department is so frequently a neglected element in the various versions that appear of events that led eventually to the peace process. In the recently published second volume of his biography of Margaret Thatcher, based on a very wide range of official papers, Charles Moore has laid bare much of the activity of the Cabinet Office, some of it extraordinary in character, in the period leading up to the Anglo-Irish Agreement 30 years ago. But what about the government department that has been central to the implementation of British policy in Northern Ireland since 1972? How valuable an official history would be in elucidating it.

The construction of a programme of new work still lies very much in the future. What we have to do today is, first, to thank the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, for the tenacity with which he has pursued the matters that have to be settled so that the official history programme can proceed, as so many of us want. Historians owe him an immense debt of gratitude. We must also recall with gratitude the work of the two other members of his group of privy counsellors, to whom he referred, who contributed so much to the programme: Lord Healey and Lord Howe of Aberavon, whose recent deaths caused us such deep sadness.

The second thing that we have to do today is to underline the importance of implementing the recommendations of the excellent report on the official history programme produced in 2009 by Sir Joseph Pilling, an old friend of mine who, as it happens, would occupy a prominent place in any official history of the Northern Ireland Office, having been its Permanent Secretary during the peace process. Sir Humphrey obfuscates; Sir Joseph is unequivocal. As the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, reminded us, Sir Joseph stated:

“The overwhelming weight of evidence supported the continuation of the programme”.

He went on to lay out with clarity and precision the manner in which it should be done. Again, as the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, reminded us, that was some six years ago.

Those Ministers who have had the—not especially enviable—task of explaining the Government’s position in response to the Pilling report, including the noble Lord, Lord McNally, who it is so good to see here, have resorted constantly to pleas of poverty in this so-called age of austerity. I suggest that the time has come to invoke a firm Tory principle and to bring it into play now. The principle is that, as the state divests itself of certain responsibilities, as this Tory Government are doing—particularly in the sphere of local government —so it should ensure that the state’s duty is fully executed in those areas that fall permanently to its care. The Official History Programme is one such obligation.

I would not dream of showing any disrespect to my long-standing noble friend Lord Gardiner of Kimble, but I rather wish that the noble Lord, Lord Bridges of Headley, could have joined us for this debate. The Official History Programme has never had a stronger champion than his grandfather, Edward Bridges, who was a wartime Cabinet Secretary and one of the greatest public servants—one of the very few rewarded with a Garter. In late 1941, a low point in our wartime fortunes, Bridges commissioned a series of official histories on both the civil and the military aspects of the conflict. He said:

“We must think in the long term of the continuity of the state”.

That above all is why this publicly-funded programme should continue, and continues to be needed.

Not that Edward, subsequently Lord Bridges, expected his own profession necessarily to be exalted or praised by the histories. “I confidently expect”, he said of civil servants,

“that we … shall continue to be grouped with mothers-in-law and Wigan Pier as one of the recognized objects of ridicule”.

A Government who include this great and witty man’s grandson ought surely to do their duty.

13:15

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, when I saw that my noble friend had put down a debate on official histories, I must admit that I thought, “Oh, I quite like reading history, so I will find out what an official history is”. It has been a voyage of discovery and, having listened to the debate so far and read previous debates, I realise that I am treading very gingerly on ground that I do not really recognise. But it has become clear that I have actually seen and used official histories on occasion. I did not know what they were—they were just history books that had been provided by the state to look at the state.

If that is being done properly, it is a great expression of confidence in the state by the institution of the state. I rather suspect that there are a great many people—say, a Minister—who will be keener on the idea of an official history going into office than on leaving it. So we have that idea bubbling around. But if we are doing this—looking at our comparatively recent past—the programme is probably a good thing. If we take it to be a good thing, what should we do about it? Quite clearly, the first thing that we should do, as the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, and my noble friend Lord Rodgers said, is continue to produce them.

I am further indebted to my noble friend for providing me with a copy of the Pilling report. One of the most important things it says is that great big books may be wonderful things for people who have the time and the inclination to read them. But I am a person who likes history but is rather addicted to the article: the small, easy to read copy. I pride myself on having a very good veneer knowledge of history: it is wide-ranging and has a nice shiny surface in places but in other places is worn through and is non-existent. Accessible articles are the best way forward. If you are going to do this work, which is valuable and not very expensive, surely making sure you divest and get it out there would be an extremely good idea. It is about using it in a more creative way.

There is an appetite for consuming history—and it is a broad spectrum of history we are covering here—and for using that knowledge. We have many institutions that will help us do it. Surely we should be tapping into that. We have an example in the Pilling report of a good way of using new media intelligently to reach a mass audience. Surely that is what is required here.

But you have to continue to do the work. Having less monumental lists of work and being more up to date and selective in producing things in a more realistic timeframe would also help the process. You could build into that an expectation of receiving knowledge and pushing it out again, but you should still carry on doing it.

It has already been suggested that we are supposed to be in much better economic times. Surely the Government’s general duty to inform and indeed encourage people to use our heritage come together here and feed off each other. One thing that we are absolutely sure about is the fact that nothing happens in isolation. If we want to keep alive the heritage industry, and indeed learning, we must use this approach to support it in various ways, and to support the work that has already been done. That is something that I would like an answer on, if not today then as soon as possible. How are we using this great store of knowledge to support education, general interest and other projects? That is something that we should be doing.

I do not think there is much more I can say that will help this debate. I hope that we will, first, carry on and, secondly, try to use any future work more creatively and go back and redistribute knowledge in a more creative way. We all have a very big, intimidating textbook at home that grins at us from the shelf. There is good stuff in it, but are we brave enough to open it and read a number of chapters? In certain cases, I certainly am not.

13:20

[Lord Bew (CB)]

My Lords, I rise to support the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, who has taken the lead on this issue for a long time. He brought the matter before the House in July 2013 and February 2008. I supported him strongly on both occasions and I wish to support him strongly again today and to argue for a revival of the Official History Programme.

I want to follow up the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, about the relevance of the case of the history of the Northern Ireland Office. The recent deal that has been made in Northern Ireland to get the political institutions to function again, known as Fresh Start, does not make any provision to deal with legacy or historic issues. That is not the worst part of that deal, but the issue will not go away in Northern Ireland. Only this week the BBC “Spotlight” programme castigated the British Government for their allegedly inflexible approach on these matters, even though it based much of the programme on material that was released in the normal way at Kew. This was presented as a dramatic and subversive fact, when it was just the normal release of documents.

The local press also reports that there is still talk about some new deal on the past. Every idea that I have seen since the talks shared by Dr Richard Haass has been expensive—far more expensive than anything that might be considered by the Official History Programme. Every idea I have seen involves another lawyerfest and contains the possibility of exacerbating rather than improving inter-community relations.

In these circumstances, it is a very modest thing to say that there is surely a role for something that would be exceptionally cheap—an official history of the Northern Ireland Office. It has been brought home to me in particular by the death this year of two Permanent Under-Secretaries of the Northern Ireland Office who both played a major role—Sir Kenneth Stowe and Sir Brian Cubbon. We ought to respect the significance of these careers.

Let us remind ourselves of what is at stake. Underpinned by bipartisan consensus in Parliament for 30 years, we asked our officials and politicians, in and out of uniform, to deal with a horrible sectarian conflict. One fact is not in doubt: well over 90% to 95% of deaths in that conflict were caused by the people of Northern Ireland themselves, but we asked the Northern Ireland Office to somehow manage this.

I have no doubt that it made mistakes. We have published extensively on the mistakes, such as Bloody Sunday, and Sir Desmond de Silva’s report on the tragic murder of Patrick Finucane. The state has spent many millions of pounds on many volumes revealing its own faults. Entirely in the spirit of the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, I am certain that if we have an official history of the Northern Ireland Office, it will reveal mistakes. It will reveal civil servants, politicians and soldiers making mistakes in the handling of extremely difficult questions. That is really not the point. The point is that we ought to be saying that this is the effort by a liberal democracy to deal with a horrible problem. We ought to respect it and bring the full nature of this particular story to the public in a cool and calm way.

It is particularly important now and the argument is even stronger than in the past, not only because it is necessary as a balance, given some of the other ideas out there for dealing with the past in the Northern Ireland, but because we are in a second wave of terrorism. It is no longer the IRA, but we know that our society faces problems. We are again asking officials—people in and out of uniform—and politicians to make very difficult choices. Nobody believes that we can now march happily onwards into the sunlit uplands of an ever more free liberal democracy with ever more enhanced human rights. We want to do that but at the same time we all realise that there are also difficult choices to be made to secure the security of the citizen. This House has debated this for many hours and will have to debate it again for many hours in the years to come.

We are now in a second such conflict, and bringing out an official history of the Northern Ireland Office would reveal the errors and the many difficulties and mistakes: the tone of the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, was absolutely brilliant. We would be sending out a signal that we have confidence that our politicians and our officials, both in and out of uniform, when faced with these ghastly problems, struggle to do their best. They do not always succeed, but they struggle to do their best, and at any rate, we are quite prepared to lay it out and to allow the public to judge. On the eve of, sadly, another period of British life when terrorism is again becoming a more significant issue, that is the signal we ought to be sending out. That is why there is such a strong case for the renewal of the Official History Programme. It expresses a self-confidence in the intentions of our officials, but is not an act of hero worship or piety—it is not that at all.

13:26

[Lord McNally (LD)]

My Lords, it is always a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Bew, a very distinguished historian in his own right. My degree is in economics and social history, and I have always made a lifetime commitment never to describe myself either as an economist or a historian. The noble Lords, Lord Bew and Lord Lexden, made a very strong case for official histories, particularly in the case of the Northern Ireland Office.

The noble Lord, Lord Lexden, talked about the riches in official histories and of a programme that must endure, and made the point that pleas of poverty in times of austerity should by now be wearing thin. I deliberately left the withering on the vine statement— I do not think it was in the official draft—because I wanted a further look at the issue. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Addington, that it could be looked at in a more contemporary way, feeding perhaps into education and using new technologies to deliver it.

One of probably the two most famous quotes about history is of course, “History is bunk”, by Henry Ford. Before the historians rush to tell me that Henry Ford never said that, I will quote what he did say:

“History is more or less bunk. It’s tradition. We don’t want tradition. We want to live in the present and the only history that is worth a tinker’s dam is the history we made today”.

Then of course the other great historical quote is Churchill’s:

“History will be kind to me for I intend to write it”.

That is what today’s debate is about: whether the Government are made up of brash young men and women who do not really care about history. If so, I am really worried, because I have to say that, in what now is a depressingly long 50 years around Whitehall and Westminster, the most dangerous politicians I have met are those who have no sense of history. I will not name them, but your Lordships could all make a list.

It is time for the Government to come clean. Do they no longer think that official histories have a value? Or do they believe that they can really leave it to those who write their own history? Are we going to leave the history of our times in the hands of Boris Johnson? Or do they see, as I do, a real value in this programme? It is too easy to take history for granted but, as was said by the noble Lord, Lord Bew, the exercise can itself be cleansing and can play a constructive role in healing old wounds. It is also important to retain a sense of national identity.

This has been a very particular year of commemorations, and I have been very pleased to serve on both the Magna Carta 800 Committee and the Speaker and the Lord Speaker’s Committee on the Magna Carta and the de Montfort Parliaments. Again, there is a sense of taking history and bringing it into contemporary understanding. What a joy it has been to see schoolchildren in particular going through Westminster Hall and seeing those wonderful banners, reminding this generation of the shoulders they stand on in terms of our parliamentary democracy. I personally think that Westminster Hall will look duller for those banners being removed, and I wish that they could stay.

I will use the brief time remaining to say a kind word about another jewel in our crown, which is the National Archives. I see that it has now been moved into what I hope will be the safe hands of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. There again, holding on to our history is very important, and not only at a national level. We need to encourage businesses, religious organisations and charities to preserve their records, and we need to support local government archives. At the National Archives there is an archive development team that is available to help organisations keep their archives safe. Official histories are part of that commitment.

To quote the Library briefing on this debate,

“the official historian is, among things, the custodian of the national memory”.

Without these histories, we would lose something extremely valuable. So although I freely accept that in the past I may have contributed to the series of bland reports about which the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, complained, I urge the Minister to ensure that there is no hiatus and no withering on the vine. I ask the Minister to tell us clearly what the Government want to do with official histories.

13:33

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure for historians to see three former assistant general secretaries and two general secretaries of the Fabian Society sitting alongside each other. I thank my predecessor in that role, the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, who himself of course is a notable chronicler—Fourth Among Equals. Perhaps he also wrote to make sure that he was the one writing the history. His debate today is important to historians such as me, although I am a very junior one, unlike my PhD supervisor, the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, or indeed the eminent noble Lords, Lord Bew and Lord Lexden, from whom we have heard today. It is also of course important to political animals such as any of us here, because if we do not know and understand the past and its lessons and precedents, we are then condemned to make some poor mistakes.

As the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, reminded us, the official histories have a long history. They go back to 1908, and in 1966 they were extended beyond the military. They have produced some works of major significance by impartial and distinguished historians, even if questions have been raised about whether the Government themselves use such valuable works sufficiently, and whether they are disseminated or marketed widely enough, including in the easy-to-read versions alluded to by the noble Lord, Lord Addington. There is indeed a sad lack of information about them—a visit to the Cabinet Office website being as opaque as I fear outsiders always regard government secrecy. In fact, the only thing there are the now rather old reports on this subject.

The Pilling review quoted the purpose of the Official History Programme as providing,

“authoritative histories … a reliable secondary source for historians until all the records are available in the National Archives; and a ‘fund of experience’ for future government use”.

That phrase is key. Whether it is about capturing data by early access to papers, oral history or witness seminars, or about their analysis and publication, open government and the accountability of our leaders demands as early, vigorous and independent description and analysis as confidentiality permits.

This programme can help, whether through funding or by access, but also by encouraging and assisting research council-funded work. Government should also consider how to engage historians, particularly on areas of relevance to today’s problems, or to securing institutional memory—or, as the noble Lord, Lord McNally, said, “national memory”. Governments, both Ministers and civil servants, can also engage directly with historians, including via the History and Policy organisation, the King’s College Strand Group, the Queen Mary Mile End Group, or the Institute for Government. All these bring together academics and practitioners, exploring individual decisions, events or themes, helping to craft the preservation and use of institutional memory, including its value to staff development and to policy-making, and focusing on the lessons of history.

That does happen in some parts of Whitehall. FCO historians have blossomed; they were well used by the noble Lord, Lord Hague, when he was there thinking about current issues and general themes. Perhaps today we could also pay tribute to the work of the recently and sadly deceased Chris Martin in encouraging the history of No. 10, developing its website, and bringing in historians to advise. Relishing and fostering a sense of history in those who inhabit No. 10 benefits them and generations to come.

The programme was set up to provide a,

“‘fund of experience’ for future government use”,

which is a vital phrase. There is perhaps a question as to whether government could better use the outcome, both through far wider publication of the research in the media and at events and through a more committed use of the outcome within Westminster, Whitehall, and local and European government. It may be that the Official History Programme may not continue in exactly the same form as in the past, but we must not lose its original spirit and aims, and we should focus on better ways in which history can be recorded, analysed and used in ways that are useful to today’s Government, Opposition and for future academics, practitioners—and, even more, the public on whose behalf we all strive to serve. This is the work of their Government whom they elected and pay for. They need to know what happened in their name.

Histories help the accountability of elected Governments. So the question for the Minister is how the Government will encourage and use history for better governance, policy skills development, the capability of the Civil Service and for the contribution of history to evidence-gathering, analysis and policy. We need to have our history and we need it renewed, perhaps through an engagement programme. I support the pleas of the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, and I endorse one particular Tory principle as enunciated by the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, which is that of the state fully executing its duties in those areas that fall clearly within its care. The official history is one such duty.

13:39

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con)]

My Lords, this has been a fascinating debate, and as is customary in your Lordships’ House, it has proved to be highly educational for me. I thank in particular the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, for his continued and loyal pursuit of this subject. Indeed, we acknowledge his valued contribution to the Government’s Official History Programme in his capacity as one of the three distinguished privy counsellors who advised the Cabinet Office on the choice of subjects and the appointment of historians over many years. I think that my noble friend Lord Lexden expressed much more fully than I am able to the gratitude of the Government to the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, as well as paying tribute to the late Lord Howe of Aberavon and the late Lord Healey, who are obviously much missed not only in that regard but for the great contribution they made to our national life.

The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, has asked for the latest assessment of the process of preparing official histories. Perhaps I may set out where we are with the histories which are currently in the pipeline before looking to the future. There are six official histories currently being prepared on behalf of the Government’s Official History Programme. They are expected to be ready for publication in the next two years. The subjects of these six works are Cabinet Secretaries, which will be published to coincide with the 100th anniversary of the Cabinet Office next year; the history of the Civil Service since the publication of the report of the Fulton Committee in 1968; the UK’s nuclear deterrent, which will be in two volumes; the Joint Intelligence Committee; the UK accession to the European Economic Community; and the criminal justice system.

These histories are, as I say, all nearing completion. Naturally, the costs of the histories and the time they take to produce vary considerably, depending on the subject and the individual historian. In some cases, recently retired historians are paid a personal fee, but in other cases the Cabinet Office would pay the historian’s university to buy his or her time. The sales of published histories varies, but generally only a few hundred copies per history is the usual number. The royalties from the sales of official histories barely contribute to offsetting the cost of each work—perhaps a few thousand pounds per book. Nevertheless, I should put on record the appreciation of the Government for the official histories which have been produced over the years. They have, particularly in the times before the information age, made a contribution to our understanding of some of the key events in our recent history.

But as these six volumes are now nearing completion, the Government will soon look again at the future of the Official History Programme, and the debate today will give them a range of issues to consider. I know that this will disappoint the noble Lord, Lord McNally, but looking to the future, the Cabinet Office, like all other government departments, is currently deciding how to implement the outcome of the recent spending review. For the Cabinet Office, this means a reduction of 26% in its budget. It will be necessary to take a hard look strategically at the functions of the department to ensure that the work that is done contributes to its key objectives. The future of the Official History Programme will form a part of the Cabinet Office’s considerations.

But this is not just or even primarily about costs. As the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, said, the Official History Programme was introduced in 1908, but in a different form and in very different days. Initially it was all about military histories—and, as has been said, in the 1960s the programme was amended to include peacetime histories. Since that time, self-evidently, much has changed. We have moved from a society where access to information was limited to a small number to a much more open form of government—and I think that that is a concept that the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, would rightly champion. Even since 2009, when the Pilling and Hamilton reports were written, the world has moved on, as more and more government information is available online.

I think that the noble Lord, Lord Addington, raised this issue for consideration as, increasingly, people’s preferences have changed. People seem to have less time to read the whole of a large volume of history, and instead are much more likely to refer to shorter works and compare different information that they can find online themselves. We now have freedom of information legislation, and are in the process of transitioning to a 20-year rule for records being opened at the National Archives. Government is also more transparent, with a great deal of information being published on routine transactions and important decisions.

Alongside increased public and media scrutiny of the decisions taken by government, there is now a great deal more information on the key issues of the day in the public domain, and we are opening up many more records to the public, such as the Cabinet Secretaries Miscellaneous Papers. That is something that the noble Lords, Lord Addington and Lord McNally, raised. In this age of information accessibility, records can be accessed readily by historians and researchers online—for example, from the National Archives.

I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McNally, for raising the profile of the National Archives. I had the privilege of going there when I was part of the DCMS team; it is an extraordinary resource and a real jewel in our crown. Anyone who goes there will understand that there is an enormous commitment from the people working there to ensure that the National Archives is held in good condition and are readily accessible. One thing that very much struck me on that visit was the number of people sitting there and accessing it, deriving great interest from the National Archives.

I very much appreciate what the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, said about Chris Martin, and I endorse it very much indeed. No. 10 now has a good deal of historical information available on GOV.UK, for example, including a monthly article by a guest historian, biographical information on all Prime Ministers and exclusive video interviews with six Cabinet Secretaries.

In these circumstances, there is, of course, an argument that the time may have come to reconsider whether it remains justifiable to give privileged access to government records to just a few chosen historians, and spend not insignificant public resources on doing so. It might be more in keeping with today’s climate of greater openness to be as good as we can be at getting information into the public domain so that independent historians can write histories, without the Government having editorial control, on the basis of information that is in the public domain and available to all.

It is undoubtedly the case that, in their heyday, official histories performed a particularly valuable role in giving the public a broad-ranging and reliably sourced historical perspective on key events in our history. As we have seen, today we have a much more open environment as far as access to government records is concerned. But I am particularly mindful of what the noble Lord, Lord Bew, and my noble friend Lord Lexden said about the Northern Ireland Office and I do, of course, promise to ensure that the Minister concerned is aware of the points made by the two noble Lords. I shall naturally ensure that my noble friend Lord Lexden’s guidance to my noble friend Lord Bridges of Headley about the words of his esteemed grandfather resonates in my noble friend’s ears.

This has been an exceptional debate. Again, your Lordships have heard from historians who care about the history of our country and have contributed to its history. I hope that in the reflection of this debate, the points made will be given all the consideration that they deserve. A decision as to whether the Official History Programme should continue in some form or not remains to be taken, and I will ensure that the views of your Lordships, which have been made so robustly today, are reflected to colleagues in the Cabinet Office.

13:49

Sitting suspended.

Railways: Trans-Pennine Rail Line

Thursday 10th December 2015 Grand Committee

Question for Short Debate

14:00

Asked by

[Lord Shutt of Greetland]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact on the economic development of the north of England of the pausing of the electrification of the Trans-Pennine rail line.

[Lord Shutt of Greetland (LD)]

My Lords, for the avoidance of doubt, I confirm that the trans-Pennine railway line to which I shall refer is the Leeds-Huddersfield-Manchester line—I may refer to other matters, too—which does, of course, have important links further east and west. Its electrification was announced in the Chancellor’s Autumn Statement back in 2011, and was to be completed by 2019.

I put this Question down for debate shortly after the announcing of the pausing in June 2015. It would have been easy enough to have pulled the debate once I heard that the de-pausing had been announced on 30 September. However, it is not so simple. Many questions arise.

The first point to raise is the fact that although the pausing stage lasted three months, the delay that is now announced adds three years to the timescale. It is stated that electrification should be complete by 2022. Is there some doubt even about that date? It is very disappointing and does not sit well with another announcement this autumn in the booklet High Speed Two: East and West, the Next Steps to Crewe and Beyond. That tells us that there is to be a six-year acceleration of the route from the West Midlands to Crewe—so the Government pause, de-pause and accelerate. Many in the north, of course, will wonder whether the difference in treatment is due to HS2 originating in London. One wonders whether this would be put up with in London and the south-east.

Secondly, in the pausing statement in June, the Transport Minister, the right honourable Patrick McLoughlin, told Parliament that,

“we need to be much more ambitious for that route”.—[Official Report, Commons, 25/6/15; col. 1068.]

He was referring to the trans-Pennine route. It was announced that the revised electrification plan was an improvement on the previous plan, which only changed the power supply of the trains. That sounds somewhat minimal. Indeed, in order to benefit from the overhead power supply, new rolling stock would be needed, and in any event there would be the advantages of electric power and acceleration. But what is the extent of the change that makes the new plan so much better or more ambitious that a further three years are needed to complete it? What further infrastructure improvements are envisaged? Can the Minister give further details? Indeed, what is the extent of the Minister’s ambition?

Thirdly, little has been said recently about the much-vaunted HS3. In another document—there has been a plethora of documents this last few weeks—The Northern Powerhouse: One Agenda, One Economy, One North, published in March 2015, there are five pages, 17 to 21, on “Our Rail Plan”, but there is no mention of HS3. Similarly, in the Transport for the North: The Northern Transport Strategy Autumn Report, published in November 2015, there is again no reference to HS3. What is Her Majesty’s Government’s present position on HS3? Is that scheme in pause mode? Where is it? If it is still envisaged, what is the connectivity in respect of east-west electrification and HS2?

The fourth point is this. The HS2 east-west document, which runs to 120 pages, repeats that HS2 is not a stand-alone railway. It will be an integral part of our country’s rail system and wider transport infrastructure. The words “classic compatible” are used, yet in this document and another document still—The Yorkshire Hub—lies an interim report on the redevelopment of Leeds station. This document promotes what it describes as “option 2” for the redevelopment of Leeds. The proposal is, perhaps, marginally better than the original plan, which is now described as “option 3”.

I described that earlier plan as a hammerhead terminus. The only difference in the new plan is that the hammer shaft is nearer the hammerhead—or is it as bad as this? Is it intended that there will be another link from the south of the new terminal to swing into the west side of the present station? This is hinted at in The Yorkshire Hub, but it is not on the plan or the map in the Yorkshire Hub booklet. The documents are not clear on this, and for the sake of through connectivity, using existing electrified lines to Bradford and to Skipton, as well as the to-be-electrified lines to Huddersfield, Manchester and further west, and the lines to York, the north and the east, clarification—or perhaps change —is needed.

Another associated point, my fifth point, is that following the pausing/de-pausing/delay saga, could the Minister inform the Committee as to the present prospects for further trans-Pennine electrification via the Calder Valley and the Harrogate lines east of the Pennines? These were much vaunted in the run-up to the general election, but little has been heard of them since. It would be useful to have an update on that.

I am sure that, in his response, the Minister will trumpet yesterday’s announcements on the new franchises. I commend them, but I trust that the Minister will still tackle the issues that I raised, which need addressing now to future-proof the important infrastructure decisions ahead. We need the connectivity, whether it is connectivity HS2 to HS3 or HS2 to everywhere else. That has to be planned for now; it is something that cannot be put off. I look forward to other contributions in this debate and especially to the words of the noble Viscount.

14:07

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Shutt for initiating this important and timely discussion. It appears that opportunities for better rail services in the north always seem to be disguised as a pause or a stop. Those who have nothing better to do than my Twitter timeline will notice that I have become more and more frustrated with trying to commute and travel between the cities and towns of the north. It is both an exasperating and sometimes fruitless exercise. Many millions of people across the north will be able to associate with that.

I have to say to the noble Viscount that warm words today will not be enough. The north is fed up with warm words. We seek today from this debate a real commitment with timelines and timescales and figures for some of the investment, particularly along the line of the debate heading. I come from Sheffield; I have lived in Sheffield for 20 years and I am not on the north Pennine route but on the south Pennine route. I know, however, that connectivity is absolutely key in the north. Apparently, the Chancellor also knows that connectivity is key, because without it, his northern powerhouse will not happen. We need to connect the great cities and towns of the north in order to deliver not just economic prosperity but a place where people can get around.

Can the Minister say how much money has been put aside for the electrification of the rail line? Is it guaranteed within the cost period 6 for Network Rail? We need to make sure that it does not go the way of the Great Western rail line, where there was a £1.2 billion overspend on an initial scheme of £1.6 billion, which caused the pause in the first place.

With regard to this scheme and the electrification of the Midland main line, does the Minister agree with the recommendation of the Public Accounts Committee in the House of Commons on 16 November which suggested that it might be appropriate to fund and manage these projects outside the five-year rail funding cycle? That is how Thameslink and Crossrail have been funded, rather than through these pauses, which seem to have become our opportunity. Those two schemes cost £21.1 billion. The scheme for the Midland main line, for example, is only £0.5 billion. I do not decry London getting investment, but I want fairness for the north. So will the Minister say whether these schemes will be out of the five-year funding cycle and will be ring-fenced in a separate fund like Thameslink and Crossrail?

On 15 July, I asked the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon, in a Written Question if he would commit to the electrification of both the trans-Pennine route and the Midland main line to start and be funded before Crossrail 2 starts. I received very warm words in his answer and I now ask the Minister whether he will commit to funding and starting the two schemes before Crossrail 2?

People in the north do not want warm words. We want to see real delivery of these schemes. If connectivity is king for the north and the northern powerhouse, what about the electrification of the southern trans-Pennine route, via the Hope Valley, between Sheffield and Manchester? It is just as important. It is absolutely incredible that in the 21st century, a 33-mile journey by train takes 51 minutes between two great cities of the north. The One North report that was given to the Government last year asked for this. There has been no answer. In fact, there has been no mention of it. Can the Minister say yes or no? Will the Government commit to the electrification of the southern trans-Pennine route? Furthermore, the line has been downgraded. The Government promised to move from two to four trains an hour, even though the line has not been electrified. They have now committed to only three. So we worry about this route.

What about connectivity between HS3 and HS2, as my noble friend said? There is a big question about the station for HS2 in Sheffield. At present, it looks likely to be located in Meadowhall. However, the HS3 situation means that the HS3 station is in Sheffield city centre. A report by Sheffield Council showed that the Sheffield scheme creates 6,500 more jobs; an extra GVA of £2.5 billion; and should, when successful, create £530 million more business rates. Therefore, if connectivity is king, why is there an HS3 station in Sheffield city centre and an HS2 station out at Meadowhall? Will the Minister commit to trying to locate both in Sheffield city centre?

So we want a 21st century railway—we need it now, and we need firm commitments, not warm words. Unlike my noble friend, I welcome the two new franchises that were given this week. But to be honest, getting rid of Pacer trains and having free wi-fi and more real-time information boards is not the basis of a 21st century railway. Thank you for bringing us into the 20th century with the latest franchise, but we need to see the real issues dealt with regarding connectivity. I remind noble Lords that there is £21.1 billion for London and only £0.5 billion asked for the Midland main line electrification, which has now slipped an extra three years. That may not seem a long time but, when you are a business person who wants greater connectivity, it does.

Along with millions of others in the north, I want to see some firm and real answers to my questions. I want really to understand the cost of the electrification of the north system and when funds will be firmly committed, rather than just saying “by”. I want to see answers to the strategic connectivity for HS2 and HS3 in Sheffield city centre, and I want to understand the Government’s commitment to the trans-Pennine route on the south, between Sheffield and Manchester, where they are in terms of the electrification of the Midland main line and the northern route and whether they will ring-fence funds.

I hope that after the Minister has responded my Twitter timeline will be a little bit more generous and optimistic and that, in a few years’ time, when I am travelling on what we are promised will be a connected, speedy and efficient railway line in the north, others will want to retweet rather than show frustration.

14:16

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to have the opportunity to speak today. The noble Lords, Lord Shutt and Lord Woolmer, both mentioned the critical issue of connectivity. I gave evidence to the House of Commons Select Committee on the High Speed Rail Bill a couple of weeks ago and was astonished by how they are still plugging this perfection of a line going somewhere up the middle. It might go into Manchester Piccadilly but it does not seem to go to any other station that is of any use. Certainly in Birmingham there is a 20-minute walk from one station to the other. They have lost it in a kind of wish to be better than the Japanese, or something.

But we are talking about the trans-Pennine route and the north today. I question whether the electrification of the trans-Pennine was ever actually going to go ahead, because I do not think that they had decided where it was going to go or how many tracks it would have, along with little details such as whether the track needed improving and where they would put the posts for the catenary, which was what went wrong with the Great Western.

I am a great believer in electrification but the problem with electrified tracks is that when the electrification stops you either change trains or you have to have a bi-mode train. So it is fine having one electrified route, or even two, from Manchester, or maybe even Liverpool —it is not too far away—to Leeds and Sheffield. But if you want to go on to York or beyond you will have to change trains, or have a bi-mode train. I was therefore interested in yesterday’s Written Statement about having 500 new trains, which the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, mentioned. I believe that they can go at 125 miles an hour, but I cannot see anywhere in the Statement whether they are diesel, electric or bi-mode. Maybe I have got that wrong, but it would be nice if the Minister could confirm it because, if they are electric, they might have to wait a year or two. It would be nice to have them, but they will not be able to operate; they will be sitting in the siding waiting for the wires to go up, which is not a very good idea.

The shortest thing that can be solved is capacity. Noble Lords will know about trains going uphill, especially if they are freight—I declare an interest as chairman of the Rail Freight Group. The northern powerhouse people have been very positive about freight, and I thank them; they want to see more freight. But it is no good having a passenger train going 125 miles an hour uphill if it is stuck behind a stopping passenger service or a freight train. So putting back what used to be four tracks on the approaches to the tunnels is absolutely fundamental and should come first.

If they can put the posts up for the wires as well, that would be a very good thing to do at the same time. There is no earthly point in going at 125 miles per hour if you have to halt behind the next stopping train. The noble Lord, Lord Scriven, mentioned the need for more trains on the Hope Valley line. Yes, of course there should be, but there has to be a place for through trains to overtake the stopping trains and vice versa.

I hope that the Minister can give us some idea of the timescale for infrastructure improvements to bring more capacity, where those improvements might take place, and how they will be linked to the new trains which might be electric, diesel or a combination of both. Certainly some money needs to be spent, and in much bigger sums than have so far been committed on the ground.

14:20

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Shutt of Greetland for initiating this debate and for the contributions made by other noble Lords. Despite the fairly small number of speakers, the key issues have been clearly identified and the Minister has been given a large number of questions to respond to. It is likely that I will add one or two to that list.

Back in the middle of June we had an excellent debate on transport in the north, and on that occasion I spoke about the importance of thinking in a pan-northern way, pointing out that connectivity east to west matters far more than perhaps transport planners based in London understand, and that Transport for the North as a single body with a clear remit to promote investment in the transport infrastructure of the north of England is a very welcome development. We have moved on from the position of a few months ago. As has been pointed out, there was real concern just a few days after that debate when the commitments made before the election were paused, leaving the electrification of the trans-Pennine route in doubt.

A lot has been written and said about the matter. It does not affect only the trans-Pennine route between Manchester and York, and real concern has been expressed about the capacity of Network Rail and its planning. I hope very much that those issues have been overcome. It is possible that it may prove to be a blessing in disguise that the pause has happened at all. It may give time for the problems of projects suffering overruns caused by poor planning and poor estimation of costs by Network Rail to be identified and acted upon by the chair, Sir Peter Hendy. I welcome his work, and I welcome, too, the appointment of John Cridland as the first chair of Transport for the North. He said on his appointment a few days ago:

“There is much to do to improve transport capacity and links across the North”—

and he is absolutely right. I hope that he will bring some clarity to the planning process because we still lack a strategic transport plan for the north. Indeed, we lack a strategic transport plan for the whole of the United Kingdom. We have elements of it, but we do not have a single plan.

There are elements of a rail plan for the north of England and we certainly have ambition. I pay tribute to the Minister, to the Secretary of State for Transport and to colleagues in the department because a lot has been happening, and I welcome some of the achievements of recent months. However, we need much more work, and the debate today has identified a number of ways in which the improvements need to be made.

I welcome the decisions announced this week on the Northern Rail and First TransPennine Express rail franchises. I hope that I do not sound churlish when I say that I wish that the hyperbole of DfT press releases could be toned down a bit. This week there was an assertion that the planned rail improvements will,

“make the Northern Powerhouse a reality”.

As a statement that is slightly over the top. It will certainly help, but actually it will take a great deal more than that, including work by other departments of state, to deliver the northern powerhouse. But the sense of direction is right and I pay tribute to Ministers for that.

From the perspective of the north-east—as your Lordships know, I live in Newcastle upon Tyne—there will be 500 new carriages, new peak-time services, greater capacity, an end to Pacer trains, improved stations, better ticketing and full electrification between Liverpool and Newcastle by 2022. That is all welcome news, even though of course it has actually been delayed, as was pointed out to us by my noble friend Lord Shutt of Greetland.

In addition, the First TransPennine Express franchise will deliver £400 million in premiums to the Government over the seven years of the franchise. That is a level never previously achieved. It is good that it is being managed out of the north by the Department for Transport and Rail North Ltd, which represents 29 local authorities across the north and which will build capacity in the north.

I noted that in his press release the Secretary of State for Transport felt that:

“Arriva Rail North Limited and First TransPennine Express Limited went far beyond our requirements with exciting, ambitious plans”.

That made me wonder why the Department for Transport’s requirements were so limited in the first place. If it is easy for those running the franchise to deliver more than was expected in the bid documentation, it seems to me that maybe government underasked. The result demonstrates to me that there is demand for the services, and thus income from travellers will be forthcoming. That is a vindication of those who have been campaigning for improved services.

I ask the Minister to clarify the question of fares, given these two new franchises. Is all of the additional income that is coming in and the improvement to services to be achieved from current income, or is there an expectation that there will be higher fares? I have assumed that fares would not alter, but I would appreciate the Minister’s confirmation that fares will not go up on either of these new franchises over their lifetime.

I referred earlier to the need for a strategic transport plan for the north. There has been mention of integration with HS2, and we have talked about the issues around Leeds and in Sheffield, which I will not repeat. However, there does need to be better integration. I would like to hear the Minister’s observations on my view that the cost of spurs and links between HS2 and city centres should be appraised and budgeted for now as part of the overall HS2 project. There are some big costs that need to be thought about, but they do not form part of the current HS2 budget plans.

Paragraph 60 of the Command Paper that was previously referred to suggests that this can happen “seamlessly”. If these links to HS2 are to happen seamlessly, they have to be planned clearly, but I am unclear what that plan is. We have had a mention of the Leeds-Manchester link, but I am not clear what the top of the Y will look like in the context of HS3. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us what the plans are for HS3, because I am not clear what the policy is on how the two sides of the Y will join up. The Chancellor has talked regularly about this, but I do not know what that link would look like.

Perhaps I could also ask about the east coast main line. Paragraph 51 of that recent Command Paper talks about the HS2 connection to the east coast main line via Church Fenton and states:

“We continue to believe that a link onto the ECML is necessary and complements the Government’s commitment to deliver better transport across the North-East and Yorkshire”.

The timescales are too long. If West Midlands to Crewe can be advanced by six years, there should be a clear commitment that the link to the east coast main line should be put in as part of the extension to Leeds; it should be constructed at the same time. I hope very much that some thought can now be given to that.

I turn to growth within the northern powerhouse. In the end, this is all about growth. Because local authorities will be able to keep 100% of business rate growth in future years, areas that attract development will grow faster, pay more in business rates and therefore enable those areas to invest in better infrastructure. A big worry for areas not on the high-speed line, even if they have the classic compatible rolling stock, is that they will miss out on that increase in business rate income. What assessment has been made of the impact of 100% retention of business rates on areas not on the HS track?

Finally, the point made by my noble friend Lord Scriven about planning cycles and funding cycles is extremely important. If some parts of the country can avoid five-year funding cycles, why cannot the north of England avoid those, too?

14:31

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

I add my thanks to the noble Lord for securing this debate. We welcome improvements to rail services, particularly where they will have the biggest impact. The subject of the debate is about not simply the pausing of the electrification of the trans-Pennine line but about its impact on the economic development of the north of England. If I have guessed correctly in which of his many areas of responsibility the Minister is speaking today—and perhaps I have not—it is interesting that the government spokesperson for this debate is from the Department for Transport rather than from a department one might more normally associate with responsibility for overall economic development.

I do not know, if I am right, whether this means that when the decision was announced by the Secretary of State for Transport to pause the electrification of the trans-Pennine line, the Secretary of State was also responsible for making an assessment of the potential impact of the decision on the economic development of the north of England, or whether likewise when he was announcing that the pause had ended and then subsequently going along with the recommendations from Sir Peter Hendy—which put back the intended date of completion of the electrification of the route—the Secretary of State for Transport was also responsible for an assessment then of the impact of the delay on the economic development of the north of England. Certainly, the report from Sir Peter Hendy called for by the Secretary of State on the replanning of Network Rail’s investment programme did not address this point, and neither does he appear to have been asked to take it into account.

The usual very helpful briefing pack for this debate from the House of Lords Library does not appear to contain very much about any such assessment of the impact of either the pausing, unpausing or subsequent delay in the timescale of this electrification scheme. That could be an oversight. Alternatively, it could mean that such an economic development assessment does not exist, or at least not in the public arena.

I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us when he responds if in reality any proper assessment of the impact of the pausing of the scheme and then subsequent moving back of its completion on the economic development of the north of England has been undertaken, and, if so, who undertook that assessment and what it said. I ask that in the context that, from a purely railway point of view, there have been comments from some sources that the now extended timescale for the electrification of the line could have advantages in that purely electrification of the route within the original timescale within control period 5 would have led to an increase in the costs and complexity of subsequent intended and projected capacity and speed upgrades, and that if the electrification and track improvements to provide faster and more frequent journeys were instead to be undertaken together—as it appears may now be the case—that would also considerably enhance the benefit-cost ratio of the scheme. Perhaps the Minister could comment on that point in his response.

If that point has any validity, it highlights the problem, to put it politely, of Ministers announcing schemes for electrification of rail routes and pushing for early completion dates in the run-up to an election, without thinking through the consequences. Of course, once the election is out of the way, it is politically easier to repent at leisure over completion dates when the impracticality, and perhaps also the lack of sense, of the original timescale and apparent limited extent of the project has to be admitted, as has happened in this instance with the trans-Pennine route. In this case, though, the Government knew before the election—but remained silent—that their projects did not stack up. Network Rail has said that in mid-March 2015, it informed the Department for Transport that decisions might need to be made in the coming months about the deferral of certain schemes.

We have recently had the announcement on the setting-up of a national infrastructure commission to advise on major infrastructure projects. Will the Minister say whether the intended role of the commission is such that, had it been in existence at the time, it would have been asked to advise beforehand on the Government’s pre-election announcements on improved transport links related to the northern powerhouse concept? If so, the national infrastructure commission holds out the prospect for the future of announcements of significant transport infrastructure improvements made prior to an election not subsequently having to be hastily and significantly revised and amended immediately after the election. Perhaps the Minister could comment on the intended role of the NIC in this regard.

The briefing pack includes a copy of a letter dated 30 September 2015 from the Secretary of State to Louise Ellman MP, the chair of the House of Commons Transport Committee. The Secretary of State states that he has asked Network Rail to “unpause” the electrification of the Trans-Pennine route. Perhaps the Minister could say whether “unpause” means the same as “proceed with immediately”. The Secretary of State then goes on in his letter to Louise Ellman to say that,

“Network Rail will work with the Department for Transport and Rail North to develop a new plan for electrification of the TransPennine line between Stalybridge and Leeds and on to York and Selby to focus on delivering key passenger benefits as quickly as possible. This is an improvement on the previous plan which only changed the power supply of the trains”.

That point relates to the point I raised a few moments ago about the scope of the original decision. On that point, on the extent of the proposed electrification, the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced in March 2015—interestingly, again, close to the election—that electrification would be extended from Selby to Hull, with funding from the private sector. Will the Minister confirm that that is still on track, and indicate when this work will be completed and what level of funding will be required from the private sector?

The letter from the Secretary of State goes on to talk about faster journey times and significantly more capacity between Manchester, Leeds and York. Faster journey times and capacity increases are not, of course, simply about electrification. They are also about track capacity and line speeds. Does the new plan involve providing additional tracks on parts of the route, so that, for example, fast trains can be segregated from stopping services and freight trains—and, if so, to what extent and where? What will be the maximum line speed on the newly electrified line once the work has been completed? By what extent will the freight capacity of the route be increased following electrification and the increase in line capacity? These are all issues that will impact on the economic development of the north of England, which is the subject of this debate.

The report from Sir Peter Hendy states that Network Rail has sought to balance the level of expenditure required to manage the core business and the extent to which it can deliver the full enhancement programme within the available funding. The report goes on to say that Network Rail has concluded that the core business can be managed within the borrowing limit that has been set for control period 5, but that the principal change to achieve this will be a reduction in renewals activity, which Network Rail considers can be managed safely and will not create a backlog that cannot be caught up in subsequent control periods. Are the Government happy to see renewals activity reduced as part of the replanning of their investment programme, including electrification schemes? Presumably, the present renewals programme has been drawn up on the basis of what needs to be done and when.

A further consequence of the replanning of the investment programme is that Network Rail will have to divest itself of assets, including property assets, to provide required levels of funding. As Sir Peter Hendy’s report says, selling assets to fund enhancements has implications for the future funding of the railway, as less income from property means that more will have to come from elsewhere. That could, of course, include higher fares for passengers and freight. Reducing Network Rail’s future income looks like a decidedly questionable move, based on short-term considerations rather than long-term thinking.

The electrification of the trans-Pennine route will not now be completed until 2022. It will be delivered not within control period 5—as originally intended—but across control periods 5 and 6. Will the Minister say when, during 2022, it will now be completed? Will the Minister also say what the cost of the delayed electrification of the trans-Pennine route will now be compared with the previous estimated cost, which I believe was in the region of £240 million, but I accept that I could be seriously wrong on that? What part of any increased cost is due to the pausing of the scheme and subsequent delay in its completion? When will the electrification of the route now actually commence?

What impact will there be on rail services on the trans-Pennine route as a result of the necessary infrastructure work being undertaken during the period from now until the completion of the electrification project some time in 2022? If it will result in an adverse impact on services, both passenger and freight, over that period of time, to what extent will that be the case, and what impact will that have on the economic development of the north of England over the next seven years, which is what this debate is about?

I hope that some lessons have been learned from the pausing, unpausing and delaying of the trans-Pennine electrification scheme, not least the problems of playing election politics with major railway infrastructure projects. As the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee said last month:

“The 2014-2019 rail investment programme could not have been delivered within the budget which the department, Network Rail and the Office of Rail and Road agreed”.

It added:

“Over promising what can be delivered leads to inevitable delays and cost overruns; and simply delaying projects further as a budget management mechanism is not good financial planning”.

14:41

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, on securing this debate on the trans-Pennine rail line. I am very glad that he has pursued the debate, as I detected a slight hesitation in his speech as a result of the so-called “unpause” in September.

This has been a short but useful debate, with many very good contributions. I understand the depth of concern and why the debate was secured. A number of questions were raised—some quite technical from the noble Lord, Lord Rosser—so if I run out of time and am not able to answer them, I pledge to write to the noble Lord and copy in all other noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, that this is not just warm words from the Government; there is some action. I hope that I will be able to prove that in the next 10 minutes or so.

I start by outlining the wider context of this debate. This Government have recognised that successive Governments have failed to invest adequately in transport both in the north of England and across the wider UK, and have now chosen to invest in transport for the long term. The transformation has already started. I am glad that some noble Lords recognised this in the debate, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Shipley. From March this year, electric trains were introduced on services in the north-west. Manchester Victoria station, once called the worst station in the UK, has been transformed. Train manufacturing has returned to the north-east, with Hitachi’s new £82 million factory in Newton Aycliffe, County Durham. This is creating more than 700 jobs and will support thousands in the UK supply chain.

Noble Lords will be aware that yesterday the Government announced an exciting new development, as was mentioned in the debate. The new northern and trans-Pennine rail franchises will see transformative improvements to passenger rail services in the north over the next decade. Rail journeys across the north will undergo the biggest transformation in decades, with an unprecedented package of improvements that goes far beyond the requirements we set out earlier this year. Together, these operators will oversee a very significant £1.2 billion boost to rail services with brand new, modern trains, more seats, more services and a host of improvements to deliver a modern, 21st-century passenger experience. This will include: the introduction of more than 500 brand new carriages; the removal of the outdated and unpopular Pacer trains from across the north; and space for 40,000 extra passengers at the busiest times.

I turn to the facts surrounding the pause of the trans-Pennine line and, indeed, the essence of this debate. I acknowledge the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Shutt of Greetland, about the doubt over the date of the 2022 upgrade of the trans-Pennine line. It is true that at a Transport Select Committee hearing in March 2015 the Secretary of State for Transport specifically acknowledged the slippage of the trans-Pennine electrification scheme from 2019 into the early 2020s. There is no doubt about that.

As noble Lords will be aware, on 25 June the Secretary of State announced that important parts of Network Rail’s programme for improving Britain’s railways were costing more and taking longer than planned to deliver. Sir Peter Hendy, who has a proven record of delivering on major transport challenges, was appointed as the new chair of Network Rail. The Secretary of State asked him to replan the whole of Network Rail’s improvement programme for England and Wales. Part of that announcement was that the scheme to electrify the trans-Pennine rail line connecting Manchester to Leeds and York via Huddersfield would be paused. Pausing the trans-Pennine electrification scheme did not mean that the Government’s commitment to delivering the project had faltered or stopped. I hope that I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, to that extent.

In fact, the pause gave Sir Peter the opportunity to develop a better plan for this important route—what we are now calling the trans-Pennine route upgrade. On 30 September, work on the trans-Pennine scheme officially resumed. On 25 November, Sir Peter published his more robust plan for the Network Rail enhancement programme, to ensure that every part of Britain benefits from a growing economy. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, raised the importance of freight, which has not been mentioned much in this debate. This plan recognises the importance of the strategic freight network.

Let me be clear that the previous plan for the trans-Pennine line changed only the power supply of trains; it did not include the track work required to make journeys faster or for more frequent trains. The new plan for the full route upgrade will by 2022 make journeys faster, taking up to 15 minutes off today’s journey time between Manchester and York, right across to the east; permit more frequent fast trains—up to six fast trains an hour with limited stops between Manchester and Leeds; reduce crowding by allowing longer trains to run; and improve performance.

The original plan offered poor value for money. It included only electrification of the existing track, which brought limited benefits to passengers. The passenger benefits secured by the new upgrade proposal are expected to make the scheme medium to high value for money. During my briefing I asked in depth what was meant by “value for money”—about which many noble Lords will have more experience than me—but rather than go into that now I am more than happy to write to noble Lords with the information.

The next step in developing the new plan for the trans-Pennine route upgrade is the detailed design and planning of the works over the next two years. We are pushing on with works on the ground this coming January to improve the Calder Valley route from Manchester to Leeds via Rochdale and Bradford. These improvements will initially allow the Calder Valley to be used as a diversionary route for trans-Pennine services normally using the route via Huddersfield while it is closed for major work to enable the six tunnels along the route to accommodate the overhead electric wires. This includes the three-mile long Standedge tunnel, the fifth longest tunnel in the UK, with which I am sure noble Lords are familiar.

Noble Lords will no doubt be aware of the northern powerhouse. Our aim is to rebalance the decades-old north/south divide. Much has been said about this in the House over the past few months. Transforming transport connectivity across the north is integral to this ambition. The noble Lords, Lord Shutt, Lord Scriven and Lord Berkeley, raised the importance of connectivity. Connectivity, as I think I mentioned earlier, is at the heart of the northern powerhouse: joining the major cities of the north to bring together an economic powerhouse to rival London and rebalance the economy. There will be massive investment in rail capacity, delivering 500 new trains of all types—diesel, bi-mode and electric—space, as was mentioned earlier, for 40,000 more passengers, greater frequency and more services. The new franchise is just the start of that. This will start to deliver services to the north and needs to be allowed to be built upon by our plans for the northern powerhouse rail, previously called HS3.

We are working closely with Transport for the North, Network Rail and HS2 Ltd to develop our rail plans for the 2020s and beyond. Noble Lords might not be surprised to learn that we now like to call this the northern powerhouse rail network—there is probably an acronym for that. We have also commissioned HS2 Ltd to look at options for improvements to rail travel to Scotland, which we will consider next year.

I would like to address some of the questions raised. The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, acknowledged that we have the elements of a plan for transport in the north but need to do much more work. He is absolutely right. In the Autumn Statement, the Government announced £10 million a year for the life of this Parliament to fund the new Transport for the North organisation. It is tasked with producing a comprehensive northern transport strategy.

The noble Lord, Lord Shutt, talked about what was recently said about HS3 and asked what the Government’s position is. The Government have, jointly with Transport for the North, set out their vision for the transformation of the east-west rail connections across the Pennines. As I mentioned earlier, we now call this the northern powerhouse rail network. With Transport for the North, we have commissioned Network Rail to examine how we can deliver a 30-minute journey time between Manchester, Leeds and Sheffield, with links onward to Hull, Newcastle, Liverpool and, importantly, Manchester Airport. We will publish the findings of this work early next year.

The noble Lords, Lord Shutt and Lord Scriven, mentioned the electrification of the Calder Valley line and the south trans-Pennine route. The electrification of the Calder Valley line has been identified as a potential scheme by the electrification task force for the control period starting in 2019. Network Rail is currently considering the recommendations and will publish its electrification strategy in the next year for funding consideration by the Government after 2019.

The noble Lord, Lord Shutt, raised the issue of the design of the Leeds HS2 station. The Government have asked Sir David Higgins to look at the options for Leeds and its links to Leeds city station, and to find a scheme that will stand the test of time.

The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, asked what the Y aspect of HS2 would look like. The Government and Transport for the North are working very closely with Network Rail and HS2 Ltd to address these very questions.

The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, asked whether, had the National Infrastructure Commission existed before the election, the poor planning of the project—as he put it—would have been avoided. However, he will know only too well that his ex-colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, has been asked to chair the National Infrastructure Commission, with a clear remit to advise on the priorities for transport and, indeed, other infrastructure investment.

I hope that I have made it clear during the debate that this Government are both ambitious and practical about improving transport in the north of England. This is supported by yesterday’s announcement of a comprehensive plan for the railways in the north. I hope I have got it across that we have taken decisive action to ensure the trans-Pennine line electrification goes ahead with a better plan than before. Rail passengers will have a better service that will do far more to support the northern powerhouse economy.

In summary, and to conclude, we already have electrified the oldest inter-city railway between Liverpool and Manchester earlier this year; we have a clear view towards a better scheme, the trans-Pennine route upgrade, to be completed by 2022; we have announced the new trans-Pennine and northern rail franchises, with a transformational programme up to the mid-2020s; and we have taken steps, through establishing Transport for the North, for the north itself to set out a clear view of its transport priorities to complement the opening of HS2 to Manchester and Leeds in the early years of the 2030s. As has been acknowledged, this is just the start and there is much work to be done. Our journey has started, and I thank noble Lords for supporting the project so far.

[Lord Berkeley]

I welcome much of what the noble Viscount said. Five or six fast trains an hour across the Pennines sounds really good for passengers, but you will not have any stopping trains in that pattern unless you have more tracks. Perhaps the noble Viscount could write to us about the extra tracks that will be necessary to accommodate stopping trains and freight.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

I will certainly add that the number of questions that I have not been able to answer. I will include it with the questions put by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser.

14:55

Sitting suspended.

Music Venues

Thursday 10th December 2015 Grand Committee

Question for Short Debate

15:00

Asked by

[Lord Clement-Jones]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to support small grass-roots music venues.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, according to UK Music’s latest figures, the music industry now contributes £4.1 billion to the UK economy, generates £2.1 billion in exports and employs more than 117,000 people. The sector as a whole grew by 5% in 2014. While our music industry is succeeding in many aspects, behind these impressive figures, elements of the sector are not doing as well. The focus of this debate, and of my remarks today, concerns what plans the Government have to support small grass-roots music venues. I am delighted that so many other music-loving noble Lords are joining in today’s debate.

Earlier this year, the Mayor of London established a Music Venues Taskforce. Chaired by the Music Venue Trust, and involving the Musicians’ Union, UK Music and representatives from two London venues—the 100 Club and Village Underground—the task force published its Rescue Plan in October to address the 35% decline in grass-roots music venues in the capital since 2007. While a lot of the publicity for grass-roots venue closures has been centred on London, the issue of grass roots is not unique to the capital. Venues such as Leicester’s Princess Charlotte, TJs in Newport, the Duchess of York in Leeds, the Picture House in Edinburgh and the Roadhouse in Manchester have all closed due to a number of issues that add up to the same thing: running a grass-roots music venue is becoming increasingly challenging.

In the task force’s Rescue Plan, the Music Venue Trust came up with a definition of a grass-roots music venue—as distinct from other premises—centred primarily on its cultural and social role and based on music programming being the establishment’s raison d’être. Furthermore, being a grass-roots venue means being a beacon of music and a key generator of night-time economic activity, and taking risks with programming and acts.

I am sure that many noble Lords have been enjoying the latest album from UK artist Adele, “25”, which has set records around the world for sales and is likely to be this year’s global music success story. Adele played her first gig at the 12 Bar Club in London, whose Denmark Street venue is now closed. She went on to play support slots and small shows across the country, building her skills and her experience in front of small audiences in the manner that has enabled UK artists to thrive for the last 50 years. Had it not been for the vital grass-roots music venue circuit, it is difficult to see how an artist such as Adele could have cultivated her creativity. In 1994, a little-known band by the name of Oasis undertook a 25-date tour of the UK which transformed them into the world’s leading live band. Of those 25 venues, only 12 remain open.

The UK’s ability to create more acts like Adele and Oasis is being challenged by a number of threats to these important institutions. These threats include rising property prices and rents, increased demand for housing in big cities, increases in business rates, lack of specific guidance on how to treat music venues in planning law, increased deregulation of the planning system—notably the permitted development right from 2013, which allows offices to be converted into homes without the need for full planning permission—and increased conditions put on other aspects of a venue’s licence, despite the exemptions put in place by the Live Music Act.

There has been a lack of central government legislative support when contrasted with other key music markets such as the USA or Australia. In financial terms, across continental Europe, the grass-roots music venues sector has attracted significant direct government or industry subsidy, which distorts the market, making it difficult for our venues in the UK to compete for international talent. Thankfully, there are a number of sensible actions that the Government can take in order to alleviate the problems for grass-roots music venues.

First and foremost, the Government should introduce the agent of change principle into planning law. This principle would mean that when a planning development is granted, the onus is on the incoming individual or business to take responsibility for any changes needed to deal with noise from businesses that existed in the vicinity before permission was granted. Such a provision would significantly reduce the financial and administrative burden placed on venues when new development occurs. The principle has already been adopted in some states in Australia and the US. The Mayor of London has indicated that the agent of change principle will be adopted in the London Plan 2018.

Will the Minister undertake to look at how primary legislation can be strengthened in this regard? An opportunity exists in the Housing and Planning Bill, where amendments to introduce the agent of change principle have been debated in the Commons. In the debate on Tuesday, Planning Minister Brandon Lewis rejected the amendments as unnecessary. He claimed that the National Planning Policy Framework incorporated the principle and so did the guidance—I suppose that he meant paragraph 6 of the noise planning guidance.

However, he said that he is trying to meet the music sector on this in conjunction with Culture Minister Ed Vaizey who pledged to arrange a meeting with a delegation when he attended Venues Day 2015, the annual national gathering of grass-roots music venues from across the UK, which is organised by the Music Venue Trust. UK Music has followed up on this but no date has been confirmed. Can the Minister undertake that this will happen before Report in the Commons on the Housing and Planning Bill?

Will the Minister also consider how the ground-breaking deed of easement of noise in the recent Ministry of Sound case can be further promoted as good practice in resolving cases between developers and venues? Will he also commit to a biannual meeting of key Ministers to consider, develop and monitor strategies of support for venues?

Secondly, the Government should introduce full relief from business rates for grass-roots music venues. As I have already outlined, business rates are problematic for music venues. A small London venue may pay tens of thousands of pounds a year in business rates, making it economically unviable without financial support. The Government are conducting a review into business rates relief for local newspapers. This creates a potential precedent for the Government to review rates for grass-roots music venues. Such a measure would go some way towards correcting the imbalance in cultural subsidies with our European competitors.

In monitoring the impact of the Live Music Act and further entertainment deregulation from earlier this year, the Government should review whether local authorities and the police are utilising and over- regulating other licensing conditions to regulate certain music venue activities which should otherwise benefit from the full impact of the coalition Government’s entertainment deregulation reforms. Internal government co-ordination is also key to this issue. This debate is being responded to by the noble Earl, yet other aspects of government such as DCLG, Defra and the Home Office also have a strong interest in this.

At Venues Day 2015, Minister Ed Vaizey firmly backed the idea that grass-roots music venues should have access to cultural funding. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that that happens, and specifically what can be done to ensure that any available funding acts directly to improve the infrastructure in those venues so that they are attractive places for touring artists to play?

Finally, will the Government make a specific response to the Mayor of London’s Music Venues Taskforce report, and what further work are they planning to undertake with other large cities and communities in the UK to promote the vital role of grass-roots music venues?

We protect and support our theatres, arts centres, civic centres, museums and galleries by recognising their cultural priorities. The Government should do all they can to ensure that these vital incubators of the live music industry are able to access similar levels of support and recognition from national government and local authorities as those received by other spaces. These issues are urgent for the future of live music venues and I hope that the Minister will respond appropriately.

15:09

[Lord Colwyn (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for securing this debate this afternoon. It provides a timely opportunity to identify the reasons behind grass roots music venue closures and address how this might be rectified. I thank UK Music and the Mayor of London for their help. My few remarks will relate to the task force report and comment on its conversations with a large number of music and night-time industry organisations.

Venues act as important centres for cultural activity in our towns and communities. Grass roots music venues act as important hubs for local music talent and offer a means by which musicians and performers can develop their performance. Problems for grass roots music venues are not unique to our capital. Other cities have been affected and have either closed or had considerable threats of closure placed on their businesses in recent years. I declare my interest as a patron of the National Youth Jazz Orchestra. I am co-chairman of the All-Party Jazz Appreciation Group, and I thank the British Phonographic Industry, the Performing Rights Society and, particularly, Phonographic Performance Ltd, which has sponsored the British Parliamentary Jazz Awards for 10 years. These awards have become one of the most important jazz award events in the UK jazz calendar. I am also grateful to Yamaha, which helps young jazz musicians at grass roots level with the loan and provision of instruments via the youth jazz and Yamaha scholarship awards.

I have been known to do some busking in local pubs, but regret that I no longer perform at the larger events. I much prefer to visit Ronnie Scott’s and ask Simon Cooke to point out the up and coming musicians and important guests or chat to Steve Rubie at the 606 as to why he gave up his career as a dentist to run a jazz club. Where did I go wrong? I am sure that my noble friend Lord Courtown and his family will have heard and danced to my band on many occasions. Looking around the Moses Room this evening, I see other customers of mine, including the noble Lords, Lord Addington and Lord Brougham and Vaux, who would have danced to my band.

Demand for live music is increasing, and music tourism is thriving. Grass roots music venues aid a vital talent developmental role that has not been replaced by television talent shows or social media. However, 35% of London’s grass roots venues have closed over the last eight years. The Mayor of London’s Music Venues Taskforce was set up to work out why so many venues have closed and what impact this is having on London’s culture and economy. It found that London’s grass roots music venues are pivotal to the ongoing success of the UK music industry and contribute to London’s desirability as a place to live, work and visit. However, planning, licensing, policing and fiscal policy is struggling to balance the needs of grass roots music venues with those of residents and businesses. An increasing population means that residential development and night-time activity are all connected. This pressure, coupled with rising property prices and increasing costs for grass roots music venues, is proving too much and venues are closing.

The task force found signs of market failure within the music industry. The research and development function that grass roots music venues undertake has not been properly supported. There is now a need to rebuild London’s grass roots venues and invest in new talent so that all parts of the industry can return to full health. Following extensive consultation with government, local authorities and the music industry, the task force has proposed a rescue package. The report also sets out an ambition to create new venues and harness the benefits of London’s tourism boom through new promotional campaigns. The task force calls for a change in how we think about music venues; it believes that grass roots music venues are cultural spaces and need to be recognised as such in policy documents. I hope that the music industry will now work with government in responding to this crisis at the grass roots level.

15:14

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD)]

My Lords, I too congratulate my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones on securing this debate. Like him and other noble Lords, I believe that supporting and nurturing live music of all genres is important and worthwhile. Not only does it give many of us enormous pleasure, it can also, for instance, enhance educational achievement, help recovery from ill health and improve well-being. It can play a role in cultural diplomacy, and it can help to reduce crime. It can assist in social cohesion and, of course, as we have already heard it can make a significant contribution to the economy of our country. The charity Golden-Oldies, based in my former constituency of Bath, demonstrates the power of music when it comes to well-being. The Goldies provide singing and activity sessions, bringing together older people who are socially isolated or people with learning difficulties, dementia and Alzheimer’s. It really does work. As Age UK has said:

“The power of music, especially singing, to unlock memories and kickstart the grey matter is an increasingly key feature of dementia care”.

As I have said, music can bring communities together. I was the lead Minister for Our Big Gig, which is an annual government-funded community music celebration of local musical talents and music-making. It brings communities together, with people from all sorts of backgrounds who live in the same neighbourhood often meeting for the first time. If live music is important, so too are the small venues which are its life-blood. That is why I was pleased to have the opportunity to pilot through the Commons my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones’ Live Music Bill, which is now the Act. The aim was simple: to reduce the regulatory burden on small venues hosting live music, and thus encourage more to do so. It has succeeded in helping some small venues to keep going and new ones to open, and it has played its part in seeing a growth in the live music sector and a corresponding increase in its contribution to the economy.

As we have already heard, venues are closing and the problems are growing. The Mayor of London’s Music Venue Taskforce has already been referred to, and we have heard of problems elsewhere in the country. However, precise information is hard to come by and the data is limited. For instance, venues that are encompassed by the Live Music Act no longer need an entertainment licence, so getting precise numbers to enable a before-and-after comparison is difficult. Many argue that the standard industrial classification, SIC, and standard occupational classification, SOC, codes which are used by ONS are unhelpful. We know that information gathered by a range of bodies such as UK Music, the Music Venue Trust and the Live Music Exchange is not adequately collated. I believe that it would help—and I hope that the Minister can assist us with this—if we could find ways of asking colleagues in different departments to look at the collection and analysis of data on live music to help us get a better feel for the situation.

There are definitely problems and many solutions have already been offered, ranging from night-time economy tsars to a review of venue capacity limits in light of the smoking ban. In the limited time I have, I will mention just two areas where I believe that progress can be made. The first is simply to give greater publicity to legislation and support systems that already exist—measures that I had a hand in bringing into force.

As an example, the Bell Inn on Walcot Street in Bath is a popular local pub and a live music and performance venue. Regulars became concerned that the pub could be sold, closed as a pub and converted to other uses, so they used existing powers under the Localism Act 2011. They listed the pub as an asset of community value, which meant extra protection from development and a potential six-month moratorium on any sale. Members of the community wanted time to put together the funds to make a bid to buy the pub themselves, something that they could do under the existing community right to bid. Deciding that they did want to try to buy the pub, the locals got help from the community shares unit and sold community shares in the pub via a crowdfunding-type website. They raised £720,000, well in excess of the £500,000 target that they had set themselves. They put in a bid, which was successful. In 2013, 536 shareholders who were customers, friends and staff bought the Bell Inn, and it continues as a vibrant small music venue which welcomes all visitors, and noble Lords would be very welcome. Greater publicity about the opportunities offered by the Localism Act, like those used by customers and staff of the Bell, could provide a route to help other small music venues that are under threat. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s comments on that.

My second point is in relation to the agent of change issue, which has already been raised. As we have heard, the extension of permitted development rights eases the way for unused commercial, retail or industrial properties to be converted into housing. Where they are sited next to existing music venues, that can create a difficulty. If at all possible, the agent of change, the developer, should take responsibility for that. An analysis of the debate that took place on Tuesday shows that the Minister, Brandon Lewis, did not fully understand the situation. I am delighted that he has agreed to talk to the music industry and his colleagues in DCLG. But like my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones, I am interested to hear from the Minister whether those meetings will take place and what views he has on the particular proposal for the agent of change.

15:21

[The Earl of Clancarty (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for the opportunity to participate in what is a remarkably timely debate, both on account of the London mayor’s rescue plan and the Commons debate on Tuesday.

The statistic of 35% of grass-roots venues lost in the last eight years in London alone is shocking. What we seem to have today is a perfect storm of spiralling rents, valuable building sites, increasing business rates and untrammelled development. The fundamental questions that we should ask are: how much is a local area or local community affected in the round by any proposed changes? How much do people in a local area have a right of access not just to music venues but to live arts generally? If they do, is it a good provision or not? Also, crucially, how much is that local community itself being destroyed, since the arts are a part of that and are an important part of the definition of a locality?

In this respect, noise, if it is a significant problem, is a by-product of a more fundamental concern. Noise would simply not be a problem—or at least less of one—in a more cohesive community. Yet unfortunately it has become necessary to deal with it, which is why I would certainly support the agent of change amendments to the Housing and Planning Bill. In Tuesday’s debate, the Housing and Planning Minister, Brandon Lewis, said that, although he was happy to meet with organisations, the proposed amendments were unnecessary because the National Planning Policy Framework incorporates the principle of agent of change already. But tell that to the Point in Cardiff. Actually we cannot do that because it no longer exists. It installed £68,000-worth of sound-proofing to stop complaints from the new development next door, but had to close because it could not afford to pay the loan. This should not have been the Point’s responsibility. It seems clear that this will work and the agent of change principle adhered to only if there is something specific in law, as has been proposed by Dr Blackman-Woods and others. Otherwise, there is a huge danger that it will be overlooked.

What was not discussed on Tuesday in the Commons was the situation the other way round, which is what would then be the responsibilities incumbent on a new venue setting itself up in a neighbourhood, which of course sometimes happens when the already existing club has been forced out of the city centre and has had to relocate. It is surely better that a venue does not have to relocate in the first place but remains in the community where it belongs. The report to the London mayor is a valuable document with many worthwhile recommendations. I hope that both the London Assembly and the Westminster Government look at it closely. Music venues must be an integral part of the next London plan, and a night-time mayor is well-worth considering.

This is not a problem for London alone, as the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, said. To take an example from abroad, with increasing gentrification, some of the same problems are starting to happen in Berlin, an equally vibrant city in terms of live music, even though there is less of a problem there. For instance, in Berlin I have been to what might be termed pop-up live music events advertised perhaps a few days beforehand. You go along, a makeshift bar materialises and you hear some amazing music, which could be anything from jazz to experimental classical or folk. Sometimes, it is a bit like wandering into someone’s living room. This kind of flexibility would be unthinkable in London, but it happens in Berlin because the audiences for these events live next door, or even in the same building, and have not yet been driven out of the centre of the city. Berlin, like many places in Europe, is a renting city, but additionally it has a strong rent-cap policy. We absolutely need to cap rents in London to help preserve our communities.

However, these problems also exist in other towns in the UK, and it is important to point out that live music can also be funded by local government, often as part of arts centres. Some of these venues may now be under threat of closure. It really is extraordinary how further real-term cuts in the arts can be broadcast as good news, although what is happening with local government funding is the worst news of all.

One example of these uncertain times is the situation in respect of the successful Electric Theatre in Guildford, developed as recently as 1997 by Guildford Borough Council as a community arts venue, allowing public access to different media, including live music. Instead of running it itself as it has done up till now, the local council intends to lease the site out, and has invited private bidders from the arts and entertainment sector. There will now be no guarantee that the balanced needs of the local community will be met. It seems that we are moving into the extraordinary position where, instead of local councils helping to fund the arts, the arts are now expected to fund local councils, which is, for much innovative art and music, frankly an impossibility. In the long term, such an approach will have a serious detrimental effect on the arts in the UK. It is a long way, too, from the principle that some of us have argued for of there being a statutory obligation on the part of councils to provide local communities access to the arts, which is becoming an increasing deficiency in many areas.

On the future of independent clubs, Mark Davyd of the Music Venue Trust, who runs the Forum, a music venue in Tunbridge Wells, and chairs the London mayor’s report, has said:

“You can’t blame people for selling up. The valuation of the Forum as a music venue is about £375,000. If we sell it to be flats, it is worth £1.2 million”.

If short-term economic factors were the only consideration, we probably would not have any grass-roots venues at all, not just for music but for the arts in many media. Therefore, the question must be asked: how important is it to preserve our grass-roots arts venues for local communities, for the creative economy and, in the case of music venues, for the development of the music industry itself, which are all long-term goals? That is not to mention the long-term contribution made by such venues to the economic value of the local area itself, all of which is why this is an issue that cannot be left up to the open market. Grass-roots venues must be protected and nurtured through necessary legislation, through sensitive planning and, where necessary, through governmental financial support.

15:28

[Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for identifying this absolutely vital ingredient in our creative industries. Why is it vital? It is because the great companies of this country—opera houses, orchestras, and pop and jazz groups—are often seeded and nourished at grass-roots level. All the great talents have to start somewhere, and that somewhere is often in small venues up and down the country. I think of my visits to the Cavern Club in Liverpool, for example, where the Beatles, among others, found fertile ground to gain experience. I shall never forget visits to the Marquee in Soho, where I played and many more successful groups than mine took flight. I think of small venues at festivals like Cheltenham and Huddersfield and clubs in Manchester and Birmingham. I think of Club Inégales, a haven for contemporary composers in London. For many audiences, small venues offer the only opportunity to hear live music.

How I envy New York its plethora of small jazz venues and its resulting success with modern jazz; yet visit Ronnie Scott’s or Pizza Express—and occasionally the House of Lords—and you will find here, in this country, a huge and healthy appetite for jazz. At a recent Classical Music meeting here in the Lords, we heard from Ed Vaizey. I was extremely impressed by his passion; doubtless this commitment helped inform the very welcome financial news regarding the arts from the Chancellor in his recent Statement, although I take my noble friend’s caveat on board.

I did, however, point out to Mr Vaizey that because music commissions are very much now largely in the gift of major Arts Council clients, and since the devolution of commissioning funds, small groups and less well known or younger composers have rather fallen through a gap in funding. Indeed, small venues were often instrumental in commissioning new and promising talent. I and my colleagues had our early works performed—and what a learning process that is: to hear your music and hear the mistakes you are making—in music clubs and village halls before some of us found ourselves at the Royal Opera House or the BBC Proms in the Royal Albert Hall. Indeed, on one occasion I had a work premiered in a venue that I gather doubled as a strip joint and pole-dancing venue. I could not help thinking that perhaps hard-hitting contemporary music would have even bigger audiences if we could combine these two activities. But then, of course, I thought how much music plays a very vital role even in that.

We are not talking about a huge amount of money here, but small venues and commissions are financially the, if you like, soft underbelly of experimental and innovative creativity in this country. They are such an easy target for cuts and they exist on a knife edge, yet feed into and supply the income-generating companies that help to fuel the economy of which the Government are justly proud.

I have a request for the Minister. Ed Vaizey promised to take back to the DCMS the point about composers and the gap. I would like to go further and combine it with what we are talking about today. Therefore, will the Minister please talk to him about the way in which we can address these two issues together to see whether there is any way of protecting and nurturing the vulnerable but vital work of small venues and thus, in the long run, the overall future health of creativity in this country?

15:31

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, when you find yourself slightly further down the list of speakers, you look at your briefing notes and suddenly realise that most of your points have been mentioned. Therefore, I am afraid that I will repeat some of the points that have already been made.

I have danced to the music of the band of the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn. Indeed, I remember that my wedding was greatly enhanced by the spontaneous spotting of accents in the room and the way that the music followed them. The sight of people in morning suits dancing reels will stay with me for quite a while. However, as noble Lords have said, we have lost 35% of our smaller music venues. That means that one in three has gone. Clearly, these venues are under pressure. This is not the result of intentional policy but a classic case of Murphy’s law as the pressure on these outside bodies is leading to them being squeezed. If we are not going to subsidise them, we have to make the system work for them. I think that my noble friend Lord Foster pointed out that we should bring together the various parts of government and make them work together because it is clearly in nobody’s interest to lose these venues. Some people will say that such a step is in their interest if it is to their perceived personal advantage. Nimbyism will always be present, but if we adopt something like the agent of change principle, surely we can put this in a sensible context.

Who has not chortled over their cornflakes at newspaper articles about people who move next to pubs then complain when customers leave them after closing time or who, better still, complain that the cows in an adjacent field moo? We need to state that if you move somewhere where a venue is already in place which is deemed to be good by the vast majority of people, you will have to live with it or make changes to your property that allow you to live with it. It is not beyond the wit of man in the modern world to install sound insulation in a property. The person who moves into the property should take on that responsibility. It is important to get that across.

On business rates and so on, we must encourage local authorities to think about the venue. What does the economic activity going on there mean to the local area? Are people spending money in it and does it provide employment? The figure may not be exact, but another statistic which has been mentioned is that more than 117,000 people are employed in this sector and deriving an income from the music industry. These venues make a contribution to local restaurants and other bars in the area. They do not stand by themselves, and surely that must be taken into account. You will get the odd venue that goes a little bit rogue and possibly needs some intervention to deal with it, but most of the time they are peaceful, law-abiding institutions to which people go to enjoy themselves. Ensuring that people appreciate what else is going on is vital to this.

It has been suggested that we should have what I think are called “night mayors”. I love the idea of the first prominent person to hold that position. The cartoonists will have an absolute field day. I think the expression “night tsar” was used, which is a wiser way of putting it. It is probably necessary to have someone to co-ordinate leisure activities and the economic activity that goes with them because there are competing stresses on how all this is implemented. It is important that people are made aware of this. We all know that the world is focused on us, and we are all very capable of losing our peripheral vision when it comes to changing situations. Making sure that we understand that music venues and the leisure activities that result from them are part of a wider economy would probably be the best thing we could do here.

There is a great deal of good will around this, and much legislative change has already taken place, but when the noble Earl comes to respond to the debate, can he give us an idea of how the co-ordination is being handled, how guidance is being produced and then pushed down to local authorities, and what help is being given to enable them to reach out themselves? This will cross boundaries for local authorities, so how will it be done? That is important because we are in danger of getting rid of something which is of great benefit all round. Whatever problems there are, they will be as nothing compared with the damage that will be done to a whole sector of our creative economy.

15:37

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, I add my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for securing this debate, and I thank all the music-loving Members of the House, of whom I am sure there are more than we have been able to squeeze in to participate in today’s debate. Indeed, it has brought back fond memories of the first Bill that I was involved in, the Live Music Bill, which is now the Live Music Act 2012, which I had the honour of stewarding through from the Opposition Front Bench. Although I declare an interest as a rather part-time member of the Parliament Choir, I have none of the expertise so much on display of those with professional and semi-professional links who have talked about their experiences; I acknowledge how much that has contributed to our debate today. But all of us are here because we share a commitment to the sector in its widest sense, and I hope that that message is loud and clear for the Minister. This is a matter that cuts across all the parties and sectors of the House.

The unanimity of purpose in coming to the debate today has been echoed in a message that the Minister will have picked up, which is that there is common ground here. Grass-roots music venues play a key role in enabling some of the biggest names in music to develop as artists and to build their audiences. They are in some senses incubators, and so protecting these live music venues is crucial to our creative industries. As several noble Lords have observed, they contribute to a sense of place and they add to an area’s desirability as a place to live, work and visit.

This is not just a London problem. Noble Lords have mentioned Cardiff, Lancaster, York and Edinburgh, and there are all too many others. We should congratulate the Mayor of London—I do so publicly today—on setting up the Music Venues Taskforce, which has informed so many of today’s contributions. Perhaps in response to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Foster, we should invite other cities to replicate this work and extend it so as to produce the evidence which I am sure would convince Ministers, even if they have not been convinced by what has been said in the debate today.

What exactly is the problem? There is a lot of concern and anxiety around this, and Ministers will want to be sure that they are in the right area on this. It seems to me that we have differential planning, licensing, policing and fiscal policies in play, which means that it is a struggle for those involved to balance the needs of grass-roots music venues with those of residents and businesses. All these are legitimate concerns. But without thinking through the policy implications, tensions are bound to arise. It is obvious that an increasing need for housing means that residential development is taking place cheek-by-jowl with existing night-time activity. This pressure, coupled with rising property prices and increasing costs for grass-roots music venues, is proving, as the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, said, a perfect storm, and as a result venues are closing. This is a very depressing scenario. Everyone has argued that we want to do something about it, but nobody has come up with a very clean and obvious solution that would, with one stroke, solve this. I will just touch on some of the issues that have come up today and invite the Minister to respond to each of them.

First is the agent of change principle, which has received a fair amount of discussion. This puts the onus on the developer to mitigate any future problems which might emerge between newcomers to an area and long-standing local venues. Funnily enough, I came across this the other day on a visit, as part of my secondment to the Metropolitan Police, to an area on the outskirts of London which houses the police mounted brigade. It is fully equipped to look after horses, and obviously with horses come noise—in this case, a forge, which is not quiet but is used through the day and often at night. The adjacent industrial estate is going to be turned into a housing estate, and the Metropolitan Police is concerned that its existing practices and procedures will be affected by future complaints. This is not just a music issue, but is of wider concern.

A number of noble Lords mentioned the debate on the Housing and Planning Bill, in which the Minister, Mr Brandon Lewis, said a number of things about this. I will pick up a slightly different quote, which seemed to me to be a way forward. He not only said, as others have mentioned, that he wants to look further at the matter and has been working with the Minister for Culture and the Digital Economy but accepted that:

“If a business is working and a nearby building converts to residential housing … It would be entirely wrong of the people who moved … to complain about the business that existed before the residential housing was there”.—[Official Report, Commons, Housing and Planning Bill Committee, 8/12/15; col. 598.]

When the Minister comes to respond, can he update us on where discussions have got to on this point? There are opportunities coming up in this House which would allow us to take the point further, should that be appropriate.

On business rates, one thing that has not been mentioned up to now but which came up as a live issue in the recent Enterprise Bill—whose Third Reading is still to come—is the question of whether or not there will be action on the rating demands being raised by the VOA on grass-roots music festivals which operate on agricultural land. It is slightly tangential but it bears on the wider point, also raised by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, about the way in which local authorities could affect the incidence of business rates not only on venues but on portable festivals. Again, could the Minister update us on where we have got to on this? I think the last statement on this was from the DCMS Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, who said that,

“if there are no permanent physical adaptations to the land … and the duration of the festival is only a matter of a few days, it is unlikely to attract a rating”.—[Official Report, 2/11/15; col. GC 314.]

However, that is not what is happening on the ground: ratings have been applied and they have been causing problems.

My fourth point follows the rather interesting point made by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, about the feeling in the industry, which I think is genuine, that there is overregulation of the activity here. It is easy to knock regulation—good regulation is essential for the proper functioning of a good society—but it may be that perhaps the better regulation unit in BIS could be asked to apply a task-oriented focus on this area to see whether it could come up with some plans for deregulation which would both satisfy the Government’s overall aim to have two out for every one in and relieve some of the problems of the music industry.

Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Foster, reminded us that music can have a restorative effect on social cohesion and health. Can the Minister sketch out for us what his department is doing to spread the word about why DWP, DH and CLG should be working with DCMS to make sure that music is supported in this way?

15:45

[The Earl of Courtown (Con)]

My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for securing this debate, and thank other noble Lords for their contributions. The debate is particularly appropriate as the noble Lord was the parent of an important Bill that went through this House.

The future of small, grass-roots music venues is clearly an issue that attracts strong interest from this Committee and across the whole House, as was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson. I am fully aware of the important contribution that the live music scene makes, not just to the UK economy but to its overall cultural landscape.

Noble Lords mentioned the many venues that they have seen various acts at, and I should mention that many of those venues formed an important part of my youth, such as Friars in Aylesbury, where I remember seeing Cockney Rebel twice in one year. I also saw John Otway and Wild Willy Barrett, although I did not really get too much into their music, to be perfectly honest. More recently, I visited the Horseshoe in Clerkenwell to hear a folk singer from Courtown Harbour in County Wexford sing a song called “Lord Courtown”, which is about an ancestor of mine. Strangely enough, it was very complimentary about the famine work that my family did during those bad years.

Music is one of the things that makes our country great, and often provides a person’s first introduction to all things British. It is one of the principal reasons that the UK is currently ranked number one in the global soft power index. British singers and musicians, as mentioned by noble Lords, provide the daily soundtrack to the lives of millions.

When I talk about talent, I am looking not just at the artists. This country provides the industry with outstanding producers, sound engineers, writers, arrangers, promoters, roadies and many others who are all part of the UK’s music ecosystem. Music tourism—not mentioned before in this debate—generated more than £3 billion of spending in the UK last year and sustained nearly 40,000 jobs. Last year, 546,000 people came here from overseas because of music, spending an average of £751 each.

The Government will carry on supporting and promoting an environment in which UK music can continue to thrive. I note that between 2012 and 2016, the Government will have invested £460 million in a wide range of music and cultural education programmes. We have moved to boost our orchestras with a new tax relief at a rate of 25% on qualifying expenditure from next April. The music export growth scheme helps independent music companies to reach overseas markets, ably assisted by the BPI and UK Trade and Investment—Mercury Prize winners Young Fathers being just one of the bands to benefit from the scheme.

Grass-roots music venues are a vibrant and vital part of our music ecosystem and our communities, as was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Foster, and others. That is why, since last year, we have reformed entertainment licensing to make it easier to perform and play live and recorded music. We have also noted calls for the adoption of the agent of change principle to protect music venues from noise enforcement when it comes to changes in nearby land use. I will say more on that later in my speech.

We have made changes to the National Planning Policy Framework, which now includes a specific reference to the need for consideration of existing live music venues when it comes to changes of use in nearby land. Additionally, the Supreme Court judgment in a common law nuisance case, Coventry v Lawrence, has made changes to the way nuisance law is interpreted in the 21st century. The judgment helps in emphasising that the regulatory regime must strike a balance between enabling people to enjoy music at well-run venues and managing any potentially adverse effects from noise for residents.

This is, as noble Lords have said, challenging, but we are exploring what more can be done to ensure that local authorities take all relevant factors into account, as in the case of Camden Council. Noble Lords have mentioned its 2010 strategy for Denmark Street, which acknowledges the street’s renown as,

“a centre of popular music instrument retailing”,

its “unique and vibrant atmosphere”, and its significant contribution to the area’s “special interest and character”. It is right and proper that plans have been approved to bring the 12 Bar Club building back into use as a music venue, and planning permission has been granted for a brand new 800-capacity music venue directly opposite the site where the Astoria once stood.

Many noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones, Lord Foster and Lord Stevenson, commented on the agent of change principle and the debate that occurred in the House of Commons last week. I shall answer as much as I can on the issue, but I shall ensure that the substance of this debate is put to my colleagues in that department as well. This is a complex issue, which cuts across planning, licensing and noise protection regimes. We have looked into the planning provisions in Victoria, Australia, but they apply only to developments within 50 metres of live music venues, whereas the National Planning Policy Framework says that existing business such as music venues, regardless of distance, should not have unreasonable restrictions put on them because of changes in nearby land use since they were established. Elements of the agent of change principle already exist within planning policies and guidance and can already influence planning decisions, because planning law requires planning applications to be determined in accordance with the local development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. National policy and guidance are material considerations.

The noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Addington, and the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, drew the attention of the Grand Committee to business rates. The Government recognise that business rates represent a fixed cost that can be more burdensome during times of economic difficulty, particularly for small businesses. That is why my right honourable friend the Chancellor has extended the doubling of small business rate relief until April 2017, which gives targeted support to single, small properties. Some 600,000 eligible small businesses are estimated to benefit and 400,000 businesses will pay no rates at all as a result of the 12-month extension.

Local authorities also have the power to offer business rate discounts beyond predefined reliefs at their discretion. This is funded 50% by central government and 50% by the relevant local authority. We would expect local authorities to take full account of the funding provided by central government for discretionary rate relief when making their decisions. The Government are currently undertaking a review of business rates, which will be fiscally neutral and will report at a later date.

The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, also mentioned deeds of easement, such as that in the case of the Ministry of Sound. It is a matter of choice for all the parties involved; every case where the potential exists for adopting such an approach will need to be considered on its own merits. It must be the decision of those affected as to whether entering into such an agreement is right for them.

Many if not all noble Lords mentioned the issue relating to cross-governmental co-ordination and the meeting to be arranged between my honourable friend Mr Vaizey and colleagues in the DCLG. My honourable friend remains committed to taking a delegation of music venue owners to meet the Planning Minister, and it is my understanding that the relevant ministerial offices are currently working to secure an appropriate date for the new year. Furthermore, I can confirm that officials from the department concerned have already met to discuss these issues on a number of occasions and, led by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, we will set up further meetings to look at what can be done. As the noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones, Lord Addington and Lord Berkeley said, co-ordination between all those departments is so important; it does not involve just one department but a wide spread of departments. At the same time, we will look at better collection of statistics. As the noble Lord, Lord Foster, said, it is difficult to define these venues.

A number of noble Lords also referred to my honourable friend’s mention of funding and access to funding during his participation in Venues Day this year, when he encouraged music venues to apply for Arts Council funding. He was, however, also clear that funding decisions are made by the Arts Council independently of government. The Arts Council already provides funding for a number of small music venues, such as Band on the Wall in Manchester, Cecil Sharp House in London and the Stables in Milton Keynes. Several noble Lords mentioned the Mayor of London’s Music Venues Taskforce. It is not the intention of the Government to deliver a formal response to the Mayor of London’s Music Venues Taskforce report.

The noble Lord, Lord Foster, raised the subject of the amendments brought forward in Committee in another place. As I have already said, the National Planning Policy Framework, supported by planning guidance, incorporates the agent of change principle by making clear that existing businesses wanting to continue and develop should not have unreasonable restrictions put on them because of changes in nearby land uses since they were established.

[Lord Foster of Bath]

My Lords—

[The Earl of Courtown]

I would be happy to try to answer the query of the noble Lord, Lord Foster, if he writes to me. The noble Lord also asked about assets of community value. This policy area falls within his old department, and I will ensure that the point is made to my colleagues in that department.

In closing—I realise that I have not dealt with all the queries put to me—I say to noble Lords that we want to encourage people to live in our towns and cities while at the same time enabling small grass-roots music venues to flourish, giving a range of musicians and artists a valuable opportunity to perform in front of a live audience and local communities a valuable social hub and cultural attraction. Although we have done much already to help music venues across the UK, we welcome the ongoing dialogue with the music industry on what more can be done to protect those venues.

15:56

Sitting suspended.

Energy: Security

Thursday 10th December 2015 Grand Committee

Question for Short Debate

16:00

Asked by

[Lord Bowness]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what they consider to be the roles of the Energy Community and the Energy Charter in improving energy security and alternative supplies and sources of energy for the member states of the European Union and its neighbours; and what is the extent of United Kingdom involvement in both organisations.

[Lord Bowness (Con)]

I thank the Minister and his Whip, and the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, for attending this debate and allowing me the unusual opportunity of knowing that there at least two people who will listen to what I say.

When I was appointed to the Energy and Environment Sub-Committee of the EU Committee—I make clear that I am speaking personally and not as a member of the committee—in the course of attempting to catch up with EU energy issues, I came across the Energy Charter and the Energy Community. This was at a time when the need for more and new sources and supplies seemed an urgent priority in the face of Russian actions in Ukraine and the ups and downs of the various new pipelines. The more I read, the more I felt there was more that we should know about both these organisations.

Both organisations may be familiar to other Members of the Committee but they were not so to me and indeed the more I looked into them the more questions arose than I have time to pose this afternoon—although I am not sure whether the personal time limit trumps the overall time limit for this debate. Should I sin in one direction, I shall assume that the overall time limit is what controls our proceedings.

I turn first to the Energy Community. This is an international body dealing with European energy policy. It was established by a treaty signed in Athens in October 2005 that came into force in July 2006. The parties are the European Union and eight other countries of south-east Europe, the Black Sea region and beyond. It seeks to extend the European Union internal market rules to interested non-EU countries in Europe and beyond. Its own website says that the role of the community is to:

“Attract investment in power generation … Create an integrated energy market allowing for cross-border energy trade … Enhance the security of supply … Improve the environmental situation in relation with energy supply … Enhance competition”.

Those are all aims to which I presume the United Kingdom Government would subscribe.

Although the European Union is the party to the treaty, not the individual states of the Union, all the European Union states may take part in the various institutions of the Energy Community. I was therefore a little surprised by the Answers that I received to a number of Written Questions which I put down in the previous Parliament. In asking who represented HMG in the gas, oil and social fora of the Energy Community, I was told that the UK does not participate in those fora and that the EU Commission represents the EU member states’ position. I also asked who was our non-voting representative on the Energy Community regulatory board. I was told that we were not represented and that the European Commission represented the EU member states. I asked who was our representative on the Permanent High Level Group of the Energy Community and was told that an official from the Department of Energy and Climate Change attends this group when issues to be discussed require the United Kingdom’s attendance. Lastly, I asked who attended as our representative at the annual Ministerial Council and was told that it was an official from the department.

Although those Answers were in many ways a welcome recognition of the role of the European Union in these matters, I must ask the Minister, if our participation is so limited, what our assessment is of the value of the organisation. Is there not a case for greater United Kingdom involvement given our interest in the security of supply, not just in the United Kingdom but in the European Union and its neighbours as a whole?

For what may have been the first time, the department wrote to the European Union Select Committee in September this year, advising it of the agenda for the Ministerial Council of the Energy Community which took place on 16 October. The letter tells me that the European Union position on items was agreed by the Council of Ministers and that the United Kingdom Government supported the proposals, which included reform of the institutions and their working methods.

Can the Minister advise the Committee of the outcome of the Ministerial Council and in particular about the proposed procedural act to organise a meeting of representatives of Parliaments to formalise the existing network of parliamentary co-operation? Is it the intention that this role will fall to the European Parliament, not Westminster? Where and how does the Energy Community relate to the European Union’s own energy union policies? How does the work of the Energy Community relate to the work of the Energy Charter?

The Energy Charter dates back to an initiative of the early 1990s. In 1991, the Energy Charter political declaration was signed in The Hague, followed by the treaty, which was signed in December 1994 together with an important Protocol on Energy Efficiency and Related Environmental Aspects. The treaty came into force in 1998. It aims to encourage and facilitate international cross-border co-operation on energy and represents an important international effort to build a legal foundation for energy security based on open, competitive and sustainable development.

The Energy Charter’s website lists its basic elements as investment protection—through ensuring a firm legal framework—stable energy flows and increased energy efficiency. Unlike the Energy Community, 52 member states, from Europe and Asia, have signed or acceded to the treaty. The United Kingdom is a signatory, together with the European Union and EURATOM. Observer states include the United States of America, Canada and other non-European Union states. Apparently a modernisation process was launched in 2009, and in 2014 negotiations started on an updated charter. Can the Minister advise us about the updating process and our involvement in it? Can he tell us more about the working of the organisation, including the Energy Charter Conference, which has political responsibilities for the implementation of the charter working groups and ad hoc committees? I wonder who attends that.

It is worth noting that this is perhaps more important than may appear at first sight, because Russia chose to withdraw from the treaty by presidential decree in 2009. That clearly had serious implications for countries supplied from the Russian Federation, given also the provisions in the charter for resolving disputes. Will the United Kingdom attend the ministerial meeting of the charter in Georgia on 15 December, one day of which is devoted to fostering regional co-operation through cross-border energy trade?

I repeat the questions that I posed with regard to the Energy Community about who represents us, if at all, and when and where. What value do we place on the organisation and how does it relate to the Energy Community and the European Union’s Energy Union? It seems that there is considerable overlap between the two organisations, if not in the work they do, at least in their stated objectives. Do the Government have a view about that?

Lastly, I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us more than I have managed to research or had time to cover this afternoon. Does he agree that these are matters which should be of considerable concern to the United Kingdom and about which Parliament should know rather more than it is currently told?

16:09

[The Earl of Erroll (CB)]

My Lords, I wonder if I could speak in the gap, since the debate is rattling on quite quickly. I have two points. First, having lived in a world some time ago when we were not worried about terrorism or problems like that—and I now live in an IT world—how on earth one secures the transmission of the gas or whatever it might be through potentially hostile territories, particularly in an internet world where these things are controlled electronically, is extremely difficult. Since one has no power, particularly to enforce certain security levels in other countries that might be travelled through, there are huge vulnerabilities. I feel very sorry for the people who try to do this. I know that we have some very good people working on it, and I just hope that they manage to keep us secure, because we are highly vulnerable with the route from some of the supply fields all the way to the UK. At the end of the day, we are at the end of the line.

Secondly, I want to put in a plug for something. This morning, I was speaking at the Institution of Engineering and Technology on the internet of things, and one of the interesting things that came out of this with machine-to-machine communication was the concept of the virtual power station. I ought to declare an interest as chairman of HyperCat. That is short for Hyper-Catalogue, which it is about machines communicating interoperability on the internet of things. This might sound off the point, but if we can start to look at the energy requirements and start to move it around a little, we can save ourselves the need to fire up a power station at certain moments. I throw that in because we were talking about alternative supplies, whereas this is far more important: the high-level stuff and the negotiation of treaties.

At the practical end, where I live a lot of the time—I am not expecting any answer to this at all because it is left of field for this particular debate—there are technologies out there and new things coming along. The Government should look at some of the funding for what we call the internet of things, which, at the moment—although it sounds techie—is climbing up the degree of importance. It could really help in areas such as this when talking about alternative supplies: not because of the supplies, but because of the savings that can be made. Therefore, I make a quick plug for new technology and perhaps government funding in the next spending round. That area is doing quite well thus far; it could do better.

16:11

[Lord Grantchester (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, for tabling this important Question today, for his interesting introduction, and for his continuous probing into lesser-known forums for energy discussion. I endorse all of his questions to the Minister and I thank the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, for joining our debate today.

While the Energy Community is essentially an enlarged EU platform to expand the EU’s internal energy market to nine states in south-eastern and eastern Europe, the Energy Charter is an independent, international, intergovernmental organisation of 52 states in Europe and Asia, including the Russian Federation. Those can play a major role in expanding the energy borders of EU energy policy through co-operation and alignment for a more secure and resilient world. Both can focus on the promotion of investment, stable energy flows and increased energy efficiency.

The Energy Community has an interesting approach to its various categories of membership: 19 of the 28 EU member states are participants, including the UK, while four EU neighbours—Armenia, Georgia, Norway and Turkey—are observers. Georgia has applied to join the Energy Community as a full member. Will the Minister comment on the fact that not all of the EU member states participate? Do the Government consider that this non-participation of some member states reduces the influence and work of the Energy Community? How do the Government approach the question of whether Georgia should be granted full membership against the background of turbulence in Ukraine and Crimea?

The Energy Community is taking the EU-model approach to a wider area. While this should perhaps not be interpreted as a precursor to widening membership of the EU, it nevertheless establishes a wider commonality of approach in this vital area of energy policy, decarbonisation and climate change. It is good timing by the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, that he has initiated this debate while the climate change talks were taking place in Paris. The Energy Community is tabling various EU directives and seeking application to eastern Europe through timed convergence within the region. For example, on electricity, community directives set minimum requirements for the establishment of competitive markets, including the development of coherent, transparent and non-discriminatory security of supply policies.

On the gas sector, the Energy Community is seeking the unbundling of transmission system operations over the next two years. On the environment, directives are identifying and assessing the environmental consequences of projects before any building or operation permit is granted. The Energy Community is presently preparing for the adoption of directives on energy efficiency, setting energy-saving targets into the future. Similarly, contracting parties of the Community are under an obligation to introduce rules to place competition on three pillars: first, the prohibition of anti-competitive agreements; secondly, the prohibition of abuse of a dominant position; and, thirdly, the prohibition of state aid. The Energy Community is also replicating EU policy with binding national targets for renewable energy in the electricity, heating and transport sectors, and with binding sustainability criteria for biofuels. The lessons of these developments of the EU policy have very much been learnt, with sustainability criteria to be verified by a dedicated body according to the rules.

On bringing coherency to a wider region, the Community is reviewing its dispute settlement mechanism. Four dispute settlement cases are currently open, and another 11 cases have been brought forward. To help implementation and enforcement mechanisms, the Energy Community has established a high-level reflection group to overcome shortcomings. Does the Minister agree that this should improve the effectiveness of the Community, and which states are members of the group?

I ask the Minister to expand on the questions posed by the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, in the Written Questions he referred to in his speech which were answered by the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, in March this year. The Answers suggest that the UK uses its influence only indirectly as a member of the EU, and it is the EU collectively, through the Commission, that engages with the Energy Community. This must surely dissipate the UK’s voice. Yet in another Answer the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, suggests that an official from the Department of Energy and Climate Change represents the UK at the annual ministerial Councils. Would the Minister clarify this position, and tell us what grade of official would undertake this assignment? Would ministerial attendance enhance the UK’s role at these meetings?

The Minister of State for Energy and Climate Change in the other place attended the European Energy Council in Brussels at the end of November. Discussion items included energy labelling regulations, electricity market design, the role of smart meters and a possible further EU-level instrument to address any anticipated shortfall against our 2030 renewable energy target. Many or perhaps all of these items could be of significance to participants in the Energy Community. How does dialogue at Energy Council level feed into the operations of the Energy Community? The development of interconnectors between supply grids is increasingly important to the security of supply, bearing in mind the high import dependency of many members of the Community. Interconnectors are regarded as key components of a national infrastructure. Do the Government consider the legal basis underpinned by the Energy Charter sufficient to provide jurisdiction between states?

The Energy Charter treaty plays an important role as part of the international effort to build a legal foundation for energy security. The noble Lord, Lord Bowness, said in his introduction that this treaty is acceded to by 52 states, the European Community and the European Atomic Energy Community—EURATOM—totalling 54 members including the Russian Federation. Observers to the recent conference included many more, such as the United States, China, Saudi Arabia and the UAE, among others. There is now a clear conviction among the contracting parties that the Energy Charter treaty is set to become an important instrument for global energy governance. The Astana Declaration of the Energy Charter Process for Global Energy Architecture is a political document which will guide the conference over the coming years. The conflicts in Crimea and south-east Ukraine have grave political consequences, with a negative impact on energy co-operation and will reshape relations between the EU and the Russian Federation. The resulting sanctions and the development of a mechanism for amicable dispute resolution must enhance the authority of the charter.

Bearing in mind that the 26th charter conference, which took place on 3 and 4 December, coincided with the Paris climate change conference, can the Minister confirm whether the UK, as a member state, attended, and was this at official level? As the EU is also a member, what representation was there in that regard and how do the UK Government make their voice heard through this participation? Will the Minister provide the House with a report on that conference? Did it decide on any new instruments and joint initiatives within the charter framework? What approach are the UK Government taking towards the Energy Charter activities?

Here in the UK the Government are resetting their energy policy and causing considerable anxiety. They have scrapped their flagship Green Deal home improvement fund and the zero-carbon homes policy. They have been warned that premature cuts to renewables subsidies have created a climate of uncertainty for renewable energy. Indeed, the CBI has recently condemned the Government’s policy-making for destroying investor confidence and blocking low-carbon energy infrastructure, while encouraging high-polluting diesel generators to enter the capacity market. At a time when stability and coherence is so needed at the international level and these new cross-national developments need careful support and guidance, the UK Government need to be aware of not diminishing their voice on the international stage.

Labour would argue that the UK needs to develop and implement a long-term energy plan. The UK faces a huge challenge to its energy supplies as sources of power come to the end of their useful life. We need a diverse energy mix, balancing the dilemmas of affordability, decarbonisation and security to power the economy and ensure the transition that meets climate change targets. The noble Lord, Lord Bowness, has highlighted the important frontiers of EU energy competencies in which, we believe, the UK should play its full part.

16:22

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change and Wales Office (Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth) (Con)]

My Lords, first I thank my noble friend Lord Bowness for raising this important topic in the House, and the noble Lords who participated in the debate. I thank particularly the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, for ensuring that participation has gone up 25% just by being here. We are most grateful for that.

Because of the reference by the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, to what is happening in Paris and the importance we all attach to that, before coming to the substance of this importance debate I will first say a little about that. I was there until yesterday evening, so I know that very good progress is being made. Issues of domestic policy do not often come up, but in so far as they came up in any meeting that I attended, the thing that seemed to have caught the attention of other participating states—every state in the world bar North Korea—and that had landed well and pleased other states, was our decision to withdraw coal-fired power stations by 2025, in so far as that is achievable while ensuring energy security. That brings us back to the substance of this debate, which is clearly about secure energy, so let me say something about that and then try to deal with some of the points made. Where I cannot deal with them—that will certainly include the answers given by my noble friend Lady Verma earlier this year—I will ensure that a full response is sent to all those participating in the debate.

Secure energy supplies at affordable prices are a critical issue for any country or region, and I welcome the opportunity to discuss the role which the Energy Community treaty and the Energy Charter treaty play in our energy security, which is the essence of both treaties, though they come at it with different types of provision.

In 2013, to put this in context, the EU energy market imported 53% of its energy requirements, a figure which may well grow in the future. As such, access to secure supply sources is key, a point which all noble Lords who participated in the debate have made. This is particularly the case for gas, of course. As a commodity which can be supplied only by pipelines that are laid and from import terminals that exist, it is, and should be, a focus for EU energy security improvements. A total of 29% of the gas consumed by the EU comes from just one country; namely, Russia. It is also the key supplier to many countries close to the EU where customers have no choice of supplier. They also have less power to determine the price, timing and amount of gas they receive. In short, they have insufficient energy security.

The better connected the internal EU gas market is, and the stronger the links across the area, the easier it will be for gas to flow where it is needed at affordable prices. The Energy Community treaty and the Energy Charter treaty are two important tools to address this issue. Perhaps I may turn first to the Energy Community treaty of 2005 which was set up to extend EU energy market liberalisation to non-EU countries such as Montenegro, Albania, Serbia, Moldova and Ukraine. Assisting these countries to liberalise their energy markets in line with the EU approach has multiple benefits. These include making trading across borders easier, and helping to attract investment into much needed energy infrastructure. Assisting the liberalisation of these markets is particularly advantageous to the United Kingdom and EU energy security as the non-EU countries that are party to the agreement are situated on significant routes between gas and oil producers such as Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Russia and the Middle East, and customers in the EU. It is for this reason that the United Kingdom is a strong supporter of the Energy Community treaty.

We engage fully with the objectives, but of course it is the EU that is a member rather than member states as such, so we attend EU meetings to make policy on Community objectives. At the moment, the Energy Community is focusing on additional EU energy legislation such as the energy efficiency directive to ensure that it is properly enshrined in the Community. It will have particular value in reducing emissions in countries such as Ukraine, which is the least energy-efficient country in the whole of Europe. Other reforms include strengthening the dispute settlement procedure and strengthening our engagement with Parliaments and civil society organisations. We consider the reform programme that is being put in place within the Energy Community to be sensible because it will improve the functioning, usefulness and transparency of the Energy Community treaty. These are basically the outcomes of the October Ministerial Council, and the EU position is very much in line with the UK position, so the UK is wholly on board for that.

In essence, the Energy Community treaty aims to improve competition, encourage liberalisation and support energy consumers. It is a key way of reducing the market power and associated political influence of any single energy supplier. With greater market integration and investment in new infrastructure, gas should flow to where it is needed following price signals rather than political signals. This is very central to our aims. The secretariat, which is essentially funded by the EU, holds significant expertise on both Energy Community members and on EU energy regulation. It is a trusted leader on reform in the region. We believe that this expertise is already benefiting south-eastern European states, and therefore the whole of the EU, so it is making a significant contribution to energy security.

For example, Serbia, Ukraine and Albania have transposed the EU’s third energy package, which includes market reforms and is challenging the dominance of the incumbent energy suppliers. Ukraine has also adopted gas liberalisation laws in compliance with EU laws. The Government are committed to playing our part in this process, and to that end we have funded a project with the Energy Community secretariat that assists Ukraine in improving its electricity market legislation. That is a key stepping stone in Ukraine’s wider reform process. Ukraine’s energy sector is a major source of revenue but it is also, as I have indicated, extremely inefficient and poorly regulated, wasting valuable resources and putting off external investment. This is one way of demonstrating the United Kingdom’s commitment to the Energy Community and its treaty.

Let me move now to the Energy Charter treaty, which has many similar aims but is a quite separate organisation. It was agreed in 1994, essentially in the wake of the break up of the Soviet Union, to promote international investment in the energy sector in eastern Europe and central Asia. It established legal rights and obligations with respect to energy investment and the trade and transit of energy goods. As has been said, there are 54 treaty members, including European and Asian countries, as well as EURATOM. Groups have signed or acceded to the Energy Charter treaty. Russia provisionally applied the treaty until 2009, but Members will be aware that there is a dispute at the moment in relation to Yukos, and Russia is no longer a treaty signatory having come out of the treaty process.

The treaty enshrines in law a mutual commitment not to discriminate against foreign investors. If an investor has a claim against a member of the treaty in relation to the provision of energy—by pipeline or whatever—this provides the mechanism for settling that, and there are rights and obligations set out in the treaty to help with that.

Another key area of the treaty’s provisions is energy transit. Building on World Trade Organization rules, the transit provisions oblige participating states to take the necessary measures to facilitate the transit of energy. Essentially, those measures are between states—for example, between the states of central Asia and the states of Europe. Therefore, the treaty deals with investment-type disputes between individual investors and a state, and also provides mechanisms between states in relation to energy transit. There were some specific questions about how we engage fully with this, and we do that both through the EU and as a separate member.

There were also questions about the conference—I think it has just happened rather than is just about to happen. This year, it was in Georgia, and last year it was in Astana in Kazakhstan. Although it is open to Ministers to go, for a number of years, the general process has been for a Minister not to go but to send a messenger. That happened this year and last year, and we were represented at higher executive officer level. I think many other nations do that too.

Although the conference is important, I am sure noble Lords will appreciate that, this year, we had the run up to what has been a very important process in Paris. That has engaged politicians across the board and, in particular, the Government. In the case of the Government, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has been in Paris practically throughout the process, and I have been there for a considerable time. Therefore, the Minister of State has necessarily been doing a great deal of business in the United Kingdom, not least with regard to the flooding situation, to which they were central to helping deal with that and the necessary action that has followed. However, we have been well represented at the conference.

I will ensure that noble Lords get a detailed response as to exactly what happened in Georgia. An annual report is published, and those noble Lords who picked up the pack—I see that the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, has his—will have seen a copy of the report on last year’s conference. We will make sure that we get a detailed breakdown of what happened this year for noble Lords.

My noble friend Lord Bowness asked what was happening in the process of making changes to the Energy Charter and updating it. The process has been largely about updating the language; I do not think that there is any fundamental change. For example, it has not been updated since the USSR was no longer the USSR, so there has been a tidying-up exercise. I do not think it is much more fundamental than that but, if I am wrong, I will certainly let noble Lords know when I write to them. That is the basic position.

I hope that that has dealt with most of the points. If I have missed anything, I will ensure that we pick it up in the write round. I once again thank my noble friend Lord Bowness for bringing forward this very important issue. I will ensure that he gets a full reply in relation to the points raised in the questions to my noble friend Lady Verma, and any other points that I have missed. I thank noble Lords for contributing to the debate on this key issue.

In closing, noble Lords will know that we are, as a country, focused on three essential aims: affordable energy, secure energy and green energy. The top priority, as set out by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State in her recent speech, is energy security. This debate, therefore, has been particularly timely and helpful.

Business Community

Thursday 10th December 2015 Grand Committee

Question for Short Debate

17:00

Asked by

[Baroness Greengross]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of how the business community can contribute to resolving the major challenges facing the United Kingdom.

[Baroness Greengross (CB)]

My Lords, I am sure that all of us in this House are seeking a fairer and more sustainable future. I seek to shed some light on how business can have the greatest impact on some of the big issues involved and be drivers for change where it is needed. Many of the examples I know are through the All-Party Parliamentary Corporate Responsibility Group, which I co-chair with Jonathan Djanogly MP, and which I have been privileged to lead since coming into your Lordships’ House.

In the time available, I can comment on only a very few of the challenges that we face. However, creating meaningful employment is surely one of the most significant ways in which business can contribute to the lives of individuals and communities. For many, it is the only sustainable route out of poverty, as we know, and many businesses proactively help people to gain sustainable employment by building skills, removing barriers to work and making the workplace more accessible for disadvantaged people. One example is Ban the Box, an employer-led campaign to remove the criminal record tick box from application forms. It is a brave and, understandably, often very controversial measure to which, since October 2013, 55 employers have committed themselves. Some 10 million people in the UK have some sort of criminal record, and research suggests that 75% of employers discriminate against such people. When employers Ban the Box, they encourage only a candidate’s skills and abilities to be seen.

The Land Securities Group, a winner of the 2015 Responsible Business Awards, developed its London employment strategy to help disadvantaged people get jobs and to improve the mix, in terms of gender, ethnicity and disability, of entrants into its industry. The strategy has trained 656 people through sector-based work academies designed in partnership with further education colleges, and already 511 of these people have progressed into work.

We all know our population is ageing, with 10 million people in the UK over 65, a number that is projected to double by 2050. Through Business in the Community’s Age at Work programmes, businesses are seeking to meet these challenges and reap both commercial and social rewards. But much more still needs to be done, especially for the over-50s, who do worse in this respect than those over 60. That may seem a bit surprising, but it is a fact.

As we know, black, Asian and minority-ethnic people are under-represented at every management level in the workplace. One in eight of the working age population is from such a background, yet only one in 10 is in the workplace, and they hold only one in 16 top management positions. BITC is, to its credit, doing much work in this field.

Both industry and the economy have changed extensively in Britain in recent times, but benefits and problems have not been equally felt. More work needs to be done in how we source goods and services. The retail sector, especially the food sector, has led the way in this, but much more is needed. For example, the Arc access programme connects social enterprises with business to share expertise and innovation, leading to employment opportunities and local regeneration. The programme has already created 3,000 jobs. BITC’s Healthy High Streets programme will provide intensive support for 100 high streets and help them to realise their potential in our rapidly changing economy.

Business can also help create and develop economically viable and cohesive communities by supporting young people in schools. For example, an initiative called Business Class brings business and schools together to support young people facing disadvantage. I have had a lot of the people involved in this at two receptions here in the Lords, and it is really impressive; it supports 450 schools, impacting on 140,000 people who leave school with a much better understanding of work through knowing at least one business really well. The businesses get incredibly involved with the schools they support, forming long-term relationships.

At this point, I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Baker, and his role in the development of university technical colleges, which are very important. They develop the skills needed by business and industry through training young people between 14 and 19 years old to ensure that they are qualified, ready to work, proud of their achievements and geared to today’s society and its needs. This is a good example of business working with the public sector, which funds the development of these colleges, and which are then very much supported by businesses.

There are many other ways that responsible business can and does all this. We are very aware, for example, of the devastating impact of recent weather patterns. National Grid and the rail industry have worked day and night to restore services to people in the north-west of England. We tend to take this heroic effort for granted, but it is a great example of responsible business in action. The clothing sector is another example, in what it is doing in tandem with WRAP to promote recycling in very many rather exciting ways.

The British food industry is yet another example, with the great success it has achieved in supplying affordable food. Hopefully, it can now turn its attention to doing more to provide healthy food—food lower in sugar, fat and salt—and to assist and promote healthy eating. At the same time, it should stop promoting unhealthy food, especially to children. The amount that the food industry spends today on promoting unhealthy food vastly exceeds what we publicly spend on promoting healthy eating, and rather nullifies the good work. The obesity and diabetes crisis that is occurring under our noses could well bankrupt the NHS in 30 years’ time unless we take urgent action now.

One of the challenges that the All-Party Parliamentary Corporate Responsibility Group has faced is that MPs have not recognised fully their potentially critical role in terms of the leverage and the power that they have in working in their constituencies with the business sector to address many of the challenges we all face. As a result, we, the officers of the group, created an awards scheme last year to recognise best practice, with nominations recommended in each case by MPs. This was enthusiastically taken up by MPs. The first winner was London City Airport, in recognition of its very impressive activities that benefit the area in which it is situated. We were delighted at the number of schemes that MPs nominated and have great hopes for future years.

In all of this, we must not forget that truly responsible business practice should also include setting an example by living an example. Maybe this is a subject for another debate, but business must demonstrate that it has a responsibility to society, not merely in the way it interacts with people but in the way it organises and runs itself: to take one simple example, by paying tax in the UK on monies earned in this country, even if it could evade that payment.

Today, I ask the Minister to focus on areas of policy where government can support employers to drive real change. This should include better integration of health and social care services with employers and employment support services, and enhanced statutory flexible working, to enable people to remain healthy and in work and to work longer. We also need a cross- government national skills strategy for older workers, and for race to be added to the UK Corporate Governance Code. There will be many other ways our Government can help all of us in this, and I am confident that the Minister will soon bring to us many such ideas. I thank her in anticipation of her doing just that.

17:09

[Baroness Lane-Fox of Soho (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, for her wide-ranging and inspirational introduction. I hope to be a ray of sunshine in today’s debate on a rather gloomy afternoon.

I was reflecting on how quickly the business landscape has changed in my career since 1994—it feels rather long, although I realise that it is still relatively short. Even when we started our business, Lastminute.com, in 1997, the idea that we should build in any kind of social responsibility right from the beginning would have been strange, and yet I was somebody who, I hope, had always had that value at my core. When I think about the start-ups at the time and the energy and excitement with which they were being built, very few had a social purpose or the idea of corporate social responsibility hardwired into them. How things have changed.

I was reflecting on the biggest challenges faced by the UK. In an attempt to be ambitious, I picked out the three that I reckon will be hardest to solve over the next 50 years—climate change, gender equality and the technology disruption that we all face. From every angle, each of those challenges is being addressed in a profound and interesting way by businesses, beyond the core nature of their daily commercial life.

Before talking through some examples that I know in detail, I declare an interest as a board member of Marks & Spencer, which is world class in addressing some of the big structural challenges that we face, particularly climate change. Marks & Spencer was one of the first companies to declare itself carbon neutral; to make all its stores carbon neutral; and to launch huge programmes of recycling. Fashions could be brought back to stores and sent back to factories to be remade into other things. It has huge programmes beyond the UK’s shores to help people in countries where we have supply bases. It is one of the first companies to have a really robust and transparent view of every single worker in the supply chain and deployed in the company. The company has an extraordinary and profoundly important influence on the landscape of British business.

Your Lordships may not be aware that, most recently, Marks & Spencer has worked with a new organisation, the Blue Marine Foundation, which is creating huge marine reserves around the world, particularly with commercial and private money. It has created one of the largest protected areas around Lyme Regis to bring back the fish stocks. Fish is already being supplied to Marks & Spencer’s stores, and the fish stocks in Lyme Regis are being rejuvenated with incredible speed.

Marks & Spencer is one example of how a company has taken a huge lead on climate change. Because of that, it has been asked to be part of a global force for good: collectively.org, of which some noble Lords may be aware. It is a website for younger people sponsored by some of the biggest companies in the world but with an absolute focus on the big social challenges that young people are interested in, including climate change. Everything from Coca Cola, to Intel, to Marks & Spencer comes together to help share stories about how to change the world and make it a better place.

The next huge structural challenge that I want to talk about is gender equality. There are so many examples of corporations taking the knotty and important issue of how to encourage more women into work and make sure they are paid the same and not only reach the boardroom but have equal access when they first start work. When I asked on Twitter for some good examples in the UK, I was struck that the only example that people could give that was tangible and not just pontificating and making signals about the direction of travel was Arup engineering, which I thought was interesting. From the beginning, it has had the ambition to recruit women as 40% of its engineering workforce. Apparently, it is very successful—something I was not aware of.

One of my favourite global examples is Intel and its Girl Rising project, which is hugely successful on social media. It is an enormous programme of work with lots of different examples of women all over the world, from Africa to India to south-east Asia, doing incredible things. There is a big programme of funded education for women in work. We need those programmes here in the UK.

The third challenge and perhaps the one that I know best is the technology disruption, which I think many noble Lords wish had never happened—but unfortunately we are stuck with the internet, with all its wonders and some of its woes. I have recently been working on basic digital skills. My noble friend referred to that in her speech, although not directly. We face a profound challenge of skills in this country. As I have said before, the House of Lords—unlike me, not given to hyperbole—described the skills challenge as a “crisis”. That is true the whole way through the chain from basic skills through to how we will fill the 600,000 empty jobs right now in the tech sector and the 1 million jobs that will be empty by 2020.

The issue of basic digital skills is what I have been working on most urgently. We have 12 million adults in this country who cannot use the internet to get the basic benefits of being online, such as saving money— £100 a year even in the poorest households—getting work, because 90% of jobs are advertised online, and just communicating and being safe, as all of us like to be. However, what I have had most success with is the establishment of a charity called Go ON UK. It is entirely paid for by the corporate sector. We have 10 CEOs round our boardroom table from EE to Talk Talk, the Big Lottery Fund, Age UK, E.ON and Lloyds Bank. They all turn up and are dedicated to the cause and we are beginning to make some real inroads. We have created platforms and data to show where the profound problems are, and a heat map so that we can see where digital exclusion exists. We are doing deep dives around areas of the country where we are trying to create places where everyone is brought online.

Noble Lords can imagine that the power of the network of people around the boardroom table is very interesting. When we match the Post Office with Lloyds Bank and messaging from the BBC, we can really begin to create change, because we are able to reach consumers from lots of different angles, not just using the government lever. I firmly believe that this joined-up working will solve problems, and Go ON UKs CEOs around that boardroom table are dedicated to doing just that. I hope that that is a robust and good example of where business is changing.

When I think back to all of the start-ups that are energising the UK—as I am sure the Minister will tell us, there are practically more start-ups in this country than in Silicon Valley—it is an exciting time to be starting a business in the tech sector. Those start-ups come to fruition with a very different set of moral values: it is interesting. Younger people are just more cognisant of the complicated issues that they face and the complicated landscape in which they will operate. I am heartened. An incredible programme has been set up by Founders Forum, the Founders Pledge, which is getting people starting businesses to say that, at exit, 2% of the value of that exit will go to good causes. With £100 million businesses, that can have a really interesting effect. It already has 156 signatories, so I hope that that will lead to real change.

I am also much taken by a good piece of recent research by a media company called Adjust Your Set into what millennials are thinking about business and social purpose. Some 70% of millennials say that they do not want to interact with a company that does not show what its social purpose and value in the world is. I would caution any organisation to take big heed of that, because their consumers of the future will not be their consumers unless they rethink how they position themselves in the world and the wider responsibility that they have as a corporate.

The world is changing. We have some big challenges and I am particularly keen to hear from the Minister how we can keep reducing the silos between the corporate sector and the charitable sector. I have recently started a new organisation, Doteveryone. Even applying for status, whether as a limited company, a CIO or a charity, is just too complicated—it is still far too difficult to do different things. But I am an optimist and I believe that the world is changing in the right direction.

17:18

[Lord Taylor of Warwick (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, for initiating this important debate today. I have long admired her work across a number of areas, such as equality, elder care and corporate ethics. It is also a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox of Soho, who is a true champion in the cause of digital online skills.

I take noble Lords back to the Victorian era. In those days, Britain had no government welfare state. It was the church and in particular Quaker families who recognised the power of business to improve the lives of the poorest in society. Companies such as Cadburys, Rowntree and Fry came out of that movement and became very successful, but their inspiration was driven more by prophecy than profit. Indeed, in my home city of Birmingham, the Cadbury company built Bournville, a whole community of homes for its employees.

Coming now to modern Britain, it seems that one of the major challenges facing us is unemployment, especially youth unemployment. In the UK, youth unemployment is still approaching 1 million, and the fact is that it is even higher in other European countries, such as Greece, Spain and Italy, does not mean that we can be complacent. Business is becoming increasingly globalised as we continue to outsource manufacturing and service industries to low-wage economies.

Recently, I was a guest speaker at a London Fashion Week event held in the Jubilee Room. It may be the first time in parliamentary history that the House of Commons has staged a fashion parade. I hasten to add that I was not part of the fashion parade. Then more recently I attended the launch of Dance UK, an organisation formed only a few days ago which tries to promote dance across the whole range. It reaches from the enormously successful brand of “Strictly Come Dancing” to ballet, hip hop and African dance. Having attended those two events, the thing that I became most aware of was frustration among the young people who want to enter the world of fashion and music but are finding it so difficult to get finance or scholarships. Even when they entered those professions, it is hard for them to stay within them. The UK is a centre of excellence for fashion and music. Those industries are great exporters of our talent and, of course, they are especially attractive to young people. I believe that we need more paid apprenticeships and scholarships for those particular industries to combat the problem of youth unemployment. However, I am not going to ask that more money should come from the public purse for that. There are industries, such as the banks and hedge fund companies, which make vast profits. The UK is especially strong when it comes to the finance sector, and I would like to see the Government looking more to that sector to help combat youth unemployment.

The professional football industry in this country has a strong influence, especially when we consider that most cities have at least two major clubs. For example, Manchester has United and City, while Merseyside has Liverpool and Everton. I am a patron of Aston Villa, but since it is at the bottom of the league, I shall gloss over that quickly. However, the Premier League is amazingly wealthy, especially from television revenue. Although I know that most clubs have community programmes, the image which has emerged is that of millionaire superstars who are remote from the problems that many of their adoring fans face on a daily basis. How encouraging it was to hear this week of players from Carlisle United, in the lowly fourth tier of professional football, helping the residents of Cumbria who have been affected by the dreadful floods. I hope that that sets a trend whereby some of the football clubs become even more involved in their communities. There are reserve players at Aston Villa who are millionaires, so they can afford to offer some of their time. They cannot score goals, but they can offer their time. Indeed, when we think about it, most of the larger, wealthier clubs are situated in the poorest inner city areas, and many of their fans are unemployed. It is a tragedy, in my view, that these players do not recognise their responsibility to help their communities.

Closer to Parliament, the Westminster Volunteer Centre works with a large number of companies such as Asda, DHL and William Hill to provide mentors for 14 to 18 year-olds. In my own small way, I try to mentor a number of young people. Growing up as a young black man from Birmingham, born of a single mother, I found it very difficult to locate the right mentors, and I would suggest that mentoring is a key factor. I know a little about Greggs, the high street bakers. It runs its Breakfast Club Programme in primary schools in poor areas. Marks and Spencer runs its own Marks and Start work experience programme for unemployed people. The noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, may like to know that a couple of weeks ago I went into Marks & Spencer, where there was a young black boy who had just started work experience. He was so polite and so grateful for the opportunity, so well done to Marks & Spencer.

It is not just big business that can make a difference. The Voice of Local Shops Survey polled more than 1,000 independent retailers across the country, and found that 80% of store owners are involved in their community in some way. Indeed, 71% collected for a local or national charity, and 25% provided sponsorship for local schools and sports teams. I was recently appointed as one of the board directors of the International Small Business Congress, which represents small companies, not only in the UK but globally. The organisation is especially keen to recognise racial and cultural diversity. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, understands those problems and I thank her for her comments. It is very difficult when you are black people and you look at society and do not see people like yourself at the top. When I was at school and doing my O-levels and A-levels, I went to see the careers master. He asked me what I wanted to do, and I said, “I want to be a barrister, sir”. He went red in the face and said, “I don’t think that would be a good idea, John”. I said, “Why not? Am I not doing reasonably well?” He said, “Well, you’re coming top in every subject but, John, you need to understand that black people don’t do that sort of thing. I can get you a job in the Post Office”. I have nothing against the Post Office, but I did not want to work there. I happened to have a strong mother who said, “Look, John, if you want to be a barrister, you get yourself there”. Mentoring is vital, especially for people who do not have parents like my mother.

Schools and universities can also be a catalyst between business and society. For some years I was chancellor of Bournemouth University, which has a proud tradition of providing graduates for local businesses, and I was privileged to open its business centre and strengthen the link between academia and business. Lastly, Business in the Community produced a report entitled It’s Time for a New Contract between Business and Society. It made the point that the prosperity of business and society are tied together, and one cannot succeed without the other. It seems to me that a bad attitude is like a flat tire. Unless you change the flat tyre, you cannot make progress. Any business must have a positive attitude if it is to move forward. It is that positive attitude which business brings that can help resolve the major challenges facing the United Kingdom.

17:27

[Lord Suri (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for securing this debate. This is a very pertinent question for us to consider today. As a businessman, I have often thought of business as the original big society: a way of solving issues and problems that Governments alone cannot fix. What could be a bigger issue than climate change? In many ways, it affects us all. The Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs suggested this week that it was to blame for the recent terrible floods in Cumbria and Lancashire that have caused £0.5 billion of damage and the loss of many homes. Heavier rain and hotter weather will also come over the next few decades, and will affect our children and our children’s children. The Health Protection Agency projects that higher temperatures will mean a rise in heat-related mortality of 70% by 2020 compared with 2000, which will put further strain on our National Health Service.

I hope that the UN Climate Change Summit talks in Paris will be fruitful, but more and more onerous regulation on climate action can often be a poor means of achieving lasting change. I believe that any solution has to come from the Government, yes, but also from business. I was gladdened to read last week that an increasing number of large corporations have realised their corporate social responsibility to their consumers and will commit to sourcing all their energy from renewables, through the RE100 initiative. Some businesses, such as Unilever, are going even further and trying to become carbon positive, on which I congratulate them. Whether they succeed depends largely on the quality of the research and product output that is conducted by businesses in the private sector, which are already making great strides with renewables and carbon capture technology. At every step when tackling this generational issue, business will have to be deeply involved if there are to be successful results.

Another challenge that the UK faces relates to employment. The current figures are relatively good, but more can be done to make this country into the high wage, high productivity and low welfare state that our Prime Minister wants us to transition to. The best way to decrease unit labour costs and boost productivity is through investment by the Government and business. The Government must do their bit on education and infrastructure, but the huge role that business plays in training, developing and nurturing talent is often overlooked. Business investment here reached 11% of GDP in the second quarter of 2015, the highest level since 2000. Businesses are increasingly ploughing their retained profits back into the workforce, because they can see the gains that will secure their future. In my business, I have been able to do that because of the business-friendly environment that the Government have created.

From the data, we see that productivity has broken free of its time lag and is again on the rise. This is a real example of business fixing social problems. If we are to fix social problems we must move away from a top-down, heavy-fisted government approach, regulating the problem away. We must work with business, because the interests of socially-responsible businesses are the interests of their consumers.

17:31

[Lord Stoneham of Droxford (LD)]

My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, for initiating this debate. I dealt with her particularly on issues concerning the elderly, but it is good to grapple with these issues of business and social purpose. I was also delighted to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, talking about Marks & Spencer. It reminded me of an incident earlier in my life when Lord Sieff, who was on the board of the Independent, started to bring in performance and efficiency indicators for the newspaper. I was, down the supply chain, the principal print contractor for the Independent when it started. It was partly his initiatives—that guidance—that led us to build a business that became one of the foremost contract printing businesses. That shows the importance of big businesses supporting and working with their supply chains.

On the main subject of the debate, the foremost priority for the country and for business has to be getting the right kind of economic recovery over the next five years. All the issues that we confront—more exports, business investment, innovation—have historically been long-term disappointments in the British economy. Therefore, if I wanted to pinpoint key issues for business management and business in this country, ones that will affect society as a whole, they would be concentrating on better management effectiveness and improving the skills of the labour force. This will become more apparent and important as the labour market tightens—as it is doing—and we can no longer rely on immigrant labour to fill shortages. If business rebuilds the apprenticeship framework, and puts emphasis on much higher skill levels, it will help rebalance one of the key social issues of our time: still having high-status academic study and, sadly, low-status non-academic study. That is one of the greatest challenges that we face, and business has a very important role in redressing that balance.

It is also important that business pays attention to its image, and is alert to issues that undermine that image. The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, mentioned Cadbury’s. The company not paying taxes—however legal, though clearly contrived—is an issue, and is damaging. It happened, sadly, not just when Cadbury’s became a US company: it was something endemic in Cadbury’s before it was taken over by Kraft. I think there should be a little more emphasis on Quaker values in this debate—government and business working together out of mutual interest to deliver social purpose and economic success. These are linked issues.

I also took three examples. They are very different from those of the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox. I have taken the issues of prisons, housing and regeneration. Prison reform is one of the key areas of public sector reform. I am very excited by the new Secretary of State. I did not think I would be, but I was very disappointed when Ken Clarke stepped down that we began to lose some of the reforming mode that we had in the early part of the coalition Government. There has to be a recognition in the public sector that if we are to reduce public spending in prisons, we also have to reduce reoffending. We cannot do it without radical changes. One of the keys to reducing reoffending is to provide better skills training in prisons and jobs immediately on release.

I would like to highlight Timpson. It is not a natural company for a Liberal Democrat to mention, but it surprised me a few years ago to hear its chairman say on the radio that something like 10% of his workforce were ex-offenders. The company specialises in shoe repairs and key cutting, so it might have been thought that risk reputation would not have encouraged it to think out of the box, but it has done. Since then, I have had all my shoe repairs done by that company. It said that it was dealing with pretty damaged people, that it supported them, and that it recognised that in prison one-third needed a job, one-third needed health treatment and one-third were probably people that one would not want to employ. He said that the one-third who needed a job were the ones to concentrate on.

I was pleased to see a quote in the Times today, which reminded me of the company. The chief executive of Timpson said that the remarkable thing was that the people he took from prison tend to be more loyal and after being in prison they are obsessed with turning up on time. Other companies are following Timpson’s example. If we are to have reform in the prison sector, this area is fundamental.

I turn to housing. Not only do we have to house more people, we need to counter rising house prices which are currently distorting investment and saving in the economy. This is a huge problem in a sector where capacity has been destroyed in the recession; where there is going to be an increasing reliance by developers on outsourced contracting; and where there is going to be a rush to build more houses which could affect quality. There is huge potential for market failure in a very cyclical industry.

I am afraid that if the Government concentrate on only one part of the market, which is owner occupation, it will be severely distorted. The Government have to reach across all sectors: owner, rented and social housing. I declare an interest as chairman of Housing & Care 21. This is an industry which has to address skills, supply chains and costs and it needs steady growth. But we have seen the marginalisation of housing associations.

Housing associations have spent a lot of time building up skills. They have been important in the counter-cyclical building of homes when the private sector was no longer in a position do so. They pay attention to vulnerable people who need not only a home but help with skills training to get back into the labour market. At the moment, the Government are marginalising this area, which needs to be part of a partnership covering all sectors of the industry. This will have social benefits as well as benefits for the economy.

Finally, I turn to regeneration. There is a report in the Financial Times today about the great divide between London and the south-east and other parts of the country, particularly our northern cities. We know we have the big project in the northern cities, but I re-emphasise that it is not just about reforming local authorities, it is about creating partnerships between businesses and communities. There are no quick fixes.

In my own city of Portsmouth in the 1990s we transformed the economy from recession by a partnership between the local authority, businesses, the Navy, housing associations, the university and developers. So its image was transformed, employment diversified and we laid a base, although it was not a complete base, for future prosperity. There is still much to do, but a partnership was absolutely essential.

So the right type of economic recovery is essential if it is to last; businesses are going to need to be very focused and competitive to survive, improved business investment and productivity will be essential to success, and the public and private sectors need to work together, because they will find that there will be more mutual benefit than they realise.

17:40

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, for securing this imaginative debate about how business can help to achieve a fairer future for our country, citing some notable examples, including Ban the Box, Age at Work, Diversity, Healthy High Streets, affordable food and better integration of health and social care—a wise agenda. I want to concentrate on business and poverty, concepts not normally grouped together. As the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, described, business and society are intertwined and interdependent, requiring each other to be healthy and effective to meet their own objectives. If many people are poor, that affects the quality of our society and that is bad for business in all sorts of ways.

The first dimension is productivity. Our productivity gap with the other G7 countries has widened to its largest since 1992, with output per hour falling to 17 percentage points below the average of other leading industrialised nations. There are several hypotheses for why this is, but one is the impact that low pay has on the well-being of workers. For example, a report by Barclays Wealth, Financial Well-being: The last taboo of the workplace?, found that one in 10 employees is struggling financially. Among those who are struggling to make ends meet, 22% said that worry had made them less productive at work. Overall, the report estimates that this negatively impacts the bottom line by around 4%. The report says:

“Employees don’t leave their financial worries at the door when they arrive at work. The impact on the workplace is significant and has a real effect on the bottom line, more than employers realise”.

Secondly, poverty undermines education, and low education attainment in turn undermines skills in the workplace, meaning that employees cannot find the skills that they need, as we have heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox. But there is a potential virtuous circle, as acquiring the right kind of skills plays a massive role in increasing opportunities, improving people’s life chances and social mobility, and lifting people out of poverty. Meanwhile, the UK’s ability to increase productivity and compete rests on skills, so paid and fairly allocated internships, volunteer programmes and apprenticeships all allow more people to compete for valuable experience and support the social mobility needed to stem the flow of poverty from one generation to the next. That enhances life chances yet cannot be achieved without government, business, education and parents working together.

Thirdly, with regard to reputation, companies are increasingly under scrutiny from consumers and the public, as the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, said. Scandals and shortcomings have reduced public trust and confidence in business. As John Cridland of the CBI wrote in 2013:

“Businesses can only realise their full potential when they command the confidence of the public—the individuals that companies employ and the customers who buy their goods and services”.

People rightly expect companies to clearly show that they are holding themselves to ever higher standards when it comes to payment of tax, executive pay, transparency, customer services, how they treat their staff, sustainability and diversity in business. A clear commitment to help to solve societal problems—perhaps the Quaker way—would do much to enhance the reputation of business.

There is another element, about how businesses allow for the public interest in their day-to-day decisions and negotiations. Take land values: local government might want to sell off some land to raise funds for its community, presumably at the highest price. Another part of the same local authority might want to maximise the amount of social housing on that land, or minimise the harmful effects of a tall development on the local community; but such a policy could reduce the land value. That is a difficult issue that faces local government.

It is, however, also difficult for business. How does it allow for, or even promote, the public interest viewpoint into its thinking? Developer by developer, each decision might help the bottom line, but as a whole, society might suffer from the combination of this assault on the built environment, the social mix and the life chances of local people to find work or homes—all the things that make for a successful economy and society. Sadly, we hear a government Minister suggesting that people should decide whether they can afford to live in London, with apparently no thought as to where the jobs are, the cost of commuting if living on the minimum wage, or the access to family support or childcare for young families. These are big public interest and ethical issues which government alone cannot solve, but with which business needs to involve itself for the good of the whole.

It is in the interest of business to engage with social issues, especially poverty. The questions are about how they can do this and what stops them. Research commissioned by the Beatrice Webb memorial trust—I declare my interest as vice-chair of that trust—found that some businesses would like to do more, but are put off by criticism from anti-poverty campaigners which, they claim, makes them retreat into their shells. It may or may not be the case, but it certainly calls for more and better dialogue—or a contract, in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor—between business and organisations working to address poverty.

The All-Party Parliamentary Group on Poverty has put this into its programme, and will carry this work forward. It is in everyone’s interest to have a world where business flourishes and the fruits of business are used to ensure that all have a standard of living that enables them both to feel part of, and to contribute to, our economic recovery and society.

17:47

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Neville-Rolfe) (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, for her Question. I enjoyed the wide-ranging debate and the range of examples that we have gathered together this evening. Over the past decades, I have been impressed by the noble Baroness’s work addressing so many issues faced by the aged in our society and by her work with Age UK, with BITC and, of course, with Jonathan Djanogly on responsible business practice. That includes companies such as Electricity North West, which was recognised at the Responsible Business Awards this year for having recruited households to its power saver challenge.

I wanted to mention Electricity North West today partly because, of course, it and several other companies, as mentioned by several noble Lords, are wrestling with a difficult challenge as a result of the catastrophic floods in Cumbria. Our hearts are completely with the families, the pensioners and the businesses going through such unbelievable difficulties as the rain continues. As a Government, we are making £60 million available, which will help ensure that affected businesses can get back on their feet.

I was delighted to hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox of Soho, about the practical steps being taken by Marks & Spencer on climate change, such as the revitalisation of British fish stocks. Of course, her own experience and efforts are part of the digital revolution. She is an inspiration in showing how big companies and charities can work together. This is for us all, not just a government matter. I believe that businesses make an enormous contribution to addressing the challenges facing society. The fact is that all the resources available to government for schools, hospitals, housing, welfare and defence ultimately depend on the wealth that the business sector creates and the taxes that it properly pays in the UK. I have found that business is also a great source of innovation. This matters in many of the areas we have discussed today. Companies in the digital world are pivotal to the UK economy and, indeed, to continued small business creation and growth. We made it clear in the Autumn Statement that we were investing £1.8 billion in digital technology. In health and social care, digital devices are making the monitoring of diseases so much easier.

Much the most important contribution the business sector can and does make to our national well-being—probably 95% of its contribution—is to run businesses efficiently, innovatively and successfully so that they take on more staff, pay them more and in most cases—it should be in all cases, of course—pay more taxes. My noble friend Lord Suri is a brilliant example of the contribution that business can make to society with the jewellery firm that he has built up. I was so inspired by his comments this evening. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, that this is not only about skills. As he has often said, better management is vital and is especially important to growing the economy. As he also said, people should pay their taxes. I think that we will come back to his notion of Quaker values in future discussions.

Economic efficiency has a direct read-across to national welfare but, of course, the business sector also has an impact in softer ways. I endorse what was said about the British food industry and the supply of food at great prices. I know that it has worked closely with the Food Standards Agency to reduce fat, salt and sugar, although there is still much more to do. Customer trust is important, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, said. I enjoyed working with her on reforms to consumer rights.

Businesses also directly or indirectly pay for the training of much of the UK workforce, ensuring that the UK can grow and prosper. I agree with the assessment of the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, of the vital role that older workers play. Workers aged 65-plus bring a unique wealth of experience and skills to many workplaces, not just this one. For example, McDonald’s has reported 20% higher performance in its outlets where workers aged over 60 are employed.

However, as has been said, youth unemployment remains high. My noble friend Lord Taylor said this. The good news is that youth unemployment is at its lowest level since 2006, and the employment rate for young people who have left full-time education is up to 74%—the highest in more than a decade. However, there is more to do, and it has to be everywhere, not just in finance or football, particularly at Aston Villa. Everybody needs to play their part. As my noble friend said, mentoring can make a huge difference. We all have a duty to mentor people, which is actually very enjoyable.

In the last Parliament, more jobs were created in the UK than in all the other EU member states combined, with most of those jobs being created in the private sector. However, there are certainly areas for improvement. It is true that we have performed less well on skills. We know that skills are one of the major drivers of productivity growth, accounting for around a fifth of UK growth over the last 30 years. That is why we have committed to significantly increasing the quantity and quality of apprenticeships in England to 3 million starts. The noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, described the digital challenge in skills. I commend all that she has done and I was interested to hear about Go ON UK. A huge amount needs to be done on digital skills. As she says, they feed start-ups and scale-ups, which is what we need if we are going to stay ahead in global markets.

Frankly, there has been a steady decline in the amount and quality of training undertaken by employers over the last 20 years, so a UK-wide apprenticeship levy will be introduced for all larger employers in the public and private sectors to help fund the increase in quantity and quality of apprenticeships that we need. We are encouraging large businesses to train more apprentices than they can themselves use. We are doing more to help small businesses as well by offering them apprenticeship support. We have made a commitment to address the proportion of apprenticeships started by young people from BME communities and to increase it by 20%, and to encourage employers to think of apprentices from diverse backgrounds as the norm.

Many major companies have put training programmes in place: BAE Systems, for example, opened a new £5 million training academy in north Lincolnshire recently, which will take on more than 60 apprentices. There are lots of examples. I join the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, in commending the work done by my noble friend Lord Baker and his role in developing university technical colleges. It is an amazing model and obviously links in with household names such as National Grid, Toyota and Siemens, and really helps to get the economy going.

Businesses tend to reflect the local communities in which they operate, and we can be proud of the fact that the UK achieved a female employment rate of 69% in the last year. This is the highest figure ever recorded in the UK. It is also the second-largest annual increase among the G7 and the highest in Europe. The noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, gave us more excellent examples, including Arup and Intel. One of my ministerial priorities is to press ahead with Women on Boards, a successful voluntary initiative supported by government and led by the noble Lord, Lord Davies, who has done a great job doubling female representation on boards since 2011. There are now no all-male boards—unimaginable, frankly, in 2010—and the companies mentioned here have played a part in that. We are now focusing on the talent pipeline to ensure that women are able to move through a company and that skills and talent are recognised.

A start has also been made in addressing BME representation, with Sir John Parker of Anglo American now leading a business endeavour with a view to ending monocultural boards in the FTSE 100 by 2020. I was delighted to hear about the work on Ban the Box and the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, about the training and employment of ex-prisoners. John Timpson’s record is amazing, as has been mentioned; there is also Halfords and Virgin. They are all doing more work in this area and we want others to join them. Ex-cons, given a job, are loyal and have learnt to turn up on time.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, talked about the flatlining of productivity. I am delighted that the Government have decided to address this with the launch of our productivity plan in July. Part of this is the productivity leadership group of business leaders chaired by Sir Charlie Mayfield. I listened carefully to her observations and to those of the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, whose comments about housing, regeneration, skills, apprenticeships and education are all relevant to this cross-cutting productivity work. We need to bring that together and create a sense of momentum. This includes 200,000 starter homes by 2020 and of course the right to buy. There is more to do, but we have five years to do very good things.

To conclude, there is much for the Government and other stakeholders to do, but business can contribute—and I believe is contributing well—to resolving some of the major challenges facing the United Kingdom. We have heard this evening about some more things that we should be doing.

Committee adjourned at 5.59 pm.

House of Lords

Thursday 10th December 2015 Lords Chamber

Thursday, 10 December 2015.

11:00

Prayers—read by the Lord Bishop of Bristol.

Introduction: Baroness Jowell

Thursday 10th December 2015 Lords Chamber

11:08

The right honourable Dame Tessa Jane Helen Douglas Jowell, DBE, having been created Baroness Jowell, of Brixton in the London Borough of Lambeth, was introduced and took the oath, supported by Lord Falconer of Thoroton and Baroness Lawrence of Clarendon, and signed an undertaking to abide by the Code of Conduct.

Introduction: Lord Darling of Roulanish

Thursday 10th December 2015 Lords Chamber

11:13

The right honourable Alistair Maclean Darling, having been created Baron Darling of Roulanish, of Great Bernera in Ross and Cromarty, was introduced and made the solemn affirmation, supported by Lord Bradley and Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top, and signed an undertaking to abide by the Code of Conduct.

Higher Education: Overseas Students

Thursday 10th December 2015 Lords Chamber

Question

11:18

Asked by

[Lord Clement-Jones]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what recent assessment they have made of the impact on higher education institutions of their policy on visas for overseas students, particularly in respect of the visa refusal thresholds set for them.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Bates) (Con)]

My Lords, we have an excellent offer for international students who wish to study at our world-leading institutions and there remains no limit on the number who can do so. The visa refusal threshold incentivises institutions to conduct checks to ensure that they are offering places to genuine students.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, the new and very subjective credibility test, combined with the lowering to 10% of the refusal threshold, has caused huge difficulties for universities—I hope the Minister is aware of that—and has led to it becoming virtually impossible for them to offer places to students from Nigeria and Pakistan, to name but two countries. Is the Home Office aware of these difficulties caused to universities? It appears like racial discrimination to many of these students. Can he confirm that there is absolutely no intention of lowering the threshold to 5%?

[Lord Bates]

We changed the threshold from 20% down to 10% because it mirrors the national scheme, whereby we grant 90% of visas and 10% are refused. Most universities have way below 10%. They have 1%, 2%, 3%—under 5%—and therefore when somebody triggers that threshold of 10% we think it is right to ask some questions about the rigour and robustness of their application procedures. The reality is that for most universities we see increasing numbers of students—up 31% for the Russell group, up 17% for all universities—so that seems to suggest that it is not quite the issue that the noble Lord has presented.

[Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)]

Would my noble friend agree that as most Commonwealth countries let our students in free, it might be time to reintroduce for students the Commonwealth youth visa, the post-study work visa and flexible, reciprocal arrangements with Australia, New Zealand and Canada, which these countries would clearly welcome?

[Lord Bates]

The noble Lord makes an interesting suggestion about our relations with the Commonwealth. Of course, Australia and Canada also have an attractive offer to international students and, therefore, it would be good to look at forming greater relationships between us. However, the bottom line is that there is no limit on genuine students studying at genuine universities in the UK, nor will there ever be one.

[Lord Hylton (CB)]

My Lords, is the Minister aware of the difficulties faced by Palestinian students, who first have to go to Jordan to get their visas, which involves passing through many Israeli checkpoints on the way, before paying a large fee? Do the Government already have discretion to waive fees for poor students, particularly for those coming for short visits to take part in a conference or a performance in this country, for example?

[Lord Bates]

Any plans to change the system on the fees depends on the relationship with the university in the UK. Presumably a relationship can be negotiated on the financial assistance which might be given to such students. Of course it would be entirely open to the universities to make such offers as they wish. However, it is an important part of the verification process to introduce television or visual interviews with students, because that has made a significant improvement in the quality and calibre of the students coming to our institutions.

[Baroness Rebuck (Lab)]

Although the Government rightly want to grow our economy by welcoming students from outside the EU, that pipeline is dwindling. Why? I am afraid that it is because the Home Office sends them back as soon as they graduate. Would the Minister consider the Australian model and ring-fence visas for those graduating with specialist skills; and—I declare an interest here—consider reintroducing automatic visas for postgraduates whose skills we need for our growing economy?

[Lord Bates]

In terms of numbers, the UK remains the second most attractive country in the world for students to come to. After they have studied, if they apply for a graduate-level skilled job—which certainly someone graduating in the sciences would be able to do—they would be welcome to transfer from the tier 4 visa to the tier 2 visa; if they want to stay on for an internship they can apply for a tier 5 visa; and if they want to set up a business they can stay on under the tier 1 visa. There are lots of opportunities for the brightest and best people to stay on, and we want that to continue.

[Viscount Hanworth (Lab)]

Some institutions surely take in rather few overseas students. Has it not occurred to the Government that a percentage threshold of visa refusals is entirely inappropriate in such cases? Might they not think of an alternative threshold in such cases?

[Lord Bates]

The threshold is there to trigger whether there is a potential abuse of the system. When we came into power in 2010 we inherited the old points-based system. This was poorly run and not robust and we wanted to strengthen it with tests. That is why we closed down 900 bogus colleges. At the same time as the clamp-down on the bogus aspects of it, we have seen an increase in the quality of students who are choosing to make their investment in education in the UK. That shows that the system is working.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

Reference has been made to the 125,000 credibility interviews a year carried out by the Home Office through UKVI in respect of overseas students offered places at accredited HE institutions with a refusal rate of over 10%. There is no right of appeal to an independent adjudicator nor any consultation with the HE institution concerned, yet a refusal rate of greater than 10% of places offered impacts on the future ability of the higher education institution concerned to recruit, since its allocation of places will be cut. In view of the concerns expressed, will the Minister offer to at least meet a delegation of vice-chancellors from the accredited HE institutions most affected, since I understand that they would much appreciate such a meeting to discuss the issues more fully with the Home Office Minister?

[Lord Bates]

As far as I am aware, possibly one or two of our major universities have had a problem with that threshold. Most do not come anywhere near it. There is an opportunity for someone who is turned down to appeal and have the decision looked at again by an independent manager. I have had a number of meetings with the noble Lord’s colleagues on this issue and am open to more. James Brokenshire continues to meet regularly with the Russell group and Universities UK to discuss their concerns because this is such an important part of our export offering and our cultural soft power.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, net migration into this country was 336,000 last year. What percentage was students who, having completed their courses, went into the employment market?

[Lord Bates]

That is precisely one of the points that we want to get to from better information. The ONS, which is the independent provider, provides an estimate of the net number of people who came to study in the UK and did not leave. That estimate is 93,000. However, we do not know what proportion of that 93,000 has transferred from tier 4 to tier 2 or to another legitimate means of remaining. Because we now have exit checks we should be able to get that information, which we shall be able to use to provide some comfort in the future.

Channel 4

Thursday 10th December 2015 Lords Chamber

Question

11:27

Asked by

[Baroness Grender]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the remarks made by the Prime Minister on 4 November (HC Deb, col 965), what information they are using to estimate the financial gains from privatising Channel 4.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Neville-Rolfe) (Con)]

My Lords, the Prime Minister has said that he wants Channel 4 to have a strong and secure future. No decisions have been made about the channel’s prospects. The Government are looking at a range of information to assess a broad spread of options including those proposed by Channel 4’s own leadership.

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

Is the Minister aware that while the Prime Minister says that private investment will safeguard Channel 4, leaders in the advertising industry and Campaign magazine say the exact opposite? How is it possible that a great Thatcherite success that supports more than 350 independent production companies annually is now under threat of what looks like the equivalent of a one-off car-boot sale?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

Channel 4 is not under threat. It has an important remit. It must deliver innovative, experimental and distinctive content that appeals to a diverse society. Looking at all the options we shall obviously have full regard to that remit and indeed to the creative industries that depend on it.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

Channel 4 was established by Act of Parliament by a Conservative Government. Does the Minister agree that it is highly unlikely that any commercial purchaser could be found for Channel 4 unless the Government change its remit which at present ensures that all profits are reinvested in programmes? Will she confirm that it would require primary legislation to amend the current remit?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

My Lords, we are still at a fairly early stage of the process on Channel 4. The issue of whether legislation would be required for any change that we decide to make will certainly be one of the considerations.

[Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)]

My Lords, does my noble friend agree that Channel 4’s coverage of the 2012 Paralympic Games clearly demonstrated the benefit of its public service remit and non-profit ownership model and the old adage,

“if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

I share the view of my noble friend about the excellence of Channel 4’s coverage of the Paralympics. Indeed, I am a big fan of “Channel 4 Racing”.

[Noble Lords]

Hear, hear.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

What we are doing is looking at the options in an objective way, engaging with Channel 4, and in the fullness of time—in due course, as they say—we will reach conclusions.

[Lord Gordon of Strathblane (Lab)]

Even if one takes the Minister’s reply at face value and is reassured by it, she surely must recognise that if Channel 4 were to be privatised, that capital would have to be serviced, either by dividends paid to investors or interest paid to those who provided loans. That would represent money that would otherwise have gone to creative programming—surely an undesirable outcome.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

I can understand the noble Lord’s comments but we have to look objectively at all the options in the light of the changing media market and the needs of Channel 4 and its viewers.

[Lord Best (CB)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as chair of your Lordships’ Select Committee on Communications. The committee has heard from Channel 4 about its highly acclaimed news coverage. Bearing in mind that news programmes are not profitable because their production costs are relatively high and you cannot export or resell them, does the Minister not agree that the privatisation of Channel 4 would mean a major reduction in this distinctive and impressive news service?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

I repeat the point that we are looking at options. I agree that “Channel 4 News” and news provision are an important part of decisions on public sector broadcasting. I think in Parliament we feel that even more strongly than elsewhere in the country.

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

My Lords, with regard to the fourth channel in Wales, S4C, can the Minister give an assurance that whatever consideration the Government are giving to the future of Channel 4 in England, there is no danger to the independence of S4C in Wales, and that it will be given adequate finance to ensure that it is not subject to death by a thousand cuts?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

We have made clear our commitment to funding in Wales. S4C continues to have, as I think the noble Lord will be pleased to hear, a dual funding model and currently receives around £75 million a year from the licence fee.

[Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury (LD)]

My Lords—

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords—

[The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Stowell of Beeston) (Con)]

My Lords, on this occasion I think the House would like to hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter.

[Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury]

My Lords, the Prime Minister has made it clear that privatisation is under consideration. Will the Minister share with the Chamber what part of this great British and, can I say, Conservative success—an essential part of our creative industries, as the Minister mentioned, and the fastest-growing sector of our economy—is not working?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

My Lords, we are looking at Channel 4 objectively to see whether it is meeting its remit properly and whether there are changes that need to be made to the remit or its distribution. Of course, as the Prime Minister said, we need to ensure that the great channel goes on being great for many years to come. It is perfectly okay to review things.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom]

My Lords, is it not possible that if Channel 4 was privatised, it might be run more efficiently and have even more money to spend on quality programmes?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

My noble friend is entirely right that looking at how things can be run efficiently—taking advantage of technological advances, for example—is a key point in the kinds of reviews that we do in the media sector.

Economy: Balance of Payments and Industrial Productivity

Thursday 10th December 2015 Lords Chamber

Question

11:34

Asked by

[Lord Harrison]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they will take to improve the United Kingdom’s current balance of payments and industrial productivity levels.

[The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord O’Neill of Gatley) (Con)]

My Lords, this Government are committed to boosting productivity and enabling our trade performance. Our productivity plan, Fixing the Foundations, is designed to ensure that we remain a dynamic, open and enterprising economy. It includes steps to improve our export support, which we built on at the spending review. This action, together with our commitment to eliminate the budget deficit, reduces the potential risks to our economic security associated with our external position.

[Lord Harrison (Lab)]

My Lords, the trade deficit of the United Kingdom is as big as the Bay of Biscay. Manufacturing is once again in decline because of the failure to invest such that it is blocking the march of the makers, as proposed by the Chancellor. British productivity is failing to produce because of underinvestment in people and parts. Is not John Longworth of the British Chambers of Commerce right to criticise the Chancellor’s unbalanced economy? Would it not be helpful in our negotiations with the European Union, when highlighting competitiveness, if competitiveness started at home?

[Lord O’Neill of Gatley]

My Lords, in answering some of these questions, I have to resist the temptation to be a bit of an economics data nerd. First, as I think I pointed out in this House recently, our trade performance has stabilised in recent years. The biggest contribution to the deterioration in our current account balance comes from the so-called invisibles balance, particularly lower returns on our investments overseas.

[Lord Flight (Con)]

My Lords, it is appropriate that the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, should raise the issue of the current account deficit. Many people seem to have forgotten about it. Over the past 15 years it has amounted to some £700 billion and it has been financed by selling the family silver. Even some 50% of buildings in the City of London are now foreign-owned. Would the Minister agree that the issue is essentially macroeconomic? What is needed is a higher savings rate and a higher investment rate. Both have been too low for a long time.

[Lord O’Neill of Gatley]

My Lords, my noble friend is technically correct that the balance of payments current account reflects the difference between our national savings and our national investment performance—one is the reverse side of the other. The best way to improve it is by reducing our domestic savings rate but remaining as attractive as we are to overseas investments.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, I draw attention to my interest in the register of Members’ interests. I am sure that the Minister has seen the verdicts of the EEF—the manufacturers’ association—on the current downbeat mood in manufacturing and of the respected OBR, which says that the apprentice levy is a workplace tax. Does he agree with those verdicts and can he explain how they will help with fixing the foundations and uplifting the mood of manufacturers?

[Lord O’Neill of Gatley]

My Lords, there were at least three questions there but I shall try to be brief. I speak frequently to the EEF and its survey unfortunately reflects similar and growing evidence from surveys all over the world of weakness in manufacturing. The UK’s most regular monthly survey of the degree of optimism, or otherwise, in business shows that it remains one of the strongest in the G7 countries.

[Lord Davies of Oldham (Lab)]

My Lords, as the Minister has indicated that he is prepared to comment on statistics, I shall ask two straightforward questions. Is it the case that manufacturing output is now down the levels of 2009—just after the financial crash? The march of the makers is therefore becoming the slow movement of the disappointed. Is it not also the case that, with productivity set to fall over the next two years, the gap between the UK and the G7 countries is now down to 1991 levels? If these figures are correct, what on earth have been the so-called successes of the long-term economic plan?

[Lord O’Neill of Gatley]

My Lords, again there are many questions about the arcane world of economic statistics with which I am very familiar. I suggest that there is no clear correlation between the level of manufacturing and the overall level of productivity. I spent considerable time yesterday discussing this with my many friends in the north of England.

[Lord Spicer (Con)]

My Lords, there are signs that we may be on the brink of a recession. Is this really the right time to think of putting up interest rates?

[Lord O’Neill of Gatley]

My Lords, luckily the decision on what happens to interest rates has absolutely nothing to do with me and is the responsibility of the independent Bank of England.

[Viscount Hanworth (Lab)]

My Lords, one of the factors that inhibits our exports is our overvalued rate of exchange. Should the Government not consider establishing a sovereign wealth fund to purchase foreign assets whenever the sterling rate of exchange exceeds a certain threshold value? This, after all, would compensate for our selling our family silver abroad.

[Lord O’Neill of Gatley]

My Lords, by and large as a result of the Bank of England’s responsibility for monetary policy, in effect the responsibility for what happens to the exchange rate in a very competitive world is hugely influenced by our monetary policy relative to others. We have been and remain in favour of open markets, where prices are determined in world markets.

[Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)]

Will my noble friend explain to most of the noble Lords who have spoken that nowadays, most manufacturing items have a huge service and knowledge-laden complex in them? Will he also explain that to the Office for National Statistics, which does not seem to understand the difference? Will he not concede that at the moment, as an economy, we have an £86 billion trade surplus on our services overseas, which indicates that the mixture of services and manufacturing that we are developing is the winning formula for the future?

[Lord O’Neill of Gatley]

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Howell points out some extremely important facts, which I encourage everybody to listen to and read more about. I would add, as I emphasised at the start, that there are some signs that our trade balance in goods and services in recent years has improved. The deterioration that so many people talk about is in another source; it relates to the difference between the returns of investors here in the UK and our return on our own investments overseas.

British Bill of Rights

Thursday 10th December 2015 Lords Chamber

Question

11:41

Asked by

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, in the light of the reported delays in bringing forward a British Bill of Rights, whether they will rule out introducing legislation that will purport to relieve the United Kingdom from its obligation to comply with final decisions of the European Court of Human Rights.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Faulks) (Con)]

My Lords, we will set out our proposals in due course. While we want to remain part of the ECHR, we will not stay at any cost. If we cannot achieve a satisfactory settlement within the convention, we may have no option but to consider withdrawal. However, we are confident that we can make progress from within the ECHR.

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)]

My Lords, the convention obligation to comply with final decisions of the Strasbourg court protects us all against breaches by Governments, in other Council of Europe countries and our own. In the light of the Russian Constitutional Court’s decision that Russian domestic laws should trump Strasbourg decisions, do the Government not accept that if we took a similar line—let alone threatened to leave—it would encourage other Governments to do the same? Will the Government commit on this Human Rights Day that they still accept that the binding obligation to comply with final decisions of the Strasbourg court is the bedrock on which the convention is built?

[Lord Faulks]

My Lords, the legislation passed by the Russian Duma does not actually mean that Russia is leaving the ECHR. It was a response to a decision of the ECHR about the unfettered right to tap phone calls and Article 8. This Government remain absolutely committed to the protection of human rights, both here and abroad, on this international Human Rights Day. We are party to no fewer than, I think, seven explicit treaties protecting human rights, as well as many others which bear on them. We will remain within the convention and the obligations under Article 46. Any future plans will involve the protection of all those rights contained within the convention.

[Lord Goldsmith (Lab)]

My Lords, does that mean that the Government accept the proposition put by the noble Lord, Lord Marks, that they will not try to rule out the obligation of this country to comply with decisions of the European Court of Human Rights? Does the Minister agree that, given the proud history that this country has had leading other countries in Europe, if we were to take a different view it could mean the dismantling of the fairer and more just Europe which we in this country, including his party, have tried to maintain and to build?

[Lord Faulks]

As the noble and learned Lord knows, Article 46 requires all members of the Council of Europe to adhere to the convention, and the implementation of decisions is subject to the supervision of the Committee of Ministers. We have an extremely good record in complying with recommendations of the Committee of Ministers. There is one outstanding matter, of which the House is well aware, where there is a tension between a decision clearly made by Parliament and a decision made by the Committee of Ministers. My ministerial colleague attended the day before yesterday; we have yet to hear the outcome.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

My Lords, does the Minister accept that to remove ourselves from the convention means in effect to remove ourselves from the Council of Europe, for which this is the bedrock? Does he also recall that the Prime Minister sacked the former Attorney-General precisely because of his concerns over this and that the only countries which will rejoice if we adopt this policy of half-in half-out when choosing whether to accept judgments of the court will be the serial defaulters, such as Russia?

[Lord Faulks]

Clearly, I would not wish to comment on the circumstances of the former Attorney-General’s departure from government. I accept that it is important that we comply with our treaty obligations and we have no intention of departing from them. We have a proud record of complying with human rights obligations and protecting human rights throughout the world. It is no part of the Government’s intention that we in any way weaken our resolve to protect human rights here or abroad.

[Lord Lester of Herne Hill (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister has been more equivocal in his replies to this House than was Michael Gove in the evidence he gave to the Constitution Committee recently. Will the Minister confirm that the Government have no intention of following the example of the Russian Federation in its recent legislation?

[Lord Faulks]

I have, of course, read what the Secretary of State said to the Constitution Committee, of which the noble Lord is a distinguished member. I do not think anything I have said is divergent from the evidence he gave and we certainly have no intention of legislating specifically as the Russian Duma did yesterday.

[Lord Bach (Lab)]

My Lords, given the extremely difficult situation the world community faces, is this really the right moment to repeal the Human Rights Act? Do the Government really believe they are setting a good example to other countries, some of which may not have the same respect for the rule of law as we traditionally have, by repealing the Human Rights Act and inevitably coming into conflict with the ECHR?

[Lord Faulks]

The repeal of the Human Rights Act is part of a manifesto commitment; it does not in any way diminish our respect for the importance of protecting human rights. What we are concerned with is the overreach of the Strasbourg court and the relationship between this Parliament, the Supreme Court and the Strasbourg court. This does not mean that there is any diminishing of our respect for the protection of human rights.

[Lord Judd (Lab)]

Does the Minister recognise that while he keeps referring to our good record in this respect, Russia has a very bad record and is introducing legislation to try to give effect to its dissent? Does he not understand that it would have an historic significance if we were to withdraw because it would lend credence to the present moves within Russia and, indeed, encourage such activity elsewhere?

[Lord Faulks]

As I indicated to the House and the noble Lord, it is not our intention to withdraw from the ECHR, although, as the Secretary of State said, we cannot rule it out absolutely. We are confident that we can realign our relationship with the Strasbourg court in a satisfactory way, which means we comply with our international obligations and bring some common sense back to the business of human rights.

[Lord Lawson of Blaby (Con)]

My Lords, does my noble friend agree that this country’s proud record of respecting human rights goes back well before the creation of the Strasbourg court? As far as courts are concerned, does he also agree that the membership of our Supreme Court is at least as distinguished as the membership of the Strasbourg court and that some would say more so?

[Lord Faulks]

I am grateful to my noble friend. He is, of course, absolutely right that this Parliament and our courts have always been astute at protecting human rights. We had human rights long before 1998, when the Human Rights Act was brought into force. Our Supreme Court will continue to protect them. Our Supreme Court has the admiration of the whole country. The Strasbourg court has judges of, I have to say, varying quality.

Business of the House

Thursday 10th December 2015 Lords Chamber

Timing of Debates

11:50

Moved by

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

That the debates on the motions in the names of Lord Howarth of Newport and Baroness Wheeler set down for today shall each be limited to two and a half hours.

Motion agreed.

Bank of England and Financial Services Bill [HL]

Thursday 10th December 2015 Lords Chamber

Order of Consideration Motion

11:50

Tabled by

[Lord Bridges of Headley]

That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order:

Clauses 1 to 13, Schedule 1, Clauses 14 to 16, Schedule 2, Clause 17, Schedule 3, Clause 18, Schedule 4, Clauses 19 to 33, Title.

[Lord Ashton of Hyde (Con)]

My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Bridges on the Order Paper.

Motion agreed.

Southern Health NHS Foundation Trust

Thursday 10th December 2015 Lords Chamber

Statement

11:51

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Prior of Brampton) (Con)]

My Lords, I shall now repeat as a Statement the Answer to an Urgent Question given in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health on the report into the investigation into deaths at Southern Health NHS Foundation Trust.

“Mr Speaker, the whole House will be profoundly shocked by this morning’s allegations of a failure to investigate more than 1,000 unexpected deaths by Southern Health NHS Foundation Trust. Following the tragic death of 18 year-old Connor Sparrowhawk at Southern Heath NHS Foundation Trust’s short-term assessment and treatment unit in Oxfordshire in July 2013, NHS England commissioned a report from audit providers Mazars into unexpected deaths between April 2011 and March 2015.

The draft report, submitted to NHS England in September, found a lack of leadership, focus and sufficient time spent in the trust on carefully reporting and investigating unexpected deaths of mental health and learning disability service users. Of 1,454 deaths reported, only 272 were investigated as critical incidents, and only 195 of those were reported as serious incidents requiring investigation. The report found there had been no effective systematic management and oversight of the reporting of deaths and the investigations that followed.

Prior to publication or, indeed, showing the report to me, NHS England rightly asked the trust for its comments. It accepted failures in its reporting and investigations into unexpected deaths but challenged the methodology, in particular pointing out that a number of the deaths were outpatients for whom it was not the primary care provider. However, NHS England has assured me that the report will be published before Christmas, and it is our intention to accept the vast majority, if not all, of the recommendations it makes.

Our hearts go out to the families of those affected. More than anything, they want to know that the NHS learns from tragedies such as what happened to Connor Sparrowhawk, and that is something we patently fail to do on too many occasions at the moment. Nor should we pretend that this is as a result of the wrong culture at just one NHS trust. There is an urgent need to improve the investigation and learning from the estimated 200 avoidable deaths that we have every week across the system.

I will give the House more details about the report and its recommendations when I have had a chance to read the final version and understand its recommendations, but I can tell the House about three important steps that will help to create the change in culture we need. First, it is totally and utterly unacceptable that only 1% of the unexpected deaths of patients with learning disabilities were investigated, so from next June we will publish independently assured Ofsted-style ratings of the quality of care offered to people with learning disabilities for all 209 CCG areas. This will ensure that we shine a spotlight on the variations in care, allowing rapid action to be taken when standards fall short.

Secondly, NHS England has commissioned the University of Bristol to undertake an independent study of mortality rates of people with learning disabilities.

Thirdly, I have committed to the House previously that next year we will publish the number of avoidable deaths by NHS trust. Professor Sir Bruce Keogh has worked hard to develop a methodology to do this and will write to medical directors at all trusts in the next week explaining how it works and asking them to supply estimated figures that can be published in the spring. Central to this will be instilling a no-blame reporting culture across the NHS where people are rewarded, not penalised, for speaking openly and transparently about mistakes.

Finally, I pay tribute to Connor’s mother, Sara Ryan, who has campaigned tirelessly to get to the bottom of these issues. Her determination to make sure the right lessons are learnt from Connor’s unexpected and wholly preventable tragic death is an inspiration to us all. Today, I would like to offer her and all other families affected by similar tragedies a heartfelt apology on behalf of the Government and the NHS”.

11:54

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, these are truly shocking revelations and reveal deep failures at the trust. I start by echoing his remarks about the families so grievously affected.

As the Minister said, only 195 of the 1,454 unexpected deaths were actually treated by the trust as serious incidents requiring investigation. Perhaps most worryingly, it appears that the likelihood of an unexpected death being investigated depends hugely on the patient. For those with a learning disability, just 1% of unexpected deaths were investigated. For older people with a mental health problem, just 0.3% of unexpected deaths were investigated.

Obviously, we will expect a full response from the Government when the report is published, but in the mean time, can the Minister say whether he judges services at the trust to be safe? What advice can he give patients currently in the care of this trust, and their families? He explained that NHS England first received the report in September. Can he say why it has not yet been published, and when a final report will be made available?

Finally, I want to raise an issue the Minister himself mentioned. I understand that the trust disputes the analysis by the audit company Mazars, which produced the report. NHS England needs to sort this out. When the report is published, it is clearly vital that there be no question about its methodology or the robustness of its conclusions. Is he absolutely confident that NHS England has got a grip of this?

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, our hearts go out to the family of Connor Sparrowhawk and all the other families who have struggled so hard to get investigations of the unexpected deaths of their loved ones. On many occasions they have struggled to find the financial support required to make that investigation. That is quite wrong. In this particular hospital’s case, the percentage of unexpected deaths that was investigated is pretty scandalous. In fact, across the board, only 1% of unexpected deaths of those with learning disabilities are investigated.

I very much welcome the Minister’s saying that a light will be shone on this, but will the investigation bear in mind the possibility that it should not be the hospital trust itself that decides which of its unexpected deaths should be investigated? Police forces no longer investigate themselves—that is done by another police force. Should that not be the case with hospitals too? My second question is about timeliness. The report is not the first indication we have had of problems with this trust. The coroners have complained on numerous occasions, and over a long period, about the timeliness and quality of the reports received by them on cases that were investigated. Surely this indicates that there have been problems with the administration, the collection of evidence and the systems of this trust. Why was that not picked up earlier?

[Lord Prior of Brampton]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, gave two very important figures: 1% of these incidents involving people with learning difficulties were investigated and 0.3% involved people with learning difficulties who are older. We have not got it right in this country when it comes to people with learning difficulties. We have not fully learnt the lessons of Winterbourne View. However, NHS England has now published this new strategy for people with learning difficulties and mental health problems. We will hold it to account for delivering that. I think that represents a step change in trying to get as many of these people out of hospital settings—“from hospital to home” is the line in the report—which is so important. That is the fundamental issue that we should not lose sight of.

NHS England received the report in September. It has not yet been published because it had to give the trust a chance to comment on it, and the methodology has to be fully sorted before it is published. However, Jane Cummings has given a commitment to the Secretary of State that the report will be published before Christmas. So does NHS England have a grip? I think it does.

On the question of an independent investigation, which the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, raised, the trust has to be the first line in this. It is up to the trust to have the right culture within it so that these incidents come to the surface. We now have a much more empowered CQC providing independent inspection, and of course the Secretary of State has agreed to set up an independent investigation branch, on the recommendation of the PASC, which will be operable from March.

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

Will my noble friend institute an emergency review, through the CQC or wherever, to try to establish that this is an isolated incident and that there are not more horrors waiting to be discovered?

[Lord Prior of Brampton]

My Lords, I certainly cannot give a guarantee that this is an isolated incident. Often in the past we have taken these awful events when they happen and tried to say that they are isolated. The fact is that there are many trusts that the CQC has characterised as requiring improvement, so I cannot give my noble friend an assurance that this is an isolated incident. However, I can reassure him that our inspection procedures are much more robust than they used to be.

[Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)]

My Lords, we have had repeated references to unexpected deaths, but no details. What are the causes of these unexpected deaths?

[Lord Prior of Brampton]

Avoidable deaths are estimated at some 10,000 a year. “Unavoidable deaths” is the phrase that I think I used, which are estimated at some 10,000 a year. That is not out of line with what is found in other countries, such as America and Germany. However, it should not be accepted, which is why the Secretary of State has asked Bruce Keogh to produce these new statistics for every trust, starting from next spring.

[Lord Patel (CB)]

The Minister might want to look at those figures again, and correct them with a letter if necessary, regarding avoidable and unavoidable deaths. Turning to my question, on a daily basis now we get at least two items of bad news relating to the NHS, mental health, public health or other issues in social care. Is it not time to look at the whole organisation of the NHS, including funding and so on, through an independent commission? Why would the Government not do that? The Opposition might not support it but it would take politicians out of it and we might end up with a better service.

[Lord Prior of Brampton]

The noble Lord makes an interesting point. We have a much more transparent system than we used to. Surely it is better that we know about what is going wrong within the NHS rather than that we cover it up as it was in the past.

[Lord Mawhinney (Con)]

My Lords, after all the investigations, inquiries and reviews relating to the terrible events at Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust, your Lordships’ House was told that no one was to blame. Is it the Minister’s initial instinct that after these shocking new facts have been analysed, reviewed, examined and so on, the House will again be told that no one was to blame?

[Lord Prior of Brampton]

My Lords, I do not think anyone was told that no one was to blame as a result of the investigation into Mid Staffs. There were failures at all levels within the NHS with the regulation, the professions and the management of that particular trust. I believe that transparency is the right way to deal with the systemic problems that we have in many of our hospitals.

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

My Lords, if you are to achieve transparency, is it not the case that, first of all, as the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, has suggested, there should be an independent element in deciding whether a particular death is going to be investigated at all, and, secondly, there must be some independence in the nature of that investigation? Too often those investigations are too close to the establishments concerned. Does there not also need to be some oversight of those independent investigations so that general conclusions of a systemic failure can be picked up, acted upon and brought to his attention as a Minister?

[Lord Prior of Brampton]

My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health is committed to having a blame-free, independent investigation service looking at incidents of this magnitude in the NHS. That is why, on the recommendation of the PASC, he set up the investigations branch which will be up and running in March.

Legal Aid

Thursday 10th December 2015 Lords Chamber

Motion to Take Note

12:05

Moved by

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

That this House takes note of the future of legal aid.

[Lord Howarth of Newport (Lab)]

My Lords, I am not the noble Lord, Lord Bach. Unlike my noble friend, I am not a lawyer, merely a citizen. As a citizen, what should I reasonably be able to expect of our system of legal aid? It is a good subject for debate on Human Rights Day.

To know what we should do in the future about legal aid we should first consider the values that have been violated and the damage that has been done in recent years. In his book The Rule of Law Lord Bingham proposed as the core principle:

“All persons and authorities within the state, whether public or private, should be bound by and entitled to the benefit of laws publicly made … and publicly administered in the courts”.

He traced the genesis of the rule of law to the coronation oath and to Magna Carta, which declared,

“to no one will we sell, to no one deny or delay right or justice”.

It is insufficient, however, if legal rights are merely declaratory; they must be enforceable by all to whom they apply. With the development of legal aid in the 20th century, publicly funded legal advice and legal representation became available, if not to all citizens, to a vastly greater proportion of them. The institution of legal aid, enacted by a Labour Government, despite post-war austerity, in the Legal Aid and Advice Act 1949, marked one of the great constitutional advances in our history. Over the next 40 years, the scope of legal aid was extended to more of the courts and to more classes of case.

Then, in 1987, the Conservative Government commenced a long attrition of public spending on legal aid. The Labour Government more or less carried on the policy after 1997. But it was the coalition Government that really took the axe to legal aid. The coalition parties had no mandate for this; their manifestos had not hinted at it. They claimed that the global financial crisis obliged them to make drastic cuts to the legal aid budget. Kenneth Clarke’s Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012—LASPO—excluded all but the very poorest from eligibility for civil legal aid and took out of scope, with only very limited exceptions, clinical negligence, employment, private family law, housing, debt, immigration, education and even social security.

At the very same time, the Ministry of Justice was wasting very large sums elsewhere. The department was being ripped off by contractors claiming money for tagging non-existent prisoners and was duplicating an internal IT system in ignorance of a parallel project being run by the Cabinet Office.

Mr Clarke’s successor, Chris Grayling, placed a novel interpretation on the Lord Chancellor’s oath of office, to,

“respect the rule of law, defend the independence of the judiciary and discharge my duty to ensure the provision of resources for the efficiency and effective support of the courts for which I am responsible”.

He set about an extensive and extraordinary assault on the rule of law, including a further attack on legal aid. In 2013, he announced his intention to cut another £200 million per annum. In a consultation paper with the Orwellian title Transforming Legal Aid: Delivering a More Credible and Efficient System, he proposed further narrowing of the scope of matters covered by civil legal aid, for example prison law and judicial review; further reductions in payment rates for areas of civil legal aid that remained within scope, such as childcare cases; restructuring of the criminal legal aid market with cuts in legal aid rates for solicitors and barristers; and further restrictions on eligibility, for example a residence test.

In response to the consultation, writing in the Solicitors Journal, John Halford and Mike Schwarz said:

“Legal aid is not a welfare benefit; it is an equalising measure. Its aim is to ensure that everyone subject to UK jurisdiction can enjoy their rights in a meaningful way through access to legal advice when it would otherwise be unaffordable and representation funded to the extent necessary to ensure that the merits of any court case will determine the outcome, rather than the relative wealth or power of the opposing parties”.

They went on:

“These fundamental principles remain shamelessly compromised by the Government’s proposals … The crime proposals perpetuate a dangerous trend; those for civil work will create a silenced minority whose cases will never be heard by our courts, regardless of their merits or what is at stake”.

As the President of the Supreme Court, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Neuberger, has said, when a case is dropped for lack of legal aid, it is,

“a blot on the rule of law”.

A YouGov poll in April this year found that 84% of the public rated access to justice a fundamental right. Without access to justice, inequality becomes more dangerous. Yet net expenditure on legal aid fell from £2.2 billion in 2011-12 to £1.6 billion in 2014-15. A letter to the Guardian on 1 May this year, signed by more than 100 senior lawyers, said:

“The effect of the cuts is reflected in eye-watering statistics. From 2012-13 to 2013-14, debt cases fell from 81,792 to 2,423 and in clinical negligence from 2,859 to 114. In employment law, legally aided cases fell from 16,154 to six in the same period”.

It is to the credit of Mr Grayling’s successor, Michael Gove, that he has spent his first six months in office seeking to clear up the mess left by his predecessor. His speech to the Legatum Institute, on a one-nation justice policy, showed his grasp of the principles that should guide him in his office. He acknowledged:

“While those with money can secure the finest legal provision in the world, the reality in our courts for many of our citizens is that the justice system is failing them. Badly”.

I hope that the attitude of the new Lord Chancellor will reopen the possibility of a consensus—a positive consensus—between the political parties on legal aid. He has, however, given no commitment to restore any state-funded legal aid. No crumbs were forthcoming from the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s table when it was found to be laden with an extra £27 billion.

The consequences of the reductions in legal aid have been fourfold: denial of access to justice, human suffering, failure to achieve the intended savings, and damage to the legal profession.

Problems that could have been addressed quickly and cheaply through early advice have become costly social, mental health or welfare issues. The commission of the noble Lord, Lord Low, has described these ravages. I also commend to noble Lords Shelter’s analysis of the effects on housing and homelessness. The LASPO cuts in legal aid have reduced funding for its legal services by 50%. It has been forced to close nine services around the country.

An article in the Guardian on 7 November reported from another devastated zone. Sitting in on family law cases in court, the author, Louise Tickle, witnesses “the extreme stress” that litigants in person, in states of heightened emotion, find themselves under. A barrister tells her of,

“dads who think the court process is inherently biased against fathers, who feel disempowered and unable to pursue their case without help—so they don’t try, and the result is that they don’t have any contact with their children at all. That’s disastrous”.

Alistair MacDonald QC, chairman of the Bar Council, told readers of the Times on 26 March 2015:

“Recently the legal aid agency denied support to a mother with learning difficulties as she fought for custody of her child, claiming their decision did not breach her right to a fair trial. The woman could not read or write. We have seen cases where children and partners have faced being cross-examined by fathers who have been accused of abusing them”.

The LASPO assault on legal aid coincided with the Treasury’s assault on social security funding in a pincer movement against the poor. The president of the Law Society, Jonathan Smithers, has said that, following the exclusion of 600,000 people a year from legal aid:

“The lack of access to justice in this country for a significant proportion of our population undermines society itself”.

The National Audit Office reported a 30% increase in cases starting in family courts in 2013-14 in which neither party had legal representation. The huge increase in litigants in person points to a deterioration in the quality of justice. This is not the fault of judges, who attempt patiently to guide litigants in person through bewildering court procedures and maintain a fair balance between contesting parties. There has been a significant increase in the costs of running courts in the Family Division as cases take longer.

The Public Accounts Committee on 19 January 2015 stated:

“The Ministry of Justice … is on track to make a significant and rapid reduction to the amount that it spends on civil legal aid. However, it introduced major changes on the basis of no evidence in many areas, and without making good use of the evidence that it did have in other areas. It has been slow to fill the considerable gaps in its understanding, and has not properly assessed the full impact of the reforms. Almost two years after the reforms, the Ministry is still playing catch up: it does not know if those still eligible are able to access legal aid; and it does not understand the link between the price it pays for legal aid and the quality of advice being given. Perhaps most worryingly of all, it does not understand, and has shown little interest in, the knock-on costs of its reforms across the public sector. It therefore does not know whether the projected £300 million spending reduction in its own budget is outweighed by additional costs elsewhere”.

What an abysmal way to govern. The Government consider justice too expensive. They need to grasp that injustice is even more expensive. The rule of law underpins not only a just and humane society, but the health of our economy.

LASPO has also ended the careers of many legal aid lawyers and advisers who had dedicated their working lives to enabling disadvantaged people to have access to justice. The Government have squandered this resource. Organisations such as the Norfolk Community Law Service are fighting back, for example by providing work experience for law students in their free legal advice services. But voluntary and pro bono work is no substitute for legal aid.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, has said in this House that,

“it would be difficult today for any responsible person to advise a youngster coming into the profession to take up a criminal practice”,

noting:

“The quality of our judges is dependent on the quality of the legal profession from which they are drawn”.—[Official Report, 10/7/14; col. 332.]

Last year, the Government reduced litigators’ fees by 8.75%. This year, they have published regulations for a second draconian cut of 8.75%. Meanwhile, the Law Society reported that 120 providers were facing bankruptcy as a result of the previous cuts. We have seen boycotts by solicitors and barristers of new cases paid at the lower rates of legal aid. With the reduction in funding for legal aid work and in the volume of legal business, as my noble friend Lord Beecham has warned, firms are not recruiting trainee solicitors.

In opening this debate I have attempted to sketch the problems that surround legal aid. My noble friend Lord Bach will be chairing a review of the future of legal aid. The president of the Law Society has said of reform:

“You need to start by asking, ‘What do we want to achieve, what does good justice look like, and how are we going to get that?’”.

My noble friend will also need to establish the full facts. The Government should provide a comprehensive cost-benefit analysis of the impact of LASPO and other cost-cutting measures. If the Government will not bring forward their review of LASPO, he should do it for them.

My noble friend’s review may wish to examine the factors that have driven the demand for legal aid, because they all continue to apply. These include the huge increase in the volume of law and the creation of many more criminal offences. There has been the increase in family breakdown. Affluence and the greater availability of credit have increased demand for consumer redress. With technological change, data protection issues have become more important. With better education and more information, more people have become aware of their legal rights and sought to assert them. There has been a growing insistence that the Government and other public agencies should be accountable and be made to provide redress when they are at fault. All these are legitimate reasons for the growth of legal aid.

The decent way to constrain legal aid spending will be to deal with underlying causes that are not acceptable: bad landlords, bad employers, reckless moneylending, non-payment of debts and chaotic immigration. Limiting the growth in legal aid requires a responsible, activist state.

While accepting, of course, the need for financial discipline, for the elimination of abuse where it exists and for efficiency within the legal aid system, my noble friend should accept that, as economic growth is achieved, some of its fruits should be used to restore funding to legal aid, bringing back into scope categories that were so wrongly excluded, easing the severity of the means tests, and paying rates that are viable for the legal profession. The rule of law, after all, is beyond price. He may also want to look at the option of an indemnity or insurance fund, and he may wish to consider whether less adversarial processes are appropriate in some areas, perhaps in the family courts.

My noble friend’s review will be about more than damage limitation. It will set out what the desirable dispensation for legal aid should be in the future. I know that my noble friend will make a clarion call for equal access to justice. I beg to move.

12:20

[Lord Lester of Herne Hill (LD)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, on his powerful speech, with which I agree. I am very sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, cannot be with us today, owing to a family bereavement, but his powerful essay in the Times today says everything with which I also agree.

Today is international Human Rights Day. One fundamental human right is effective access to justice, protected by the Human Rights Act and the common law. It is a state’s duty to provide a system of legal aid that enables everyone, including the poor and not so rich, to have effective access to courts and tribunals. Fifty years ago when I began to practise law, our legal aid system was the best in the world. It was the Attlee Government’s great achievement to have brought in the Legal Aid and Advice Act at a time of severe post-war austerity. Its vision was that no one should be unable to defend a legal right or bring a just and reasonable claim because of lack of means.

I am proud to be honorary president of the Liberal Democrat Lawyers Association. We have always toasted the health of the 1949 Act at our annual dinner. Now there is little left to toast. Legal aid has been treated as the Cinderella of the welfare state—an easy target for the Treasury’s axe. Successive Governments have cut legal aid to the bone. In 1949, eight in 10 people had access to legal aid, based on income and assets. By 1986, six in 10 were eligible. By 2008, just shy of three in 10 satisfied the means test. In 2009, an independent review concluded that it would be wrong to tighten the screw any further. However, the coalition Government made swingeing cuts without adequate research into their probable impact.

The yearly budget for civil legal aid before the cuts was £2 billion in total—equivalent to running the NHS for a fortnight. It was reduced by £300 million, and plans were announced to cut criminal legal aid by £220 million every year until 2018. The civil legal aid reforms swept whole areas of law out of the safety net—family, debt, housing, employment, immigration, medical negligence, education and welfare benefits—with narrow exceptions. This House voted against the legislation 14 times before it squeaked through.

The Government anticipated that reforms would encourage potential litigants to engage in alternative dispute resolution. Those calculations were misjudged. In January 2015, the Commons Public Accounts Committee found that mediation for family law matters had fallen by 38% rather than increasing by 74% as the ministry expected. As Lord Scarman discovered when he spent three days trying to solve a social security problem for his cleaning lady, welfare law is as complex as tax law, yet as more and more legal advice centres are starved of funding, litigants must represent themselves.

The cuts come at a time of stringent reductions in other public services, when the need for access to justice could not be greater. Whenever people cannot have access to legal assistance, one sees spiralling debt, mental health problems, homelessness, criminality and family breakdown—all with knock-on costs to other public services. In compelling evidence to the Commons Justice Committee, Islington Law Centre reported that two people had collapsed in its offices because of a lack of food. They had received benefits sanctions and had not contested them. In one case, a man had not eaten for six days; in another, a woman was unable to feed herself and her three young children. The exceptional funding scheme was intended to be a safety net, but the application process remains so complicated that people cannot use it.

The previous Lord Chancellor imposed exorbitant taxes on justice. For the first time, court fees do not reflect the administrative costs of the court: instead, the Treasury profits from people seeking to enforce their legal rights. The justice system is too expensive for traders, small businesses and the victims of personal injuries. I warmly welcome last week’s decision by the new Lord Chancellor to scrap the criminal courts charge and announce a review into court-ordered financial impositions for offenders. I hope that he will also reverse the increase in court and tribunal fees in civil cases.

In December 2014, the previous Government promised a post-implementation review,

“on a period of three to five years”—[Official Report, 4/12/14; col. 1402.]

after the implementation of LASPO. Waiting until 2018 for a comprehensive review is too long. Post-legislative scrutiny should begin in April 2016. I hope the Minister agrees. It is vital that these assaults on our two-nation justice system are reversed. What use is the rhetoric of human rights if the system, like the Ritz hotel, is open only to the rich?

12:26

[Lord Goldsmith (Lab)]

My Lords, I, too, congratulate my noble friend on initiating this debate. That he opened the debate as a non-lawyer is not a deficiency; it is a strength. It underlines the fact that legal aid is not just a specialist interest for the legal profession: it is about ordinary people, and everyone in our country who needs legal advice and legal assistance. I want to speak about one particular aspect of that—the effect of the legal aid cuts on the voluntary sector, which provided a great deal of support to people in need. I declare interests as the current chairman of the Access to Justice Foundation and as the founder and president of the Bar Pro Bono Unit.

It is also important to take account of the effect on young people in the legal profession. I note that among the speakers for this debate are two former Lord Chief Justices and one former member of our highest court. I hope and expect that they, as well as the other distinguished speakers, will be able to draw attention to other features that I shall not touch on in my few brief remarks.

Legal advice can make an enormous impact on people’s lives. It can help to reduce poverty and suffering. It has been shown that it also has an impact on government services. If we reduce welfare advice there is an effect on doctors: the amount of advice that they then must give adds even further to their burdens in the National Health Service. That is why legal aid was originally intended to provide a structure to enable legal issues to be identified at an early stage, as well as to deal with disputes once they had arisen.

In that field, the law centres and the citizens advice network have played an enormously important part—but the law centres have lost 40% of their funding since 2011. They used that funding enormously effectively, partly to fund some of their other services, because they could use the green form scheme and other schemes to fund their general activities. Let us take one statistic as an example. In 2005, 30,000 women were dismissed as a result of pregnancy discrimination. In 2015, the figure was 54,000. Where do those women get legal advice, and where do they get the money to pay tribunal fees? It has become so difficult for them to get help and enforce their rights.

The law centres were also able to adopt a holistic approach to people’s problems. People would come in with a specific problem—a dismissal from employment, a redundancy notice or a particular problem with debt—but the workers in law centres and citizens advice bureaux would often discover that that was only one of the problems that that individual had. They would often have a number of other issues to deal with, which was overwhelming for many people, but the specialist advice available enabled them to access other streams of advice within the centres, which would help to solve their problems. They would often get advice on more than one issue.

How is this now being dealt with? I will touch in particular on the advice and support given by those outside the paid lawyers and the legal aid system, although I utterly support that system and agree with all that my noble friend said. The knock-on effect on our court system is already enormous: a 30% increase across all family court cases in which neither party had legal representation. That is a very serious result. Over the last three years, the number of litigants in person applying to the Bar Pro Bono Unit for help has increased 30% year on year. These are all people who cannot access justice without this assistance and they have to come to free legal advice. The Ministry of Justice report on litigants in person in private family law cases found that only a small minority of litigants in person were able to represent themselves competently in all aspects of their family law proceedings. Any of us who have had any dealings with some of these areas—even the lawyers—will know that that must be the case. These are immensely complicated, difficult areas and the procedures of our courts make it more difficult still, despite all the efforts of the senior judiciary to make it more straightforward.

There is much talk, therefore, of lawyers doing more. The Secretary of State for Justice has talked about this. In fact, and I speak from experience, the pro bono intentions of lawyers are strong. When I established the Bar Pro Bono Unit I wrote to all barristers and asked them to volunteer 20 hours or three days of their time a year. The response was overwhelming. In my experience they are always willing to give of their help. But while they give voluntarily of their time, there is also a need for infrastructure to challenge that need. That is why organisations such as the Access to Justice Foundation raise money to support organisations that provide free legal advice. That is why it is important that they should be supported in doing that.

However, even with the profession’s best intentions there will always be a gap and a need for legal services that is unmet—not from Russian oligarchs or wealthy divorcees, perhaps, but from people who need legal advice to deal with the problems that are overwhelming for them in their everyday lives. I take this opportunity both to thank those who support the pro bono organisations and the voluntary sector that do that, but also to encourage the Government to recognise that they cannot turn to the legal profession simply to say, “Pay more money in this way to support these services”. Although the pro bono sector is hugely important, it can never be a substitute for a properly funded legal aid system.

12:32

[Lord Judge (CB)]

My Lords, I begin with an apology. I am afraid that I cannot stay for the entire debate. I have a commitment with the Constitution Committee that means that train and plane will take me to Edinburgh tonight. I apologise to the House, as I have apologised to the Minister.

In the early 1960s I went to have a cup of tea with a High Court judge, hoping to impress him. He made me sit in the back of the court. Over the cup of tea he said, “This is a wonderful system, isn’t it?”, so I said inanely, of course, “Yes, certainly, my Lord”. He said, “Isn’t it absurd? I’m trying a case in which £75 is at stake, two insurance companies are battling over it and two of the most distinguished QCs in the country are arguing it. Next week I go out to try crime. Any fool can do that”. The implication was plain. He went on: “I didn’t get a brief of any kind until I’d been in practice for three years. You’re very lucky. The new arrangements for criminal legal aid will make a great difference and it’ll make a difference to the system”.

I have not time, beyond commending what I have heard so far, to go through all the various facets of this but, at heart, have we not got to recognise that it actually matters whether we lock people up for things they have not done or fail to lock up people for things they have done that they are proved to have done, and that the future of every single child matters when its parents are in dispute? We are talking about whole lives that lie ahead.

I am going to talk about crime because of a great brain drain to the criminal Bar. We see bright, intelligent men and women who have committed themselves to qualification, to training, to pupillage, to finding a tenancy and to practising for 10 years who are now leaving the profession. It is not that they want to make a lot of money but they do want to make a living. They have responsibilities and they want to meet their responsibilities. They are going. Where, I ask, is the future crop of Queen’s Counsel to come from, Queen’s Counsel available to be briefed by both sides—the defence and the prosecution? Where, I also ask, is the future crop of criminal judges to come from, men and women who have had experience of years in the criminal justice system and who are regarded as competent enough to be appointed to the Bench? For those of us who worry about these things, perhaps the answer is the future students.

In the past three or four years, for a variety of reasons, I have spent many hours with students from famous universities and universities which are not so famous. They want to do law; they want to practise in the legal profession. Being young—not just because they are young—they are enthusiastic. Wonderful—but when you ask them what sort of law they want to do, they do not mention crime. I can think of about half a dozen, perhaps fewer, who have said to me with a willing smile on their face, “I am going to do crime; I think it really matters”. The overwhelming majority say they want to do commercial or administrative law, or this, that or the other, and when I say, “But what about crime? Locking people up for things they have not done or not locking people up for things they have done matters”, the smile is more wistful and slightly patronising—I do not know what the real world is like. They are not going to do it.

The quality of advocacy matters. After all, we run an adversarial system and are proud of it. An adversarial system is no better than the advocates who do the adversing. The result is—the signs are there to be seen already—our criminal cases are taking longer and longer. The administration of justice cannot be as well done. If you bear in mind that every case that takes longer means that a defendant, sometimes in custody, is waiting for his or her case to come up, you will understand that justice is being damaged. If we go on the way we are doing, 25 years or so from now we will be looking around for the diverse judiciary that we want. We will be going back to the days when to practise at the criminal Bar meant that you came from parents who were reasonably prosperous and who could support you. The young man or woman with no such advantage cannot afford to start at the criminal Bar. I am really asking no more than this: can we please recognise that what was the future in the early 1960s should not become a footnote in history?

12:38

[Baroness Mallalieu (Lab)]

My Lords, after 40 years as a legal aid practitioner I have hung my wig up so I have no direct personal financial interest to declare in this debate, for which we are all indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, but I do have an indirect one which puts me very much in mind of what has just been said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge. Despite the strongest possible advice to the contrary, my daughter is now a legal aid practitioner and, in the ironic words of Horace Rumpole, now lives “high on the hog” on the,

“rich pickings of the legal aid system”,

down on the Western Circuit.

The coalition Government’s cost savings to the legal aid budget have come at a heavy price for justice. It was predicted; the warnings were given in this House and everywhere else, and they were disregarded. The figures speak for themselves: 400,000 fewer new legal aid cases in the past year, and those in areas of law which almost inevitably involve the most vulnerable—welfare, debt, immigration and homelessness, victims of domestic violence among them; in 2014 more than 8,000 more cases involving contact with children where neither side was represented; 37,000 men and women without the benefit of qualified legal advice in family matters, usually involving children.

What of the exceptional case funding scheme which we were promised by Ministers would be the safety net? We were told that somewhere between 5,000 and 7,000 people were going to apply, mostly successfully, each year. Yet, between April 2014 and March 2015, only just over 1,000 applied and only 225 were granted help. The guidance given to those hoping to apply and the scheme itself have more than once been found by the courts to be so unreasonable as to be unlawful. Whatever else happens in future, that scheme has to be simplified and widened so that it does what was promised. As a result of all this, we have already heard about the tidal wave of litigants in person, who are not only slowing up the courts but drawing judges and court staff into the litigation in attempts to make sure, or try to make sure, that injustices do not occur.

Others who know more about civil legal aid than I do have already spoken, or will be speaking later, about the effects to people of the civil legal aid cuts and the extent to which access to justice is now denied to people in need. However, I cannot ignore the criminal justice system—where, of course, legal aid still exists—where the real damage is less immediately apparent. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, has just indicated some of it. You would be mad to go into the criminal Bar now. Indeed, what other profession has seen its remuneration fall since 2007 by nearly 50%? Those who think lawyers are overpaid are not thinking of the legal aid practitioners.

It is surely in all our interests that criminal offences should be prosecuted fairly and competently by those who are experienced and that those who are accused of crime are also properly represented. There is no question that advocates are now much better trained than we were when I entered the profession. For a start, they have to do advocacy training, which we never did, in addition to continuing professional development and so on. However, I can still see that the quality of the service they are able to provide is being drastically eroded.

Certificates for two counsel on legal aid are as rare as hens’ teeth. The result is that a rape trial, which used always to command a leading counsel, now rarely does, despite the fact that rape is now treated far more seriously than it ever was 20 years ago. I am aware of a contested case last year in which both the prosecution and the defence were conducted by counsel of under 10 years’ call, both having been refused a Queen’s Counsel, the case involving the rape of a very young child and the defendant receiving a sentence of 26 years. It is as if consultants were no longer allowed on the NHS. Very young advocates are dealing today with some of the most stressful cases, and we are all aware that there is a huge increase in distressing sex cases.

There is the additional difficulty in some places of finding experienced counsel to take on the prosecutions, which generally pay even less than the defence. The fee structure is hopelessly illogical, with the result in one case of which I am aware that three days’ work was remunerated with £40, which did not cover the cost of travel to court. In the west country—I have said this before in this House and have received reassuring answers which are incorrect—the Crown Prosecution Service is on the verge of collapse, with the result that barristers are approached directly by the police because no one answers the phone at the CPS, which is hopelessly understaffed and underresourced, and advices are not dealt with, causing the consequent inevitable delays and unnecessary adjournments.

Once upon a time, not long ago, the best-known common lawyers in the land would still take a legal aid case at the Old Bailey. If you wanted to be represented by George Carman, there was a very good chance that he would agree to do it. Now there is no way you could get the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, into the Old Bailey on legal aid, or anyone else in the other branches of the profession.

We had the best legal aid system in the world, both civil and criminal. There were savings that had to be made and could have been made. With a little more investment in digitalisation, unnecessary hearings could be avoided; virtual conferencing could take the place of much of what goes on in court; and with better case management and a sane fee structure, these savings could have been made and still could. It has taken very few years to inflict terrible damage on a system that was the best in the world.

I am not holding my breath, but I am encouraged by our current Lord Chancellor, who has in some areas recognised that change is to be made. However, it needs to be recognised that some of the Government’s attempts to save money have been ill-directed. They must be reviewed and repaired before hopelessly irreparable damage is done.

12:45

[Lord Dykes (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, at the beginning of this debate I was worried that I had deliberately decided not to have a written text but to listen very carefully to the experts. The noble Lord, Lord Howarth of Newport, need not have worried himself about being a non-lawyer. I agreed with all his excellent and detailed offerings. I am an amateur in this matter but I share his indignation.

I have had plenty of conversations, particularly with young lawyers, the group that my noble and learned friend Lord Judge mentioned, or lawyers starting out on their careers. I know the intense demoralisation that they often express in all kinds of circumstances when asked what they do or are planning to do. That never was so before. The legal profession stood proud and was adequately and respectably remunerated without excess, bar some rare and exceptional cases.

I have benefited very much as an amateur listener to this debate, joining in without a written text deliberately, because I agree so strongly with the tone of indignation in the five preceding speeches. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, as an expert who added weight to her evidence in sharing the demoralising experiences of a member of her family. I particularly thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, whose reputation as Attorney-General is very distinguished, for his offerings today. These disturb me greatly. The fall in the number of cases now qualifying for legal aid is truly shocking. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Bach, who will be replying on behalf of the Opposition, has, I think, already started his review of the legal aid system and what should be done. I believe that he hopes to present a report to the next Labour Party conference. It will be very important indeed to see what that says. The extraordinarily modest total savings—although having a dire consequence for the people and families who are suffering—are not a major component of the Government’s spending cuts. Cuts in other areas might be more justified. To promise a further decrease in the fees being paid just adds to the stunning demoralisation among lawyers that I have already related. This has got to be taken in hand.

I am very glad that the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, is going to reply today because I hope he will reassure us that there will now be the beginnings of what I hope will be the Gove revolution to get more sanity and balance into this whole system. Mr Gove started off well, abolishing the absurd extra court charges that were already distorting the practice of justice in our courts. That is very difficult for people in the legal profession, who are very proud of our legal achievements in the post-war period, to entertain and suffer. Abolition is therefore very important indeed.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, in commenting about these matters in the debate on the Queen’s Speech, said:

“There are no proposals to deal with the damage done in the last five years in the area of justice—for example, the decision to take the overwhelming majority of social welfare law out of the scope of legal aid. Now it is no longer possible to obtain legal aid in the areas of welfare benefit law; employment law; housing law, except possession cases; debt law; and much of immigration law”—

a growing theme because of the crisis that we face both here and in other European countries—

“relevant to all but particularly to the poor, the marginalised, the vulnerable and the disabled”.—[Official Report, 1/6/15; col 168.]

That is really a shocking thing for a distinguished former Lord Chancellor to have to say, and the Government must listen carefully to these voices, which are not tendentious or artificial but genuine. I also welcome that the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, will be replying on behalf of the Liberal Democrat group, given his distinguished record and experience as a practising senior lawyer. I hope he will really deal with these matters.

Some time ago, in October 2013, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Neuberger, gave a speech arguing that the impact of the changes to legal aid provision would result in people being denied access to justice and would constitute,

“a blot on the rule of law”.

That is strong language indeed for senior judges and lawyers to use. This goes into the realm of politics, as well. This Government have built up a reputation—albeit, I hasten to remind the House, on the basis of 24% of the electorate and 37% of the turnout voting for them; not a really significant figure—of pursuing tendentious policies that cause social distress, particularly to families dealing with the cases I have already referred to. The Government must think again. There is a chance to do so. The amounts of money involved are not crisis-creating but modest, although for individuals they are absolutely vital for their future welfare and survival.

12:51

[Lord Low of Dalston (CB)]

My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Dykes, with whom I so often find myself in accord. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, for securing this debate. The legal aid landscape is in such flux these days that it is important for Parliament to keep on top of it. I apologise to the noble Lord and to the House that I arrived so late for his opening speech. On the way here, I am afraid I dropped my BrailleNote on the floor and could not get it to start again. It is only thanks to the doorkeepers and staff of the House, who, with great resourcefulness, managed to connect it to the mains, that I have anything at all to say to your Lordships this afternoon.

I first came into contact with the legal aid system some 50 years ago when I was doing a PhD—sadly, still unfinished to this day—on legal aid in criminal cases. To that extent, I suppose I am one of those people whom JK Galbraith described as having built a successful career on their unpublished works. Fifty years later I was brought into contact with the legal aid system again—although things are very different now—when I was asked by the Legal Action Group, with funding from a number of charitable trusts and foundations, led by the Baring Foundation, to chair a commission on the future of advice and legal support on social welfare law in the wake of the cuts to legal aid introduced by the LASPO Act.

When I saw who else was on the commission, I said I did not think I had sufficient expertise to be there at all, to which they said, “That’s why we thought you’d make the ideal chair”. As regards the name, we went for something completely boring and bureaucratic—the Low commission—because all the other names seemed too close to campaigns against the LASPO Bill. Some people thought it was a misprint for the Law Commission, and the Guardian even got hold of the idea that it was the Low Pay Commission, presumably thinking it had something to do with barristers’ remuneration. It was intended to be just a one-year inquiry but the charities were so pleased with our work that they kept funding us to do more. We have now produced three reports but we will probably be drawing things to a close next March.

We saw advice and legal support as a continuum, including public legal education; informal and formal information and general advice, often provided by local authorities; specialist advice; legal help; and legal representation. However, in a situation where we have to accept that there will be less money for legal help and representation, it seemed clear to us that the advice end of the spectrum was going to need to take more of the strain. That is why we have been focusing more, of late, on what needs to be done to strengthen local advice services.

We argued for a national advice strategy, supporting local advice and legal support plans, produced by local authorities with the local not-for-profit sector and commercial advice agencies. I am happy to say that there seems to be an appetite for this on the part of government and a recognition of the contribution the advice sector makes to society. The Minister has always been very supportive. I remember that, at one Question Time, he even commended the Liberal Democrats’ endorsement of this approach in their election manifesto.

Money is not really the issue. There is no shortage of potential funding streams—Help Through Crisis, Reaching Communities, Building Better Opportunities, the Local Sustainability Fund, Commissioning Better Outcomes, the Social Outcomes Fund and the Troubled Families programme. What is needed is co-ordination of these funding streams, with provision for advice services as a central strategic theme.

There is one other matter I want to raise because of the impact it has had on access to justice. There has been a massive hike in fees for taking a case to an employment tribunal. From nothing at all in August 2013, the issue fee can now be £250 and the hearing fee as much as £950 in more complex cases. These may include discrimination, equal pay and unfair dismissal claims. For claims to the Employment Appeal Tribunal, the issue fee is £400 and the hearing fee £1,200. It has been said that the remission system operating in the civil courts, under which fees can be waived if a party cannot afford to pay, is to be extended to employment tribunals and the Employment Appeal Tribunal. However that may be, since the introduction of fees, the volume of employment tribunal claims has plummeted. Between October 2013 and September 2014, single claims brought by individuals were 64% down on the previous 12 months. Multiple claims were down by 67%. Even if one accepts that the imposition of fees flushed out some unmeritorious cases, it is clearly having a very negative impact on access to justice.

The Government’s recent decision to abandon the criminal courts charge is extremely welcome. Can the Minister say if the Government are minded to row back on the system of fees which has obviously had such a deleterious impact on access to employment tribunals?

12:57

[Lord Knight of Weymouth (Lab)]

My Lords, this is the first time I have spoken on legal aid. I normally leave that to those in this House with a wealth of expertise, particularly from the legal profession, and to those from whom we have already heard, as exemplified by the excellent speech from the noble Lord, Lord Low.

I want to take a little time to talk about the importance of access to justice. Let me talk about three people. Two years ago, I visited New Orleans for the first time. My Dorset friend, Emily, suggested meeting John Thompson. So, one afternoon, we were waiting just outside the French Quarter when John rolled up in his car and let us into his building. It was in many ways like any community building we have all visited. On the walls, however, were pictures of middle-aged black men, with their stories written below. These were stories just like John’s. He told us about his experience of being on death row as a convicted murderer in the Angola prison in New Orleans. He was exonerated after 18 years on death row. He was released suddenly—unemployable, homeless and mentally not healthy. He had to then prove innocence to qualify for compensation from the state of Louisiana. He overcame these obstacles to found his centre, Resurrection After Exoneration.

While we talking, an older man hobbled in with a styrofoam tray of fried chicken. Two months previously he had been exonerated after 30 years on death row. Almost 20 people have been victims of this gross miscarriage of justice. They were all in the wrong place at the wrong time and too poor to afford decent legal representation. All were helped by the Innocence Project New Orleans, established by my friend from Dorset, Emily Bolton. She qualified as a lawyer first in Louisiana and, subsequently, here when she moved home in 2004.

Meeting John really brought home to me the importance of credible legal aid and access to justice. Yesterday Emily emailed me. She said that,

“cuts to police and CPS are eroding the quality of prosecution evidence. In addition, the cuts to legal aid are making miscarriages of justice more likely. This is because the fee structures discourage proactive work by defence solicitors and even the most conscientious among them are unable to do the work needed to achieve justice for their clients pro bono”.

This is much as my noble and learned friend Lord Goldsmith said.

Barristers are forced to do more last-minute work because solicitors have not sought their own answers to the questions posed by the prosecution evidence and their clients. As a result, it is becoming rarer for the courts to be presented with a fair and complete picture of the case and the system’s accuracy is fatally undermined. In turn, the Criminal Cases Review Commission is working with 30% less money on 70% more applications from prisoners to have their cases reviewed. The aspirational goal is that prisoners will serve only three years before having a wrongful conviction overturned. The reality is far longer, as a period of time will pass before we correct our mistakes.

What do these statistics mean for the people who the system is designed to protect and serve? Let me tell your Lordships a little about Mr Jamie Green, a fisherman from the Isle of Wight. Jamie is a prisoner for whom these systemic dysfunctions and delays in the criminal justice system have meant that he has been waiting for more than five years to have what is now clearly a wrongful conviction quashed. As the noble Lord, Lord Dykes, was speaking, the funeral of Jamie’s wife of 26 years, Nikki Green, began. Nikki died of cancer last Monday, before her husband could be exonerated and freed. Jamie will have accompanied her coffin into the service in Newport in shackles, accompanied by security officers who will return him to prison after the service. Tonight, when we leave this House, Jamie will be contemplating all he has lost, alone in his cell. This is the human cost of trying to do justice on the cheap. Because of underfunding of the system, Jamie could not be there to help his wife through her chemotherapy or try to bring comfort to their children. He could not provide for his family during such trying times. Jamie will never again see his wife alive, as a free man.

Jamie is represented by the Centre for Criminal Appeals, a new non-profit criminal appeals practice established by my friend Emily, which is raising private grant funding and donations to cover the work that legal aid will not pay for and that the commission cannot create time for. The centre estimates that in some cases this is at least 50% of the work needed to prove that a conviction is unsafe to the satisfaction of the Court of Appeal. Every wrongful conviction which the centre gets overturned saves the taxpayer the cost of incarceration—an average cost of £25,000 per year. For every one the guilty party is free and unpunished, but of course this is about so much more than that. How many more people like Jamie and his family must be irrevocably harmed by the cuts to criminal justice funding? As we debate the future of legal aid, we must ensure that the tragedy blighting the Green family is not repeated.

13:03

[Lord Cotter (LD)]

My Lords, there have been so many concerns expressed in recent times about the change in the laws related to our legal system. Nothing should be sacrosanct, but the proposals made have not been well thought out. A recent survey found that only a quarter of the population believes that the UK’s legal system is fair and transparent. Two-thirds of those questioned feel that wealth is now a more important factor in gaining access to justice than it used to be.

There is much still to be done to address the genuine, real and justified concerns that the public have. But it is not just the public: legal experts, judges, magistrates and practitioners also share these concerns, so it is welcome that the Justice Secretary has just abandoned, for example, the punitive criminal court charges. However, the damage has been done already through many magistrates of experience—experience which is now lost—resigning in protest at the court charges. We are still left with the massive problem of ensuring that the public are in future to be represented by high-quality legal aid lawyers who are well funded and valued.

During a short debate last month over concerns that the bidding process was faulty, the point was made that because of the process, the future for good legal aid work was and is at risk. Replies at the time from the Government tried, in my opinion, to suggest that a few disgruntled solicitors were protesting because they were not given the work. It was implied that they were just being childish. This was not a lottery—or was it?—but the process should have been carried out professionally. Even at this stage the Government have a duty to re-evaluate the process, which was not professionally done. We are talking about the obligation to ensure that the general public have the best possible protection for their rights.

We have just celebrated Magna Carta and there is a duty on the Government to ensure that this process of fairness is maintained, so again we are back to process. It is not just imagined that the assessment process was faulty. Insufficient time was allowed to train the assessors and for them to do the actual work. This has been attested by many people who know this and have seen it with their own eyes. Basically, the assessment process was a rushed job and we shall pay for the results in the long run. The Government have to accept that having inexperienced assessors paid low rates may have reduced the cost of this process at the time but that we, the public, will pay much more in the long run. The assessors and the assessment process for anything should be professional, well tested and well run.

Many examples of poor decisions made about appointments for this work, as a result of this poor assessment process, have been given to me. In a longer debate I could give many of those examples, such as high-quality practices with knowledge in serving their local communities quite frequently being ignored. They have not been granted contracts, meaning that those given the work with no local knowledge will be less effective. Again, this has happened on a number of occasions. In regard to the wrong people being appointed I would instance, as I have mentioned previously, the past work carried out by a reputable, professional central London firm which meant that it should have been appointed to do such work in London. But no: it was not given the work. In fact, firms from Stafford, Leicester and Leeds were given that work to do in central London. In itself, that is just ridiculous.

I speak as a member of the public, as others have done, and I stand in awe of the experts. But I also wanted to represent the concerns that the public have about this service in future, as I have mentioned. We have a duty in this Chamber to ensure that changes are made so that the public get the right and fair justice system they need.

13:08

[Lord Clinton-Davis (Lab)]

Some 60 years ago, when I was quite a young solicitor, legal aid was in its infancy. It demonstrated vividly that the law was part and parcel of the reformist drive which was a vital part of our system at that time. Legal aid was relatively inexpensive and brought great relief to so many in civil and criminal cases. That positive scenario remained for many years, and legal aid was a significant element in our welfare state.

Was Britain rendered poorer as a result? Decidedly, it was not. In fact, its reputation was advanced. As the years passed, the character of legal aid changed for the worse. Fewer people were eligible. Today, save in a few complex or extremely long cases, legal aid is no longer an essential part of the fabric of our social services. Of course, the largest firms of solicitors try to fill the void by promoting their own help, which is far better than nothing but does not provide a real answer to the problems we face.

We now have virtually no legal aid, save in a few extensive cases. In other words, legal aid has ceased to be available to most people. Do we save a great deal as a result? The answer is clearly no. People who should be properly represented are frequently not. Sometimes people in that category advance bogus or irrelevant arguments and they are not entirely to blame as a result. It happens. Trials have become much longer and the courts have to be paid. There has been no adequate inquiry into all this.

What are the Government prepared to do? Will the Minister shed any light on this? I doubt it. In many cases, the result has been disastrous as people who are entitled to legal aid do not get it. The whole profession, Bar and solicitors alike, is despondent, and that is to put it mildly.

13:12

[Lord Woolf (CB)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. I think we probably went into the legal profession at approximately the same time and have seen the huge transformation that has taken place in it since then. It has grown dramatically. I sometimes think that I entered the legal profession at a very good time as after the war years it was suffering from the fact that people could not afford to employ lawyers and more people were leaving the Bar than were going into it. They were leaving because they just could not make a living, especially if they had recently come out of the forces. Since then, largely thanks to the Legal Aid and Advice Act, the position has been transformed but, as must be clear to everybody in the House, in recent times it has been transformed again. It has changed from a profession that served the public well to one that is unable and not equipped to do so because of a lack of resources.

Having listened to the excellent speeches here, it is clear that this is a critical time for the administration and doing of justice in this country. It is vital that we avoid doing more damage to what was a good system but is at the moment in peril. It is in peril for the reasons that have already been heard in this debate—there is no need to stress them again.

In March 2014, our current Lord Chief Justice launched JUSTICE’s new strategy for the courts. He said:

“Some would say that with such dramatic reduction, our system will break. But that cannot be permitted. If it breaks we lose more than courts, tribunals, lawyers and judges. We lose our ability to function as a liberal democracy capable of prospering on the world stage, whilst securing the rule of law and prosperity at home … Our task is therefore to ensure that we uphold the rule of law by maintaining the fair and impartial administration of justice at a cost the State and litigants are prepared or able to meet. We can only do that by radically examining how we recast the justice system so that it is equally if not more efficient, and able to carry out its constitutional function”.

The Lord Chief Justice was taking on the responsibility, as he saw it, for protecting the justice system. That responsibility is not that of the judges’ alone; it is also that of Ministers. Indeed, the Lord Chancellor in his oath of office has to swear to do what is necessary in that regard and that is a matter of which he, rightly, should be extremely conscious and not neglect. At this time it is important that we focus on what can be done to make the justice system work more effectively. At least then if resources are not provided, there will be no excuse that they are not being used well. When you have a system of justice in the state that ours is at present, it will be no easy task to undo the damage that has been done. This damage has not been caused intentionally but is the unforeseen consequence of policies that were thought justified at the time but can perhaps be seen now as to have caused disproportionate damage to our society as well as to the justice system.

We have had two reports recently. One is JUSTICE’s report, Delivering Justice in an Age of Austerity, and the other is the report of the Low commission. Both set out programmes intended to alleviate the situation. I am conscious that the reforms I made to the system 20 years ago were meant to make it more efficient. They clearly have not achieved what I wished to achieve and there are two reasons for that. First, I designed a system to work with legal aid and we have heard what happened to that. Secondly, we were assured that we would get the IT that was critical to the successful implementation of those reforms. In view of what the Lord Chancellor said recently, I hope that that technology will now be provided. If it is not, we will never be able to achieve the aim which the Lord Chief Justice set out in the passage I quoted.

13:20

[Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Howarth for obtaining this debate today. It is because he is not a lawyer that I was attracted to take part in what could be regarded, on the margins, as a debate about the technical aspects of law. However, it is not—it goes to the heart of our democracy as it is about the ability of any citizen to have access to justice, irrespective of their standing or their affluence.

The 2013 Act and the policy introduced by the coalition Government resulted in a 28% drop in the Legal Aid Agency’s budget at a time when demand was going up. Two years have passed since then. The House of Commons Justice Committee said that those changes have harmed access to justice for some litigants— those who are poorer in our community. That is supported by the National Audit Office, which also criticised the Government for not taking an evidence-based approach to this issue.

My concern in this debate is for those suffering as victims of domestic violence, children and people with disabilities, who are some of those most harmed by the 2013 Act. The Minister may well say that there is exceptional case funding which can be applied for. As my noble friend Lady Mallalieu said, the Ministry of Justice estimated that there would be around 6,000 applicants a year. In fact, of the 1,100-plus applications made, just 3% received exceptional case funding and half of those were in the pipeline before the law was introduced. Exceptional case funding needs reviewing and simplifying on the basis of the evidence that we now have of how the 2013 Act has worked and how it has, in fact, denied access to justice. In the case of families, which I am particularly interested in, there has been real hardship, real denial of access to justice and a real impact of the Act.

There has been a significant drop in mediation. The National Audit Office noted that there was a £20 million underspend on mediation. Restoring funding for initial advice is estimated to cost around £14 million. That would be neutral in cost terms, but would provide some support for the people I am talking about.

Legal aid is not available at the moment for extended family members seeking to provide homes for children who would otherwise be facing life in local authority care—and what a poor start for our children that provides. The current provisions do not allow family members—for instance, grandparents—to have legal aid support. If it were allowed, it might result in substantial numbers of those children staying within the family and being properly looked after, rather than going into local authority care with all the problems that creates. It is often not only a life blighted but a higher cost to the state.

The amendment of the domestic violence gateway needs real discussion and change. I remember the debates on the Act vividly, although I did not take part because I am not a lawyer. The opposition Benches pleaded with the coalition Government to look at domestic violence and make an exception. Those pleas fell on deaf ears, much to the shame of that coalition Government. Why not allow solicitors and other advisers approved under the legal aid contract as supervisors to have delegated power to confirm that a client is a victim of domestic violence and is therefore entitled to legal aid? I ask the Minister to answer these points when he replies.

The Act has now had time to give us an indication of whether it assists access to justice. We all accept that savings had to be made, but not by penalising those least able to cope. Those who are affluent will always have access to the law. It is the people who do not whom I am concerned about, so I ask the Minister to reply to these points.

In conclusion, as the noble Lord, Lord Cotter, said, this year many of us have been going round saying how proud we are of 800 years of Magna Carta. What a year for such an issue over legal aid. Magna Carta states:

“To no one will we deny or delay … justice”.

Today, many men, women and children in this country do not have that provision.

13:26

[Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood (CB)]

My Lords, like many other noble Lords here today, over the past three years since LASPO I have taken part in a number of debates about legal aid cuts, several regret Motions and, in January this year, the debate obtained by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Aberavon, on Her Majesty’s Government’s assessment of the long-term impact of current levels of funding of the criminal Bar. Those debates were inevitably too late to prevent the succession of cuts that were being made in the availability of legal aid or in the fees being paid to lawyers, but we—certainly I—took part in them in the hope that, if we protested forcefully enough and presented a sufficiently convincing case against them, we might just discourage the department and the Lord Chancellor from yet further savaging the legal aid scheme, stem the tide of cuts, and perhaps even persuade the Lord Chancellor to turn the tide.

I have read in draft the evidence given eight days ago to the Constitution Committee by the Lord Chancellor and I note with some relief his statement that the amount available for legal aid has remained broadly untouched in the recent spending review. Could it be that our past protestations and arguments have persuaded the Lord Chancellor to desist from further depredations, or is it perhaps that we now, at last, have a Lord Chancellor who recognises the needs and strengths of our legal system and the imperative that we do not further put them at risk but, ideally, restore the system to health? To refer again to the recent evidence given by the Lord Chancellor, one notices his concern to,

“improve the quality of advocacy in our courts, safeguard the future of the criminal Bar and make sure that people whose life and liberty is at stake get the best possible representation”.

One could at this stage feed in paragraph 9.12 from Sir Bill Jeffrey’s review, Independent Criminal Advocacy in England and Wales:

“The particular strengths of the English and Welsh criminal Bar—intellect, expertise, independence, ability to represent both prosecution and defence—may not be unique; but they are a substantial national asset which could not easily (or perhaps at all) be replicated, and they contribute significantly to the high international reputation of our legal system”.

He goes on to worry about the ability under the present system to continue to replenish all that necessary expertise. The criminal Bar is, at the same time, both the most important of all the various specialist Bars and yet sadly the poor relation to all these Bars. It is the most important because, as the Lord Chancellor’s recent evidence suggests he recognises, it operates in the area where people’s lives and liberty are at stake. Of course there are vast fortunes made at the commercial Bar, the patent Bar, the revenue Bar, the Chancery Bar—all these other specialist Bars—but the outcome of all those disputes is really just a matter of book entries and adjusted balance sheets; seldom are people’s day-to-day lives affected, as of course they are profoundly by the outcome of most criminal cases.

Make no mistake about it: the accumulated series of cuts over recent years has had a devastating effect on the criminal Bar. This has been described by the noble and learned Lords, Lord Judge and Lord Woolf, both Lord Chief Justices in their time. I need not rehearse all that again. It is a question of recruitment, of the seed corn for the next generation of criminal specialists—silks, judges, and so forth. Of course, it is not just defendants in need of skilled representation who will suffer from a weak criminal Bar. The efficient conduct of cases in the courts is the linchpin of the administration of justice. Incompetence in the representation of either prosecution or defence inevitably leads to the failure of justice: prolonged delays, wrong verdicts, aborted trials and more appeals—all hugely costly both socially and financially.

Civil justice, too, is much in peril. As the noble Lord, Lord Lester, mentioned, today’s column by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, in the Times sets much of that out. Sometimes I wonder whether, if perhaps he wrote weekly rather than fortnightly columns, we could not cancel some of our Thursday debates on the future of the legal aid system. Be that as it may, we must continue to hold the Lord Chancellor as best we may to his stated commitment to access to justice and the rule of law.

13:32

[Lord Judd (Lab)]

My Lords, I warmly congratulate my noble friend Lord Howarth on having secured this debate. I particularly liked the measured and thoughtful effectiveness of his speech, which is so characteristic of his contribution in this House. I also want to put on record how glad I am that my noble friend Lord Bach is replying for this side of the House. He has done fantastic work in recent years—his unflagging commitment is a challenge to us all.

We need more modesty than we usually display when talking about the United Kingdom’s record and position in the world on these matters. In my formative years, I faced the reality of the revelation of what was, for example, going on in Hola and in Kenya, which has now come to light.

We would have a much stronger position in the world if we talked about our leading role in the struggle for the emergence of what we see as justice and our commitment to it. In that vital struggle, I also want to put on record how much I admire the legal profession and those courageous members who have certainly led the world in consideration of the issues.

I also think that we must discipline ourselves into thinking more clearly about the difference between law and justice. Justice is what we seek as the principle for a healthy, effective, self-confident society. We constantly repeat that we are seeking to advance the rule of law across the world, but we should be emphasising more heavily that we seek to lead the world in the fight for justice. Law must be judged by how far it advances justice—and how far it does not. If you are considering law, what is the law? What is its validity? What principles is it based upon? Law is not automatically synonymous with justice and we are foolish if we ever forget that.

I became very convinced—even more convinced than I was already—about the importance of justice for the future of humanity during my time as director first of VSO and then of Oxfam. It is not a struggle just within Britain; it is an international issue of which we are a part. Repeatedly in that work, I saw that the real issue was justice. If you were dealing with greedy landowners and land grabbers or if you were dealing with corruption on a massive scale, what people needed was justice. With justice they were able to prosper and tackle the task of their own development. Without it they were so often set back. That must apply in our own society—of course it must. Justice is central to our security, in containing the wickedness of extremism and terrorism, and also in having the healthy, self-confident society to which I referred earlier.

In my young political days, the controversial political figure, Gerald Nabarro, went through a very controversial and long-running saga of what I shall call a “car incident” to which he was central. I thought he was very wise when, at the end of that case, referring to his experience he said that British justice was great for those who could afford to pay for it. Do we want to live in that kind of society? Do we not see the hallmark of the society in which we want to live as one in which everybody has access to justice? I am not against looking at the effectiveness of the institutions that we have for ensuring this. Nor am I against the principle of cost-effectiveness, because the absence of cost-effectiveness means that it is not effective. Cost-effectiveness is central to effectiveness. That is very different from having the principle that dominates—or has come to be seen to dominate—the argument, which is, “How do we cut the costs of access?” That inevitably advances the reactionary move towards injustice.

13:38

[The Earl of Sandwich (CB)]

My Lords, finding myself properly behind and below a formidable list of speakers, I should first explain why I entered the Chamber. As in previous debates, I remain concerned about the ability of asylum seekers, migrants, trafficked persons and detainees to obtain legal aid following recent cuts and LASPO changes. Our inherited sense of justice, backed up, as we have heard, by the ECHR Article 5, requires that we maintain the status of their claims among all the other priorities facing our legal aid system.

Many lawyers are rightly up in arms about the cutting of legal aid for all kinds of reasons—most rehearsed today. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Bach, is leading the review, since it is rightly a major concern of the old and new Labour Party. Family law, domestic violence, poverty and indebtedness all have their claims on public money, and I recognise that asylum and immigration generate a lot of claims and difficulties of interpretation for which exceptional case funding may well not be available. However, asylum, migration and trafficking are way down the list on the GOV.UK website, coming at number nine out of 12 things that you can get legal aid for.

I am aware that these issues are causing the Government more trouble and that the numbers keep going up, but we also have an exceptionally disturbed world, especially when it comes to Syrian refugees. Once they have arrived, we have a clear humanitarian duty to look after them until they are either safely returned home or accepted into our society. Those in limbo between those two alternatives are often detained for long undefined periods in immigration detention centres. I had the opportunity in the past to visit a number of these IRCs, such as Haslar, Campsfield, Oakington, Yarl’s Wood and Harmondsworth, and little seems to have changed since I was a member of the Independent Asylum Commission some years ago.

A year ago the charity Detention Action quoted detainees’ typical comments, such as, “I felt completely helpless”, “I was scared”, “You feel trapped”, and, “The Home Office had turned off my brain for three and a half years”. This is not the time to re-examine the law governing detention centres, the length of detention or the rules and conditions in those centres, though some of us may have that opportunity during the Immigration Bill. I mention them only because many of the inmates who are seeking legal redress, whatever the merits of the Home Office’s case against them, are still finding it difficult to get proper representation.

We forget that many detainees are not isolated individuals but have families in this country. An organisation for which I have the highest regard, Bail for Immigration Detainees, in a report entitled Rough Justice, recently looked at the cases of 102 parents who had been separated from their children by immigration detention during an 18-month period in 2013-14. They left detention between 1 April 2013 and 30 September 2014. In most cases they were detained pending deportation or removal to countries like Somalia, Iraq and Zimbabwe. Criminal convictions were often triggered by non-violent offences such as theft and false documents. Only half of these parents had current access to a legal representative, most of them to a legal aid solicitor, and 11% had never had access to a legal representative. Some 77% of the detainees who had access had to wait longer than a week to make an appointment, and one in 20 had to wait longer than a month. Fewer than half the detainees who did contact a solicitor were subsequently taken on as a client, and even among the detainees who had legal aid representation, just one in three had a bail application made on their behalf by their legal representative. The survey also revealed details of the 219 children of these detainees. Nearly all of those for whom data were available were born in the UK, and 80% were even British citizens. Most of their parents had therefore lived in the UK for long periods. One in five was deported or removed without their children.

These figures provide a fairly grim picture of a system that the Government claim to be inclusive and accessible. On the present trend of cuts and savings, which many see as inevitable, conditions are likely to get worse and exceptional circumstances are likely to be fewer. Out of 102 detainees surveyed by BID, only two were known to have applied for exceptional case funding, and only one of these was successful after a long court battle, which ties in with what the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, was saying. Having said this, I very much hope that the Minister will contradict me and point out that exceptional cases are not being reduced and that cuts in funding will not affect immigrants and asylum seekers disproportionately.

Noble Lords will know better than me that the Government have acted on at least some of the 2013 JCHR report recommendations. One sentence caught my eye:

“We remain concerned that refugees may be unable to access civil legal aid during their first few months of lawful residence in the UK”.

Given that the gateway programme is considerably expanded owing to the Syrian crisis, will the Minister assure us that the UK’s international obligations will be met and that civil legal aid will be available to all new refugees?

13:45

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)]

My Lords, I refer the House to my registered interest as a practising barrister. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, on securing this debate and on the very able and moving way in which he opened it. The debate gives us the opportunity to consider ways we might set about trying to restore access to justice to those who have been denied it—those who cannot afford legal representation—thereby underpinning the rule of law.

A commercial lawyer friend of mine, discussing with me this impending debate, pithily described the present situation by saying, “Legal aid is now in a bad place, isn’t it?”. As we have heard from every single speaker, so it is. We on these Benches do not shirk our share of responsibility for the cuts made in the legal aid budget by LASPO. The coalition made deep cuts to legal aid—cuts made, certainly, in the face of severe financial restraints and the need to cut public expenditure, but none the less damaging for that. They added to the damage and peril caused over decades by successive Governments to a system that was once admired the world over, as my noble friend Lord Lester and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, and others have pointed out.

There are now many more litigants in person, a point developed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith. The National Audit Office report of last November estimated that the additional cost to the Courts and Tribunal Service of the changes in 2013-14 was £3 million, largely owing to the rise in the number of unrepresented parties. The wider costs to society, though, are far more extensive. Litigants in person mean that cases last longer; they are more often adjourned because evidence is missing; and points of law are missed, and unjust results follow. The Master of the Rolls, Lord Dyson, told the Justice Committee last December that, although no one can prove it, lack of representation leads to litigants in person losing cases that they would have won with a competent lawyer. If that were not so, why would anyone retain a lawyer to represent them at all—and why a good lawyer rather than just any lawyer?

Section 9(2) of LASPO gives the Lord Chancellor the power to modify the list of services within scope. He should review the list now, not in three years’ time, because severe injustices are already glaringly apparent. In particular—the noble Lord, Lord Bach, has assiduously pressed this case—the Lord Chancellor should reconsider the exclusion of legal aid for social welfare cases in First-tier Tribunals. There is a related problem to be addressed: the high success rate of appeals to First-tier Tribunals, well over 50% in the first two quarters of this year, is largely attributable to poor or rushed decisions by officials in the first place. The appeals process should not be an escape route from bad decision-making, and officials should be putting more effort into getting decisions right first time, thereby saving money for their departments and heartache for claimants.

For all the rhetoric about tribunals being less legalistic and simpler to access than courts, social welfare law in particular is complex and difficult to navigate. Points of law arise at every level and claimants need lawyers to argue them. In family cases, generally the old “green form” scheme for official advice on legal aid worked well, and I support the suggestion that the MoJ should consider a similar scheme now. In relationship breakdown cases, the parties need urgent advice on what the legal processes involve, how they should deal with issues relating to children, money and property, and where to go for help. An early professional overview can help avoid later conflict, which is often the result of ignorance and misunderstanding.

I also agree that the domestic violence provisions have not worked well. There is a very low take-up of the legal aid that is, in principle, available. Genuine victims are often unable to obtain the evidence required to demonstrate that they qualify. I agree with the Law Society’s suggestion, pressed today by the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, that solicitors themselves should be able to certify a client or potential client as a victim of domestic violence so as to qualify for legal aid, without that victim having to jump through difficult hoops to establish eligibility.

Exceptional case funding under Section 10 has also had a very low take-up—the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, gave us the figures. The Law Society has called for those lacking the capacity to represent themselves to qualify automatically as exceptional cases. That may go too far because cases turn on other considerations as well—their nature, merits, what is at stake, financial circumstances and the availability of alternative assistance. However, it is intrinsically offensive that people without the capacity to present their cases have important issues about their futures decided in proceedings which they cannot comprehend without representation or advice. Will the Government at least trial a system whereby a legal aid solicitor could certify that a potential client meets the test for exceptional case funding for lack of capacity alone? I also commend the noble Lord, Lord Low, and the Low commission for the valuable work they have done in shining a light on how a network system of legal advice and support can help relieve the strain on the legal aid budget.

Turning to criminal legal aid, the criminal Bar and criminal solicitors are demoralised. The judiciary rightly complain that standards of criminal representation have fallen—the result of progressive cuts in legal aid and in fees. I have repeatedly argued the case for making savings by increased efficiency, rather than by making criminal practice uneconomic. The Government accept the thrust of the Leveson review’s recommendations on efficiency. At a time of falling crime it should be possible to reduce costs by better case management, continuity of decision-making, efficient charging decisions and better use of technology. Making the system work better involves retaining motivated and high-quality professionals. Continual cuts to criminal fees just drive the best lawyers out of the profession or into other areas of work, as the noble and learned Lords, Lord Judge and Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, have said so eloquently.

I have also repeatedly suggested saving costs by two measures we proposed in our manifesto. The first is allowing restrained funds to be used to meet legal costs, as is standard in civil cases with freezing orders, rather than paying those costs on legal aid. The second is requiring large companies to carry insurance against the cost of defending prosecutions for fraud. Those two measures would save a great deal of the money currently spent on the disproportionately expensive, very high cost cases. To date, we have had the unreasoned response that the Government have no such plans.

I cannot leave this debate without saying a word or two about procurement. The process of tendering for the duty solicitor contracts this autumn, mentioned by my noble friend Lord Cotter, has clearly been chaotic, as revealed by the two whistleblowers who graphically described how untrained temporary staff were put under unreasonable time pressure to assess bids for the new contracts. When I raised this issue on 24 November, we were told that while some solicitors might be disappointed by the outcome of the process, the MoJ was satisfied that it was fair. I can quite see that, in view of more than 100 procurement challenges and a judicial review application for which permission has now been granted, the department would wish at this stage to stonewall. However, a thorough and fair procurement system is essential if the professions are to have any confidence that a contract system is efficiently run.

Legal aid lawyers have a right to that consideration. Theirs is not just a job, not even just a profession, but a vocation. They are not paid a great deal. They work very long hours. They deal patiently with the most demanding of clients, who are often the least able to understand the predicaments they face and the advice they receive. In mixed practices, they have to face the constant scepticism of partners who are undertaking more remunerative work. On top of that, they get very little public recognition for the work they do. They undertake it because they have a passionate belief in the right of everyone to have access to justice under the law. In Michael Gove we now have a new Secretary of State who, as other noble Lords have said, appears prepared to listen and to care about access to justice. I know the noble Lord does too. I hope his response to this debate will demonstrate that he and his department understand that legal aid lawyers and all their clients—actual and potential—deserve a better deal.

13:55

[Lord Bach (Lab)]

My Lords, I start by thanking all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. It has been an excellent debate, which is hardly surprising given the stellar cast list. I am particularly grateful to my noble friend Lord Howarth of Newport for agreeing to open the debate. My Front Bench responsibilities mean I have to wind up for the Opposition. I am sure the House will agree that the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, did a superb job.

Rather unusually, I thank someone who has not taken part: the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. He, as the noble Lord, Lord Lester, reminded us, devoted his column in today’s Times to this debate. What he has to say about the Government’s conduct over the past few years and—as importantly—his suggestions about the future of legal aid are, as the House would expect, extremely clear and telling. If I have one regret about the debate it is that, apart from the excellent Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, there will be no one speaking from the government Benches today. It makes us regret even more than normal the absence of the late Lord Newton of Braintree, who used to be such an important part of these debates.

The subject of today’s debate is the future of legal aid. In instigating the debate, I thought it well past time for this House, with its obvious expertise in this field, to discuss once again this vital issue. I confess I also had another purpose. Noble Lords will know now that the new leader of the Labour Party, Jeremy Corbyn, has asked me to lead a review into the future of legal aid under the auspices of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, the shadow Lord Chancellor. Mr Corbyn is, I believe, the first leader of a political party in this country really to understand legal aid and its importance, not just in our legal system but for the type of country we want to be. In my view, it is well past time that a major political party undertook such a review. This is not because there has been a lack of excellent work done in this field. I have only to mention the three reports from the Low commission—and it was very good to hear the noble Lord, Lord Low, today—the Legal Aid Practitioners Group, Justice and many more. A political party that hopes to win power needs a robust, thought-through policy that is credible, practical and principled. What better way to ensure the review’s success than to canvass the views of this House and listen to its analysis of where legal aid is now and what should be done in the future to ensure it plays its proper role? We are in the process of asking people to sit on a commission that will advise on the way legal aid should go. When the make-up of the commission is announced—shortly, I hope—it will be clear that its members have been chosen not for their political views but for their expertise in a wide variety of law, lawyers and non-lawyers alike.

What approach will we adopt? We hope to be inclusive; we will collaborate with the considerable and well-evidenced work and ideas that have already been developed; and we will not be afraid of innovation. We all have to look for new approaches—as has been said, many may involve the new technology—to meet the huge unmet needs that exist. Finally, we will do our best to try to stem the decline which there clearly has been and which exists in our justice system at the moment. It is a critical time, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, reminded us. Poorly thought-out reforms, many of them not evidence-based, have begun to affect the reputation that our legal system enjoys. If access to justice becomes no more than a theoretical right but is in fact denied to many, then, as has been pointed out by the senior judiciary, the rule of law itself is put at risk.

It sometimes seems that everyone in the world except the Ministry of Justice knows that LASPO has had a profound and debilitating effect on access to justice. Having removed, in such an unthinking way, so much from the scope of legal aid—so much family law and nearly all social welfare law—it is hardly surprising that litigants in person flood the family courts. In the area of social welfare law, many people—very largely the poor and the vulnerable—are no longer able to receive even advice.

It is perhaps just worth repeating the shocking statistic that, whereas in 2009-10 there were 471,000 advice and assistance new matter starts, by 2013-14—just four years later at the end of the first year of LASPO’s implementation—that figure had fallen to 52,000, a drop of nearly 90%. To put that in human terms, it represents hundreds of thousands of our fellow citizens who only a few years ago could get legal advice and now are not able to. It is almost beyond belief but the figures show it to be true.

In the field of criminal legal aid, which I will not have time to go into today, we have heard some passionate and very well-made speeches from all sides of this Chamber. I thank the noble Lords who have spoken about the real crisis that there undoubtedly is in the criminal system.

There were many decades when a broad consensus between the political parties helped to develop legal aid as an essential part of the social security system that every citizen was entitled to in a civilised country such as the United Kingdom. Sadly, that consensus has broken down to some extent, particularly in the last few years. I argue that the reason for that is largely, although not completely, the administrative and legislative action of the coalition Government. I was very grateful for what the noble Lord, Lord Marks, said a few minutes ago about that.

If there is one thing that I would like to see arise from the review that I am undertaking, it is the possibility of a return to that consensus. One hopes that it would be about the principles set out so well by the Young Legal Aid Lawyers—a very impressive group—in its briefing note:

“Equal access to justice for all irrespective of wealth should be the absolute core principle of our legal aid system. We believe that the cost of legal aid should be met by the state through general taxation. We believe that access to justice is a public good”—

I emphasise the words “a public good”—

“that should be classed by government in the same category as the rights to healthcare and education”.

These are principles that should unite us all, and I believe in principle that they do. However, if I may say so to the Minister, whose remarks I look forward to hearing, a good start would be for Her Majesty’s Government to think urgently about undoing some of the damage they have caused.

14:05

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Faulks) (Con)]

My Lords, this has been an excellent debate, with significant contributions from a number of noble Lords, covering not just legal aid but our system of justice as a whole. I am afraid that in the time available to me I will not be able to cover all the issues but I will, I hope, at least respond to a number of the points that have been particularly highlighted.

I begin by joining in the tributes to the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, for introducing this debate so well. This is not the first time that he has decorated the House in debates of this nature. His knowledge is considerable and he approaches the subject with great passion.

I also join the noble Lord, Lord Bach, in expressing my, and the Government’s, commitment to the principles of maintaining and ensuring access to justice. I wish him and his colleagues good fortune and wisdom in their approach to their significant task, and we look forward to hearing the results of their endeavours. Of course, the Ministry of Justice remains receptive to all constructive and innovative ideas which can assist in providing access to justice. The noble Lord indicated the nature of those who might be joining him on that commission. I hope that he will also include members of the public and taxpayers, who may not have quite the same identity of interest as those with legal experience in this issue. I hope also that there will be no shirking from an analysis of the cost of any proposals, because it is vital that one does not consider these matters in the abstract. If, for example, the suggestion is that the Government—whatever Government—should spend £1 billion more on access to justice, that should be identified.

The noble Lord, Lord Marks, made a number of suggestions about improving access which did not restrict themselves entirely to simply increasing the cost of legal aid. Of course, they are all valuable, and indeed some of them were foreshadowed in the Liberal Democrat manifesto.

The LASPO changes were fundamental. They reduced the cost of legal aid from more than £2 billion to £1.6 billion a year—a significant reduction. Inevitably, some results will have been certainly less than optimal. However, the Government consider that legal aid remains a vital element in our justice system and, although these comparisons are difficult because of the different nature of justice systems, we believe that we have a generous system at £1.6 billion a year.

The challenges that the coalition Government faced when they came into power were considerable and, in their view, it was necessary to reduce the amount of spending. The country’s finances have, to a significant extent, been put back on course, although there is still a great deal to be done in that connection. We remain of the view that, if possible, cases should be diverted away from court and court proceedings, and sometimes away from lawyers, where suitable alternatives are available, and that court, although an important and indeed vital part of a civilised society, should be the last resort rather than the first. We do not shirk from the fact that we think that those who benefit from the civil legal aid scheme should have a strong connection to the United Kingdom. That is why we remain committed to the residence test and are now planning the next steps following the success of the Government in the challenge in the Court of Appeal. We welcome a great deal of the work done by the noble Lord, Lord Low, in his reports. They are of great assistance to policymakers, as I hope I have acknowledged in the past; I continue to do so. We recognise the importance of advice being available in all sorts of contexts.

Criminal legal aid has undoubtedly suffered in terms of remuneration for lawyers. The Government are well aware of the concerns expressed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, about the possible damage to careers and the prospect, in due course, of a reduction in the quality of criminal judges. I acknowledge that. In fact, there is no reduction in the availability of legal aid to defendants, but I think the issue was that the career structure is so unattractive that this will diminish in the long term the quality of those involved in what is, I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, probably the most important part of the legal system. However, the Bar cannot be entirely immune from the need to reduce legal aid expenditure, but the Government remain committed to maintaining a vibrant and independent Bar and decided in June 2015 not to proceed with the planned reduction in advocacy fees, as we made clear in a Written Ministerial Statement.

Changes in the criminal process, which were heralded by the report from Lord Justice Leveson and the observations by Sir Bill Jeffrey, will, I hope, result in greater efficiency and a reduction in the costs of court processes generally, without diminishing in any way—enhancing, indeed—what we recognise as criminal justice. As for civil legal aid, the result of LASPO has undoubtedly been an increase in the number of litigants in person, but litigants in person have always been a feature, to some extent, of the legal system. The question of employment tribunal fees was specifically raised by the noble Lord, Lord Low. A review of employment tribunal fees was announced in June last year and will be published in due course. It will consider how effective the introduction of the fees has been in meeting what was the original objective, which was to deter inappropriate and frivolous claims. It is important that those who have genuine disputes should be able to bring them to court.

The noble Baroness, Lady Dean, and the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, mentioned the question of exceptional funding. Over time, the Legal Aid Agency has, in fact, granted ever more applications for exceptional funding. In fact, these have increased every quarter. I accept that the forms were originally probably less than clear: they have been changed. In the most recent quarter for which we have data there was a grant rate of 35%, a considerable increase on the figure mentioned by the noble Baroness and the highest number since the scheme began. Mr Justice Collins decided that the existing scheme as it was administered was unlawful; that is subject to appeal. However, in the mean time the Government brought forward a statutory instrument to amend the provisions, which makes it much easier to obtain exceptional funding.

The main burden of the debate could be said to be that it is time the Government looked again at the fall-out from LASPO. We committed to look at those results within three to five years. Noble Lords may be aware of what the Permanent Secretary at the Ministry of Justice said to the Justice Committee on Tuesday 13 October, which was that we were enjoined to do a post-implementation review of LASPO and that we would do it at the front end of the period rather than the latter end. Discussions are going on as to whether to run the various reviews together.

He also wrote to tell the committee about three projects being undertaken in respect of civil legal aid. One, Varying Paths to Justice, was a large-scale qualitative research project examining how people seek to resolve civil, administrative and family justice problems. The second, a survey of not-for-profit legal advice providers in England and Wales, will provide an indication of how advice providers in the sector have been affected by legal aid—a number of noble Lords mentioned the importance of the not-for-profit sector; I entirely accept that. The third is the initial findings from the legal problems resolution survey on the prevalence of civil justice problems in England and Wales, which will be published early in 2016.

I hope that we will be able to provide a response—assisted, no doubt, by the commission of the noble Lord, Lord Bach, although the timings may not precisely coincide—to some of the matters that have arisen from LASPO. The purpose of LASPO was, of course, to reduce the cost of legal aid and to try to focus legal aid where it was most needed, in the most important cases. The noble Lord, Lord Bach, has been a consistent critic of the effect of the lack of legal aid in social welfare cases and I understand this concern, but I think he and the House would agree that not all problems that come from social welfare difficulties— particularly debt, for example—are best approached by lawyers. That is not to undervalue the lawyers’ contribution, but lawyers, at whatever hourly rate they charge, may not be the best people to sort out, for example, the many debt problems that beset those people who have social welfare problems.

A number of noble Lords mentioned the question of the process for solicitors’ legal aid contracts. There was criticism from the noble Lords, Lord Marks and Lord Cotter, of the whole process by which such contracts are obtained. This process is the subject both of litigation in respect of the procurement process itself and also judicial review in respect of those contracts. It would not be appropriate for me to go into much detail about that, save to say that the Ministry of Justice, as I have said previously from this Dispatch Box, is satisfied that the process was fair and will maintain that in court. The noble Lord, Lord Cotter, returned to an issue he has raised in this House before about a geographical problem with solicitors being outside of a necessary area. I can tell him and the House that bidders would be required to have, or commit to have, an office in the relevant area where the work was delivered. That would be a matter taken into account.

The Law Society acknowledged that there was a need for some consolidation. Fortunately, the crime rate has dropped and the process was undertaken in a way that we think was appropriate to make sure that taxpayers’ money was well spent but that, nevertheless, there could be access to the duty solicitor scheme. Of course, solicitors will still be able to have the own-client system and they will be able to provide, as agency providers, services that they have hitherto provided.

Litigants in person are undoubtedly a feature of the current system, but a number of initiatives have been undertaken; and not simply pro bono, although I entirely endorse the importance of the pro bono sector and the valuable work done by solicitors and barristers in this connection. There is support taking place across England and Wales; for example, the LawWorks clinics network, which provides a local face-to-face and telephone advice service for litigants in person, predominantly in the area of social welfare law. The network has continued to grow and has 220 legal advice clinics in England and Wales, supported by volunteer solicitors, barristers, trainees and law students. That is just one example of the strategy in action across England and Wales to support litigants in person. There is also a national campaign launched this autumn to raise awareness of the help available to litigants. Postcards and posters will be distributed widely.

The strategy is not of course the only answer. There are numerous schemes going on nationally and also at a local level. I heard about some of these developments at the Civil Justice Council’s fourth National Forum on Access to Justice for Litigants in Person, which I attended last Friday. It was well attended by representatives from across the justice system and I was struck by the level of expertise, experience and enthusiasm shown by delegates to maintain the momentum that has been building for litigants in person.

Much has been done in this process. A simple rule change—rule 3.1A—is helping in this regard. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, was unfair to himself in suggesting that the CPR had not been a total success. In many ways it improved a great deal the system which prevailed under the rules of the Supreme Court—the predecessor of the civil procedure rule. With respect, he is right that it has not prevented disputes being very expensive. Certainly, the reforms that we intend to bring forward in our civil justice system, using the increasing availability of technology and reducing the number of court hearings, will build on those reforms. Rule 3.1A, on “case management—unrepresented parties” will encourage judges when dealing with litigants in person to use language and a way of dealing with them which is wholly different from the way it was used before. Simple illustrations were given at the meeting to which I went that the terminology is mysterious. What is an appellant? What is a respondent? Ordinary language will help. In the new climate that we live in it was encouraging to see so many judges attending this civil justice forum who deal with litigants—

[Lord Woolf]

I am very grateful for the comments made by the noble Lord. What about Latin?

[Lord Faulks]

We are very much discouraged from using Latin in any context now, although I do not know whether the noble and learned Lord would agree that it is remarkable that when you are told not to use Latin, it becomes almost irresistible to use it and somehow will only serve as the correct way. It is very much a thing of the past, I think.

[Lord Lester of Herne Hill]

In deference to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, will the Government reinstate the word “writ” instead of claim form?

[Lord Faulks]

I share the noble Lord’s dislike of that expression but I cannot give any commitment at the Dispatch Box on that matter.

Mediation is not, I entirely accept, a panacea but the Government have done a great deal of work on mediation. It is clear that the courts need to be concerned with most decisions of great importance but we need to encourage mediation. We have taken a number of steps to promote family mediation and its benefits. From April last year the Children and Families Act 2014 made it a legal requirement that anyone considering applying to court for an order about their children or finances must first attend a mediation, information and assessment meeting, unless exemptions such as domestic abuse apply. On domestic abuse, we have changed twice the evidence requirement, to make it easier for legal aid to be obtained for domestic abuse.

From November last year we fund the first single session of mediation in all cases where one of the people involved is already legally aided. In this scenario both participants will be funded for MIAM and the first session of mediation. So, I am pleased to share with the House that the number of people starting legally aided family mediation has increased over the last year and is at its highest volume since April to June 2013.

Legal aid remains a vital part of the system. It was brought in by the Attlee Government post-war and remained part of a significant improvement to social justice. This Government do not want to abandon legal aid. We are, of course, suffering under financial constraints but that does not mean that we should not be directing our attention to ensure that access to justice can be obtained, partly by legal aid and partly by improving our justice system in the various ways touched on in the course of this debate.

The Ministry of Justice remains open, as I hope has been indicated by the Lord Chancellor’s response to one or two areas, which may be characterised as U-turns or, more properly, further consideration. I do not consider the capacity to change course to be a weakness and I hope that noble Lords will agree about that. The lessons that we learn from LASPO will, I hope, inform policy-making. We remain under significant financial constraints. However, there is no reason to abandon our commitment to access to justice. I am grateful to all noble Lords, all of whom I know share the Government’s commitment, for bringing these matters to the attention of the Government and to the House.

14:26

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

My Lords, I add my thanks to the thanks just now expressed by the Minister to all noble Lords who have spoken in the debate. Without exception, noble Lords have spoken with deep feeling about the problems of access to justice that have been intensified in consequence of the LASPO legislation. Some strong language has been used but, I think in these circumstances, very justifiably.

The debate has been informed by deep experience. My noble friend Lady Mallalieu spoke of her 40 years’ experience as a legal aid lawyer; my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis capped that by referring to his 60 years of experience; and then the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, said that he, too, had come into the law at about that same time. Of course, that was an exceptional vintage.

We also had the very important and eloquent contribution of a former Law Lord, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood. As my noble friend said, we miss the expertise of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, but he finds his ways to share that with us. Many noble Lords spoke of the pride that historically we have had in our system of justice. The noble Lord, Lord Lester, and my noble friend Lady Dean were eloquent on that. Amidst all this wealth of expertise and profound experience, I was glad to be joined by at least a handful of amateurs, to use the term used by the noble Lord, Lord Dykes, to characterise those of us who have the misfortune—or possibly the fortune—not to be lawyers.

My noble friend Lord Judd reminded us that justice is at the heart of so many different policy issues, and other noble Lords were specific about areas of present injustice about which they are deeply concerned, such as domestic violence and the predicament of disabled people. The noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, spoke of the plight of asylum seekers, trafficked people and Syrian refugees to come, who will need to be able to obtain justice. My noble and learned friend Lord Goldsmith spoke about the disproportionate effect of many of the changes that have taken place on the predicament of women. My noble friend Lord Knight of Weymouth spoke with particular eloquence and passion about some cases that he has studied. I wish him well—and his friend Emily very well indeed—in the work that they are doing in their part of the country. He spoke, quite rightly, of the human cost of doing justice on the cheap.

A number of suggestions for reform were made. The noble Lords, Lord Cotter and Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, discussed procurement. The noble Lord, Lord Marks, also drew attention to the Leveson reforms, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, referred to the recommendations of Sir Bill Jeffrey. The noble Lord, Lord Low, was able to draw from the depth of his experience in chairing the commission that he has chaired in successive instances, and his ideas for a better network to enable the availability of justice are important and should be heeded. I think that after 50 years, the noble Lord, Lord Low, is entitled to submit the three volumes that his commission has published, plus the text of his speech today, for his PhD. It is time he gained it.

Many noble Lords spoke of their admiration for the legal profession. My noble friend Lord Judd made that point strongly. My noble and learned friend Lord Goldsmith spoke with pride about the Bar Pro Bono Unit, which he founded. We should all take this opportunity to thank so many members of the legal profession—indeed all of them, I would like to think—who, whether paid or unpaid, are dedicated to ensuring that justice is in truth and in reality available.

There was considerable discussion about the current state of the legal profession and of the courts. There was pretty well a consensus that there are very serious problems at the criminal Bar. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, talked of a brain drain happening at present, as people leave the criminal Bar. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, underscored that point in this most crucial area of legal practice. There is a crisis. My noble friend Lady Mallalieu told us of lawyers who earn less for their brief than the cost of the train fare to court. Clearly, if that is the case, the system is not sustainable.

The noble Lord, Lord Lester, helpfully introduced into the debate the issues of exceptional case funding and the fall in the incidence of mediation. The Minister, in his reply, accepted that those were indeed issues. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, said that it was a critical time for the administration of justice, and it would be no easy task to undo the damage that has been done. There was also some valuable discussion of the case of LIPs—litigants in person.

I want to add my personal tribute to my noble friend Lord Bach, because the scrutiny he led of the LASPO legislation and its subsequent emanations has been wholly admirable, and I have found him persuasive—at every point, I think. I wish him well in the work of the review that the leader of the Labour Party, Jeremy Corbyn, has asked him to undertake, and I indeed hope that we can move towards a consensus.

I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, the Minister, for the generosity of his remarks, the tone of his speech, and his willingness to acknowledge that there are lessons to be learned from LASPO, and that all is indeed not well. He spoke about various issues on which he and his colleagues in the Ministry of Justice are at present working. He also wished my noble friend well in his work on the commission. I hope that he and the Government will be assisted by my noble friend’s work, and that we shall achieve the consensus that we all desire.

Motion agreed.

Conflicts and Violence: Religion

Thursday 10th December 2015 Lords Chamber

Question for Short Debate

14:32

Asked by

[Baroness Berridge]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they plan to take to tackle the rise in religiously-identified conflicts and violence, in the light of the recent visit by Pope Francis to the Central African Republic.

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

My Lords, I am extremely grateful to all noble Lords who will speak in this afternoon’s debate, as the Central African Republic is not a well-known country and does not get the attention its people deserve. Also, I accept that the global trend referred to in the title of the debate reads rather like a question for a PhD thesis, or at the very least the title of a book by the noble Lord, Lord Sacks, Not in God’s Name, which I commend for your Christmas present list.

Only 12 years ago the Prime Minister’s communications director said, “We don’t do God”, which was taken to mean nowhere at all, domestically or abroad—rather unfairly taking it out of context. The context was an interview about the Iraq war: sadly, events have shown that talking God should have been left in the script. If we were to track today the frequency with which the words “theology” or “religion” are being used by UK politicians and media outlets, we would see that this is the time of renaissance. “Renaissance” is the right word—lest we forget that we did do a lot of this kind of violence in this country’s past. I am sure that media commentators in Tudor times would not have found this topic at all out of the ordinary—although they would not have used “religion” or “secular” in this context, those being post-Enlightenment terms.

The secularisation thesis propounded by the likes of Peter Berger in the 1960s was, by his own humble admission in 1999, “essentially mistaken”. The world at the end of the 20th century got seriously more religious, and religious people are not huddled in a corner, oddly out of step with the modern world. Today 84% of the world’s population profess a religious faith—and not just a “tick-box on the census” type faith. The world has got more religious, more devout, and that is the predicted future trend. In 2010, 16% of the population was unaffiliated to a religion, and Pew research predicts that by 2050 this will fall to 13%. We here reside in what is now termed “western European exceptionalism”, which requires from us a degree of caution when we look out from this window at today’s complex world. Another relevant, potentially infamous, theory—Huntington’s clash of civilisations—has been robustly critiqued, but I think we are left with the awareness that it is not only land, political power and scarce resources that can lead to conflict, but values, ideas and identities, some of which are of course religious.

As co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on International Freedom of Religion or Belief, I have read of rising violence against atheists in Bangladesh, Shia and Ahmadiyya Muslims in Pakistan, Yazidis in Iraq, Muslims who speak out against Boko Haram in Nigeria, Baha’is in Iran, and Christians in all those countries, save potentially Bangladesh. That violence is often mob violence with the state turning a blind eye, but most cases are at the very least identified as religious, and it is hard to deny the religious motivation behind much of that persecution.

In addition to mob violence, religion is documented as a factor in many civil wars. The empirical analysis in God’s Century by Toft, Philpott and Shah—another book for the Christmas list—is that, between 1940 and 2010, of 135 civil wars 44 were religious. As of 2010, 50% of the 16 ongoing civil wars had a religious basis—up from 22% of civil wars in the 1960s. They assert that religious civil wars tend to last longer and kill more people, and make it harder to achieve a sustained peace. However, perhaps the most dangerous element is that religion is a transnational phenomenon, so these wars are more susceptible to spreading from their home territory or attracting foreign fighters.

There is also a rise in global religious-based terrorism: it existed in about 20% of countries in 2012—up from 9% of countries in 2007. This can be found in every major religious tradition. Mark Juergensmeyer’s analysis of the motivations behind Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma City federal building bomber, is sobering reading for any Christian thinking that our involvement is a thing of the past.

The danger in this debate, as outlined by the UN special rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, Heiner Bielerfeldt, is to go to the extremes. One extreme is to ignore religion completely as a motivating factor in violence and always to explain violence in terms of land, scarce resources or political power—causes we are much more comfortable talking about. For instance, race alone seems more amenable for us to talk about in relation to the violence against the Rohingyas in Burma. It is a complex matter, but their Muslim faith in that Buddhist-majority country should not be discounted.

The other extreme is blaming religion too quickly, and excusing the human agency and responsibility that is the ultimate cause of all violence: ideas and theology cannot kill, people do. But if religion is a factor in conflict, terrorism and persecution, it may also be a factor in establishing the peace. This seems to be the season of requests for increased religious literacy training for journalists, politicians and civil servants. I note the report by the commission recently chaired by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss.

The issues that I have outlined are some of the most complex and context-specific issues that we have to consider; there are few soundbites but much nuance. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office led the way in the last Government with seminars on world religions, but can the Minister outline what training in the complexities of ethno-religious violence and conflicts is being run either in the FCO or through the conflict stabilisation unit?

The words of the title of this debate were carefully chosen, because the history of the Central African Republic is not one of religiously motivated or identified conflict; it is only in the last three years that this has become an accurate description. The Central African Republic’s population has now divided along religious lines, with Seleka rebels seen as the Muslim protection force and Anti-balaka their Christian equivalent. Most of the Muslims have fled to southern Chad and Cameroon, and there is now a full peacekeeping operation with 10,000 troops, along with 900 French soldiers.

Britain is in a leadership role. Britain is a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council and in this financial year will contribute £33 million to the UN peacekeeping operation, in addition to anything from our aid budget. The key input for the United Kingdom to support our contribution must be the focus on disarmament, demobilisation and reintegration of the armed militia, especially the child soldiers, who number somewhere in the region of 8,000 to 10,000.

Since 50% of DfID’s budget is now to be aimed at fragile states, CAR’s DDR programme must be a priority for funding. There will not be a lasting peace there without it. I was told in answer to a Written Question I posed that just under £18.5 million is budgeted for DDR in MINUSCA’s budget—that is the UN peacekeeping operation. But “budgeted” does not necessarily mean the same as “funded”. If the UK were to put in, say, £5 million, many countries would follow suit, as it seems would the World Bank. Will my noble friend the Minister please outline how much of the DDR budget is funded and specifically request DfID to look at additional funds?

As vital as the UN peacekeepers are—some have died in the Central African Republic, and the French have lost four troops as well—I have learned that this operation is different in capacity and expertise from a NATO-led operation or a British troop-led operation. The five military staff officers that the UK puts into the UN peacekeeping force in the Congo are making a huge difference in providing specific skills, mentoring others, sharing skills and imparting knowledge. The UK could make a vital contribution to MINUSCA in CAR in that respect. I ask my noble friend to make that specific request to the Ministry of Defence.

The Pope’s bravery in going to a war zone cannot be overestimated. Seeing him in his open jeep while the media were in armed convoy was inspiring. This beautiful country, the size of France and Belgium put together, with some of the most fertile land in the world and a population of only 4.5 million to sustain, is—as I have mentioned before in your Lordships’ House—in the category of “doable” in international terms. Only the Pope’s profile made CAR topical for the criteria to obtain today’s debate. My fear is that it will return to being topical when young, unoccupied, angry men, currently refugees in southern Chad, turn up in IS. I will welcome being proved wrong by a little more support from the UK.

14:42

[Baroness Kinnock of Holyhead (Lab)]

My Lords, at the outset I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, for her excellent introduction to the issues that we are discussing, and for her constant support and interest in her concerns.

After a referendum on 13 December on a new constitution, a general election is scheduled in the Central African Republic for later in the month. It is a country which has endured political instability and, as we have just heard, episodes of extreme violence since its independence in 1960. The most recent turmoil erupted in March 2013 when the Seleka Muslim rebels overthrew the president. Sectarian warfare took place between Seleka Muslims and the Christian Anti-balaka groups. That has generated the most violent instability that we have seen and it has lasted ever since. In these conditions, the hope is that constitutional change and elections can at last produce a Government who can restore peace and order and pave the way for the exit of the UN and French peacekeepers.

The deeply sad reality, however, is that the legacy and current prevalence of severe and savage instability in the CAR means that the prospect of such progress is just not feasible. More than 5,000 people have died in fighting between Muslims and Christians. This assessment is based on a count of bodies and of numbers gathered from survivors, priests, imams and aid workers in more than 50 of the most affected communities. The miserable suffering of the people of the CAR goes on and some 20% of the population are now internally displaced or forced to flee to neighbouring countries. In the north and the east there are no hospitals, schools or roads. In the capital, criminals continue to stoke the tension and insecurity, which plainly serves to exacerbate the already desperate situation.

The Central African Republic has one of the worst economic and human development records in the world. Life expectancy there is 50. Only 30% of people have access to drinkable water. Some 10% have electricity; 5% have sanitation. Against that background, and in an effort to deal with the crisis, a constitutional referendum is now planned and a two-stage presidential election is scheduled for late December and January.

Is it not of some concern, despite warnings by the Electoral Commission and civil society that more time is really needed, that the decision to hold an election before the end of the year has still been taken? Surely the international community should now be working to avoid holding a hurried election, which at this stage would serve only to fuel the already difficult prevailing instability in that country. Is it not relevant that an independent and respected African think tank has said that the CAR will not be able to manage anything approaching a free and fair election because there simply is not the ability to provide security, or to guarantee that all eligible voters will actually be on the electoral roll at all?

With such dependable evidence available, does the Minister agree that there is a strong case for a delay until later in 2016 so that elections can be held in a more peaceful climate and with greater possibilities of coherent electoral organisation? Is that case for delay not made even more emphatic when it is painfully clear that the disarmament, demobilisation and reintegration process agreed in May is now very seriously off track; when there is a patent lack of political will and commitment among armed groups and the CAR political elites; and when continuing criminality and intercommunal violence mean that the electoral process could not be effectively managed? If the Minister does not agree with this assessment of the situation, could we please be told why?

Surely there has to be local ownership of the electoral process. The people affected must be respected and their views must, of course, be listened to. More has to be done to achieve those basics before rushing into an ill prepared election. The electoral budget needs to be finalised and the process for selection of candidates in legislative and presidential elections agreed. As we in this Chamber know, these are huge tasks that will take a great deal of time. In addition, there are other substantial obstacles, including insecure voting facilities and the very large number of displaced people. All those issues need to be addressed and resolved in what is a very short timescale. Does not the call now have to be for efforts to encourage reconciliation between communities and for international attention to the tragically chaotic situation in the Central African Republic?

The situation is indeed appalling. The international community must obviously remain engaged to offer support to those enduring a cycle of the most terrible conflict. In doing that, it is essential that a shambolic election is not inflicted on a country already bearing the economic and political burdens of deep poverty and unceasing violence.

14:48

[Lord Patten (Con)]

My Lords, if only we had the capacity in this country to do all the things that my noble friend Lady Berridge wishes to see done in the Central African Republic. If we had the capacity, the capability and the money we could do an awful lot, but we have not got it there or in much of the rest of the world where we all wish to see her words spun into action on the ground. That should not stop us saying exactly what she has said. She has shown formidable leadership in the whole of her speech.

It is good that she has mentioned Popes. Popes sometimes put themselves in the line of fire. Pope John Paul II led a very open papacy and was out and about for his pains. In fact, he received pains; he was shot in May 1981 by a Turkish citizen, for reasons that are still unclear. Of course, Pope Francis has been exceptionally brave and shown considerable leadership worldwide in what he has done in the Central African Republic. In the past, Popes have often been pretty martial themselves: they have got on horseback and led papal armies up and down the peninsula of Italy, chopping off the heads of other Roman Catholics on the other side of the argument.

That is what is so interesting and so challenging about the words in my noble friend’s Question: “religiously identified conflicts”. It is sometimes very difficult to identify exactly which strand of religion or which manifestation is causing the conflict. If we look at what is going on in the Near East and the Middle East now with ISIL or Daesh—or whatever the politically correct term this week is for those bodies and what they are doing to each other—they have killed far more followers of Islam than they have killed Christians or anybody else. The one thing that unites the Sunnis with the Shias, whom they despise, is their joint dislike of the Alawites, the Ismailis and others on the outer reaches of Islam. In that way they are no different from medieval Christianity in the west of the Mediterranean going across to medieval Christianity in the east of the Mediterranean during the sacking of Constantinople. There are considerable difficulties, however sophisticated the analyses are, of exactly which brand of religion is going to attack which other brand of religion, because they are very often so busy attacking each other.

We see this today in Syria. I will not go over all the excellent speeches that have been made in recent weeks, but there are minority communities in Syria which deserve our protection: the Alawites, the Druze, and various brands of Catholicism, whether western or eastern. If Daesh or ISIL takes over that part of Syria, there will be genocide among those peoples. If, on the other hand, President Assad is still there, whether we like it or not they are protected. We are in a very difficult position and I do not apologise to my noble friend for asking this most difficult of questions. We are now deeply involved in the fate of the Druze, the Alawites and the Catholics because our Typhoons and our Tornados are now going in and bombing in Syria at the same time as we say we no longer wish to see President Assad in power. So I wish to ask the Minister this afternoon: what strategy do we have to protect those minority groups, whichever way this plays out?

The last point that I wish to make is that just as you begin to try to solve a problem in one place, as may happen in the Central African Republic if we do what the noble Baroness, Lady Kinnock of Holyhead, has just said, then something else pops up. Take a Commonwealth country like the Maldives where we have an extremely radicalised Wahhabi Government. More than a couple of hundred young militants have recently left the Maldives, of all places, to fight in Syria at exactly the same time as on the edges of the Maldives we have alcohol-full rather than alcohol-free international hotels staffed by immigrant labour which may in the not-too-distant future be the centre of unwelcome attention from people in other parts of the Maldives. I do not know what advice is given by Her Majesty’s Government on the safety of Christians wishing, for example, to worship in the Maldives. I suspect it is pretty constrained, to put it mildly, in a society where to be a citizen of the Maldives now, you have to adhere to and recognise Islam. You cannot be a Christian if you want to be a citizen of the Maldives. It is full-on Wahhabism there. Recently marine archaeologists found the head of a Buddha which was promptly broken up. So we can see where the next well-scary—as we say in my part of Somerset—threats may be coming around the globe.

14:53

[Lord McFall of Alcluith (Lab)]

My Lords, I am delighted to participate in this debate and I commend the noble Baroness for her consistent advocacy in tackling the rise in religiously identified conflicts and violence. There is no doubt that Pope Francis is the most influential global leader we have presently. His simplicity, his spontaneity of language and his attention to the weakest attracts the admiration of many people, believers and non-believers. His visit to the Central African Republic was highly significant. In fact, his visit was in keeping with his namesake, Saint Francis of Assisi, who, during the Fifth Crusade, crossed enemy lines to meet Sultan Malik al-Kamil of Egypt to plead for peace. Francis is mirroring this precisely by visiting this destitute and war-torn land. In fact, he is the first Pontiff in living memory to visit a war zone. That comes from his philosophy which was apparent when he was appointed Pope in the Sistine Chapel and he said: “I see the Church as a field hospital after battle. You have to heal the wounds and start from the ground up”. And he did that by breaking with tradition. On the first Holy Thursday he did not wash feet in the Basilica of San Giovanni but he went to a juvenile prison and actually washed women’s feet, which broke with tradition again. One of those women was a Muslim and in his visit to the Central African Republic a central part of it was visiting the mosque because he was emphasising that religious dialogue in the public square is important.

There are lessons for us at home. Here we have a tendency to articulate the notion that anything regarding religion that is disturbing is not religion at all; that real religion takes place in private. I think we have to disabuse ourselves from that notion, because there is a Muslim problem in terms of the misinterpretation of the theology of Islam by some people; there is a Christian problem in the misinterpretation of the theology of the Crusades; and there is a Jewish problem in the denunciations for lack of orthodoxy. Things happen as a result of religion and if meeting together can lead to us acknowledging that there is a religious problem, then participants can explore and attempt a contemporary understanding of the role of religion. We can do no better than continue the tradition of Assisi whereby Popes John Paul II, Benedict and Francis held interreligious summits at which we now have non-believers present.

In 2011 French semiologist and psychoanalyst Julia Kristeva spoke and invited the audience to discern what she described as a complicity between secular humanism, with its origins in the Renaissance and the Enlightenment, and Christian humanism. She reassessed the great moral codes of our tradition: the Bible, the Gospels, the Koran, the Rigveda and the Tao. The most important thing, she stressed, was the criterion of liberty. That is walking with believers and unbelievers, and that is essential. I wish that for our own country and I have a suggestion. Coming out of this House the other evening I bumped into my dear friend the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury and I said to him that I was going to mention him today because I think the Archbishop could call such a meeting. Why do I say that? Because I think that the Church of England above all the churches is under the skin of society. It has a social message which has been loud and consistent over the years. The Archbishop himself, when he took office, set down three criteria. One of the criteria was the concept of good disagreement. That is very important in the political and the social field. We can see in America that Donald Trump is generating a bigoted discourse and we must prevent that, so we need good disagreement now more than ever. I spoke to the Archbishop the other evening about it, I told him I was speaking in the House, and no doubt his fellow clerics will take that back and join me in saying, “Justin, you are the appropriate man to do this. Let us get on with it”.

14:58

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, I, too, welcome this debate and I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving us the opportunity to discuss the suffering being experienced in the Central African Republic, one of the five poorest countries in Africa and a country of which she has first-hand knowledge. Undoubtedly, Pope Francis has shone a light into one of the darkest corners of the world, explaining that the purpose of his visit to that maimed and disfigured country was to bring its mutilated people consolation and hope.

Since 2013, CAR has been the scene of chronic violence and unending upheaval, as the noble Baroness, Lady Kinnock, has reminded us. Although religious leaders in CAR have insisted that the conflict is ethnic and political, the fighting has divided the country on religious lines, with mostly Muslim rebel forces fighting mainly Christian militias. In the context of intensified violence this autumn, perhaps the Minister can give his own assessment of the effectiveness of the UN peacekeeping force, to which reference has been made, and how its work can be made more effective.

Given CAR’s divisions, how fitting it was that the Pontiff went to both the cathedral and the mosque in Bangui and urged both sides to put down the weapons of war and to work for justice. At the cathedral, he symbolically opened the first door of mercy in what he has proclaimed this week to be a year of mercy. Without this combination of justice and mercy, we will see no progress in the fiefdoms dominated by war lords and their militias. During his visit, Pope Francis trenchantly admonished those who “seek revenge” and warned of “the spiral of endless retaliation”.

In April 2014, the interreligious platform of Catholics, evangelicals and Muslims committed itself to promote co-existence and mutual respect in CAR. Its leaders were presented with a basket of eggs, symbolising the fragility of the peace process. Welcome local initiatives and a project giving women the opportunity to take part in conflict resolution have subsequently been initiated. Social cohesion, dialogue and mediation will be key if ever CAR is to move beyond conflict. Without it, there can be no stability, no development and no prosperity. Perhaps the Minister can tell us what more we can do to support conflict resolution.

Given the importance of harnessing religious communities, recognised at the 2014 Wilton Park conference on religion, foreign policy and development, perhaps the Minister can tell us what programmes the Government are supporting which engage with faith communities—but not just as a functional network of delivery agents for social projects—and how DfID will harness the faith communities in places like CAR. Will the Government closely examine what the Civil Society Partnership Review has to say about faith communities?

The voices of faith leaders should be amplified at all levels by giving them platforms, communications and travel support, so that they can hold national leaders to account, remonstrate with and lead local communities and engage in international debates about their countries.

Returning specifically to CAR, those courageous few working in this dangerous field say that there are no recognisable government or state structures, and that at this critical juncture there is a need for long-term, predictable funding for at least three years to begin to find sustainable solutions to the crisis, including building state infrastructure, establishing essential services and addressing underlying vulnerabilities. Restoring stability in CAR is not a nine-month programme.

We also need to do much more to stop the obscene flow of weapons from countries in the northern hemisphere into countries like CAR, where children are recruited and turned into killers. AK47s become the weapons of mass destruction.

When he replies, I hope the Minister will make reference to the provision of housing for returning refugees and meeting desperate humanitarian needs.

As the noble Lord, Lord McFall, has reminded us, Pope Francis has said that he sees the church as “a field hospital after battle”. That metaphor could not have a more appropriate application than in the Central African Republic. He also said, when speaking to the United Nations General Assembly in September of this year, that “solemn commitments” which were not followed up on—often, sadly, a feature of United Nations initiatives—could ultimately do more harm than good. What a tragedy it would be if his own initiative in pushing open a door in CAR were not now followed through with determination by the international community.

15:04

[Baroness Jenkin of Kennington (Con)]

My Lords, I, too, thank my noble friend for initiating this debate so appropriately on Human Rights Day, for introducing it so coherently and for her long-standing commitment to this troubled country. I thank her for shining a light on this crisis, in which religion has been used by leaders on all sides of the conflict as a means to divide people. Both Christians and Muslims have been targeted by different armed groups.

Although the conflict is portrayed as religious, the group that is most affected is children. The crisis in the Central African Republic is a children’s emergency and they are bearing the brunt of it. Children are being killed. More than 10,000 children under 18 are currently being used by, or are associated with, armed groups. Children are being subjected to sexual and gender-based violence. Many children are displaced and separated from their families, which exposes them to even greater risk of abuse and exploitation. This is not acceptable.

Let me share with your Lordships the story of a 13 year-old boy, named Francis, from the Yaloke district in CAR. World Vision, working in CAR, met with Francis in June and shared his story with me. At the age of 13, like many other young boys in his community, Francis joined a local armed group after his brother and uncle were killed by community members from a different religious group. He told World Vision that he joined an armed group because he,

“did not want the death of his brother and uncle to go unpunished”.

By the time Francis reached his 14th birthday he had killed five people—four children and one adult. He explained that he had killed these people because they were Fulani, which means that they were Muslim.

Francis is a victim of CAR’s entrenched culture of violence. He has not received any form of psycho-social support to help him deal with his experiences in the armed group. Most aid programmes in CAR are funded only for short periods at a time, often little more than nine months. Psycho-social support and reintegration programmes for former child soldiers like Francis are both desperately needed and desperately underfunded. Often, because they are not short-term programmes but would take at least two to three years to be run effectively, they are not run at all.

So Francis, like many other children in CAR and other fragile states, continues to carry deep scars from the violence. Yesterday at the UNICEF board meeting—I declare an interest as a trustee—we saw a picture of a child just like Francis, but in southern Sudan, who, with UNICEF support, has given up his weapons and army uniform, has been released by the militia and is going back to his last opportunity of any kind of childhood.

There is an urgent need to support programmes which help to address the violence in CAR, such as trauma healing, a package of psycho-social support for those affected by the violence, and livelihood programmes to help local economies recover from the violence. This should fit in with the commitment in the recently published aid strategy. I am sure everyone in the Chamber will welcome the increased resource and expertise to tackle the drivers of violent conflict that threaten stability and development in countries such as CAR. I hope that some of this increased expenditure might be invested in programmes to support survivors of sexual and gender-based violence in CAR. I encourage the FCO to make CAR a PSVI priority country. I am sorry about all those acronyms.

Work in fragile states such as CAR has always been a key part of DfID’s overall portfolio. Since 2013, DfID has committed £58 million to address the needs of central Africans, central African children and refugees from CAR. This funding has enabled agencies to support children who have been separated from their families, to provide services for boys and girls who have suffered sexual and gender-based violence, to reduce malnutrition and to give children access to education and training. So, when DfID explores new options for programming in March next year, I encourage it to pursue a coherent and long-term approach to its engagement there, including long-term programmes to tackle religious conflict and violence.

I, too, welcome the courageous visit by Pope Francis, and his commitment to raise awareness of the situation in the Central African Republic and to highlight the need for forgiveness, tolerance and reconciliation in divided communities. This message was heard throughout the world, and my mother tasked me endlessly during his visit to find more coverage on the television. It really awoke an interest. These values are shared by the Christian and Muslim faiths. As the noble Lord, Lord Alton, said, the Pope’s visit to the mosque to deliver a message of peace and reconciliation was a tremendous show of solidarity.

It is important for all involved—Governments and other stakeholders—not to simplify the role of faith in conflict and to draw more on the social capital of faith to deliver stability and reconciliation. Without that, the story of Francis and other child soldiers will become more common, rather than a thing of the past.

15:10

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, I am always conscious, when we are discussing the role of religion in politics, that as a small boy I knew that British values were Protestant values and that Catholics were in many ways disloyal and following an alien religion. I did not know any Catholics, but I knew that from reading Charles Kingsley, GA Henty and others. That, I have slowly learnt, was a tribal view, past which I have got except when meeting extremely right-wing American Roman Catholics.

We all know that religion is part of identity and values. It is a way of saying, “I am part of the main group and you are part of a heretical or dissident minority”. Passionately felt, it provides a sense of values but also a real way of distinguishing between those you accept and those you do not. The problem with central Africa is that there is a line between Muslims and Christians, between black populations and Arab populations, between pastoralists and farmers and between a whole host of different things. The rising population has made the competition between pastoralists, farmers and others far more acute, as we see in Darfur at least as much as in the Central African Republic, and as we see in northern Nigeria.

Yes, you know that someone is Muslim because he is a Fulani but you also know that the Fulani are pastoralists and you are much more settled. That is part of the problem that we all have. For people whose understanding of religion is often relatively shallow, we know that it provides a sense of, “I know who I am and I hate you, even though I haven’t met you before”. We have to get beyond that if we possibly can. The answer is clearly to do something about population growth and to help these societies going so rapidly through the transition from traditional society to contact with the modern world with all the reactions against that which lead to fundamentalism in their interpretation of religion. Fundamentalism, after all, was a term invented in the United States by Christians who wanted to insist on traditional Christianity against this dreadful urban, modern, moderate world. As we help them, there is great deal that our Government can do. I want to come back to that in a minute.

Leadership within religions is extremely important. The Pope’s visit was extraordinarily important. I only wish that we had clear leadership within the Sunni Muslim world because the absence of leadership there is one of the big problems that we all face at the moment and which the Saudi Government and others need to think rather more about. The sense that different paths to God are possible, and that the different religions that have followed Abraham have something in common in their understanding of God, is the sort of thing that we absolutely have to say to each other, just as we have now learnt to say to each other that Protestants and Catholics actually worship the same God. We did not entirely understand that a couple of generations ago.

We also need to work on the rights of women. These are fundamental to any move away from traditional society. Patriarchy and abuse of religious values go very closely together and have done in a number of institutionalised churches that we had better not name. Population limitation—as far as possible—education, economic development and reduction of inequality all matter, as do open societies and open media. I ask the Government: how far is this an element in their foreign policy as well as in their domestic policy?

The noble Baroness, Lady Warsi, with whom I thoroughly enjoyed working in government, did some very useful work on this. She spoke in Istanbul, in the Grand Mosque in Muscat and elsewhere about the need for mutual understanding between different religions and different societies. I regret, in a sense, that we do not have as coherent a Muslim in government now as we had when she was there. To what extent do the Government think that this continuing dialogue between different communities, different ethnic groups and different religions—of course, these labels all overlap—is still a priority?

15:14

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, for initiating this debate and for her ongoing work on this very important subject. During the Pope’s recent visit, the religious leaders of the Central African Republic across all faiths conveyed the same message—that this is not a religious conflict but one about power and politics, which has created a false but very dangerous division.

In the debate last October in Grand Committee, initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, on Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Coventry highlighted the danger of mixing religion and national identity. He argued that too often the abuse of religious freedom arises from a false collusion between religion and national loyalty. He also referred to the platform for Article 18—IRP18—which brought together religious leaders from various faiths to campaign for global religious freedom. Will the Minister report further on the steps the Government have taken to support such initiatives globally? One example given by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, was a project in eastern DRC that drew on the influence of the faith leaders in their communities to challenge some of the attitudes to victims of sexual violence and to address the stigma many survivors face.

Where freedom of religion or belief is under attack, other fundamental freedoms often face threat too. The Central African Republic, as my noble friend Lady Kinnock said, is a failed state in permanent crisis and has been unstable since its independence from France in 1960. This has undermined the economy and resulted in it being one of the least-developed countries in the world. Its natural resources such as diamonds not only provide a substantial part the nation’s income but drive the communal conflict and political rivalry. Illegal weapons proliferate across the country, with unrest displacing tens of thousands of Central Africans, many of whom cross the border into Chad. Some progress towards stabilising the country was made between 2008 and 2012, but with coups and counteroffensives the risk of genocide was heightened. Instability there affects people not only in CAR but in South Sudan, Cameroon, DRC and other countries in the region. In April 2014, the United Kingdom supported the establishment of MINUSCA, the expanded UN peacekeeping force, French troops returned and the African peacekeeping mission was expanded.

In this volatile situation, there clearly needs to be stability before progress can be made, as my noble friend Lady Kinnock highlighted. President Samba-Panza told the BBC:

“The objective of this transition is to take this country to elections because this is the only way out for us”.

However, with fresh clashes between Christians and Muslims in the capital, the elections scheduled for October were postponed and are now due later this month. The fragmentation and criminalisation of CAR’s armed groups makes negotiations much more difficult, with elections possibly exacerbating existing intercommunal tensions and undoing reconstruction efforts. What is the Government’s current view on the election timetable? Also, what assessment has been made of the threat by a Seleka splinter group to stop elections going ahead in areas under its control, including in the northern region?

There is a clear need for CAR’s transitional authorities and international partners to engage not only with militiamen but with communities. We should incentivise change and provide for effective sanctions if they do not. What is the Government’s current thinking on the maintenance of the UN peacekeeping force and what steps are being taken globally and under international law to reduce the income flow to the various armed groups?

15:20

[Lord Ashton of Hyde (Con)]

My Lords, I, too, am grateful to my noble friend Lady Berridge for initiating this interesting debate, and to all noble Lords who have spoken. I have learned much in preparing for this debate—not all of it, I have to say, encouraging.

As my noble friend reminded us, it can be tempting for us, living in Europe, to underestimate the influence of religion in causing and resolving conflict. Of course, we know that there are often multiple causes of conflicts: for example, high levels of inequality and the lack of opportunities, particularly where they divide people according to their ethnicity and religion, can lead to communal violence, especially in times of heightened tensions. Tackling religious conflict requires a fundamentally different approach—not based solely on economics or a political solution but focusing on ideology and winning hearts and minds.

Often, Governments are not best placed to engage in this area. Our contribution must be to create the conditions for others, particularly faith leaders, to preach messages of understanding and love, not violence. For this reason, we are firmly convinced that religious literacy is of key importance for the FCO. If our diplomats are to offer informed foreign policy advice, they must understand the key influencer in the countries in which they work, and in many places religion is perhaps the most significant of those. We hold regular training courses and seminars to further develop professionalism in this area.

My noble friend Lady Berridge asked what training is being run in the FCO. The Stabilisation Unit provides a range of training on conflict issues, much of which addresses the ethnic and religious dimensions. This year DfID is piloting a workshop on religion and conflict for officials working with fragile and conflict-afflicted states. DfID also funded a small research project by the British Academy to examine the role of religion in conflict and peacebuilding. The results were published in September. I hope this goes some way to assuring the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, that the Government think that mutual understanding is crucial and that dialogue is important.

My noble friend Lady Berridge, the noble Lord, Lord McFall, and others spoke about the Pope’s recent visit to the Central African Republic. His visit was hugely symbolic for CAR. It demonstrated that reconciliation is possible and raised the profile of the Central African Republic globally. He raised awareness of the role that faith leaders and faith groups have at a grass-roots level in bringing reconciliation. We welcome the work done by faith leaders in CAR through the religious platform, and we value the excellent work carried out by religious and non-governmental organisations to defuse religious tensions and promote social cohesion at community level. The Pope’s humble approach but firm stance against corruption and violence demonstrated the role that all faith leaders need to play, setting the tone for a response which values difference and promotes harmony and inclusiveness, not division.

By contrast, religious extremism attacks the fundamental values that we want to see binding us as a global community, which are enshrined in the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In CAR, tackling religious extremism is fraught with difficulties. There is little state presence outside Bangui, poor infrastructure and a number of armed groups without direction that have split away from the anti-balaka/Seleka groups, as the noble Baroness, Lady Kinnock, reminded us. As my noble friend Lady Jenkin told us, children often bear the brunt of these terrible events. We have no direct evidence of the presence of any terrorist group in the country, but we are very much alive to the fact that external extremist elements will seek to exploit the conflict should it continue.

I will deal with some of the issues raised by my noble friend Lady Berridge and the noble Lord, Lord Collins, particularly about MINUSCA and what can be done. The UK pays 6.7% of the costs of the UN peacekeeping force, MINUSCA. We contributed £23.2 million this financial year and are projecting a contribution of £33 million in the next financial year. MINUSCA’s mandate is up for renewal in April 2016. We will be working with other Security Council members to agree the new mandate. We are particularly keen to press for troop-contributing countries to rotate their troops regularly and for troops to be given training on sexual abuse prior to their deployment to CAR.

The UK has worked closely with EU partners and supported the deployment of the EU’s military advisory mission to CAR. Its purpose is to provide the Government of CAR with expert advice, with a view to reforming the military to make it into a professional army. The UK is supportive of the planning stage for a possible EU training mission to follow on from the military advisory mission, recognising that security sector reform is vital to build stability in CAR.

We are one of the largest humanitarian donors to CAR, providing £58 million since 2013 through NGOs and international organisations to support internally displaced people, including with housing, and refugees in neighbouring countries. The British Government have recently increased the UK’s commitment in 2015 by £7 million. More widely, the UK funds a wide range of conflict-prevention activity that contributes to the prevention of conflict and mass atrocities; for example, in 2015 we set up the Conflict, Stability and Security Fund, which this year provided £1 billion for conflict-prevention, stabilisation, security and peacekeeping activities. We will increase this funding from £1 billion to over £1.3 billion a year by 2019-20.

CSSF projects include work on reducing intergroup tensions; strengthening justice systems and the rule of law; security sector reform; and disarmament, demobilisation and reintegration, which I will come to in a minute. Africa was allocated £77 million from this year’s CSSF, the second largest regional allocation. Our priorities have been tackling instability in Nigeria, countering extremism in east Africa and a package of work in Somalia.

I will deal with as many questions as I can in the time available. My noble friend Lady Berridge and the noble Lord, Lord Alton, asked about MINUSCA’s effectiveness, particularly on DDR—demobilisation, disarmament and reintegration. MINUSCA is currently in the pre-DDR phase in CAR, preparing for the launch of DDR. This entails a sensitisation process and an education process for former combatants who will take part in DDR. That is essential to create the conditions for stability and security in CAR. MINUSCA is the lead on the DDR work in CAR, and it has budgeted $28 million for a DDR programme aimed at what it expects will amount to 3,500 ex-Seleka fighters in total and 1,500 to 3,500 dependants. Through the UK’s contribution to MINUSCA, we will support this vital work on pushing DDR forward in CAR. After the elections—I will come to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Kinnock, in a minute—the DDR programme will move forward, working with the newly elected Government.

The noble Baroness, Lady Kinnock, and the noble Lord, Lord Collins, mentioned the elections. The noble Baroness asked whether we should delay the elections. Our position at the moment is that free, fair and inclusive elections are crucial for CAR’s future stability and to enable the country to move forward. Through the international community, we will work to ensure that an elected president appoints an inclusive Government representative of CAR’s population. Some 300 extra UN troops have been provided to ensure security during the election period. I accept that there are risks and difficulties in that process. While, as a Government Whip, I am not going to make policy from the Dispatch Box, I will take those concerns back to the Foreign Office.

The noble Lord, Lord Alton, asked about local initiatives for reconciliation, especially interfaith work. The religious platform, made up of Catholic, Protestant and Muslim leaders in CAR, has been at the forefront of peace building and reconciliation efforts, engaging directly with communities that have been affected by sectarian violence. The UK welcomes the work carried out by those organisations.

My noble friend Lady Jenkin asked about preventing sexual violence. In CAR, specifically, DfID is committed to addressing the needs of vulnerable women and children and has supported several agencies to provide specialised services to victims of gender-based violence. These include the ICRC, the Common Humanitarian Fund, United Nations HCR and three NGO consortia which provide psycho-social care to survivors and endeavour to reduce the risk of gender-based violence in CAR and among CAR refugees. They also provide survivors with access to health care.

The noble Lord, Lord Alton, asked what programmes HMG are supporting to foster strong relationships among faith communities. We support a number of projects internationally, through our Human Rights and Democracy Programme Fund. For example, in Burma we have supported a number of projects. These include developing relationships between Burmese youth and different religious communities, and arranging exchanges between activists on religious freedoms in Burma and Indonesia. In Iraq we are funding a project to prevent intolerance and violence towards religious communities by strengthening the ability of youth and civil society to advocate the right to freedom of religion or belief.

My time is coming to an end and, unfortunately, that means I am not able to address my noble friend Lord Patten’s question on Syria. It is a pity but I will certainly write to him when I have taken that back to the Foreign Office.

In conclusion, this Government will be unrelenting in using the UK’s global role to tackle religious conflicts. We will employ a long-term, comprehensive approach, using our world-class diplomats, overseas aid and Armed Forces to ensure that all people are able to live free of religiously motivated and other forms of violence.

Residential Care: Cost Cap

Thursday 10th December 2015 Lords Chamber

Motion to Take Note

15:33

Moved by

[Baroness Wheeler]

That this House takes note of the quality and viability of the residential care sector in the light of the Government’s decision to delay the implementation of the care cost cap.

[Baroness Wheeler (Lab)]

My Lords, when I was researching for this very important debate, amid all the statistics, press coverage and reports on the cliff-edge financial state of the sector and the impact of the spending review, the one figure that most stood out showing the frightening scale of the crisis in residential care was the Care England figure of £2.16 per hour. This princely sum is the average fee paid by local authorities in England to care home providers to care for residents unable to pay for themselves. Of course, there are other ways of coming up with an average figure across the sector, but I am sure that none of them would produce a very different amount. Care England represents large and smaller scale residential care providers and, as its press release prior to the spending review put it:

“You can’t provide quality care for £2.16 an hour, no matter who you are”.

According to the Public Accounts Committee, local authorities have faced a 37% overall funding cut in real terms since 2010. They have found it impossible to raise residential care fees to try to keep pace with increasing demand and costs. Data from the residential care industry analysers, LaingBuisson, show that 1,500 care beds have been lost in England this year and that councils gave an uplift in baseline fees of just 1.9%—lower than the estimated 2.5% increase needed simply to keep pace with care home cost inflation. Out of the 166 councils providing information, 53 made no uplift in fees, and the remaining councils had either given increases below the standstill band uplifts, or fee revisions within the standstill band.

The residential care sector is home to 425,000 residents in about 18,000 homes across the UK. One in six residents is over 85 years old, an age group set to double by 2035. Care home residents have a prevalence of long-term conditions, particularly dementia, stroke and diabetes-related conditions. Many residents can have up to six comorbidities. Some 70% of residents in the top three care home providers are publicly funded which makes them especially vulnerable to continuing pressure on council budgets. It is clear, therefore, that throughout the sector self-funders of care help to keep homes viable and in operation.

There is no underestimating the blow for people with long-term health conditions, their families and the providers of care that came from the Government’s decision in July to delay implementation of the cap on liability for care costs for four years. Some 35,000 people would have benefited from the cap immediately. The Government's spending review repeated their commitment to introduce the cap in 2019-20, but with no money allocated. Nor was there a commitment to use fully the previously allocated £6 billion funding allocation for the care cap to ease the growing crisis in day-to-day social care services instead.

Prior to the spending review, there was no shortage of press coverage, providers and social care organisations pointing out the dire state of the sector to the Chancellor. There was the precarious financial state of Four Seasons Health Care—Britain’s biggest care home group providing 21,000 beds in 470 homes. It is reported to be on the brink of financial collapse, struggling with debts of £500 million. Last month it closed seven in its words “loss-making and unviable” homes in Northern Ireland. The group has a looming £26 million repayment instalment due, part of £50 million a year it has to pay to service its debts, which it is currently struggling to do.

There were also two separate joint letters to the Chancellor. The first came from the five largest providers—Bupa UK, HC One, Four Seasons, Care UK and Barchester—warning that failure to raise funding would mean that,

“thousands of older people could be left without a home”.

Secondly, a letter from 15 social care and older people’s groups, including Age UK and the Alzheimer’s Society, underlining the urgent need for more central government funding. They predicted a £2.9 billion funding gap across domiciliary and residential social care by 2020 and that,

“up to 50% of the care home market will become financially unviable and care homes will start to close their doors”.

Finally, there was the very timely ResPublica study of the private residential care sector. It warned that the funding gap specifically for older people’s residential care by 2020 would be £1.1 billion, a third of which will be the cost of the national living wage and which could mean the loss of 37,000 beds. The failure and collapse of Southern Cross two years ago affected 31,000 people. Other private providers eventually provided replacement care for them, although not without huge upset and trauma for the people involved, their carers and families.

As ResPublica points out:

“Given the perilous state of the industry, there is no private sector provider with the capacity to take in the residents who would be affected by the loss of other providers’ beds. Consequently … the worst outcome is the most likely: that the vast majority of care home residents will end up on general hospital wards”,

costing the NHS £3 billion a year.

Moreover, while public attention has been on the large-scale providers, we know that 75 % of providers are, in fact, small, local organisations—small group homes run by small teams of owners and staff or, in many of the smaller homes, just by the owners themselves. The Local Government Association estimates that for residential and homecare contracts the national living wage will cost an additional £300 million in the first year, rising to £834 million in the second. Does the Minister acknowledge that small care homes will be the first to go to the wall if the cost of the implementation is not properly funded by central government? We applaud and welcome the introduction of the national living wage—it is vital to the future of social care, but it must be properly funded.

The spending review offers two solutions to all this, under the ironic heading “A sustainable health and social care system”. The first is to allow local authorities the power to raise council tax by up to 2% in their area from next year, to bring in £2 billion a year; the second is a £1.5 billion allocation from the better care fund for councils to access in two years’ time. This, we are assured in the spending review, will be enough for councils to shore up core services, increase residential care fees and pay for the implementation of the national living wage from April next year for 900,000 care workers. But how can this limited additional funding be anywhere near enough to address the scale of the problem facing us? Can the Minister explain to the House how this can possibly make the current failing social care system sustainable?

I am sure that the Minister will come back with a string of figures on the amount of money that has gone into social care, but the fact is that the detailed analysis from the LGA, the King’s Fund, the Nuffield Trust, the private, charitable and voluntary sector providers and the patient and user organisations such as Age UK, Independent Age and Carers UK all show that this is nowhere near enough. Will he undertake to provide detailed analysis of the Chancellor’s sustainability plan for social care? How much of the better care fund allocation is new money into the system, or is it just money shuffled about the system or taken from the NHS?

Earlier this week, the King’s Fund put the amount that could be raised by councils as, at most, only £800 million per year, which underlines that areas in the north, Midlands and inner London with the greatest need for social care will lose out because they will be able to raise too little income for the increase to have any impact. Care England’s response is that the 2% addition, even if raised across all councils, would not even touch the sides of the problem. The charity Independent Age has calculated that a 10% increase would be needed to plug the social care funding gap, which would of course not be locally acceptable.

Meanwhile, Four Seasons remains in a very precarious financial state. This weekend, we saw reports of the devastating consequences for families and their elderly and frail relatives in its Northern Ireland care homes, which are to be shut down with 12 weeks’ notice. Four Seasons is on course to sell 19 homes this year, which will result in their closure, and it has 12 homes under embargo and barred from taking any new residents until the quality of care improves. Can the Minister reassure the House that an impact assessment has been made, that the situation is being closely monitored and that contingency plans are in place in the event of Four Seasons’ financial collapse? Four Seasons is also selling homes to other providers, so what checks and measures are in place to ensure that the care and well-being of residents is the top priority in such sales? Does he acknowledge that this is likely to be part of a growing trend, as the smaller group homes struggle to survive?

This debate is also very much about the quality of care in care homes and the people who are cared for, their families and carers. This is the first debate focusing on the residential care sector that we have had in this House in recent years. I am most grateful that we have such a broad range of experience and insight among the speakers today, which will ensure that the full range of key issues facing the sector can be addressed, particularly the impact of the NHS on the rest of the sector. The ResPublica report makes a very telling comment. It says that,

“the residential care system … has been overlooked as a partner in the integration of care”,

and in developing person-centred care across the NHS and social care. Its report looks to care homes becoming the agents of early intervention and the management of chronic conditions, preventing those conditions escalating and individuals funnelling in to the acute sector, swamping A&E units and local hospitals.

The NHS Five Year Forward View has a number of care home vanguards—the first time that the sector has had specific projects and funding—which reflect some of this thinking on trying to promote enhanced health in care homes. The projects have tight criteria for joint working and integration with the NHS and social care on care planning, residents’ health and the management of frail and elderly patients. In a number of areas, funding has been partly used to pay a higher fee to care homes so that they can focus on improving care standards and paying staff more, with new and extended job roles. This will mean that they are able to provide the care that ensures fewer residents are admitted to hospital or become permanent residents, rather than being able to go back into their homes after a short period of care following hospitalisation.

The recent CQC report on the state of care shows, as usual, the extent of the excellent care that takes place in many care homes across the country by trained, caring, dedicated nursing and care staff, as well as the reality and scale of the challenges that need to be addressed. The CQC’s five tests—that care is safe, efficient, caring, responsive and well-led—have been used for care home inspections since October last year, focusing on homes for residents aged 65 and over. Of the 300 homes inspected, 50 were rated good but 125 were deemed inadequate and 125 required improvement. Almost half of the homes—49%—were in breach of Regulation 18 on staffing, and a third—32%—fell short of Regulation 13, designed to safeguard service users from abuse and improper treatment.

Staff shortages in nursing and care staff, and the needs to attract the leadership and management which a good care home manager provides and make social care an attractive career for young people and people seeking work, underline the importance of the national living wage. The key training gaps identified by the CQC covered the areas of dementia care, safeguarding, mental capacity and deprivation of liberty safeguards which seek to ensure that the care provider does not restrict the liberty of vulnerable residents. Social care is failing dismally to attract new and younger people into the sector. The National Care Forum’s recent survey showed that just over 11.5% of staff employed in its member organisations are under 25, while more than half are aged 45 or older. These are all issues that the national living wage, if properly funded, can begin to address.

As a carer myself, I would like to see residential care integrated much more into the care plan for people with long-term conditions living in the community, with regular respite care planned, dated and available as part of the care pathway—and as part of the medium and longer-term planning for the person being cared for, not seen as a last resort. Carers UK testifies to how hard it is to book respite care in care homes in advance as part of a planned package of support, because the sector has too much focus on responding to emergency care and placements and cannot give a definite yes if you want a short stay on a specific date. The answer is often “Ring us nearer the time”, which of course is no good at all.

I will end with one case study from my experience as a trustee of our local carer support charity, which sums up the current situation faced in many parts of the country. One of our 73 year-old carers had cared for her husband for four years, through stroke, incontinence and then dementia. She needed a hip replacement. He went into residential care near the couple’s home while she had the operation, but when she came out she realised she could not care for him any longer. He stayed in the care home for two years, publicly funded by the council, with our carer regularly able to visit and help with care and feeding. His incontinence problems got worse and he was catheterised, but frequently pulled the catheter off due to his dementia. District nurses could not keep visiting the home, so frequent hospitalisation took place from the care home until it said it could no longer care for his needs. He did not meet the NHS continuing care criteria and stayed in hospital for months while social services looked for a nursing home near to his wife so she could visit. Finally, he is now in a step-down bed in a nursing home, a specially fully-funded intermediate placement bed at full care home costs to free up an NHS bed. The home meets his needs and his wife can visit him regularly, but he cannot stay there and must be moved in the next few weeks to a social service placement within the council’s baseline fee. The search goes on.

Social care is in dire need of a strategic, ambitious, forward-looking strategy and vision like the NHS Five Year Forward View, which has broad cross-party support and support from stakeholders, even if there is concern and scepticism about how the future plan can be delivered in the face of the realities on the ground. Dumping on councils so that they have to raise the money and then take the blame is not a strategy. As this week’s joint letter in the Guardian from the CEOs of the King’s Fund and Nuffield Trust put it, the spending review provisions are:

“another setback for people who need social care … These are sticking plaster solutions and no substitute for adequate funding”,

that social care desperately needs now.

15:48

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to have the opportunity to contribute to this debate and to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler, for initiating it. It is my privilege, not having been here for long, to hear your Lordships on this important subject.

It is important that we are discussing this two weeks after the Autumn Statement and the spending review. I am sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler, characterised the spending review, albeit perhaps quoting others, as she did at the end of her remarks. I think that the spending review offered considerable additional resources over the course of this Parliament. I am frank and realistic enough to recognise, not least from conversations with directors of adult social care over the past couple of weeks, that they are sufficient at best to maintain the level of local authority-funded care in circumstances where the demand continues to rise and therefore the gap between availability and demand will grow. At worst, we will be in the situation, as we have been recently, where the availability of local authority-funded care has been falling at a point where demand is rising.

The noble Baroness’s point that there is a need for strategic vision is well taken. It is not simply a matter of resources, even though they are an integral part of the issue. Some of that strategy is being implemented and more is available to us. I pay tribute to my friend Paul Burstow who was a Minister with me in the Department of Health. In the coalition Government, we led together on the preparation of what subsequently became the Care Act. It contains a very important set of measures, including the availability of assessments, additional carers’ rights, more consistent eligibility for care and the availability of universal deferred payments.

We need to go further. Social care and healthcare need to be integrated. Everybody supports that in terms of the integration of service design and commissioning, but, vital as that is, we can and must go further. Integration will only be real if and when care users are increasingly able to exercise control and choice through personal health and social care budgets. To make that real we have increasingly to aggregate the availability of personal health and social care budgets to those care users so that the service providers have an aggregated level of demand to be able collectively to respond and create a market for this.

We must also recognise that this will mean integrated providers with the NHS working with private sector social care providers and housing providers. There is enormous potential for housing providers and other services, particularly personal care services, to redesign the nature of the service they provide. For example, extra care housing providers together with social care providers are able to put together packages that work really well for people who are able to choose between different kinds of accommodation and service.

Time permits me to say one more thing which I think is really important. Much of what we already have in place is the product of the implementation of the Dilnot commission’s view. I hesitate because I may be stealing the thunder of the noble Lord, Lord Warner, and others in the Chamber who may have participated in equivalent work on prior commissions. I asked Andrew Dilnot and others to undertake that work and I think the result was important and right. We have included some of it in the Care Act. The Government have not implemented the cap on care costs and, to be frank, the cap that was intended was in my view insufficient. I continue to subscribe to the view that we should aim to implement a cap on care costs broadly in the way that the Dilnot commission recommended, at around £50,000 with a structure of assessment that means that probably no more than 40% of somebody’s assets would be depleted in the process of means-testing.

The combination of these two things would make it attractive to individuals to insure against this risk in so far as they have to meet that cost, and by taking away a much more substantial part of the risk of high-cost care over a longer period of time make it a more insurable risk for private sector insurers. Additionally, since the Dilnot commission reported we have more options in relation to pension flexibilities, and we always have housing asset flexibilities to enable these insurance products to become available if it is necessary for us to have those resources come into the system.

The original intention for the implementation of Dilnot before the election was that it would be funded out of inheritance tax and changes to opting out of national insurance. That moment has gone, but in internal discussions in 2012 from my point of view we were very clear about how this ought to be paid for, but it was not acceptable inside government. There was not agreement to do it because within the system we have discrimination against residential care in favour of domiciliary care. That creates an artificial distinction that we have to escape from, which is the exemption of the main or only home for the means test on charging for domiciliary care. At any given moment, about 120,000 people benefit from that, and £1.3 billion a year is available to them by virtue of that exemption. That is broadly speaking the amount that is necessary to construct a different proposition for people who are facing the insecurity of potentially very high long-term care costs. We need to go beyond simply enabling people not to have to sell their home to pay for care and give them the security of being able to find, as you do in so many other walks of life, the opportunity to insure against the often arbitrary effects of having to receive long-term care in old age.

15:55

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, I suspect that given the difficulties facing the social care sector at the moment, particularly the residential care sector, much of this debate will focus on viability and financial problems, so I want to start with a comment about quality. Yesterday was the first anniversary of my mother’s death. During most of the preceding 11 years, she was at home, but she was also in respite care and residential care, and the care taken by everybody involved—the social services department, the domiciliary care company, the residential homes, one of which was a very small provider with the other part of a much bigger scheme, the hospitals and the intermediate care—was fantastic. I cannot fault any of the support and care she had from the whole of Dorset and all the people who my family were involved with over that 11-year period. It is worth pointing that out because too often we hear of the problems, and it is right that we focus on making sure that care is of high quality, but if we do so by ignoring care where it is of high quality, we miss out on many people’s experiences.

Dilnot was a very important point in Parliament’s history because the three major parties came together to agree that we needed to move forward together. Social care had for many years been something of a Cinderella issue, but the aspirations of Dilnot were certainly enshrined in some of the Care Act and I am very pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, wants to mark Paul Burstow’s role as Minister in making sure that much of the detail about the quality of care and the support for carers has been noted.

The problems that much of the sector faces, particularly the residential care sector, are because of the perfect storm that we now face. Much of it is financial but it is not only that. Can the Minister identify where the savings from the non-implementation of the Dilnot report have gone? The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, said that the moment when it could have been funded from other resources has gone. From looking at the spending review and some of the initial statements about next year, I understand that we are talking about probably £700 million being identifiable from that preceding amount. What has happened to it and where has it gone? It is evident that local authorities and the Department of Health are going to face major problems because of the demographics and the pressure of making sure that there are spaces available at levels that the residential system can afford if it does not have extra funding.

The better care fund, which was created by the coalition, was a step in that direction. It was a good one in that it started to change the emphasis from hospital care to residential and community care. However, despite the increase we have heard about, it is back-loaded to 2018 and 2019 and will not help over the next two years. The system is currently in major crisis. The introduction of the national living wage is also going to cause real problems for private providers of residential homes. On the announcement of the national living wage, quoted companies saw a fall in their share value. Major providers have started disposing of large numbers of homes, because they are seriously worried about how they can trade, let alone make a profit. Finally, lenders to that sector have stopped lending, because the business model is bust. If that is the case, everything that the Government are trying to do through the better care fund will be useless. More and more people will be staying in hospital because there will not be the beds for them to go to.

The local authority social care directors estimate that the current local authority shortfall will be £4.3 billion by the end of this Parliament. It is not clear from the spending review that there will be enough to fund the national living wage or demography. We know that cumulative local authority budgets have been cut over recent years, but what is less well known is the result for those authorities with social care responsibility: five years ago 30% of their funding went on social care, while it is now 35% and increasing. As a result, they have had to face tightening eligibility thresholds quite substantially, so that now only those with the most severe need can get any help at all, forcing pressure back on the primary care sector and on hospital trusts.

Members who have been involved in these debates will know that earlier in the year I spoke about one poor pensioner in the north of England who was told quite clearly that one of her legs was social care and one of her legs was her GP. She ended up going back into hospital because the social care element was not able to maintain one of the legs. This resulted in an emergency bed because the primary care would not let the nurse look after the leg with the other problem because it was not its leg. That story is easy to laugh at, but when budgets are so tight and protected, it makes people behave in peculiar ways. We have to find ways around this problem.

I have another concern. Some care providers have been told by their local authorities that they should fund the basics, like sick pay and travel between work for those in the domiciliary sector, from the profits they make from self-funders—and that they should not be expected to carry that burden for either health or local authority-funded patients. This is unbelievably facile. We need to make sure that we understand the cost of funding a residential care place. If our public sector is asked to provide it—which it must be for those in need—the funds must be available.

Of course, the demography is increasing so even without the pressure that we are seeing the situation will undoubtedly get worse. In the last few seconds, therefore, I would like to talk about a parallel. If the pressure that we are seeing in this sector was evident to people on the nightly news in the way that we have seen flooding in the last few weeks, I suspect that the Treasury would act all too quickly in making sure that emergency funds were available.

In closing, I repeat my question to the Minister. At the very least, please can we be assured that the money that should have gone into Dilnot is passed straight through to the sector this year, not just some of it during this Parliament?

16:03

[Lord Turnberg (Lab)]

My Lords, I, too, am grateful to my noble friend Lady Wheeler for introducing this debate and pointing out so clearly all the difficulties we face. It is difficult not to be gloomy and I am afraid I shall not lift the gloom. Way back in 2011, we had a harbinger of what might happen to care homes when Southern Cross failed with the loss of a large number of beds. Local authorities, which are mandated to care for their needy citizens, were left to pick up the problems; they cannot refuse to do so. Now we are starting to see more of the same, as other large providers of care homes get into difficulties. The latest is Four Seasons, as we have heard, which finds that offering this type of care is increasingly non-viable financially. As my noble friend Lady Wheeler said, it is already in considerable debt, as has been laid out in stark terms in the Financial Times. We could see the loss of many more beds and Four Seasons is unlikely to be the only one so affected.

It is not difficult to see how we have got into this situation. Government funding for local authorities has been severely squeezed and the impact is clear. Since 2010 there has been a fall of 25% in the number of people receiving social care, and the fees that care homes receive from local authorities are strictly constrained. To add to their problems, they are now faced with having to pay their staff the new living wage. Quite right, so they should—these staff have been disgracefully underpaid for the critically important work that they do—but it will cost the sector some £2.3 billion over the next four years. The net result is that care home providers are hit with the double whammy of increased costs and limited income. It is little wonder that they cannot break even. Private domiciliary care providers such as Allied Health have found themselves having to face up to the extra costs due to an EU directive obliging them to pay for journey times to and from domiciliary visits, when hitherto they have been able to get away with it.

It is not only on the supply side that there are difficulties; the demand side is difficult, too. Since 2009-10, the over-75s have increased by about 500,000, a 9.5% increase. It is not simply the increase in numbers that is problematic; the elderly are living longer with disabilities. It does not help to know that in the UK the time between the onset of disability and death is now seven years. That is seven years of dependency. That compares very unfavourably with Norway, where people suffer only two years in need of support before they die.

Of course, many of the causes of dependency lie outside the remit of the Department of Health, but public health clearly does not. While lip service is paid to prevention in all the health plans that one reads about, it is sad to discover that funding for public health is to be cut—by something like £800,000, I am told. That seems an extraordinary thing to be doing when we are trying to reduce the burden of disease. I well understand that it would be difficult for the Minister to change Treasury plans, but is there anything he can do to suggest that it would mitigate the impact on public health?

All this is leaving local authorities and hospital services to pick up the tab, and neither is in a good position to do so. The fall in government support for local authorities is supposed to be bridged by permission to increase their council tax by an extra 2% a year, over the 2% that they already have the flexibility to raise, for the next four years. However, to raise a total of 4% a year across the country consistently for several years is a difficult ask, and it will be much more difficult in poorer areas of the country.

As we have heard, they will have access to the better care fund, money transferred across from the NHS, but they will not receive much, if any, for the next two years. By 2021 they will get about £1.5 billion, and it is interesting that this transfer just about matches the extra that the NHS is due to get. So there is not much relief for the next two years. Local authorities will inevitably have to raid other budgets—but they will already have been doing so for some time, and there is little slack left in the system.

I did not want to talk about the hospital sector in this debate, but it is hard not to when we know that some 30% of beds are occupied by patients who do not need to be there. Everyone knows that. If nursing homes start closing, more patients will be admitted unnecessarily to a place quite unsuited to their needs, and there they will stay for far too long. It is certainly true that the NHS received a very welcome boost in the recent CSR. We should not look this gift horse in the mouth as it is sorely needed, but I fear that it will be only a temporary relief. As the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, said, we desperately need a more basic change in the way that we provide health and social care. It seems inevitable that we will move much more rapidly to a joined-up health and social care system, the fully integrated service that is talked about so glibly. I am not sure that it will necessarily save money—indeed, it may even cost more to get it off the ground—but that must be the way to go for the patients.

Here and there across the country, efforts are being made by innovative and dedicated managers to do just that, but they are having to operate against the grain of the bureaucracy that we have set up centrally. What progress has been made since David Dalton’s report to smooth the path to integration by government, and can we expect a more rapid uptake locally? It will not solve all the problems we face—I fear that more funding for social care by one means or another will inevitably be required—but it will go some way to improving the care of a large number of our most vulnerable people who are currently being shipped around or, even worse, being neglected completely.

16:10

[Lord Filkin (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as chair of the Centre for Ageing Better, a new What Works centre promoted by the Government and well-endowed by the Big Lottery Fund but with full independence from both. I thank both for their wisdom in promoting it. The centre seeks to seize the benefits of the longer lives of more older people, so that we all benefit from that.

Some noble Lords will remember that two years ago this House produced a report, Ready for Ageing?, which set out the enormous opportunities of longer lives. It also made very clear that both individuals and the Government had to change to avoid a series of miserable crises—to quote roughly from it. I fear that what we said then has come to pass and we are now in the midst of a miserable crisis on social care, which I fear will only get worse.

Most of this debate will be spent talking about the immediate crisis. I am not going to do that; it has been well covered by other noble Lords. I will suggest instead that it is essential to look forward five or 10 years in public policy and public debate. The number of people aged over 85 will have increased by 17% by the end of this Parliament. In 10 years’ time, it will have increased by 40%. This is a social revolution and it matters because most formal social care is focused on those aged over 85. Another National Audit Office figure shows that 50% of those aged over 85 require some form of social care. We have clear evidence of rapidly rising demand and have experienced some of it over the past few years.

The Commission on the Future of Health and Social Care said:

“The government appears … to have no strategy whatever to tackle the rising and pressing needs for social care”.

I regretfully agree. This matters massively. We are talking about our oldest old in society and how they are treated with decency. We are talking about very fundamental things—help to get out of bed in the morning, help to wash or to bath and help to put on shoes and socks, let alone other forms of care. It is not some abstract debate about public policy.

What is needed by all of us—the Government as well—to address this? There is not time in seven minutes to give more than a very crude agenda, which most noble Lords know already. We clearly know that people wish to sustain their independence for as long as possible; therefore there is a serious question about what needs to be done and what works to sustain an individual’s independence. We all know we have to grow and support informal care. It is the foundation of care in our society and I am glad the Government are making progress on how to support carers more. We also have to use the asset of more older people and community action to address how to support more frail and ill older people. This will deal only with lower levels of need. You cannot expect some of the really heavy lifting to be done by individuals and volunteers.

That takes us to the fundamental question about what sort of supply of care we need to cope with the certain rapidly increasing demand we face. It is obvious that we need more home care because it is fundamental to making the system work well. We will need more residential care—that is a starting point. ResPublica estimates that 15% more residential care will be needed within five years. Even if it is wrong by three percentage points, it is a significant increase. We need, above all, a much bigger and more skilled care workforce to cope with more residential, domiciliary and palliative care.

Yet the consequence of local authorities, which dominate the market, being starved of funding is that we are driving down supply and weakening the ability to build a workforce for the future. There is not much sign anywhere that anybody has a strategy either for workforce and skills growth or for generating the mixed supply of domiciliary and residential care that our public will need as we go forward. That is staggering and horrific.

I shall give your Lordships one piece of evidence that shows why the care market is going south when it should be going north. Professor Martin Green, the chief executive of Care England, wrote to me this week. He said that Care England, which represents carers across all sectors, is now recommending to care providers that they should try to withdraw from the publicly funded provision of social care. That is on-the-record advice, and noble Lords already know why it has been given. It is a shocking situation.

I would like to ask why we are where we are. None of what I have said is news to good officials in the Department of Health, and it is not news to a good, thoughtful and well-informed Minister. What I have said is all known but we are not seeing action—for two reasons. One was set out very well by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and it relates to the hidden misery. Hundreds of thousands of people are suffering in invisible places and, unlike the NHS, they do not have political salience. The second reason—I am not being party-political; your Lordships can see where I now speak from—is that the Ministers in the Department of Health are trapped within the Government’s fiscal and political stance. I do not deny the importance of fiscal balance but it is clearly possible to achieve fiscal balance and better care at the same time if you apply your mind to it and if you give bold political leadership. Fiscal balance is necessary but we also have to grow a market and a workforce to cope with social care.

As I get towards the end of my remarks, I ask your Lordships to consider the irony of a political stance—which many of us understand—that involves seeking to protect pensioners in a very privileged way in relation to tax and benefits. That is what has happened in our society and it is the stance of the current Government. Yet, at the same time, the Government are withdrawing funding, which means that now—and the situation will become even more serious over the next five to 10 years—hundreds of thousands of pensioners will be deprived of the support that they will desperately need in order to live in circumstances where there is respect and decency.

Trivialising matters slightly, we should ask whether many of our older people would be prepared to trade some of the highly privileged tax and welfare benefits that they now get so that they and others who are older can benefit from the required levels of support and decency. A strategy will be required, as well as consistent public funding, to ensure that those in the greatest need are properly cared for. That will require a much more grown-up debate than I have seen any sign of yet on how our welfare settlement needs to adjust in order to cope with the many more older people who will have the opportunity to live longer lives. We are obviously not facing up to the changes that we need to make in public policy but it is urgent that we do so.

16:18

[The Lord Bishop of Bristol]

My Lords, I join other Members of your Lordships’ House in thanking the noble Baroness for securing this debate. I admired her high-paced delivery of a lot of information without losing any clarity. Like the noble Baroness, I hope that this will not become a debate where we just trade statistics across the House, because in the end, as the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, has just drawn our attention to, this is about people and their lives, and therefore it is a matter that should be, and is, of great concern to us all.

If I stand in my bathroom and look out across the fields in north Bristol, I see the shell of Winterbourne View standing there as a testimony of what can go wrong with residential care when the business model is bust and the whole thing falls apart. It pains me to look at that building day by day.

Your Lordships have made it very clear, through the competence of this debate, that we have to do better. Just this morning when I turned on my radio, I heard that the Nuffield Trust is saying there is going to be a massive crisis this winter in the National Health Service, because a lot of people who are in hospital really should be in residential care but there is no space for them. We all know well—certainly, your Lordships know well—that we have an ageing population. More people now live in single-occupancy homes. People are often, sadly, estranged from or live a long way away from their families. Although I agree with the comments made this afternoon about complementary domiciliary care, we are here to talk about residential care and what that might look like going forward.

The chairman of the Commission on Residential Care, Paul Burstow, having noted, as the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, said, that there are some very good examples of care, said:

“There are some tough messages. The brand of residential care is fatally damaged. Unloved, even feared, for most people residential care is not a positive choice. Linked in the public mind to a loss of independence, residential care is seen as a place of last resort”.

We heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler, about the Care Quality Commission’s evidence. We have heard about ResPublica, which has revealed the devastating fact that 37,000 beds will be lost between now and 2020.

I remember, back in the 1990s, when I was more closely allied to investment institutions, there was quite a move for investment institutions to invest in residential care. If I recall rightly, even the Church Commissioners looked at that. Now, we seem to be in a very different place. We have heard about Southern Cross, and about Four Seasons. I know the Minister will be concerned about this issue, but to my mind it does create a massive void in terms of how we are going to deal with it. I am not clear, as yet, from what I have heard from the spending review, that the plan thus far will be able to fill that void.

I am most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and to the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, for mentioning Dilnot. The Dilnot report was a very important piece of work which I hope will not get lost. I hope the Minister will feel able to comment on exactly where we go with that.

There is a lot of anxiety, especially about documented failures in the care system. I think it was Oscar Wilde who said that biography lends terror to death. One might slightly bastardise his comment and say that residential care lends a bit of terror to those who know or feel that they might need residential care going forward. We have had Winterbourne View and Hadleigh House in Lincolnshire, and we heard the Minister this morning repeat a Statement about the terrible abdication of care in Southern Health NHS Foundation Trust. I welcome the fact that the Government and the NHS are now placing a renewed emphasis on palliative care and end-of-life services, but can the Minister assure us that it is equally essential that the priority being given to end-of-life services be applied adequately to residential care?

There is anxiety about this whole issue. Let me end where I started, by reminding your Lordships, as several noble Lords have reminded the House, that in the end this is about people. It is about the kind of care they might get, and how we face the cost of that. It is a particular anxiety, I guess, for those people who do not have what are called fat pensions or easily realisable assets to pay for their care—in other words, some of the poorest people in our land. The question remains for me: who will care for these vulnerable people when they can no longer look after themselves? We are facing a huge problem and I look forward greatly to hearing the Minister’s response to many of the questions raised by noble Lords.

16:25

[Baroness Redfern (Con)]

My Lords, I, too, join other noble Lords in congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler, on introducing this very important debate this afternoon.

I know all too well, through my own local authority in North Lincolnshire, the pressures the sector faces, both locally and nationally, in providing high-quality and affordable residential care. As Members of this House are aware, the first stage of the Care Act 2014 came into force last year, providing a single, modern statute that puts an individual at the centre of their own care. The introduction of a cap on care costs is welcomed by many. However, without going over ground already covered this afternoon, concerns were raised regarding the cost to public sector spending of a cap.

As a result, Her Majesty’s Government announced in July that there would be a delay until April 2020, particularly to allow further consideration on the implementation and sustainability of what will perhaps be the biggest reform of the payment of care since 1948. I strongly believe that Her Majesty’s Government wholeheartedly support reforms to assist those requiring care, and I look forward to further announcements on this.

That said, let me turn to my authority and add an important local dimension to this debate. As a local authority we have looked at the best way to implement these reforms to care and support under the new rules of the Care Act 2014. We put people at the heart of what we do and constantly work from that position to help those in need. We work hard to ensure that they remain safe and properly supported. We want to work with those who receive care and, importantly, their families to transform their lives for the better.

I am pleased to inform your Lordship’s House that North Lincolnshire continues to be a high-performing authority and we continue to develop and enhance a vast range of care and support services to meet local needs. Although the changes to the Care Act aim to give greater choice and control to those in need of support, we found that we are already fulfilling some of these duties. We said that we would increase the number of vulnerable people helped to live and receive care in the community, and we achieved this through a number of different routes.

First, we did this by increasing the accessibility to advice and information at the time of choosing a care package. We also carry out regular reviews to check progress with the individual’s care. Access to information of services is incredibly important, and the adult social care outcomes framework measured the percentage of people who found this information about services in North Lincolnshire increased from 77.4% in 2013-14 to 84.4% this year—the joint highest result in England.

Secondly, we established community well-being hubs, which offer access to services for those with more complex care and support needs, helping individuals to identify ways to improve their independence and well-being. I am pleased to say that we now have five of these hubs across North Lincolnshire as well the Sir John Mason intermediate care centre in Winterton, which I mentioned in my maiden speech such is our belief in the excellent facilities on offer there.

By working closely with health colleagues and other organisations, more people are being supported to remain living well—that is really important—for longer in their own homes and community. A great focus has rightly been placed on adult carers, with an increase in the number supported than in previous years. The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, earlier alluded to working with partners to increase the provision of suitable and adapted housing for people with complex needs. More people than in 2013-14 now have control of their own support, through a direct payment which is personal to the individual’s need. A personal budget gives people control to choose how, where and when they will be supported.

Our ultimate intention is to ensure that everyone living in a care home receives good and outstanding services across the area, and we want to work with them to achieve this. We also said that we would increase the number of vulnerable people who have real choice over their care and the support they receive. By undertaking personal assessments, again we support people to remain independent, and we make sure we personalise the approach to their care. Independent living is, I am sure, something that noble Lords would agree that many of us at times take for granted.

Furthermore, I cannot stress enough the significance of the relationships social work teams must have with individuals, their families and carers in order to understand their care and support needs, and how they would like these needs to be met. The better care fund, introduced more than two years ago, creates a single shared budget, which encourages the council and NHS to work together.

The priorities of the partnership agreement were to reduce hospital admissions, lengths of stay in hospital, delays in transfers of care from hospital and also permanent moves into care homes. To end, North Lincolnshire’s social work teams continue to ensure that people are at the heart of what we do. I hope that other local authorities, too, welcomed the reforms to the residential care sector and that they had as much success in implementing them. As we have discussed, for the first time in nearly 70 years we are presented with an opportunity to undertake a proper review of residential care. I welcome Her Majesty’s Government giving proper consideration to designing a means to support and protect vulnerable people from potentially catastrophic care costs, both in North Lincolnshire and across the country.

16:31

[Lord Lipsey (Lab)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as unremunerated president of SOLLA—the Society of Later Life Advisers. I do not know how many noble Lords had a chance to catch the serialisation of the new book, Alive, Alive Oh!, by the inspirational Diana Athill, on Radio 4 this week. Diana Athill is someone who chose to go into residential care and has never regretted that decision. There is a strong tendency, in my experience, to think of residential care as a second best—what you fall back on when you can no longer safely stay in your own home, or your relatives cannot or will not support you. That lay behind Gordon Brown’s infamous plan to make care free at home while it was still charged for in residential homes. However, that view of the world ignores the loneliness, discomfort and lack of physical support that so many old people struggling on at home experience, whereas good residential homes—the CQC rates three in five as good or outstanding—provide many things that old people such as Ms Athill value: company, comfort, care and community activities.

The puzzle for me is why more people do not opt for residential care. Fear of the unknown is, I am sure, part of the answer. But a major factor is cost. People worry that if they go into a home, the assets they hoped to leave to their children will be denuded. That is why there was almost universal support for the Dilnot report, which advocated making the means test less onerous and capping care costs. That support included the party of government, the Conservative Party. Its manifesto said:

“We will cap charges for residential social care from April 2016”.

That was the election manifesto that the people endorsed in May, and which was torn up by the Government in July. They sneaked out, on a Friday afternoon, an announcement postponing the cap until 2020. They reneged on their pledge once; can anyone in this House be confident that they will not renege again come 2020, when there are so many attractive things that they can spend money on to buy another election victory?

The Government sought to blame local authorities for this delay. It is true that local authorities were very concerned and had difficulty implementing the cap—for one reason only: the Government were setting onerous conditions on how they should implement it, without providing them with a fraction of the money that they needed to put it in place. Personally, and as an old defender of local government, one of the things that I do not like about this Government—I do not dislike everything about them—is a strong tendency to blame local authorities for things that have come about simply because central government has denied them the funding that they need.

The postponement of the cap was not the only thing that the Government did. They smuggled out the abandonment of another Dilnot proposal even more surreptitiously so that no newspaper to this day has noticed it—a proposal that is even more important and desirable than the cap. That was the raising of the cap for the means test. At the moment, you start to get some state assistance at £23,250; you get all your care paid for when you have only £14,000 left. Dilnot recommended raising that to £118,000. Before the election the Government said, “Yes, we’ll do that”, and after it said, “No, we won’t”. People who have worked hard all their lives have the prospect of seeing their wealth evaporate as they sit in residential homes. No wonder not many want to go into one.

The Government did that, but they did not drop the taxes that they imposed to pay for it. To take one, they froze the inheritance tax threshold for three years to get the costs. That raised £690 million over three years. We do not have that back now that it is not being spent on this subject; they have kept it. I have heard of stealth taxes and of death taxes, but this is the first example in human history of a stealth death tax.

Finally, we have heard a lot in this debate about underfunding. I agree that those of us who attack cuts are often guilty of not saying how the cuts that we do not want to make will be paid for. I have one suggestion where substantial sums can be raised in this field and used to improve the quality of care. I do so with a clear conscience because it is a piece of government spending amounting to about £500 million a year, for which I was very largely responsible. When I was part of the minority report of the Royal Commission on Long-Term Care of the Elderly—its distinguished chairman will speak to the House later—we wanted to go some way to meet the belief of the majority in free care for all. We therefore suggested that nursing care should be free for those who need it—strictly nursing care. There was a logic to that because nursing care is very like what you get in the National Health Service for free.

As I have gone on, in view of the shortage of resources I think that this was a rather unwise suggestion. Almost all the money involved goes to people who are rather well off; it is not like the means-tested money that goes to people who are less well off. It is indiscriminate and mostly helps the rich. So far as I can find out, because it is paid to care homes, very few people know that they are getting it anyway. If it were abolished—not for existing recipients, of course, but for new ones—the Government would save in excess of £500 million a year, which could be used to up care home fees, make them more viable and make the standards that they provide better for all our older people.

16:38

[Baroness Pitkeathley (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for the opportunity to debate this important issue and congratulate her on her timing, in a week when so many relevant reports are being published.

Your Lordships will know that it has become axiomatic to say that social care is in crisis. The situation faced by care homes is an integral part of that, but I must first acknowledge the improvements in the care provided in care homes since I was first involved in this issue more than 40 years ago. We have moved a million miles away from the old pattern of local authorities providing a very low level of care, to a mixed economy of mostly private and voluntary care home owners commissioned to provide care by local authorities. Our standards are now higher. Single rooms with en-suites were unheard of in the 1980s. Now they are of a standard to which everyone aspires, although sadly, financial pressure is now leading to concerns about the quality of the care.

While we must acknowledge improvements, we cannot turn away from the problems faced by the care home sector. It is proving more and more unstable as cuts to local authority budgets bite and financial pressures lead to concerns about the quality of care and the amount of care available in the future. The delayed implementation of Part 2 of the Care Act, the new means-test levels and the increased pressure on local authorities to arrange care at the request of self-funders all contribute to the crisis. I, like other noble Lords, would like to know what has happened to the saving the Government accrued by not implementing the care cap. I am sure the Minister will tell us that. It was to be hoped that following the Autumn Statement, we might have been more optimistic but there is widespread agreement among care home providers and others that the Chancellor missed an opportunity. Indeed, it has been called another setback for social care. Of course, the major review announced by the Chancellor into integrating health and social care by 2020 is welcome, although I would be more hopeful of this if it were not the umpteenth time I have heard such a pledge over my lifetime. Indeed, in the 18 years I have been in your Lordships’ House, I do not think there has been a year when we have not had a debate—sometimes I have been sandwiched between the noble Lords, Lord Lipsey and Lord Warner, as I am today—in which better integration of health and social care was called for and promised. We are still waiting.

Councils, as we have heard, will be able to raise council tax by up to 2% to fund adult care, but not every council will be able to levy this much as their cost bases are so different and it will not be uniform across the country in any case. If every council raised it by the full 2%, this would only raise about £800 million—a fraction of the shortfall of £2.9 billion. And we still have a major problem with the relative clout of health and social care, as the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, has reminded us. We tend to focus on hospitals and healthcare, while social care in any form is seen as a poor relation. It is news if hospitals are under pressure, much less so if local authorities are, and even less if care homes are. I, too, want the crisis in social care and the care home sector to be given as many column inches as the floods have been given this past week.

Undoubtedly, care homes will begin to close when the national living wage is introduced in April. No one disputes that this is the right thing to do but we have to recognise the strain it will put on care homes, especially the small operators. One group of providers estimates that it will cost £10 million to put their 14,000 employees on the national living wage. Care homes which provide for self-funders will no doubt put their fees up to accommodate this, but those who depend on state-funded residents have already suffered a real-terms cut of 5% in fees over the past five years. Even if councils do manage to raise more via council tax and raise fees accordingly, I fear that many homes will shut.

Nor should we confine our concerns to the private home care sector. Thousands of people in residential care are provided for through the voluntary sector, and these homes are often preferred by residents for the understanding they bring to particular conditions or particular ethnic groups. Many voluntary organisations have in fact been subsidising the care home sector for years. Financial pressures are now catching up with these organisations too as their fundraising becomes more difficult and local authority support is being withdrawn. Naturally, this will be of great concern to family carers. For many, care homes are a last resort, contemplated only when the carer is absolutely at the end of his or her tether, often after years and years of coping alone or with minimal support. I remind your Lordships that the latest assessment of what carers save the nation is £132 billion a year—the cost of another complete health service.

Sometimes, having a care home available in the background or to provide respite care, if only for a weekend or the odd week once a year, enables the carer to continue. Therefore, carers’ needs must be factored in when we contemplate the future of the care home sector. Even when the cared-for person is eventually admitted to the care home, the family carer often visits every day and spends many hours seeing to the needs of their loved one, becoming part of the care team.

Good care that meets the needs of the person being looked after can improve a carer’s ability to cope for longer periods. If care is poor, it can have a huge and damaging effect on carers as well as residents—not only directly on the amount of care they have to provide themselves, but on their emotional and physical health and their finances. If residential care becomes a less viable option in certain areas, the consequences are stark for families as well as for those in need of care.

We have concentrated today on the problems faced by the care home sector. Many will be solved by more money but we really need—as so many of us have been saying for so many years—a five-year plan for social care as far reaching as the one for the NHS: a fully integrated service with budgets and services that are not differentiated. That would be possible if the will was there but, sadly, there is no sign of this so far. I am sorry to sound cynical. I hope the Minister can convince me otherwise.

16:46

[Lord Warner (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, like others, I congratulate the noble Baroness on securing this timely and important debate and on her excellent analysis. I declare an interest as a member of the Dilnot commission and I am grateful for the kind remarks made about our report in this debate. I am, naturally, disappointed that the Government have chosen to postpone until April 2020 the implementation of our proposals, which were set out in Part 2 of the Care Act 2014.

I start by asking the Minister: what happened in the spending review to the £6 billion set aside for implementation of the Care Act? As far as I can see, only about £700 million has found its way into the social care budgets.

I shall focus on the sheer unsustainability of all publicly funded social care on the path we are now set upon. This is a totally avoidable man-made crisis which has been going on for a long time. We set out in our report that social care funding going back to the 1990s—this has gone on under successive Governments—has not kept pace with the NHS, despite the fact that it was dealing with the same demographics. We said it was underfunded in 2010 by £1 billion and that things had to change. They certainly did—they got worse. Then, up to 2014-15, another £2.5 billion disappears from the social care budget. A Parliamentary Answer to me on 24 November this year by the Minister shows adult social care spending dropping from £17.19 billion in 2010-11 to £15.51 billion in 2014-15, in constant prices and with NHS transfers included. We can debate the precise figures but before we start the next financial year, there is a black hole something north of £3 billion in social care budgets for publicly funded social care. That will get worse with the arrival of the national living wage, which I support, which is estimated to cost more than £300 million in 2016-17 and more than £800 million a year by 2019-20.

What have the Government done in the spending review in response to this financial conundrum? They have promised an increase in the better care fund of about £1.5 billion. However, the small print suggests that little of this money will arrive before 2018-19. As others have said, councils will have the power to raise council tax by 2% a year from next April without a referendum. That is a great idea. However, the Institute for Fiscal Studies suggests that, even after four years, the best that will have done is to get the annual increase up to somewhere approaching £1 billion.

We also have to accept, as the Institute for Fiscal Studies has pointed out, that there will be enormous geographical variation in the way that precept is applied and in the amount of money it will produce. Will there be any smoothing mechanisms after April 2016 regarding these precepts?

Of course, councils could cut other services to fund adult social care, but they have already put £2.5 billion into social care from this source since 2010 and the departmental expenditure limit for local government is to be cut by a further—wait for it—56% by 2019-20. The Government seem to be betting the farm on local retention of business rates to plug the gap, but we will not know how much this will produce until a consultation on retention is undertaken. It looks to me as if the funding hole in adult social care gets worse and worse in the next two years.

The results of this continuing funding failure are that eligibility criteria continue to be tightened, payments to service providers shrink further and standards of services decline, sometimes dangerously. Some 400,000 people have already left local authority-brokered care over the last four to five years. Self-funders in care homes are now subsidising publicly funded residents in the same homes by up to 40% more than councils are willing to pay. Another recent parliamentary Answer to me by the Minister shows the number of registered residential care homes declining by about 1,100 to just over 17,000 between April 2010 and April 2015. Occupancy is dropping in many homes, and some sources say there are around 60,000 empty care home beds. There are plenty of beds—just no money to buy their use.

Providers are leaving the sector or concentrating on self-funders only, or on higher quality and higher-price offers. The financing models and backing of some big providers now look very fragile. You need do no more than read the financial pages to see this. There is no capacity in the system to cope with another Southern Cross failure. Will the Minister say whether these problems in the care home sector feature in the Department of Health’s risk register?

I do not have time to say much about the knock-on effect on the NHS. Some 20,000 people are now almost a permanent stock awaiting hospital discharge, and the figure can only get worse. If there is a collapse in the residential care home sector, the NHS becomes the carer of last resort. That is an inevitable consequence, and that is not the only factor for the NHS. This will eat up a lot of the resources that the Chancellor has already put, or has promised to put, into the NHS and it will knock Simon Stevens’ five-year forward view seriously off course.

Near where I live, a rather beautiful Georgian house recently collapsed because the misguided owner had hollowed it out so much. The collapse has put in jeopardy the survival of the next-door neighbour. This strikes me as a rather good analogy for what is happening to adult social care.

16:53

[Lord Bhattacharyya (Lab)]

My Lords, I also thank my noble friend Lady Wheeler for securing this debate. When two years ago the Government committed themselves to capping the cost of care, the Health Secretary said that the policy would create,

“certainty, fairness and peace of mind”.—[Official Report, Commons, 11/2/13; col. 592.]

Both the summer postponement of the cap and our debate today demonstrate that those pledges are just a distant hope. True, the challenges the Government faced were vast. Social care was an unreformed, unsustainable system. For some, social care meant losing all their savings. For others, it meant inadequate homes, or worse. A growing number were denied support altogether.

The Care Act was a serious attempt to address these issues. It was not perfect but it put a limit on financial risk and set clear guidelines. However, five years after Dilnot, we find that 400,000 fewer people now receive social care and 1 million more elderly people have unmet needs. Care home providers warn of bed reductions and home closures. The only place where the cost of care has been capped seems to be the spending review. After all, we know that the cost of care is growing for those in need. The threshold at which you must pay the full cost of your care has now been frozen for five years. This care creep means that more and more pensioners are losing the right to any help with social care every year. Those who still qualify for some support have seen their bills increase by almost 50% since 2010.

We know that pressure is growing for carers. Since the turn of the century, 1 million more people have become unpaid carers. The number of carers doing 20 hours of unpaid work each week is up by over a third. The LSE estimates that a third of a million carers have left the workforce altogether.

We know that the burden of care is falling on our health service. Cancellations of urgent operations in the NHS have almost doubled in just two years. The reason? Patients cannot leave hospital if there is no care at home. Just last week NICE told hospitals to appoint a discharge co-ordinator to try to get patients out of NHS beds. That is money being spent in the NHS to deal with the care cuts.

We have heard the Government’s response to these growing stresses in the system. They say that councils can increase taxes, which is welcome, of course. However, you cannot fund national social care fairly with a system that allows Wokingham to raise twice as much per head as Birmingham. Next, the better care fund is being increased—but only in two years’ time. We shall wait and see. Finally, the care cap is being delayed, as many people have said, saving £6 billion. The truth is that the savings from delaying the cap will come from the assets of those in care. With no care cap, more family homes will become deferred payments for social care. Self-funders will still get no support for five years, even if eligible for help.

I accept that there are no easy answers. Many of these issues dogged the last Labour Government as well. Nor do I think you can build a strong social care system on the basis of unsustainable borrowing. Ultimately, if we want decent social care, we must pay for it. I will highlight two ways in which we could do so. First, it is bizarre that while we are making huge cuts to social care, we are increasing pensions via the triple lock. The Government’s actuaries say that the triple lock already costs an extra £6 billion a year. That is the same as the care cap. Politically, the triple lock may seem untouchable. But if those excess pension rises were used to fund social care, we would be changing only how we help our older citizens.

For a longer-term solution, we must examine the broader pensions and tax system. One consequence of delaying the care cap is that for the next five years anyone who withdraws their pension faces the risk that their nest-egg will be snatched to pay for social care. This could be the next pensions scandal. However, it also suggests an opportunity. The Government are reviewing the tax arrangements for pensions. If pension funds are to be truly flexible, surely we can encourage savers to use these savings to support their care needs. Why not make using your pension to pay for social care tax-free? To help create a save-for-care culture, we could offer younger people “care ISAs”. We could even cut tax-free allowances for the wealthy to fund incentives for people on lower incomes to save.

Finally, the Government have hinted that they might move to a “tax first, exempt later” pensions policy. This would give an immediate, if temporary, increase in tax revenue. It would make sense to use such a windfall to fund a transition to an integrated health and care service. I would be interested to hear from the Minister if such approaches are being considered in the pensions review. Clearly, finding money in an austere age requires creativity but, as my noble friend Lady Wheeler made so clear, social care desperately needs resources. Last year we agreed on the right ends; this year our ambition must be matched by means.

17:00

[Lord Bichard (CB)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as chair of the Social Care Institute for Excellence and as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I want to begin, as others did, by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler, for giving us the opportunity to have this debate. It is not only timely; many of us probably feel that it is long overdue.

I hope my new-found friend on these Benches, the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, will not be upset if I say I shall try to avoid using words such as “crises”, “disasters” and “catastrophes”, though it will not be easy on this occasion. For many of us, the condition of the care sector in this country is one of the most pressing and serious issues facing us at the moment. It has increasingly serious consequences, especially for older people with limited means. As other noble Lords have said, this is a people issue. My worry, quite simply, is that the Government appear not yet to have a convincing strategy for resolving the issue.

Others, not least the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, have referred to the perfect storm facing the sector. The living wage—necessary though it is to raise the status of care workers—will impact on the economics of care provision. Those now in residential care tend to have multiple, complex conditions which require intensive support. The huge reductions in local authority budgets cut the number of those in receipt of adult social care by 28% between 2008-09 and 2013-14 and forced local authorities to drive down the price they were able to pay providers. What is not yet fully grasped by the great British public is that those who can afford to pay are now subsidising those who cannot. Self-funders are now paying an average premium of 40% for their care.

For all the rhetoric, the vanguards, the pioneers and the ring-fenced budgets, there is still insufficient integration of health and social care around the client. The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, gave the example of legs. I think she will also remember the example of an assisted bath; is it a social care assisted bath, or is it a health assisted bath? How did we get into this situation?

The CQC has warned that a third of care providers require improvement, while the five largest providers have warned of significant failure in the next two years. These are the facts that have shaped the current reality. It is a reality highlighted recently by the latest survey carried out by LaingBuisson which shows that, for the first time since 1990, in the six months to March, more older people’s care beds have closed than have opened, with a net loss of 3,000 places. Every loss—every one of those 3,000 places—increased pressure on a beleaguered NHS. As the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, pointed out, those are the same facts that, this week, led the chief executive of Care England, Martin Green—a man who I know does not overstate his case—to advise care providers to start thinking clearly about how they manage their exit from publicly funded services. Already, three of the largest providers have signalled their intention to exit publicly funded home care. Meanwhile, in the last week, I have met local authority chief executives who are looking seriously at whether they need to re-enter the provider market to protect places.

This is, by any means, a serious situation, but is there a way out of it? Last year, I sat on the King’s Fund commission—which has been referred to by several other noble Lords—looking at the future of health and social care. We concluded that the current arrangements were no longer fit for purpose and that there needed to be a single budget for health and social care, with a single commissioner. After all, as the Chancellor said in his Statement in the last couple of weeks, the NHS cannot function effectively without good social care. They are interdependent. We also recommended a commitment to spend 11% to 12% of GDP on health and social care by 2025 and suggested what we felt were very practical ways for how this could be resourced, not least by rebalancing resources between the poorer and better-off pensioners. Again, others have referred to this but we felt clearly that there needed to be further investment in the social care sector. I, too, might ask: what has happened to the Dilnot money?

Last month, we revisited our recommendations a year later and reluctantly concluded that things had got worse, not better, and that there was still no coherent strategy to address the problem—not least, the need to stabilise the care support sector. Since we published that follow-up, it is true that the Government have responded by allowing local authorities to levy a precept of 2% to fund social care but, as many others have said, that is nothing like the sum needed to make good recent losses. The poorer authorities with the greatest need will of course not benefit most from that proposal. Again, the need for a convincing, comprehensive strategy is even more urgent.

I said that I would not overstate the case, and I will not. I will merely read the concluding paragraph of the King’s Fund commission’s most recent report. If we take no action, the future looks like this:

“More people in need receiving no support at all. Fewer people receiving publicly funded social care. Care home providers closing in the face of rising demand … companies that provide care in people’s own homes leaving the publicly funded market. Individuals and families who are unlucky enough to need high levels of care continuing to face enormous, and uncapped, bills. Staff shortages leading to a rise in abuse and neglect as good people”—

and they are good people, who are no longer able—

“to deliver good care. And further pressure applied to the NHS that in turn is likely to lead to declining standards of patient care”.

That, surely, is a future that none of us would wish for, but it is a future that is upon us.

17:07

[Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde (Lab)]

My Lords, I, too, thank my noble friend Lady Wheeler for introducing this debate which, before I make my contribution, gives me the opportunity to rectify an unintended oversight on my part. In the debate earlier today on legal aid, I omitted to declare an interest as an independent member of the business oversight board of the Law Society. I would like to correct that omission now, with my full apologies to the House.

I would also like to declare for this debate that, as in the register, I am the president of the Abbeyfield charity for the provision of residential housing for elder members of the community, founded 60 years ago next year by a young man who came out of the Guards after the Second World War and felt that he wanted to put something back in. He identified that loneliness was a problem we were going to have because of the loss of our young people in the Second World War, so we started what has become a unique charity. We have 8,000 residents in 500 homes, and 4,000 volunteers. Our residents live as a family, independently within our homes, but come together twice a day for their meals. This model is unique.

This debate is about quality and viability. I would like to spend a few moments talking about quality because, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol said, this is really about people. I sometimes imagine what it must be like to work in a care home when we see all the bad stuff in the press, and how stigmatised they feel. Yet day by day, an overwhelming majority are trying to do a decent job working with older people. But the hidden message in the stuff we get in the press is that these are pretty depressing places.

I certainly agree with my noble friend Lord Lipsey, as I often do, about the image of residential homes too often being the wrong image. When I go into Abbeyfield homes I come out almost walking on air, because the joy in those places, and the way people feel they are living what is the end of their lives, is down to the quality of care they are receiving. It is not surprising that we have the most centenarian people of any housing or care setting. I sign letters of congratulation every month, and so far the oldest person is 110. So quality is important to the lives of these people, and being in the community is essential. We have something called Coping at Christmas, when any older person can come and have Christmas lunch and stay overnight—it is all free. It is about working in the community and it is about people.

Because it is about people, Abbeyfield decided in April last year to pay the living wage. We now have 15% less staff sickness absence and 15% less staff turnover than the average in the care sector. It is not surprising, but it shows the positive effects this can have. Of course, it is expensive and as far as we are concerned the whole sector needs to look at new models, and we need Government support to do that. The financial crisis in the sector—and it is a crisis—is overshadowing everything else good that is going on. We cannot allow that to happen.

We are building five new special dementia homes, which are leading the way. Given the financial crisis, do we go ahead and do that? We do not have any public funding—we are doing it out of our own funds. I am sure we will go ahead, but it raises questions and, as we have heard, there is less provision than there was. We have a scheme called specialist supported housing whereby retired elderly people who do not necessarily have to be in nursing care can be given specialist support, yet it does not qualify for supported housing grant. Why? It is because it is not regarded as a priority. Will the Minister consider supporting more of that? It is cheaper for government but we are not too bothered about that; more importantly, it is cheaper for us and better for our residents. It ensures that they live longer, fuller lives.

For his 95th birthday, we arranged a parachute jump for one of our residents. I could give many such examples. It is important that we do not lose sight of the fact that there is joy in the later years, and it is our responsibility to make sure that people enjoy those years.

The second element of this debate is viability. We need a development programme that addresses the issues that are challenging society, such as demographics, living longer and more people requiring such support. That means looking at different models, not just the standard model we have had so far. The Dilnot report showed the way.

We are often told in debates in this House that we have to agree to a particular policy because it was in the manifesto. Yet this was a central manifesto promise and the Government went back on it within months of being elected. That is unacceptable, and the Minister needs to answer this point. What happened to the £6 billion that was put on one side to fund this? What is it being spent on? Why cannot it be made available, even if the whole of the Dilnot cap is not to be applied?

This is an important debate that we will continue to have because the issues will not go away. They are not party political issues but issues about our community and the way we treat our older people when they retire. I hope the Minister can answer some of the questions put to him today.

17:15

[Lord Sutherland of Houndwood (CB)]

My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler, for giving us the opportunity to debate these issues, but I have to add the word “again”. My noble friend Lady Pitkeathley smiles at that. She coined a lovely expression in a previous debate; she referred to “the usual suspects” turning up. They are mostly here again; one is even on the Woolsack. The usual suspects are turning up and we have some new friends who will join the band. That is a good joke, but the disgrace is that we have to keep doing it. We have been doing it for more than a decade, often on the same critical issues. I pay tribute to my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley’s analysis of the need for the integration of health and social care services. This is the nub of providing good care. It will not deal with all the financial problems, but I will come back to that in a moment. Here we are again, and I will return to this point.

I should declare an interest as president of Scottish Care, which is the care home owners’ association. I have had briefs from Care England and Four Seasons Health Care. The most chilling part of the brief from Care England has already been mentioned. The chief executive is advising his members to consider the possibility of getting out of public sector provision. That is the size of the problem, and it is frightening.

A year or two back, Southern Cross Healthcare turned up its toes and gave up. The rescue that was mounted by the community of care home owners and groups of care homes was magnificent and meant that many of the clients of Southern Cross Healthcare did not have the great worry and concerns that otherwise they would have had about where they would be the next week and the week after. It was done by the community of care home providers, yet I doubt we could do it today. My first question to the Government is, do they have an analysis of the risks of that happening, of the risk of financial fall-out in the sector for reasons already given and of the risk if people are effectively on the street? I have seen at close quarters one care home close because of a fire. It was horrendous. It was 60 beds having to be vacated virtually overnight, but the troops rallied round. However, the question is, could we do it again?

In the few minutes I have left, I want to focus on viability. There are at least two key factors for viability, in addition to the funding issue that keeps recurring. The viability factors I want to point to are a high percentage of bed occupation and how much is paid for those beds. Unless there is, first, continually a high percentage and, secondly, confidence that the contacts currently being entered into with local authority commissioners will continue in future you cannot borrow money—it is difficult anyway—and you cannot get investors to put money into the system, so there needs to be both those things as well as adequate funding.

Why are these two factors so important? There is a shortage of cash in the public sector and therefore commissioning from local authorities is falling away. The criteria are tighter, and we have to live with that, apparently. There is also a malfunction in the conjunction between social care and healthcare, as my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley pointed out. We have talked about this for 20 years. In my 15 years in this House, this has kept coming up and yet it has not been solved. Oh, there are steps being taken. We will hear about these, doubtless. But it is not being dealt with adequately.

Let me give one or two facts and figures. We all know about what is referred to as bed blocking. That is at the extreme end of the malfunction, but of course there are many people—again referred to in the debate earlier—who are in hospitals and hospital beds, who neither want to be nor need to be. As for the figures, we have had 20,000 mentioned, 30,000 mentioned; these are the real numbers. This is not good enough. Put alongside that the fact that the 10 largest care home providers in Britain have 10,000 empty beds of high quality and providing nursing care. Those two numbers suggest something, do they not? We have to deal with the problems.

Add to that the further point that a delayed transfer—a bed blocking—will fill a bed that is costing between £1,750 a week up to £2,500 or £3,000 a week, while you can get good care home provision with nursing care provided for between £800 and £1,000 a week. That is half the price. Just put all these numbers together. I am not doubting the capacity of the Minister and his colleagues to count. Indeed the Chancellor of the Exchequer deals a pretty good hand of numbers himself; he could do well in Las Vegas. But actually putting these numbers together suggests obvious ways to go. Why are we not doing that? That will not solve the whole problem but it will begin to deal with the need to provide an adequate quality of care: how people want it, where they want it and how they need it.

17:21

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler, for allowing us to have this very long-awaited debate. There is so much to say about this issue that one hardly knows where to start. So many excellent points have been made in this debate. I think we all agree with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol that this is about people. We must always bear that in mind.

The main point I want to make is that failure adequately to fund social care does not just impact on those people whose needs are currently not being met at all or only partly so, and their families, important though that is. This failure affects all of us now and in future. Although we will not all need social care in future, we all at some time will need the services of the NHS. The failure to deal adequately with social care is already impinging on the sustainability of the NHS and will continue to do so to an even greater extent in future unless something is done. The Government must not plan on a budget surplus by 2020 if it is at the expense of vulnerable old people in the short and long term, and the viability of our precious NHS which serves us all. It is simply not right and not logical. If they fail on social care, they cannot claim that the NHS is safe in their hands.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler, outlined, the unanimity among providers about the facts are impressive so there is no doubt about the impact social care cuts are having on services. In a recent survey from the NHS Confederation, 99 % of NHS leaders said social care cuts are increasing the pressures on the NHS and the most prominent impact noted by four out of five of them was the increased time people remain in hospital. This is not new, and many noble Lords mentioned it. For a number of years now, the Government have been alerted to this and yet spending pressures continue to be tolerated. The 2015 spending review finally recognised the funding gap but the remedies are totally inadequate. The Five Year Forward View developed by NHS England and the other NHS arm’s-length bodies is clear that plans for addressing the NHS funding gap are based on an assumption of social care services being sustained. So the ability of the NHS to make unprecedented savings in this Parliament relies on the Government addressing the social care funding gap. If the Government choose not to close that gap, they are choosing not to support the delivery of the Five Year Forward View.

As my noble friend Lady Brinton said, directors of adult social services estimate a £4.3 billion gap by 2020-21. The spending review proposals are unlikely to cover this or the inevitable additional costs of the introduction of the euphemistically named “national living wage”. I absolutely agree with the comments of the noble Lords, Lord Turnberg and Lord Lipsey, about that. Neither will it meet the future growth of demand due to our ageing population. In addition, as we have heard, the Government have back-loaded the better care fund until towards the end of the Parliament. By that time the system will have collapsed—the money is needed now.

Local authorities and social care providers are somehow expected to fill the gap. Many local authorities have prioritised social care. We heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Redfern, about North Lincolnshire. I think that many of us will want to move to Utopia, otherwise known as North Lincolnshire, before we get much older. It currently accounts for 35% of its total budgets compared with 30% at the start of the last Parliament. Spending on adult social care has already been reduced by £4.6 billion, about one-third of the budget in real terms. There is a limit, which we are fast approaching, to how long this can go on.

While all this is happening, vulnerable people are missing out. The reduction in spending has resulted in eligibility thresholds being tightened so that often only the most severe needs are met through state-funded social care. In total, around 400,000 fewer people have their assessed needs met. If they reach crisis point, they will have no choice but to turn to the NHS for support. Then they are more likely to stay in hospital for longer because it is too risky to transfer them home without the support of social care services. A social worker I know said to me recently that the problem is that social care funded by the state is used mostly by poor people who do not have a voice, and Governments therefore feel that they can get away with not doing anything. That is the impression that the Government’s failure to act has given to people out there.

I wish to raise another issue relating to the quality in the sector. I agree with all noble Lords who talked about the importance of quality, especially most recently the noble Baroness, Lady Dean. It is about the new arrangements for funding student nurses. I understand that in order to remove the cap on student nurse places—and, by the way, remove the debt from the Government’s books—the Government plan to remove their bursaries and fees and offer student loans instead. We certainly need more student nurse training places since there are already four applicants for every place. However, any expectation that hospitals would pay off the debt of newly qualified nurses who would go to work for them is unrealistic in the extreme. I am told that while there is going to be some scope for NHS provider organisations to reimburse staff for their training, it will be completely at the discretion of that organisation. The group of HR directors that I heard from said that it would happen very infrequently, due to cost. This does not mean that the occasional exceptional candidate may not be reimbursed, but, without funding through the NHS tariff to cover staff training, it would represent an exceptional cost. The expectation is therefore that private healthcare providers and care home operators would not reimburse either, but, again, could do so at their own volition.

Given that the margins in social care provision are so tight, I am concerned that those nurses who would like to work in that sector will have a problem. I cannot see any care home providers being able to offer this pay-off, yet those who provide specialist nursing services really need well-qualified nurses to supervise them or they will not be safe. It is a matter of maintaining quality. What does the Minister suggest is done about this? Following the spending review, there are so many additional costs that will already have to be met by providers of all kinds that I would be very surprised if any of them were able to reimburse a nurse’s training costs. These vital professionals cannot expect to be highly paid when they qualify, so where does the Minister think they will get the money for, in effect, an additional 9% on their income tax after qualification? This is short-sighted and will do nothing to increase the number of UK nurses, especially in the lower-paid social care service, where I anticipate the highest impact of this change. If you add all this to the announcement in the spending review that care homes, along with other providers, will have to pay the full cost of their mandatory CQC inspections, you have a system that is ready to implode.

What steps are the Government taking to ensure that the proposed 2% levy per year on council tax in the form of a social care precept will deliver the money required to ensure the right levels of social care and do so equitably? The authorities that need the most additional money have the least ability to raise it through taxes. When will self-funders get some certainty enabling them to plan for their old age? I echo my noble friend Lady Brinton in asking where the £6 billion saved from the failure to introduce all the Dilnot reforms has been distributed. It certainly has not gone into the social care budget. I am just as curious as the noble Lord, Lord Warner, to find out where this amazing disappearing £6 billion has gone. How will the Government ensure that newly qualified nurses will not be deterred from entering service in the social care sector?

Finally, I am very puzzled about one thing and I wonder if the Minister can help me. All the acute hospitals are in deficit and somehow the Government manage to bail them out. I wonder why that is when they are not prepared to bail out the social care sector. Perhaps it is because they have already spent the money and, of course, next year some of the extra money already announced for the NHS will have to go towards next year’s projected deficit as well. Perhaps it is because local authorities and private and voluntary care providers cannot spend money that they have not got and therefore it cannot be refunded. However, it occurs to me that if the Government were prepared to spend that couple of billion pounds every year doing something about social care then maybe we would not have such a big deficit in the NHS at all.

17:31

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to wind up for the Opposition and to thank my noble friend. It has been an excellent debate; a number of very challenging questions have been put to the Minister and we look forward to his response. There can be no doubt that the viability of the residential care home sector, the failure to implement Dilnot and the failure to raise the means test are causing great anxiety to thousands of people and their relatives throughout the country. As the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, said, the lack of viability of the residential care sector is but one part of what one has to say looks increasingly like a dysfunctional health and social care system.

When the Minister replies—because he has done it recently—he will no doubt talk about the Autumn Statement, ministerial vision and the potential of the new models of health and social care that the Government are putting an awful lot of eggs into, without, I have to say, any evidence that they will be able to enable a response to the challenges. The gap between ministerial rhetoric and reality is striking. There is no problem with a five-year forward view. This vision is described as empowering patients, their families and carers to take more control over their own care and treatment. It is a future that truly integrates health and social care, at last puts mental health on a par with the rest of the system and, crucially, prioritises prevention. That is a fine vision and, in the absence of any vision for social care, I assume it is the Government’s statement of social care policy as well.

However, it is impossible for me to see how that will happen in the context of a Government determined to bring the share of government spending down from 41% to 37% of GDP. It is always good to wait until a few days after an Autumn Statement to get the real analysis of what is happening in spending. The analysis I have seen from the King’s Fund is that for the next five years the actual growth in the health service will be 0.85% per annum. So we are just continuing the misery of the last five years. We know that the historic growth level in the NHS is 4%, and that is what is needed to meet these challenges. It is striking that, of the much-vaunted extra £8.4 billion, £4.6 billion has come from other parts of Department of Health expenditure, including Health Education England, the nurse bursaries, capital and public health. You also have to add in the £1.1 billion of pension costs due to the changes in the pension rules from next April, for which no additional money has gone into the health service.

The King’s Fund projection shows that in this five-year period social care will be left with an annual cut of 0.3% per annum. Therefore, even though it is back-loaded, it is starting off with a very challenging situation. There is then the cost of the living wage to be added to the negative growth. I cannot possibly see how the health and social care sector can meet the challenges of the demographics that it is facing, with the huge population growth that we have seen in the last 10 years projected to increase by another few million over the next 10 or 15 years, as the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, said.

When it comes to the residential care sector, there is no need for me to repeat the figures that other noble Lords have referred to, but I thought that the ResPublica report got it in a nutshell when it talked about the unsustainable combination of declining real-terms funding, rising demand, increasing financial liabilities, a funding gap of £1 billion by 2021, the potential loss of beds and, of course, the knock-back impact on our National Health Service. I had not seen the advice from Care England. That advice is very sobering indeed when it comes to the whole viability of the residential care home sector.

It seems to me that the result of all this will be that, far from the models being implemented, we will see the perverse incentives mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, getting worse and worse because of the tension between the free-at-the-point-of-use NHS and means-tested social care. That is why integration is so difficult. Until we get to grips with that divide, we will never achieve integration of services. As my noble friend Lord Turnberg said, NHS hospitals are the providers of last resort. If the residential care sector goes down, residents will end up in NHS hospitals. I remember those dreadful long-stay wards that NHS hospitals used to have, and I am afraid that they will be recreated unless we can sort this problem out. Many reports are coming out but one report produced today by the Nuffield Trust shows that 3.6% of patients took over a third of all bed capacity in acute hospitals, and the trust expects the position to worsen in the years ahead. That is the challenge that our system faces.

There are about 10 questions from my noble friends to which the noble Lord, Lord Prior, is being asked to respond. The first, on the positive side, was asked by my noble friends Lady Dean and Lord Lipsey. Can we increase public awareness of the importance and success of many parts of the residential care sector and the good work done by the staff? My noble friend Lady Dean gave a wonderful example of the sector working at its very best.

The second concerns the general view that, essentially, the care cap will never be implemented. Can the Minister say that it actually will be implemented, and when? Thirdly, does he agree with his noble friend Lord Lansley about the sense in going back to Dilnot’s original recommendation about the size of the cap? A number of noble Lords mentioned the £6 billion. Noble Lords look quizzical whenever it is mentioned, but that figure has appeared in government papers and projections. I think we are right to ask what on earth has happened to it.

The noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, asked what analysis the Government have made of the risk of closures. What are their contingency plans? How will we avoid the dreadful situation of very frail older people having to be moved from one home to another, which we know can have appalling effects on life outcomes? When will the means test limit be increased as promised? The Government made a deal. They made a deal with people that the care cap would come in in 2016 and that the means test would be increased. Many people made financial provision on that basis. Surely the Government have a moral responsibility here to deliver what was promised. Does anyone remember the Prime Minister saying no one would have to sell their home? What has happened to that?

There are two final things. First, my noble friend Lord Bhattacharyya asked about incentives to encourage people to build up funds for their care. What has happened to the much-vaunted insurance market? It was supposed to come to the rescue and be complementary, in a sense, to the introduction of the care cap. Finally, and overwhelmingly, my noble friends Lady Pitkeathley and Lord Turnberg and other noble Lords talked about the need for a coherent, long-term strategy. Either we go into absolute crisis in the next year or two, with huge knock-on impacts on the rest of the provision of health and social care, or the Government have to get a grip and actually start going for a long-term strategy. I hope the Minister will announce that tonight.

17:52

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Prior of Brampton) (Con)]

My Lords, I am slightly relieved—the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said he had 10 questions but he got to only six, I think.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler, very much, as other noble Lords have done this evening, for securing this important debate. I think we will be having this debate fairly regularly over the course of this Parliament, and we should, because lots of ideas come out of these debates, which I can assure noble Lords are taken very seriously. I shall pick out a few points at the beginning.

Many noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler, mentioned Four Seasons, about which there has been publicity. I cannot comment on that particular case, but the CQC’s market oversight function means that it is looking at the finances of all these large care providers very closely and if it has a concern it will liaise confidentially with local authorities.

The noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler, also talked about the spending round. I think it is worth saying, despite the apocalyptic comments from the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, that this was very much welcomed by Simon Stevens, chief executive of NHS England, who felt that it was a good settlement. Although the King’s Fund, the Nuffield Trust and others have been quoted, on balance, most independent commentators feel that this was a better settlement than we had a right to expect.

My noble friend Lord Lansley made an important contribution and reminded us of the importance of the Care Act. He thanked Paul Burstow, as did other noble Lords, for his important role in that Act. He talked about integration and personal budgets, which are a very important aspect of the future strategy. Noble Lords have asked about the future strategy. Personal budgets and integration will be very important parts of any future strategy. He also mentioned the Dilnot situation. I will come back to Dilnot, if I may, a little later.

The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, talked with passion about the care her mother had received over 10 years. This is important, and others have mentioned it as well. In her mother’s case it was a combination of domiciliary care, residential care, respite care and NHS hospital care. When it works, it works incredibly well and we need to be careful in talking about the undoubted problems in this industry, which we all know of. Many providers of residential healthcare and many staff who work in that industry do a fantastically good job. The noble Baroness referred to the better care fund, which is a big stake in the ground and is bringing together funds from the health sector and from social care. Pooling those funds is the right way forward.

The noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, talked about the dependency of the healthcare sector on social care and vice versa, and how looking at the two in isolation made no sense at all. He asked about our response to David Dalton’s report on the development of chains and more integrated care. I can tell him that three of the vanguards are proceeding very much along the lines described in David Dalton’s report. I would refer also to the devolution that is happening in Manchester, where there are some serious comings together, not just within healthcare but between healthcare and social care. Devolution, again, will be a big part of any strategy as we go forward.

The noble Lord, Lord Filkin, had a number of concerns—in particular about the future supply of a skilled workforce. I believe that the national living wage and the care certificate that came out of the Cavendish report will both be helpful in improving the opportunities for staff in the sector. He referred to the hidden misery in social care, which other noble Lords have also mentioned, and I think that it is true that the NHS, because of its greater exposure and the love that the people of this country have for it, gets the lion’s share of available resources going into health and social care, which is something that we need to be conscious of. It is certainly something of which Simon Stevens is particularly conscious.

The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol importantly reminded us that statistics are all very well but these statistics are all individual people. He said that he looked out over Winterbourne View, where there was appalling care. Of course, that was not a result of lack of resources but the result of a rotten culture in that organisation. He also talked about family disintegration. He said that residential care is sometimes regarded as a place of last resort, whereas, as we know, much residential care, far from being a place of last resort can be a wonderful place for people to spend the end of their lives.

My noble friend Lady Redfern talked about the reality of the Care Act in north Lincolnshire and filled us all with some hope that it can be made to work and that the community can come together. She talked about the five community well-being hubs in north Lincolnshire and the better care fund being used to bring together social care and healthcare, and the importance of partnership working, including housing, which other noble Lords have mentioned.

Earlier this week, an interesting speech was given by Duncan Selbie, the chief executive of Public Health England, who said that when it comes to health the NHS touches just the top of the pyramid, but, actually, health comes from employment, education, a prosperous economy and, of course, good housing. The noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, raised with me separately his views on how we might be able to reallocate some of the money currently going through CHC, which is something officials are looking at. I can assure him that it has not been lost and we are looking at it. The noble Lord is very concerned about the postponement of Dilnot. I will come back to that subject in a minute. He also mentioned “Alive, Alive Oh!”—Diana Athill’s story of when she went into residential care, and how that is sometimes a remedy for loneliness and lack of support. Of course, good homes where there are good levels of activity and high levels of comfort can be wonderful places to live.

I think the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, said that she had been working, or involved, in the care industry for 40 years, and had been in this House for 18 years. She reminded us that, looking back on what those local authority homes were like 30 or 40 years ago, many of them were terrible. The split between commissioning, or purchasing, and provision has undoubtedly been a very good thing, in the main, and things are a lot better than they used to be. The noble Baroness also reminded us that for the 18 years she has been in this House we have been talking about integration—yet in her view we are still waiting for it. I respond to that by saying that the five-year forward view is a big step towards greater integration between health and social care.

The noble Lord, Lord Warner, raised a number of important issues. I shall have to pick out some of those and write to him later. In particular he talked about the fragility of the big providers and the problems in care homes. One of the things that the CQC market oversight does is to try to identify early some of the problems that may arise, such as those that arose at Southern Cross in the past. He also said that it is one thing to identify a financial issue ahead of time, but the question is: is there the capacity in the industry to pick up the fallout from the collapse of a major provider? The noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, also raised that point.

The noble Lord, Lord Bhattacharyya, raised a number of points about the importance of the million unpaid carers. He also asked, importantly, whether we could be more imaginative about financial products—whether those be care ISAs or other savings and pension products—which could help to meet the undoubted need for more funding in this sector.

The noble Lord, Lord Bichard, who as chairman of SCIE has a profound knowledge of social care, also talked about integration. He said that a third of the places inspected by the CQC are deemed to require improvement. It is important that at least we know that fact. This has not suddenly happened. We know this now because of the CQC inspection regime, which, particularly in social care, has been very much welcomed by the industry. The noble Lord said that Martin Green was not someone who overstated his case. But I think that occasionally Martin Green has been known to overstate his case; he has certainly done so to me in the past. However, his words of warning about the local authority-funded residential care market, as distinct from the self-funded care market, are not to be dismissed.

The noble Baroness, Lady Dean, talked about Abbeyfield—a wonderful care group—and the joy she feels when she walks out of one of its homes. She also mentioned an investment in five new dementia care homes. May I write to her about the particular issue that she raised about funding supported housing? I cannot give her the answer today, but I will write to her after the debate. She also made the interesting point that since higher wages have been paid to staff, sickness absence and staff turnover have both come down. Low wages and high turnover of staff have dogged this industry for years, with all the knock-on effects on continuity of care and training, so there is quite an important message there.

The noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, referred to the usual suspects. This debate has been well attended by the usual suspects and a few others. I suspect that the band of usual suspects will grow, rather than diminish, over the next five years. He made an interesting point about the number of empty beds in the nursing home and care home sector at a time when there are so many delayed discharges or people who should not be in acute hospitals. It is overly simplistic to say that there are 10,000 empty beds in that sector so we could therefore have 10,000 patients out of hospitals who could go into those beds. The fact is that those beds are often not the right kind of bed. They do not have the right nursing care around them or they are in the wrong place. Nevertheless, there is plenty more scope for acute hospitals to work much more closely with the acute sector.

I will pick up the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, in my speech, but I will write to the noble Baroness on the nursing care issues in particular. I would rather do that.

First, why have we postponed Dilnot? I must say that it is a postponement. We will come back to Dilnot in this Parliament. To be completely frank with noble Lords, it was postponed because it was felt that it would be too expensive to implement it now and that it would put too much pressure on local authorities. One of the priorities of this Government is to reduce the budget deficit and start repaying the debt that has accumulated over the years. Noble Lords may not like that very much and might have a different view from that, although it was the view of the coalition Government. That is our view and that is why it has been postponed. It does not alter the fact that the Government believe that the Dilnot report was outstanding and we accept the vast majority of its recommendations. Indeed, our decision to delay those reforms was welcomed by many in the sector. The Local Government Association in particular and others welcomed our decision as a real example of the Government listening to their concerns about introducing significant reforms at a time of financial challenge for local authorities.

I think the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said that we like to blame local authorities—he says it was not him; someone said it. On the contrary, part of the Government’s strategy is to devolve more power and responsibility to local authorities. By delaying, we allow local authorities time to focus on delivering the important reforms to care and support under the 2014 Act, which came into force on 1 April this year, putting in the necessary groundwork to implement the funding reforms as successfully as possible in 2020.

The grant funding of £146 million made available in 2015-16 to support implementation of the cap prior to delay will remain with local government. I assure noble Lords that the decision to delay implementation was not taken lightly. The recent spending review reaffirmed our commitment to implement these reforms in April 2020, making funding available in 2019-20 to help local authorities to prepare for implementation.

I turn now to quality and the workforce. Delivering the outcomes that people want and need would not be possible without a sustainable care home sector capable of delivering quality care. We are taking steps to support the sector to continuously improve in this area. Noble Lords will be aware of the Care Quality Commission’s new inspection regime and will know that we are investing £115 million this year to support the training and development of the care workforce, including a national programme of support for registered managers, who play such a vital role in ensuring the quality of care homes.

I have talked about the CQC’s market oversight role, which is an important new development, and at other times I have talked about the importance of the new vanguard programme. I refer in particular to the six enhanced health and care home vanguards, where we now see GPs doing ward rounds around care homes and a much more integrated model between healthcare and social care.

I will just say a little bit about the money. Noble Lords will know that the Government are giving local authorities access to £3.5 billion of new support for social care in 2019-20. From April 2016, councils will be able to introduce a new social care precept, allowing them to increase council tax by 2% above the existing threshold. This could raise nearly £2 billion a year for social care by 2019-20. A number of noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Warner, asked about smoothing payments and we will have to address that issue. I must apologise that I do not have time to finish what I wanted to say because of all the issues that have been raised. I wonder if it would be acceptable if I wrote to all noble Lords who attended this debate with what else I wanted to say and just apologise that I am timed out.

18:00

[Baroness Wheeler]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their contribution. I said in my speech that their experience and insight would produce a very thoughtful and thorough debate and a comprehensive picture of both residential care and the wider social care, and that proved to be the case. It is important to develop a clear view of the role we want the residential care sector to play in integrating social care and I hope this debate has helped that, particularly across the care pathway. There were a number of speakers on that theme. We have debated these things a number of times but this is the first time we have focused on residential care and I think that has been very helpful. Many noble Lords stressed that this debate was about people. My example of my local carer was very much in that vein and other noble Lords gave examples of good care in their own experience. That is very valuable and it is well to remember that. CQC underlines that there are many well-led homes that are caring, safe and efficient with trained and dedicated nursing and care staff, but equally it gives the other side of the picture and the problems that we need to address.

I thank the Minister for his thoughtful response. He did not have a chance to reel off some of the statistics I was expecting. I was particularly looking out for his comment on the assessment from the noble Lord, Lord Warner, that we have seen only £70 million of the £6 billion that was to be introduced for the social care cap. I did not hear that but he is going to write to us and that is very welcome. I was a bit disappointed that he was not able to give us some reassurances on the monitoring that is going on of Four Seasons and other care homes. I understand the need for confidentiality but I think we need to be reassured that the Government are keeping it closely under review, particularly the issue of replacement care. On the care cap, I am glad it is still a postponement. The Public Accounts Committee has called for an urgent and clear timetable on implementation and I think the Government ought to take heed of that. In my view the overall debate has shown the clear need for a strategic, ambitious, forward-looking strategy and I am pleased the majority of noble Lords supported that. With those comments, I beg to move my Motion.

Motion agreed.

Financial Stability: Central Counterparties

Thursday 10th December 2015 Lords Chamber

Question for Short Debate

18:02

Asked by

[Baroness Kramer]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the possible threat to financial stability from the risks concentrated in Central Counterparties.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, I have sought this debate in order to understand from the Government their assessment of central counterparties, the extent to which CCPs mitigate risk, but also the extent to which their inherent character of concentrating risk can in itself amplify financial instability.

A CCP is an entity that interposes itself between counterparties to contracts traded in financial markets, becoming the buyer to every seller and the seller to every buyer and thereby guaranteeing the performance of open contracts. In a sense CCPs act as a firewall, enabling multilateral netting among clearing participants, reducing credit exposure, offering operating efficiency and also providing anonymity, which some believe increases liquidity in the system. At the moment a transaction is initiated, the CCP has no market risk—the book is matched. But prices change rapidly and constantly and CCPs cover such exposures primarily by requiring collateral. I shall say more about collateral in a moment.

The primary use of CCPs is to clear derivatives contracts and one of the reforms by regulators following the financial crash of 2007-09 was to make the use of CCPs mandatory for the clearance of standard over-the-counter derivatives. I fully recognise that this has brought transparency and some order to an opaque and chaotic system and offers greater protection to counterparties. The last financial crisis was far worse because no one knew to whom anyone had exposure.

However, by definition, the concentration of risk within a CCP is itself a systemic risk. The daily global exposure in CCPs is estimated to be in the trillions of dollars but no exact tracking is available. Default potentially affects not only national but international financial stability. CCPs are linked by an extensive cross membership; the major global banks belong to virtually every CCP. Interoperability arrangements between CCPs enable members of one to clear transactions without opening accounts in the other. CCPs are often part of a larger financial group, and firewalls between group members are not necessarily complete. According to the Bank for International Settlements in its quarterly review this December, this growing interconnectedness raises the question of whether CCPs might spread losses in the case of defaults or intensify deleveraging pressures in ways that add to systemic risk.

As for the UK, the Bank of England, which took over supervision from the FSA in 2013, supervises some of the largest global players, including LCH. Clearnet Group and ICE Clear Europe, while a number of major and minor CCPs incorporated overseas also operate in the UK. Our exposure is multicurrency and so requires the Bank in extremis to be able to access liquidity in other currencies, especially the euro. It is part of our global financial services industry rather than support to our domestic economy.

This House discussed CCPs and the risk they present in the debates on the Financial Services Act 2010. During that debate the Government took the position that default risk could be contained by a risk waterfall of cascading lines of defence. The first line of defence is collateral, required through both initial and variation margin calls. However, the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, and I, in 2012, raised questions both about the inherent quality of collateral and the competitive pressures on CCPs to take a more lenient view of both collateral quality and margin requirements. There is not enough high-quality collateral in the globe to meet the margin requirements of CCPs. Therefore lower-quality collateral is improved by being bundled and then given a haircut—that is, discounted. This may remind your Lordships of some of the financial instruments implicated in the 2007-09 crash: it is susceptible to abuse. CCPs around the globe compete fiercely and there is always a risk that this can lead them to compromise the quality and levels of collateral.

The collateral demands of CCPs will, by definition, move with, not counter to, an economic cycle. This means that both initial and margin calls increase the volatility of prices of collateral, such as sovereign bonds, which in itself can amplify financial instability. CCPs hold vast amounts of their collateral in major banks. As we know, no major bank is ever totally safe from failure and so another risk is added. This risk increases because many clients, to reduce their costs, permit the CCPs to on-lend or invest the collateral. At present, these collateral-related issues are not transparent. Are the Government attempting to remove the mask not only domestically but globally?

If collateral is insufficient, the second line of defence is a cascade of reserve or guarantee funds contributed or committed by members of the CCP as a condition of their membership. Your Lordships will understand that these are thinly capitalised entities. The cascade varies by jurisdiction but essentially begins by tapping the defaulting member and, if that is insufficient, calling on the other members of the group. In the Financial Services Act 2012, the Government allowed members’ exposure to such mandatory contributions to be strictly limited—not unreasonable—on the assumption that no member could survive with unlimited liability. However, we do not know how sufficient the barriers really are. CCPs in the UK are also required to put in place recovery and resolution plans to protect the taxpayer in the event of failure. Can the Government tell us how advanced these plans are?

I am sure the Government would agree that, with so many questions and given the consequences of a failure, stress tests for CCPs are crucial. Will there be transparency around such stress tests? Will the criteria and performance results be public? Since a failure in one jurisdiction can so easily contaminate another, can we be assured of a global standard of risk protection and co-operation among regulators?

While I have raised the risks of CCPs, I recognise that there are significant risks in the non-standard transactions, especially the non-standard derivatives transactions, that sit outside them. Is the regulator succeeding in persuading the industry to deconstruct complex trades so that they can be cleared on the CCPs? I realise that the regulators are requiring banks to hold additional capital for unclear trades, but many of the players are commodity companies, especially oil companies, and these are just as capable of infecting the system. Additionally, these non-standard trades are increasingly taking place in dark pools. Are we sure that enough is happening in the light both for proper risk management and for proper price discovery to take place?

We are also in an era where we begin to see the disintermediation of the traditional financial service players. Block chain will in effect dislodge all the current post-trade architecture and may well eliminate CCPs altogether, but block chain raises issues of its own. Transparency is particularly important in block chain, but we cannot see, for example, what is happening in a vital market like China—the great firewall of China, as I understand the industry calls it. That surely is untenable. While block chain has the potential greatly to reduce risk, its key feature, which is the dispersal of data, raises serious new jurisdictional issues. Who is in charge in a crisis? Will the Government update us on how they are addressing the development of block chain and the trading architecture, how they view the associated issues and how they are considering the transition from the current architecture to the new?

The inconvenient truth is that in a major financial crisis, if two or three major banks were to fail, all the defences offered by CCPs would be overwhelmed, rather like the flood defences in Cumbria this week. We need to know how high the financial flood walls are. I look forward to hearing much more from the Government on stress tests, on transparency and on recovery and resolution plans. I hope that in this debate, the Government will answer our questions on CCP governance, collateral quality, capacity for loss absorbency, potential for contagion and international co-operation. There is a danger that CCPs are a two-edged sword, dampening risk in modest crises but amplifying risks in high crises.

18:12

[Lord Sharkey (LD)]

My Lords, I am indebted to the Bank of England for its publication Central Counterparties: What Are They, Why Do They Matter and How Does the Bank Supervise Them?. I am glad to see that the Minister is similarly indebted. This report sets out the merits of CCPs and it also sets out, very clearly, the risks associated with them.

There are three main risk areas. The first is the systemic impact of a CCP failing. The failure of a large CCP could act as a channel of contagion, resulting in significant failures elsewhere in the financial system. The second risk is that CCPs may act as amplifiers of other systemic shocks. In some cases, CCPs may produce procyclical effects by exacerbating other stresses. For example, increasing initial margin requirements in response to high price volatility may force members to liquidate positions. In an illiquid market, this would only increase price volatility. The third risk concerns inadequate solvency, the ability to meet short-term margin calls and the operational reliability of CCP members. All these risks are well known and appear to be well defined.

What is perhaps less clear from this rather bloodless and technocratic language is the potential scale of these risks, and the extent to which these risks are fully understood. In January this year, the IMF published a workshop paper entitled Central Counterparties: Addressing Their Too Important to Fail Nature. This paper estimated the market size of open, over-the-counter derivative trades at $293 trillion. Some 95% of these open trades were concentrated in the top five CCPs.

These are truly gigantic numbers and truly gigantic interdependencies. It is easy to see how failure could bring down the financial system. It is easy to see why the IMF workshop paper describes these CCPs as “too important to fail”. In fact, it singles out LCH.Clearnet Group and CME in particular because they also operate CCPs in the exchange-traded or equity markets.

In fact, 59% of turnover in exchange-traded derivatives and 78% of equity trades go through the top five CCPs. This is concentration on a very grand scale. I acknowledge, of course, that the G20 brought about this concentration deliberately as a response to the post-Lehman events and that it did so for a very good reason. Nevertheless, the scale of the concentration certainly focuses the mind on the need to prevent failure or at least to properly mitigate risk.

In the view of the IMF workshop paper, four risks are not yet mitigated. The first is the composition of the risk waterfall, referred to by my noble friend Lady Kramer, and the fear that loss-sharing arrangements may be a source of contagion for surviving clearing members. Secondly, the dependency of CCPs on only a few commercial banks for liquidity, custody, settlement and other services can put the CCP and surviving members under severe pressure. The report notes:

“If the defaulting clearing member is one of the contracted service providers of the CCP, the surviving banks may have to step in, placing them under significant pressure. At the same time, the ability of the CCP to manage the default can be significantly weakened by its dependence on those banks”.

Thirdly, collateral sales by multiple CCPs may increase market volatility. Fourthly, the diverging interests of authorities in a globally cleared market may present a problem. If the authority in charge of supervising a CCP is not from the same country as the authorities in charge of the banks, international co-ordination would be very difficult to achieve during distress. Does the Minister agree that these risks are not yet mitigated? If he does, can he tell us how we are progressing towards mitigation? In particular, what progress are we making in reducing risks relating to the interconnectedness and interdependencies of CCPs?

As my noble friend Lady Kramer mentioned, the latest quarterly review from the Bank for International Settlements also turns its attention to the issue of risk and CCPs. It notes, almost in passing, that:

“The competitive dynamics in the CCP industry may work against a strengthening of capital buffers”.

It says that CCPs are for-profit companies and,

“are strongly motivated to generate revenues by expanding their product offering and capturing market share. However, new products could bring incremental risk, which clearing members may end up bearing if the CCP does not increase its capital commensurately”.

This worry is not raised explicitly by the Bank of England or the IMF workshop. Does the Minister think that this is a real concern? If so, what are we doing to mitigate it?

The BIS report concludes by restating some of the benefits of the very rapid shift to central clearing, but says clearly that this shift may give rise to other systemic risk, in particular that,

“the concentration of the risk management of credit and liquidity risk in the CCP may affect system-wide market price and liquidity dynamics in ways that are not yet understood”.

It says:

“It is possible that CCPs can buffer the system against relatively small shocks, at the risk of potentially amplifying larger ones”.

This is obviously an absolutely critical issue. Does the Minister agree with these two points? If he does, can he say how we are working on these issues?

The concentration of risk into CCPs—its benefits and potential downsides—is clearly the focus of a great deal of thought and discussion. I have the distinct impression that there is a reasonably settled consensus about the questions that need to be asked, but no settled consensus as to what the answers may be. Clearly, the debate is still vigorously proceeding and has the air of a work in progress. For example, in September, a group of 24 US banks, rather confusingly calling themselves The Clearing House, wrote to regulators criticising inconsistencies in the risk governance of central counterparties and called for tougher minimum standards. Their letter set out demands in three areas. The first was that CCPs should maintain risk committees with consistent minimum standards. The second was that CCPs should be obliged to consider feedback from clearing members about material risks. The third was that the records of communication between CCPs and clearing members that are the subject of material risks should be properly maintained.

I find all this quite alarming, as the obvious implication is that none of that is in fact happening at the moment. I am conscious that I have asked the Minister quite a lot of questions already but I would like to ask one more. Does he agree with the banks’ three demands, or do we already apply these standards to CCPs in our jurisdiction?

There is, of course, always a tension between regulation and growth—too much of one; not enough of the other. Are we getting the balance right? There is a very old Woody Allen joke about this quoted, rather surprisingly, in the Financial Times. The joke is about a man who cannot have his brother—who thinks he is a chicken—treated by a psychiatrist, because the family needs the eggs. Is the regulation of CCPs somewhat in the same position?

18:21

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, for tabling this debate. Central counterparties are fast becoming one of the most central components of the financial system in the UK. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure the House that the Government recognise this and are taking proactive, effective steps to alleviate systemic risk.

As has been highlighted, while there are clear advantages to central counterparties, there are also high risks. This is not a new phenomenon; indeed it describes the day-to-day practice of many involved in financial services. However, CCPs present a number of different challenges. While the finance industry is intrinsically a risk management environment, global markets are still incredibly vulnerable and the scale of expansion of CCPs, if not managed properly, could present a threat to the UK economy.

In 2009, the G20 made a commitment that all standardised, over-the-counter derivative contracts should be traded on exchanges or electronic trading platforms and cleared through CCPs. This was one of the many responses felt necessary in the light of the events of 2007-09. It has subsequently increased the recognition of the importance of the role of CCPs in the financial system the world over. In August this year, the European Commission gave the green light to the proposals which will be phased in over three years. Although I am encouraged that a deal has been done, can the Minister explain the five-year gap between the final decision and the Pittsburgh summit?

CCPs’ growing prominence in the financial sector is undeniable. As of January 2015, 50% of the global over-the-counter interest rate derivatives market were centrally cleared, compared to 31% in April 2012. Last month, the Governor of the Bank of England, Mark Carney, stated that the “too big to fail” era for banks had been solved. He announced reforms which meant that the world’s top 30 banks should ensure they hold enough capital to absorb any losses incurred.

In a working paper, the IMF states that we are getting to a point where, due to the highly interconnected nature of CCPs with financial institutions and markets, they are almost becoming too big to fail. Only a few weeks ago, a senior official at the Bank of England questioned whether clearing houses could rely on unfunded commitments from member firms. That would mean that funds would have to be replenished in a period of stress. While there are clearly mechanisms in place, most notably the “default waterfall”, there are obviously still key concerns about how CCPs can be better managed. I would be interested to hear from the Minister the Government’s assessment of how the “too big to fail” concept relates to CCPs.

We fully recognise that there have been a number of notable steps taken by this Government and by the Bank of England to mitigate the risk associated with CCPs, not least the decision to give the Bank responsibility for the supervision of CCPs. This has meant that it is more difficult for CCPs to underinvest in the migration of risks to the wider system. It is vital that the Bank continues to perform this function in the public interest. CCPs should never lose sight of the implications of what could happen if they went into insolvency.

The quality of those who manage CCPs must be beyond doubt. The Minister will know all too well that in this House we are currently debating the certification regime for senior managers in the financial sector. Has such a scheme, statutory or not, been considered in this context? The Bank of England acknowledges that one of the ways in which it can mitigate risks associated with CCPs relates to ensuring that there is a stronger user representation in financial market infrastructure governance. Surely that is another way in which CCPs would become more mindful of their broader remit. Can the Minister give me a breakdown of the various forms of representation, in particular the number of independent directors on both the boards and risk committees of the major CCPs?

I turn to the formal assessment structure in place to oversee the work of CCPs. While the Bank has a supervisory function, the CCPs are not bound by regulation. The Bank says that self-assessment is not self-regulation, as the CCPs’ self-assessment does not replace the Bank’s own judgment but is used as one input to its supervision. Can the Minister say what advantage the CCPs’ own assessment of their working brings to the Bank’s supervision?

The Bank of England states that:

“A CCP should demonstrate that its governance and decision-making processes reflect the risk management purpose of the institution. This means having adequate regard not only to the management of microprudential risks to the institution itself, but also the interests of the financial system as a whole”.

I would be interested to hear whether the Minister could ever conceive of a time when we move from “should” to “must”. Finally on this point, in the Bank’s incredibly helpful note outlining the CCPs’ function, which we have obviously all read, it states that it is in the process of introducing more structured reporting of CCPs. I was wondering whether the Government had any information on a timetable and what form these publications will take.

I will briefly touch on the importance of international co-operation, particularly with regard to our EU partners. In December 2014, clearing members established outside the European Economic Area accounted for 39% of the initial margin requirement at UK CCPs. Co-operation is key. As the Bank of England has acknowledged—rightly, in my view—there are terrific benefits to be had from,

“working with the relevant international authorities”,

and,

“going beyond the minimum levels of co-operation”.

However, as the IMF white paper points out, one of the remaining risks is:

“Diverging interests of authorities in a globally cleared market”.

This means that we need constructive engagement with partners across international bodies, including in Europe. Do the Government agree and is this a priority for them?

European Market Infrastructure Regulation and the associated technical standards constitute a significant body of detailed standards against which supervisors must assess CCPs’ compliance and, related to which, they should report information and assessments to EMIR colleges. We understand that the Bank is continuing to implement the new CCP supervisory framework established by the EMIR. Given all this, and in light of the IMF’s warning that risks are increased when diverging interests are at play, what are the Government doing to ensure that these various regulatory regimes are working together?

As of March 2015, the Bank of England had exercised only its statutory powers to gather information over the last year, rather than using any sanctions. While it says that it intends to conduct reviews, I would be interested to know in what areas they will be conducted, who determines the topic, scope and content of these reviews, and how these reviews would help us to understand and pursue the means of lowering the risks?

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, for bringing up this subject. It is one that does not have much saliency. It is very useful that this debate has forced the subject on to the agenda. The noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, was right in using the rather gentle word “concern” and then perhaps moving more realistically to the word “alarming”. This is an inevitable development of our ever-developing financial structure and it is important that the Bank of England and Government get on top of the issues as quickly as possible.

18:30

[Lord Ashton of Hyde (Con)]

My Lords, I think I shall have to talk quickly. I, too, thank the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, for securing this debate and other noble Lords who contributed. It has been an important and rather select debate on a fairly technical subject. That being so, I will try to pick up a number of points made by noble Lords, but if I do not cover them I will check to see whether I need to write with a more comprehensive answer. In particular, I might have to write to the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, on some of his points.

As today’s discussion has highlighted, central counterparties, or CCPs, are critical parts of the financial infrastructure. Their purpose is to stand between the counterparties trading a financial instrument, guaranteeing that if one of those counterparties defaults on its obligations, the other will receive what it is due. They perform the function of a firewall, preventing contagion and increasing market confidence. They are more important than they have ever been, as has been noted. In 2009, the G20 agreed to mandate the use of CCPs in over-the-counter derivatives as appropriate. Fifty per cent of the global over-the-counter interest rate derivatives market—the largest segment of the OTC derivatives market—is now cleared through CCPs.

This is one of the key post-crisis reforms, which the Government fully supports. Its implication, as noble Lords have recognised, is that CCPs are increasingly systemically important. Therefore, I would like to set out the steps that have been taken here in the UK to ensure their resilience and that—in the unlikely event of a CCP’s failure—the authorities have the powers to step in to minimise the impact on financial stability.

As noble Lords will be aware, the coalition Government acted as soon as they came into office to overhaul the UK’s regulatory architecture, and a key part of this was to put the Bank of England in charge of the supervision of financial market infrastructures, including CCPs. The Bank of England has met this new responsibility by creating a special financial market infrastructures directorate that reports directly to the deputy governor for financial stability, and a dedicated decision-making committee. The FMI function reports annually to Parliament on its work.

In supervising CCPs, the Bank holds them to exacting requirements that are consistent with international standards, as implemented in the EU through the European Market Infrastructure Regulation. Each CCP must collect sufficient collateral from each user to ensure that if that user defaults the CCP has ready funding to cover its obligations to its counterparties. Over and above this, CCPs must maintain a pre-funded “default fund” to cover any losses due to a defaulting user which are not covered by the collateral that has been posted to the CCP by that user. They must hold enough own-capital, collateral and default fund assets to enable the CCP to withstand, under,

“extreme but plausible market conditions”,

the simultaneous default of the two users to which it is most heavily exposed.

That is already a tough requirement yet, as UK regulation requires, all UK CCPs go significantly further than this and have in place rules which ensure that if the default fund were ever exhausted, the CCP could require its users to make substantial cash contributions to ensure that the CCP continues to perform an uninterrupted service. A raft of other requirements covers CCPs’ risk management, operational capital, governance, liquidity and other arrangements. Noble Lords should understand that CCPs are regulated in this country to strict standards designed to ensure that they are highly resilient. For example, when Lehman Brothers failed, it went through only 35% of the margin held by its biggest CCP.

The chances of a CCP failure are reduced still further by the significant capital and other reforms that have been enacted here and elsewhere to enhance the robustness of global banks and to develop arrangements to resolve failed banks, the CCPs’ biggest users, in a way that avoids them defaulting on their obligations to a CCP.

However, it is, of course, not theoretically impossible that a CCP could fail and it is essential that the Government are prepared. For this reason, in 2012 the Government passed legislation to ensure that the Bank of England can intervene to resolve a failing CCP in a way similar to how it can intervene to resolve a failing bank by transferring a CCP or its property to either a private sector purchaser, a bridge CCP owned by the Bank of England or any other person. The UK moved ahead of the rest of the world in introducing this legislation. In answer to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, international work is seeking to ensure that the necessary powers and standards in this area are enhanced and adopted globally. The Government and the Bank of England are playing a leading role in these discussions at EU level, in the Financial Stability Board, of which the governor, Mark Carney, is the chairman, and through the CPMI-IOSCO group of global regulators. The EU Commission itself is represented on the relevant groups in the FSB.

International standards on recovery and resolution are critical to prevent UK banks being exposed when using overseas CCPs and to ensure a level international playing field for CCPs. There is also further work taking place in the areas of stress testing of financial resources, margin requirements, which I will say a bit about later in answer to the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, and liquidity requirements to enhance CCP resilience further.

Given London’s leadership in this area—we have globally significant CCPs here, such as LCH.Clearnet Ltd and ICE Clear Europe—noble Lords will understand that it is essential that these standards are developed in co-ordination with the other major jurisdictions to ensure that CCPs in the EU are not put at a competitive disadvantage to those located elsewhere. This is a key priority for the Government going forward.

The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, asked about recovery and resolution on CCPs. UK CCPs are required to produce recovery plans. In addition, the UK has a resolution regime for CCPs allowing the Bank of England to transfer some or all of the business of a CCP to a private purchaser, as I mentioned, and to transfer ownership of the CCP to another person.

As far as international developments are concerned, in October 2014 international central banks and regulators published guidelines on CCP recovery and resolution: the CPMI-IOSCO report Recovery of Financial Market Infrastructures and the annexe on FMI resolution in the Financial Stability Board’s Key Attributes of Effective Resolution Regimes for Financial Institutions. The European Commission continues to work on the legislative proposal regarding CCP recovery and resolution, which has not yet been published. This will supplement the resolution tools already available to the Bank under the UK resolution regime.

The noble Baroness also asked about stress testing. In October, the Bank of England said that it is considering explicitly including CCPs in its wider stress testing of the financial system over the medium term. She mentioned dark pools, which are something that the Bank of England is thinking about. Previously, non-standardised OTC derivatives presented a significant potential risk to the financial system due to the leverage risk exposures they presented to market counterparties and to their opacity. International standards have been developed and are being implemented that require counterparties to derivative trades that are not subject to central clearing to exchange margin to cover those exposures. Uncleared derivative exposures are also considered in the higher capital leverage requirements European banks will be required to meet. With regard to the transparency of these products, all derivatives trades by EU counterparties have to be reported to regulated trade repositories.

As far as the use of block chain, which is an interesting new development, this distributed ledger technology may represent a change in how payment systems work—indeed, it does represent a change in how payment systems work—but the use of this technology is currently very small. The Bank of England as supervisor of payment systems would continue to monitor its application.

On risk of contagion and greater price volatility from CCPs’ actions, are the scale of risks and extent understood? Banks are now far more resilient and both they and their supervisors will assess the risk against the CCP, exercising its assessment rights in full. As far as price volatility is concerned, international policy developments on recovery and resolution in particular are considering the adequacy of tools, including the impact of these tools on clearing members and clients.

The noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, asked what progress we are making on reducing interconnectedness between CCPs. Of course the whole point is that they are interconnected, so the Financial Stability Board, a global body, is undertaking work on interconnectedness and how these risks may be mitigated. The FSB will report by the end of 2016.

The noble Lords, Lord Tunnicliffe and Lord Sharkey, asked whether there was sufficient co-ordination on international standards for CCPs. We think co-ordination at an international level is working well, which is obviously very important. It is important for both financial stability purposes and for the competitiveness of the EU that CCPs are able to operate on an international level playing field.

The noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, asked about the Senior Managers and Certification Regime, which we are hoping to apply in the Bank of England Bill. This will not apply to CCPs because these bodies are not authorised persons under the Financial Services and Markets Act. They have always been subjected to a specialist regime. The SMCR will not apply to them, but governance is a key focus of the Bank of England in its supervision of CCPs to ensure that commercial objectives are not inappropriately prioritised over systemic risk management, building on the PRA’s work during 2014 on governance, banks and insurers. The Bank of England does have the right powers to hold CCP senior managers to account.

Lastly—I am running out of time—do we think that the concept of “too big to fail” applies to CCPs? Well, they can clearly be systemic. This is not only due to the significant exposures, but more importantly because of their critical role in the operation of markets. That is why we have introduced legislation to establish a resolution framework for CCPs, and why we support the international and EU reforms to enhance the resilience of CCPs.

I apologise for not answering all the different questions, and I will definitely write to all noble Lords who have participated. I would like to thank again the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, for securing this debate. I hope that I have shown in the limited time available that we do have a robust regime in place, but that the Bank and the Government are not complacent and are still working to develop national and international standards.

[Baroness Kramer]

My Lords, I would like thank all the Members who took part in this—my noble friend Lord Sharkey and the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe—and to say to the Minister that we appreciate the efforts that he made to respond and look forward to the further Written Answers.

House adjourned at 6.43 pm.