House of Commons

Monday 14th December 2015 Commons Chamber

Monday 14 December 2015

The House met at half-past Two o’clock

Prayers

Monday 14th December 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions

Monday 14th December 2015 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[Graham Evans (Weaver Vale) (Con)]

1. What support his Department is providing to the northern powerhouse initiative.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (James Wharton)]

The northern powerhouse is a project that runs across a number of Government Departments. The contribution made by this Department includes: the local growth funds, 11 of which are worth nearly £3 billion; the £400 million northern powerhouse investment fund; the devolution deals being agreed right across the north of England; and, of course, the doubling of the enterprise zones in the northern powerhouse announced in the spending review by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

[Graham Evans]

Earlier this year, the Government invested over £113 million in high-performance computing in my constituency at the Hartree Centre, a joint venture between the Science and Technology Facilities Council and IBM bringing high skill, high wage jobs to Weaver Vale. Does my hon. Friend agree that investment in technology and science is key to the growth of the northern powerhouse?

[James Wharton]

I commend my hon. Friend’s important and significant work in this area. He is a passionate advocate for his constituency and for investment in it. This is just one more example of Government investment in the north to build the northern powerhouse and rebalance our economy. As we saw in the autumn statement, science and innovation spending is being protected. We are investing in the economic growth of the future. This is a great example of that and my hon. Friend deserves commendation for the work he has done to deliver it.

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

Will this Government stop patronising the north? We are a powerhouse. Give us the investment in infrastructure. We are the people who still make things in this country. We make the wealth of this country. Many people in this part of the world—London and the south—live parasitically on our efforts. Stop patronising, start investing!

[James Wharton]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s enthusiasm for the northern powerhouse project. The Government recognise the potential of the north to drive our economy. The north can make a difference if it is invested in, and, crucially, if the people of the north are given real control over their own future. That is what we are doing. That is what the devolution agenda is about and what some of the investments I spoke of are about. We are going to deliver it. It will make a real difference to his constituents and to mine.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

What support are the Government giving to small businesses in the northern powerhouse area to ensure that they benefit from all the procurements that will come from it?

[James Wharton]

The hon. Lady raises an important point. The £400 million northern powerhouse investment fund will be targeted specifically at small and medium-sized enterprises. Growth hubs across the north are driving that investment and giving that support. We want our big industries to succeed and drive forward our economy, but our small and medium-sized enterprises are important too. We want to invest in them and give local people the controls they need to ensure they can reach their potential.

[Alison Thewliss]

The Minister will be aware that the Scottish Government procure 46% from small and medium -sized enterprises compared to the UK Government’s 26%. Will he look at the Glasgow and Clyde Valley city deal, which has a supplier development programme to encourage SMEs?

[James Wharton]

City deals can be key drivers for growth. I welcome those that have already been agreed and we continue to have talks, including with some of the great cities and city regions in Scotland, on where we can go further and what more we can do. I hope we can deliver more in due course, because we can already see the difference the deals are making.

[Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab)]

On behalf of the whole House, we thank all hard-pressed and often low-paid council staff and others who even now are helping those areas of the north so badly affected by the recent flooding.

In contrast to the rhetoric about the northern powerhouse, the Office for National Statistics recently reported that the north is falling further behind as a result of under-investment and that it is getting worse. The average Londoner now produces £42,000 a year added value, while in the north-east the average is only £18,000. In the place of more cuts, will the Minister now include specific, substantial and urgent northern investment in his local government settlement later this week?

[James Wharton]

The hon. Gentleman raises the important point that our economy has for too long been unbalanced. The whole point of the northern powerhouse project is to address that imbalance, ensuring we unlock the significant growth potential that exists across the north and the contribution the northern powerhouse can make to our economy. We can see, from a number of the announcements, that that investment is going in, but more importantly it is going in hand-in-hand with local control, giving control to the people who know best how to grow the economies of the north because they live in them and are part of them.

[Mr Speaker]

I call Mr Stephen Phillips. Not here. Oh dear. Where is the fellow?

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

3. What recent assessment he has made of the effect of changes to the level of funding for fire and rescue services on the effectiveness of those services.

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

6. If he will take steps to minimise future reductions in the budgets of fire and rescue services.

[The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Greg Clark)]

Fire authorities have continued to provide an excellent service while making sensible savings. The number of incidents is 42% lower than 10 years ago, while the number of fire deaths and injuries is at an all-time low.

[Andy McDonald]

The existing grant distribution formula disproportionately penalises grant-dependent authorities such as Cleveland, regardless of socioeconomic deficits, unparalleled levels of industrial risk and/or their efficient performance. What assessment will the Minister make to identify less efficient authorities that can make savings and, more importantly, what capacity grant-dependent authorities have to make further savings?

[Greg Clark]

I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the magnificent work of firefighters, who, with the other emergency services, council staff, engineers, the armed forces, and indeed the whole community, have worked tirelessly to protect and help people during the flooding in the north of England.

Over the past five years, fire authorities have had spending reductions of less than local authorities. I have given the hon. Gentleman figures showing how well they have performed and managed those cuts, and the National Audit Office has said that the picture is one of financial health. In Cleveland, for example, the fire authority’s spending power is £48 per head of the population, compared to the national average of £37. So that is reflected in the formula.

[Mr Cunningham]

The Minister mentioned the cuts to fire services over the years and said he took great pride in their work, particularly in places such as Cumberland, so I think he should award them a decent wage increase. What guarantee can he give that local fire and rescue services will not be negatively impacted if taken over by local police and crime commissioners?

[Greg Clark]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are consulting across the country on whether to remove barriers to better local collaboration between all the blue light services. Such collaboration would be initiated locally, where it is wanted, for the purposes of providing a better service, if those changes would help.

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

Will the Secretary of State confirm that greater collaboration between the fire service and the police service necessary to reduce costs will not end the distinction between firefighters and police officers?

[Greg Clark]

I can certainly confirm that. They are two distinct services with proud and distinct histories, but, as I think my hon. Friend would acknowledge, the opportunities for them to work together should be taken, whenever it could make a difference to people on the ground.

[Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)]

I was greatly encouraged by what the Secretary of State said about amalgamating services, particularly with local authorities. Wiltshire fire service has been in discussion with the first-class, Conservative-controlled Wiltshire Unitary Council. Will he encourage the fire service, which has also been negotiating with Dorset council, to seek to find areas of co-operation with Wiltshire council?

[Greg Clark]

That is a matter for the local services. The consultation proposes requiring that those discussions take place, but it is up to them what they conclude.

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

I also pay tribute to the magnificent response of fire and rescue services to the floods in Cumbria and other northern areas. Fire and rescue services are rescuing people, pumping out water from flooded high streets and homes and rescuing livestock, thus limiting damage to rural communities, yet all those fire and rescue services have suffered cuts over the last five years. We have lost nearly 7,000 firefighters—one in eight—and equipment and appliances have been cut by more than 12% in metropolitan fire and rescue services. The fire service is at a key juncture. It is not safe, effective or efficient simply to keep cutting resources. Does the Secretary of State agree that more cuts will further damage the service’s ability to meet the risk in local major incidents, such as the recent floods, and will he commit to providing adequate resources so that the service can continue to contribute to national resilience on the scale and at the speed the public expect?

[Greg Clark]

I would draw the hon. Lady’s attention to the National Audit Office report, which was published quite recently. It says that the picture to date is one of financial health and that

“fire authorities have not changed emergency response standards as a result of budget cuts”.

The evidence is that all but one stand-alone fire authority increased its reserves by 67% in real terms from 2010 to 2015. That tells me that the fire services are coping well with the reductions they have been invited to make.

[Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)]

I have lost confidence in the Staffordshire fire authority, which has decided to build a brand new fire station in Lichfield, but to reduce the number of appliances to half of what it is presently. Will my right hon. Friend work with Matthew Ellis, the police and crime in commissioner in Staffordshire, who has good, positive plans to combine the police and fire services for the betterment of the whole county?

[Greg Clark]

That is the purpose of the consultation that we have embarked on: to remove the barriers that have prevented that kind of collaboration. I am very interested in what my hon. Friend has to say about the proposals in Staffordshire.

[Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)]

4. What assessment he has made of the adequacy of Government investment in affordable housing.

[Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)]

13. What recent progress his Department has made on increasing the provision of affordable housing.

[Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)]

18. What assessment he has made of the adequacy of Government investment in affordable housing.

[The Minister for Housing and Planning (Brandon Lewis)]

We have successfully delivered 270,000 affordable homes since 2010. More specifically, the 2011 to 2015 affordable homes programme delivered 193,000 affordable homes, exceeding expectations by some 23,000.

[Louise Haigh]

It is no surprise that the Minister is so keen to crow about his numbers of affordable homes, but I can assure him that, in Sheffield, £250,000 is not considered affordable. Will he therefore introduce a statutory definition of affordability based on average income, not market rate?

[Brandon Lewis]

I think the hon. Lady is referring to the maximum price for a starter home. If she looks, she will see that the average paid by first-time buyers is dramatically lower, which, along with the 20% discount we are introducing for starter homes linked to Help to Buy, makes buying a home affordable again for more people.

[Mr Walker]

In Worcester, according to city council figures, 260 new affordable homes were delivered in the last financial year, a record for any year since 1997. That record was delivered by a Conservative administration the year after a Labour-Liberal Democrat coalition delivered just 76 new affordable homes. Please can the Minister advise us how he will support well led councils such as Worcester to keep delivering more affordable homes?

[Brandon Lewis]

My hon. Friend gives a good example of a good, well run local authority delivering housing for its constituents. We are determined to stand by those authorities and work with them. That is why I am delighted that the Chancellor committed a further £8 billion in the spending review to deliver 400,000 affordable homes across the country.

[Wes Streeting]

Given that average property prices in London have exceeded half a million pounds, first-time buyers will need to earn at least £70,000 a year to buy their first home. Does the Minister consider that affordable and, if not, what effective action will he take to put home ownership within the reach of the many and not just the few at the top?

[Brandon Lewis]

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman is now joining our call to build more homes that are affordable for people. Starts are up some 57% in his constituency since 2010, which is a good start, but we want to go even further. That is why we want to deliver more shared ownership, giving people a wider opportunity to get on the housing ladder, along with the 20% discount on starter homes through Help to Buy on just a 5% deposit.

[Mr Mark Prisk (Hertford and Stortford) (Con)]

Some Opposition Members believe that homes can be made more affordable, particularly in London for example, by returning to the bad old days of rent controls. Will the Minister assure me and many other Members of the House that the Government have no intention of giving powers to any future Mayor to reintroduce rent controls in London?

[Brandon Lewis]

As my hon. Friend will know, we are very keen to see more and more localism and devolution of power, but I am happy to tell him that this Government will not allow us to fall into the trap that Labour often encourages people to fall into. The reality is that rent controls simply drive supply down and end up increasing rents, so we are very much against them and they will not be allowed under this Government.

[John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)]

The Minister has talked about extra housing investment, and I would not want him or the Chancellor, who has said the same thing, to mislead the House. After the Chancellor’s autumn statement, the annual housing investment from the Government will be £1.7 billion. Under the money inherited in 2010 from Labour, it was £3.1 billion—not an increase, but a cut; not a doubling, but almost a halving. Does the Minister agree, therefore, that this must be the reason why his Government have built 30,000 fewer affordable homes to buy via shared ownership than Labour did in our last five years?

[Brandon Lewis]

I am somewhat surprised that the right hon. Gentleman should ask a question of that type, bearing in mind that he was the Minister who oversaw the lowest level of housing starts in this country since the 1920s. What the Chancellor has now done has meant that this Government are overseeing the biggest building programme in about 30 years.

[John Healey]

The Minister is wrong on the big picture as well. Under our national affordable housing programme, the number of homes built each year was bigger than under the last Government when he was the Minister. The hard truth is that for so many people, the dream of buying their own home is totally unaffordable and out of reach. Now the hon. Gentleman plans to fiddle the figures again by changing the definition of “affordable” to include so-called “starter homes” that can be sold at up to £450,000. Will he at least agree with Labour and the Building Societies Association, whose members will lend for these homes, that the discount on these starter homes should be permanent, not a cash windfall at the end of five years, but there for the next generation of first-time buyers as well?

[Brandon Lewis]

I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman and I have a big disagreement on this. He seems to want to stop property owners having the right to deal with their property in the way that any other property owner would, but we want to support people who aspire to own their own home. That is why we want to keep building more homes generally and keep building more homes for people at that discount rate for first-time buyers. We are proud that under the Conservative-led coalition during the last Parliament, we oversaw an increase in affordable homes—unlike the loss of 420,000 that we saw under 13 years of Labour.

[Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con)]

5. What steps his Department is taking to (a) support shared ownership and (b) help people to buy a home.

[The Minister for Housing and Planning (Brandon Lewis)]

The autumn statement confirmed £8 billion for over 400,000 affordable homes, including 135,000 new shared ownership homes and £2.3 billion towards delivering 200,000 starter homes. Our Help to Buy ISA scheme, launched on 1 December, means that we have a Help to Buy equity loan scheme as well, which is being extended through to 2020-21. That means that just a 40% equity is being provided by the Government for people in London, and that will be launched in 2016.

[Mary Robinson]

I was very pleased recently to attend the opening of Prospect House in Cheadle Hulme—a brand new development of 11 apartments available for shared ownership, and I welcome further measures introduced by the Government to expand this scheme. What steps is the Minister taking to encourage local authorities to build more shared ownership housing and ensure that these developments utilise brownfield sites?

[Brandon Lewis]

I am happy to respond. We will relax or remove local authority restrictions to shared ownership to make it easier for people to find the right home for their families. Brownfield land has an important role in meeting housing need, and we are committed to ensuring that 90% of suitable brownfield sites have planning permission for housing by 2020.

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

7. What assessment he has made of trends in the number of homes built for social rent since 2010.

[The Minister for Housing and Planning (Brandon Lewis)]

Since 2010, we have delivered 270,000 affordable homes, including nearly 200,000 homes for rent. The majority of rented homes, delivered through the affordable homes programme, are for affordable rent, delivering more homes for every pound of Government investment. The spending review committed some £1.7 billion to deliver 100,000 affordable rented homes.

[Mr Betts]

Let me draw the Minister’s attention to the question I asked, which was about social rented housing, not affordable rented housing. Will he confirm that during the last Parliament, the only social rented houses built had been funded before the 2010 general election, and that there is no funding at all for social rented housing in the comprehensive spending review for this Parliament? Does the Minister accept that the combination of the policies of Right to Buy for housing association tenants and the sell-off of high-value council properties means fewer social rented homes being available for people and longer waits on the waiting list for those people who want one?

[Brandon Lewis]

Actually, there was a 70% increase in social housing waiting lists under the last Labour Administration, and thanks to the flexibilities we have created, it has fallen. We also saw more social council housing built in the last Parliament than in the entire 13 years of Labour Government before that, and there is still over £2 billion of headroom in the housing revenue account for local authorities to go further and build more. I encourage them to do so.

[Dr Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)]

The building of genuinely affordable homes for social rent in this country has plummeted, and no matter how much the Minister tries to dress up the Government’s record, his Department’s figures are clear and speak for themselves. In 2010, more than 38,000 homes were built for social rent, but by 2014-15, that figure was a truly dismal 9,500. The Housing and Planning Bill makes it virtually impossible to build homes for social rent. There was also the disgraceful sneaking out last week of proposals to end secure tenancies for local authority tenants. What exactly do this Government have against people who rely on social housing to make ends meet, and when is the Minister going to address the huge shortfall in social housing units?

[Brandon Lewis]

As I said a few moments ago, in the last five years of Conservative government more council homes were built than in the entire 13 years of Labour government, during which the number of affordable homes dropped by 420,000. There is still more than £2 billion of borrowing headroom enabling local authorities to build more. We have made it clear that we will help all those who aspire to own their own homes by extending the right to buy and delivering starter homes throughout the country.

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

9. What assessment he has made of the effect of policies in the spending review and autumn statement 2015 on his Department's expenditure on policies and services which in Scotland are devolved to the Scottish Government.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (James Wharton)]

As the hon. Gentleman will know, the services of this Department are devolved to Scotland, so there are Barnett consequentials of spending decisions that affect the Department. As a result of the spending review, the Scottish Government’s capital budget will increase by 14%.

[Alan Brown]

The Chancellor confirmed in the autumn statement the extension of the right to buy to housing associations, thereby effectively privatising them. As we all know, the existing right to buy has decimated social housing stock throughout the United Kingdom. The Scottish Government recognised that, and abolished the right to buy. Given that the new discounts and the so-called one-for-one replacements are not being financed by additional Government funding, will the Minister explain what effect the Chancellor’s proposals will have on housing in Scotland?

[James Wharton]

The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the policy intention to replace homes on a basis of at least one for one, which is greatly welcomed by Conservative Members. As I have said, the spending review will have a Barnett consequentials impact on the Scottish Government’s capital budget, amounting to £1.9 billion, which is in addition to the borrowing powers they already have. That will enable them to deliver on what they want to do for Scotland—just as we want to deliver on our objectives and manifesto priorities in England and Wales.

[Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)]

10. What steps he is taking to ensure that new developments do not affect the risk of flooding to existing properties.

[The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Greg Clark)]

There are strict tests in national planning policy to protect people and property from flooding, which all councils are expected to follow. They include ensuring that new development does not increase flood risk elsewhere.

[Mr Robertson]

In my experience, the Environment Agency often does not object to a planning application even when the area on which building is proposed floods, and especially when other areas could be caused to flood by the development in question. Will the Secretary of State look into the agency’s policies and practice in this regard?

[Greg Clark]

I will certainly do that. I recognise my hon. Friend’s constituency experience, and, indeed, his expertise as vice-chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on flood prevention. However, the national planning policy framework states that any new application in an area of flooding risk

“must demonstrate that the development will be safe for its lifetime…without increasing flood risk elsewhere, and, where possible, will reduce flood risk overall.”

That test must be passed for the development to be permitted.

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

Is it not time to recognise the fantastic work that firefighters do in dealing with floods, and to make it a statutory duty for fire and rescue services to respond to flooding?

[Greg Clark]

I am grateful for the opportunity that the hon. Gentleman offers me to pay tribute again to the fantastic work that is being done in the north of England, and which has, over the years, been done throughout the country at times when such emergencies occur. I will bear in mind what he has said, and it will be considered during our future discussions.

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

Loyn bridge, in Gressingham—which is in my constituency —has been partly washed away, and the roads on either side of it have caved in because of the flooding. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that everything will be done to ensure that the repairs are completed as quickly as possible, as the bridge is the main thoroughfare across the Lune valley?

[Greg Clark]

I will indeed. I note the leadership that my hon. Friend has shown in, and with, his community in responding to those conditions. We are determined to ensure that things are put right with the greatest dispatch, and we are working closely with the authorities throughout the area. The funds that have been made available so far will allow an assessment of what is required for restoration to be made, which will be followed by the repairs themselves.

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

Does the Secretary of State think it is right that the Government are helping new people buy their own home under the Help to Buy scheme, but those very same people will not be eligible for flood insurance under Flood Re, which his Government are introducing in April?

[Greg Clark]

The negotiation with the insurance companies has been very clear: we want to make sure that everyone in the country can benefit from the insurance that gives them peace of mind when they buy a new property.

[Michelle Donelan (Chippenham) (Con)]

11. What plans his Department has to increase the role of local communities in planning decisions.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr Marcus Jones)]

Over 1,700 communities are preparing neighbourhood plans to shape development in their area. These will form part of the development plan and be used to determine planning applications. The Housing and Planning Bill reforms will speed up and simplify the process and allow communities better to engage in local planning.

[Michelle Donelan]

The Minister will be aware that the planning inspector has deferred a decision on Chippenham’s housing development plan and has asked Wiltshire council to come back after a few queries. During this time, what measures could be put in place to ensure we do not have a free-for-all of aggressive planning applications against the best interests of the strategy of the town?

[Mr Jones]

Having a five-year land supply in place puts local planning authorities in a strong position to resist unwanted development. Furthermore, national planning policy reiterates the importance of sustainable development, not development anywhere or at any cost, and I am sure my hon. Friend’s local authority is well aware of that when making decisions.

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

Last Thursday at business questions I raised the case of Porlock avenue in Audenshaw in my constituency, where a small semi-detached property that is now privately rented has been converted into a house of multiple occupation as part of the asylum dispersal programme. Does the Minister understand the dismay of the neighbours of this property that the owners are able to circumvent planning and licensing regulations because there will be only five people housed in the property?

[Mr Jones]

I cannot comment on an individual case without knowing all the facts, but I refer the hon. Gentleman to the measures in the Housing and Planning Bill, particularly those in relation to dealing with rogue landlords.

[Victoria Prentis (Banbury) (Con)]

The interpretation of neighbourhood plans appears to be causing difficulties, in particular in the beautiful village of Hook Norton in my constituency. Will the Minister meet me to discuss how villagers can ensure the neighbourhood plan is adhered to?

[Mr Jones]

And a great village Hook Norton is, and it is the home to a fantastic brewery. I hear what my hon. Friend says and I will certainly undertake to meet her, or I am sure my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning will.

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

Local communities in York desperately need family housing built for social rent on the 35-hectare York central site, yet we hear that high-value flats are going to be placed on that site. Will the Minister listen to local communities and ensure their voice is prioritised?

[Mr Jones]

This Government have demonstrated that we want local people to have a strong voice through neighbourhood planning. The issue the hon. Lady mentions is on the record, and her local planning authority should be listening to the concerns and comments of local residents.

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

In council areas where there is no adopted local plan, local communities are continually let down by the planning process. Will my hon. Friend consider allowing objectors the right of appeal?

[Mr Jones]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. By 2017 we will make sure all areas have a local plan in place. The Housing and Planning Bill sets out in some detail how we are going to achieve that.

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

12. What recent progress has been made on the proposed Inverness city region deal.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (James Wharton)]

The Government, along with the Scottish Government, are working with Highland Council to identify the opportunities for an Inverness and Highland city region deal. The discussions are ongoing. They are positive and constructive. I hope they will lead to the outcome that I am sure the hon. Gentleman hopes for. He is absolutely right to raise this important issue. City deals can be a great driver for growth; they can help us realise economic potential, and that is what we want to see.

[Drew Hendry]

Highland Council has submitted a detailed and innovative plan for city deal investment, with the support of the Scottish Government. Will the Minister commit to advancing discussions, and will he indicate a timescale for finalising the process to allow the deal to get under way?

[James Wharton]

Discussions are already under way. Officials met local representatives on 2 December and will continue to work through the plans to ensure that they are robust, that they deliver what is needed, that they meet the requirements that we place on such deals and that they have the support they need to continue. We wish to see them progress positively. That is the strongest assurance I can give the hon. Gentleman at this time, because of course those things need to be done properly and thoroughly before plans are taken forward.

[Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)]

14. What steps he is taking to ensure that the funding model for local government is fair.

[The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Greg Clark)]

I will shortly be presenting to the House the local government financial settlement for 2016-17. I will set out how we will deliver a sustainable settlement for that year and later years and pave the way for future reforms to fund vital services, promote growth and efficiency and devolve power and resources, just as local government has requested.

[Margaret Greenwood]

Research by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation shows that since 2010-11 the areas of greatest need in England have seen the largest cuts in local government funding, breaking the historic link between the amount that a local authority spends per head and local deprivation levels. Over the past five years, councils such as Wirral have had severe cuts to their funding, whereas other areas have seen an increase. Forecasts suggest that Wirral will lose at least £126 million by 2020. What will the Government do to ensure that funding for local authorities genuinely reflects the needs of the people who live in the area?

[Greg Clark]

The hon. Lady should wait to see what the settlement has in store, but she should know from the past few years that Wirral’s spending power, at £2,240 per dwelling, is 7% above the national average. Her council has reserves of £80 million, a third higher than they were in 2010. It is important that she bears that in mind.

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

20. People in rural areas such as my constituents pay an average of £80 more in council tax than those elsewhere, yet they receive about £130 less in central Government funding, which has an impact on local services. Does the Secretary of State agree that it is time to look for a fairer funding formula for all taxpayers?

[Greg Clark]

I recognise that the cost of delivering services is higher in areas with a sparse population, for obvious reasons. The rural services delivery grant was introduced to reflect that extra cost, and it has since been increased. I will obviously have to bear that in mind when we assess what is needed in the financial settlement.

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

It is a year since a National Audit Office report found that the Department for Communities and Local Government had limited understanding of local authorities’ financial sustainability. Does the Secretary of State understand the unsustainability of high percentage, across the board cuts in low tax base authorities, and the fact that the complete removal of revenue support grant and the retention of all business rates without national redistribution will drive those authorities into the ground?

[Greg Clark]

I would have thought that the hon. Lady, as a former council leader, would be in a position to welcome the spending review settlement, which not only provided protection in cash terms for the resources available to local government over the four years ahead but did what local government requested and made money available for the care of the elderly through the social care precept. I would have thought that her experience caused her to welcome that.

[Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

Will the Secretary of State ensure that the settlement reflects the pressures on top-tier authorities from adult social care costs, and particularly that it restates the opportunities for greater integration of health and adult social care spend, as supported by, for example, the London Borough of Bromley?

[Greg Clark]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In advance of the spending review I had a communication from the Local Government Association estimating that the gap, if unaddressed, would be £2.9 billion. In the spending review settlement the Chancellor allocated £3.5 billion, to reflect the need to help our elderly population. That was a significant result for local government. As we come to make the settlement for individual authorities, we will ensure that that is in the hands of local people.

[Mr Steve Reed (Croydon North) (Lab)]

At least 340 unaccompanied child asylum seekers disappeared in this country between January and September, which is twice as many as did so in the calendar year before. That leaves them at terrifying risk of abuse, sexual exploitation and radicalisation. Councils say that funding cuts mean they do not have the resources properly to protect these incredibly vulnerable children, so why are the Government going ahead with a further cut to the unaccompanied child asylum seeker grant?

[Greg Clark]

These are important statutory responsibilities of local authorities and it is vital that they discharge them. Through the spending review settlement, the Chancellor has made available funds to local government that make sure that the cash settlement by the end of the spending review period is the same as it is at the beginning. That is a positive result for local government.

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

15. What recent estimate he has made of the number of local authorities that have resettled Syrian refugees.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Refugees (Richard Harrington)]

The number of local authorities that have resettled Syrian refugees changes frequently, as more Syrians arrive for resettlement in the UK. Although it is not practical to give a running commentary on the number of local authorities participating in the scheme, I can confirm that at the beginning of December about 50 local authorities had confirmed places before Christmas.

[Roger Mullin]

Does the Minister share my concerns about the rise of Islamophobia in the country, fuelled by the right-wing press? Will he issue guidance to local authorities and community organisations on how best to deal with it and to support refugees?

[Richard Harrington]

Of course I share the hon. Gentleman’s concern about Islamophobia. All I can say is that I have found nothing but a warm welcome from all parts of the UK for the refugees who have arrived in this country, and I am certain that will continue.

[John Pugh (Southport) (LD)]

A lot of local authorities, including my Sefton authority in the north-west, are seemingly confused about their role. Is there anything the Minister can do to add clarity and hurry things along?

[Richard Harrington]

Our dealings with local authorities vary very much, depending on the particular cases. We do not have any power to insist that refugees go to certain places, but we are working with county councils, district councils and metropolitan borough areas. The system is therefore very flexible, and all I can say is that at the moment it has been working very well, because the number of places that have been offered is broadly equivalent to the number of refugees arriving.

[Chris Heaton-Harris (Daventry) (Con)]

16. What weight his Department gives to neighbourhood plans when assessing planning developments at the appeal stage.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (James Wharton)]

Planning appeals are determined in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Once brought into force, a neighbourhood plan is part of the development plan.

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

As the Minister will know, a few weeks ago the villagers of Earls Barton were trooping to the polls to vote on the referendum on their neighbourhood plan, at the very same time as the Secretary of State was allowing a housing planning appeal in their area. After all the work my constituents have put in, what assurance can the Minister give them that this work on neighbourhood plans will be worth while?

[James Wharton]

I recognise my hon. Friend’s diligent commitment to representing the views of his constituents and taking an interest in local matters, including this one. He will appreciate that I cannot comment on individual planning cases, but neighbourhood plans are, where appropriate, given significant weight, and individual decision letters will set out why there is a difference and why a neighbourhood plan has been departed from. The Secretary of State will always give appropriate weight to neighbourhood plans, which are an important part of our planning process and of localism. We welcome them and we want to see more agreed.

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

19. What assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the local government grant formula in directing funding to areas of need.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr Marcus Jones)]

We will shortly present our proposals for a sustainable and fair 2016-17 local government finance settlement to the House. We propose to continue our approach of transforming local authorities from being dependent on grant to benefiting from promoting local growth.

[Helen Hayes]

Spending on adult social care has fallen by £65 per person in the most deprived communities, whereas it has increased by £28 per person in the least deprived. In one of the councils I represent, the estimated shortfall in adult social care funding following the comprehensive spending review is £20 million, of which £2 million can be raised by increasing council tax by 2%. Is it not true that allowing an extra 2% rise in council tax merely devolves the blame without fixing the problem?

[Mr Jones]

In the provisional local government settlement that will come very shortly, we will announce changes to the local government finance system to rebalance support, including to those authorities with adult social care responsibilities, by taking into account the main resources available to councils, including council tax and business rates.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

21. What recent progress has been made on the proposed Edinburgh city deal.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (James Wharton)]

We are speaking with Edinburgh and south-east Scotland to look at proposals for a city deal there. It is welcome that so many parts of Scotland are keen to be part of the process of delivering city deals. We must ensure that, when they are agreed, they are agreed in such a way that will drive economic growth, and that is exactly what we are doing.

[Peter Grant]

Despite the obvious wealth that exists in some parts of Edinburgh and south-east Scotland, there are also significant areas of very severe deprivation. Some 21% of children in the proposed city region live in poverty just now. The economy of the area has not been helped over the past few months by Government decisions on renewables. Rather than just talking about this deal, will the Minister tell us what the timescale is, first, for a decision and, secondly, for actual action on it?

[James Wharton]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about the diverse nature of the area about which he talks. We see great potential for growth across Edinburgh and south-east Scotland. We want to ensure that we can realise that potential and deliver that growth. We will continue to have talks, which have been productive and are constructive, with interested parties on the city deal. We will continue to work constructively to deliver that city deal if it can be delivered in the right way. These things must be decided properly and after due consideration. That is the process that is currently under way.

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

22. What plans he has to tackle landlords who knowingly rent out unsafe and substandard accommodation.

[The Minister for Housing and Planning (Brandon Lewis)]

The Housing and Planning Bill contains measures to tackle and go further with rogue landlords than anything we have had before. We want to rule out rogue landlords who rent out substandard accommodation and to do all we can to ensure that tenants have a good and safe environment. Our proposals include a database of rogue landlords and letting agents, banning orders for serious or repeat offenders, a tougher fit and proper person test, extending rent repayment orders and introducing civil penalties.

[Cat Smith]

Over the past five years, despite the poor quality of many privately rented homes, rents have soared and they are now a fifth higher than they were in 2010. Why are the Government not taking any steps in their new Housing and Planning Bill to help private renters with these soaring rents?

[Brandon Lewis]

If the hon. Lady looks at the private rented sector over the past five years, she will see that its increases are, on average, lower than the increases in the social housing sector, hence our reason for the changes in the Budget. We are going a lot further than ever before in cracking down on rogue landlords, whom everyone across the House would like to see put out of business.

[Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)]

An important part of protecting tenants is ensuring that landlords understand their obligations and that tenants understand the remedies that are available. What action is the Department taking to ensure that tenants and landlords understand their rights and responsibilities?

[Brandon Lewis]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. Apart from the extra measures that we are taking in the Housing and Planning Bill, in which we will do all that we can to publicise to tenants what they need to be aware of so that they know what to expect, we have also published a guide for tenants, so they can clearly understand their rights and what to expect from a good quality landlord. We should be clear that the majority of landlords offer an excellent service and that tenants are happy with them.

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

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

[The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Greg Clark)]

At the start of topical questions before Christmas, may I wish everyone a very happy Christmas across the country?

Since our last oral questions, the spending review has announced the biggest affordable house building programme by a Government since the 1970s, delivering at least 400,000 affordable homes, and has confirmed that resources available to local government will be maintained in cash terms until 2020. We have agreed devolution deals with Liverpool and the west midlands. We have completed the Committee stage of the Housing and Planning Bill and Third Reading of the Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill. We will continue to develop new devolution deals with communities in order to devolve more power and resources right across the country.

[Oliver Colvile]

As my right hon. Friend might know, I am running a campaign to try to save the hedgehog. Will he ask his Department to provide guidance to local authorities on how to make gardens in new-builds more hedgehog-friendly and ensure that we can have a hedgehog superhighway?

[Greg Clark]

I know that this is a prickly issue for my hon. Friend, so let me come straight to the point. I will not be issuing guidance on the protection of hedgehogs, but I draw Members’ attention to the excellent publications of the British Hedgehog Preservation Society. I recommend its guide to looking after hedgehogs to any hon. Member who wishes to curl up this Christmas and read it.

[Mr Speaker]

The words “hedgehog superhighway” did not trip off the Secretary of State’s tongue, but I feel sure that he is preserving them for another occasion.

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

T3. Will the Secretary of State explain why the very same councils that have the highest numbers of vulnerable children are also those that have seen the highest budget cuts under his Government?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr Marcus Jones)]

If the hon. Lady looks at the figures, it will be quite apparent that the local authorities with the highest spending power are those that she refers to. Councils will see a rise in their resources in cash terms over this Parliament, from £40.3 billion to £40.5 billion in 2019-20. The hon. Lady will shortly see the outcome of the local government finance settlement.

[Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con)]

T2. Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming plans submitted for the tearing down of the PowerGen building in Solihull—an eyesore that has blighted the lives of my constituents for a generation? It is being replaced by hundreds of new homes of many different types, including 260 badly needed assisted living apartments.

[The Minister for Housing and Planning (Brandon Lewis)]

My hon. Friend has given a really good example of a local authority making good use of brownfield land to provide the housing that its local community needs. I congratulate him on thinking properly and locally in that way.

[Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)]

T7. In a hasty attempt to reverse the Office for National Statistics decision to reclassify housing associations as “public”, Ministers were recently reported to be considering the sale of £44 billion of Government grant on housing association balance sheets to private investors. Housing associations have made it clear that they would strongly oppose such a move and David Orr, the chief executive of the National Housing Federation, has called it an “unhelpful distraction”. Will the Secretary of State assure the House and the housing association sector that the sale of Government grant on housing association balance sheets to private investors is not under consideration?

[Greg Clark]

Yes.

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

T4. Last year, Christchurch Borough Council’s local development plan was adopted with new green-belt boundaries. Will my right hon. Friend ensure public confidence in that plan by making it his policy to call in for his determination any application by a local authority to depart from the plan by giving itself planning permission to build on the very green belt that was so recently confirmed?

[Brandon Lewis]

My hon. Friend outlines an important point. It is absolutely right that once a local authority has its local plan in place, it should adhere to it. If his local authority dared take an opportunity to go outside the local plan, I am sure that my hon. Friend would be the first to ask me or the Secretary of State to consider the application.

[Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)]

T8. Crippling cuts have led to some local authorities having to close their local welfare assistance schemes altogether. Food banks in these areas are reporting increased need. Given that the Government are continually presiding over 5 million people living in food poverty, will the Secretary of State commit to protecting future funding and reinstating the local welfare ring fence?

[Greg Clark]

It is important that local authorities should take their local welfare responsibilities seriously. When we have the local government financial settlement, I am sure that the hon. Lady will be pleased to see that that continues to be recognised.

[Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con)]

T5. The people of Lincolnshire know what is best for the people of Lincolnshire. Will my right hon. Friend outline the benefits on offer in the current devolution deal and tell me how the Lincolnshire bid is going?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (James Wharton)]

My hon. Friend is, of course, well placed to represent the views of the people of Lincolnshire and he does it very effectively. The whole approach of the Government towards devolution is bottom up; it is about bespoke deals that recognise that areas are different and that local people know best the tools they need to drive economic improvement and improve lives for the communities that they represent. Discussions in Greater Lincolnshire are going well and include the issues of skills, transport, housing and water management. I hope they will conclude successfully and that a deal will be reached that will last for a very long time.

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

T9. What discussions has the Secretary of State had with the Business Secretary to explore how councils in steel communities can use imaginative and creative approaches to business rates to support the steel industry through this difficult time?

[Greg Clark]

I have had discussions with the Business Secretary and his colleagues. It is very important that we empower those local communities to be able to act in support of the businesses and the employees of those industries. Through the extension of the enterprise zone in Teesside, for example, the hon. Gentleman will see that practical support has been given to make sure that the prosperity of those regions continues to grow, despite these challenges.

[Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)]

T6. I am delighted to see the extra supply of affordable housing that will result from the Housing and Planning Bill, but a key to that is supply. Does my hon. Friend agree that the London Land Commission is crucial to this, and will he keep under review all the powers that it may need to ensure the supply of that land?

[Brandon Lewis]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. I am honoured to be joint chair of the London Land Commission and I can assure him that we will make sure that that land becomes available and plays its important part in delivering housing for the needs of London. Once we reach the 12-month point from when it starts, we will carry out a review to make sure that the commission has all the powers it needs to deliver on that promise.

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

T10. On Saturday I was out with Caroline Pidgeon, who is London Lib Dem mayoral candidate. We were campaigning on the subject of police community support officers. Will the Secretary of State talk to the Policing Minister about ensuring that PCSOs continue to play the essential role that they play in keeping our streets safe, particularly in boroughs such as Sutton, where we have the Safer Sutton Partnership, which joins the police and the local authority together?

[Greg Clark]

I am glad the right hon. Gentleman reminded us of the name of his candidate, because I think it had escaped many of us in the House. I am happy to confirm the importance of all our police officers, including PCSOs, in keeping our streets safe.

[Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)]

Simon Stevens has described social care funding as “unresolved business” from the spending review. Does the Secretary of State agree with him that it is time for a fundamental rethink about how we fund social care in the future?

[Greg Clark]

My hon. Friend, who has a deep and long-standing interest in the matter, will know that the funding of adult care needs to be done jointly between local councils and the NHS. The Health Secretary and I are working very closely to make sure that the funds that the Chancellor has made available are put to good use so that our elderly people are properly cared for, whether they are in the charge of councils or in our hospitals.

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

Do the Government have any plans for fresh initiatives, other than business improvement districts, to help traders in small suburban shopping centres, such as Stirchley in my constituency?

[Mr Marcus Jones]

This Government are doing a number of things to help the type of traders that the hon. Gentleman refers to. We have allowed sensible planning changes to allow local areas to respond more flexibly to changing market conditions on the high street. We are tackling over-zealous parking practices and I am working closely with retail organisations on the Future High Streets Forum to develop strategies that will enable our high streets and communities to meet the future needs of the consumer.

[Amanda Milling (Cannock Chase) (Con)]

I commend Staffordshire fire and rescue service for its work in fire prevention, which has contributed to a fall in call-outs, but does my right hon. Friend agree that further integration and collaboration between police, fire and other blue light services would help to identify vulnerable people more effectively, which would lead to better outcomes for the public and great efficiency savings?

[Greg Clark]

I agree that closer collaboration between our blue light services offers the opportunity to offer even better services, as well as to make efficiencies, so I encourage her and her colleagues to make their representations through the current consultation so that we can do that without the current barriers.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

On the very last day of consideration of the Housing and Planning Bill, the Conservatives passed an amendment to bring to an end secure tenancies in social housing. That was done without consultation or any impact assessment. Can the Secretary of State tell me where he warned council tenants that this was in the Conservative manifesto?

[Brandon Lewis]

Apart from the fact that that was outlined in the summer Budget, the tenancies of current council tenants are not affected. The provisions in the Housing and Planning Bill laid on 7 December prevent councils from offering new tenants life-time tenancies in future.

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

Some areas, such as the Isle of Wight, will have a much more difficult task than others in increasing their income through increasing the business rates base. Will my right hon. Member meet Isle of Wight Council to discuss this matter?

[Greg Clark]

I would be delighted to meet Isle of Wight Council. In taking this historic step of giving 100% business rates to local government, it is very important that, with local government, we agree on how places that do not have such a buoyant business rates base do not lose out.

[Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab)]

Many of my constituents were dismayed when I went back at the weekend after hearing last week, as my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) suggested, that the Government were going to limit council tenancies. What does the Minister say to people in my constituency who are absolutely dismayed that this Government have pulled a flanker on them, and pulled the rug from under them, in what they consider to be their rights as tenants?

[Brandon Lewis]

I refer the hon. Lady to the answer I gave a few minutes ago and remind her that council tenants who already have a tenancy are not affected by this—it is about new tenancies. This is the right thing to do, as I am sure she would agree, given that the previous Member for Holborn and St Pancras had a council house when he was on a Cabinet salary. I am sure that many taxpayers would wonder whether that was good expenditure.

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

South Gloucestershire, Bristol and Bath and North East Somerset councils work very well as a functional unit. Does my right hon. Friend understand that any attempt to reintroduce Avon, directly or through the back door via Treasury pressure, would be regarded as an enormous betrayal, and will he guarantee that it will not happen?

[Greg Clark]

I can assure my right hon. Friend that I have no intention of reintroducing Avon by the front door, back door or side door.

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

Further to my earlier question, if the new one-for-one replacement for right to buy was funded directly by the UK Government instead of other means, what would the Barnett consequentials be for Scotland?

[James Wharton]

As I said earlier, the Scottish Government are seeing a significant increase in their capital budget as a result of the announcement in the spending review. The Barnett consequentials of individual policies are worked through and delivered. The British Government—the Government here in this place—meet our obligations in that regard, and will continue to do so, to ensure that the Scottish Government get a fair deal and can continue to deliver what they need to deliver to meet their obligations and the concerns of hon. Members.

National Minimum Wage: Sports Direct

Monday 14th December 2015 Commons Chamber

15:32

[Mr Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the relevant Minister if he will make a statement on Sports Direct plc and its compliance with the national minimum wage legislation.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the relevant Minister, Mr Nicholas Edward Coleridge Boles.

[The Minister for Skills (Nick Boles)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

I share the hon. Gentleman’s concern that working people are paid the full amount that the law requires for every hour that they work, and I welcome his urgent question. We take the enforcement of minimum wage laws very seriously. That is why we have increased the enforcement budget from £8.1 million in 2010 to £13.2 million in 2015-16. While I am not able to comment on enforcement action in relation to individual employers, I can assure the House that Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs follows up every complaint it receives in relation to breaches of the national minimum wage. I encourage any employer or worker who is concerned that these laws are not being complied with in their workplace to contact HMRC or ACAS, through its confidential hotline. HMRC undertakes targeted enforcement activity in the most high-risk sectors of the economy.

As the Prime Minister announced in September, the Government are taking a number of further steps to crack down on employers who are not paying workers the minimum wage. We have already increased the penalty for breaches of minimum wage legislation to 100% of arrears, up to £20,000 per worker, and from April 2016 the Government will double the maximum penalty from 100% to 200% of arrears so that employers comply with the law and working people receive the money they are due. Furthermore, a new team of compliance officers will be established within HMRC to investigate the most serious cases of employers not paying the relevant minimum wage. The team will have the power to use all available sanctions, including penalties and criminal investigation. We will also continue to name and shame employers who do not pay their workers what they are entitled to.

As a Government, our message to employers is straightforward. We will work to reduce burdens on business by cutting regulation and corporation tax. In return, we expect employers to pay working people at least a decent legal minimum—the national minimum wage and, from next April, the national living wage for workers aged 25 and over. I can assure the House that we will not hesitate to crack down hard on employers, large and small, who break this social contract by failing to pay the wage that the law requires.

[Mr Umunna]

I thank the Minister for his reply. I am proud that the last Labour Government, in the face of the then Conservative Opposition, introduced the national minimum wage in the first place, when people in our country were earning as little as £1 an hour. I am also proud —the Minister mentioned this—that the overwhelming majority of British businesses, notwithstanding any legal requirements, seek to treat their workers with dignity and respect.

We know enough about the practices at Sports Direct plc, which has a branch in my constituency, to conclude that this company is a bad advert for British business and one with a culture of fear in the workplace, which we would not wish to see repeated elsewhere. As the Institute of Directors has said, it is

“a scar on British business.”

I appreciate what the Minister said about not necessarily being able to respond in specific instances, but may I ask him this question? HMRC enforces the national minimum wage. A complaint has been made by Unite the union, of which I am a member, against Sports Direct, accusing it of being in breach of the legislation. HMRC says it cannot act without evidence being provided by workers in that workplace, but, of course, all of them are refusing to come forward in the warehouses concerned, for fear of the repercussions that will follow. Why cannot HMRC go ahead and carry out an investigation in this case, which surely will render other evidence without workers being required to put their necks on the line?

Secondly, may I ask the Minister a generic question? An issue has come up whereby employees are required to go through body searches to check for potential theft. The time they spend going through body searches is not time for which they are paid. The law is unclear in this area. Can the Minister give industry an indication of whether, in the Government’s view, time spent going through body searches would count as working time for the purposes of the legislation?

Thirdly, employees face having 15 minutes of working time deducted if they clock-in just one minute late. The law is not entirely clear about that situation, either. Do the Government believe that if an employer is engaged in those kinds of practices, they are not in keeping with the spirit of the legislation?

Fourthly, the enforcement of national minimum wage legislation is carried out not by the Minister’s Department, but by HMRC. How can we expect HMRC to do the work that we require of it if the Government are pushing through an 18% real-terms cut in HMRC’s funding over the course of the spending review period?

Finally, I have no doubt that the reaction of the employer concerned will be to say, “We comply with the law,” but surely what it needs to understand is that the British public expect a lot more from it. We often do not do things that the law allows us to do, because we do not think that that is the right way to treat our fellow citizens. Surely that should apply to the company in this case.

[Nick Boles]

The hon. Gentleman asked a series of very important and good questions. The first point I would like to make is that, if any employee of any company has any fear of repercussions, I can reassure them that the ACAS hotline is genuinely confidential. I am sure the hon. Gentleman would be willing to endorse the fact that ACAS is an absolutely, resolutely independent organisation, so people should have no fear of calling that hotline out of hours and reporting a practice.

I did say in my brief response that HMRC enforcement is entitled to conduct targeted enforcement activity in sectors of concern, so it is entirely open to HMRC to investigate proactively in sectors where it feels that breaches may be in evidence. In that sense, it does not necessarily need to wait for a specific complaint to be able to investigate breaches.

I have read the article that revealed some of the allegations being made about Sports Direct. The hon. Gentleman asked about the search and whether the time it takes is working time or not. This is an intensely vexed legal question and he will know, as a former employment law practitioner, how much of his former colleagues’ time it is taking up. I cannot give an absolute pronouncement, but what I can say is that anything that counts as work as part of somebody’s employment contract must be compensated at least at the level of minimum wage. The question is whether such a search counts as work under their employment contract, and that question can be explored legally.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the second claim that was made—about employees being docked 15 minutes for being one minute late. Although it is legally permissible for time to be docked for late arrival, it is important for every hon. Member to understand that the minimum wage legislation will apply to the 14 minutes as well as to the rest of the time that people work, so employees cannot not be compensated for those 14 minutes if that would bring their overall wage rate down below the national minimum wage. I hope that that goes some way to reassure him.

The hon. Gentleman made a general point about the cut in funding for HMRC of 18% over the spending review period. I will have to take his word for it because I do not have the global figures to hand. I pointed out to him the very significant and dedicated increase in funding for the minimum wage enforcement team. It has gone up by more than 50% since 2010 and will go up £3 million this year alone. I can therefore reassure him that, whatever else is going on in HMRC, this is a priority in which we are investing and on which we will beef up activity.

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to make the general point that obeying the law is the minimum we expect of employers. We expect employers to behave responsibly and to be good citizens. We hope they would not be satisfied with just obeying the law, but would want to go a great deal further, and in a sense, our expectations about the behaviour of large and profitable employers are even greater than those for others.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am glad that the Minister graciously welcomed the urgent question. Unfortunately, the Treasury wrote to me this morning to say that the matter was not urgent and should not be aired. Upon examination, I concluded that it was and should. We look very much forward to the exchanges.

Mr Peter Lilley was standing, but the right hon. Gentleman has thought better of it. Never mind—fair enough. I call Mr Marcus Fysh.

[Marcus Fysh (Yeovil) (Con)]

My constituents have approached me with concerns about Sports Direct on several occasions since the election. It appears that Sports Direct can sometimes make somewhat aggressive use of and have a somewhat aggressive attitude towards flexible working. Flexible working can suit some people, but does not always suit others. When it comes to such employment laws, has my hon. Friend given any thought to a general anti-avoidance rule, such as the one we are considering in the tax sphere?

[Nick Boles]

Mr Speaker, you know that it would be a career-limiting move for me to depart in any way from the script laid down by my colleagues at the Treasury, but may I just repeat that I welcome the urgent question and was glad to have the opportunity to answer it?

I thank my hon. Friend for his suggestion. I am not going to pretend that we had given thought to that, but he has now triggered such a thought. I would be happy to discuss with him how it might work.

[Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab)]

rose—

[Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

We will come to Mr Skinner, who is the constituency Member, but I call Hannah Bardell.

[Hannah Bardell]

The allegations against Sports Direct are extremely concerning, and we echo the calls of Unite the union for an HMRC investigation into the reported breaches of the national minimum wage legislation at the Shirebrook warehouse. We stand in unity with the employees, because such practices do nothing to engage them and make them feel positive about the place in which they work.

Allegations of such a serious nature must be taken very seriously by the UK Government, and they must do much more to support the accreditation of living wage employers. The Scottish Government have led the way in encouraging more than 400 living wage employers in Scotland. We have the second highest proportion of employees paid the living wage—80.5%—across the countries and regions of the UK.

Scottish National party Members want the Government to commit wholeheartedly to supporting an HMRC investigation into these business practices. What lessons can be learned from this case, especially when the UK Government are gearing up to implement the new minimum wage premium, which is not a living wage? If they cannot enforce the current minimum wage, how on earth will they manage to enforce such increases?

[Nick Boles]

I welcome the contribution from the hon. Lady who represents the Scottish National party. Of course it is the job of the enforcement team in HMRC to follow up any concerns that they have in relation to specific complaints or sectors where they feel that abuse of the minimum wage legislation and other employment legislation is rife. However, I am sure she will understand that I cannot comment on a particular case.

In general, I do not often welcome investigations by The Guardian newspaper, but it is vital that media organisations investigate these matters. The Government will never be able proactively to investigate every employer in the country. If the media can uncover things, I promise that the Government will review their findings and enforce the law, where necessary.

[Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)]

I echo the Minister’s comments on the ACAS hotline. I called the hotline with a constituent who came to my surgery believing that he had been paid below the minimum wage. I found ACAS extremely professional during that phone call and would recommend the service to any hon. Member who had a case in their constituency.

May I question the Minister on the upcoming change to the minimum wage, with the introduction of the living wage? I read that in a recent Department for Business, Innovation and Skills survey of 1,000 employers, nine out of 10 employers strongly welcomed the introduction of the living wage and said that it would boost productivity and the morale of their employees. However, it was concerning that four out of 10 employers said that they had not communicated with their staff regarding the upcoming potential rises in pay, and that eight out of 10 still had not updated their payroll or created new procedures to implement the living wage. Will the Minister comment on that, so we can be sure that legitimate businesses are ready and do not get into a similar situation?

[Mr Speaker]

I was going to recommend that the hon. Gentleman conducted an Adjournment debate on the subject until I realised that he had just done so.

[Nick Boles]

I thank my hon. Friend for pointing out, from direct experience, how good the ACAS hotline is. On the national living wage, which is coming in next April, a substantial Government communication campaign will start in the new year. We feel that it is in the months leading up to its introduction that communication will be most effective in making sure that employees and employers know that it is coming in, know what is required and begin to work out how to implement it in their systems.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

The Sports Direct scandal has occurred even though the national minimum wage has become a national treasure. Everyone supports it now, but, like all great social reforms, it had to be fought for in the teeth of bitter, all-night opposition in this House. Even when great social reforms become part of the political consensus, they still have to be fought for. The battle to sustain and enforce the minimum wage must be continuous and, frankly, requires more than just warm words from Ministers.

The TUC estimates that at least 250,000 workers are not being paid the minimum wage. What is the Minister’s estimate? Have the Government even made one? In the last Parliament, it was revealed that just nine firms had been charged for non-compliance with the minimum wage. Will he update the House on how many legal proceedings are under way against firms for non-compliance? Can he even tell us how many workers have received the money that they are owed after a notice of underpayment has been issued by HMRC, because up to now the Government have failed to provide those data? Will he order an urgent investigation into Sports Direct concerning the alleged abuses, which have led the Institute of Directors to label it

“a scar on British business”?

The Minister says that he is acting, but where are the results? How will he get results with the closure of so many HMRC offices? It is easy to talk the talk on low pay, but it means nothing to millions of low-paid workers, whose labour employers feel they can turn on and off like a tap, unless Ministers walk the walk on the minimum wage. When will we see real action to enforce it?

[Nick Boles]

I am happy to acknowledge that the national minimum wage was one of the great achievements of the Government led by Tony Blair. I note simply that there are more supporters of that Government’s achievements on this side of the House than on the hon. Gentleman’s side. I look forward to receiving the same acknowledgement from Opposition Members when, next April, we introduce the national living wage, which is significantly higher than any increase in the national minimum wage he and his colleagues proposed during the last election campaign.

The hon. Gentleman asked some good and proper questions about enforcement, but he glided over the fact that the budget for enforcement has gone up by more than 50% since his party was in government and that we have increased the arrears penalties, increased the powers and stepped up the programme of naming and shaming companies, large and small.

In 2014-15, 705 employers received penalties, totalling more than £934,000. We are setting up a new dedicated team to focus on tackling the most serious breaches, and to consider whether directors of employers that persistently breach legislation should be disqualified. In 2014-15 we identified £3.29 million arrears for 26,318 workers, we conducted 735 successful investigations, and we charged 705 penalties, worth £934,000. We successfully defended 17 of the 23 appeals against enforcement notices. If, from the luxury of opposition, the hon. Member for Cardiff West wants to suggest further activity that we could carry out, I am always happy to hear about it. Fortunately, we are doing a lot more than the Government he was part of to defend one of the only achievements that Labour Members are still willing to talk about.

[Mr Alan Mak (Havant) (Con)]

There are reports that some large retail businesses have already increased their hourly salary for employees to a level above the national living wage, following the Government’s announcement. Will the Minister update the House on his understanding of that?

[Nick Boles]

I have heard such reports, and while I do not have the list of major retailers that have announced that measure on the tip of my tongue, that extremely welcome news underlines the point made earlier: we expect more than just obedience to the law; we expect social responsibility and for employers to see benefits from the improved morale and retention that come from paying people better wages.

[Mr Skinner]

The Minister should not expect social responsibility from the man who controls Sports Direct in my constituency, at the warehouse at Shirebrook on a pit site. That man has not made £6 billion because he is a considerate employer; he is a monster of a man who does not even reply to MPs’ letters—I have sent him many. He has £6 billion and is on The Sunday Times rich list, because he is the type of man that will not take any notice of HMRC unless the Government really mean business. This man, Mike Ashley, would fit very nicely on millionaires’ row, along with his pals. This will be a test of the Minister’s mettle—get stuck in.

[Nick Boles]

I have never had the pleasure of being encouraged to get stuck in by the hon. Gentleman before, but I promise to follow up on that. Let me be clear: I do not care how famous or well connected employers are, and I frankly do not care how much money they have made. They must obey the law, and if they do not, we will enforce it. We will fine them and disqualify directors if necessary.

[James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)]

As well as strong enforcement by the Government, it should be possible for those who are employed by bad businesses to vote with their feet and move to better employers. What is being done to help to create more and better jobs for those employed by Sports Direct, and to communicate the availability of those jobs?

[Nick Boles]

I thank my hon. Friend for bringing us back to the important and constant theme of this Government, which is an economy that is creating new jobs at an unprecedented rate. Most of those jobs are now full time, and most not only pay more than the minimum wage, but pay more than the national living wage that will be introduced in April. It is ultimately through a dynamic economy that we will create opportunity for anyone who does not feel that they are getting a square deal from their current employer.

[Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

When Sports Direct announced that it would build its factory at Shirebrook, people in north Derbyshire were delighted. It is a tragedy that an organisation that employs nearly 3,000 people should have such a terrible reputation. What steps can the Minister take to communicate with that company and try to ensure that its future success does not come at the expense of my constituents and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner)?

[Nick Boles]

I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has pointed out how important that organisation is as an employer in his constituency. It is important we acknowledge that Sports Direct employs a great many people, and I am sure a great many people are very happy to work there. I reinforce the point, however, that no company director and no company owner will want the House of Commons to be discussing, in the terms we are discussing, the kind of breach that was alleged in the newspaper article. I am absolutely certain that, when faced with the kind of enforcement action I have set out, any employers, including those in his constituency, will want to sort themselves out.

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

What message of Christmas cheer does my hon. Friend have for all those people who are self-employed and earning far less than the minimum wage, but are faced with having to submit quarterly returns to HMRC instead of annual ones?

[Nick Boles]

I am full of admiration for anyone who is self-employed. It brings many rewards, but money is not always one of them. I am absolutely clear that the Government must do everything they possibly can to reduce the burden of regulation on those who are self-employed.

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

Does the Minister recognise that what is so disturbing about the newspaper report is the fear among many people working there? In some instances, women are apparently not willing to stay away from work, even if their child is sick for a day, simply because they may lose their job. Is it not totally unacceptable to have such fear and exploitation in a company? Does it not remind one of the early years of the last century when workers were treated in such a contemptible way? Finally, why was the advice given to Mr Speaker that this was not an urgent question? If the Minister is so keen on coming to the House and welcoming The Guardian investigation, why did he try to stop the question being asked in the first place?

[Nick Boles]

Mr Speaker, it is always for you to judge whether a question is urgent. I simply acknowledge that this question is important, which is why I am so delighted to answer it. On the hon. Gentleman’s broader points, while the Government believe in deregulation and reducing the burden on business, we have made it clear that certain laws are absolute and must be adhered to: minimum wage legislation is one, along with health and safety legislation and a whole slew of other employee protections. We intend to enforce those protections robustly.

[Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)]

According to the Office for National Statistics, a quarter of million people are not paid the minimum wage. According to the Minister, HMRC has found 26,000 of them. What is the Minister going to do to bridge the gap? If the Minister does not have any ideas—it does not look as though he has a plan—may I suggest something? To not pay the minimum wage is a criminal offence. Why have there not been any prosecutions taken out against directors who are not paying the minimum wage? The department in the Attorney General’s office responsible for taking out prosecutions has been cut for the past three years and there has not been a single prosecution during that time.

[Nick Boles]

The hon. Lady always comes to this House knowing the complete answer to every question, but it might help her sometimes if she would actually listen to the list of measures we have introduced that go significantly further than any enforcement activity the Government she supported ever brought forward to defend their minimum wage. When the set of enforcement measures is working as well as it currently is, I see no reason to take any instruction, however helpfully phrased, from the hon. Lady.

[Mr Speaker]

This is an extremely important matter but we have other important business to follow, so I am looking for pithy questions and answers.

[David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)]

On the facts, the case in The Guardian is disturbing. Does the Minister agree that one good piece of news is that, whatever else happens, in April next year Sports Direct will have to pay these people 11% more than they are getting now?

[Nick Boles]

That is absolutely right. That has happened because the majority Conservative Government have run the economy sufficiently well that we can expect employers to do that and still prosper.

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

The Minister has pointed out that HMRC conducts risk-based enforcement in sectors where there is a high risk of workers not getting paid the legal minimum wage. Is the sector in which Sports Direct operates a high-risk sector? If so, how many proactive initiatives has HMRC launched in it?

[Nick Boles]

The targeted sectors are those where low pay is prevalent and where many employers are therefore close to the minimum wage boundary and those where there have been significant breaches in the past and where there is therefore good reason to expect other such breaches in the future. I cannot tell the right hon. Gentleman how many such investigations there have been, but I am happy to write to him and place a copy in the Library.

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

The Minister wrote to me on 14 October about the care sector—one of the sectors he just referred to—saying that HMRC was investigating several companies in the sector, but he could not confirm which companies or comment on the progress of the investigations. Given what he said about being strident with the owners, managers and directors of these companies, will he be strident with MiHomecare and Mitie—previously run by the new Tory Baroness McGregor-Smith—about whose conduct significant concerns have been raised?

[Nick Boles]

It is not the job of a Minister of the Crown to lay down the law on individual cases and companies that have not been found definitely to have breached the law. I have been as clear as possible about any employer, large or small, that does breach the law, and I hope the hon. Gentleman can apply that to any particular case.

[John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

In our area, everyone knows that English native speakers cannot get a job at the Sports Direct warehouse, despite 3,000 people working there, and there was a baby born in the toilets there. Why were there 80 ambulance visits to Sports Direct in two years? Is it because employees are too scared and not allowed time off to see the doctor, and there is therefore a misdirection of NHS resources? Might there also be tied housing, meaning that people are too scared to speak because they are provided with a house to live in, the rent and the transport they have to pay for to get to work? We need a full investigation not just into Sports Direct but into the plethora of agencies it used to employ.

[Nick Boles]

If the hon. Gentleman or any other hon. Member has allegations and evidence of bad practice in relation to minimum wage, or any other, legislation they would like to bring to my attention, I would welcome it. The hon. Member for Streatham (Mr Umunna) mentioned that a trade union had raised concerns about this particular employer. If employees do not trust the Government phone line, despite the ACAS hotline being genuinely confidential and independent, and if they would like to submit their evidence through the union, they can, but I am sure hon. Members will understand that they need to be willing to engage with enforcement officers to provide evidence. The Government have to act on the basis of evidence; however well researched the Guardian article was, it is not enough on its own.

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

Is it not time the Government considered introducing a specific criminal offence of exploitation, which they refused to do in the Modern Slavery Bill in the last Parliament?

[Nick Boles]

We have enough criminal offences; what we need is effective enforcement, and that is exactly what the 50% increase in the enforcement budget and the new powers we are giving to the HMRC enforcement team will achieve.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

My understanding is that the trade unions have made representations on behalf of staff who, for good reasons, want to remain anonymous. Should HMRC continue to ignore representations on behalf of legitimate trade unions, or should it act now and search the offices of Sports Direct?

[Nick Boles]

I have made it clear that if any individual complaint is to be assessed for its validity, HMRC needs to be able to follow it up. I have also made it clear that in sectors of concern, HMRC undertakes targeted enforcement activity that does not wait for a complaint. It will be listening to this debate.

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Minister said that it is ultimately a growing, dynamic economy that should give people confidence about being able to find well paid jobs, but good employment practices and legislation also give them confidence. One issue that is greatly worrying a number of residents in my constituency is the use of tips and service charges to top up wages and the murky world of requirements used by employers such as Turtle Bay, a local restaurant. Will the Minister meet me and some of the campaigners from the GMB union to look into these practices further? I know he has recently conducted an investigation, but it would be incredibly beneficial to those on low wages in my local community to look at how these practices are used to top up wages or otherwise, especially ahead of the new higher minimum wage that he has talked about.

[Nick Boles]

In my experience the hon. Lady is often on to things before the rest of us, so I would be delighted to meet her.

[Mr Speaker]

What a perceptive fellow the Minister is. We are most grateful to him, and I thank him for engaging with the urgent question so comprehensively.

Climate Change Agreement

Monday 14th December 2015 Commons Chamber

16:05

[The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change (Amber Rudd)]

It gives me great pleasure to report to the House on the United Nations conference of parties in Paris last week. COP21 has delivered an historic new global climate change agreement that takes a significant step forward towards reducing, on a global scale, the emissions that cause climate change. For the first time, nearly 200 countries have made a commitment to act together and to be held accountable. In doing so, this agreement will help to protect not just our environment but our national and economic security, now and for generations to come. As the Prime Minister said in his speech at the start of conference:

“instead of making excuses tomorrow to our children and grandchildren, we should be taking action against climate change today.”

I am proud to say that there are no more excuses. With the Paris agreement, we have shown that the world has committed to action.

This deal is unequivocally in Britain’s national interest. It moves us towards a level playing field at a global level within which the UK’s society and businesses can thrive, as we transition to a low-carbon economy. This is a deal we are wholeheartedly committed to, recognising that action by one state alone cannot and will not solve climate change. It is what we do together that counts.

This is a moment that all parties in the House can take significant credit for. Together, we passed the Climate Change Act 2008, which set an example to the world of what ambitious domestic climate action looks like. Together, since Copenhagen in 2009, we have supported a long, difficult and complex negotiation, which has brought us to this point. I want to pay tribute not just to the Prime Minister and my colleagues across Government, but to my predecessors as Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change for all the hard work they put in to bring us to this point.

As a country, we should be proud of the role we have played, leading in the European Union, working closely with major global players, including the US and China, and leading many of the negotiations. My Department, with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Department for International Development, has worked tirelessly to build the political conditions and the capacity to enable countries to act. The UK team in Paris last week showed commitment, passion and resilience. When Laurent Fabius asked me to chair the finance session at 4 am on Friday morning, I was well supported, and when I left at 6.30 am, they stayed to write up the conclusions and send them to the presidency. That, Mr Speaker, was commitment.

The UK played a key role in building alliances and shared positions, especially with the most vulnerable countries, to ensure that pressure for ambition could be maximised. The deal in Paris was not done to us; it was done by us. Indeed, it reflects many of the elements that we as a country have already committed to as part of the Climate Change Act. Of course Paris is not the end of the road. We cannot sit back and say, “Job done.” Far from it: Paris is the beginning. Now the hard work to implement the agreement begins.

Let me turn to what the nearly 200 countries have agreed. First, we have set out a clear long-term goal for the world to achieve net zero emissions by the end of the century. The long-term goal sends a strong signal to investors, businesses and policy makers that the shift to a global low-carbon economy will happen and it provides the confidence needed to drive the scale of investment required. We have confirmed our collective ambition to limit global temperature rises to below 2° C. We have agreed a further aspiration of 1.5°. However, the current level of commitments by individual countries will not meet this ambition, so crucially, countries will come back to the table to assess overall progress towards the 2° goal in 2018 and every five years thereafter.

As investment grows and the costs of low-carbon technologies come down, the Paris process will provide not just the opportunity but the political pressure to step up individual countries’ emissions reductions targets. Starting in 2020, countries are expected to update their own plans to cut emissions, and will be legally obliged to do so again every five years, thus providing regular political moments to scale up ambition.

This agreement is not only comprehensive in its scope, as it also recognises the role of both developed economies and emerging economies in helping the poorest and most vulnerable countries to protect themselves from the effects of climate change as they transition to a low-carbon economy.

Over the last five years, the UK’s £3.87 billion international climate fund has been helping millions of the world’s poor better to withstand extreme weather and rising temperatures. At the UN Secretary-General summit in September, the Prime Minister announced a significant uplift to increase climate finance by at least 50% with £5.8 billion-worth of climate finance over the next five years to support poor and vulnerable countries to adapt to climate change and to curb emissions. This is part of a global commitment to mobilise $100 billion a year from both the public and private sector to protect the most vulnerable and support economic growth from 2020. Other developed countries, including Germany, France, the US, Japan, and Canada have all recently announced increases in their climate finance.

Important as the Paris agreement is, we will achieve our ultimate ambition only if it acts as a catalyst for transformational action from all parts of society. That is why it has been so important to see real action over the last month from business and civil society. A new initiative, for example, called “Mission Innovation”, will see some of the biggest global economies—including the UK, US, and India—doubling their investments in clean energy research and development. Crucially, it is private investors who will join us in this endeavour to bring down the costs of low-carbon technologies.

Here in the UK, we have committed to doubling spending in clean energy research and development, so that by 2020 we will be spending in excess of £400 million. That pledge has been matched by 19 other countries worldwide. This is in recognition of the fact that we will tackle climate change effectively only if we find technologies that are both clean and cheap. Let me emphasise that the announcement I made last month—that I would set out proposals to close coal by 2025 and restrict its use from 2023—added to the momentum at Paris.

The Paris agreement truly marks an historic turning-point. It builds on the Kyoto protocol, and for the first time ever provides the comprehensive framework in which not just developed countries, but nearly every country of the world has committed to take the global action needed to solve a global problem. Of course, it was hard fought and of course it required compromise to bring everyone with us. Of course, too, it has not solved every problem in one go.

Now we have to set about implementing the commitments made, but we should not underestimate the significance of what has been achieved. All parties have recognised that economic and global security requires us to tackle climate change. All have come together to commit to a single goal—net zero carbon emissions by the end of the century. All have agreed to set out plans to curb emissions and to be held accountable for their actions. We have made a huge step forward in meeting our responsibilities to this and future generations. As the excellent Executive Secretary to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Christiana Figueres, said:

“I used to say we can, we must, we will. Now I can say we did.”

16:14

[Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for her statement, and for giving me advance sight of it. I also thank her for paying tribute to successive Secretaries of State on both sides of the House. She is right to recognise that the cross-party consensus that has existed since 2008 helped to build the road to Paris, and gave the United Kingdom its voice in the negotiations. It is a precious legacy for all of us, and we must not allow it to fracture now.

For the first time, leaders from nearly every country in the world have come together to cut carbon pollution and set us on the path to a cleaner, greener future; to agree on a common goal of building a carbon-neutral global economy within a generation; to reduce pollution; and to switch to cleaner energy—and, as the Secretary of State rightly recognised, all countries have agreed to raise their ambition every five years until the job is done. I particularly welcomed the Secretary of State’s announcement that the developed world would do its fair share by providing at least $100 billion of finance to assist poorer and more vulnerable countries.

This is a moment to celebrate, not because the agreement is sufficient—we must be honest about the fact that the pledges made by each country do not add up to a commitment that will keep temperature rises well below 2°—but because it gives us enough to take us much, much closer to climate safety, and sends a clear signal to global financial markets that the era of unchecked fossil fuel use is coming to an end.

This accord is testimony to the fact that we are stronger and safer when we work together, both at home and abroad. Our voice has been heard more loudly because we have worked closely with our friends in the European Union and we have spoken together, united and with one voice. Our voice has also been heard because of the hard work and the skills of our lead negotiator, Pete Betts, and his team in the Department for Energy and Climate Change, who worked tirelessly with Sir David King and his team of diplomats in the Foreign Office to secure the agreement. Let me place on record our thanks for what they have achieved. Let me also commend the dedication of the British scientists, campaigners, faith groups, business leaders and civil society organisations who mobilised public support for this global deal. Last month, along with some of my hon. Friends, I joined hundreds of thousands of people to march peacefully through the streets of London, Edinburgh and other major cities around the world, to ensure that our collective voice was heard in the negotiating rooms of Paris.

The question that must now be asked is “What does this deal mean for Britain?” In recent months, the Government have made a series of decisions that have reversed our progress on the road to climate safety. Ministers have attacked the cheapest options for achieving carbon targets, and household energy bills may rise as a result. Last week, during the Paris negotiations, they decided to raise household and energy bills again through the capacity market auction. Hundreds of millions of pounds will go to energy companies to keep open power stations that would have been open anyway. It is difficult to see how that is consistent with what the Secretary of State has said today, and with her claim to be acting to control costs. Will she explain that to the House today?

Ministers have also undermined our progress on carbon capture and storage, which is crucial to ensuring a just transition and support for climate change action from the communities of Britain who work in the important industries that rely on fossil fuels. In Yorkshire and Scotland, communities, scientists and engineers are reeling from the Chancellor’s decision to axe a £1 billion fund for CCS. Can the Secretary of State tell us today that that decision will be reversed?

The Government have wasted no time in blocking new wind farms even where they enjoy strong local support, and have made severe and short-sighted cuts in energy efficiency and solar power schemes. Thousands have lost their jobs, and thousands more could still do so. Millions around the world will go into the coming winter facing the prospect of cold homes and high energy bills, and in this country that is avoidable. The Government’s decisions will cause immense damage to human lives and to the planet.

Following the Prime Minister’s important words in Paris, will the Secretary of State demonstrate to the House that the Government as a whole will listen, and that they will prevent the Green Investment Bank from being sold off in a manner that will remove its green mandate, leaving it free to invest in fossil fuels; cancel the new tax on more efficient vehicles; and stop another tax raid on the renewable energy industry? All those steps will take us backwards on climate change and jeopardise jobs in the industries of the future. It raises this question: what is this Government’s plan for meeting Britain’s climate change commitments? The Government’s own advisers, the Committee on Climate Change, recently warned that existing energy policy is “failing”, and only this morning the CBI called for more clarity for British business. On news of the Paris deal and the goal it contains to limit global temperature rises, its director told the BBC:

“Businesses will want to see domestic policies that demonstrate commitment to this goal”.

So can the Energy Secretary confirm whether her Government’s recent string of green U-turns will now be reviewed in the light of the new assurances we have that every country will play its part in addressing climate change?

Secondly, can the Energy Secretary confirm that the UK will continue to support raising European targets on reducing carbon pollution by 2030, to ensure we are making our fair contribution to the international effort and grasping the maximum potential for our economy from green industries? Finally, will the Energy Secretary ask the independent Committee on Climate Change to review the adequacy of Britain’s existing carbon reduction targets in light of the new internationally agreed goal of limiting global temperature rises to well below 2 °C, and ideally to no more than 1.5 °C?

Two weeks ago the Prime Minister said that when we look back, we will ask

“what was it that was so difficult when the world was in peril?”

The Secretary of State rightly said in her statement to the House that there are no excuses, and I look forward, as do all my hon. Friends, to hearing how she intends to breathe life into this historic landmark agreement.

[Amber Rudd]

I thank the hon. Lady for her questions and welcome her support for the overall global deal. In answering her questions, I would make the following points. First, the UK’s emissions are 1.2% of the world’s, so our emphasis must be on making sure we get an international deal. That is why we were so committed to it. That is why we spent the past week flat-out trying to achieve it, and working to ensure we got China into the deal, which is responsible for 26% of the world’s emissions—more than the EU and the US combined. We remain committed to the Climate Change Act and to making sure we go forward on a low-carbon future, but there is no value in it if we do not actually have influence in the rest of the world. That is what we achieved this week: making sure that that influence was absorbed and taken on, so we reached that agreement—very late on Saturday night.

To answer the hon. Lady’s questions about our position in this country, I repeat that we are committed to the Climate Change Act 2008 and to our goals and our carbon budgets, but the difference between her side of the House and ours is that we will not risk security of supply and we will not put additional costs on consumers. She asks about the capacity markets but I am afraid that her interpretation is wholly wrong. The purpose of the capacity market is to take absolutely no risks with security of supply. That is what we have done, and we are proud of doing that.

In terms of the actions on renewables, this is about ensuring that our consumers pay the right price for the renewables to which we remain committed. As the costs of renewables come down, it is absolutely right that the subsidies come down. It is completely wrong to characterise us as having any negativity about renewables. We remain committed to them, but we will continue to make provision for them at the best value for money.

As far as CCS is concerned, it was a tight spending round in the review with the Treasury. The cost was £1 billion, and we made a decision not to proceed with the fund. I believe that CCS is going to play an important part in decarbonising in the future, particularly industrial CCS, and we will work internationally to make progress on that. Overall, this Government are absolutely committed to a low-carbon future that is value for money and constantly provides security to consumers and families.

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

As far as I am aware, there are only two peer-reviewed studies that have computed the total reductions in emissions promised by the member states at Paris, fed them through the standard climate model and calculated the impact on future temperatures. Both have concluded that the temperature in 2100 will, as a result of this treaty, be a mere 0.2 °C below what it would otherwise be. Has my right hon. Friend any alternative figures, and would not the trillions of pounds being spent on such a puny achievement be better spent on alleviating poverty and eradicating disease?

[Amber Rudd]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his question, but at its core is a suggestion that what we are doing will not alleviate poverty. On that he could not be more wrong. Particularly through climate finance and the investment that will come from the private sector, which Governments will be able to leverage, we will help to alleviate poverty and provide energy in areas of Africa and India that have never had it before. That is an essential part of what we will achieve.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I should gently point out to the House that hon. or right hon. Members who were not present at the start of the Secretary of State’s statement should not expect to be called. Now that I have made that point, it would be rather unseemly for them to continue to stand, as well as fruitless.

[Callum McCaig (Aberdeen South) (SNP)]

I add my thanks and that of my party to the Secretary of State, her team and all those both at home and abroad who made the deal possible. The term “historic” has rightly been used in the rhetoric, but we will be judged not on words but on deeds.

We very much welcome the money to be provided to those most at risk from climate change and to those who have contributed least to it. That is the theme of climate justice, which I have spoken about here before. The deal is not perfect, and it has been acknowledged that it is not enough. We need to up our game both at home and abroad if we are to meet the target of a 2° C rise or well below, and extensively so if we are to meet the aspiration of a 1.5° C rise.

It strikes me that we almost have two Secretaries of State—the one who made her eloquent statement extolling the virtues of the low-carbon economy, and the one who answered questions and reiterated some of the appalling betrayals that the green economy has suffered at the hands of this Government. She said in her statement that there are no excuses, but for the past six months I have heard excuse after excuse. On onshore wind—excuses. On the solar feed-in tariffs—excuses. On carbon capture and storage—excuses. On the Green Investment Bank—yet more excuses. Will she rethink those policies and reinvest in them, or are we to hear yet more excuses?

The world stands on the brink of a global green revolution, and the economic possibilities are enormous, yet we seem determined to throw away our lead in various technologies. To use the words that my hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) regularly uses, the Government are being penny-wise but pound-foolish. There has been betrayal on carbon capture and storage—I had to question my hearing when it was said that it had a bright future in the UK following the recent decision. It might, but it will be technology developed by others, and others will make the money out of it. That is so short-sighted that it is beyond belief.

Scotland wants to play its part, and we can play our part, but we require this Government to match their rhetoric with deeds. Will the Secretary of State back the green economy and allow us to play our part, or will we hear yet more excuses?

[Amber Rudd]

I simply do not agree with the hon. Gentleman’s characterisation. I share his enthusiasm for the low-carbon economy, but we are going about it in a different way from the one taken under the coalition. We are making sure that we deliver better value for money, and we are investing in the future in a way that has not been done over the past 20 to 25 years—for instance, with nuclear and with offshore wind, which I am sure he would support. While supporting the low-carbon economy, we must also maintain security of supply, and I am sure he will continue to support the Government’s commitment to oil and gas in Aberdeen.

[Nusrat Ghani (Wealden) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend will recall meeting my concerned residents in Wealden, who talked about other countries’ commitments to climate targets. What is her Department doing to encourage other countries to meet their climate targets?

[Amber Rudd]

My right hon. Friend rightly says that not all countries have the same resources as we do to meet their targets. I am happy to say that we have a number of helpful tools that we offer in working with other countries, such as the global calculator. It helps them to work out what steps they need to take to meet their targets, and we expect to step up that engagement to help them to do so.

[Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)]

I commend the Secretary of State for her role in this agreement and, in particular, the formation of the so-called “high ambition coalition” between developed countries and vulnerable countries, which was such an important part of getting the deal that she did. Labour Members want her to be part of a high ambition coalition at home as well as abroad. She mentioned the very important goal of net zero emissions contained in the agreement—I believe this is to be in the second half of the century. Can she confirm not only that that will apply globally, but that it must apply to each and every country that is a signatory to the agreement?

[Amber Rudd]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his words, and I certainly share his enthusiasm nationally for high ambition—perhaps less of the coalition, for now. It is a great achievement to have the zero emissions target within the long-term goal, but for now the UK will continue to focus on our Climate Change Act targets for 2050.

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

Given that the UK’s climate change laws are stricter than the obligations agreed in Paris, does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a real risk of British business being put at a competitive disadvantage if we do not cut the costs of energy, particularly for energy-intensive companies?

[Amber Rudd]

My hon. Friend is right to highlight the issue of competitiveness. The fact is that getting this global deal is a way of addressing that issue, because other countries will have to step up and make the same sort of plans that we are making. But the best way to reduce the costs of energy is to drive them down through the sort of actions this Government are taking.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

In all the acres of media coverage of the Paris agreement, George Monbiot sums it up best:

“By comparison to what it could have been, it’s a miracle. By comparison to what it should have been, it’s a disaster.”

I welcome the inclusion of the 1.5° goal, but it is meaningless without policies to deliver it—in particular, keeping the vast majority of fossil fuels in the ground. Will the Secretary of State tell us how the Government’s recently agreed duty to “maximise” the economic recovery of oil and gas is anything other than completely incompatible with what she has just signed up to in Paris?

[Amber Rudd]

I am going to interpret that as a cautious welcome from the hon. Lady. There is an element of this deal that she must agree is rather extraordinary: having 200 countries participate. The answer to her question is that we cannot take any risks at all with energy security. Maximum economic recovery is absolutely a commitment from this Government. We have to get a balance right. We have to make sure that we protect energy security while growing our low carbon economy—we can do both.

[David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)]

I, too, congratulate the Secretary of State and her team on what they have achieved in Paris. She will be aware that since 1990 the UK has decreased emissions by about 28%, which is faster than the EU average, whereas other EU countries have had difficulty in achieving anything like that. Indeed, Austria, Holland, Spain and Portugal have all increased emissions since 1990. What processes exist within the EU to make sure that that is not allowed to continue?

[Amber Rudd]

My hon. Friend, who is so experienced in this field, has highlighted the issue of the EU sharing of responsibilities, which we will move to next year. I do not doubt that this will be a challenging negotiation, but the UK’s experience is that we can demonstrate our leadership by showing that we have driven down emissions while growing our economy. We hope that we will be able to demonstrate that to other countries and encourage them to follow suit.

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

First, I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of her statement and congratulate her on her involvement in the Paris talks. Will she now take the chance to review and reset the last six months of policy of her Government? Solar and onshore wind—the cheapest forms of renewable generation—energy-efficiency and carbon capture and storage have all been cut. Will she look again at the diesel generation loopholes and make sure that transportation plays its full part? Those are to name but some things. I fear that this Government view investment as cost today, rather than as, more correctly, savings for the future, except of course when it comes to nuclear. Just what will change in her Department as a result of the Paris talks?

[Amber Rudd]

I am happy to say that the Paris agreement allows us to continue on the path that this Government have set in delivering a low carbon future, sticking to our Climate Change Act commitments and always ensuring that we take no risk with security of supply and that we provide value for money for consumers.

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on what has been achieved and the French Government on their magnificent hosting of this summit. Given that much of the climate finance pledged by the wealthy nations is likely to be classified as official development assistance and that many of our friends in Europe show no real sign of increasing the amount of ODA that they are giving as a percentage of their gross national income, is she concerned that some of this climate finance might be taken away from the amounts available for the refugee crisis in Syria and other concerns around the world?

[Amber Rudd]

My hon. Friend is right to praise the French Government who managed this summit in an extraordinarily able way and with great diplomatic skill. The matter of the $100 billion to be mobilised by 2020 is challenging for everybody involved, and we will constantly return to it to ensure that it is delivered, but let us not forget that the money is “mobilised”, so it is not entirely the Government’s to deliver; it is also an attempt to generate private sector influence as well.

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

Let me add my congratulations to all those involved in the important talks in Paris. One of the most remarkable things about the agreement is the aspiration to hold reductions to 1.5 °C. As the Secretary of State rightly said, the Paris process adds political pressure to emissions reduction. Will she apply some of that political pressure on the Chancellor of the Exchequer who said the other day that he had inherited zilch and that the decision on carbon capture and storage was not a cut?

[Amber Rudd]

I think I will just welcome the hon. Lady’s comments about our 1.5° ambition, which was achieved while working very closely with the high ambition coalition.

[Marcus Fysh (Yeovil) (Con)]

It is no longer a question of whether the world tackles man’s impact on the climate, but when. It is a huge achievement to have included developing economies in that ambition, and to have made that ambition realistic. What part can we play in accelerating research and development for game-changing technology, and what part will the clean energy from Hinkley Point in Somerset play in that process?

[Amber Rudd]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that the distinguishing factor of this agreement, rather than of previous ones, is that it includes developing countries. We are committed to ensuring that we work across other Governments to develop new energy sources through our programme of mission innovation. I also agree that nuclear power, including that from Hinkley Point, which is the first new nuclear deal to be commissioned for 25 years, will be an important part of the low carbon future.

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State is correct in wanting a level playing field between Britain and other countries, but the failure of Paris to reach the aspirations of the Durban conference to have legally binding limits on carbon dioxide emissions from all countries must put this country at a disadvantage because we do have legally binding commitments. We have already lost great chunks of the steel industry and the aluminium industry. How will the right hon. Lady produce that level playing field to the advantage of our industries?

[Amber Rudd]

The hon. Gentleman raises an important point about competitiveness. Although there are some elements of this that are not legally binding, there are plenty that are. The fact is that every country has to come back every five years and to demonstrate what they are doing. There will, I hope, be a political moment at that point. Non-governmental organisations, civil society and businesses will be watching and campaigning to ensure that we always make progress. Countries cannot go back on their commitments; they can only go forward. The hon. Gentleman should not underestimate the impact that this deal will have internationally.

[Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)]

I add my congratulations to the Secretary of State and all those who have worked for many years on achieving an impressive outcome. Will the Secretary of State confirm whether the success criteria set before the conference were achieved at it?

[Amber Rudd]

My hon. Friend asks a good question. Most of our criteria were met, but nobody will have left the conference saying that all their criteria were met. That is how we got a deal—everybody had to compromise a little. That was the achievement of the agreement.

[Mr Mark Williams (Ceredigion) (LD)]

I thank the Secretary of State for a landmark statement. I congratulate her on her personal stamina at 4 am and in particular on the tribute that she paid to her predecessors of all political parties. I think she will agree that the fact that Europe has spoken with one voice was a significant part of the process. None the less, there is still the inconsistency. Does she not agree that, although it was essential that we signed up to ambitious targets in Paris, there is an inconsistency in our scrapping schemes, signed in the last Parliament, that had a meaningful role in dealing with climate change at home?

[Amber Rudd]

The success of the Paris agreement was the intended nationally determined contributions that each country had to make and come forward with to participate. Almost every country had done that by the day of the agreement. But those are voluntary and very few countries criticised each other. Each country delivers in its own way. That is what the UK will continue to do.

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

On current trends of uncontrolled immigration, this country will have a population of 30 million more by the end of the century. What impact does my right hon. Friend think that will have on our CO₂ emissions?

[Amber Rudd]

I reassure my hon. Friend that the big influence on our CO₂ emissions is generally from the power sector and industry. We will monitor them constantly to enable there to be continued reductions.

[Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)]

I also commend the Secretary of State and her officials for the part that they played in securing the Paris agreement. With that agreement in place, Britain will need to be more ambitious, if anything, when it comes to emissions reductions yet the Government are struggling to meet their renewables target, particularly when it comes to heat and transport. As in so many areas, the Chancellor ultimately calls the shots, but will the right hon. Lady let the House know what progress she has made in persuading the Secretary of State for Transport to do more to decarbonise that sector?

[Amber Rudd]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: the challenge for the renewables target is heat and transport. I reassure him that I am working closely with the Secretaries of State for Transport and for Communities and Local Government to put together a plan to ensure that we can make that target.

[Mark Spencer (Sherwood) (Con)]

The Secretary of State will be aware that the largest percentage of electricity generated today still comes from coal-fired power. Will she give further reassurance that, as we move to a lower carbon future, consumer prices will remain at the forefront of her thoughts, as well as continuity of supply and carbon leakage?

[Amber Rudd]

I reassure my hon. Friend that we would in no way sacrifice our security of supply as we move towards a low carbon economy. I can also tell him that putting an end date on coal is an important part of making sure that we meet our low carbon future. We should be proud of the fact that we are the first developed country to put an end date on that.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

Does the Secretary of State have full confidence that the funding commitments and action plans that Governments have signed up to will be adhered to? I commend her on her statement and the work that went into the agreement, which uses human rights language much more strongly than any environmental agreement had used before. But how confident is she about adherence and follow-through?

[Amber Rudd]

The hon. Gentleman is right that the financial contributions—the $100 billion by 2020—were a key element in bringing on developing countries, which had never participated before in this sort of commitment. That is one side of the agreement. It is absolutely essential that we deliver on it, but Governments and businesses—not only Governments—are going to do that. The success of the agreement over the next five, 10 or 15 years will be tested if that does not happen.

[Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)]

I congratulate the Secretary of State and her whole team on the part they played in reaching this historic deal. She will know that it is not only about acting globally, but about acting locally. Will she join me in paying tribute to community groups, such as Transition Town Totnes and Sustainable South Brent, and to groups all around the country? They are keen to meet her to talk further about the role they can play to further the goals.

[Amber Rudd]

I will always be delighted to meet my hon. Friend’s constituents. She is right that it is much more effective if these actions are taken locally and nationally, but above all not top-down internationally.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

Will the right hon. Lady bridge her rhetoric to reality by announcing investment in the Swansea, Cardiff and Newport tidal barrages scheme, which will exploit for the first time ever the neglected immense power of the tides, which are entirely predictable and, when linked to power schemes in the valleys, are entirely demand-responsive? Tidal power is green, non-carbon and eternal.

[Amber Rudd]

The hon. Gentleman is right. We are looking closely at the opportunity for tidal power. My Department is now engaging in due diligence and if tidal power can meet the targets of being secure, clean and affordable, we will certainly take it very seriously.

[Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)]

What assessment has my right hon. Friend made of the UK energy market’s capacity to replace unabated coal by the cut-off date of 2025?

[Amber Rudd]

We will carry out a consultation at the beginning of next year in order to address that, but I have been very clear in the policy choices that I set out that we expect to bring on more gas to cover some of the coal that will be coming off.

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

Investors in renewable energy tell me that they want certainty from the Government’s energy policy. Can the Secretary of State set out the key targets and milestones for the implementation of the Paris agreement to provide the certainty that is necessary for investment to be made in renewables?

[Amber Rudd]

Many of our targets have not changed as a result of the Paris agreement, although of course I will be discussing them closely within my Department. We have already set out our plans for offshore wind and we will shortly set out our plans for solar.

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

The Scottish First Minister announced £12 million of climate justice funding in addition to the Scottish Government’s international development fund so, building on some of the other questions, what new money for climate adaptation will be announced as a result of the agreement, and will it be additional to existing official development assistance commitments?

[Amber Rudd]

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has been very clear. As I said in my earlier comments, he has already announced a 50% increase in our climate finance, which has been very much welcomed by developing countries.

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

Does the Secretary of State agree that this is good news from Paris, but that the hard work now begins, turning aspiration into action? Does she agree that we must maintain the vision that this country has had for some time of sharing intellectual property and innovation with many other countries? For example, the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council committee on sustainable production, which I chair, shares with other countries innovation that can reduce their carbon emissions?

[Amber Rudd]

The hon. Gentleman is right. That shared vision across different countries is essential. Confidence in the technology section of the agreement was very important for some of the developing countries. I should add that we have doubled our innovation spending on energy to join the Americans and other developed countries in Mission Innovation, which is all about sharing investment and technological discoveries.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

I congratulate the Secretary of State on her role in achieving this historic agreement. Does she accept that if the Government are to meet their commitment and show leadership in the world, they must change their approach to renewable energies, in particular to onshore wind?

[Amber Rudd]

That was a cautious compliment from the hon. Gentleman. That is not what I found internationally. In discussions with other Ministers, I found a lot of interest in what we were doing to drive down the costs of renewables. Renewables should not have a subsidy forever; the point is to try and engage with the industry to lower the cost. The success of a truly low carbon international economy will be achieved when the cost of green energy is reduced.

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

As a Co-operative party MP, I have long been a supporter of co-operative community renewal energy schemes, of which there are a number in this country. When I met representatives of one such company last week, they told me that the uncertainty that the Government have created around the feed-in tariff was causing them problems with planning into the future. How will the Secretary of State provide policy certainty for such groups who want to do their bit in meeting this agreement?

[Amber Rudd]

I remind the hon. Gentleman that over the past 15 to 20 years the costs of solar panels have come down by 80%, so it is right that the subsidy comes down accordingly. I will shortly make an announcement about what it will come down to, and I am sure he will be interested in the result.

Airports Capacity

Monday 14th December 2015 Commons Chamber

16:50

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

With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement about airports policy.

Aviation is a British success story. Today we have the third largest aviation network in the world, second only to the US and China. But with that success comes challenges. Heathrow is full; Gatwick is filling up. If no action is taken, the entire London system will be full by 2040. Yet we need new connections to new cities in new economies. There are other challenges too. Airports create jobs and opportunities. Technology is changing. Planes are becoming quieter and more efficient, but there is still inevitably an environmental impact. For some, the argument seems simple: oppose all expansion anywhere, or back it, but always somewhere else. Yes, there are opportunities in the network of national airports, with global connections from cities such as Birmingham, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Manchester and Newcastle, but growth there will come alongside growth in the south-east, not instead of it.

That is why in September 2012 Sir Howard Davies was asked to lead a commission on the issue. The Airports Commission’s final report was published less than six months ago. It made a strong case for expansion in the south-east, and we have considered that evidence. The Government accept the case for expansion, and the Government accept the commission’s shortlist of options for expansion. We will begin work straight away on preparing the building blocks for an airport national policy statement in line with the Planning Act 2008. Putting this new framework in place will be essential groundwork for implementing the decisions we take on new capacity, wherever it is to be built.

Sir Howard Davies and his team produced a powerful report. The Heathrow Airport Ltd scheme was recommended by the commission, but all three schemes were deemed viable. We are continuing to consider all three schemes, and we want to see action, but we must get the next steps right, for those keen to push ahead with expansion and for those who will be affected by it.

We will therefore undertake a package of further work. First, we must deal with air quality. I want to build confidence that expansion can take place within the legal limits, so we will accept the Environmental Audit Committee’s recommendation to test the commission’s work against the Government’s new air quality plan. Secondly, we must deal with the concerns about noise. I want to get the best possible outcome on this for local residents, so we will engage further with the promoters to make sure that the best package of noise mitigation measures is in place. Thirdly, we must deal with carbon emissions, so we will look at all measures to mitigate carbon impacts and address the sustainability concerns, particularly during construction. Fourthly, we must manage the other impacts on local communities. I want people who stand to lose their homes to be properly compensated for the impacts of expansion, and I want local people to have the best access to the opportunities that expansion will bring, including new jobs and apprenticeships. We will therefore develop detailed community mitigation measures for each of the shortlisted options.

We expect to conclude that package of work by the summer. Critically, that means ensuring that delivery of the timetable for the additional capacity set out by Sir Howard does not alter. The commission reported that an additional runway would be required by 2030, and we intend to meet that requirement. In saying this, I am fully aware that some will wish that we would go further, and others will wish we were making no such progress at all. We are prepared for that, because I want to get this decision right. That means getting the environmental response right and, in the meantime, getting on with the hard work to build the new capacity to the timetable set out by Sir Howard in the commission’s report. I commend this statement to the House.

16:54

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement, but it should not have fallen to him to announce that the Prime Minister has broken the clear promise he gave to the House in July, when he said:

“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.]

So, my first question is simple: why is not the Prime Minister explaining his own U-turn?

My time to respond is very limited due to the brevity of the Secretary of State’s statement, but I want to register our protest against the Government’s decision to announce their new position in the press. The Secretary of State said that,

“when an announcement is to be made, I will make it in the House.”—[Official Report, 10 December 2015; Vol. 603, c. 1135.]

Instead, we got a last-minute note from our essay-crisis Prime Minister explaining why he could not meet his own deadline. That shambolic announcement on Thursday has rightly been condemned by businesses and by hon. Members on both sides of the House.

We need a new runway in the south-east, but the environmental concerns have been known since July, so what has the Secretary of State been doing in the past six months? The Government’s announcement was such a shambles that he could not tell us basic information about the new environmental and mitigation work. What are the areas he believes still need to be addressed and were not adequately covered by the Airports Commission? Who will be leading that work? What are the terms of reference and when will it report?

If the Secretary of State cannot answer those basic questions, is it not confirmation that the Government have abandoned everything but the pretence of following due process and that the Prime Minister broke his promise because he has put avoiding a by-election in Richmond Park ahead of the national interest?

Turning to another issue raised by the statement, the Government have always said that the Sub-Committee’s recommendations would be subject to a full Cabinet discussion. Has that discussion taken place or have the Secretary of State’s colleagues been left as much in the dark as the rest of the House?

Finally, what steps will the Secretary of State now take to address the blight and uncertainty that this latest politically motivated delay will cause?

[Mr McLoughlin]

I find it rather hard to accept from the hon. Lady that we are somehow taking too long over this matter. I will go over a little bit of the history. In 2001, Labour Ministers were reported to be seriously considering building a third runway at Heathrow, to relieve the increasing congestion in London. In December 2003, the then Transport Secretary, Alistair Darling, published a White Paper on plans for a third runway and a sixth terminal at Heathrow, to be completed within 12 years. In 2007, the then Government published a public consultation document weighted firmly in favour of Heathrow to accommodate a new runway and 220,000 extra flights a year. In 2009, the then Government approved a third runway, taking the number of flights handled by the airport from 480,000 to more than 700,000 a year. It is not worthy of the Labour party to complain about the time we are taking to come to a decision on a very thorough report.

Indeed, the Leader of the Opposition seems to think so as well. He gave an interview on Sky Television last Thursday, during which the correspondent asked him:

“I think people are a little confused at the moment about exactly though what Labour’s policy on Heathrow specifically is. Can you clarify it for us, what is Labour’s position?”

The Leader of the Opposition answered:

“The position is that we’ve put these questions on how we go ahead with airport expansion on the basis of capacity across the south-east, on the basis of the need for a hub and of course the effects on neighbouring communities and the environment and noise. Those answers have to be given before any decision can be taken about where the expansion should take place.”

It gets better. The correspondent said:

“So, at the moment you do not have a position on Heathrow specifically?”

The Leader of the Opposition replied:

“At the moment that is our position”.

I do not think I will take too many lectures about getting the timescale right.

I stand by what I said in my statement, which is that Sir Howard said there needs to be a conclusion and a runway available for operation by 2030. Even on the timetable I have announced today, that is well within the range of possibilities of the programme about which we are talking, particularly in the light of the Planning Act 2008, which was of course passed by the previous Labour Government.

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

Does my right hon. Friend recall that the recommendation of a previous commission, led by Lord Justice Roskill, was not accepted by the Government of the day? Is it not right to take time to consider two aspects of Davies? One is the very weak section on the environmental aspects of developing Heathrow, and the other is the need to address the fundamental contradiction that if it is right to have a hub airport in London, three runways simply do not suffice.

[Mr McLoughlin]

My right hon. Friend has covered and followed this issue for a lot longer than anybody else in the House. He makes valid points that we need to address. There is no doubt about what is happening to overall capacity as far as aviation and aircraft movements are concerned. I am incredibly grateful not only to Sir Howard Davies but to the rest of the members of the commission for the work that they have done to produce a very valuable report, on which we will be able to reach conclusions in due course.

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

I, too, thank the Secretary of State for early sight of his statement. In Scotland, 90% of international visitors travel by air, of whom more than a third come through Heathrow as a hub, and traditional exports of salmon, shellfish and whisky are vital to the economy. Air access determines our ability to attract investment, grow jobs and grow the economy, so a decision on capacity is vital.

The UK Government have known all the environmental issues all along. They could have chosen Heathrow, Gatwick or somewhere new, all with environmental conditions. They could have chosen nothing at all: they could have ruled that out and allowed others to get on: indecision stops everyone from taking action, and keeps people and communities in stasis.

That is being said not just in Scotland and not just by me. Let me quote the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr Goodwill), at an Association of British Travel Agents conference in June 2015. He said that

“we cannot afford to stall on making a decision any longer. A thriving travel industry indicates a thriving economy; government policy must support the growth of the travel industry.”

On 7 September, the Minister in the Lords said, “There is no dithering”, and added that the decision would be made

“as the Prime Minister—the head of the Government—has made clear, by the end of this year, that is 2015.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 7 September 2015; Vol. 764, c. 1218.]

Indeed, in October 2012, the Secretary of State said that the Davies commission would make recommendations

“in 2013. Although some people say that it will take rather a long time, it will not take that long once it gets under way.”—[Official Report, 18 October 2012; Vol. 551, c. 476.]

In his speech to the Conservative party in October 2012, he said:

“There’s another area where we have got to help businesses too. And that’s to compete internationally…But in the south east the runways are filling up. And the jets are circling in our skies. That’s hitting our prosperity. It’s bad for the environment. It’s putting off investors. It’s costing jobs. And it’s holding Britain back.”

In his speech to the last Conservative conference, he said:

“On Airports in the south east. I don’t hide the challenge.”

I could go on. As the Secretary of State said, “It gets better.” The Prime Minister has twice told this House in Prime Minister’s questions that we would have a decision. Let me ask this—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)]

Order.

[Mr McLoughlin]

I thought the hon. Gentleman, in quoting various announcements, was—

[The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Dr Thérèse Coffey)]

It was a holding position.

[Mr McLoughlin]

As my hon. Friend says, he was in a holding position, because one thing he did not tell us was which scheme, or indeed which airport, he supports. He failed to do that. As I have said, it is right that this is a very big issue, and it has dogged Governments for many years. We will take a decision, but we want to do some further work on some of the environmental impacts, bearing in mind some of the recent developments. Bearing in mind the report published on 26 November by the Environmental Audit Committee, which has just looked into this issue, saying that we should take a fresh look at certain issues, I would have thought that the House accepted that that is what we will do before we come to a decision in the summer.

[Sir Simon Burns (Chelmsford) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend accept that there is a need to reach a decision on airport expansion, but that it should not come at the expense of environmental considerations? We have to get it right. As he said in his last answer, even Sir Howard Davies has accepted that since he published his report, the issue of air quality has moved on and that those changes must be examined to ensure that our decision is based on a like-for-like comparison and that we are not just hoofing it on the wing.

[Mr McLoughlin]

I thank my right hon. Friend, who took a great interest in this issue when he was in the Department. He is right that we have moved significantly further by accepting the case for more airport capacity in the south-east and the three recommendations in the report. That enables us to look at the specific issues that have come about as a result of events since the publication of the report, as well as at how the decision will affect communities and what kind of mitigation we can put in place for those who will be affected to make the decision more acceptable in the longer term.

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

More than two years ago, the Transport Committee supported the expansion of hub capacity in the national economic interest and backed Heathrow, with environmental safeguards. The Davies commission, which reported six months ago, came to very similar conclusions. It appears that the Government have done no work or very little work since that time. We are six months on and, according to the CBI, the UK economy is losing out to the tune of about £1 billion a year because of the lack of long-haul hub capacity. Will the decision ever be taken?

[Mr McLoughlin]

In fairness, the hon. Lady, who chairs the Transport Committee with distinction, was part of a Government that failed for many years to take a decision on where the extra capacity should be. Sir Howard says that it is very important that the new capacity is available by 2030. What I have talked about today will be within that timetable. We are just taking a little longer. If we had not done the work on air quality that we are embarking on, we might have slowed the process down, rather than sped it up.

[Sir Nicholas Soames (Mid Sussex) (Con)]

I remind my right hon. Friend, in all possible friendliness, that what the Labour party may or may not have done is completely irrelevant. It is of no interest to any of us and is unlikely to be so. Does he agree that this decision not to make a decision is truly lamentable? This is absolutely no way to run what he is pleased to call

“a world-class transport system to support a world-class economy.”

As the Davies commission reported absolutely clearly what its preferred decision was, without any prevarication, what exactly was the point of it?

[Mr McLoughlin]

I will make a number of points. I am very sorry that my right hon. Friend thinks that the fact that there was no action from a previous Government is completely irrelevant to the situation we find ourselves in. I do not accept that. The simple fact is that the Davies commission has identified, in a thorough report, that extra capacity is needed. It has said that three options can be considered, and we are right to consider those three options. I hope very much that, by the summer, we will be able to tell the House which one carries the most favour with the Government.

[Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State knows that I hold him in high regard, even when I heckle him, but it took the Conservatives 18 months to get past the Liberal Democrats’ red line on increases in aviation capacity, they used the Davies commission to buy three more years to get them beyond the general election and they have bought another six months by avoiding making a statement until today. Why does the Secretary of State not just admit that this is a political fix to get us past the mayoral election in London? Given his integrity and honesty, why does he not own up to the fact that this has nothing to do with the national interest?

[Mr McLoughlin]

I do not mind the occasional heckle from the hon. Gentleman—indeed, I am quite used to that by now. He says that this is just a fix to move past the mayoral elections, but we have always known when those elections were, and if it had been a fix we would have simply said when the Davies report was published that we were not going to respond for 12 months. My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) has been perfectly clear about where he stands on this matter, unlike the right hon. Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan) who, when he was Minister of State and attending Cabinet in 2009, said that he was firmly in favour of Heathrow expansion.

[Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend has held office since the Airports Commission received its instructions in September 2012, so he will know that the foreword to its report states:

“The Commission urges the Government to make an early decision on its recommendations. Further delay will be increasingly costly and will be seen, nationally and internationally, as a sign that the UK is unwilling or unable to take the steps needed to maintain its position as a well-connected open trading economy in the twenty first century.”

My right hon. Friend is a decent and loyal team player, and he is loyally presenting the team position today. Does he understand that when the Conservative team imitates the Labour candidate for Mayor of London by putting personal and party interests ahead of the national interest, we all lose?

[Mr McLoughlin]

As a distinguished Chair of a Select Committee, my hon. Friend expects his Committee to be listened to with the respect that should be given to a Select Committee. The Environmental Audit Committee recommended that the Government take more time to address air quality, and stated:

“On air quality, the Government will need to re-examine the Commission’s findings in the light of its finalised air quality strategy.”

That report was published on 26 November. Today is 14 December, and even with the best will in the world, it would have been impossible to have read and responded to all the points in that report in those few weeks. I am giving another Select Committee the kind of respect that my hon. Friend would expect for his own Committee.

[Mr Iain Wright (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

The Government have made one hell of a mess of this, which does not bode well for a swift resolution for this or any other future infrastructure decision. In many respects, the Davies commission was a template for the National Infrastructure Commission, and the Government have completely ridden roughshod over it. What reassurances can the Secretary of State provide that in matters of airport capacity and other infrastructure, the NIC will be able to take essential long-term decisions for the competitiveness of our nation, and not be thwarted by short-term, partisan considerations?

[Mr McLoughlin]

Even the National Infrastructure Commission will be subject to decisions taken in this House and by the Government of the day—that was even the case in the way the NIC would have been set up by the Labour Opposition, had they been successful at the general election. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that these are big issues, and setting up the NIC is a fundamental way forward that will help to address some of them. It will still be for the House and the Government to ensure that other legal requirements—such as those on air quality—are abided by, and we must consider other issues when making such decisions.

[Dr Tania Mathias (Twickenham) (Con)]

I commend the Secretary of State for his statement and I applaud the Government for making the environmental impact an important issue. As part of that work, will the Government also investigate current noise and air pollution problems with two runways at Heathrow?

[Mr McLoughlin]

I understand the conditions faced by my hon. Friend’s constituents. I mentioned in my statement that noise is one of the considerations we have to get right. The advance of technology means that planes are becoming quieter, but she is absolutely right. She represents a constituency very closely affected by this decision. It has to be taken after looking at all mitigation measures expected to be put in place by any of the three promoters of the scheme.

[Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State is a very honourable gentleman, particularly as he is my constituent. I am sure that deep down he is not particularly happy today. In his statement, he talked about the best possible outcome for local residents. Does he accept that my Vauxhall constituents may not be considered as local residents to Heathrow, but that it is crucial that their views are taken into consideration? They live under early morning noise pollution that is absolutely shocking. An extra runway at Heathrow will make it much worse.

[Mr McLoughlin]

One suggestion for alleviation in the commissioner’s report is an end to night flights and the flights to which the hon. Lady refers. These things always have to be taken into account. Although I live in her constituency, I do not exercise my vote there.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

Either the Government have decided to go ahead with Heathrow expansion but are delaying the announcement to avoid embarrassing their candidate for London Mayor, or they need more time to massage Heathrow’s terrible record on noise and pollution. If it were to be Gatwick, we would have been told today. Is this not a cowardly and pathetic way to decide an issue that will blight the health and lives of millions of Londoners?

[Mr McLoughlin]

The hon. Gentleman has taken a view on the Government’s decision before the Government have made the decision. That is fairly typical of what he does. I have been very open with the House on the reason for the extra work that needs to be done. There are people on the Government Benches who have been incredibly consistent on this matter and there are people on the Opposition Benches who have been less consistent. I went through the whole programme of where we got to on the timetable, and if there has been a deliberate wasting of time, it was by the previous Labour Government.

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

Does my right hon. Friend understand the dismay and frustration in the south-west as a result of this latest delay? Our infrastructure comes to the west of London. He himself has been responsible for massive rail investment, including electrification and the spur line to Heathrow. As this latest delay will have an impact on potential inward investment in our region, what confidence can we have that a decision will finally be arrived at next summer? This is not a London issue; this is a national issue.

[Mr McLoughlin]

I agree with my right hon. Friend that this is a national issue. I am grateful to him for pointing out the amount of infrastructure investment the Government can proudly point to. We are increasing investment in infrastructure by 50% in this Parliament, something I am immensely proud of. He says that the delay will not allow us to meet what the commission report says, but I disagree with him. Even on what I am saying at the moment, which is that there will be a decision by summer next year, we will be in a position to meet the timetable for extra capacity by 2030, which is when Sir Howard says it is desperately needed by.

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)]

This dithering is disgraceful. It puts the political career of the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) above the national interest, and he could not even be bothered to be in his place for the Secretary of State’s statement. [Interruption.] He was not in his place at the beginning; he came in late. I do not believe—perhaps the Secretary of State can tell us—that there are any new environmental considerations that were not known to Davies and have not been known to the Government over the past 10 years or so.

[Mr McLoughlin]

I very much regret the position the hon. Gentleman takes. He served on the Transport Committee for a considerable time. The position of my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) on the expansion of Heathrow has always been perfectly clear. I do not think anybody can be in any doubt about it.

The hon. Gentleman said that my hon. Friend was not in the Chamber, but of course he is, which is more than can be said of the right hon. Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan), who said in 2009 in the Evening Standard that he was firmly in favour of Heathrow expansion. At that time, he was a Transport Minister attending Cabinet. At least my hon. Friend has always been very specific about where he stands. I think the hon. Gentleman’s question was unworthy of him.

[Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend is right to seek to nail down the environmental issues first, because, as the House knows, if he does not, we will be in judicial review for the next generation and nothing at all will happen. That said, last week on BBC radio, the chief executive of Heathrow Airport Holdings Ltd clearly indicated that he thought Heathrow was full for freight purposes. Even today, we are losing business to Schiphol, Frankfurt, Charles de Gaulle and Dubai. We have to take action now. It will be 15 years before there are wheels on new tarmac anywhere in the south-east. Will my right hon. Friend do his utmost to get Manston airport open again so that we can turn it into a freight hub, relieve the pressure on Heathrow and take Britain forward?

[Mr McLoughlin]

My hon. Friend has led this campaign and never misses an opportunity to mention Manston airport, not only in the Chamber but every other time I meet him. He mentioned John Holland-Kaye’s comments on the “Today” programme last Friday which I think were about current capacity for flights from Heathrow for the movement of freight, but my hon. Friend is talking about setting up a completely new operation at Manston, and I wish him well in his campaign.

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

I believe that the delay is not merely political expediency; I believe that the Secretary of State has come to realise something I have known for 15 years: expansion at Heathrow is just too difficult. As well as air quality and noise, will he address the business case, over which the Airports Commission’s economic advisers seem to differ? Will he properly assess the ground-based security and crash risks of the different options—they were not so assessed in the commission’s report? Will he force Heathrow airport to declare where the flight paths will be, particularly the approach paths, and the differences between what the commission recommends for Heathrow and what Heathrow is prepared to accept?

[Mr McLoughlin]

I think I might need an Adjournment debate to answer those questions. The Airports Commission has considered all those points in detail, and I have said that extra work is being done, which is the right thing to do.

[Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con)]

As one who publicly supported increased air transport movements in Farnborough in my constituency, may I ask my right hon. Friend to confirm that the Government have not ruled out additional runways at both London Gatwick and London Heathrow, given the importance of this matter to the entire economy? Does he think that the Heathrow hub proposal by Jock Lowe, which would be far less destructive, stands a much better chance than it previously did?

[Mr McLoughlin]

As I have said throughout my answers, all three options—a third runway at Heathrow, a Heathrow hub and a second runway at Gatwick—are under consideration. That remains the position, but my hon. Friend, who is a keen aviator himself, will know of the difficulties that have to be addressed. That is the right thing to do.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

I admire the Secretary of State’s chutzpah in explaining that the Prime Minister has decided to be indecisive, but if he is keen to give further consideration to the serious environmental considerations of air pollution, why have the Government been lobbying heavily in the European Commission against the air quality package?

[Mr McLoughlin]

The hon. Gentleman tells us that we have been indecisive, but he was a member of a Government who could make no decision whatever on this matter. As for where we stand on various things in the European Commission and the European Parliament, this is about a whole range of issues, not necessarily one individual, small item.

[Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend justifies the additional delay by saying, quite rightly, that he wants to get the decision right. It just occurs to me that if we had done the same with HS2, it could have been cheaper and less environmentally damaging. May I say that that is an observation and not a question? No reply is needed.

[Mr McLoughlin]

I should give one, just to put the record straight. The HS2 route has undergone considerable improvement, much of which my hon. Friend has campaigned for, and he has got his own way on what he wanted in his constituency.

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

It is like something straight from “Yes Minister”. “What do we want?” “Airport expansion!” “When do we want it?” “At the appropriate juncture, in the fullness of time” —after umpteen inquiries, reports and working groups, and a cost of millions of pounds to the taxpayer, all for a by-election in Richmond Park. “He used to be indecisive, but now he’s not so sure.” Will the Government get on with it, as the country expects us to?

[Mr McLoughlin]

I am still waiting to hear—it should be such a simple, easy answer—what the SNP’s position is on this matter. Which scheme do SNP Members support? They are silent on it. They want everybody else to give their answers, so that once the decision is made they will attack it and say they would go down a different route. That seems to be the only point of the SNP in this Chamber: to wait for a decision to be made, then attack it. No wonder SNP Members are in such a difficult position today.

[Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)]

The effect of a hub airport in the United Kingdom stretches to all parts of the United Kingdom, including up in the Leeds area. Those travelling transatlantic who want to get airside at Leeds cannot do so because the first flight out of Leeds is around midday, so capacity is vital to the economy. However, I believe that all the options before us are wrong and I would like my right hon. Friend take to this opportunity to look further at what I think is a better option, a fourth: two more runways at Stansted.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)]

Order. Before I call the Secretary of State, I remind Members that we are asking questions, not making statements, and those questions should be a lot shorter.

[Mr McLoughlin]

I hear what my hon. Friend says, but the call from most Members in the Chamber is to make a decision. If we reopen the whole question and go back to his suggestion, it might take rather longer.

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

Given the high risk that the work that the Secretary of State has announced today will not bring the Heathrow plan any closer but will just reinforce the idea that it is far too hot a political potato, why does he not revert to the Gatwick option, safe in the knowledge that, under his stewardship, HS2 will be ready well before 2030, thus allowing Birmingham to complement Gatwick?

[Mr McLoughlin]

I mentioned in my statement the importance of seeing other airports in the United Kingdom grow and offer more services. I think I mentioned Birmingham, Manchester, Newcastle, Edinburgh and Glasgow—I will be told off for the ones I failed to mention—but the point is well made by the hon. Gentleman: services from other airports are also very important indeed.

[Nick Herbert (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)]

The Secretary of State said that the Government accepted the case for expansion. Presumably that is why they set up the commission in the first place, so it did not need three years to tell them that. He also said that the Government accepted the Airports Commission’s shortlist of options. Increasingly, he presents the case as though there are three equal options from the Airports Commission, but has the commission not made an unequivocal recommendation? Should not the Government at least be open about that? Is he aware that last week the chief executive of International Airlines Group, Willie Walsh, while expressing concerns about the cost of Heathrow, said that there was

“no business case for expanding Gatwick,”

and:

“Very few airlines support the proposal and no one would move there while Heathrow remains open”?

[Mr McLoughlin]

I could also cite quotes from Willie Walsh which would put a question mark over the Heathrow proposals. If we are getting into the game of quoting Willie Walsh, we will find many that could be cited on this subject. The correct thing for the Government to do is to look at all three options in light of the environmental work and the mitigation circumstances that we would like to see, and then return to the House once we have decided with which option we will go forward.

[Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State has let himself down in the way he has responded to questions, making it an issue of party ping-pong and who is responsible for what delay. Let us be absolutely clear. I welcome his remarks about air quality, which is very important for Heathrow. However, he has heard me speak about the fact that there are more European headquarters of multinational companies in Slough than in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland put together. What research has he done on how few such companies will remain in the UK—anywhere in the UK—as a result of the ongoing delays in making this decision?

[Mr McLoughlin]

I am sorry that the right hon. Lady was so disappointed with the way I have responded. I responded partly in view of the way in which the Labour Front-Bench team attacked the Government for their indecision. I realise that the right hon. Lady has presented a petition to No. 10 Downing street in support of the expansion of Heathrow airport. This is an issue that divides colleagues in political parties, and I think it right for the Government to make sure that the proper environmental work is done before any move forward is taken.

[Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con)]

As a member of the Transport Select Committee, I have to observe that the Government have got themselves into a rather big hole on this issue. At least, however, they have my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, a former miner, to dig them out of it. Can my right hon. Friend assure me that this decision will be taken in the early summer and that it will look favourably at the Davies commission, which made a clear recommendation to build a third runway at Heathrow?

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

Stop digging!

[Mr McLoughlin]

The shadow Chancellor says stop digging. He should learn lessons from his own shouting from a sedentary position.

[John McDonnell]

That was a compliment!

[Mr McLoughlin]

Oh, that was a good one; I will put that in my book.

As for the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mark Menzies), the important part of the Davies commission recommendations was having the extra capacity in place by 2030. I believe, given what I have said today, that we are on schedule to be able to deliver that extra capacity by 2030.

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

As somebody who supports the expansion of Heathrow, let me indicate my frustration that progress has been caught up in an internal Conservative holding pattern. The Secretary of State has on three occasions this evening reiterated the commitment to the 2030 timescale. Will he assure us that in six months’ time a decision will not be taken to kick the can further down the road?

[Mr McLoughlin]

I have said that I hope to come back to the House in the summer. I am not going to say exactly when that will be from today’s date, but I fully accept the point that services to Northern Ireland are incredibly important. Northern Ireland is already well connected to London. There were around 17,000 flights between Belfast and London in 2014, of which about 6,000 were to Heathrow. I do not underestimate the importance of connectivity to London for Northern Ireland or indeed for Scotland.

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

If the decision on the new runway were made on the basis of environmental data that are seen not to be robust, it would lead to delays and legal challenges that would last far longer than if we waited for more reliable data. London Gatwick has already briefed me on its concerns about the quality of the Davies commission data. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that he will look at all the data over the next few months and get them as robust as possible, so that when a decision is made, it can be enacted straight away?

[Mr McLoughlin]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. If any lesson has been learnt from the preparations for HS2, it is the need to ensure that all the processes are gone through diligently and properly. There were a number of attempts to secure judicial reviews in relation to HS2, and nearly all of them failed.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State has come to the House today to try to hoodwink us all into thinking that he is the most incompetent and indecisive Secretary of State that there has ever been, but no one is fooled by his attempt to take a hit on behalf of the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith). This is a fix for next year’s mayoral election, and nothing else. It certainly has nothing to do with anything that is in the national interest. [Interruption.]

[Mr McLoughlin]

I am going to do it again. The shadow Chancellor has just said “That was a compliment.”

Let me say to the hon. Member for Eltham (Clive Efford)—who has been present for all the exchanges—that it is not my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park who has changed his position on the question of Heathrow, but the right hon. Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan), who, when he was a transport Minister, said that he was firmly in favour of its expansion. As for the date of the mayoral election, if we had initially wanted to put off the decision until after the election, we would have simply said that there would be no decision for 12 months, and would then have considered it for 12 months. The fact is that we are making progress. It is important that we make more progress by 2030, and that is what we shall do.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

No matter how skilfully the Secretary of State tries to pretend otherwise, we all know that this rather grubby little announcement—if I may say so—is all about trying to get the Conservative party and my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) over next May, and to cross that particular line. This is no way for the Government to make decisions and announcements. They talk about the northern powerhouse as if they really believed in it—which, indeed, I am sure that they do—and the Secretary of State must know that expanding Heathrow is essential for the northern powerhouse, so will he please act in the national interest rather than just making a grubby little announcement to benefit London and our excellent mayoral candidate?

[Mr McLoughlin]

I am glad that my hon. Friend is showing support for the northern powerhouse. It is very important to me and very important to the Government, and we are backing it with huge amounts of investment in electrification and new train services. The two new franchises that were announced last week will have a very beneficial effect on transport connectivity between our major cities in the north. That is vital, as is getting the whole question of future aviation capacity right.

[Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)]

What a pathetic way to make decisions about infrastructure in our country! Is the Secretary of State not a little bit shamefaced over what is an excruciatingly painful example of political procrastination, although it is obviously in the national interest for him to get on with it at Heathrow? On a scale of one to 10, just how embarrassed is he?

[Mr McLoughlin]

Political procrastination? In 2001,

“Labour ministers are reported to be seriously considering building a third runway”.

In 2003,

“The transport secretary, Alistair Darling, publishes white paper”.

In 2007,

“The government publishes a public consultation document”

in favour of expanding Heathrow. 1n 2009,

“The government approves a third runway, taking the number of flights handled by the airport from 480,000 to more than 700,000”.

I will take no lectures on ducking big issues, because the ducking of big issues was done when the hon. Gentleman was a member of the last Labour Government.

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

I am pleased that the Secretary of State recognises the importance of regional airports while more airport capacity is delivered in the south-east. What is he doing to encourage more airlines to fly on more routes from Manchester airport?

[Mr McLoughlin]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. While he talks about Manchester, I also talk about Birmingham, Newcastle, Edinburgh and Glasgow. I think it is absolutely essential to try to get more connectivity from airports so that people do not necessarily have to travel to Heathrow or to Gatwick to get the flights they want. That is very important.

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

I like the Secretary of State, so I feel for him, as he is like a sheep snagged on barbed wire: the harder he tries to extricate himself, the more firmly entangled he becomes. To help the Secretary of State, may I suggest he takes this opportunity—no ifs, no buts—to abandon environmentally unsustainable plans for a third runway at Heathrow and pledges instead, first, to improve surface access to Luton and Stansted airports to make better use of spare capacity there, and, secondly, to deliver HS2 on time so that we can see far more people travelling by rail, instead of taking short-haul flights?

[Mr McLoughlin]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question, and remind him that the Davies commission was set up by the coalition Government to make and examine the case fully for what we should do for the future. I was proud of serving in that coalition Government, and I was proud of a lot of the things they achieved. The Davies commission and setting it up was just one of them, and now the right hon. Gentleman is wanting us to back away from the difficult questions it poses to us.

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the independent and impartial Airports Commission clearly stated that Heathrow was the best option? If Governments in the future decide against that and wish to expand Gatwick, may I have a guarantee that the significant investment that will be required in housing, highways, the rail network and healthcare and all other public services will be forthcoming?

[Mr McLoughlin]

There are already significant commitments with regard to Gatwick; improving the infrastructure for Gatwick is already taking place and further such schemes will be coming on board over the next few years. It is vital that we get the surface access to our airports correct. That is something we are dealing with over a period of time. My hon. Friend asks whether there would be other consequences if the decision should go towards Gatwick. That will be the case for any option we choose, and of course we want to look at those options and see which ones we would want to take forward.

[Mr Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham, Perry Barr) (Lab)]

The Government are developing some capacity for hot air balloons in the process of trying to get to this decision. Rather than just talking about the issue and waiting, may I remind the right hon. Gentleman that Birmingham has current hub capacity and a brand new runway now?

[Mr McLoughlin]

I wholly concur with the way in which Birmingham has gone about its expansion both of the runway and the airport overall, and I think HS2 will have a very important impact for Birmingham airport as well, so I agree with the hon. Gentleman.

[Kwasi Kwarteng (Spelthorne) (Con)]

Will the Secretary of State give us an assurance that there will be a decision in the summer, because the only question my constituents ask is whether this thing will actually be decided upon or not?

[Mr McLoughlin]

As I have said to the House, I think it is very important that we stick to the timetable of Sir Howard Davies’s report, and that is having extra capacity available by 2030. I will want to follow that timetable.

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

In order to demonstrate that this is not a political fudge, can the Secretary of State clearly state what additional work is going to be undertaken to refine and reassess air quality and noise considerations, who is going to do that work, who is going to assess it, and how the final decision is going to be made? Lastly, as a Scotsman, can I just ask the Secretary of State please to explain exactly at what time of year is summer? I would also point out that not once today has the Secretary of State said in which year—which summer—he is going to report, so can he pin down the year, or is that another fudge?

[Mr McLoughlin]

To try to reassure the hon. Gentleman, who is yet another Scottish nationalist to get up but not to say which option he supports, let me point out that what I have said and been clear about is that we will stick to the timetable that gives the extra capacity that is needed by 2030.

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

I normally try to support my right hon. Friend, but I must admit that I am struggling somewhat on this occasion. Can he give an absolute assurance that if results of the further work on air quality and noise were to go against Heathrow, the default position would be to accept Gatwick and not waste more years by setting up yet another commission?

[Mr McLoughlin]

If my hon. Friend looks at my statement, he will see that I made it quite clear that the Government accept that the three options put forward by the commission are the right ones for providing extra capacity, so the answer to his question is that I do accept that.

I did not fully answer all the questions that the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) asked. I meant to say that the work will be done by the Department for Transport.

[Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)]

We all accept that we find ourselves in a difficult political spot, but the Secretary of State is right that we are talking about a national infrastructure project that will affect runway and aviation capacity throughout the country. Will he commit to meeting me and representatives of regional airports—he did not mention East Midlands, Speke and Durham Tees Valley, so perhaps he can squeeze them in as well—to ensure that we plug the 15 to 20-year gap before we get extra capacity in the south-east?

[Mr McLoughlin]

I did not mention every airport in the country, but I tried to mention the bigger airports outside London—I will get in trouble for saying that—such as Manchester, Newcastle, Edinburgh, Birmingham and Glasgow. I did not mention East Midlands, which is just down the road from my area, but would I like to see more services from East Midlands airport? The answer is clearly yes.

[John Howell (Henley) (Con)]

I welcome the decision to delay the final decision until the environmental concerns have been resolved. Colleagues and I are in negotiations with the Civil Aviation Authority and NATS to control noise from aircraft coming in to Heathrow over the Thames valley. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the resolution of that issue is crucial to our future support for Heathrow?

[Mr McLoughlin]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. Aviation capacity does not only affect the areas directly involved but has a wider impact across the rest of the economy and the rest of the country.

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

In light of the Paris conference, which we have just heard a statement about, what recent discussions has the right hon. Gentleman had with the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change and the Committee on Climate Change about how increased airport capacity will affect the UK’s ability to meet its emissions reduction targets?

[Mr McLoughlin]

One of the people who served on the Airports Commission was a member of the Committee on Climate Change, Dame Julia King, who has since been ennobled, so we and the Davies commission took that matter into account. There have obviously been further developments since then, such as the Volkswagen scandal. As the Environmental Audit Committee said, it is right that we should judge our response based on the new information that has become available. Sir Howard Davies also said that in his evidence to that Committee, and I want that to be done. As I have said, I still believe that we can deliver on the 2030 timetable set out in the commission’s report.

[Karen Lumley (Redditch) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the decision is important for our regional airports, such as Birmingham International airport, which I recently visited to see its increased capacity and success? Will he acknowledge that we may see a second runway in Birmingham in the future, along with High Speed 2?

[Mr McLoughlin]

My hon. Friend never misses an opportunity to promote Birmingham airport. The only thing I slightly disagree with her about is that I do not regard airports such as Birmingham, Manchester, Newcastle, East Midlands, Glasgow and Edinburgh as regional airports.

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

I thank my right hon. Friend for confirming that the Government will not outsource key policy decisions to unelected commissions and will not be rushed into making a decision about a runway that will not be operational until 2030. Will he confirm that if the third runway is still to be considered, it will only be with the three caveats that Davies placed on it, about a fourth runway, night flights and meeting EU air quality limits?

[Mr McLoughlin]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, in that whatever decision is finally taken—three options are still being discussed—we must get the best mitigation deals possible for the people affected. The three points he mentioned would certainly be important considerations in any decision, including if the decision should be taken for Heathrow. As I say, we are looking at three options.

[David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)]

The Government seem to have one of two positions, and I would be interested to understand which one it is. Either we have accepted the Davies commission, subject to sorting out these environmental issues, and therefore we will go down that route if we are able, or we have now decided that there are three equal options and we are looking at all three from scratch. Which of the two routes are we going to go down?

[Mr McLoughlin]

We have accepted the Davies report on the need for capacity by 2030 and the three options, and it is those three options that we are looking at. I know the Davies commission supported one in particular, but the Government have to look at all three of the options available.

[Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)]

In the Secretary of State’s defence, we have not built a full runway in the south-east of England since 1946 and so I am not sure whether another six months will make so much difference—so long as he does make the decision in the summer of 2016. When he decides, will he make his decision in the interests of the whole country, including the 9.5 million residents of the midlands, whom he and I represent, and not just in the interests of the denizens of west London?

[Mr McLoughlin]

If one looks as the record of this Government, one sees that we have always acted in the national interest. We have done that on extra railway capacity and we are going to do it on the other big infrastructure investment proposals. They are always controversial and it is right, in this day and age, that we take every measure we can to mitigate the environmental impacts of any decisions we take.

[Marcus Fysh (Yeovil) (Con)]

Job prospects in the south-west and in the rest of the country outside the south-east would clearly be best enhanced by an expansion at Heathrow, but it needs to be legally secure. Does my right hon. Friend agree that sometimes it is best to have a thorough look at these things and that a stitch in time might in this case save nine?

[Mr McLoughlin]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that. One thing I have learned from taking through some of the big infrastructure projects that I have been responsible for is that it is right to make sure we can prove on all the possible challenges we will face that we have done the right amount of work in preparation for whatever decisions we put before the House.

[Jeremy Quin (Horsham) (Con)]

What drives air quality is car emissions. Heathrow has far superior and far more rapid public transport links, including four rail links. Gatwick has the one rail link, which, as the Secretary of State is well aware, is not the best one in the country. Will he assure us that in any analysis of air quality, a full understanding will be taken of the impact of the extra car journeys that would inevitably result from the vast increase in passengers and from the employees required, none of whom would be local, were Gatwick to be chosen as the option?

[Mr McLoughlin]

Those are all points that have to be put forward and addressed in the work that we are going to do in the coming months on air quality. As I say, a lot of this work has been covered by Davies, but a lot more is still to be done. My hon. Friend is right to show his concern and also to point out that there is no easy or straightforward answer on aviation capacity. We must also accept that aviation is a very important industry for this country, employing many thousands of people, including right across the supply chain and the delivery chain. On that basis, I hope that he will accept my assurances.

Points of Order

Monday 14th December 2015 Commons Chamber

17:54

[Sir Nicholas Soames (Mid Sussex) (Con)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I think you were in the Chair when the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) accused my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith), who has sat quietly and respectfully throughout this exchange, of not being in his place. Although my hon. Friend is completely wrong on absolutely everything to do with runways, it is extremely unfair to his constituents and to his future supporters in the mayoral election that they should think he was not here for the whole of the time that this statement took place.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that point of order. I thought it was very clear from the response given from the Government Benches that the hon. Member for Richmond Park was indeed here and had been here throughout. That was the case even at the time the point was made, but the right hon. Gentleman has made it once again and it is now firmly on the record.

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

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I would, however, like to point out that at the point the Secretary of State started his statement the hon. Member for Richmond Park was not in his place.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I was not in the Chair when that happened, but that is now also on the record.

[Ms Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. It was with complete horror that I read in the papers yesterday allegations that a British official was present in January 2002 when Shaker Aamer was tortured and that further officials arrived at Bagram airbase on the same plane as the then Prime Minister. Such serious accusations of a UK Government being complicit in torture not only bring disrepute on this institution, but cause grave concern about the UK Government’s record on upholding the universal declaration of human rights and on honouring the historic values of the right to a fair trial. I am looking for the Government to make an urgent statement on this matter and am calling on the Prime Minister to honour his words from 2010, when he said:

“For public confidence, and for independence from Parliament, party and Government, it is right to have a judge-led inquiry”.

He also said:

“That is what we need to get to the bottom of the case. The fact that it is led by a judge will help ensure that we get it done properly.”—[Official Report, 6 July 2010; Vol. 513, c. 180.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I thank the hon. Lady for her point of order and for the notice she gave the Chair about it. This is obviously not a matter for the Chair, but, as she can see, a Foreign Office Minister is on the Treasury Bench, he will have heard what she has said and I am sure he will respond in due course.

European Union (Approvals) Bill [Lords]

Monday 14th December 2015 Commons Chamber

Considered in Committee

[Natascha Engel in the Chair]

Clause 1

Approval of draft decisions under Article 352 of TFEU

17:59

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Natascha Engel)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clause 2.

[The Minister for Employment (Priti Patel)]

Clause 1 provides for approval by Parliament of two draft EU legislative measures, as required under section 8 of the European Union Act 2011. Such approval is needed because both measures are made under article 352 of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union. Section 8 of the Act does provide for exemptions, in order to avoid the requirement for an Act of Parliament, but the measures here do not fall within any of the exempt purposes.

Clause 2 concerns the territorial extent of the Bill, its commencement date and short title. Subsection (1) 2 provides that the Bill extends to the whole of the United Kingdom. Subsection (2) provides that the Bill will come into force on the day that it receives Royal Assent. Subsection (3) provides for the Bill’s short title. I ask hon. Members to agree to clauses 1 and 2 standing part of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair.

Bill reported, without amendment.

Third Reading

18:00

[Priti Patel]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

The brief explanation that accompanied the clause stand parts in the Committee stage covered all the points that need to be made about the content of this very short Bill and the reason it is required. Obviously, we covered some of the points on Second Reading. It is fair to say that our debates on this Bill have covered the two clauses sufficiently. Perhaps it is worth reflecting on the fact that the Bill before us forms part of the ability of Parliament to examine and give clearance through the much broader protection and oversight that the European Union Act 2011 affords us. Bills such as this give another layer of protection in dealing with European Union legislation.

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

As my right hon. Friend rightly says, the only concern is why such trivial matters are being dealt with by way of an Act of Parliament. Does she agree that, while these might be trivial matters and while the public might be concerned that they are being dealt with by way of an Act of Parliament, the public will be equally concerned that major matters such as perhaps the accession of Turkey to the European Union will go through exactly the same procedure?

[Priti Patel]

I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks. It is fair to say that, when it comes to debating such matters, I would not use the term “trivial”. The European Union covers not just that particular area, but other aspects, such as the accession of Turkey to the European Union. There will be debates on that matter and engagement with the European Scrutiny Committee. I am delighted to see the Chair of the European Scrutiny Committee in his place this afternoon.

I was very clear on Second Reading that there were concerns over what this legislation meant—whether it was burdensome and whether there were costs to the taxpayer. I use Third Reading to emphasise again that there are no burdens of administration or extra costs to the taxpayer. The Bill covers two clauses, one of which relates to the tripartite social summit, the other to the participation as an observer of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia in the work of the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights. They are two very straightforward clauses in a very straightforward Bill. On that basis, I commend the Bill to the House.

18:03

[Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)]

I must admit that I find myself called to the Dispatch Box today in a state of some bewilderment. We are here to debate two matters. The first is whether a new position should be established within an organisation with the somewhat abstruse name of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia Stabilisation and Association Council. Establishing that new position in some way facilitates the admission of Macedonia as an observer to the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights. The second provision relates to the continuation of the tripartite social summit for growth and employment. I think that is why I am here.

There appears to be a need to update the formal basis of this summit, mostly in recognition of the fact that its function now relates to the “agenda for jobs and growth” and not the “agenda for employment and growth” as was previously the case. Will the Minister confirm that that is the case? If it is, the substance of this Bill is almost the definition of bureaucratic minutiae. Although I understand that both provisions relate to draft decisions of the European Council, which need to be approved by each individual member state as well as by the European Parliament, I find the use of primary legislation in these circumstances quite extraordinary. It comes at a time when the Government are hacking away at the social safety net via secondary legislation, on which it is frankly an uphill struggle to get Minsters to agree even to a short debate up in the Committee corridor. It suggests that the Government do not have their priorities in order.

Anyway, here we are, and I will use my time briefly to recap some of the context of these proposals, which I do not expect to be the subject of raging controversy in today’s debate. As we have heard, the first part of the Bill relates to the admission of Macedonia as an observer at the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights. That move follows a report from the European Commission, which was published earlier this year and which set out a number of recommendations to revive Macedonia’s long-stalled candidacy for accession to the EU.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend will be aware that the Greeks get very upset when the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia is called Macedonia. Perhaps she could use the full title to ensure that we do not upset our Greek colleagues.

[Emily Thornberry]

My hon. Friend is quite right. I do apologise. I hope that Hansard will get it right even if I do not.

This process was initiated in 2005, but has been put on hold as a result of widespread concerns more recently over the country’s deteriorating record on human rights. The admission as an observer of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia to the EU’s Agency for Fundamental Rights was one of a number of recommendations made in the European Commission’s recent report. As the Minister helpfully explained during the debate on Second Reading, it is hoped that

“Observer status at the agency could allow the country to have access to advice and assistance on fundamental rights issues to help to tackle its reform challenges, and provide assistance and help to the country on human rights issues.”—[Official Report, 3 November 2015; Vol. 601, c. 897.]

At the rate this Government are going—I am talking about removing the requirement to respect international law from the Ministerial Code and pressing ahead with their plan to repeal the Human Rights Act—perhaps the Minister and a few of her colleagues should join the Macedonian delegation and learn a few lessons.

The second provision relates to changes to the basis of the EU’s tripartite social summit for growth and employment. The Bill’s explanatory notes describe this summit as:

“a regular forum for meetings of representatives of the European social partner organisations, the European Commission, and the Council to enable high level discussion between the three parties of employment and social aspects of the European agenda for growth and jobs.”

Beyond those exceptionally vague generalities, further details of the summit’s role are surprisingly hard to come by. Nevertheless, any discussion of jobs and growth is hardly objectionable, and certainly not objected to by me. In fact, should representatives of the UK take part in any upcoming meetings, it might provide an ideal opportunity for Ministers to take on board some of the valuable lessons that our European friends may have to offer. At a time when our jobs market is not exactly the envy of the entire continent, the Government should welcome such an opportunity. We have, for example, a higher proportion of graduates doing jobs for which they are over qualified—at 59%—than any other country in the European Union, apart from Greece and Estonia. We have a higher rate of underemployment—with a 10th of our entire workforce working less than they want to—than any other EU country except for Ireland, Spain and again Greece. That particular problem appears to be getting worse. The most recent employment figures from the Office for National Statistics showed that, even though the number of people in work in the UK has risen, the total number of hours worked by the UK has actually fallen. Perhaps the Minister’s European counterparts could teach her a thing or two.

We do not intend to oppose this Bill. In fact, I welcome it, at least as far as it goes, as it offers a reminder of some of the things for which we have to be grateful in our membership of the EU, not least the protection of fundamental rights and freedoms, including some of the most basic rights in the workplace, which many people take for granted. At a time when the Government are undermining those rights on a number of fronts, particularly in the Trade Union Bill, we should welcome the opportunity that this debate provides to remember the positive role that the EU can play in our lives, particularly when it comes to protecting dignity and security in the workplace. It is disappointing that the Government do not seem to share those values.

18:09

[Stephen Gethins (North East Fife) (SNP)]

I am sure that Members from across the Committee will be delighted to hear that the SNP will be supporting the Bill; they will be even more delighted to hear that I will try to keep my comments as brief as possible. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] I think that is the most popular thing I have said since I became a Member.

EU expansion has been a great success, and it is good to see our friends and colleagues from across the European Union working more closely together. I am particularly pleased to see Macedonia join the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights as an observer; that will be particularly helpful as it deals with the refugee crisis. I hope the country will benefit. It is also a reminder of the countries that have the biggest burden in dealing with the refugee crisis, and the UK could certainly do more.

On the second point, we wholeheartedly support any work to improve dialogue between the EU institutions, employers and workers’ representatives through the tripartite social summit for growth and employment.

We need to remain part of the European Union. There are great benefits to that, as I am sure Members across the Committee agree. We support the Bill.

18:11

[Kelvin Hopkins]

It looks as if the Bill will go through without too much controversy, but it is worth commenting on the state of employment across the whole European Union, including the UK. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) has drawn attention to our own problems. Before some hon. Members were born, here in Britain we had the biggest TUC demonstration in history when unemployment went over 1 million; it is now closer to 2 million. We will leave that to one side.

The Bill seeks approval for amendments to be made to the tripartite social summit for growth and employment following institutional changes brought in by the Lisbon treaty. The organisation is meant to discuss increasing the employment rate and investing 3% of gross domestic product in research and development—all sorts of worthy things. However, the EU is living in a dream world if it really thinks it is doing well economically. Austerity has been imposed in many EU countries and there are incredible rates of unemployment—typically 25% in the worst-off states; in Britain, that would mean 4.5 million people unemployed rather than 1.8 million or whatever it is. The situation is in a very bad way and some of the larger countries are quietly suffering—particularly France. People in France are nervous about their futures while they remain stuck inside the euro, if not the European Union.

Anyone who thinks that everything is fine and dandy is being Panglossian—“all is for the best in this best of all possible worlds”. If people in the European Union really believe that, they are living in a dream world.

The reality is that the EU is economically failing. I have mentioned Greece, Italy and France, but Finland also has serious problems; it is thinking of printing billions of euros to try to stop the country from sinking. There are all sorts of serious economic problems inside the eurozone and indeed the European Union. The only way those countries are ever going to get the jobs and growth that are so often talked about is for them to be able to reflate their economies on a national basis. That means they have to be able to control the value of their currencies in relation to others as well as their interest rates. They also need their own fiscal policies. When they can reflate behind their own barriers, Europe as a continent will start to grow again and millions of people who have been out of work for a long time can get back into work.

This is an innocuous Bill, but we should focus occasionally on some of the points about jobs and growth that it covers to show how bad the situation is. When I was a young person, everyone had a job. There was full employment—in fact, there was a labour shortage. Between 1945 and the 1970s there was a growth in living standards such as we had never seen before. Since then, things have gone badly wrong and there have been crises. As I have said from these Benches before, there are more serious crises to come. I do not think that the European Union is being economically successful and when it talks constantly about growth, stability and jobs, it is living in a dream world.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, without amendment.

Relocation of Migrants in need of International Protection (Opt-in Decision)

Monday 14th December 2015 Commons Chamber

[Relevant documents: 2nd Report from the European Scrutiny Committee, Session 2015-16, HC 342-ii, Chapter 3; 3rd Report from the European Scrutiny Committee, Session 2015-16, HC 342-iii, Chapter 8; 5th Report from the European Scrutiny Committee, Session 2015-16, HC 342-v, Chapters 1, 2, and 3; and 9th Report from the European Scrutiny Committee, Session 2015-16, HC 342-ix, Chapter 3.]

18:15

[The Minister for Immigration (James Brokenshire)]

I beg to move,

That this House takes note of European Union Documents No. 9355/15 and Addendum and No. 11132/15, international protection for the benefit of Italy and Greece, No. 11843/15 and Addendum, establishing a crisis relocation mechanism, and No. 11844/15 and Addendum, international protection for the benefit of Italy, Greece and Hungary; and agrees with the Government’s decision not to opt in to proposals establishing provisional measures for the relocation of individuals in need of international protection or to the proposal establishing a crisis relocation mechanism.

The motion covers a series of EU proposals on the relocation of migrants within the EU. They formed a central part of the EU’s summer response to the ongoing migration crisis and have been the subject of long negotiations within the EU and of previous debates in the House.

The current migration crisis has been described as the worst refugee crisis since world war two. It has severely tested the ability and resolve of the EU and member states to provide a comprehensive and sustainable response that is able to support member states under the most pressure and ensure protection for those in real need of it. The situation has been and remains complex and fast moving. Proposals have been brought forward and adopted extremely quickly; at times, Interior Ministers have met almost weekly, and as soon as proposals were adopted, they were often superseded by others.

Since the crisis began, the Government have been clear about our views on relocation: it is the wrong response. It does absolutely nothing to address the underlying causes of the crisis and does nothing more than move the problem around Europe. Relocation also reduces incentives for member states to tackle abuse, process applications and strengthen their borders. It may also encourage more migrants to travel illegally to the EU. We must ensure that the permanent relocation proposal does not reduce the obligation on all member states to have fully functioning border and asylum systems.

The Government have consistently stated that the UK would not opt in to measures, whether temporary or permanent. I apologise to the House for the fact that we have had to override scrutiny on these relocation measures. The European Commission brought forward proposals on relocation as a response to an emergency situation. The Prime Minister and Home Secretary were required to make the Government’s views on such measures clear in hastily arranged EU Council meetings.

The debates on relocation continue within the EU. Only a tiny number of people have been relocated under the agreed temporary measures and many member states are now stepping back from their previous commitments. Concern is growing about the merits of the permanent mechanism.

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

Does my hon. Friend agree with the position of Slovakia? It believes that the decision should have been taken by unanimity.

[James Brokenshire]

Obviously, we are not party to the arrangements as we are using our opt-out. My hon. Friend highlights some of the issues that have arisen since the measures were put into place. I am aware that Slovakia and Hungary have recently filed legal challenges in the European Court of Justice against the relocation scheme. There are relevant concerns. In our view, the proposals are ill conceived and many more now question the viability of relocation as a tool to manage the migration crisis.

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

I strongly support the Government’s decision to opt out. Will the Minister explain something? Under the scheme that was agreed, if migrants were allocated a given country to settle in but then decided they would rather live in another EU country, what would stop them from moving?

[James Brokenshire]

My right hon. Friend has highlighted what might be described as secondary movement, and we remain conscious of that. Obviously, there is secondary movement within the Schengen area, but we maintain our own border controls and visa requirements. Practical issues with the scheme have been highlighted; to date, only about 160 people have been relocated under the measures thus far.

Rather than relocating those arriving in Europe, the Government have made clear that our policy is to focus our efforts on resettling vulnerable people in need of international protection. We continue to make the case that this is not just an EU problem but an international issue requiring concerted action from a whole range of international parties.

[Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

Is not the problem on secondary movement the fact that once migrants have become citizens of an EU member state, the free movement of people means that they are entitled to go anywhere? Even under our own laws, asylum seekers go to the head of the queue in getting nationality.

[James Brokenshire]

My hon. Friend makes an important point in respect of rights and entitlement to citizenship, but he will know that there are certain tests that we adopt—good character requirements, for example—and other steps that we take to assure ourselves in respect of those who may be granted citizenship, and that that process is conducted over a number of years before someone would be so entitled. Citizenship is certainly not automatic. I underline the point that I made—we maintain our own visa and border requirements in respect of those who come here, and adhere to them clearly for those who are not EU citizens.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

There is another problem that arises before secondary movement. What if the refugees do not want to go to the countries to which they have been allocated? If they are put on trains and forcibly sent to countries that they do not want to go to, that has echoes of uncomfortable times in the past.

[James Brokenshire]

The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point about the operation of the scheme. That has been a practical issue for EU member states that are party to the scheme when migrants have displayed an unwillingness to participate in the relocation arrangements envisaged by the measures to be debated this evening. Such practical issues have to be confronted.

The migration crisis is constantly changing and requires a flexible but robust response. Our approach has been designed to protect the UK interest while making a contribution to helping those in need and addressing the unprecedented challenge faced by our partners. Relocation is not proving to be successful. In our view, time would be better spent on measures that would make a real difference. We must secure the external border, quickly provide protection to those who need it and return those who do not. That is where the focus of this Government will remain, and I trust that the House will be minded to support the motion.

18:21

[Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)]

I am glad we have the opportunity to debate this vitally important issue today. Political unrest and widespread violations of human rights have led to millions of people being displaced. The UNHCR says that there are 4.3 million Syrian refugees alone. This is, as the Minister said, the worst humanitarian crisis in Europe since the second world war, and it is clearly the most important issue now facing the EU.

Over the past nine months, the EU has seen unprecedented levels of migration, with more than 812,000 asylum seekers registered in the EU up till the end of September. The UNHCR says that more than 3,000 people are tragically dead or missing as a result of attempted crossings of the Mediterranean. The vast majority of the pressures of those incoming migrants has fallen on Italy and Greece, with 99.5% of migrants who cross the Mediterranean arriving in these two countries. That is the background to the EU-proposed programme of relocation in the UK. Britain rightly has an opt-out in relation to migration matters and has decided not to opt back into these measures.

Although we support that decision, it is disappointing that it has taken over six months and repeated prompting by the European Scrutiny Committee to secure this debate on the Floor of the House. We recognise, of course, that situations are often fast-moving and that the Government should not be constrained, but we think the Government should reflect on the approach they have taken so far in relation to the procedure.

On the substance of the matter, although we do not want to see Britain opt into mandatory quotas, we believe that we should take an active role in tackling the migration crisis across the EU, as well as on our doorstep. In this respect we take issue with the Government’s response. Just as we have joined military operations to play our part in tackling ISIS, so we have a moral responsibility to work with other EU states to help to deal with the large numbers of refugees who are fleeing the barbaric conditions in Syria and elsewhere. The Government have pledged to accept 20,000 refugees over this Parliament—4,000 a year. After more than two years of Labour calling on the Government to take action, this is undoubtedly a welcome step and was welcomed by the House, but the Government still refuse to accept people in desperate need who need relocation from other EU states.

Four thousand refugees represents less than 0.5% of the refugees entering the EU this year. That is not good enough. The UK has a proud history of offering sanctuary to those in need of refuge and should not shrink from its responsibilities because it has the fortune not to be on the frontline of the crisis.

[John Redwood]

Can the hon. Gentleman explain how many refugees he thinks we ought to take and what the criteria would be?

[Keir Starmer]

Our position is that mandatory quotas are not the way forward. Any numbers taken in this country should be on only a voluntary basis. In view of what we see as the current failure of relocation policy, the Government should rethink whether we should take some numbers from Europe on a voluntary basis. It would be for the Government to decide what number, on a voluntary basis, would be the right number. It has been suggested that if every city or county in Britain took just 10 refugee families, we would be able to help perhaps 10,000 individuals. As I say, in the first instance we call on the Government to reconsider their approach in the light of the prevailing situation.

It goes without saying that under any scheme, and under a voluntary scheme in particular, there should be robust and effective vetting and safeguarding procedures, wherever those procedures take place. We therefore call on the Government to reconsider the refusal to take people relocated from other member states on a voluntary basis, without opting into a mandatory system. Even if we are not part of the mandatory relocation scheme, we should do everything in our power to ensure that it works effectively. The EU relocation scheme has so far relocated just 130 individuals from Italy and 30 from Greece of its intended 160,000 people, which seems to indicate that it may be incapable of dealing successfully with the pressures being faced in Italy and Greece. In addition, only six of the 22 member states have notified the EU that they have the capacity to host relocated individuals.

What steps, if any, are the Government taking to support the relocation programme and to help to cope with this volume? On a point that has been raised on more than one occasion by the European Scrutiny Committee, in the absence of voluntary relocation how do the Government interpret the principle of solidarity and fair sharing of responsibility in the EU?

Let me turn to the questions that we have on the motion, which we support. Can the Minister update the House on the number of Syrian refugees who have arrived in Britain since the Prime Minister announced that we would take 20,000 over the course of this Parliament? In addition, the Home Office has stated that 55 local authorities will welcome Syrian refugees into their communities before Christmas. How many of those authorities have so far welcomed refugees? The Government say they are reluctant to take migrants relocated from within the EU for fear of creating new pull factors, but they have consistently produced little evidence that this would be the result of allowing internal relocation. As the European Scrutiny Committee has observed, the Government have been thin on substance on this issue. Can the Minister now give some substance on the pull factor argument? Surely we must recognise the level of desperation that forces people to leave their homes and attempt the journey to the EU in the knowledge that they or their loved ones might not make it. That will be a significant factor whatever relocation programme is put in place.

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

Can the shadow Minister assist us by explaining how many people leave Syria, how many come into Greece and why there is a large difference between the two numbers?

[Keir Starmer]

I am not sure that I am in a position to deal with that intervention; it is probably better put to the Minister.

The Government have rightly said that they will take refugees from outside Europe, and we support that, but what about those who have made it into Europe? Of course the Government do not want to get drawn into a mandatory relocation programme within Europe, but why cannot there be a voluntary arrangement that we could enter into in order to play our full part in solidarity and fair responsibility for refugees across Europe? Just as we have joined with our European and other international allies in trying to defeat ISIS and other causes of refugees and migration, so we should play our full part in dealing with the crisis here in Europe, with huge numbers already desperately needing relocation. On the basis of the figures, at least at first blush, it looks as though the relocation programme is not working as was anticipated. As I say, only 160 or so individuals have been relocated. In those circumstances, we ask whether the Government could and should do more.

I finish where I started and return to the way in which this matter now comes before the House. Recognising that the situation is moving fast, will the Minister give an assurance that the House will be properly updated and that time will be allowed for proper scrutiny and debate as the relocation policy rolls out over the coming weeks and months?

18:31

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

As Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee, I have been invited to attend four meetings—two in Luxembourg, one in Brussels, and one in Italy this last weekend—bringing together most of the national parliamentary chairmen with responsibilities in the area we are discussing. I pay tribute to the chairman of the Schengen committee in the Italian Parliament, Laura Ravetto, for taking this extremely important initiative.

I would like first to refer to a meeting that took place under the auspices of COSAC—Conference of Parliamentary Committees for Union Affairs of Parliaments of the European Union. That body, which consists of the chairmen of the national parliamentary EU committees, is given a very wide remit in matters of the kind that we are discussing. Although its meetings are webcast and published, it does not get anything like the attention that it really deserves. Having served on the European Scrutiny Committee for 30 years, having been its Chairman for the past five years, and now having been re-elected as Chairman for this Parliament, it is important for me to say that I have never seen such an explosion of anger at a meeting of COSAC in all the time that I have been taking part in those meetings.

The reason for that is the lack of democracy that lies at the heart of this proposal. The hon. Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) was with me in Luxembourg, and he will bear witness to the sheer anger about its imposition against the wishes of the individual countries concerned—about five in all, from central and eastern Europe. They were absolutely furious about having these mandatory controls imposed on them. This raises a fundamental question of intense sensitivity to the people who live in these countries. The way in which the issues are debated and discussed in the upper echelons—the rarefied atmosphere—of the European Union in its institutional framework bears almost no relationship to what is going on on the ground as regards the voters themselves. When the national chairmen came together at the meeting, they expressed themselves in very clear language indeed.

Apart from all the other things that are going on with the referendum and our complaints about the single currency—and the exchange rate mechanism before that—this raises the whole question of the straitjacket, ever further political integration, and the compression chamber, which I have been referring to since I led the rebellion on the Maastricht treaty back in 1990. I mentioned then, in black and white, in pamphlets and in debates, the compression chamber that was building up. This is an example of that compression chamber, which is now exploding, as was made clear in the COSAC meeting and replicated yet again in our discussions last weekend on the Schengen agreement. I know that we are not members of Schengen, and we will perhaps have an opportunity to discuss that in a moment.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I was with the hon. Gentleman at the meeting in Luxembourg, as he rightly said. Does he agree that there seemed to be some intimidation of smaller, less economically powerful nations by larger, more economically powerful nations?

[Sir William Cash]

There is the case of Germany, to come straight to the point.

At the meeting it was discussed whether the 28 member states represented there, excluding us and Ireland because we are not part of Schengen, would welcome the proposals that were set out in the motion. In a nutshell, the countries concerned—the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary and Romania—were being told that they should go along with these mandatory arrangements irrespective of their resentment about that, their parliamentary votes against it, and their application to the European Court of Justice. As the Minister said, Hungary and Slovakia had brought proceedings in the Court of Justice to challenge the validity of this. These countries were, in effect, being told that they were wrong, and that in saying that the motion should merely “take note” of the relocation proposals, which was almost over-generous of them in the circumstances, they were refusing to accept the notion that they should welcome it. That is what led to the explosion. The debate went on for nearly four hours. This must not be underestimated. It is not just something to be floated over as, with respect, the Minister did; I understand why he probably did so. It is fissile material. It is a perfect example of the total want of democracy in the European Union in imposing, by mandatory arrangements, a settlement on countries that simply do not want it. It is a perfect example of what I have described as the compression chamber blowing up in such circumstances.

That is the background against which we should consider this. It is not just a question of whether we like it or not, but of how the European Union operates in practice. One need only look at how the Greeks were treated by the Germans with regard to the whole austerity programme or how the Portuguese president, a few weeks ago, disregarded, ignored and refused to accept the decision of the voters by not acknowledging the new party of government. The list is considerable, and, as far as I am concerned, that is the basis against which this issue ought to be judged.

I am, of course, delighted, but not surprised, that the Government have decided not to opt into the arrangements. I say with enthusiasm that our policy of trying to deal with the problem of refugees at source, which I have applauded from the very beginning, is the best way to go about it, not to allow these people in. At Friday’s meeting, the issue was raised of why Germany took the line it did. The answer, as I have said on the Floor of the House on a number of occasions over the past couple of months, is that it was very much to do with its desire to have more people working in the country, not just for altruistic reasons but for economic reasons. It wants to compensate for the fact that it will soon have a much lower working-age population. It made the decision because that is what Germany wants, irrespective of the impact it will have on the European Union. Angela Merkel’s popularity happens to have plummeted over the past few weeks because, in my opinion and that of many other commentators, she has misjudged the situation.

The real point is that, to bring in 1 million people to Germany—that is basically what is happening—is not the end but the beginning of the story. Those 1 million people will themselves have their own children and probably bring their families over as well, because the charter of fundamental rights will be made available to them. This is, in fact, an opening of what I described the other day as a tsunami.

On top of that—I have referred to this on a number of occasions on the Floor of the House—nobody can doubt for a moment that there are a number, albeit perhaps small, of jihadists among those people who have come over. The reality is that only a few are needed in order to wreak the kind of carnage and havoc that we witnessed in Paris. To those who would criticise people like me for mentioning that, I say that it is a fact that that is what is happening, and on a scale unprecedented since the second world war.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

I am very concerned to hear what the hon. Gentleman has just said. Does he actually have hard evidence that jihadists are arriving in the United Kingdom under the disguise of migrants? Given that some people pose as police officers and social workers in order to commit heinous crimes, does he think we should abolish the police and social workers as well?

[Sir William Cash]

The reality is that there are declared jihadists who have been in Syria and other parts of the middle east. Jihadi John, as he was described, is a very good example of a declared jihadist who came from the United Kingdom, but I was not making a point about the United Kingdom, although I do perceive the danger. I was referring to the fact that there is no doubt that citizens—admittedly, they were French—who had been to Syria and come back via routes that enabled them to get to Paris contributed to the carnage. People can dispute that if they wish, but the facts are clear. The reality is that real problems have to be addressed, and that is an extremely important part of this debate. People can have differing views, but the reality is that there are real dangers.

I am also bound to say another thing with respect to the manner in which the Government have dealt with the issue. I want to make this point briefly, but it is important. The Minister passed very briefly over this and made a slight apology for what happened, but, with regard to override, I am going to put it in stronger terms. Scheduling a debate after the Government have reached an opt-in decision makes a mockery of their own commitment to enhanced scrutiny of their opt-in decisions and to provide full transparency and accountability to Parliament. The Government have provided no explanation, even this evening, for their failure to schedule an opt-in debate during a September sitting of Parliament, when the House could have expressed a view on the merits of opting into the first two relocation proposals, or an opt-in debate before the expiry of the opt-in deadline of 8 December on the proposed amending regulation.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Would my hon. Friend be more sympathetic to Her Majesty’s Government, as I might be, if it were not true that it was nearly three years ago, in January 2013, that the European Scrutiny Committee requested a debate on the Floor of the House on the free movement of people? Their failure to schedule debates is long standing.

[Sir William Cash]

It is indeed. I always want to encourage the Government to do better, but on this occasion they have done a lot worse. The delay in scheduling opt-in debates is inconsistent with the letter and spirt of the commitments made to Parliament by the Minister for Europe. I would be grateful if the Minister for Immigration would deal with that, because he owes not only the European Scrutiny Committee, but, much more importantly, the House and this country’s voters an apology for the way in which it has been dealt with. I am sure he will give that apology; perhaps he would like to do so now. Is there a chance that he might? Is he listening to what I am saying?

[James Brokenshire]

I am grateful to the Chair of the European Scrutiny Committee for allowing me to intervene on him. As I said when I gave evidence to the Committee, the Government have had to deal with a fast-moving situation, and, as I have already indicated today, we are sorry that it has not been possible to have the debates in the way we would have chosen to have them, but that is a reflection of the exceptional circumstances with which we have been dealing. There have been opportunities for debates and to respond to questions by way of statements, but that is the situation to which we have been seeking to respond.

[Sir William Cash]

Is that an apology? I would like the Minister to reply. I want to know whether, in these circumstances, which are unusual and unprecedented—[Interruption.] The Home Secretary’s Parliamentary Private Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton North (Michael Ellis), should keep his calm. It is very important that he should understand that these matters relate to the Standing Orders of the House of Commons, not to purely personal opinions. We are very concerned about that and I have made my point.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I support the hon. Gentleman’s comments on delayed debates on the Floor of the House and even in Committee. The Minister said that matters were fast moving, but I hardly think that having to wait two years for a debate is fast moving. The issue is fast moving when the Government want it to be, but when they do not want it to be fast moving, it moves very slowly indeed.

[Sir William Cash]

I thoroughly agree with my fellow member of the European Scrutiny Committee and with the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg). The point has been made.

In the joint address to the European Parliament on 7 October, the German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, described the Dublin rules as “obsolete”. The French President highlighted the link between the Dublin rules and the proper functioning of the Schengen free movement area and said:

“Calling into question the free movement of people, by returning to internal borders, would be a tragic error”.

He went on to say:

“ But pretending that Schengen, with its current way of functioning, allows us to face border pressures would be another mistake.”

The question, therefore, is whether the Dublin system is at risk of breaking down and whether further fragmentation of the Schengen free movement area can be avoided. An extraordinary contradiction emerged from the meeting I attended over the weekend. The people there were very anxious to be sure that we had a proper border control system, but they also insisted on an external border system. I am sure the Minister is aware of that from his discussions in Brussels and elsewhere. The irony of the situation is that at the same time as they are insisting on greater border controls—as I have said on other occasions, there is almost more barbed wire in Europe today than there was during the cold war—they also want a complete external border system surrounding the whole of the European Union, presumably with the exception of the non-Schengen countries, namely ourselves and the Irish. I hope the Minister appreciates that, under the pressures exerted by the migrant crisis, there is a real desire to go further towards having a complete external border and to go deeper towards having political union. At the same time, they want effective border controls, but those two things are inconsistent.

I understand that the Government now propose to use taxpayers’ money to increase the effectiveness of Frontex, but when we consider the scale of the borders—a massive area of the European continent is supposed to be completely sealed off along the EU’s external borders—we can see that the costs will be absolutely monumental. Frontex has already proven to be ineffective. It does not work and I doubt whether it is possible to make it work, but through an insistence on its external borders, more and more pressure is being exerted towards the deeper integration of the European Union.

I want the Minister to tell us how we can have an effective system of the kind now proposed, with a full external border for an enhanced Schengen system, and the United Kingdom staying in the European Union at the same time. I see this as a very important moment in terms of our having to leave the European Union. The Schengen arrangements, reinforced by Frontex, to which the British taxpayer is expected to contribute, and the increasing pressures towards political union seems to me to be a subject on which we should speak more and more clearly and loudly.

There are real dangers in all of this. I simply think that bringing the Turkish action plan into operation will make the situation even more intractable. More could be said about that. At this moment in time, with their internal border controls, Germany and several other countries are in breach of the Schengen free movement area. Border controls have been introduced by Austria and Germany, justified on the grounds of public and internal security, and imposed unilaterally without prior notice, whereas the Schengen border code specifies a maximum period of two months. Those countries are in breach of the code, and I understand—the Minister may confirm this—that Germany is facing infraction proceedings. Angela Merkel is facing very substantial pressures from within her own country as a result of the mistakes that have been made.

The reality is that the Commission opinion has shown the interdependence of member states participating in the Schengen free movement area and the risk of a domino effect whereby unilateral action by one member state has an immediate effect on the security of its neighbours. That is causing the most enormous pressure and enormous volcanic eruptions in the countries concerned. People simply will not wear it.

18:54

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

I welcome the chance to debate this vital humanitarian issue, but like the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), I am deeply disappointed that it has taken so long to bring it to the Chamber. As was pointed out by the Labour Front-Bench spokesman, the hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), it is six months since the European Scrutiny Committee first asked for this debate. It may be longer since it first asked for another debate, but I was not in Parliament to know that.

The Chair of the Select Committee has gone in detail through the steps the Committee had to take to get this debate, so I will not repeat them. On 11 December, three days ago, he finally got answers to some of the questions he had been asking for months, and in some cases, for years. Today, six days after it was too late for us to have the remotest chance of changing the Government’s mind, because the deadline for opting in has passed, we are finally having this debate.

I find it impossible not to contrast the Government’s willingness to cancel an entire day’s business in the Chamber to hold a debate that they wanted on bombing Syria with, frankly, their complete stonewalling of the due parliamentary process that allows us to debate how we can and should do more to help some of the millions of innocent victims of the bombs already falling on that country.

[Heather Wheeler (South Derbyshire) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman is a fellow traveller on the European Scrutiny Committee, but will he be slightly more precise with his wording? We are not bombing Syria; we are bombing Daesh in Syria. It would be very helpful if all Members used those words so that there is no misunderstanding about what we voted on.

[Peter Grant]

This is not the place to rehearse the weakness of the Government’s case for saying that the bombs will not injure or kill innocent people. If the hon. Lady had listened carefully, she would have heard me make the point that the people we are talking about are those who have already fled or are in the process of fleeing from the conflict. I suggest that, having taken the deliberate decision to become part of that armed conflict, the moral responsibility on the United Kingdom is even greater than it was before. We are now part of that war and we bear a moral responsibility to help to deal with some of the desperate human consequences of it and do what we can to help.

As things now stand, the Scottish National party cannot and will not give an entire endorsement to the Government’s decision not to opt in to the proposals. That is not because we believe the proposals are perfect—far from it; it is because they offer a real attempt by all the nations of Europe, or certainly all the nations of the European Union, to recognise that this crisis is far too big for any one, two or three countries to cope with on their own. It is far too important—it is literally a matter of life and death—for us to risk the chaos that will ensue if 27, 37 or any number of different countries all go their own way.

We have had a foretaste of what happens when countries unilaterally and at a moment’s notice close their borders, open their border, close them again and then open them to some people, but not to others. That is how we have ended up with tens of thousands of desperate, broken people behind barbed wire fences, which is when the tensions and violence are in danger of escalating beyond all control.

We cannot allow the Government to let their own party disagreements on Europe and immigration stand in the way of a moral and compassionate response to what has rightly been described as the worst humanitarian crisis that, please God, most of us will ever witness in our lifetimes. We must see this, first and foremost, as a crisis of protecting the victims of war, not as a crisis of immigration caused by the victims. Our highest priority at all times should be the welfare of millions of people—yes, millions of our brothers and sisters, and millions of citizens of this planet with whom we share a common humanity—because we owe them a moral and, I would argue, a legal duty to protect them as far as we possibly can.

As I have said, having taken a deliberate decision to play even a small part in the war, the United Kingdom has accepted a significant moral responsibility to help to secure the futures of the victims of that war. The numbers are truly breathtaking. We know that at least 4 million people have already fled Syria, and that over 7 million more have been displaced within their homeland, most of whom would leave today if they thought they had any chance of getting out. We could be talking about more than the entire population of London losing everything—their homes destroyed, and their families in many cases murdered, or at best torn apart, perhaps losing contact for the rest of their lives. Surely, these people deserve the best future and the best support that we, in our hearts, can possibly find the human decency and kindness to offer them.

Given that the Government’s own advice is that the United Kingdom’s military action in Syria is likely to last for three years, this is not a short-term problem that will be fixed with a short-term solution. It is not enough simply to throw money at emergency aid, important though that is. We have to consider massive infrastructure spending to provide 4 million people—and probably many more millions of people—with the housing, health services and education that they are legally and morally entitled to receive. It is not credible to expect three or four countries around the Mediterranean shoreline to provide all that by themselves, even if there is a significant influx of cash from the UK and elsewhere.

In a written answer that I received on 27 October, the Minister of State, Department for International Development was able to identify only three countries in the whole of the middle east and north Africa as being able to provide safety and access to essential services to refugees: Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey. He declined to say how many refugees the Government thought those countries could realistically be expected to support, despite my direct question to that effect. I suggest that the total will be nowhere near 4 million, never mind the potential 10 million or more.

Expecting Greece to provide the infrastructure to support all the refugees who land on its shores for three years, five years or longer is simply unrealistic. Again, this is not about the money. It is not possible for Greece to produce the infrastructure to look after, house and educate the number of desperate refugees it is already trying to support.

The Government, for their own reasons, continually seek to blur the lines and to encourage us to think of these men, women and children as willing economic migrants. There is even the suggestion that some of them might be terrorists in disguise—a suggestion for which there is not a scrap of evidence. They are not willing voluntary migrants. They did not volunteer to have their homes blown to pieces. They did not volunteer to have their towns destroyed. They did not volunteer to have their families killed. They are refugees who are fleeing for their lives and the lives of their children because, if they stayed at home, their children would die. They have a legal and moral right to receive whatever help we can give them.

The humanitarian crisis in and around the Mediterranean shows that the previous rules on who should look after refugees are not fit for purpose in a situation of this scale. They were not designed in the expectation that one country would have to cope with 50,000 or 60,000 migrants coming in at a time. They were not designed in the expectation that one of the poorest countries in Europe would look after the welfare of hundreds of thousands of refugees who arrive in the space of a few months.

It is reasonable to expect the initial process of confirming identities, performing security checks and registering and fingerprinting refugees to take place as close as possible to where people land in the European Union. Some people refer to that as the hotspot approach, but I find that phrase demeaning and dehumanising. It makes it sound like the hotspot of a problem, rather than a place of opportunity, where we can show the kindness that these people can expect. I prefer to refer to such places as first reception facilities.

That approach, whether it is called the hotspot approach or first reception facilities, is one that we can support, just as the Government support it, but if it is not done properly, it might as well not be done at all. For much of the past six months, the conditions in and around the official registration centre on Lesbos have been an affront to human decency. The fact that that is happening on this continent is something of which every last one of us should be utterly ashamed. It is happening not because the various agencies and volunteers do not care, but because they do not have the capacity or resources to cope with the task.

As soon as refugees have been through the necessary registration process, the aim should be to help them get to their end destination as quickly as possible by safe, legal and dignified means. We should remember that these are human beings we are talking about. That needs to be done with full co-operation between the countries of Europe, both in agreeing which countries the refugees will settle in and in helping them to get there. This is another area where we cannot support the Government’s refusal to be part of any of the options that have been put forward.

So anxious are the Government to persuade their wavering supporters that UK sovereignty over UK borders is sacrosanct that they will not even compromise on it if it prevents us from honouring our legal and moral obligations to some of the most vulnerable and desperate citizens on the planet. I find it astonishing that the same people who, less than two weeks ago, were condemning us for not showing solidarity with our allies when it came to committing acts of war in Syria should now be so resistant to showing solidarity in supporting and protecting the innocent victims of war.

The Government are asking us to agree with their decision not to take part in the EU scheme. We believe that it was a bad decision, taken for the wrong reasons. Tonight’s vote will not force the Government to change their mind, but we believe that the principle at stake is important enough that we should put on the record our belief that the UK Government are failing to live up to their moral obligations. For that reason, we will oppose the motion tonight.

19:05

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

I support the Government’s decision to exercise the opt-out. I am pleased that the Government and the official Opposition agree that the United Kingdom should not be part of the Schengen system and that they both wanted to exercise the opt-out.

As an island nation with a neighbour in the Republic of Ireland and with the three countries on our principal island entirely surrounded by water with no land frontier, it clearly makes sense for the United Kingdom to have her own border arrangements. Indeed, it is fundamental to a sovereign people and a sovereign Parliament that one of the decisions that we should be able to make for ourselves is who we invite in and on what terms we invite them in to become citizens of our country. It is a great privilege to be a citizen of our country. It brings all sorts of benefits, as well as responsibilities. Surely that is a decision that this Parliament should wish to make, with the Government offering guidance and leadership, to show that we are in control on this fundamental point.

As the Minister indicated in response to interventions, even though we have opted out of this proposal for allocating refugees and other recent arrivals in the European Union under a quota system, what the Schengen countries do at their common external frontier still matters to the United Kingdom. While we remain under the current European Union treaties, we have to accept the freedom of movement rules. That means that if any other country or part of the European Union accepts people in, they may well be eligible, in due course, to move to the United Kingdom. We are therefore interested directly in how those countries conduct themselves and what they wish to do by way of inviting people into the general European Union area.

We are also interested in the policy of the Schengen countries, which we have opted out of, because the British Government have none the less agreed to spend money and offer resource to police the common external frontier of the Schengen area. In particular, we have committed resources to tackling some part of the desperate problems that the EU migration policy has caused in the Mediterranean, where all too many people commit themselves to hazardous and expensive journeys and then need to be rescued by the Royal Navy and other naval contingents.

[Sir William Cash]

Does my right hon. Friend have any idea of the extent of our share of the costs to which he has just referred? Perhaps he might ask the Minister to consider that. As I understand it, it could be as much as £150 million, but, because the cost of providing for Schengen relocations will, by its nature, be ever-increasing, presumably that amount will go up.

[John Redwood]

That is an important issue and the Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee is right to raise it.

I have some sympathy for what the SNP has said. It is a disgrace that our rich and relatively successful continent is facing this huge crisis, with many refugees and economic migrants arriving, and the system is unable to cope with them. We have to ask why that is. Given that we do not wish to see people undertaking such hazardous journeys and that we do not feel that the way in which European Union policy is impacting on those people is decent, we need to influence our partners in the European Union to do something better.

Again, I find myself in complete agreement with the Government. They are right that the correct thing to do for refugees is to work with the United Nations and our other partners to make sure that there is a safe place of refuge near to the place they fled from, and be there to talk to them and to consider who would like to come to countries in Europe and elsewhere and decide on what basis we will admit people from those camps. That is surely the humane way to approach the issue, and it obviates the need for people to undertake extremely hazardous, and often very expensive, journeys. Only the richest and fittest among those groups can undertake such journeys, only then to discover that the hazards are too great and that they may lose their lives or need rescuing from the Mediterranean. Surely the money that we are spending on picking people out of the Mediterranean could be better spent on an orderly system closer to the place from which people are fleeing, and on helping them to get legal transport to come to the country of their choice once they have been offered that facility.

Such a system would also mean that we could make clearer and better distinctions between economic migrants and genuine refugees. There are, of course, a lot of genuine refugees from a country such as Syria, but different considerations should apply in the way that we respond to a lot of economic migrants who come along at the same time from a range of countries in the middle east and Africa.

[Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)]

Does the right hon. Gentleman have anything further to add about the unaccompanied children who are arriving in Europe and who appear to be extremely vulnerable and in need of assistance?

[John Redwood]

Of course our hearts—mine as well as the hon. Lady’s—go out to those children, and such things should not be happening. It is only happening because adults have allowed it to, or made it happen, because children do not normally have their own money or wherewithal to do such things. Somewhere in the process adults have persuaded or set up those children to make those journeys, and placed them in the hands of people traffickers who may be very destructive towards their interests and their lives. The remit of the United Kingdom is quite large, but we cannot get into the homes and minds of all the parents, aunts and uncles who commit those children to such hazardous journeys, or into the minds of other adults who should be offering care if a child’s parents have been tragically taken from them by violence in the country in which they were living.

Surely the European Union, with all its powerful and rich countries, could do a better job in coming up with an orderly and sensible way of handing help and assistance to genuine refugees who are being forced out of war-torn areas or countries by civil wars and violence. We must also send a clear message to economic migrants that there is an orderly system, and that they are not welcome if they turn up as illegal migrants. People should go through a proper process in the country from which they are coming, or in a place adjacent to that country if they have already started their journey. That would be a better way of doing things.

When Angela Merkel—perhaps for the best of reasons, both because Germany would like a bigger workforce and because she felt very sorry for these people—suggested that many more migrants should turn up, I fear that that compounded the problem. Far from being a caring solution, it meant that many thousands more people committed themselves to hazardous journeys, only to find when they arrived that other countries in the European Union did not have the same view as Angela Merkel, that the policy was not clear, and that certain borders were shut in a rather unpleasant way with razor wire and high fences, because the numbers were simply too great and people could not be handled.

I support the motion and urge the Government to do far more to try to persuade our partners that EU policy is letting down refugees and economic migrants, as well as the member states and inhabitants of the European Union. This issue is of vital interest to us because we want the EU to have a more caring policy, and because decisions taken in any other EU country can have a direct impact on our own migration policy, owing to our current status as a member of that body and as part of the freedom of movement provisions. Many people watching these awful tragedies unfold on television, or when reading newspapers or even listening to some of our debates in this place, will conclude that as an island nation we can—and should—control our own borders. We could do a rather more humane job than the European Union is currently doing, and perhaps for Britain, that is the best answer.

19:14

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

I will not speak for long, Madam Deputy Speaker, but it is important to say something in this debate. I support my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) and his emphasis on behaving in a humane way towards migrants, as well as his point about the rather small numbers of people currently being allowed into our country. Like him, I believe that we should consider taking more of those desperate people into this country from areas where they risk death on a daily basis.

I support the Government’s position, and it is right that this country should have its own controls, but I think that that should go further and that other EU countries should also be able to control their own borders—that is what has caused the enormous row that the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) mentioned. I believe that a fundamental component of democracy is that a country should control its own borders and who comes in. That is sometimes difficult to do, but it is fundamental. Borders matter, and trying to eliminate them in pursuit of the creation of some kind of super-state—that is effectively what has been happening in the European Union—is a mistake and will eventually come to a sticky end. It is noticeable that tensions are rising strongly at the moment.

As I said in an earlier intervention, refugees may not want to go to the country to which they have been allocated. If they are allocated to countries that do not really want them, they may not be made welcome, cared for, or well treated when they get there, and that is another serious problem. A way of helping refugees to go to places to which they want to go, and where they will have some kind of welcome and be looked after, would be much more sensible than a forced allocation policy. The UK can do that and we should not opt in to the arrangement, but other countries in the European Union should be in the same position as us.

I do not accept free movement; I think it has been a mistake. If we want to recruit people from other countries who have the skills we need, that is fine. That could be done on a temporary or permanent basis, but it should be a choice and not that of some supranational body that says, “You must accept people because those are the rules of the club and you ought to accept those rules.” I do not accept those rules, and neither do many people in Britain.

There is a conflict here. We must ensure that we behave in a humane way to other people. We all admire and wish to adopt such humanitarian actions, but large, substantial and unregulated movements of people can militate against the humane feelings that we all have. There comes a point when people think, “We can’t cope”, and destabilising massive population movements are not conducive to humane behaviour.

In the 19th century there were vast open spaces in the United States, South America, Australasia and elsewhere, and countries recruited people because they needed them and it was not a problem. We recruited people from Ireland in particular, as well as from elsewhere. We have also been very humane with certain immigrations. When I was younger in the 1960s, the Ugandan Asians were being seriously threatened and we accepted them into our country. Indeed, one or two Members of the House are descended from that population, and those people have made a massive contribution to our society. We have behaved well in the past, but when movements of people become so large and seemingly unstoppable, our humanity starts to break down—not individually in the Chamber, but as a society—and people start saying, “We can’t cope. There is a desperate housing crisis and unemployment and so on”.

[Peter Grant]

The hon. Gentleman clearly has a point, but would it destabilise the United Kingdom to take a share of the 4 million people who have fled Syria? How can it stabilise anyone for all 4 million to be left in two or three countries in the Mediterranean?

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I accept what the hon. Gentleman says. I have said, and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras on the Labour Front Bench has said, that we should accept more people from Syria. There is absolutely no question about that. We should play a bigger part in helping refugees to escape their terrible situation. The number the Government have decided to accept is far too low. That said, we are not going to have an open border policy in which very, very large numbers of people come here, because that would be politically destabilising. It would not be good.

Germany’s population was falling. It is a very successful industrial country with a low birth rate, which means it needs workers. Our population is increasing rapidly. We are going to overtake Germany and become the country with the largest population in the whole of the European Union. We are therefore in a very different situation from Germany. If we had a serous labour shortage, and lots of space and vacant housing, we would want to recruit more people.

[Sir William Cash]

Has the hon. Gentleman also heard that our own population is growing exponentially and that we will get up to about 70 million really quite soon? Such an increase is way beyond the space and capacity of the United Kingdom and its expenditure.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I do not want to get into specific numbers, but our population is increasing substantially. The German population was falling. The population of a number of other European countries is falling too, and they will no doubt want to recruit sufficient young and energetic people to make sure their economies carry on working well.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

Médecins sans Frontières estimates that over 466,000 people have arrived on the beaches of Lesbos. The population of Lesbos is about 86,000. Do we not have a responsibility to help them, as they cannot possibly deal with that number of new people arriving in their area?

[Kelvin Hopkins]

As I said, I agree with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras that we should take more. We should be doing more to help the refugees who need help, but I do not think that compulsory allocation to countries across the European Union or a free flow of migrants across the continent is sensible. In the end, I think it would militate against a humane and managed way of looking after people.

On this occasion, the Government are right. I understand that the Scottish nationalists do not agree and will vote against the measure, but the Labour Front Bench and the Government are together on this and I support them. In the longer term, we have to look to the restoration of sensible border controls within the European Union between member states, and not just the breaking down and the elimination of borders and having an indefensible common external border.

19:23

[Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

I am actually going to support the Government today, too. There seem to be amazing levels of support, which is always quite dangerous, but it is refreshing that the Scottish National party is here in force to ensure that these matters are properly debated and scrutiny is carried out effectively.

The reason I support the Government is partly that the European Union has made an absolute hash of it. I phrase myself slightly more bluntly than the hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) who, in glorious understatement, said that the scheme of the European Union was not working as anticipated. Well, I thought that was on a par with the late Emperor of Japan, who at the end of the war said:

“The war situation has developed not necessarily to Japan’s advantage.”

When we think that, according to the Daily Express, 184 people out of 160,000 have been relocated, it is a failure even by the terms of the European Union. It introduced a plan that was hotly opposed by elected Governments. It imposed it by qualified majority voting. We, fortunately, had an opt-out, which we used. But what underlies this policy is, to my mind, also so wrong.

Here I disagree with the hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant), who made a very powerful speech about the duty we have to mankind in general. I very much accept that. The duty to refugees is fundamental. It is tremendously important and is something the United Kingdom has done for centuries. The question then is how to do it well, how to do it effectively, and how to preserve life so that we actually save people. It seems to me that what the European Union has done has made the situation worse for the refugees themselves. Of over 900,000 who have come by boat to the shores of the European Union in 2015, 3,671 have either died or gone missing. The terrible events in the Mediterranean in 2014 led the Holy Father to say:

“We cannot allow the Mediterranean to become a vast graveyard.”

The reason this happened is the pious but failed hopes of the European Union’s refugee policy: the idea that as soon as people get into the boundaries of the European Union they will get citizenship, but if they cannot get here there is nothing that will be done for them. That seems to me to encourage people to take these crazy risks that have led to the tragedies. The EU’s policy is itself creating dangers for refugees.

The refugees who come are not the halt and the lame, but the fittest and the most able to take the risks involved in trying to cross the sea to come to the European Union. We have seen that 70% of the refugees who have come to the European Union are in fact men, primarily young men. A system has been set up that creates incentives and leads people to take foolish risks to come here in the first place. The people who are most at risk—the children, the elderly and the frail—are left behind, because if they apply from their risky country, the forces of the EU will not let them in.

Her Majesty’s Government have got this right, but the numbers are hopeless. The 20,000 over five years is absolutely a step in the right direction, but of course we should do more. We should think of how many we take from the European Union under the free movement of people. In the year to March 2015, we took 183,000 economic migrants from the European Union; 183,000 people who were safe in their own country and not at risk of persecution. They were not in fear of their lives. They wanted to come here for the most noble and honourable reason—to improve the condition of themselves and their families. They moved halfway across a continent to do it and that is something I admire hugely. That is a very Conservative thing to do—to wish to better oneself and to take that risk. That is what entrepreneurs do. However, they are economic migrants, not refugees. And because we take so many people from the European Union under the guise of the free movement of people, when it comes to taking those who are genuinely at risk of their life we take 4,000 a year. We take 4,000 a year from the camps in Syria who may die if they do not escape, and we take 183,000 because we believe in the principle of European citizenship and that anyone who wants to come here from the EU should be free to waltz in, wherever they have waltzed from.

This is not only undesirable in domestic political terms: it is undesirable in moral terms. We are not helping those who are most in need; we are helping those who do not in fact need our help and support. We are helping those who are safe, rather than being generous to those who are at risk. This seems to me a fundamental failing of the European Union, because—instead of giving aid to refugees—it encourages people to take unwarranted risks, and gives benefits to those who are already safe.

Why do I stick to this number of 183,000 and what is the context? The context is that there is a limit to the numbers any country will take in any one year, not because free movement is a bad thing in itself but because the societies to which people move cannot cope with the influx above a certain level. There is not the infrastructure, there are not the schools or hospitals, and the society lacks the capacity to absorb large numbers at one point. Their arrival needs to be staggered over a much longer period. If we have so many coming from safe countries, inevitably we have to be mean with the numbers we can control because they do not benefit from the European treaties and free movement with the EU.

The EU’s whole approach is wrong, and we, in our renegotiation, are unutterably feeble; all we are doing is muddling about with a few benefits, which is not why people come anyway. As I said earlier, they come for that noble, inspirational reason: they want to improve their lives and those of their families. They do not come because they are benefits cheats, yet we grub around on that, rather than thinking about the real problem—the scale of immigration from the EU. As the hon. Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) pointed out, free-for-all immigration does not work for our democracy. Our people—our voters, our electors—do not want it, they reject it, and yet the Government do not even ask to get this back under domestic control. Instead, they do not opt in to one part of things with many parts, but it will not have any great effect.

I will support the Government tonight, but what was the best reason we heard for why the 800,000 Mrs Merkel is welcoming in will not come here? Apparently, our ambassador extraordinary and plenipotentiary to Germany has reported to Ministers that we do not need to worry about them coming here because the Germans are slow at processing citizenship applications. Well, isn’t that lucky? They are slow. I always thought German bureaucracy was efficient, but clearly not; when it comes to processing citizenship applications, they might take 10 years. So we will not get 800,000 today or tomorrow. But we will get them the election after next. That, I am afraid, is where the Government are failing and letting down the British people. They have opted out of one thing, but they have left the big, the real, the major problem at the centre—

[Mike Weir (Angus) (SNP)]

rose—

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Of course I will give way.

[Mike Weir]

I am finding it difficult to follow the hon. Gentleman’s argument. Why, once these 800,000 people have been settled in Germany for 10 years, are they all suddenly going to come to the UK, with their new German citizenship papers?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The amount of immigration to this country from the EU shows that we are a great magnet. Everyone seems to want to come to the UK, including to the glories of Scotland. It is extraordinary the draw we are. In a way, I am proud of this. I love the fact that people all around the world think the best place to live is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. It should give us a glow of pride about the success of our nation under this glorious Conservative Government, who are bringing us peace and prosperity.

[Alison Thewliss]

Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that part of the benefit of being in the EU and having those open borders is that British citizens can go and live in Europe and that as many of them go and live there as come here?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

No, I do not accept that. The reason the British go and live abroad and are welcomed abroad is that most of the British who go abroad are quite well off and mainly retired, and therefore they take a lot of income into poorer European countries that happen to have a little more sunshine. I quite understand. It is the Florida effect. People want to go to the southern European countries, but they take wealth with them, which would be welcomed even if we were not members of the EU, because poor countries always want to attract rich migrants. Rich countries cannot take an unlimited number of poor migrants, which is why we should focus on the most needy —the real refugees, the ones in Syria and the camps—and cut back on the 183,000 economic migrants coming from the EU. When the Government do that, they will deserve much more support than the support they will get today.

19:34

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

It is perhaps a consequence of the route by which this matter has come to the House today that much of the debate has focused on the constitutional and jurisprudence aspects of the EU, when it should have been about how we respond to what others have already described as one of the most remarkable and unprecedented humanitarian crises to hit Europe since the end of the second world war.

I have been struck by the number of hon. Members who have referred to the timing of this debate. I share the concern of those who have pointed out that the matter has been brought before the House when the decision has de facto already been made, but surely there is a more human aspect to the timing: winter is coming. Those who have made the journey to Europe—we heard about the remarkable numbers in Lesbos alone, let alone in Greece more widely—will now suffer real hardship as a consequence. It is also apparent that people will keep coming this winter. We will not see a diminution in the numbers making that journey. Surely, that is why there is so much to regret in the Government’s position. If SNP Members divide the House tonight, the Liberal Democrats will be with them. I suspect it will not take us long to get through the Lobby, but, like them, I think it is the right thing to do, notwithstanding my reservations about the arrangements being debated.

This year alone, 950,000 people have arrived in Europe, having risked their lives to get here. They do not come because they are the able ones; they come because they are desperate, and surely, as a consequence, we should have a humanitarian response. Mrs Merkel’s action in Germany was not the cause of their coming; it was a response to it. It is worth considering the consequences of the lack of concerted European action to the challenge. Ranked by asylum applications per head, Hungary has gone from ninth to second, behind Germany, while the UK has gone from seventh to 17th.

The Minister did not spend much time on the Government’s reasoning, but we know from comment elsewhere that they have spoken of the pull factor that would come from opting in. This has been considered by a Lords Select Committee that described itself as not convinced by the Government’s reasoning. It is worth considering the reasons the Committee came to that conclusion. It wrote:

“we heard arguments that the Government’s concern that the proposal could act as a ‘pull factor’, which would encourage further migration to the EU, was not supported by evidence. The migrants affected by the present proposal are those belonging to nationalities for which international protection is on average granted in at least 75% of cases—at present, those from Syria, Eritrea and Iraq. The situation in each of these countries is dire: it is clear that the vast majority of those leaving these countries are fleeing civil war or the imminent threat of persecution. This is underlined, for instance, by the presence of millions of Syrian refugees in camps in Jordan and Lebanon. The Government’s argument that the relocation of 40,000 migrants who have reached Greece or Italy will somehow encourage more to leave their countries of origin is therefore unconvincing.”

That is—to borrow the expression of the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg)—a somewhat masterful understatement.

What are the elements that could produce safe routes and a humanitarian approach? We need to extend the family reunion rules. We need to allow more people who have family in the United Kingdom to come here safely. The current rules mean that a Syrian father granted asylum in the United Kingdom would be allowed to bring his wife and younger children, yet if he had a 19-year-old daughter, for example, she would not ordinarily be able to come here. Her parents would be forced to choose between leaving her behind and paying smugglers to bring her to the United Kingdom. In either scenario, she would be at grave risk.

The priority for my hon. Friends and me is to bring in 3,000 unaccompanied refugee minors who have reached Europe, and there has been an ongoing dialogue on that between my party and party leader, and the Prime Minister. If there is an opportunity at the end of this debate, we would like to hear from the Minister what progress has been made on that.

We must also extend the resettlement scheme as a matter of urgency. Twenty thousand refugees over five years is a drop in the ocean. We can and should do more to take those vulnerable Syrian refugees, who now face a bitterly cold winter in camps in Syria’s neighbouring countries and other parts of Europe. Come the Division, the Liberal Democrats will be with the Scottish nationalists this evening.

19:41

[James Brokenshire]

We have certainly heard a number of important points, which in some ways have strayed more widely than the measures in the motion before the House and which may also arise in the debate to follow.

We will continue to work with European partners to develop and implement a sustainable and comprehensive solution that allows people to live fulfilling lives in their home countries or in countries of first asylum. Intra-EU relocation should not, in our judgment, be the response. The Government have been clear that the UK will not take part in it and have urged the EU to concentrate on actions that address root causes, control illegal migration and tackle abuse, not just actions that respond to the consequences of large-scale spontaneous migration. We have also been clear that, despite weaknesses in the Dublin arrangements, which we agree need reform, their underlying principles remain sound, with member states taking full responsibility for the effective functioning of their own border and asylum systems.

In our discussions with the EU we have been measured and constructive, while promoting and defending UK interests. Our approach reflects the need for a concerted humanitarian response for those who need our protection. On the issue of solidarity, let me underline the front-line and other support that this country has given through the European Asylum Support Office, Europol, our search and rescue operations, our support for the common security and defence plan and our approach to resettlement, as well as the aid assistance that has been provided. Underpinning all that work is the idea that measures should not undermine the principle that asylum should be sought in the first possible safe country. Therefore, I urge the House to support the Government’s motion.

Question put.

19:43

Division 148

Ayes: 274

---

Conservative: 270
UK Independence Party: 1
Ulster Unionist Party: 1
Independent: 1
Democratic Unionist Party: 1

Noes: 52

---

Scottish National Party: 42
Labour: 3
Liberal Democrat: 2
Social Democratic & Labour Party: 2
Plaid Cymru: 2
Independent: 2
Green Party: 1

Resolved,

That this House takes note of European Union Documents No. 9355/15 and Addendum and No. 11132/15, international protection for the benefit of Italy and Greece, No. 11843/15 and Addendum, establishing a crisis relocation mechanism, and No. 11844/15 and Addendum, international protection for the benefit of Italy, Greece and Hungary; and agrees with the Government’s decision not to opt in to proposals establishing provisional measures for the relocation of individuals in need of international protection or to the proposal establishing a crisis relocation mechanism.

European Agenda on Migration

Monday 14th December 2015 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

I inform the House that Mr Speaker has not selected the amendment in the name of Douglas Carswell.

19:55

[The Minister for Immigration (James Brokenshire)]

I beg to move,

That this House takes note of European Union Documents No. 8961/15, a European Agenda on Migration, No. 9345/15, EU Action Plan against migrant smuggling, unnumbered Document, a Council Decision on a European Union military operation in the Southern Central Mediterranean (EUNAVFOR Med), unnumbered Document, a Council Decision to launch EUNAVFOR Med, and a Draft Action Plan on Stepping up EU-Turkey cooperation on support of refugees and migration management in view of the situation in Syria and Iraq; and supports the Government’s aim of working with the EU and Member States and other international partners to develop a coherent and sustainable approach to addressing current migratory pressures, focused on shorter and longer term actions to break the business model of people smugglers and traffickers, to break the link between rescue at sea and permanent settlement in the EU, and to address the root causes of migrants’ journeys.

Today’s debate offers an important opportunity to look at the range of measures proposed to address the migration situation. The first of the documents listed on the motion, the “European Agenda on Migration”, was published on 15 May and sought to provide a blueprint from which to address the worsening situation by outlining an overview of the various measures available to the EU. It is fair to say that subsequent documents listed for the most part provide the detail of that blueprint.

The Government support many aspects of the European agenda. We agree that there should be more effective joint action on returns and against people smugglers. We favour stronger co-operation with third countries, as well as more effective management of the external border. Indeed, we have continued to press our European partners on those points, both before and since the publication of the Commissioner’s communication.

We have also welcomed the proposals against migrant smuggling. Its focus on strengthening co-operation to tackle the gangs profiting from the crisis through people smuggling, including enhanced approaches with international partners, is sensible, and we support the strategic priorities outlines.

[Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con)]

Does the Minister agree with me that it does not sit well with Mrs Merkel that she should be criticising the Hungarians who have done their level best to implement the Schengen arrangements, as they are required to do, by seeking to secure their border, which is the European border? Has the Minister or the Home Secretary had an opportunity to speak to Chancellor Merkel to say that she should be supporting the Hungarians, not attacking them?

[James Brokenshire]

As my hon. Friend will know, we are not part of Schengen, so the operations to deal with internal Schengen arrangements are for those who are party to them. As was discussed in the previous debate, what happens at the external Schengen border is important, which is why we have sought to support Frontex in a number of its activities, given the potential impact on us in the UK.

Looking at the approach off the coast of the European border, it is interesting to note how the subsequent Council decision on an EU military operation in the southern central Mediterranean has in many respects been a positive step in the joint efforts to break the business model of the people smugglers. That has had the UK’s full support. On 7 October, the operation moved into phase 2, the high seas phase, and was renamed Operation Sophia, in which the UK is playing an important role.

The purpose of Operation Sophia is to tackle the human smugglers and traffickers, disrupting their business model, which trades so carelessly in the lives of others. We must not forget, however, that Operation Sophia is only one part of the Government’s support for sea operations in the region. Since May, the UK has saved over 9,000 lives in the Mediterranean.

The last document listed, the proposed Turkey-EU action plan, has been broadly welcomed by political leaders across the EU and was the subject of an EU-Turkey summit on 29 November. The Government share the view that a plan of this kind is needed in order to ease the refugee burden on Turkey, while preventing further uncontrolled migration to the EU. Turkey is a key relationship partner for the EU and is a country with which the UK has had close co-operation for some time. It also has a pivotal role in the migration crisis, given that so many of the migratory flows through Greece and the western Balkans come through Turkey.

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend concede that there could be an element of disingenuousness in the embracing of Turkey in this context, given that so many of the problems that we have seen recently have come through Turkey?

[James Brokenshire]

It is important to look at the action plan to provide an overarching response to the challenges we face. Clearly, that involves Turkey as an active partner, which means working within Turkey and alongside it further afield. It is important to recognise and support Turkey’s efforts in hosting well over 2 million Syrian refugees. It is important to continue to retain that focus, which is why we are providing financial support as part of an overarching package to assist with the efforts taking place in Turkey.

However, I stress the importance of the Prime Minister’s announcement that, as part of the United Kingdom’s responsibilities, we would resettle 20,000 of the most vulnerable Syrian refugees over the next five years. We remain on track to resettle 1,000 before Christmas, building on our previous scheme. However, it is neither feasible nor desirable for us to try to meet the needs of all those who require protection within the European Union, nor is it the right solution for the majority. That is why the Government have placed so much emphasis on supporting protection in refugees’ regions of origin, and we have committed a further £100 million to fund refugee camps on Syria’s border.

As well as focusing on humanitarian assistance, the Government have consistently focused on finding a comprehensive and sustainable solution to the refugee crisis. The Prime Minister has continued to emphasise the need of the EU to deal with the root causes of the crisis, rather than merely responding to its consequences.

In Syria, that means working with the international community to end the brutal conflict there, and to defeat Daesh. The recent development of a Syrian opposition negotiating committee following talks in Riyadh last week is a positive addition to the peace plan that was produced in Vienna last month. It could be an important step towards a solution in Syria, and therefore part of the long-term solution to the migration crisis. In Libya, that means helping to form a Government of national accord which can regain control of the country’s borders and tackle the smuggling gangs. A strong, unified response to Libya, like the one that was demonstrated only yesterday in Rome, is imperative to securing the political agreement that will allow that country to move towards improved security. And, as I have said, in Turkey that means working towards comprehensive border management, ensuring that a humanitarian response is given to those who reach the country while also disrupting the organised criminal networks that seek to profit from the flight of others.

The situation relating to the migration crisis is constantly changing. The Government maintain a watch on all developments, so that we can reshape and refresh our engagement and share our expertise and resources in a targeted way to protect the UK’s national interest, assist our European partners, and ensure that our efforts have the greatest impact on the support that we offer. We remain committed to effective practical co-operation with our European partners in pursuit of this agenda, and that is what the motion underpins.

20:02

[Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)]

The motion covers a number of important documents, including the “European Agenda on Migration” and, of course, the “EU Action Plan against migrant smuggling”. The scope of the documents is broad, and their ambition is commendable. The “European Agenda on Migration”, for example, aims to set out an agenda for a fair, robust and realistic migration policy, and the action plan includes wider steps on issues such as people smuggling, recovering criminal assets, data gathering and the sharing of information, and the use of military assets.

We support those aims, and the motion’s call for

“a coherent and sustainable approach to addressing…migratory pressures”.

We also praise and support the efforts of our Royal Navy and other armed forces, who have rescued more than 5,577 migrants from the Mediterranean so far. It would be appreciated if the Minister could update us on the figure. The key question, however, is the extent to which the Government are helping to deliver that approach, and whether the European Union as a whole is achieving it. It is clear from the concerns that have been highlighted by the European Scrutiny Committee, and from the painful reality on the ground that we have seen in many parts of the EU, that a

“coherent and sustainable approach”

has not yet been adopted. These documents attempt to identify an approach that will ensure that Europe remains a safe haven for those who are fleeing atrocities and persecution, while also securing its borders and creating the conditions for economic prosperity.

If there is to be a coherent and sustainable solution to the migrant crisis, we must crack down on those who seek to take advantage of people in their time of need. Ruthless criminal networks organise the journeys of large numbers of migrants who are desperate to reach the European Union. They make substantial gains while putting migrants’ lives at risk, often squeezing hundreds on to unseaworthy boats, including small inflatable ones. Scores of migrants drown at sea, suffocate in containers, or perish in deserts. Smugglers treat migrants as goods, just like the drugs and firearms which they often traffic along the same routes. That is why we support the current operations which are aimed at preventing the smuggling of people into the European Union, and agree that undertaking such operations provides an opportunity to have an immediate impact on the crisis.

However, as the motion acknowledges, action must also be taken to address the root causes of migration. Many of those root causes lie deep in global issues that the international community has been trying to address for many years. Civil war, persecution, poverty and climate change all feed into migration, which is why the United Kingdom must be involved in reinvigorated diplomatic efforts to bring peace and stability to countries such as Syria, from which most of the refugees originate. There is also an important role for targeted aid and assisting the development of the countries in question.

Against that background, there are a number of issues that I would like the Minister to clarify. It is important for there to be ongoing parliamentary scrutiny of UK involvement in anti-trafficking operations. Will the Minister commit himself to informing the House before any further developments are agreed, and, in particular, to informing us of any decision to move from phase 2 to phase 3 of Operation Sophia?

There are some contradictions relating to the current state of operations. The initial EU plan stated that phase 3 involved the disposing of vehicles and vessels used for trafficking, but the Government have said that 40 migrant boats have already been disposed of as part of phase 2. Can the Minister explain that, and can he tell us whether the phases have now changed?

As well as ensuring that the vessels used for trafficking are disrupted and disposed of, we must ensure that the people smugglers who take advantage of vulnerable people are brought to justice. Can the Minister provide details of what the UK is doing on that front, along with any details relating to the investigation and prosecution of those who have already been apprehended?

20:07

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

The question of the “European Agenda on Migration” and the action plan appear in a motion which we had to urge the Government to split from the previous one. Although there are some differences between them, in practice there are also some important similarities, as the Minister said at the beginning of his speech. However, a number of issues relating to this motion are of grave concern. I remind the Minister that, in his explanatory memorandum on the communications—this was some time ago, but I do not want to go through all that again—he said that the Commission had failed to

“present the correct set of policies to address the problems that Europe is currently facing in the Mediterranean and from mother migratory pressures”.

I am sure that he will understand my asking this question, which is pretty obvious: what are the correct policies, if this is the wrong one?

The Commission considers that the asylum system in the European Union, and the operation of the Dublin rules, are regarded as being “fundamentally unfair”. Let me ask another question. Is the Dublin system broken —and, given the behaviour of the German Chancellor, it appears to me that it is—or can it be repaired? If so, do the Government want it to be repaired? What changes do they want to be made when the Dublin rules are reviewed next year?

The Government have already made it clear that they favour a policy of resettlement—and I thoroughly support them in that respect—rather than relocation. Those words tend to be used rather freely, but resettlement is quite different from relocation. Relocation applies to individuals who are already in the European Union, who have applied for asylum in a front-line member state, and who are presumed, on the basis of their nationality, to be very likely to qualify for international protection. Resettlement, on the other hand, applies to those outside the EU who are admitted from their country of origin or from camps neighbouring conflict areas. Member states have collectively agreed to resettle 22,504 individuals from outside the EU in 2015 on the basis that they are in need of international protection. I have to say that, although that is the assertion, regrettably serious questions have to be raised about the nature of some of the people who claim to be in need of international protection. Many no doubt justify receiving protection, but I then move on to the United Nations convention—the 1951 Geneva convention—and the breadth of the definition that is applied, and my concern is that what we really need is a re-evaluation of the definitions of what is a refugee, what is a migrant and what is an asylum seeker.

I have to say that at the meeting I referred to in the previous debate which took place in Rome only last Friday, at which all the Chairmen of the relevant Select Committees were present, there was in fact an endorsement of my proposal, which I have been putting to various international and EU meetings over the past four months, for a review of these definitions. These definitions have been expanded even from 1951 and now cover so many different areas and types of people that it is extremely difficult to imagine whether any reasonable basis for a refusal to relocate them can be pursued.

We have already heard about the very few—about 100, I think—who have been relocated. The reason for that is part of the problem, which I will come on to in a moment: the charter of fundamental rights, which is applied in this instance and also for the purposes of the Human Rights Act 1998 and the European convention on human rights. I know that people feel very strongly about this on both sides of the equation, and we have agreed that we would repeal the Human Rights Act, but in my judgment the depth of the analysis of the charter needs to be greatly improved. People who are claiming asylum can fall back on these international conventions in a way that creates a blockage of the legal system and the jurisdiction and jurisprudence of the human rights legislation, whether in respect of the charter or the European convention on human rights. There is therefore an increasing statistical and legal problem which is that more and more people are claiming asylum and, effectively, being granted it. I am not saying there are not many cases where that is justified, but I am saying that I think the definitions are so wide that this is becoming a very difficult problem and is not in fact going to lead to any serious policy of returns or deportations.

The Government have underlined the importance of breaking the economic model that encourages criminals to put people in harm’s way at sea, and that has to be highly commended. There are certainly advantages to the effectiveness of Operation Sophia, which has been well supported by the United Kingdom. The trouble is that with many traffickers and smugglers the problems exceed the capacity to deal with them. How effective does the Minister believe Operation Sophia has been because of the absence of an internationally recognised Government in Libya?

I now turn to the question of the extent to which we have entered into a sensible arrangement with Turkey. Turkey and the EU have signed a deal to give Turkey fast-track visa privileges in return for £3 billion-worth of aid and, I believe, the prospect of continuing financial support. There is also the prospect of a revitalised EU membership in return for a commitment to a migration action plan. I am profoundly cynical about this arrangement. I think it is based on giving money, almost in the nature of a bribe to Turkey. From what I have been hearing—and certainly from a meeting I attended very recently—the authorities in Turkey have been by no means diligent in enforcing the arrangements that are supposed to have been in place. The fact that so many people are making their way through the continent of Europe northwards towards Germany, causing an enormous amount of disruption, owes a great deal to the inefficiency with which I believe Turkey has been behaving recently.

In addition to that, without getting into the foreign policy and defence implications, Turkey has been at loggerheads with Russia, and that is a severe complication in relation to concerted action in Syria. Turkey is also profoundly committed to dealing, as it sees it, with the Kurds. That is probably more important to Turkey than anything else in this context, and that is also an obstacle to a coherent policy. I am therefore profoundly cynical about exactly how the Turkey deal will operate.

In terms of these fast-track visa privileges and its desire to come into the EU, we have to bear in mind that there are 78 million people in Turkey already, and I am told that that is increasing at something like the rate of about 1 million every 18 months. As the population expands, Turkish engagement with the EU and people coming over here will increase exponentially.

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

I hope my hon. Friend will acknowledge that the discussions about possible future visa liberalisation involve the Schengen countries; they do not involve those EU member states that are not part of Schengen.

[Sir William Cash]

Unfortunately, the Minister was not here when I spent a little time talking about the Schengen aspect of this in a previous debate. I believe that the current proposals, which increase the range of the border issue to external borders and include Schengen, will burst. This is not going to work. There is not the money to pay for it. The failure rate of Frontex is evident. I believe that the arrangement will not work in future, and the fact that we are not a member of Schengen will not alter the pressures of the kind we have witnessed recently that come as a result of people entering the Schengen area and, having acquired a passport and EU citizenship, making their way through the whole of the EU.

I accept that Schengen is not, for the moment at any rate, part of the UK’s bailiwick, but the pressures that are now beginning to grow are increasing the necessity for us to leave the EU, because, from what I have been hearing from other member states, Schengen is becoming a potent force towards a greater degree of emphasis on political union. It is a most remarkable state of affairs. The Minister for Europe was not here earlier, and I see him puzzling over what I am saying, but I say emphatically that the Schengen agreement is not only under review but already being broken by a series of countries. However, there is an enormous desire to make it work even more effectively. As it does so, the pressures for political union within the Schengen area will tend to increase.

Before I turn to the 1951 UN convention and the EU charter of fundamental rights, I want an answer to the question that I put to the Minister for Immigration earlier about how much, if at all, the United Kingdom is liable to contribute to the EU border force. Is it true that we will contribute £150 million?

[James Brokenshire]

indicated dissent.

[Sir William Cash]

It is not true, apparently, but I will be glad to hear the Minister say it.

[James Brokenshire]

Time did not allow me to respond to my hon. Friend’s question in the last debate, but we do not contribute to the core funding of Frontex. The agency is funded through a specific mechanism. He will know that we are not part of the Schengen arrangements, to which Frontex relates. We provide operational support through vessels, expertise and briefing.

[Sir William Cash]

I heard much the same back in the days of the Maastricht treaty, when we were told that we were not going to have creeping federalism. I sincerely believe that what the Minister has just said is what he believes will happen, and I trust him to say exactly what is going on—I will take his word for it—but the pressures are there. That is all I am saying.

[James Brokenshire]

My hon. Friend will no doubt take a great interest in the announcements that we are expecting to be made tomorrow about the EU border force. We will look closely at the proposals, but we will not take part in them because we are not part of the Schengen arrangements. To ensure that our national interests are protected, we will scrutinise them carefully.

[Sir William Cash]

I am extremely grateful to the Minister for those remarks.

The UN convention on refugees was incorporated into EU law by virtue of the charter of fundamental rights, so when the European Court of Justice implements EU policies, it interprets key passages such as the right of migrants to claim asylum if they reach EU territory, under article 18 of the charter, and the non-refoulement prohibition on removal to an unsafe state, under article 33 of the UN convention. There is therefore interaction between the 1951 UN convention and the charter of fundamental rights.

As the Minister will know only too well, the European Scrutiny Committee looked at the problem of the charter of fundamental rights in the last Parliament and came to the conclusion that we should override it. I do not want to go back into that debate too much, but I remind him that the previous Labour Government were completely against the incorporation of the charter into the Lisbon treaty. Furthermore, the noble Lord Goldsmith, who was the then Prime Minister Tony Blair’s envoy, sought and achieved a protocol that, on the face of it, excluded the charter of fundamental rights from UK legislation. We argued about that in the European Scrutiny Committee at the time, and I and other members of the Committee warned that it would not stick. Sure enough, as usual—I say “as usual” with regret—our prediction was right, and the European Court of Justice is now applying the charter of fundamental rights within the scope of European law. That is part of the problem, because as I have said, the charter incorporates the UN convention on refugees and all the definitions that go with it. As I said, I believe that those definitions must be reviewed, but they cannot be reviewed if they are part of the charter, which is applied by the European Court of Justice.

For practical purposes, the whole issue is caught up in the acquis communautaire. That is causing an enormous problem of interpretation and a logjam in the ability to deal with migration policy. I freely admit that a lot of this is a bit complicated, but unfortunately many people over the years have failed to understand that European Council and Council of Ministers meetings are not just about people sitting around and deciding to tweak education policy or transport policy, as Cabinet meetings might be in relation to domestic legislation. Decisions at those meetings lock the United Kingdom into legal obligations that can be removed only by the unanimity of all member states. That is the problem—it is a legal and political system, and it affects the issue of whether people are refugees or migrants.

I have no less sympathy for genuine refugees than anybody else. I have devoted a great deal of my time in the House to international development issues such as sanitation and water and people who are in refugee situations, but the current problem is not the same thing. It is not about having policies that we can rearrange and adjust; it is about the fact that we are being driven into a deeper acquis. That needs to be said in this debate, because the charter of fundamental rights means that the human rights dimension of the current problem, including the definition of refugees and asylum seekers, is locked into the acquis. In my opinion, that is one reason why so few of them are being dealt with appropriately.

As the Minister and I, and all of us, know only too well, the UK is not part of Schengen, but we are part of the Dublin regulation, which means that EU states and other UN convention signatories are obliged to allow for asylum claims as of right if a migrant reaches EU territory. However, the UN convention is not specific about how that obligation needs to be disposed. Arguably, to claim asylum under the convention, a refugee needs to arrive directly from the state from which they are fleeing. In practice, that can mean that an applicant has not been processed elsewhere en route. We are now dealing with 900,000 people, and the scale of the situation is as much of a problem as anything else.

Under the convention and the charter of fundamental rights, frontier states are not—I repeat not—allowed to block the entry of those with a genuine right to claim asylum. The question of setting up a border fence—as I said earlier, there is more barbed wire in Europe than at any time since the cold war—is extremely uncertain in law. The non-refoulement prohibition in the UN convention on the removal of an asylum seeker to an unsafe state can also be interpreted in different ways, including so as not to exclude removal to a safe third state or safe recent transit state. I want to get this on the record, because it is important that the Government look at it all carefully when they get the opportunity to do so. As I said, the charter of fundamental rights is subject to the European Court of Justice, whereas the United Nations convention is only a convention. We are dealing with a complicated legal situation, which I believe is generating even more problems from the European Union.

Although I accept entirely that this motion is merely one that “takes note”, many of the things that I have said have not been incorporated in the motion. I say with great respect to the Minister and to the Minister for Europe that some of these issues are difficult and intractable, but they none the less relate to the Schengen area and have a continuing and ongoing effect on the UK. I say that because as long as we remain part of this European Union—the Minister will accept that I do not think we should any more—we do not alter the fact that we are affected by these things. This migrant issue, with all the tragedies it involves for those who are drowning in the Mediterranean and with the great deal of problems that come from fake passports, jihadists and so on, makes the situation even worse. I simply say to the Minister that he should not think I am asking him to reply to all these points this evening, as I am sure he will not have the chance to do so. Will he, however, please take note of the fact that there are other arguments than those contained in the motion?

20:30

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

As has been mentioned, there is a fair amount of overlap between this motion and the previous item, so I will not repeat some of the comments I made in the prior debate. Unlike the previous motion, we will not be forcing this one to a vote, although one or two parts of it give us significant concern. I shall discuss those in a few moments’ time.

Yet again, I am disappointed, because we are talking about a refugee crisis, yet everything in the papers talks about migrants and migration. This is not a crisis of migrants or migration; it is a crisis of refugees fleeing for their lives. If we could get that into the mindset of not only our Government, but Governments across Europe, we might start to address this emergency in the correct terms. The terminology is important. We fully support the fact that we need to have co-ordinated and firm action against the criminals who are exploiting the vulnerable and desperate through people smuggling and people trafficking, but, as the Immigration Law Practitioners Association is keen to point out, people smuggling and people trafficking are not the same thing. They are very different in the eyes of the law, although it is sometimes difficult to tell them apart in practice in individual circumstances. This means that they need to be addressed in different ways.

We should also remember that the House of Lords EU Home Affairs Sub-Committee has recommended to the European Commission that when setting the legislation and directives that deal with people smuggling and people trafficking, we should make a distinction when it is clear that the smuggling has been carried out for humanitarian motives. Some may question whether that could ever be the case, but if it is clear that the act was done not for criminal purposes or for financial gain, but possibly through a misguided belief that it was a humanitarian act, would it be appropriate to classify such smugglers as international criminals? I certainly would not think so and the House of Lords Sub-Committee did not think so either. I would therefore be interested to know what the Government’s attitude to that is.

The motion also refers to action to tackle the “root causes” of migration, and I would be interested to hear what the Minister thinks are the root causes of 800,000 refugees arriving in Greece over the past year or so. What are the root causes of 4 million people being in the refugee camps in and around the Mediterranean coast? Unless the Government can prove to us that there were 4 million people last year and the year before, and every year for the past 10 years, the unescapable conclusion will be that the root cause of this crisis is war, violence and persecution in Syria and in other countries in that region.

[Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)]

In the previous debate, the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) said that the risks families take when trying to leave a situation such as my hon. Friend has just described were “foolish”. Does my hon. Friend agree that the hon. Gentleman does not understand the situation and his comment speaks to the mindset that my hon. Friend was discussing?

[Peter Grant]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those comments and I fully agree with them. I had wanted to say more in response to what the hon. Member for North East Somerset said, but as he is not here I will not respond to him just now. There may be people taking risks that could be described as foolish, but they are not foolish risks—they are desperate risks. These people are not stupid. Some of them are very highly educated, highly skilled workers in their homeland, and the reason they are risking their lives and, even more remarkably, those of their nearest and dearest, including their own children, is because they have taken a calculated risk that leaving them behind in Syria puts their lives at even greater risk.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that part of the problem is that there is no means of safe passage across land once borders have been closed, which means that there is no option for many people but to go by sea?

[Peter Grant]

Absolutely. One thing that drives people into the unseaworthy boats of the criminals is that they have no other way of getting out. If the only way they can get out is by risking their lives with the smugglers, that is what they will do. Sadly, all too often the evidence is washed up on the beaches of Europe and north Africa.

Does the Minister accept that the root cause of this emergency is not the benefit system or the wonderful economic growth that is happening in Britain, but the desperate, desperate tragedy that is unfolding in Syria and some of its neighbouring countries? That is the situation that must be addressed once and for all if we want this emergency to be resolved, even in the longer term.

The hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) mentioned the £3 billion of aid that is going to Turkey. We want to know what transparency and accountability is attached to that money. How do we know that it will be used for the correct purposes? I am not as enthusiastic a friend of the Turkish Government as some of those on the Government Benches. I cannot forget what the Turkish military are doing to the Kurdish people right now, and until they stop, there must be a limit to how willing we are to accept them as fully fledged respecters of human rights and of the rule of international law.

In the letter received by the Chair of the European Scrutiny Committee on 11 December, the Minister addressed this question of how the UK will respond to specific calls for assistance under the EU civil protection mechanism. In his final comment he said that he believed that there was more that other member states could do to support all this work and the various funding strands among the UK’s contribution. It made me remember a story that used to be popular a few years ago in certain management circles about the four workers called Anybody, Somebody, Nobody and Everybody. There were various versions of the story, but the nub of it was that there was always a vital job that had to be done. Everybody agreed that Somebody had to do it, and Anybody could have done it, but Nobody actually did. I just wondered whether what the Minister was saying was that they all agree that everybody else should do a lot more, but they cannot agree on who that is. Perhaps the Minister, either here in the Chamber or in the Scrutiny Committee, will clarify and amplify his comments. Which specific member states should be doing more? What more is it realistic for them to do? What are they doing already? We cannot judge whether other member states should do more unless we have an indication of what they are already doing.

One part of the Government’s motion gives me a great deal of concern. It talks about the need

“to break the link between rescue at sea and permanent settlement in the EU.”

I did not realise that there was an automatic permanent link of that kind. If somebody is rescued from the sea, they are almost by definition a refugee. They are claiming asylum. We have to assess whether they are entitled to asylum. If they are here solely as an asylum seeker, they do not have an automatic right to live here forever. In theory, they can be asked to go home when it is safe to do so. I just wonder whether we are seeing yet another acceptance by the Government that the emergency situation in Syria will continue for years and years. People have come here because they want a safe haven for a few years before they go home. Are we accepting that it will be years, possibly decades, before Syria is fit to take them back? I will look for clarification from the Minister on that—not necessarily this evening, but hopefully in the near future. I hope that we do not have to wait as long as the Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee has had to wait for some of his answers.

At one point, we considered pushing this matter to a vote simply because of that comment about the link between rescue at sea and permanent settlement. We decided against it, but I do wish to put on the record our deep, deep disquiet about the wording of that part of the motion, because it is inaccurate and it continues to create an impression that a significant number of these 4 million desperate citizens are trying to come here because they are attracted to living in the United Kingdom. They are not; they are trying to get out of Syria because they do not want to die. I just wish that the terminology that has been used and the language of this debate would recognise that this is a crisis that has fundamentally been caused by war, violence and civil unrest. It has not been caused by an economic miracle happening in the United Kingdom or in Germany.

20:39

[Mr Douglas Carswell (Clacton) (UKIP)]

In noting these documents and discussing this text, we are being invited, in effect, to give our approval to a deal struck between the European Union and Turkey—a deal negotiated and signed without our input, involvement or ability to vote it down. We should not approve it. I tabled my own unselected alternative motion.

A few days ago, the EU announced what is, in effect, a four-part deal with Turkey. I see perfectly well what might be in it for Turkey, from whose point of view it is a very good deal. However, it is not in our national interest. First, the deal will give 75 million Turks visa-free, unrestricted access to the Schengen area from next October. We may not be part of Schengen, but that does affect us. There will be no mechanism to log people coming into the Schengen area and none to log people out. The deal can only add to the porousness of the EU’s frontiers, which can only contribute to the increase in numbers of those camped outside Calais seeking entry into the UK.

Secondly, the talks between the EU and Turkey mean that Turkish accession to the EU is back on the table. I would not wish joining the EU on anyone, certainly not a friend such as Turkey.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I have some concern about Turkey’s abuse of religious minorities—Christians, and the Kurds in particular. We are now considering supporting its joining the EU. Why should we do that given that its human rights abuses are so terrible?

[Mr Carswell]

The hon. Gentleman makes an incredibly powerful point. We are sometimes made to deal with Turkey as an equal, yet it does not have the belief in equality within Turkey that we in the west—Europe and north America—hold so dear. That is a valid and powerful point.

Thirdly, as part of the deal between the EU and Turkey that we are being asked, in effect, to approve, the EU will give Turkey €3 billion a year, of which a hefty contribution will come from British taxpayers. But it is the fourth aspect of the deal outlined in these papers, under the euphemism of “migration management”, that I find most objectionable. Each year some 400,000 migrants from Turkey will be allowed to settle within Schengen. Of course, we are not in Schengen, but again the issue will affect us. Those 400,000 will be assigned to Schengen member states by quota. Once those 400,000 migrants per year have a right of abode in the EU, they will acquire with it the right to live anywhere within the EU.

Do we seriously imagine that those allocated to a high-unemployment, sclerotic Portugal or Italy will remain in those countries? No—within a short time those assigned to Portugal will have every right to come and live in Peckham and those assigned to live in Italy will have every right to move to Ipswich. This is a deal being signed up on our behalf and in our name with profound implications for us, and we have no say over it. We can expect many more thousands of migrants to find their way into this country as a direct consequence of this deal and many voters out there will deeply resent the fact that they have simply not been asked.

The Government motion talks about our need to work with our international partners. Indeed we must, but I ask Ministers to be a little more circumspect when we select those international partners. It is difficult to assess the spread of Sunni radicalism in Syria and the middle east as a push factor without also examining and bringing into the equation the effect of Saudi Arabia and its promotion of radical Wahhabism. The EU has imposed sanctions on Iran; it is a pity that the documents do not consider action against those in Saudi Arabia who also export radicalism. I cannot support the motion in front of us. I regret that even if the House objected and even if we rallied heroically through the Division Lobby to defeat the motion and voted down this tepid motion and its Minister, nothing would change. It would not matter a jot. We have signed away the right to reject a duff deal with Turkey made in our name, the consequences of which will be with us for yours to come. And here, in an empty Chamber, on a Monday evening, there is nothing we can do about it. This is how we are governed.

20:45

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

I want to mention briefly three aspects of the European agenda on migration, the first document mentioned in the Government’s motion. The first of those three aspects is safe legal routes. That European agenda document acknowledges that

“vulnerable people cannot be left to resort to the criminal network of smugglers and traffickers. There must be safe and legal ways for them to reach the EU”.

Similarly, the House of Lords European Union Committee said that one effective way to address the root causes of irregular migration is to create safe and legal routes for refugees to enter the EU. The UNHCR endorsed an EU target of around 20,000 resettlements across Europe each year by 2020—a modest and wholly achievable proposal if there is political will. We welcome the Government’s resettlement programme, overdue as it may have been.

[Sir William Cash]

There has been an accumulation of documents over a long period. Had the proposal from the European Scrutiny Committee been taken up earlier, we would have been debating those documents when the numbers were at the level that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned. We are now talking not about 20,000 or 40,000, but about 400,000, 500,000 or 600,000 migrants.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

I am speaking first about plans for resettlement. I shall come on to relocation later. Resettlement through the UNHCR is not the only method of providing safe legal routes. We have urged and continue to urge the Government to listen to the expert organisations calling for broader family reunion rules, and to consider the case for humanitarian visas so that fewer people are compelled to risk their lives crossing the Mediterranean.

The second aspect of the agenda document that I want to mention, and probably the most important, concerns hotspots, which both the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary have talked up in recent months. Everyone knows that Greece’s asylum system was already chaotic before the crisis began, and Italy’s is probably not much better, so expecting those systems to cope with the crisis would be unreasonable. That is where the so-called hotspot approach is supposed to help. The theory is that the full weight of EU asylum institutions will

“work on the ground with frontline Member States to swiftly identify, register and fingerprint incoming migrants...Those claiming asylum will be immediately channelled into an asylum procedure where European Asylum Support Office (EASO) support teams will help to process asylum cases as quickly as possible.”

In addition, €60 million was to be invested in emergency funding to support the reception of migrants and the provision of healthcare to migrants in member states under pressure.

I have not had the benefit of visiting any hotspots, but I have read and listened with concern to recent reports from those who have visited. Those include reports from the International Rescue Committee, which said that

“the way hotspots are currently being rolled out is causing chaos, increasing tensions and violence, and leaving more people without basic shelter.”

In October an update from the Commission explained some of the reasons why that might be the case. At that stage, only six member states had responded to its calls by providing just 81 out of 374 experts requested, and just six member states had responded to calls by providing 48 border officials out of the requested 775 border guards, screeners, de-briefers and interpreters that were thought necessary.

Lots of serious questions remain about how hotspots are to function and their basis in law, so I would be interested to know whether the Minister can comment on the legal basis for hotspots; whether people in those hotspots have access to legal advice; whether the way a person is dealt with in a hotspot area will depend on their nationality; the proportion of those in hotspots who are recorded as having claimed asylum; the number who have been removed directly from hotspots; and, more generally, when data on outcomes from hotspots will be published, and the UK contribution to all this.

Thirdly, on relocation, I was disappointed not to be able to attend the earlier debate that focused more intensively on that. The Government’s motion talks of

“working with the EU and Member States and other international partners”

to address current migratory pressures, but the difficult starting point for the Government is that they wash their hands of relocation plans, despite those being pivotal to the agenda on migration, and instead leave responsibility for that to everyone else.

The House of Lords described the Government’s reasons for opting out of relocation as unconvincing. I would say that that is being pretty kind to the Government. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant) said, the idea that whether or not the UK takes part in relocation schemes affects the number of people attempting dangerous crossings is utterly unsupported by evidence. It has been several months since the UK first said that it was going to shirk its responsibilities in this regard, and still more and more people make the crossing. They are doing that because they are fleeing desperate circumstances, not on the off-chance that they will be incredibly lucky in a lottery of a relocation scheme and end up in the United Kingdom. A European relocation scheme should be a response to an emergency situation—a humanitarian crisis. As the Lords EU Committee said, failing to opt in means that we are failing to live up to our duty of solidarity and burden-sharing between member states.

A crisis on this scale requires collective action. Dealing with more than 900,000 people arriving in desperate circumstances is an impossible task for two or three countries to take on. In a Union of 500 million people their arrival poses a huge challenge—there is no doubt about that—but it is surmountable given that they represent less than 0.2% of the population. As the European agenda document states:

“No Member State can effectively address migration alone. It is clear that we need a new, more European approach.”

That is the approach that the Government should take rather than their head-in-the-sand approach to what is going on in Europe just now.

20:51

[James Brokenshire]

With the leave of the House, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will respond briefly to some of the points that have been raised during the debate.

Organised immigration crime is an important issue. It is worth underlining that in recent months we have developed a 90-member-strong organised immigration taskforce which has had a strong focus on the crime networks operating in some source countries and at transit points, including the Mediterranean, as well as the UK border and in France. We have disrupted more than 600 organised crime groups this year, and our taskforce will be expanded to a 100-strong team. Access to and sharing of data is vital to joint efforts to combat the criminal gangs. In the Government’s view, it is essential that enhanced data sharing, including with Europol, forms part of the EU’s response.

The Chair of the European Scrutiny Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), asked about the Government’s priorities for action by the EU. I have written to the Committee on this previously, but to underline the position, we have highlighted four points: first, how EU money is spent on tackling problems at source in transit countries; secondly, an increased focus on fighting organised crime, with better joining up between member states; thirdly, dealing with economic migration regarding those who enter the EU without effective controls staying without consequence, where the issue of claims of refugee status not made out needs to be addressed more firmly; and fourthly, a stronger coherence between upstream development work and the return of economic migrants.

My hon. Friend highlighted the issue of Dublin. We strongly support the Dublin regulations. We believe that an applicant’s asylum claim made in the EU should be dealt with by the member state most responsible for their presence in the EU. We are aware, however, that the Commission is reviewing the Dublin regulations with a view to bringing forward a new measure next spring. We are co-operating with that review, but we believe that the long-standing principles at the heart of the Dublin system are the right ones, and that it would be a major error to replace them with completely different, untried and untested measures.

In respect of the operations in the Mediterranean and Operation Sophia, we are in phase 2, which is the high seas operation. The House will no doubt be updated, through reports of EU Council of Ministers meetings, should there be further progress, which we look to. This is very much focused on the situation in Libya. We welcome the support from a broad range of Libyans from across the political spectrum in recognising the urgency of creating a long-awaited Government of national accord, and urge all political actors to sign on 16 December. The Rome ministerial meeting of 13 December demonstrated unified international support for the UN-led effort to establish a Government of national accord in Libya. We continue to support that and to see it as a priority for moving forward.

The EU-Turkey action plan covers most of our priority areas, including controlling the flow of migrants to the EU from Turkey. It is about improving education, health and labour rights for Syrian refugees in Turkey to address the potential push factors for further migration. It is important to stress that Turkey is accepting the return of some failed asylum seekers and tackling smuggling networks. The agreed action plan incentivises Turkey to do more on border management. It does not guarantee visa liberalisation in relation to Turkey, and the UK does not have to offer a reciprocal visa concession. It is important to underline and stress that.

[Jim Shannon]

In an earlier intervention, I mentioned the human rights abuses taking place in Turkey. Has the Minister had any discussions with his ministerial colleagues about that matter? It is clear to me and many other Members that those human rights abuses have not stopped; indeed, they are continuing.

[James Brokenshire]

I underline to the hon. Gentleman that, although we support Turkey’s EU accession process and are working on it closely with Turkey, EU member states and the European institutions, the accession process recognises that Turkey needs to do more to meet EU standards through continuing reform, particularly in the area of fundamental rights and the rule of law. Active and credible accession negotiations remain the best way for Turkey to make further progress.

We have touched on the hotspots issue. The UK stands ready to support, through the European Asylum Support Office and others, and to ensure that the appropriate support mechanisms are in place.

Our position on the migration crisis is practical, pragmatic and focused on the need for a concerted humanitarian response for those who need our protection; ensuring the sustainability of EU asylum systems; pursuing effective co-operation with EU partners; combating illegal migration and those who profit from it; and protecting our security. That is where the Government’s focus remains, and I urge the House to support our motion.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House takes note of European Union Documents No. 8961/15, a European Agenda on Migration, No. 9345/15, EU Action Plan against migrant smuggling, unnumbered Document, a Council Decision on a European Union military operation in the Southern Central Mediterranean (EUNAVFOR Med), unnumbered Document, a Council Decision to launch EUNAVFOR Med, and a Draft Action Plan on Stepping up EU-Turkey cooperation on support of refugees and migration management in view of the situation in Syria and Iraq; and supports the Government’s aim of working with the EU and Member States and other international partners to develop a coherent and sustainable approach to addressing current migratory pressures, focused on shorter and longer term actions to break the business model of people smugglers and traffickers, to break the link between rescue at sea and permanent settlement in the EU, and to address the root causes of migrants’ journeys.

Business without Debate

Monday 14th December 2015 Commons Chamber

business of the House

Monday 14th December 2015 Commons Chamber

Ordered,

That at the sitting on Wednesday 16 December the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motion in the name of Secretary Iain Duncan Smith relating to the Welfare Cap not later than ninety minutes after their commencement; such Questions shall include the Questions on any Amendments selected by the Speaker which may then be moved; proceedings may continue, though opposed, after the moment of interruption; and Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply.—(Dr Thérèse Coffey.)

delegated legislation

Monday 14th December 2015 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)]

With the leave of the House, we shall take motions 6 and 7 together.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

financial services and markets

That the draft Payment Accounts Regulations 2015, which were laid before this House on 17 November, be approved.

disclosure of information

That the draft Disclosure of Exporter Information Regulations 2015, which were laid before this House on 17 November, be approved.—(Charlie Elphicke.)

Question agreed to.

Backbench business

Monday 14th December 2015 Commons Chamber

Ordered,

That Kevin Foster be a member of the Backbench Business Committee.—(Jackie Doyle-Price, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.)

Student Nursing (Finance)

Monday 14th December 2015 Commons Chamber

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Jackie Doyle-Price.)

20:57

[Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)]

I am grateful for this opportunity to lead my first Adjournment debate on the serious issue of finance for student nurses and midwives.

I have a long-standing interest in the issues. I spent much of my career outside this place working for a number of charities to widen access to higher education and to tackle broader educational disadvantage. As deputy leader and cabinet member for health and wellbeing in the London borough of Redbridge, I became acutely aware of the challenges facing frontline staff and managers in both of the NHS trusts that serve my constituents in Ilford North. I am also a proud supporter of Unison and draw Members’ attention to my declaration of interests. I am grateful to Unison, the National Union of Students, of which I am a former president, and many other organisations for their assistance in drawing together the evidence for this evening’s debate.

With just a few lines in the autumn statement, the Chancellor announced the biggest shake-up in the funding of nursing, midwifery and allied health subjects since the Health Services and Public Health Act 1968. By scrapping student bursaries and charging them tuition fees, the Chancellor is passing on the full cost of training to these essential frontline staff for the first time. The scale and potential consequences of his decisions merit further parliamentary scrutiny and public debate, and I hope that tonight will provide the first of many opportunities for that debate to take place.

Nursing and midwifery students currently pay no tuition fees for their studies and receive a non-means-tested grant of up to £1,000 and a means-tested bursary of up to £3,191 to help with the costs of living while they study and train. That is significant because students on both courses are required to work throughout their degrees in clinical practice, where they are subject to the full 24-hour care cycle. They work evenings, nights and weekends. Many will spend 60% of their degree doing that, with nurses required to work at least 2,300 hours across their degree. Even with the current levels of financial support in place, many struggle to make ends meet. Their courses are longer, their holidays are shorter and their placements are demanding. Those who do paid work outside their course can end up working more than 60 hours a week as a result, and they should not be expected to do so.

There has been a public outcry at the planned loss of the NHS bursary, but the Government’s plans go even further. Nursing and midwifery students will not only lose their grant and bursaries for maintenance; they will be expected to take out loans to pay for their tuition fees for the first time. These changes will burden students with eye-watering debts of at least £51,600, which they will begin to pay back as soon as they graduate, because nurses currently earn a starting salary just above the repayment threshold, which, shamefully, is now to be frozen at £21,000. As a result, nurses will on average take a pay cut of £900 a year to meet their debt repayments. That is no way for Ministers to treat the people who form the backbone of the NHS.

Given that the Government see fit to charge students for the cost of their tuition, will the Minister confirm whether he intends to pay student midwives and nurses for the hours they have to put into staffing our hospitals? If a private sector company tried to get workers to work long shifts and to pay for the privilege of working those long shifts while training, they would rightly be condemned. We should be no less outraged by what Ministers propose for nurses and midwives.

The impact of the changes will be felt beyond nurses and midwives; physiotherapists, occupational therapists, dieticians, chiropodists, podiatrists, radiographers, paramedics, prosthetists and other allied health professionals stand to lose out. We are not talking about the highest-paid people in this land; this assault on the living standards of key public sector workers is rightly causing outrage among NHS staff and members of the public who cherish the work they do on our behalf.

Given the scale and significance of the reforms, it is outrageous that the Government chose to sneak them out in the autumn statement. The Chancellor’s statement made an oblique reference to replacing

“direct funding with loans for new students”.—[Official Report, 25 November 2015; Vol. 602, c. 1363.]

The policy decision on page 126 of the Blue Book merely says:

“Students studying nursing, midwifery and allied health subjects from September 2017 will be moved on to the standard student support system, with the details subject to consultation.”

As the Government have placed so little information in the public domain so far and higher education institutions and potential applicants are already turning their minds to the 2017 admissions round, I hope that the Minister can shed some light on the details this evening. Will he confirm that the Government will consult on the principle of the policy changes, not merely on their implementation? What is the full timetable for the decision from consultation through to implementation?

What analysis have the Government conducted of students in receipt of NHS bursaries for tuition and maintenance costs? Will they publish an equality impact assessment for the proposals? What research have the Government conducted into the financial hardship facing existing nursery and midwifery students and students of allied health subjects?

Why do the Government think it is fair that students from the most deprived backgrounds should have their grants taken away while some of the wealthiest people in our society receive tax cuts? How much of this debt do the Government expect to write off because those indebted by these reforms are unable to repay them in full?

Which Department will meet the cost of servicing the RAB—resource accounting and budgeting—charge for the student loan debt: the Department of Health or the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills? What are the Barnett consequentials for health education budgets in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, where different arrangements are in place?

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for bringing this issue before the House. I understand that 56,000 students on the mainland, including Scotland and Wales, may be in debt as a result of this change. In Northern Ireland, the Health Minister has committed himself to continuing the bursary. We are doing that in Northern Ireland; perhaps the rest of the United Kingdom should do the same.

[Wes Streeting]

I wholeheartedly agree with the hon. Gentleman. He rightly points out that this change will open up a postcode lottery across the United Kingdom, as its different parts choose to treat nurses and trainee nurses and midwives in different ways.

In the junior doctors dispute—the Government have belatedly seen sense and decided to reflect on their position—we faced the prospect of junior doctors in my constituency flocking to other parts of the United Kingdom because the situation there was more generous. With great respect to all the people represented in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, I want to keep in my constituency the talented trainee doctors, nurses, midwives and other health professionals living in my constituency so that they can serve my constituents when they work at King George and Whipps Cross hospitals. These are very serious issues.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent speech and excellent points on the significance of nursing to the whole country. He might like to know that the students I have met in Scotland send a message of solidarity to their colleagues in England. They do not want to see bursaries cut, because nurses are under enough pressure as it is. I congratulate him on securing this debate.

[Wes Streeting]

I am very grateful for that intervention and I wholeheartedly concur with the hon. Lady.

Government Members may wear the NHS badge on their lapel, but they are quick to attack the conditions of NHS staff when it comes to taking difficult decisions. [Interruption.] They ask how I would fund it. When we were in government, even when we made changes to higher education student finance, we did not do this. We will take no lessons from the Conservative party on spending plans. It attacked Labour’s spending plans at the 2010 general election because we wanted to halve the deficit and it was promising to eliminate it. Then what did it do? It halved the deficit. When it comes to their record on spending plans, the Government are in no position to hector other parties.

[Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that what is so devastating about these plans is that people from my constituency and from my background—I am a former Unison activist who looked after NHS staff—will not be able to go into the nursing profession? We are crying out for nurses and for people to fill the positions. The NHS has been burdened by the use of agency staff because the staff are not available. This policy will put people from my constituency off going into those positions.

[Wes Streeting]

My hon. Friend speaks with great experience. The Government should heed the points she makes.

I will turn to the other questions I have for the Minister. How will clinical placements be funded under the student loans system? The Government talk about the number of places they can expand, but it is not like expanding a history undergraduate course because occupational placements need to be arranged. The Government should explain how they intend to fund them.

Given the number of mature applicants for nursing, midwifery and allied health subjects, what assessment have the Government made of the likely impact of the reforms on applications from mature students? Are the Government at all concerned that applications from mature students may fall, given the detrimental impact that the coalition Government’s student finance reforms had on mature and part-time student numbers? Given that many people choose healthcare as a second degree and may not be willing to take on more than £100,000 of debt, how will the Government ensure that this route is not closed to such students? Have the Government conducted any evaluation at all that might give us a clue as to the extent of the risk that these reforms pose to recruitment?

The Government suggested in the spending review that half of all applicants to nursing courses are turned away. Do they have any evidence of what stage they are turned away at? If it is really the case that people are flocking to these professions, will the Minister explain why my local NHS trust has been so reliant on temporary and agency staff, including nurses who have been flown over from Portugal, to address the recruitment and retention challenges facing the NHS?

Additional allowances are currently available for students with different circumstances. Will the Minister inform the House whether any changes will be made to additional allowances, such as the extra weeks allowance or the dependants allowance? If so, what are those planned changes and what assessment have the Government made of their potential impact?

Given the press speculation over the weekend that the Government plan to increase the overall cap on university tuition fees, what assurance can the Minister give the House that students studying nursing, midwifery and allied health subjects will not see their tuition fees and debts hiked up even further than is being suggested? Given that the Government seem content to shift the goalposts for existing students and graduates, does the Minister really expect current or future students to believe that the terms and conditions they sign up to will not be changed and applied retrospectively further down the line? At the very least, I hope the Minister will confirm this evening that the NHS will continue to fund the tuition fees for existing students for the remainder of their studies.

When the coalition Government chose to increase tuition fees in 2010, the move was subject to a debate and a vote in this House. Given the media speculation that Cabinet Office Ministers are busy trying to find ways to avoid proper debate and scrutiny of a possible increase in the overall cap on tuition fees, will the Minister give the House an assurance that we will have a full debate and a vote should the Government choose to extend tuition fees to nursing, midwifery and allied health subject courses? Many students have already written to Ministers in the Department of Health and are awaiting a reply. Will the Minister commit to meeting student representatives to discuss their concerns?

It is not hard to understand why the Government’s shift in policy is generating so much concern and anxiety. In recent days I have heard representations from, among others, Unison, the Royal College of Nursing, the National Union of Students, the University of Hertfordshire, the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists, and the Chartered Society of Physiotherapy. I have been contacted by student nurses and midwives in my constituency, and received messages of support for this debate from those in the constituencies of other right hon. and hon. Members.

Before I conclude, I would like to share with the House some of the stories that I have heard, and I will finish by making a few points about nursing and midwifery students. These are exceptional people and their dedication to others is truly remarkable. They work long hours, often in difficult situations, and they take a direct role in caring for patients when they are at their most vulnerable. Nursing students have told me how immensely challenging their work can be. They hold the hands of patients in their final moments, and comfort them as they pass. They are the face of reassurance to patients, and a bedrock of support for families.

[Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech, and I wanted to share my thoughts as someone whose son’s life, and whose own life, was saved by a student midwife. Does he agree that making those people not just work for free but even pay to save the lives of people like me and my son, is simply despicable?

[Wes Streeting]

I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend, and I am grateful to her for sharing her difficult personal experiences.

Nurses care for us in some of our darkest and most painful moments, and the weight of their responsibility carries with it a heavy physical and emotional load. The same is true for our nation’s midwives. One spoke of the difficulties that she faced when a baby was stillborn and she had to comfort the mother, while also taking hand and foot prints so that the parents would have memories of the baby they lost. She will never forget the shift when she spent 12 and a half hours with a mother who miscarried twins. She had five hours of rest, and then came back to do another 12 and a half hours with the same woman. She has supported the delivery of 10 babies, and she feels immense pride in being part of the wondrous moment of childbirth.

As the saying goes “Save one life and you’re a hero; save 100 lives and you’re a nurse.” These people are seeking to qualify into these difficult professions and form the NHS of tomorrow. They deserve our respect, admiration and support, as well as the right incentives to continue or even commence study in the first place. Ministers should listen to the students who are protesting, and to the nearly 150,000 people who have signed the petition to keep the NHS bursary. The Government owe it to patients and students to think their proposals through properly, and I ask them to pause this process. It would be a tragedy if the next Florence Nightingale or Edith Cavell were discouraged from the profession because of these changes. I look forward to the Minister’s response, and I hope that in the coming days, weeks and months, he will listen carefully to the voices of those who form the backbone of our national health service.

21:13

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ben Gummer)]

It is a privilege to respond to this debate, and the hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting) made a powerful speech. I know that he has experience and expertise in student finance. He was on the front line when we had discussions in this place some years ago, albeit outside the Chamber, and he brings passion and knowledge to this debate. He may feel that I am rehearsing points that he has heard previously, but before I address some of the specific and detailed questions that he rightly raised, I hope he will not mind if I run through some of the issues and reasons why the Government feel that this measure is the right thing to do at this time.

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that nursing remains one of the few subjects not within the purview of the current student finance system. To our mind, the current system is not delivering as it should for either students or patients. Simply put, nursing is one of the most oversubscribed subjects in the whole academic range, and the fifth most popular subject that UCAS offers. Last year, there were 57,000 applicants for the 20,000 nursing places available.

I do not wish to go down the route of discussing NHS finance, because it will lead us to a place that is not easy for the hon. Gentleman’s argument and not particularly realistic. There is no way that any Government of any stripe would be able to offer a place to every single person with the necessary qualifications who wished under the current funding system to apply for a nursing place. The question for us is this: how do we change the system to give more people the opportunity to study nursing, and do so in a way that we are able better to supply the nurses and the nursing positions required in the NHS?

The hon. Gentleman asked a very important and pertinent question, which is why in his hospital, which I know from having gone there and from discussing this with him in other debates in this place, he should be seeing a shortage of filled nursing places. It is a function of parts of London that there are problems in recruiting—I was in Hull last week where they have a similar problem, albeit for different reasons—and yet there is an oversubscription for places. He could have added that we almost have a record number of nurses in training at the moment. So how does that add up?

Under the Government, we have seen a significant expansion in the number of nurses in the workplace. The response to the tragic events at Mid Staffs, the subsequent Francis report and the results of the Morecambe Bay inquiry led us to the conclusion that had eluded previous Governments: we needed safe staffing levels on wards that were not, in some parts of the country and in some hospitals, safely staffed. That required a significant increase in nursing numbers, which could be provided in the short term only by agency nurses. That is why we have not only increased the number of nurses in training—clearly, they take a while to come through—but have been required to take action on the cost of agencies taking advantage of the situation. That does not change the fact that it is simply not possible, within the current funding set-up, to satisfy either the demand for or the supply of nursing places.

There are other reasons. Even if we did not need to do something to get a better match between the number of nursing places and what the NHS requires and students want, I would want to push this reform. It is for that reason that I directly disagree with the hon. Gentleman’s assessment of student finance reform. I disagreed with him when we had this discussion in 2011, albeit not in this Chamber. If I may gently put it, I think those on the Conservative side of the House were proved right by those reforms. The simple fact is that we now have more applications from disadvantaged students to higher education than ever before in the history of higher education. We have seen a significant expansion in the number of students full stop going into higher education. Eighteen-year-olds from the most disadvantaged areas were 72% more likely to apply to higher education in 2015 than they were in 2006. It has happened in precisely the opposite way to what he and his friends on the Labour Benches, when they were making the argument in 2011, expected to happen.

[Wes Streeting]

The Minister should look more carefully at what happened to mature student applications following the reforms—they plummeted—and think about the profile of the people applying to be nurses and midwives. Does he accept that the majority of loan debt will never be paid back, including by graduates who will earn far more than nurses?

[Ben Gummer]

I will turn to mature students, but I hope the hon. Gentleman will concede my central point. The significant majority of students going into nursing are doing so at an undergraduate point at 18 or 19 years of age. For that cohort across the rest of the higher education sector, we have seen the most spectacular expansion in opportunity than at any time since higher education was opened up more broadly to people after the second world war. That is something that Members on both sides of the House should celebrate. I know that those on the sensible wing of the Labour party also embrace the reforms and see why they were a good thing.

I disagree with many in the Opposition, but to be direct with the hon. Gentleman, I want to bring those advantages to student nursing. I want to expand the number of places available to people from all backgrounds to give them the opportunity to enter nursing, and I want to secure the advantages that come from bringing people from non-traditional and disadvantaged backgrounds into nursing, in the same way as we achieved in the rest of the higher education sector. I believe passionately in that. Even if the NHS and the students themselves—the 37,000 who applied but did not get a place last year—did not require this change, I would still be making it, because it is the right thing to do for those who otherwise would not have an opportunity. Under the new student financing arrangements, they will have that opportunity.

[Peter Kyle (Hove) (Lab)]

I wish to press the Minister on my hon. Friend’s point about mature students. In higher education, the number of mature students attending has now fallen by half. This is directly related to the current funding regime. The social mobility commissioner has cited education as the key vehicle by which mature people can achieve social mobility. How will the Minister prevent the number of mature nursing students falling as it has done in higher education?

[Ben Gummer]

I will turn to that point with pleasure, if the hon. Gentleman will give me a few minutes, because I have several things to say about mature students. I accept that this area of the proposals requires close attention, which is why I want to ensure that they are as robust as possible and that the consultation, to which the hon. Member for Ilford North referred, is as good as possible.

I want to answer the questions from the hon. Member for Ilford North about the consultation. We will consult on the full gamut of the reforms, but we will not consult on the principle, because that has been decided, as was outlined by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. It is unfair to say he sneaked it out, given that it was made evident in his speech and was reacted to by the Opposition, as I know because I heard them. As for the timetable, the consultation will begin in January. We have not determined precisely when it will conclude, but it will be a full consultation. In significant part, it will look at how to ensure that mature students are supported, and I can confirm one element of it: we will allow mature students to apply for a second loan. Of course, that will account for only a small number of the cohort, but we will look at the impact of the changes on mature students, because they make up about a third of the cohort going into nursing.

[Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)]

I am a little confused by the Minister’s argument, which appears to be that by removing an existing advantage, he will create an advantage for more people to enter the nursing profession. Most people listening will find that slightly illogical, but he is not normally an illogical person. Would it not be sensible to do as my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting) suggested and have a proper impact assessment followed by a vote in Parliament, so that we can decide the right way forward, on the basis of that impact assessment?

[Ben Gummer]

The right hon. Gentleman makes a fair point, and I can tell him that an economic impact assessment and an equality impact assessment will be published with the consultation. I hope that that will begin to inform the debate. He might imagine that my proposition does not align with what he thinks the effect will be. I just ask him to look at what happened in 2011 when we did the same for the vast majority of other students, when Opposition Members put exactly the same arguments and warnings, and since when the precise opposite has happened.

[Mr Howarth]

The Minister is being generous in giving way twice, but we are not talking about what happened then; we are talking about a particular group that at the time was excluded from the provisions. He has not yet explained why he has now decided to include them in those provisions, other than by saying he is taking away an advantage that already exists.

[Ben Gummer]

It is simply because I wish to see the same advantages that accrue to those already on the new finance system accruing to those who are not. I want to see an expansion in the number of places and I want to see the effects of the changes made by the Office for Fair Access to university admissions in the rest of the sector applied to nursing, so that we see not only an expansion in the numbers of nurses being trained, but a broadening of the backgrounds of those going into nursing, exactly as has happened in all other areas of higher education.

I want to explain, I hope quickly, how this change forms part of a wider reform we are making in student access to nursing. The hon. Member for Ilford North framed his entire speech, understandably so, around the university route into nursing, but he omitted to reflect on the fact that the Government have stated that we will introduce an apprenticeship route into nursing to degree level—level 6. That will provide an alternative route into nursing, whereby nurses will be able to earn while they learn from healthcare assistant level all the way to a full nursing qualification at degree level. It will be possible for them to do so as mature students, which means it might take a bit longer, but they will be able to earn all the way from an existing job to gaining a nursing qualification—an innovation that should be welcomed on both sides of the House and which will mark a real expansion of opportunity for the current NHS.

[Jess Phillips]

rose—

[Ben Gummer]

Before I give way to the hon. Lady, I should also explain that there are many people working as healthcare assistants at the moment who do not have the opportunity to progress to a nursing position unless they leave the workforce to do so. That puts many of them in an impossible position, because they have families to support and other duties and responsibilities. For the first time, we have been able to give that group of people an opportunity to progress, through the apprenticeship route, to a full nursing position. That will expand the whole area of career progression to include one of the larger cohorts in the NHS workforce, in a way that no Government have previously been able to do.

[Jess Phillips]

I wonder whether the Minister can clarify whether people will be paid for doing that apprenticeship and, if so, at what rates they would be paid. He rightly referred to getting mature students with families into work, so will he also say whether that cohort will fall foul of the rule that people must be doing 16 hours of work, and not be in training, to receive the Government’s 30 hours of free childcare? It was made clear in the Childcare Public Bill Committee that those nurses currently studying would not be able to access the 30 hours’ free childcare because that would not be considered work. When they saved my life, it looked like work.

[Ben Gummer]

The hon. Lady speaks with authority from her own personal experience—I have noticed that recently she has spoken her mind without holding back. We are in detailed discussions with the Nursing and Midwifery Council about precisely how the apprenticeship route will work. The council is the independent regulator and has to certify that the qualification matches the existing degree/university route. The qualification has to have complete equality of both esteem and rigour. Of course we envisage the apprentices earning a salary. We envisage opening the route to existing healthcare assistants to give them the opportunity to progress to a nursing grade while continuing at a similar salary point as an apprentice. However, because the hon. Lady’s question about maternity care pertains to student nurses rather than apprentices, I will ensure that I write to her in detail.

The hon. Lady clearly sees why this is an idea with strength, so I hope that in asking her question she realises that there will be two routes into nursing: the university route and the apprenticeship route. I think this is potentially one of the most exciting innovations in the workforce of the NHS for several decades, because it opens up nursing to a whole range of existing workers who have not had an opportunity before, and provides a wholly different route into nursing, but with the same rigour and robustness that the existing university degree route provides.

[Peter Kyle]

rose—

[Ben Gummer]

I shall give way once more, but I do not want to detain the House much longer.

[Peter Kyle]

I thank the Minister for giving way a second time. It is clear that he really cares about getting mature students into these nursing training programmes. If the numbers fall as we go forward, will he come back to us and report on it, and will he pause any further reforms until that decline is halted?

[Ben Gummer]

I expect to be held account for this significant reform right the way through the changes that are envisaged. I hope to be able to return to provide good news about progress, as has happened in other student areas. That is why we want to be very deliberative about the way in which we form this consultation, because it is important to get it right.

I have taken note of the careful questioning of the hon. Member for Ilford North, who clearly understands the full gamut of the issues that need to be addressed in this consultation. Let me answer some of the questions he raised, and I shall write to him about any that I do not answer.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the funding of clinical placements. We have already started discussions with Universities UK about that, and it will form part of the wider consultations. The Barnett consequentials will be a matter for Her Majesty’s Treasury, as is the case for everything else connected to Barnett consequentials. I know that BIS officials are discussing the issue in the normal way.

The hon. Gentleman asked about research into financial hardship, and I know that that will form part of the consultation. The Government will be open to any further research beyond the economic impact assessment.

I was asked whether I would be happy to meet students. Of course I would. I have already met Unison and the Royal College of Nursing to discuss the changes I wish to make. I should not pretend to answer for them, but I have had productive discussions with both, especially about the apprenticeship route. I know that we will disagree with both Unison and the RCN about bursaries, but I think there is an understanding, particularly on the part of Unison, of how we are trying to open up different routes to nursing for different parts of the workforce. If we get it right, the apprenticeship model will be a strong one.

The hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) made an important point in her intervention about agency nurses, so let me answer that as I am passing. As I alluded to earlier, part of the reason we are looking at that issue is to ensure that we provide a more sustainable workforce throughput, so that we do not need to rely on agencies and bank staff for the peaks in NHS demand. That is why we need to do something about numbers, and I hope that, as a result of the Chancellor’s announcement, we will increase the number by 10,000 over the course of this Parliament—a very significant increase in the establishment of student nurses. In fact, it will be the largest increase in student nurses under any Government since 1948.

I hope I have answered the majority of the questions put by the hon. Member for Ilford North—

[Wes Streeting]

rose—

[Ben Gummer]

Clearly I have not. I will allow him an opportunity to intervene once more, but I do not want to detain the House much longer.

[Wes Streeting]

I particularly welcome what the Minister said about treading carefully and thoughtfully around the consultation. The one issue he has not addressed, however, is whether extending the tuition fees regime to nursing, midwifery and other allied health subject students will be subject to a full and thoughtful debate followed by a vote in this House and the other place.

[Ben Gummer]

I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a definitive answer to that question yet. Let us wait and see the outcome of the consultation, so that the House can be best informed. I imagine that there will be ample opportunities in Backbench Business Committee debates and indeed Opposition day debates, and I know that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues will want to bring these issues up for further debate. I will reflect the hon. Gentleman’s concerns to the Secretary of State and to the Leader of the House, and I am sure they will receive them with interest.

I genuinely thank the hon. Gentleman for bringing forward this debate, which has provided an opportunity for the Government to explain our plans and the rationale behind them. There will be points on which we will disagree, but I hope the hon. Gentleman will see the force of our arguments about wanting to expand the nursing workforce, to provide different routes into nursing and to provide the sort of opportunities to 18 and 19-year-old undergraduate nurses that have been extended to other parts of the higher education sphere. These are big proposals. They could mean a remarkable and rapid transformation of the NHS workforce, and a significant expansion in the number of nursing students. We need to get it right, and I hope that, through a constructive discussion across the House, drawing on the kind of expertise we have heard from Members in this short Adjournment debate, we will indeed get it right.

Question put and agreed to.

21:35

House adjourned.

Draft Taxation of Regulatory Capital Securities (Amendment) regulations 2015

Monday 14th December 2015 General Committees

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chair: Steve McCabe

† Buck, Ms Karen (Westminster North) (Lab)

† Burns, Conor (Bournemouth West) (Con)

† Gauke, Mr David (Financial Secretary to the Treasury)

† Heappey, James (Wells) (Con)

Jenkin, Mr Bernard (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)

† McCartney, Karl (Lincoln) (Con)

McDonagh, Siobhain (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)

† McDonald, Andy (Middlesbrough) (Lab)

† Marris, Rob (Wolverhampton South West) (Lab)

† Nokes, Caroline (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)

† Rayner, Angela (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab)

Ryan, Joan (Enfield North) (Lab)

† Stride, Mel (Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's Treasury)

† Tugendhat, Tom (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)

† Vickers, Martin (Cleethorpes) (Con)

† Whately, Helen (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)

Alda Barry, Committee Clerk

† attended the Committee

First Delegated Legislation Committee

Monday 14 December 2015

[Steve McCabe in the Chair]

Draft Taxation of Regulatory Capital Securities (Amendment) Regulations 2015

16:30

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Taxation of Regulatory Capital Securities (Amendment) Regulations 2015.

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr McCabe. The regulations amend the existing Taxation of Regulatory Capital Securities Regulations 2013. They clarify the tax treatment of securities issued by insurers in order to meet new regulatory requirements designed to improve financial stability. Insurers, like banks, are required by regulators to hold capital instruments that will absorb losses in the event of the insurer experiencing financial stress. Those are known as regulatory capital instruments.

From 1 January 2016, the EU solvency II directive will introduce a new harmonised regulatory regime across the EU for insurers. This is designed to make insurers more financially stable, and the Government therefore support the principles behind it. Existing tax law predates the development of the new regulatory regime, so it does not explicitly set out the tax treatment of instruments compliant with the new regulatory standards. This uncertainty of tax treatment risks inhibits insurers from issuing new regulatory capital instruments, as well as deterring potential investors. To ensure that tax rules complement the regulatory reforms, where regulatory capital is issued in the form of debt securities these will be taxed as debt instruments. This does not include shares. This aligns with the treatment provided to banks and building societies that issue similar instruments to accord their own regulatory standards, as prescribed by the EU capital requirements directive IV.

This statutory instrument brings tier 1 and tier 2 regulatory capital securities issued by insurers for the purposes of compliance with the EU’s solvency II directive into the existing tax rules for banks and building societies issuing similar securities. There are also consequential amendments and changes to update the statutory language used in respect of the taxation of corporate debt. These reflect updates made by the Finance (No. 2) Act 2015, which received Royal Assent on 18 November.

The Government are supporting the financial stability of the insurance industry by making these regulations. The amendment will take effect from 1 January 2016 in order to align with new regulatory rules. It will provide certainty of tax treatment for issuers and holders of such instruments. I commend the regulations to the Committee.

16:33

[Rob Marris (Wolverhampton South West) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr McCabe, as a fellow MP for the west midlands, which is becoming the powerhouse of the country.

I do not fully understand the detail of the regulations, although I think that I understand the overarching architecture and the need for financial stability. The regulations were foreshadowed in what are now section 31 of, and schedule 7 to, the Finance (No. 2) Act 2015. I have been somewhat hampered in my investigations, as has my admirable researcher, Imogen Watson, because the tax information and impact note was not available today. I trust that one has been published, but I could not get a copy of it. However, I did manage to get a copy of the 2013 version, which I think mirrors this, because similar regulations were introduced in 2013 to deal with RCSs for banks and building societies, as the Minister has said, and now they cover insurers.

We are again, as we were in the Finance Bill, in the territory of the loan relationships regime—that somewhat awkward wording is the technical term—with these regulations, which follow the European Union’s solvency II directive, which will take effect on 1 January. Because that directive is being transposed via the Finance (No. 2) Act 2015 and these regulations, a new type of regulatory capital for insurers will be introduced for the purposes of complying with the equivalent of the Basel III requirements: 6% for tier 1 and 2% for tier 2.

As I understand it, these regulatory capital securities are hybrids; they have features of debt and equity. However, under the regulations the Government propose to tax them as debt and not as capital, despite their name. The 2013 tax information and impact note for the banks version of the regulations suggested that, were an entity to get into financial difficulty, the potential tax burdens would be lower. Although the regulations are welcome in terms of financial stability, my colleagues and I would like reassurance that they are not feather-bedding the insurance industry by allowing it to get away with paying lower tax than it should be paying by issuing capital instruments that are taxed as debt and not as capital.

16:37

[Mr Gauke]

As I set out in my opening remarks, the regulations provide necessary amendments to the existing Taxation of Regulatory Capital Securities Regulations 2013. They are required to clarify the tax treatment of securities issued by insurers to meet new regulatory requirements designed to improve financial stability. The taxation of regulatory capital instruments should be absolutely clear and support regulatory principles of financial stability, but the existing regulations, which provide clarity to the banks, are silent on the tax treatment of similar securities for insurers.

The securities included in these regulations are akin to loans made to the business rather than capital investment. They are therefore more like debt than equity and the tax treatment should reflect that.

[Rob Marris]

I have two points. First, clarity is always welcome in tax legislation, even though one may be clarifying a policy with which one does not agree, hence our discussion. Secondly, I remain bemused, because the Minister said that regulatory capital securities are akin to loans and more like debt, but they seem to me to be the cost of doing business. Many businesses require capital to do business, and those in the insurance and banking sectors, in particular, and for obvious reasons, have greater capital requirements, which are statutory. Why are they being treated that way?

[Mr Gauke]

The hon. Gentleman is aware that there are capital requirements on financial institutions because they need instruments that will absorb losses in the event of financial stress. The position for insurers is decided at EU level, as I said in my earlier remarks. In circumstances of financial stress, the debt can convert to equity. It is not simply a matter of it being a cost of doing business that many businesses would experience; it is part of a regulatory regime to ensure that insurers are well funded in circumstances of financial stress so that that does not cause wider difficulties in the financial system.

The hon. Gentleman expressed a concern—I do not know whether it was probing or likely to drive him to oppose the motion—that the regulations could be seen as being soft on insurance companies. I reassure him that they are about providing clarity on the tax treatment of securities that have debt-like qualities and are required to be held for the stability of insurers. The original regulations approved by the House in 2013 are designed to support the EU regulatory frameworks for financial institutions by taxing returns as interest and ensuring that a tax charge is not triggered in the event that coupon payments are altered or suspended as a result of the issuer falling into financial stress.

I hope that those points are helpful and that the regulations will be supported by all members of the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

16:41

Committee rose.

Draft Armed Forces (Service Complaints Miscellaneous Provisions) Regulations

Monday 14th December 2015 General Committees

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chair: Mrs Madeleine Moon

† Chalk, Alex (Cheltenham) (Con)

† Colvile, Oliver (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Con)

† Cummins, Judith (Bradford South) (Lab)

† Danczuk, Simon (Rochdale) (Lab)

† Farrelly, Paul (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)

† Fuller, Richard (Bedford) (Con)

† Hart, Simon (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) (Con)

† Haselhurst, Sir Alan (Saffron Walden) (Con)

† Heaton-Harris, Chris (Daventry) (Con)

† Hollern, Kate (Blackburn) (Lab)

† Hopkins, Kris (Vice-Chamberlain of Her Majesty's Household)

† Lancaster, Mark (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence)

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

† Maskell, Rachael (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)

† Oswald, Kirsten (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)

† Paterson, Steven (Stirling) (SNP)

† Thomas, Derek (St Ives) (Con)

† Williams, Craig (Cardiff North) (Con)

Glenn McKee, Committee Clerk

† attended the Committee

Second Delegated Legislation Committee

Monday 14 December 2015

[Mrs Madeleine Moon in the Chair]

Draft Armed Forces (Service Complaints Miscellaneous Provisions) Regulations 2015

16:30

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mark Lancaster)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Armed Forces (Service Complaints Miscellaneous Provisions) Regulations 2015.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Moon. The draft regulations are required as part of a package of measures to implement a new service complaints process and a service complaints ombudsman for the armed forces. The new legislation is designed to provide a streamlined and more effective internal redress system for our armed forces and new, strengthened external oversight through an ombudsman. The regulations will come into force on 1 January 2016. The new system is provided for in new section 365B and part 14A of the Armed Forces Act 2006, as inserted by sections 1 to 3 of, and the schedule to, the Armed Forces (Service Complaints and Financial Assistance) Act 2015.

The instrument is intended to promote fairness in the new system by preventing conflicts of interest and ensuring that complaints are dealt with by those who have the right experience and knowledge properly to assist the complainant. The instrument also covers procedural matters that provide essential safeguards and aspects of independence for our armed forces personnel.

The regulations include four important things, which I shall deal with in turn. First, we have, as for the existing system, made rules on who cannot be appointed to deal with a service complaint—for example, someone who is implicated in the matters complained about.

The second important aspect of the regulations is that we have set out those matters that cannot be raised as a service complaint. That is not a new aspect of the complaints process; such matters are provided for in the regulations covering the current system and have been updated in this instrument to take account of the new process and of experience. For example, challenges to decisions made in the internal redress system are excluded, as under the new legislation the ombudsman will be able to review or investigate them.

Similarly, the regulations exclude complaints about decisions made by the ombudsman. The ombudsman provides external oversight of the complaints system, so it would be contradictory for the complaints system to be able to overturn decisions of the ombudsman. Challenges to the decisions of external ombudsmen are best made in the courts.

One particular matter that I want to mention is the exclusion of complaints alleging clinical negligence or personal injury against the Ministry of Defence. The redress system is not appropriate for deciding the complex, specialised medical and legal issues that can arise in clinical negligence and personal injury cases. It remains possible, however, to make a service complaint if a person believes we have not provided medical care when it was our responsibility to do so. As under the existing system, the regulations also exclude matters for which there are more appropriate alternative remedies. For example, challenges to decisions made in the court martial are best decided through the appeals system.

The third important effect of the regulations is to set out when at least one independent person must be appointed for deciding a service complaint. The main circumstance in which that will apply is where a complaint alleges bullying or similar misconduct. That is the same as under the current system and provides an extra safeguard for fairness in such sensitive cases, as well as giving a measure of external oversight as part of the internal system.

The fourth main effect of the regulations is to set out the matters that must be reported to the service complaints ombudsman when an allegation of a wrong suffered by a serviceperson has been referred by the ombudsman to the chain of command. Like the Service Complaints Commissioner for the Armed Forces now, the ombudsman will be able to receive allegations of wrongs done to service personnel. For example, a family member of a serviceperson will be able to approach the ombudsman with their concerns. The ombudsman will then be able to refer those cases to the chain of command and to track what happens. The regulations will ensure that the ombudsman is kept updated on progress and can respond to queries without comprising her investigative role.

Finally, the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments has scrutinised the draft instrument and, in doing so, has brought to our attention three minor drafting points that we will seek to correct at the earliest available opportunity. However, we do not expect those points to affect the practical workings of the regulations. On the first point that has been raised, we accept that the definition of the expression “in writing” has been included unnecessarily in regulation 2(1).

On the second point that the Committee has brought to our attention, we will seek to provide further clarity on regulation 6(1). This regulation provides for when the period of three weeks begins from which the ombudsman is to be notified of certain events in connection with the progress of the matter that has been referred by the ombudsman as a potential service complaint. It also provides that the ombudsman is to be notified of each event that is listed in the regulation. We will seek to clarify the exact moment of the day from which the time period of three weeks applies, and that the period applies separately to each event that appears in the list.

The third of the JCSI’s points relates to a provision in the schedule to these regulations that excludes the right to make a complaint where there is a right of review for certain service police or prosecution matters. The Committee has said that the regulations refer incorrectly to those rights of review being “under” the code in which they appear, rather than being mentioned “in” that code. Again, we will look to make the correction at the earliest available opportunity. I hope that hon. Members will support these regulations today.

16:36

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Moon, and to rise to support the creation of the ombudsman to address complaints raised across the armed forces through these draft regulations. I note that the statutory instrument is accompanied by a further four statutory instruments, which are not being considered by this Committee today.

Let me take us back to show how we have arrived at this point. The tragedy that shocked us all arising from the Deepcut barracks between 1995 and 2002 caused the Government at the time to review how complaints could be raised in the armed forces. The subsequent report brought about change through the historic Armed Forces Act 2006 and championed the provision for enhancing grievance management processes. The Act sought to harmonise procedures across the armed forces, with the aim being to establish best practice through a single procedure.

The Service Complaints Commissioner for the Armed Forces was created by the Act to address inappropriate behaviour, in particular instances of bullying, harassment and discrimination. The legislation did much to reform our armed forces, but, five years after its implementation in 2013, the Service Complaints Commissioner, Dr Susan Atkins, highlighted that the operation was

“not operating efficiently, effectively or fairly”

and

“neither swift, nor easy to use…having lost sight of the individual”.

Evidence about the increasing demand on the Service Complaints Commissioner has shown that the measure was a necessary step, and has enabled issues to be raised that would otherwise have gone unreported. We still know that far too many cases are not reported. Evidence shows that such cases impact on 10% of serving personnel, yet only 8% of those remain unreported. Since the roll-out of the 2006 Act, change has been called for. Labour was very much a part of the initial call for the role of the ombudsman to be created, so we welcome the fact that progress has been made.

For confidence to be built into the service, personnel need to be able to raise issues and to be protected if they do so. Much has been learnt across all areas of our public services in recent times about how best to raise complaints or matters of protective disclosure, and about ensuring that individuals can do so without fearing the repercussions. Being able to raise issues safely about the behaviours of others forms part of this necessary culture change. The Government are now on a learning journey in that regard and there is still much to get right. However, it is only right that the armed forces are also included in the development of a safer environment in which to raise concerns.

When dealing with matters of concern, expediency is imperative. Whether the matter appertains to professional or personal matters, time delayed is time lost in addressing the issue or finding the correct means to resolve a grievance dispute or concern. In reviewing how matters have been handled, ensuring a swift and fair response is vital for the complainant. That is why Dr Atkins’s report was so concerning, as it highlighted the backlog of more than 430 cases for more than six months in 2012, which was a worsening of the situation in the Army and the RAF.

The Service Complaints Commissioner was right to press for the role to be changed to that of an ombudsman in her 2010 report, with the associated powers being upgraded, including the powers to investigate whether a complaint was handled properly during the internal process and to undertake investigations on the ombudsman’s own initiative on systematic issues, cutting out the tiers of appeal.

The importance of independence of redress is increasingly being recognised across public services. It provides a space of safety and confidence in raising concerns, shortens procedures that in some cases have taken more than a year to progress, and, importantly, ensures that issues are addressed if there has been failure in the system further down the chain.

The mechanism also provides oversight, so that trends in matters raised with the ombudsman can be mapped at a more strategic level, as they currently are. Again, that makes the system more responsive to concerns. The fact that 615 people contacted the office of the Service Complaints Commissioner for the Armed Forces in 2014, and 725 in 2013, and that 572 complaints were received in 2012—a third up on the figure for 2011 and two thirds up on that for 2010—shows the scale of the issue. In particular, it highlights the need to get the system right for the future.

As to who should serve in the role of service complaints ombudsman, Labour has been clear that it should not be former service personnel or civil servants, and we are pleased that the Government have accepted our reasoning about that. For the system to be effective it is crucial to maximise confidence in it, and that is particularly important in dealing with cases of bullying, harassment and discrimination, when there is often an inherent distrust in the fairness of investigative procedures and formal processes.

There can be serious consequences to delay and getting the processes wrong in such matters. An ombudsman able to review the management of the process directly and expediently will make a difference. I have for many years worked closely with academics, and in industry, in the field of negative behaviours, and I know that expediency and rigour in processes are crucial if further long-term damage is to be avoided.

I note the additional requirement that an independent person must be appointed to investigate such matters. That is wholly appropriate and I ask that those individuals should be fully trained not only in carrying out independent investigations but in matters concerning bullying, harassment and discrimination, and other forms of negative behaviour.

The range of issues that will be within the scope of the ombudsman’s oversight is set out in the regulations. It is important that that should be kept under review in case changes to that scope should be needed in future. However, I shall not ask for that without clear evidence. I note that matters of clinical negligence and personal injury, in particular, are to be excluded.

Labour is also in agreement that in view of the oversight that is part of the ombudsman’s role, decisions on cases should be binding. The Minister was right to state that should there be a failure to fulfil the duty of the office, appeal should be a matter for the courts; but it should also be for Parliament to scrutinise concerns raised and take the necessary action to bring redress.

The additional responsibility for family members to raise issues of wrongs against someone who is serving or has served in the armed forces, or someone who is deceased, is important. However, sufficient time must be provided to enable a family to bring their case to the attention of the ombudsman.

I am concerned about the timeline for the raising of concerns in all relevant matters. Given the lack of a trade union to provide independent advocacy, an allowance should be made to give personnel time to raise their concerns. In the sensitive areas of bullying, harassment and discrimination, it can take time for people to recognise the behaviour that they have been subjected to, and its impact. It may be another event that triggers that realisation—or a better understanding of bullying. Official definitions of bullying refer to instances happening over a period of time. Academics measure the previous two years in their research.

Trauma caused by bullying can take time to come to the surface and it can also take time to develop the confidence to raise claims of bullying. Someone with associated mental health challenges resulting from the negative behaviours they have experienced might not be in a place to make a complaint. The point is that when someone who has been through the process receives a rejection of their grievance locally, it can take much more effort for them to raise it with the ombudsman, particularly when they know that that decision will be final. A three-month time limit therefore allows far too short a period in which to raise a complaint. I note that the ombudsman has some discretion, but I ask for the timeline to be extended, to create the greater flexibility that is required. I reiterate the point that was well made in the House of Lords by my noble Friend Lord Tunnicliffe of Bracknell. He called for a version of the regulations to pass the plain English test before being made available to all those serving in the armed forces.

The regulations before us will not only help to fulfil the Government’s responsibility under the armed forces covenant, but provide more confidence and ensure the safety of our servicemen and women, who deserve the best possible support when things go wrong to reciprocate their dedication and professionalism in how they serve us. In ensuring that the regulations work, I ask the Government to make resources, which have been an issue with the current office, available to the office of the service complaints ombudsman to avoid delay being introduced into the improved service. Should demand on the office increase, the Government should make further resources available to match that need. Labour supports the regulations’ coming into force from 1 January 2016.

16:45

[Mark Lancaster]

I thank the hon. Lady for her support in this important matter. I appreciate that she came to the House only at the general election and so was unable to be part of our discussions on the 2015 Act earlier this year, but it was a constructive process, which I am pleased had support from across the House. She highlighted some of the history behind where we are today, and the creation of the ombudsman, whom I have met on several occasions, is a positive step. The change will streamline the process to try to ensure that it is sped up, which is vital. Equally, we are determined to advertise the process as widely as possible, because I accept that we must encourage people to feel able to make a complaint and that there should be as few barriers to that as possible.

The hon. Lady touched on the training of independent members who may be appointed. We put them through an induction programme to familiarise them with the armed forces and we also try to select individuals with considerable experience in similar areas, so I hope she will be reassured by that.

[Rachael Maskell]

Issues appertaining to bullying, harassment and discrimination are particularly sensitive, so I ask that specific training be provided to investigating officers.

[Mark Lancaster]

Okay. I hear that request. If I may, I will go away and look carefully at the current training package. I will then write to the hon. Lady outlining exactly what training is provided. If she still feels uneasy after that, we can discuss the matter further.

The hon. Lady also mentioned the case backlog, which, as I have already mentioned, is one reason why we have sought to streamline the process. I accept that some complaints have taken too long to resolve, potentially reducing confidence in the system. It must be remembered, however, that some complaints, including those that deal with improper behaviour, can be more complex and thus necessarily take longer to investigate. It is right that a reasonable amount of time is taken so that cases are handled fairly. We want to ensure that the system is fairer, more effective and more efficient than at present, while valuing quality outcomes as much as timeliness.

On the overall direction of travel, it is important to note that the regulations require the ombudsman to produce an annual report, which must be laid before Parliament. It must cover the system for dealing with complaints and the exercise by her of her functions. The same requirement has applied to the Service Complaints Commissioner. The ombudsman can include in the report any matters related to redress and her work as she decides. The Secretary of State can also ask her to address any matters. It is likely that the report, just like those of the Service Complaints Commissioner, will address trends and themes. I would expect the Government to address those trends and themes as we move forward.

The hon. Lady also spoke of how long complainants have to make a complaint. I recognise that it can take time for themes to develop and that it may take time for someone to build up the courage to make a complaint about an incident. Ultimately, however, it is worth remembering that the ombudsman’s new powers already include the ability to overturn cases that are deemed to be out of time. Equally, given that we have the annual report, if we begin to see a theme of people who are deemed out of time to make a timely complaint, I am sure that we will endeavour to address it.

I hope I have touched on all the points that the hon. Lady raised. If, when I read Hansard, I see that I have not, I will write to her.

[Rachael Maskell]

I thank the Minister for his response. I also appreciate his commitment to follow up on the issues raised. I want to return to the timeline, because it is important that communications are made to ensure that people have confidence in raising a complaint. Knowing that time limits are in place will act as a barrier to people raising complaints outside that three-month timeline. I ask that the flexibility that the ombudsman can exercise in such matters will be communicated and that that issue will be reviewed and considered closely in the reporting that the ombudsman makes.

[Mark Lancaster]

I accept that the hon. Lady is anticipating a problem. Given that we have the annual report, I will ensure that the ombudsman, Nicola Williams, sees this debate, so that she is alerted to the concern that the timeline may well become a problem. I will ask her to look specifically at that issue, so that we can address it in one of her annual reports, if need be.

Question put and agreed to.

16:51

Committee rose.

Ministerial Correction

Monday 14th December 2015 Ministerial Corrections

Monday 14 December 2015

Fisheries Policy

Monday 14th December 2015 Ministerial Corrections

The following is an extract from the speech of the Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice) in the debate on Fisheries Policy in Westminster Hall on 3 December 2015.

[George Eustice]

We are rebalancing the quota. We have made it clear that 25% of the uplift will go to the under-10s. We are doing that by giving the first 100 tonnes to the under-10s, and 10% thereafter. That will mean that next year, for instance, much of the inshore fleet will have a substantial increase in the amount of mackerel they have. There will probably be a trebling of the amount of mackerel, which they will then be able to trade as currency.

[Official Report, 3 December 2015, Vol. 603, c. 223WH.]

Letter of correction from George Eustice:

An error has been identified in the response I gave to the debate on Fisheries Policy on 3 December 2015.

The correct response should have been:

[George Eustice]

We are rebalancing the quota. We have made it clear that 25% of the uplift will go to the under-10s. We are doing that by giving the first 100 tonnes to the under-10s, and 10% thereafter. That will mean that next year, for instance, much of the inshore fleet will have a substantial increase in the amount of North sea haddock they have. There will probably be a trebling of the amount of haddock, which they will then be able to trade as currency.

Written Statements

Monday 14th December 2015 Written Statements

Monday 14 December 2015

Foreign Affairs and General Affairs Council

Monday 14th December 2015 Written Statements

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs will attend the Foreign Affairs Council on 14 December and I will attend the General Affairs Council on 15 December. The Foreign Affairs Council will be chaired by the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Federica Mogherini, and the General Affairs Council will be chaired by the Luxembourg presidency. The meetings will be held in Brussels.

Foreign Affairs Council

Eastern Partnership

Ministers are expected to exchange views on recent developments in the Eastern Partnership States (Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, the Republic of Moldova, and Ukraine) and the future direction of the Eastern Partnership initiative following the publication of the European Neighbourhood Policy review on 18 November.

Counter-Terrorism

Following the attacks in Paris on 13 November, Ministers will discuss the need to maintain a strong, unified international focus on countering the threat from Daesh; reiterating support for the global counter-ISIL coalition and affirming the commitment to working towards a long term political solution in Iraq and Syria, achieved through a comprehensive strategy. The Foreign Affairs Council is likely to reflect elements of these discussions in its conclusions. Ministers will also discuss broader counter-terrorism work by the EU, in line with its existing strategies.

EU-Turkey

Ministers will be joined for lunch by the Foreign Minister of Turkey, Mevlut Qavusoglu. Turkey remains a key partner for the EU across a range of important issues, including regional security, counter-terrorism, energy, trade and migration. The FAC provides an opportunity to continue to develop a strategic partnership between the EU and Turkey, building on the EU-Turkey summit of 29 November. The UK will seek to reinforce that sense of partnership by encouraging discussion on a broad range of issues that reflect the breadth of the EU’s relationship with Turkey.

Iraq

Ministers will exchange views on the political and security situation in Iraq. They will discuss how EU activity and resources, particularly those under the EU’s ISIL/Syria/Iraq strategy, can support the objectives of the global coalition to counter ISIL and longer term security, stability and prosperity in Iraq.

Libya

The FAC will be briefed by UN Libya special representative, Martin Kobler, on the latest developments in the UN-led political process. The UN has played a vital role in bringing the Libyan parties closer together. It is essential we continue to demonstrate our full support. The UK Government welcome the UN special representative’s urgent pressure for a deal, and recognises the important role for the EU in providing immediate support to a Government of National Accord.

General Affairs Council

The General Affairs Council (GAC) on 15 December is expected to focus on: preparation of draft conclusions for the European Council on 17 and 18 December 2015; the inter-institutional agreement on better regulation; the presidency Trio programme; the European semester; and the enlargement and stabilisation and association process.

Preparation of the December European Council

The GAC will prepare the draft conclusions for the 17 and 18 December European Council, which the Prime Minister will attend. The December European Council agenda is expected to include: migration; economic issues (including economic and monetary union and the single market); the UK’s renegotiation; and external relations issues including Russia/Ukraine.

Inter-institutional Agreement on Better Regulation (IIA)

The GAC will receive a further update on the progress of the IIA negotiations following the recent tripartite talks between the Commission, the European Parliament and the Council. The Council may also discuss the amended IIA text following political tripartite negotiations, depending on the progress made ahead of the Council.

18-month programme of the Council

The GAC will discuss the Trio programme of the forthcoming Netherlands, Slovakia and Malta presidencies of the Council of the European Union. We expect one of the key priorities of the Trio to be a focus on delivering stronger economic growth and improving competitiveness.

2016 European Semester Annual Growth Review

The GAC will receive a Commission presentation of the 2016 annual growth survey (AGS) which was released on 26 November. The AGS marks the beginning of the 2016 semester process and focuses on the key themes in President Juncker's investment plan. Within the AGS, the Commission recommends three main pillars for the EU’s economic and social policy in 2016: boosting investment, pursuing structural reforms to modernise European economies and pursuing fiscal responsibility. There is no specific commentary on the UK, however the UK supports the Commission’s headline priorities.

Enlargement and Stabilisation and Association Process

The General Affairs Council will discuss the Commission’s annual enlargement package, published on 10 November, and agree conclusions on the enlargement strategy and the Western Balkans countries and Turkey. The December GAC is the annual opportunity for the Council to take stock and give direction to the EU’s enlargement strategy and pre-accession reform priorities for individual countries.

The Government’s views on the package were set out in my explanatory memorandum of 12 November 2015. We will broadly welcome the Commission’s new approach in this year’s package with improved metrics in the Country reports and a five year as opposed to annual strategy. We will reiterate our continued firm support for future EU enlargement on the basis of firm but fair conditionality, with countries moving forward on merit as they meet the conditions. We will also take the opportunity to reiterate the importance of maintaining the credibility of the enlargement process and the need for the EU to improve its approach to strategic communications in order to underline the benefits of the accession process. We will reinforce the importance of rule of law reform and economic governance to accession countries and welcome the centrality of these issues in the package.

[HCWS388]

National DNA Database Strategy Board

Monday 14th December 2015 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)]

I am pleased to announce that I am, today, publishing the annual report of the National DNA Database (NDNAD) Strategy Board.

Chief Constable Chris Sims, Chair of the National DNA Strategy Board, has presented the annual report of the National DNA Strategy Board to the Home Secretary. Publication of the report is a statutory requirement under section 63AB(7) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 as inserted by section 24 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

The report provides demonstrates the important contribution of the NDNAD to the investigation of crimes. I am grateful to the Strategy Board for its commitment to fulfilling its statutory functions.

Copies of the report will be available from the Vote Office.

[HCWS389]

Agriculture and Fisheries Council

Monday 14th December 2015 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Elizabeth Truss)]

The Agriculture and Fisheries Council will take place on 14 December in Brussels. The Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice) who is responsible for Farming, Food and the Marine Environment, will represent the UK.

As the provisional agenda stands, the following items will be discussed:

The primary focus will be the agreement of the Council regulation fixing the 2016 fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks applicable in EU waters and, for Union vessels, in certain non-Union waters, as well as a proposal fixing the 2016 fishing opportunities in the Black Sea.

There will be a proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the manufacture, placing on the market and use of medicated feed and veterinary medicinal products.

An exchange of views on Sustainable Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries in the Bioeconomy will also take place.

There are currently six confirmed Any Other Business items which are information from the Luxembourg presidency, and two others:

Codex Alimentarius;

Official Food and Feed Controls;

Aid scheme for the supply of fruit and vegetables, bananas and milk in the educational establishments;

Measures fixing certain aids and refunds related to the common organisation of the markets in agricultural products;

Organic production and labelling of organic products;

Empowering young farmers;

Deteriorating situation in the pigmeat market (requested by the Polish delegation);

Quality concerns related to honey imported to the EU (requested by the Hungarian delegation).

[HCWS390]

House of Lords

Monday 14th December 2015 Lords Chamber

Monday, 14 December 2015.

14:30

Prayers—read by the Lord Bishop of Chester.

Introduction: Baroness Watkins of Tavistock

Monday 14th December 2015 Lords Chamber

14:37

Mary Jane Watkins, having been created Baroness Watkins of Tavistock, of Buckland Monachorum in the County of Devon, was introduced and took the oath, supported by Baroness Emerton and Lord Kestenbaum, and signed an undertaking to abide by the Code of Conduct.

Sunday Trading

Monday 14th December 2015 Lords Chamber

Question

14:42

Asked by

[Baroness Deech]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they have plans to reform Sunday trading laws.

[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, over the summer the Government consulted on proposals to devolve the power to extend Sunday trading hours to local areas. We are carefully considering the responses to the consultation and will publish our plans in due course.

[Baroness Deech (CB)]

Do the Government not believe in cutting red tape and devolving powers to local authorities? Does the Minister agree that we are a multicultural society and England should be as liberal as Scotland in Sunday trading laws? Will she assure the House that she is not going to put the interests of the SNP before the convenience of English and Welsh consumers and the economy of England and Wales?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

My Lords, the noble Baroness is right to mention the Scots, who already have deregulated Sunday trading hours, but I emphasise again that we are looking at this carefully in light of the consultation. Our proposal is to make the decision a local one.

[Lord Lexden (Con)]

My Lords, is it wise to tamper with what has been described as the great British compromise which the current Sunday trading law represents?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

My Lords, I think my noble friend was saying that he likes the current compromise, which does have a balance. Equally, there have been a number of changes in recent years, not least the enormous number of sales over the internet, which continue to grow—by 15% this year. The Government are rightly looking at the issue again to see if there should be more local choice, not least to encourage sales to tourists.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

My Lords, the Minister will recall that the last time a Conservative Government yielded to the supermarkets, the main points of controversy were protecting the terms and conditions of employment of workers in the retail industry, and protecting those who have a conscientious objection to working on a Sunday. What provision will be made in respect of these two matters?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

My Lords, we have made it clear in our consultation that shop workers who want to work on Sundays will have greater choice to work more hours, but that those who do not wish to work on Sundays will continue to be protected. This important point comes through from the consultation.

[Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)]

My Lords, the Liberal Democrats understand the Government’s considering allowing this decision to be made at a local level. However, we are concerned that this power, if given, could be seen as a boon to out-of-town traders. Will the Minister reassure us that any devolution will come with strict caveats on its use to ensure that local authorities focus on benefiting small independents and not out-of-town shopping malls?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

My Lords, under our proposals, this would be a matter for local authorities. I know that they have different views on how to benefit their local economies and SMEs, but actually, this measure could be good for SMEs, particularly in areas with great tourism potential, where the footfall would help small companies—not only retail shops but restaurants and leisure outlets, for example.

[The Lord Bishop of Chester]

My Lords, would a useful reform be to go back to the good old days when people were paid double time for working on Sunday; then, shops, in the main, would not want to open? If I introduced a Private Member’s Bill, would the Government support me?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

My Lords, we have not taken decisions yet in relation to our proposals, or on what legislative vehicle would be appropriate.

[Lord Skelmersdale (Con)]

My Lords, will not such devolution result in a postcode lottery? Can one imagine, for example, a chain of garden centres across the country—in which, incidentally, I have no interest to declare—being allowed to open in local authority A and not local authority B?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

My Lords, I think you would indeed get differences, and that would reflect different councils and the different views of different elected representatives. I am glad that my noble friend mentioned garden centres because the Horticultural Trades Association is one of the bodies that is particularly keen to see reform, so that people can buy their plants and pots on a Sunday.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, we look forward to hearing the results of the consultation, which must be one of the longest being carried out by the Government at present. However, for the avoidance of all doubt, I would be grateful if the Minister confirmed that the Enterprise Bill currently before your Lordships’ House, or any other Bill currently before either House, will not be used to bring forward such regulations in this Parliament.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

My Lords, no decisions have been taken in relation to our proposals or to the legislative vehicle. I cannot help the noble Lord.

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

Will my noble friend accept that those of us who opposed the relaxation of Sunday trading restrictions many years ago forecast that Sunday would become another high street Saturday? That prophecy has been fulfilled. Will she please try to persuade her ministerial colleagues not to take it further?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

My Lords, of course, this is a matter of balance and we feel that there is opportunity for change. We are looking at the arguments. My own view is that Sunday does remain special. Society has changed but some of us still go to church.

[Lord Christopher (Lab)]

My Lords, will the noble Baroness be certain to consult Sports Direct before she concludes this?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

My Lords, there is a consultation. We are looking at all the responses. I do not know whether Sports Direct has been involved.

[Lord Lawson of Blaby (Con)]

My Lords, may I urge the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester to promote his Private Member’s Bill? This issue obviously needs discussion and I cannot think of a better way of launching that discussion.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

My Lords, I take note of this point, which is now gathering support, and will report it to the usual channels.

[Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton (Lab)]

My Lords, can the Minister explain exactly how, under the Government’s consultation proposals, workers are actually protected—not just protected at law, but protected from losing their jobs if they exercise their right not to work on Sunday?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

My Lords, I am happy to take the noble Baroness through it in detail but it is unlawful to discriminate in the way that she seems to suggest might be possible. Shopworkers’ rights would be even better communicated if we were to change the law but, at the moment, people have a right—and if that right is broken, they can go to ACAS and an employment tribunal.

Transport for London

Monday 14th December 2015 Lords Chamber

Question

14:50

Asked by

[Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government how regularly ministers and officials meet representatives of Transport for London.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport and Home Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)]

My Lords, various government departments have regular meetings with representatives of Transport for London. The Secretary of State, along with other Ministers, meets the Mayor of London several times a year. My ministerial colleagues and I also have regular meetings with the commissioner and other senior staff at Transport for London, as do our officials.

[Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury (Con)]

Given that smoking and the consumption of alcohol are now banned on the Tube, should not Transport for London follow the lead of some American cities, such as Washington DC, and consider banning the consumption of hot food on Tube trains? Many passengers in congested carriages find that very offensive; it creates litter and, when left lying around carriages, can create a health hazard. Will my noble friend the Minister raise this when he next meets Transport for London and suggest that it considers this proposal, and perhaps undertakes a passenger survey to find out what passengers would like?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, my noble friend raises an important area of concern to many commuters across London. There are no current plans at TfL to introduce such a ban but there is a current policy, under the guise of Travel Better London, which helps Londoners to think about travel etiquette and seeks to address passenger behaviours that can lead to improvements in services. I will of course put on the agenda of our next meeting with the commissioner, which will happen shortly, the specific issue which my noble friend raises.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, there is an advertisement from Transport for London and the Mayor of London on Westminster station which states that Transport for London does not make a profit because,

“we reinvest all our income to run and improve your services”.

Since Transport for London is directly responsible, through a subsidiary, for running the London Underground, would the Government, at their next meeting with its representatives, like to express their support for Transport for London and the Mayor of London for this approach that, as a train operator, TfL should reinvest all its income in running and improving the services that it operates?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

We have wide-ranging discussions with Transport for London across a variety of issues. I will be pleased to discuss any matters that noble Lords wish to raise, put them on the agenda and report back. However, I would add that a great deal of investment goes into transport in London and that over the last 10 years, we have certainly seen great improvements.

[Lord Higgins (Con)]

My Lords, in view of the success of the conference on climate change over the weekend, will my noble friend have urgent discussions with Transport for London about the appalling increases in congestion and pollution caused by the introduction of bicycle lanes, which are in use in large numbers only in the peak period? Will he at least ensure that other traffic can use those lanes during the course of the day? In the present situation on Lower Thames Street, for example, they are likely to die from carbon monoxide or other poisoning from pollution any moment now.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

I think that all noble Lords would acknowledge the benefits of cycling across London. I stress that the Mayor of London has primary responsibility for planning in London, along with the air quality strategy. The introduction of cycle lanes is partly to encourage more sustainable forms of travel across the capital.

[Lord Tope (LD)]

My Lords, when the Minister raises the subject of smelly food at his next meeting with TfL, what will his answer be when TfL says to him that cutting the government revenue grant to TfL from £639 million this year to nothing at all in a little over two years’ time leaves it with no choice but to let more of its premises and underground stations? This will inevitably lead to the letting of more, not fewer, fast food outlets in underground stations and consequently more smelly food on tube trains, not less.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

What is smelly food to some may not be smelly to others, but let us not go into that particular issue. The important thing to remember is that there has been a tough spending round, but in our discussions London government has a substantial settlement for the next spending review period of £11 billion. We are working together to improve London’s quality of transport across the board.

[Lord Dubs (Lab)]

The Minister will be aware that there is a Private Bill working its way through this House to do with, among other things, disposal of assets by Transport for London. When meeting Transport for London, will he ensure that it and the local authorities in which these developments will take place have a proper proportion of social housing coming out of them, not just housing for the very rich?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My list grows for my meeting with Transport for London. Of course I take anything I hear from noble Lords seriously and I will put it on the agenda and discuss it. The important thing to remember, however, is that the Government work hand in glove to ensure that, although there is delegation and devolution in London on issues of transport, we provide the best transport for the best city in the world.

[Lord Lawson of Blaby (Con)]

My Lords, we all know the Mayor of London’s addiction to cycling, but is my noble friend Lord Higgins not absolutely right that what is happening now has done more damage, and is doing more damage, to London than almost anything since the Blitz? Is it not also hugely age discriminatory? There is a huge section of the population of a certain age, well represented in this House—I declare an interest—for whom cycling is not a practical option.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

I suggest to my noble friend that it is never too late to start.

[Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)]

My Lords, when the Minister meets Transport for London with his shopping list of requirements, could he also raise the issue of the growing number of hate crimes, particularly Islamophobic hate crimes, that are taking place on tubes and buses, particularly in London? There are reports of the driver, or whoever is responsible, doing absolutely nothing until passengers eventually intervene to try to stop these crimes. What responsibility does Transport for London have when it comes to these sorts of crimes?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

The noble Baroness raises a very important point. She knows I totally agree with her on the importance of this issue. All kinds of hate crime, whoever the perpetrator and whoever the victim, must be eradicated, including on our transport system here in London. Additional policing measures have been put in place to address the specific issue of hate crime. As the noble Baroness will also be aware, in terms of Islamophobia, anti-Muslim hatred will be a specifically recorded hate crime from April next year.

Education: English Baccalaureate

Monday 14th December 2015 Lords Chamber

Question

14:58

Asked by

[Baroness Perry of Southwark]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what impact the introduction of the English Baccalaureate has had on the number of young people studying science and mathematics.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education (Lord Nash) (Con)]

My Lords, all state-funded schools are required to teach science and maths to pupils up to the age of 16 as part of a broad and balanced curriculum. Since the introduction of the EBacc in 2010, the proportion of pupils taking GCSEs in maths has remained stable at 97%. For science counted in the EBacc, the proportion has increased from 63% to 74%. We have also had a substantial increase of 15% or more in the number of pupils taking maths and science at A-level.

[Baroness Perry of Southwark (Con)]

That is very good news indeed. Would my noble friend not agree that given the importance of these STEM subjects to the future careers of young people and, indeed, to the economy, it would be very profitable to continue the expansion of maths and science as compulsory subjects into the 17 and 18 year-old age group?

[Lord Nash]

I entirely agree with that, and we are ensuring that this happens for those who have not passed at grade C, certainly for maths. Obviously if pupils wish to continue with science, they can do so.

[Baroness Nye (Lab)]

My Lords, the Minister will be aware that the latest figures show that almost one in five secondary teacher training places for September has not been filled, and on non-EBacc courses, less than two-thirds of the number of trainees required have been recruited, with design and technology being the hardest hit. Does he think that the concentration on STEM and EBacc subjects will accelerate the decline in the number of art teachers in schools, which has already fallen 11% since 2010?

[Lord Nash]

The position in relation to teachers is no different from what it has been several times over the past 15 years: a less than 1% shortfall. The substantial increase in the number of pupils taking maths A-levels—18% in maths and 27% in further maths—gives us good hope that we will see more maths teachers in future.

[Baroness Sharples (Con)]

Does my noble friend agree that a rise of 6% to 18% in the proportion of youngsters now entering school with English as their second language has had an effect on the studying of science?

[Lord Nash]

I agree that it gives schools certain challenges, but evidence suggests that once those pupils have mastered English, they are actually more aspirational than are, sadly, some white working class boys in particular.

[Lord Storey (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister will no doubt be pleased at the increase in the number of pupils studying science and maths. He used the phrase “broad and balanced”. He will also be aware that the creative industries are really important to the UK economy. Is he not concerned that we are seeing a decline in the creative and cultural subjects being taught at secondary school? If it continues apace, will he consider recommending that a creative or cultural subject be part of the EBacc offer?

[Lord Nash]

We are not considering the noble Lord’s second point. There is no evidence that EBacc has had a detrimental impact on arts subjects. Since 2007, the percentage of pupils taking at least one arts GCSE has increased by 6%. A number of free schools—School 21, East London Arts & Music academy, Plymouth School of Creative Arts and the LeAF Studio School—specialise in arts and media.

[Lord Vinson (Con)]

My Lords, will my noble friend do everything he can to encourage the use of the baccalaureate? Under the old A plus system, at 15, children had effectively to choose whether to become artists or scientists. The result has given us a great raft of illiterate scientists and unscientific artists. The baccalaureate gives one a broad education up to at least 17 or 18. No one can consider themselves to begin to be educated unless they have a good grounding in both the arts and the sciences, and I hope that he will continue to promote the sort of exams that encourage that.

[Lord Nash]

I am grateful for my noble friend’s comments. Of course, our Progress 8 measure will encourage a wider scope of subjects rather than what Tristram Hunt described as the great crime of the C/D borderline. On average, pupils take 11 subjects in total at key stage 4.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

My Lords, I suspect that the Minister did not give us all the information. At A-level, although there has been a welcome increase in the number taking maths and science, what he did not tell the House was that the trend for increased numbers in those subjects significantly predates the introduction of the EBacc in 2010, and the pace of increase since then has actually slowed. Between 2002 and 2009, numbers in maths increased by 58%; since the introduction of the EBacc, they have increased by only a further 13%. In physics, between 2006 and 2010, numbers increased by 18%; since then, by 16%. The Minister also did not reveal that English and modern languages are also EBacc subjects, but take-up has fallen since 2010.

Last year, the director-general of the CBI said that,

“we have no debate at all about the 14-18 curriculum—only a debate about exams … we need curriculum reform, not just exam reform”.

Was not he right?

[Lord Nash]

I am delighted that the noble Lord supports our belief in the importance of those subjects.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister will be aware that those concerned with music education are worried about the impact of the EBacc on music education in schools. That is partly because schools faced with hard choices on budget priorities are less concerned about recruiting music teachers. Is he willing to speak to people from the music education industry about those concerns?

[Lord Nash]

I would be delighted to do that.

[Lord West of Spithead (Lab)]

The Minister will be aware of the huge shortage of engineers in this country and, particularly, in the Navy, Air Force and Army. What is being done to translate that increase in science and maths into engineering and to try to encourage that?

[Lord Nash]

I know that we have a number of UTCs specialising in that, including one where I know that the Royal Navy is actively engaged.

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

Having failed to answer my noble friend Lord Watson in his first attempt, could the Minister now try again?

[Lord Nash]

I do not really think that time would allow me to do so.

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

Schools: Faith Schools

Monday 14th December 2015 Lords Chamber

Question

15:05

Asked by

[Baroness Pinnock]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether, if a faith school is rated inadequate and is required to become an academy, they will enforce the transfer of church land to the academy trust.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education (Lord Nash)]

The Education and Adoption Bill would require failing church schools to become academies, but land will not be removed from the church. Dioceses or their schools will sponsor the majority of failing church schools; where a non-church trust sponsors a church school, the religious character of the church school will be protected. The diocese would continue to own the land and make it available to the sponsor while it is a school, as happens with existing academies, solely for the purpose of a church school.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

I thank the Minister for the clarity of his response. However, to provide reassurance to all faith groups, I ask that he add an amendment to the Education and Adoption Bill. In addition, what safeguards can he provide that the particular ethos of faith schools can be retained within a non-faith academy trust?

[Lord Nash]

The noble Baroness raises an extremely good point. We are very anxious to ensure that the faith ethos is maintained. We have gone further than the noble Baroness outlines, in that we have had extensive discussions with the churches and there is a revised memorandum of understanding with them, which I believe is now largely, if not entirely, agreed. These have much more extensive provisions as to precisely how a school’s religious character will be protected.

[The Lord Bishop of Ely]

My Lords, can the Minister expand on the nature and character of the safeguards being provided, given that the prime issue around this land is not the land itself but that it has been given by parishes and generations of generous citizens to guarantee the religious character of those schools?

[Lord Nash]

I would be delighted to expand on that as the right reverend Prelate mentions. We intend to insert within the articles of association a faith object, which requires the trust to ensure that the character of the church school is maintained. There will be an entrenchment clause, which requires written consent of the diocese for changes to the articles relating to the maintenance of the church school’s religious character—for instance, those relating to local governing bodies or the church’s power to appoint staff. There is a requirement that members and trustees are appointed to provide proportionate diocese representation on the MAT, and to establish a local governing body, and for the creation of a scheme of delegation relating to the religious character of the school agreed between the MAT and the diocese. This will be protected.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

My Lords, I hope that the Minister will have time to answer this question from me. I am sure that he will be aware of media reports over the weekend concerning Highfield Humanities College in Blackpool, where parents were very concerned about its conversion to an academy by the Tauheedul Education Trust, which already runs 10 Muslim faith academies—yet only 2% of the pupils at Highfield are Muslim. Will the Minister provide an assurance that there will always be full parental and community consultation when an academy changes from not having a religious character to having one—and, indeed, when it changes between faiths?

[Lord Nash]

I am grateful for the noble Lord’s shorter question. I am very much aware of the case to which he refers. Of course, Tauheedul has had three of its schools inspected and they are all outstanding. We shall ensure, as our amendment to the Bill makes clear, that in all these cases in future, as has generally happened in almost every case in the past, parents are communicated with about the details of the change in status.

[Lord O'Shaughnessy (Con)]

My Lords, a 2011 report by the London School of Economics found that by becoming a sponsored academy the school not only raises its attainment but raises the attainment of neighbouring schools. I declare my interest as managing director of a trust that operates two free schools. Does my noble friend agree with me that, while the ownership of church land is clearly very important, what really matters is the quality of the education that goes on in the schools that sit on it?

[Lord Nash]

I entirely agree with my noble friend. It is very good to see more evidence emerging of a rising tide lifting all boats. I agree with the point he makes, and it is true that church schools have consistently outperformed local authority maintained schools.

[Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton (Lab)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as a former chair of education in Lancashire, which has the largest number of church schools. I can tell the Minister that those church schools do not like glib references slurring one side or the other. Will the Minister give the House a total assurance that all church schools will be treated equally financially? At the moment, some schools run directly by the Government get more money—more capital and more revenue—than some local authority and voluntary aided sector schools. Can we have a guarantee that there will be no bribery?

[Lord Nash]

I assure the noble Baroness that there will be no bribery—I believe it is a criminal offence. Ongoing funding for all schools is done on an equal basis. When some schools are started, there are some diseconomies, and some very small schools get extra money. I point the noble Baroness to the latest figures based on 2014 key stage 2: at Church of England schools, 82% of pupils achieved the required level 4, compared to 79% of pupils at local authority maintained schools.

[Baroness Gardner of Parkes (Con)]

My Lords, I was not clear on the answer given to the right reverend Prelate. I thought that part of his question referred to the property position and whether the church owning the land would be forced to part with it or have it compulsorily purchased. It seems a bit equivalent to a housing association, where the property was also often given by someone a long time ago. Can the Minister clarify the property position for me? If he does not know it offhand, which I would not necessarily expect, it could come through in an answer. I would like clarification about the property aspect raised in this Question.

[Lord Nash]

I can confirm to my noble friend now that the church would not be forced to part with the land, and nor would it be compulsorily purchased.

[Baroness Humphreys (LD)]

Protecting the ethos of particular schools is not confined to church schools. There is a widespread feeling that multiacademy chains make new academies in their own image. How will the Minister ensure that locally developed values, nurtured over the years, can be maintained?

[Lord Nash]

The noble Baroness makes an extremely good point. It is very important that sponsors coming into schools are very conscious of what the noble Baroness calls “locally developed values” and make sure that schools’ traditions, which I am very well aware of in relation to one school that I sponsor, are maintained.

House Committee and Liaison Committee

Monday 14th December 2015 Lords Chamber

Membership Motion

15:13

Moved by

[The Chairman of Committees]

That Lord Hunt of Kings Heath be appointed a member of the following committees, in place of Baroness Smith of Basildon: House and Liaison.

Motion agreed.

European Union Referendum Bill

Monday 14th December 2015 Lords Chamber

Commons Reason

15:13

Motion A

Moved by

[Lord Faulks]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 1, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 1A.

1: Clause 2, page 2, line 7, at end insert “and persons who would be so entitled except for the fact that they will be aged 16 or 17 on the date on which the referendum is to be held,”

Commons Disagreement and Reason

The Commons disagree to Lords Amendment No. 1 for the following reason—

1A: Because it would involve a charge on public funds, and the Commons do not offer any further Reason, trusting that this Reason may be deemed sufficient.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Faulks) (Con)]

My Lords, this afternoon we return to the question of the voting age. Since we last debated the Bill, only two weeks ago, it has been considered in the other place. It agreed to all of the amendments made by your Lordships, with the sole exception of Amendment 1, which would lower the voting age to 16.

This House has now discussed the question of the voting age many times since the election in relation to this Bill and the Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill, so this is now well-trodden ground. The Government’s position is therefore well known. We do not believe that it is appropriate to lower the voting age to 16 and, even if it were, this Bill would not be the place to make such a change. That applies as much to the amendment before the House today in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Ely. I recognise that she has done what she can to minimise the charge on the public purse but that does not change the principle of the Government’s position.

Before I turn to the substantial arguments, I will set out the Government’s position on financial privilege and procedure. Along with the decision to disagree with Amendment 1, the other place has sent us its reason:

“Because it would involve a charge on public funds”.

This is a reference to the financial privilege of the House of Commons. There has been a great deal of discussion and speculation on this issue, so I will endeavour to set out the Government’s position. When this House amends a Bill sent to us by the House of Commons, our amendments are assessed by the clerks in another place in order to establish whether they engage the financial privilege of the House of Commons. That important process is carried out under the authority of the Speaker, and the Government—any Government—have no say in it.

The fact that a Lords amendment to a Bill has been deemed to engage the financial privilege of the House of Commons is announced to that House before it considers the amendment, but it does not prevent the House of Commons from agreeing to that Lords amendment and thereby waiving its privilege: indeed, this happens routinely. However, should it disagree to the Lords amendment, financial privilege is the only formal reason that it can give for doing so.

It should come as no surprise that the original amendment that we sent to the House of Commons, lowering the voting age, was deemed to engage the House of Commons’s financial privilege. The Government estimate that extending the franchise to 16 and 17 year-olds for the referendum would cost at least £6 million. But, as my honourable friend the Minister for Constitutional Reform, John Penrose, explained to the House of Commons last week, that is not the reason why the Government invited the House of Commons to disagree to this House’s amendment. The Government disagree with the principle. We disagree with the proposal to extend the franchise to 16 and 17 year-olds for the referendum for the reasons I made clear to this House when we considered the original amendment, and which I will again set out briefly this afternoon.

I turn now to those arguments. Given the number of times your Lordships have considered this, I of course do not intend to rehearse every part of the argument. However, I will set out briefly why we firmly believe that the voting age should remain at 18 for the referendum. Society has drawn numerous lines for when a young person is able to take various decisions. A 16 year-old may join the army but not use a sunbed. An 18 year-old may be deployed in a war zone but not drive a bus. Only a 21 year-old can supervise a learner driver or adopt a child. For many activities, parental consent is required; in England and Wales, joining the Armed Forces and getting married require the agreement of a young person’s parents. It would hardly be appropriate to require parental consent to cast a vote.

The state also requires that young people in England remain in education or training until the age of 18, and in Scotland young people will soon apparently enjoy the protection of a state-appointed guardian until the age of 18. Indeed, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child defines a child as a person under the age of 18, unless national laws set a lower age of majority. The Committee on the Rights of the Child goes further and recommends that if a country’s age of majority is below 18 it should be reviewed, and that levels of protection be increased for all people younger than 18. Similarly, the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse, led by Dame Lowell Goddard, has defined “child” to mean anyone under the age of 18.

These distinctions are, in the final analysis, a matter of judgment. There is no single answer to the question of when a young person should be able to take one decision or another. But it is at 18 that society generally views a young person as becoming an adult. The line has to be drawn somewhere, and we suggest that 18 is the logical, consistent place to choose.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab)]

The Minister knows that in Scotland in the Scottish referendum, 16 and 17 year-olds were allowed to vote. I spoke to many of them during the course of that referendum and found them intelligent, well-informed and exercising their right to vote with great enthusiasm and sense. Therefore, it was a successful experiment. Why does the Minister not agree that it was successful and why does he think there was something wrong with doing that?

[Lord Faulks]

I do not suggest that it was unsuccessful, nor do I for a moment cast aspersions on the intelligence of 16 and 17 year-olds in Scotland or in England and Wales. Enthusiasm is of course to be welcomed at any age. Equally, there may be 15 year-olds who are very well informed and intelligent, whether they are in Scotland or in England and Wales. But, although Scotland took the view that it did about the voting age because of the devolution arrangements, most democratic societies have made the same judgment as this Government makes. In every EU member state but Austria, the voting age is 18 for national elections, and referendums where they take place. The 1975 referendum proceeded on that basis, as did the referendum on AV—and, as your Lordships may remember, the EU Act 2011would in the event of a transfer of power on competences have triggered a referendum according to the franchise that is used for general elections.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

Before the Minister moves on from the point that the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, raised with regard to Scotland, he tries to give the impression that it was decided purely and solely by the devolved authority with no support. Can he remind the House whether the Prime Minister and the leader of the Conservative Party in Scotland supported the extension of the franchise to 16 and 17 year-olds in the referendum?

[Lord Faulks]

With respect, whether the Prime Minister or the leader of the Conservative Party favoured a 16 year-old franchise is beside the point as to whether the Government think that it is appropriate in this referendum for those 18 and above to vote, in the traditional way of the franchise. I know that many have pointed to the Scottish independence referendum and have said, rather like the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, that in some way that “opened the door” to votes at 16. Others point to the apparent inconsistency between elections for the Westminster Parliament and elections for the Scottish Parliament. However, inconsistency is a natural consequence of devolution. The decision over the voting age has been devolved to the Scottish Parliament. It may decide to raise the voting age or lower it, but that does not bind the decisions made in any of the other legislatures in the United Kingdom. It would be quite contrary to the spirit of devolution if we thought that a decision in Holyrood should determine a discussion here or whether a discussion here, on a devolved matter, should determine the decision in the Scottish Parliament. Even if one were convinced of the case, this Bill would not be the right place to make the change.

I hope that all noble Lords can agree that this is undoubtedly a complex issue and by no means straightforward. The arguments on both sides deserve respect and a fair hearing. To suggest that 16 year-olds should perhaps wait is not in any way to disrespect or criticise them, or in any way patronising. Few things are as important as the decision about who is included in the franchise and, as such, the matter deserves proper scrutiny and consideration. There should be a proper debate in this House, in the other place and in the country at large before such a significant change is contemplated. Clearly there is no consensus between the two Chambers, but nor is there clear consensus in the country as a whole.

It would not be right to bring in a novel constitutional change through an adjunct to a Bill such as this, with a specific but limited purpose. This proposal is no replacement for the proper consideration that would be given to the matter in a representation of the people Bill. As your Lordships may remember, the last one was in 1969, following a widespread national debate. When the matter came before your Lordships’ House, many noble Lords did not accept that the franchise should be lowered from 21 to 18. Some suggested that the age should be 20 by way of a compromise, but it followed widespread national debate, not an amendment to a Bill brought about by the House of Lords.

[Lord King of Bridgwater (Con)]

I have a certain conceit over this matter, as I was the first Member of Parliament ever elected by 18 year-olds following the exact Act to which the noble Lord has referred. Is that not the model that we should follow? If we are going to change the voting age, it should be comprehensively considered as a separate matter. It is certainly not something on which this House should seek to override the judgment of the elected House, which has now been given three times.

[Lord Faulks]

I respectfully agree with my noble friend and, of course, the 18 year-olds showed excellent judgment on that occasion.

Finally, the House needs to consider very carefully the perception created by a change to the franchise. We speak of this as being a once-in-a-generation referendum. If that is really the case, all sides must be able to accept the result as fair and robust. There is a real danger that a change to the voting age for the referendum could undermine that. Rightly or wrongly, a change to the franchise may be seen as an attempt to engineer the result, and that perception would damage the public’s confidence in the result of the vote.

I do not pretend for a moment to know how 16 and 17 year-olds would vote, any more than we know how 18 or 19 year-olds would vote, but the House will no doubt appreciate that a considerable part of the electorate will be disappointed with the result of the referendum. It is crucial that those who are disappointed accept the result, notwithstanding their disappointment, and do not feel it appropriate—in their minds or expressly—to cast doubt on its legitimacy.

I therefore urge noble Lords not to insist on their amendment or to agree with the amendment in lieu proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Ely. Instead, I urge this House to accept the position of the other place. This Bill is not the place to make a change to the age of voting; it is not the way to make good law. I beg to move.

15:30

Motion A1

Moved by

[Baroness Morgan of Ely]

As an amendment to Motion A, at end insert “but do propose Amendment 1B in lieu—

1B: Clause 2, page 2, line 7, at end insert—
“( ) the persons who, on the date of the referendum, will be aged 16 or over and are registered in the register of electors for parliamentary elections; any steps taken to register such eligible persons shall—(i) focus on registering 15 year old “attainers” (those who will attain the age of 16 by the date of the referendum); and(ii) utilise low-cost means of communication such as email, in particular making use of school email services,””

[Baroness Morgan of Ely (Lab)]

My Lords, I rise to move Motion A1. I start by thanking the noble Baroness the Minister and the noble Lord the Minister for their co-operation on this Bill. The Government have been in listening mode and have understood that the vote on whether we leave or remain a part of the EU is one of the greatest political questions that will be put to this country this century. Ensuring that there is a valid and fair vote and ensuring that the public have the knowledge that they need to make an informed choice were some of the key criteria that we were trying to attain during the debate. We are grateful that the Government have responded.

We now have one final hurdle over which we are at odds with the Government. This House voted overwhelmingly in favour of ensuring that 16 and 17 year-olds were given a voice and a vote in the forthcoming EU referendum. Many were convinced that it did not make sense to continue with the inconsistency that now exists across the United Kingdom on when young people should be allowed to participate in the political process. Others were persuaded that the enthusiasm and intelligence that were demonstrated by 16 and 17 year-olds during the Scottish referendum debate were an example to others and would be replicated throughout the United Kingdom. Many were satisfied that the factual-based evidence from Austria and Norway demonstrated that it makes sense to encourage young people to vote while they are still living in the communities where they were brought up and where they can be encouraged by their parents to undertake their duties as citizens before many leave home at the age of 18. Many were further convinced that the evidence from those countries showed that, if young people start voting at the age of 16, they are more likely to continue to vote when they are older.

Many Peers were also reassured by the fact that today’s 16 and 17 year-olds are the most informed 16 and 17 year-olds in history, having undertaken citizenship classes at school and having information not at their fingertips but usually at the tip of their thumbs, with their constant tapping of their mobile phones. Mostly, people were aware that this would be a once-in-a-generation opportunity for these young people to express their view on a long-term relationship between our country and EU member states, the outcome of which will affect them longer than any of us and over which they should have a say.

We were deeply disappointed that the Commons did not support our approach and were extremely surprised when the Clerk suggested that the issue was subject to financial privilege. I will address the issue of invoking financial privilege later. First, let me turn to the alternative amendment that we have set out. We are grateful that the Government have dealt with the merits of this amendment in principle and not hidden behind the financial privilege reason that has been put forward by the Commons. We have determined to submit a new amendment that will address the issue of cost. First of all, we dispute the amount that the Government have suggested this amendment would cost: £6 million. In the context of government expenditure of £760 billion, £6 million is chicken-feed. We are talking about 1/1,000th of 1% of the budget. The cost of the referendum is not known, but we know that the cost of the referendum on changing the electoral system to a PR mechanism was approximately £75 million. Given the way that young people energised the campaign in Scotland, even using the Government’s own figures it would be easy, I think, to justify this additional expense. It would be extremely useful if the Minister could give us a detailed understanding and breakdown of how the Government came to this figure.

We accept that about £800,000 would have to be spent on sending 16 and 17 year-olds information through the post during the campaign, as was promised to other voters—although the idea of 16 and 17 year-olds waiting for information arriving by post, when most of them probably have never received a letter in their life, is something of an odd situation. However, we dispute the fact that the Government can include in their estimates a calculation for any additional costs for counting officers’ and regional counting officers’ expenses. We have no idea what the turnout will be, with or without 16 and 17 year-olds. The Government are stabbing in the dark.

According to the head of the Association of Electoral Administrators, the cost of counting does not change in line with turnout. Whether there is a 30% turnout by the British public in the referendum or an 80% turnout, it would not change the amount that public officials are paid. Therefore, an additional 1.5 million voters—even if they all turned out to vote—would not make a difference to the costs of the counting officers’ and regional counting officers’ expenses. Indeed, the chief executive of the Association of Electoral Administrators, John Turner, has stated clearly that, while the Government estimate that £4.2 million of this £6 million would form a part of the costs of the conduct of the poll and thus come from the Consolidated Fund to cover counting officers’ and regional counting officers’ expenses, the association would question that, as the conduct of the poll has nothing whatever to do with registration. He said that, under the fees and charges order 2015, Statutory Instrument No. 476, it is clear that expenses for registration purposes would not be allowed. Indeed, for the last parliamentary election, not one penny for the conduct of the poll went to registration. Let me be clear: we refute the figure suggested by the Government as their estimated cost of implementing this amendment. Nevertheless, in our new amendment we have sought to give a clear indication of how costs could be saved.

[Lord Higgins (Con)]

The reality is that the House of Commons has decided to invoke financial privilege—not that it is this or that amount. It has the right to invoke financial privilege and the actual amount is irrelevant to that right.

[Baroness Morgan of Ely]

I do not think that the amount is irrelevant. One of the points that I will come on to is the threshold for invoking financial privilege. It is like a dark art: no one has any idea what it is and there is nothing written down anywhere. I will come on to that point and deal with the constitutional issues later in the debate, when I will be happy to deal with questions relating to financial privilege.

In the amendment, we are trying to address the issue of the costs. We accept that £800,000 would have to be spent on information, because that is what everyone else is getting, but we can bring down the costs substantially. Currently, electoral registration officers write to households and ask for a list of individuals in that household. These individuals are subsequently sent a registration form. They are asked for the names of not only people over 18 but also those who will attain that age in the next year. Therefore, 17 year-olds and many 16 year-olds are already invited to put their names on the list. In other words, we already know who these young people are and they would simply need to complete the second part of the registration exercise. We can be clear that most of this generation would do so online—no postage, no cost.

Therefore, the people we need to focus on are those who will attain the age of 16—the proposed new age of voting in the referendum—in the forthcoming year. We emphasised time and again in Committee and on Report that this would be relatively easy, as we know exactly where these people are—at school.

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Baroness, but is not the nub of the matter our saying to Members of the elected House that we know more than they know about what the franchise should be? We are even flying in the face, if we are misguided enough to support the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, of the latest pronouncements by the Electoral Commission. This is about the constitutional place of this House and the constitutional supremacy of the elected House.

[Baroness Morgan of Ely]

Of course we understand that the other House has spoken on this issue, but it has also invoked financial privilege. I am trying to address the issue of costs in this amendment. The problem is that there is no threshold—or we do not know what it is. What does that mean for the ability of this House to engage at all, in any way, with the Representation of the People Act?

Perhaps I may continue. The people we need to focus on are those who will attain the age of 16, the new age of voting in the referendum in the forthcoming year. Let me emphasise, in response to the comments of the Electoral Commission—I shall come to the point made by the noble Lord—that our amendment does not preclude electoral registration officers from chasing up 16 and 17 year-olds and it does not stop them using all available methods to identify and encourage registration. The Association of Electoral Administrators does not think it would be difficult to make changes to the electoral registration service. A relatively simple—and, I emphasise, extremely cheap—way of registering young people would be writing directly to schools to ask for help in sending out emails with the registration form attached, as is currently done with university students. I do not know of many, if any, secondary schools that do not provide their pupils with a school email address. The costs of registration would therefore be absolutely minimal.

Nor would this be a tremendous increase in work for electoral registration officers. If, as has been suggested, we are talking about an additional 1.5 million voters, given that there are 380 electoral registration officers—one for each relevant local authority—we are talking about each ERO registering on average only an additional 4,000 voters, which is not an enormous new burden. The organisation Bite the Ballot is co-ordinating a national voter registration drive which aims to inspire hundreds of thousands of 15 to 24 year-olds to register this February. It will include a national network of schools, colleges, sixth-form teachers, school leavers, student unions, youth clubs and charities, so this is being done anyway at no additional cost. The Electoral Commission itself has noted that EROs should be working with schools and colleges in their area because this is a key activity that we need and expect all EROs to explore. We are asking EROs to do only what they are expected to do anyway.

I turn now to the issue that seems to be vexing the Government: that this is not the right place to make such a change and that it should be debated seriously as part of a wider debate on franchise. We are happy that the Government agree that there is a need for a wider debate on franchise, and it would be useful to have a timetable for such a debate. Can the Minister give me a concrete answer to that specific question? The Government say that this should not be done in a piecemeal way. We on the Labour Benches believe that there should be a comprehensive constitutional convention to address this and other issues relating to our democracy. But I was under the impression that the Government enjoy piecemeal change. It was this Government who gave permission to 16 and 17 year-olds to vote in the Scottish referendum campaign. It was this Government who allowed the Scottish Parliament to determine whether 16 and 17 year-olds should be able to vote in its own election, and it was this Government who allowed the Welsh Assembly to determine for itself whether 16 and 17 year-olds should be allowed to vote.

[Baroness O'Cathain (Con)]

It was not this Government who did that; it was the coalition Government.

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Baroness O'Cathain]

Noble Lords may laugh. But perhaps I may remind the noble Baroness that we are on very tricky ground. We are playing with the constitution and with the fact that we are not supposed to check on financial privilege. All this stuff we are getting now is of no relevance to the Motion.

15:45

[Baroness Morgan of Ely]

I cannot believe that we are being accused of playing with the constitution, given what is going on in this place at the moment. It is important for us to remember that it was suggested that the Government should decide this, but only 37% of the public voted for the Government. More people voted for Labour, the Lib Dems, the SNP and the Green candidates, who had this provision in their manifestos. It is worth noting also that the Minister leading for the Government on this Bill was the shadow Chief Whip when she led this House to 81 defeats of the Labour Government. Let us also not forget that the Labour Government had a substantially larger mandate than this Government. Perhaps the Minister will enlighten us as to whether his colleague thinks that all those victories were wrong during that period.

Let me turn to the constitutional aspects of the relationship between the two Houses, which have been thrown up as the result of financial privilege being applied to this amendment. I am no expert on constitutional matters and, no doubt, there are many experts in this Chamber. However, over the past few days, I have been trying to understand when and how financial privilege is invoked, and to find out specifically who decides on these matters. What are the guidelines or factors which determine the threshold concerning when and whether such a decision should be subject to financial privilege? I am grateful that the Minister set out some of the rules.

As this decision is crucial to the Lords’ ability to consider amendments, and as the Government have no option but to cite financial privilege as the reason for rejecting an amendment, I assumed that the system for deciding these matters would be open and transparent, with a clear set of criteria for determining each outcome. At the very least, I thought there would be a clear indication of the minimum threshold at which financial privilege would kick in.

I have requested specifically of the Commons Clerk an answer on minimum threshold. Search as I have, I have been unable to find anything written anywhere which sets out the criteria. I would be grateful if the Minister referred me to such a document, if one exists. I understand that the Government have a clear political agenda, not just in this Bill but in all Bills which come before this House. We accept that they have a majority, and have been elected and are accountable. But if it is the Commons Clerks, who are unelected and unaccountable, who decide what is subject to financial privilege, at the very minimum we need extremely clear and transparent procedures for determining this, as they have such a major impact on the ability of this Chamber to influence policy decisions.

[Lord Faulks]

It is of course the Speaker who decides, advised by the Clerks.

[Lord Morgan (Lab)]

That is only half true at best. In 2012, we were told by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, that the Speaker, as the Minister says, is advised by the Clerks, but the Clerks are not expert in the financial details of legislation. Therefore, they consult the Government and so the Government have an input.

[Baroness Morgan of Ely]

I thank the noble Lord for enlightening us on that point. We need transparency in all of this. We need to know who is making the rules and under what criteria they are being made. If the Clerks are going to cite financial privilege in a case such as this, it can be cited for almost every policy change that we suggest which will incur a minimal cost.

It could be argued that the powers of this Chamber, the role of which is to make the Government think again on policy issues, are severely restricted, particularly in relation to electoral issues, where the other Chamber has a very clear vested interest. It is a shame that this issue has now become involved in a wider constitutional debate on financial privilege, but we hope Peers will still assess the merits of this case on the substance of the amendment. We believe that 16 and 17 year-olds are and can be responsible participants in our democracy. We believe that this is their one-off opportunity—a once-in-a-generation vote on the profoundly important issue of whether we should remain a member of the EU. I urge fellow Peers to support us on this issue, and to give these young people the respect and the voice that they deserve. I beg to move.

[Lord Tyler (LD)]

My Lords, in an otherwise very careful speech, the Minister implied that this was simply, but only, a once-in-a-generation decision. That is not what the Prime Minister said in his Chatham House speech on 13 November, when he said that the EU referendum,

“is a huge decision for our country … And it will be the final decision”.

The Minister referred to disappointed voters; the people who will be most disappointed by this decision will be those who are excluded from it when it is their one and only chance to influence a vital decision for our country.

For the sake of brevity, I shall not rehearse all the arguments that I have so often used in this Chamber on the merits of extending the franchise for this vote. I endorse absolutely what the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Ely, said. It would be surprising if I did not; my colleagues and I have supported this increase in the franchise for young people for many years. It would be very inconsistent if we did not do so now. Instead, I want to highlight two wider issues that have been gently referred to already but have perhaps even greater salience for our House.

One of the oldest tricks in the Whips’ trade—I used to be a Whip—when you are losing an argument is to change the subject. That is, effectively, what the Government are now doing. They have moved from trying to defend the inconsistency of the franchise for the Scottish independence referendum compared to that for the forthcoming European referendum to insisting that a clear majority of your Lordships’ House should be ignored on the grounds that we voted in a way that will cost money.

In their letter to us on Friday, Ministers told us, and were at pains to emphasise, that what they termed the Government’s formal reason for disagreeing with the Lords amendment was because,

“it would involve a charge on public funds”.

The Motion and the Minister’s speech this afternoon confirm this statement. That suggestion—that they had no alternative—is simply specious. Elsewhere in the letter, they say:

“It is our view that should this significant change to the franchise be made, it should be debated seriously as part of a wide debate on the franchise, not done piecemeal for a one off electoral event”.

The Minister has already made that statement again in this afternoon’s debate. That has been a constant and respected theme of Ministers at all stages of the debate in both Houses, and indeed from their party’s supporters throughout all stages of the Bill. But it could have been perfectly well incorporated in an amendment in lieu in the other place in last week’s debate. That is what they could and should have done; that would express what is, apparently, the view of the Government. They did not do it. Instead, Ministers deliberately chose to trigger the financial privilege threat. Why?

We are now faced with yet another attempt to restrict the role, responsibility and sheer relevance of this House of Parliament. This time it is the franchise. What next? If in future we amend a Bill in any way that could incur additional expense—a “charge on public funds” as the Minister put it—the Government could use this as a precedent. Next time it could be international development, childcare, legal aid or NHS priorities. That is what they are trying to do—to clip the wings of your Lordships’ House. We should be under no illusion. This is not just a casual, minimalist tweak of the relationship between the two Houses. This is part of a much more insidious exercise to dilute our role—some would say to completely neuter your Lordships’ House.

[Lord Elton (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Lord speaks as though this is a new departure and something that has not been done before. In fact, it has been in existence for generations and has been frequently used.

[Lord Tyler]

Yes, but it is done now in a deliberate attempt to try to prevent us pursuing a very important issue. I suggest to your Lordships that we should be very careful of any attempt to do that, particularly in those circumstances. Look at the wider context. Taken with this House’s effective exclusion from discussions on English votes for English laws, which is now going on—we were not allowed in—and with the Strathclyde review, we will have only ourselves to blame if we fail to note the way the wind is blowing. Please observe the words of Mr Stewart Jackson, the Conservative Member of Parliament for Peterborough, in last week’s debate:

“In conclusion, it is a constitutional outrage that the superannuated, unelected, unaccountable panjandrums in the House of Lords have told us what the elected House should be doing even though we have a settled view on this. They should learn their place. They must be subservient to the elected House, and it is high time that we had House of Lords reform”.—[Official Report, Commons, 8/12/15; col. 880.]

Amen to the last one. That is what is behind this: it is not to give new influence to this House, but to take away what little influence we have.

[Lord Rooker (Lab)]

I want to ask the noble Lord a practical question. We are discussing a Bill, not an order. The elected House will always have the last say under the Parliament Acts. I ask him to be more practical about this: given that the Commons has sent this back without an in lieu amendment, if this House carries this amendment and it goes back to the Commons, we would be put in the position of not being able to provide another in lieu amendment. Next week we will have the same reason back—financial privilege. What will he do then?

[Lord Tyler]

My Lords, let us wait and see. If the House of Commons and the Government do not take this House seriously, why are we here? That is the question we have to ask ourselves.

I take up in particular this issue of the elected House having a right to bulldoze through what they think is right for election law. I have been a Member of the other House. I have to tell your Lordships that it is not unknown for Members of Parliament to have a particular interest in the electoral arrangements that got them there. I reject utterly the idea that somehow your Lordships’ House is not allowed to have a view on electoral law. I have been here some time now—more than 10 years. I have been involved in revision of electoral law many times. No Government have ever sought to stop us.

[Viscount Eccles (Con)]

My Lords, I thought that the noble Lord did not think that we should be here. Indeed, he certainly does not think that I should be here.

[Lord Tyler]

My Lords, if that is the noble Viscount’s view, perhaps he will not want to whip the vote this afternoon.

In the very last minute of his speech in the Commons debate last Tuesday, the Minister suddenly introduced this financial privilege issue. However, he did not even mention the estimate figure that the Government were playing with. Perhaps he could not bring himself to give credence to the incredible. During previous debates there and through all stages of the Bill in your Lordships’ House, no Minister has ever advanced the argument that forecasted cost was a substantial reason for opposing this change to the franchise for this specific vote. The figure of £6 million has not even been hinted at at any stage in either House.

16:00

When I heard about this I was reminded that, during my period in the other place, the Serjeant at Arms had to keep an opera hat, neatly collapsed, by his chair, so that, if a Member wished to raise a point of order during a Division, he could do so seated and covered. I once or twice used that essential accessory for that eventuality. It is sad that it was subsequently abolished. The opera hat disappeared on the initiative of the then Leader of the House, Robin Cook. George Young and I were accessories to its removal. Last Tuesday, the Minister would have made good use of that hat. Perhaps I should refer to him as the magician, because he pulled this extraordinarily large rabbit out of the hat as a suspiciously rounded total, as the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, said.

The following day, I was chairing a conference of electoral administrators. Nobody there seemed to know the basis of this estimate. So far as I can establish, neither the Electoral Commission, nor the Association of Electoral Administrators, has actually endorsed it. Moreover, we had a presentation at the conference from the convenor of the Electoral Management Board of Scotland, Mary Pitcaithly, who gave an extremely detailed, meticulous account of all the challenges she faced as chief counting officer for the whole Scottish independence referendum process in September 2014. She left nothing out of her remarkably comprehensive account of that very successful exercise. She did not identify any excessive additional expenditure on this scale as a result of the inclusion of 16 and 17 year-olds in the electorate.

[Lord King of Bridgwater]

We seem to be failing to understand the point which the Minister put very clearly. The identification of extra expenditure was not done by the Government. The noble Lord should know, as he and I were both in the other place for long enough, that it was a technical exercise, done by the Clerks, who reported the matter to the Speaker. With respect to the Lord Speaker in this House, the Speaker’s law carries much more weight in terms of how procedure will be observed. I understand that the Government could have chosen to waive financial privilege, but that is an entirely different matter. The noble Lord has said that the Government are trying to bulldoze through their view of electoral law and that that is an outrage to this House. Who is actually trying to change the law at the moment and who is trying to sustain the present position?

[Lord Tyler]

My Lords, I am afraid that that sequence is not quite correct. I think the noble Lord will accept this, but if we have a difference of opinion, we can discuss it afterwards. The critical point about the process is that it is for the Government, first and foremost, to decide whether they want to table an amendment in lieu or simply reject the views of this House. That was the Government’s decision, not the Speaker’s. Whether there is advice or not, it is the Government’s decision that they wish not to pursue the idea of a more general review of the franchise. They simply wanted to reject the view of the House of Lords. They then triggered the issue of financial privilege and it is indeed correct that neither the Clerks nor the Speaker could then gainsay them. However, this figure has now got common currency and it is thought that that somehow justifies this process. If your Lordships’ House was only proposing a little baby, they might have let it through; but they thought it was a big baby and they produced it in the way they did to try and scare us. This rabbit has been inflated by Ministers for their own political ends. We should be told exactly what the calculation is; what, realistically, it is as a proportion of the total referendum budget; and who now endorses this figure.

[Lord Stoddart of Swindon (Ind Lab)]

The noble Lord keeps on talking about the Government doing this. Surely, however, the House of Commons has already rejected this policy four times, by an average of 50 votes.

[Lord Tyler]

My Lords, that is not absolutely true. First, it has not specifically rejected the amendment proposed by your Lordships’ House. Secondly, as I thought I had just explained, the issue of an amendment in lieu means that it is no longer necessary. If the Government had decided on such an amendment to express their apparent view that a general review is required, and that it should not be in this one Bill, financial privilege would not have been triggered in any way. That is the process that should have been undertaken.

The issue before your Lordships’ House today is no longer simply whether the electorate for the EU referendum should or should not be expanded, important though that is. I have given a lot of time and effort to trying to make sure that this referendum is one that we can be proud of because it has the same electorate as the one that was so successful in Scotland on a similar issue of the future of that generation. However, this matter has now been deliberately escalated by Ministers into an insidious attempt to undermine the constitutional role and responsibilities of your Lordships’ House. We must stand firm, pass Amendment A1 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, and reject this attack.

[Lord Cormack]

We have heard a frankly terrible speech from the noble Lord, Lord Tyler. How does he have the brass nerve to lecture your Lordships’ House, coming, as he does, from the most grossly overrepresented party, which, moreover, allegedly believes in proportions and proportional representation and most of whose members, including the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, would, like Samson, like to bring this Chamber down about their ears? Indeed, I heard a noble Lord from those Benches say only recently, “It does not matter what we do so long as we destroy the House of Lords and replace it with an elected House”. However, those of us who do not believe in an elected second Chamber and believe passionately in the supremacy of the elected Chamber at the other end of the corridor, believe that what we are now embarking on is an extremely dangerous course of action. If we accept the supremacy of the elected Chamber and accept that your Lordships’ House, of course, has the right to invite the elected Chamber to think again, but, if the elected Chamber, by a majority far in excess of that enjoyed by the Conservative Government, says no, who are we to persist, particularly in a matter concerning the franchise?

Many noble Lords on the Labour Benches do believe in this House and believe that an unelected and appointed House, with its accumulation of experience and expertise, adds value to the constitution without challenging the unambiguous elected authority of the other place. I appeal to those Members on the Labour Benches, many of whom I am privileged to count as personal friends, not to play this game and not to go along with the destructionists on the Liberal Democrat Benches, most of whom do not believe in this place and would use almost any spurious and specious reason and excuse to damage it.

We have exercised our right and a number of my Conservative colleagues voted for votes at 16. I did not, but a number of them did. I respected their integrity but now the time has come to say, “You haven’t decided to think again. We must move on”. I urge all your Lordships to recognise that we have reached the limit. We should not seek once more to overturn the mandate of an elected House with a majority of 50. As I said earlier, that is far larger than the 12 that the Government nominally enjoy.

Noble Lords may have a brief moment of euphoria if the Government are defeated tonight, but it will be followed by the danger of a real constitutional crisis arising between our two Chambers that could do enormous damage to the standing of Parliament in general, and of this House in particular.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

My Lords, if I understand it correctly, the House of Commons, through the Speaker, has said that this is a matter of finance. If that is correct, it is the short answer to what we are dealing with tonight. I cannot understand why noble Lords are banging on about all the other subjects if we really cannot deal with this matter because it is a financial issue. I find it very difficult to understand what we are spending time on at the moment.

[Lord Dobbs (Con)]

My Lords, since this may be the last opportunity that any of us have to discuss the Bill, I will start my few very short remarks by paying tribute to my noble friend Lady Anelay and her ministerial colleague, my noble friend Lord Faulks—but particularly to the noble Baroness. I speak from the heart, and from a little raw experience, when I say that this historic Bill holds the prospect of many bear traps but that all of them, except one, have been avoided by the patient and very sensitive work of the Minister. I am sure that the whole House will want to not only congratulate but thank her for her tireless efforts.

But—there is a bear trap. I must apologise for not being able to be in the House for Report but it seems that the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, made up for my absence in spades. I was on the other side of the world but, reading Hansard, it was as though I was here. He quoted me extensively, repeatedly and even voraciously—and, as always, far more eloquently than I could. I felt rather like Banquo, the ghost at the feast, with the characteristically shy and retiring figure of the noble Lord in the unaccustomed role of Macbeth. I am grateful for the praise that he showered upon me. He was kind enough to mention beforehand that he might and I make no complaint.

I think it is reasonably well known that I, along with a good number of other Conservatives, support the principle of giving the vote to 16 and 17 year-olds. I would have been happy to have signed the original amendment. I will not repeat the arguments today; others have done that and the lines are all too well known. But I am still waiting for a convincing answer as to why the Government acquiesced in granting the vote to young people in the referendum in Scotland. It all seems a little untidy. I know that our unwritten constitution is often a rather rumpled bed, depending on who was the last to sleep in it, but every so often it is wise to give the sheets a bit of a tug to straighten them out. That is why I supported the original amendment.

Yet—how may I put this delicately?—while the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, quoted me largely correctly, I am afraid that he did not quote me completely. He failed to mention the comments I made in Committee about this not being a black and white argument, but one that is actually quite subtle and a matter of judgment and of balance. I find it alarming when some see this matter as one of absolute principle in which no quarter can be given. I wish that I was as certain about anything as some appear to be about everything. I think that there is a stronger argument for giving the vote at 17 rather than at 16 and, in my view, probably not at 15. We have to draw the line somewhere, but where to draw that line is no longer the issue here today.

If I may stretch my metaphor, we have by this stage climbed into an entirely different bed. This is no longer about the rights of vibrant young people but about the rights of largely elderly, perhaps less vibrant and entirely unelected Peers—if that is the right and polite way to say these things; I am never quite sure. We asked the other place to think again, as is our right. As the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, mentioned, last week there was in the other place an explosion of incontinence, with one honourable Member calling our vote “a constitutional outrage” by,

“superannuated, unelected, unaccountable panjandrums … They should learn their place”.—[Official Report, Commons, 8/12/15; col. 880.]

It was pretty exciting stuff, I thought. Perhaps the honourable Member for Peterborough was looking for a job. The remarks seemed to show little understanding of the role and work of this House. It is sad that so many MPs seem to disappear by tea-time and so never get to see the work that this House does late into so many nights. There may be many bars where you can find a Member of Parliament, but sadly so few—present company excepted—seem to bother to come to the Bar of this House and find out what it is we really do.

16:15

Yet the other place has done its job. We asked it to think again, and it has—not once, but repeatedly. On five different occasions in recent weeks it has considered giving votes to 16 and 17 year-olds, and on every occasion it has rejected the idea, last week by an increased majority of 50. To me, that seems pretty decisive. Just as we have exercised our right, so the other place has exercised its right: it has clearly made up its mind and decided, which is why I say that we are now in an entirely different bed. If we continue to vote down the elected Commons on a matter of the franchise, it is likely to be seen at least as petulance on our part, and more likely as being partisan and deliberately provocative. What part of a 50-strong Commons majority do we not understand? This House has defeated the elected Government on 69% of all votes in this Parliament—more than two in every three votes we have taken—and now we claim rights over the franchise. We cannot go on down this road.

[Lord Cunningham of Felling (Lab)]

I agree with the last point which the noble Lord made. I do not think your Lordships’ House can continue in this way, especially when the report of the Joint Committee on Conventions, Conventions of the UK Parliament, was accepted unanimously, including by the Liberal Democrats. Perhaps the noble Lord might reflect that we are coming to the time when this House, on a simple Motion, should be invited to endorse the conventions of the United Kingdom Parliament again.

[Lord Dobbs]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for that fascinating point. So much has already been said about how we should not be chopping our constitution into pieces in a piecemeal fashion. That is something that I think the whole House, including this side of the House, should consider very carefully.

Do we today want to add weight to the views of those who regard us as unaccountable panjandrums—the unwashed, the unelected? Where will that leave us? It would be like passing around the rope to those who want to hang us. Ultimately, matters of the franchise have to fall within the privileged remit of the Commons, just like matters of finance, as matters for those who have been elected with a duty to decide. In my view, we would be overstretching our rights and certainly overstretching our wisdom if we were to take this matter further. This is one barricade we should not build. I will continue to support the cause of young people, but I cannot support this amendment. The referendum is waiting; we should get on with it.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, there are many reasons for supporting the Government today, all of which were given by the Minister, but I have to say to the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, that I do not agree that financial privilege is a reason to support the Government. It is an obscure subject, and I commend to the House the very helpful paper published by Dr Meg Russell and Mr Daniel Gover of the Constitution Unit of UCL in March 2014.

Financial privilege did not prevent the other place from addressing the merits of this House’s amendment; equally, the fact that financial privilege was asserted by the House of Commons after the certification by the Speaker does not prevent the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, from bringing forward her amendment in lieu. It does not prevent this House voting on the merits of the amendment—or, as I see it, its lack of merit.

As I understood him, the Minister accepted that that is the case. The Constitution Unit paper concludes on page 13 that,

“it is not considered contrary to the convention for the Lords to respond to financial privilege with … an amendment in lieu … for as many rounds of ping pong as it wishes”.

The normal rules of ping-pong apply. Therefore, financial privilege is a distraction rather than being central to this debate. That is not to dispute the supremacy of the elected Chamber, especially on the issue of the franchise, but that is a different matter. For the reasons given by the Minister, I shall be supporting the Government in the Division Lobby.

[Lord Higgins]

My Lords, I intervened earlier, and I would like to take up the point I made in that intervention in a moment. I begin by saying a little about the substance of the proposal about votes at 16. I remain of the view, as does my Front Bench, that this is an inappropriate vehicle to carry out such an important constitutional change. The danger is that we have had a precedent of changing the franchise in the Scottish situation, and if we were to persist and succeed on this issue this evening, it would be yet another precedent. That would prejudice a longer-term, overall survey of what we ought to do about the age at which people are entitled to vote.

Having said that, if one looks back to 1969, which is the last time we debated it, on that occasion there was very widespread consultation. If we were to have another Bill on the issue, there would have to be widespread consultation. On this occasion, to the best of my knowledge, there has been virtually no consultation whatever. Back in 1969, when the issue had been widely consulted on, I said to my secretary, “If I get a single letter”—at the time, I had 100 letters or so a day—“asking me to give the vote, I will vote for it”. I did not get a single such letter.

Nowadays, we get thousands of emails sent to us. I have not had a single email from someone in this age group saying, “I am a highly intelligent, very politically motivated person”, or even, “I voted in the Scottish referendum”, and “I would like the vote”. I have had no such representation. I believe that this is being generated inside the House itself.

I turn to financial privilege, which has been raised. I totally reject what the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, said: that this is somehow a massive conspiracy suddenly cooked up in the other place to override us, and so on. I do not think that is so. The procedure on financial privilege is well established. As my noble friend Lord Dobbs said, it has been used time and again. The reality is that if the Commons decides to reject something, as it has done very decisively on this issue several times, a committee is sent behind the Chair to look at the reasons why the Commons is rejecting the Lords amendment. That committee sits behind the Chair, it is advised by the clerks and not infrequently comes up with the proposal that it has relied on on this occasion. It is a quite normal process and in no sense a sudden new conspiracy. I am not at all sure about the point made by my noble friend on the Front Bench as to whether that is the only option that that committee has to put forward as a reason. I believe that, if it wished, it could put forward other reasons as well. But, normally, it comes up with a resolution as far as this is concerned.

What is happening is perfectly normal and not, as the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, suggests, in some sense a conspiracy. As my noble friend said a moment or two ago, we really have to consider very carefully whether it is appropriate to bounce the amendment back yet again. I believe that the answer very clearly is no, because the response that we are going to get at the other end is equally clear—it is going to be to reject whatever amendment the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Ely, puts forward. So the sensible course of action is to reject Amendment A1 and accept Amendment A. That would be an appropriate thing to do.

Finally, one might consider why there is such an enormous apparent division on this issue between this House and the other place on the age when it is appropriate to vote. This is not a partisan issue and not something where everyone has clear-cut positions. It is rather curious—but perhaps this House is more expert on grandchildren and the other place is more expert on children. They have clearly taken the view that they do not think that their children should have the vote at the age that is suggested. We should respect that view, go along with the amendment proposed from the government Front Bench and reject that put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Ely.

[Lord Kakkar (CB)]

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Patel will recognise the advice given to all trainees in the craft specialties—that to be a good surgeon one needs to know how to operate and, to be a great surgeon, one needs to learn when to operate. So, too, one might presume that a Second Chamber, certainly one with the powers of your Lordships’ House, to be a good Chamber needs to know how to use its powers and to be a great Chamber needs to know when to use its powers for the maximum benefit of our fellow citizens, for the good of this Parliament and for the good of our nation.

We have heard important arguments on financial privilege. I have always understood that it is not the position of your Lordships’ House—and it probably has not happened this afternoon—that a decision of the Speaker of the House of Commons is criticised. Those are very important pronouncements, made as part of a considered and long-respected process. It is also difficult to argue that the other place has not considered this matter on a number of occasions and has reached the same conclusion: that at this point it does not wish in this manner to extend the franchise to 16 and 17 year-olds. Most importantly, it is a question of a referendum in a representative democracy. The people of our country send their representatives in the other place and, in that place, on the vast majority of occasions, to exercise their judgment on behalf of those who have sent them. On very few occasions, those elected representatives decide that they must seek the further advice of those who have sent them to the House of Commons by way of a referendum to help to guide the decisions that they will take on serious matters. This is one such occasion, and it seems completely wrong for the unelected but powerful second Chamber to keep on insisting to those seeking the advice of those who have sent them to the other place that the franchise must be changed. It seems completely logical that those who have responsibility in the other place for these matters seek the advice of those who have elected them—that is, the general election parliamentary franchise—and that your Lordships’ House, having I think quite rightly previously argued the case for extending the franchise, on this occasion respects the views of the other place and allows this matter to pass.

16:30

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

I speak as one from these Benches who participated in the earlier discussions on the Bill, and my name was on the amendments debated in Committee and on Report which would have permitted 16 and 17 year-old citizens of this country to vote in the EU referendum that will be held before the end of 2017. I have not wavered from that view, even though my name is no longer associated with the amendment that we are now debating. I believe that the issue at stake in this referendum is of a sufficiently fundamental and long-lasting nature to justify the inclusion in the franchise on this occasion of 16 and 17 year-olds. As other speakers have said, the evidence from the Scottish referendum in 2014 supports the contention that that age group is well able to handle the privilege of voting thoughtfully and responsibly.

That said, while this House has the right to ask the other place to think again, it has the duty, in due course, to recognise the primacy in legislative matters of the other House. In this instance, with a substantial majority, we asked it to think again, and as we have been forcefully reminded this evening, it did so and, by a slightly increased majority, again rejected the amendment providing the vote to 16 and 17 year-olds. Had the Bill returned to this House in the normal legislative procedure, I would have supported calling an end to the process.

Unfortunately, the waters have been massively muddied by the frankly rather risible invocation of financial privilege which the Government chose not to waive but rather to endorse. Someone will need to tell me how the authorities in the other place regarded a measure which we rejected some weeks ago, which involved the expenditure of many billions of pounds, as not covered by financial privilege whereas this one, which covers £6 million—and I do not imagine that the Government have underestimated the figure—falls within it.

[Lord Elton (Con)]

It seems that to a lot of noble Lords constitutional language is a foreign language that is not easily understood. I shall put what the Commons have said into English. It is, “You have asked us to think again. We have thought again several times. We are not going to change our minds, so please don’t waste any more time”.

[The Earl of Erroll (CB)]

Section 3 of the Parliament Act 1911 states:

“Any certificate of the Speaker of the House of Commons given under this Act shall be conclusive for all purposes, and shall not be questioned in any court of law”.

That being so, the only amendment we can go back with is one that does not involve any financial element. Otherwise the House of Commons will repeat that statement and the exercise is pointless. I have had amendments turned down on financial privilege over far less money than we are talking about here.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

I shall continue, but I say to the noble Lord, Lord Elton, that I have agreed with him. I have already stated that if this matter had come back to this House in the normal legislative procedure, without the invocation of financial privilege, I would have supported the Government, so I think I have been very clear on that point.

Financial privilege has been brought into the matter. I regret it very deeply. Frankly, the arguments, as just read out to us, amount to the Red Queen’s argument in Through the Looking-Glass: “It’s so, because I say it’s so”.

What I think is arising in this debate is a kind of reductio ad absurdum of the use of financial privilege. We have to realise that by that £6 million yardstick, pretty well every piece of legislation that comes to this House could be ruled as being covered by financial privilege. There really are not many pieces of legislation, although I am sure that someone will provide me with chapter and verse if there are, that do not involve a cost as modest as that. That makes it difficult for us because it sets a precedent with far-reaching and damaging implications for the future work and role of this House. That is where I concur entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Cormack. I do not yield to him in any way in his love of this House and his desire that we should be able to do our work properly but, with the best will in the world, and for the reason that I have given about financial privilege, I am afraid that I will not be willing, in these circumstances and for that reason alone, to support the Government if a Division is called.

[Lord Wright of Richmond (CB)]

My Lords, I am sure that I am not alone in thinking that I have now heard sufficient argument so that, if the noble Baroness decides to test the opinion of the House, I am ready to vote.

[Lord Faulks]

My Lords, that was a short but valuable contribution to the debate. I am very grateful to the noble Lord.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch (UKIP)]

My Lords—

[Noble Lords]

Minister!

[Lord Faulks]

My Lords, this has been an interesting and passionate debate. However, not much has been said about the amendment. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Ely, for setting out the thinking behind the amendment in her name, but I confess that I am somewhat puzzled by it. I appreciate that she has done what she can to minimise the cost to the public purse, but unfortunately this has left the policy in a fairly odd place, as I shall endeavour to explain.

The amendment would entitle those over the age of 16 to take part in the election if they were on the register for parliamentary elections. It goes on to say that steps taken to register eligible persons shall focus on 15 year-olds who will be 16 at the time of the referendum, and shall use low-cost means such as emails. The amendment would not enfranchise all 16 and 17 year-olds; it would enfranchise only those 16 and 17 year-olds eligible to be on the register for parliamentary elections, known as attainers. The formula for working out who is an attainer is surprisingly complex. It is set out in the Representation of the People Act 1983. A young person is eligible to be on the register for parliamentary elections if they will,

“attain voting age before the end of the period of 12 months beginning with the 1st December next following”,

the date on which an application for registration is made—that is to say, a person who will turn 18 during the year beginning 1 December following the date of the application.

The practical upshot of this is that there is a significant cohort of 16 year-olds who are not eligible to register for parliamentary elections. Because the legal definition of “attainer”, which defines who is eligible to register, is pegged to 1 December, the number of people who can register changes over time, but it means that there is never a period when all 16 year-olds can register, nor is there a period when any 15 year-olds can register. Bizarrely, therefore, the number of 16 and 17 year-olds who could vote would depend upon the date of the referendum. The closer it was to 1 December 2016, the fewer young people could take part—until 2 December, that is, when almost all 16 year-olds would be eligible. For example, a young person whose 16th birthday was on 23 November this year—a date that noble Lords may remember, as your Lordships were debating the Report stage of this Bill—would be able to take part in a referendum held before 1 December 2016, but their friend whose 16th birthday was today, only three weeks later, would not be able to take part in a referendum held before 1 December 2016.

This quirk makes the requirement to focus registration activity on 15 year-olds rather perverse. We would be left in the situation of being legally required to encourage the registration of 15 year-olds, despite there being no legal mechanism to register people aged 15 and despite the fact many people currently aged 15 will not actually be allowed to take part in the referendum. This is not a way to encourage democratic participation. The rules here are complicated because they are not designed to determine who may or may not take part in an election. They are designed to ensure an orderly administration of the electoral register. This is a wholly different thing and in no way suitable as a basis for the franchise.

I have been challenged at various times during the course of this debate on how I would explain a voting age of 18 to a 16 year-old. To turn this on its head, how would one reasonably explain this formula to a young person who would turn 16 shortly before the referendum? They ask the question, “Am I allowed to vote?”. The answer would be, “Have you got a moment? I’ve got an algorithm here, and I may be able to give you an answer in due course”. That is not a satisfactory way to make law.

The Government’s estimate of the cost of lowering the voting age for the referendum is in excess of £6 million. Most of these costs are created by the need to change the systems to deal with the addition of new young people to the registers, to register those young people, and by the increased activity by counting officers and regional counting officers to accommodate these additional voters. Of course, the noble Baroness’s amendment avoids the first two of these costs: no new people would be entitled to register for the poll, and the registration efforts must be “low-cost”. I have already explained that some of this low-cost effort will be expended on 15 year-olds who are not eligible to take part anyway. However, the amendment still expands the franchise and so expands the cost required to run the referendum. Counting officers and regional counting officers will have to take extra actions to accommodate the increased franchise. They will need to print more ballot papers and send additional postal ballots, for example, and the lead campaigners are entitled to a mailshot paid for out of the public purse; clearly, expanding the franchise means printing and sending more material.

The Government estimate that this amendment would cost the taxpayer an additional £2.8 million or £2.9 million, depending on when the poll is held. This figure is made up of the additional costs of running the referendum—printing ballot papers and so forth—and the additional cost of a bigger mailshot for the designated campaigns. There may be further additional costs, such as those relating to awareness raising amongst newly eligible voters, which we have not included in our estimates. Obviously I cannot say whether this infringes financial privilege. That is an assessment carried out by the clerks in another place, under the authority of the Speaker. However, it is clear, with great respect, that in seeking to reduce the cost the noble Baroness has had to make some rather on-the-hoof assessments of the costs.

For the reasons I have endeavoured to outline, the Electoral Commission has advised that it does not support this amendment. The briefing makes very clear that it does not have a policy position on the voting age but that if the voting age is to be changed, this is not a sensible way to go about it. The Electoral Commission notes that,

“only a small proportion of 16-year olds are currently eligible to be included in electoral registers”.

The commission is also concerned about the provisions on registration. It wants to be free to use “proven methods” to contact young people, such as by post, and warns that although email is widely used, it is,

“not yet a well-established method of encouraging electoral registration”.

The amendment requires a particular focus on registering 15 year-olds, which the Electoral Commission says could,

“lead to a significant proportion of the newly enfranchised group not being targeted”.

Clearly, this amendment is a deeply unsatisfactory way to go forward.

16:45

In conclusion, the role of this House is to scrutinise and revise legislation, to make amendments and to ask the other place to think again. I remind noble Lords that on many issues the other place has thought again. Indeed, I refer your Lordships to what was said by my honourable friend John Penrose. In introducing Clause 2 and the amendments, he said about the House of Lords that,

“I should begin by paying tribute to”,

the House of Lords,

“for their diligent and considered approach. For the most part, their scrutiny has been fruitful, and the Bill returns to the Commons improved in a great many ways”.—[Official Report, Commons, 8/12/15; col. 865.]

The House made changes on a wide range of issues, including: the provision of information to the public; the designation of just one lead campaigner; the rules around donations and loans; putting a 10-week minimum referendum period on the face of the Bill; and other, more technical recommendations of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. On every occasion, the Government and the other place stopped, listened to the arguments and did everything possible to accommodate the changes proposed.

This Chamber sent 46 amendments to the other place and only one has returned, so noble Lords cannot suggest that the Government have failed to listen. However, on this one issue when this House asked the other place to think again, the other place declined to change its position. Indeed, it has divided on the question of the voting age in one context or another five times since the Government were elected. Consistently, the other place has decided that the voting age should remain as it is. There can be very few issues on which the elected House has expressed such a clear view quite so many times in the short period that we have been in government. We should respect that decision. Debate and disagreement between the Chambers is a natural part of our system, but repeated stand-offs between the two Chambers are not good for the democratic process.

This is not a coherent amendment, and that, of itself, is a reason for rejecting it. However, I believe that the vast majority of your Lordships will be concerned for the reputation of this House. By gracefully accepting our limitations, that reputation will be enhanced. This is not the way to make law. We should accept what the other place has so clearly said.

[Baroness Morgan of Ely]

My Lords, we believe that we have challenged the question of the cost of the amendment. We also believe that our focus on targeting 15 year-old attainers does not preclude the targeting—through, in particular, work in schools—of 16 year-olds who currently do not come under the definition of attainers.

I make it clear to the noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, that the decision of the Speaker and the Clerk is not being questioned. However, we continue to want an answer on the issues of transparency and the minimum thresholds for when financial privilege, which can and will severely curtail the power of this Chamber, can be invoked. However, we accept the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, that this does not stop this House dealing with the merits of the amendment. We believe that there is an appetite in the country for the young to become more engaged in political debate. We believe that they are more equipped than any generation in history to become involved at the age of 16 in determining the future direction of their nation.

Young people are the future of this country. This is their one chance to have a say in the country’s relationship with the EU. It is an exceptional vote. We need to reach out to a new generation of voters to demonstrate to them that we have faith in them and that we respect their opinions. We have not been convinced by the arguments put forward by the Minister and we therefore wish to test the opinion of the House.

16:50

Division 1

Ayes: 246

---

Labour: 135
Liberal Democrat: 86
Crossbench: 11
Independent: 8
Plaid Cymru: 2

Noes: 263

---

Conservative: 200
Crossbench: 54
Independent: 3
Bishops: 1
Labour: 1
Ulster Unionist Party: 1
UK Independence Party: 1

Motion A agreed.

Welfare Reform and Work Bill

Monday 14th December 2015 Lords Chamber

Committee (3rd Day)

17:07

Relevant document: 13th Report from the Delegated Powers Committee

Amendment 57

Moved by

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

57: After Clause 15, insert the following new Clause—
“Review of application of sanctions
(1) The Secretary of State must, before the end of the financial year ending 31 March 2016, provide for a full and independent review of the sanctions regimes attached to working-age benefits, including but not limited to jobseeker’s allowance, employment and support allowance and income support, to determine whether they are an effective and proportionate means of meeting the Government’s objectives.
(2) The terms of reference for the review must include consideration of—
(a) the application of sanctions to lone parents with dependent children;(b) the application of sanctions to claimants who are disabled;(c) the effectiveness of sanctions in moving claimants into sustained work; and(d) any other matters which the Secretary of State considers relevant.”

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, I speak to Amendment 57, tabled in my name and that of my noble friend Lord McKenzie of Luton, and with the support of the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, and the noble Baroness, Lady Manzoor. Its purpose is to provide for a full, independent review of the operation of the sanctions regime, to determine the effectiveness of sanctions in moving claimants into sustained work as well as any adverse impact on particular groups. It echoes a recommendation made twice by the Work and Pensions Committee but rejected by the Government.

The Government gave three main reasons for rejection in response to the committee’s recent report on sanctions. First, they wanted the improvements already made to bed in. Welcome as the improvements may be, they do not meet all recommendations from either the committee or the earlier Oakley review. There is evidence from many quarters that problems persist. Secondly, the Government argue that international evidence is clear that benefit regimes tied to conditionality get people into work. Last week the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, pointed to how the international evidence is not unequivocally in support of the value of sanctions and getting people into sustained work and achieving positive, longer-term outcomes. In any case, I do not see the relevance to the case for a review of this sanctions regime. Similarly, the Government point to wide agreement that sanctions play a vital role in supporting conditionality—up to a point, provided they are,

“applied appropriately, fairly and proportionately”,

to quote the Work and Pensions Committee. But the whole point is that few agree that they are. That is why we need an independent review that goes beyond the narrow remit of the Oakley review, helpful as that was.

Last week the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope, referred to the toxic effect of sanctions. The noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, cited some of the evidence, drawing on her experience as a member of the Fawcett inquiry into the impact on women, particularly lone mothers, rather spoiling the rosy picture painted by the Minister on Wednesday night.

There is also evidence from a wide range of organisations, such as Gingerbread, Citizens Advice and local advice agencies, including an Advice Nottingham report I helped to launch the other day. More evidence has emerged since our last sitting from the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Hunger and Food Poverty, in the foreword to which the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury expressed shock at sanctions’ contribution to widespread hunger and reliance on food banks; and from Crisis, which published a study from Sheffield Hallam University that found that sanctions were leading to homelessness and exacerbating the situation of those already homeless, particularly those with mental health problems. I do not have time to document this evidence, but I want to interrogate some of the department’s responses to the Work and Pensions Committee’s recommendations, drawing on an analysis by Dr David Webster of Glasgow University, to whom I am indebted, as I am for his regular analysis of the sanctions statistics. I am glad to say that these show some improvement recently, but the rate remains well above the pre-2010 rate.

The response to the committee’s report was perhaps spun to give the impression that it had conceded rather more than it had. In particular, what was dubbed acceptance of a yellow-card system looks more like a deferred red card to allow for representations to the referee. I am sure my colleagues know that I do not normally draw on football metaphors. The recommendation was that the:

“DWP pilot pre-sanction written warnings and non-financial sanctions”,

for first-time incidents of non-compliance. The response was to,

“trial arrangements whereby claimants are given a warning of our intention to sanction, and a 14-day period to provide evidence of good reason before the decision to sanction is made”,

and to,

“provide further evidence to explain their non-compliance”.

That is a welcome improvement but I am sure noble Lords can spot the difference. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Freud, himself, in a previous role, called for first-time non-compliance to be met with a written warning rather than a sanction. The Oakley review called for the trial of non-financial sanctions for first-time failures. SSAC, too, favours such an approach.

In eliding it with a recommendation for an independent review, the department also rejected without explanation the call for an evaluation of the efficacy and impact of the four-week minimum sanction period under the 2012 Act, compared with a minimum period of one week. Perhaps we could have an explanation now.

The current chair of the Work and Pensions Committee has written to the Secretary of State to express his disappointment at the refusal to accept the recommendation on monitoring the destination of sanctioned claimants. As he argues:

“Monitoring employment outcomes is surely fundamental to understanding … the ultimate aim of getting claimants back into work and out of poverty”.

The Secretary of State’s response to this crucial recommendation referred simply to quality-assuring universal credit statistics, with a reference to other unspecified factors that might affect claimant destinations, which was not very encouraging. Surely the department wants to know whether sanctions are moving claimants into sustained work and what happens when they are not. The Crisis study found that, perversely, sanctions were pushing some of those affected further from the labour market and that homelessness service users were begging, borrowing and stealing to meet their daily need. Indeed, some actually said that they were trying to get put into jail because it would be better than destitution. Surely the department wants to know the impact on the health and well-being of those sanctioned and their families, which, again, the Crisis study and others have shown can be very negative. These are all issues that an independent review would address and that I really believe that the department itself surely wants to know the answer to.

17:15

I will finish by putting a human face on the operation of sanctions. I recently co-hosted with my noble friend Lord Beecham the presentation of a report, Our Lives: Challenging Attitudes to Poverty in 2015, which recounted 20 true stories, illustrating the damaging effects of previous social security reform and the endurance and efforts to survive of the people affected. One of the women whose stories were told, called Sally in the report, spoke at the meeting, which was also addressed by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Truro. People were very moved by her account of how her disabled son, who lived with her, was sanctioned. It is a shame that the Minister could not hear her, so I am enabling him—and her—to hear an edited version now.

Sally’s son had had extensive back surgery, which limited him in what he could do. He was forced to leave college in order to sign on. She explained that,

“once on JSA, Chris had no consideration shown for his condition, but was bullied and pressured and put down, judged. He was sent for jobs he could not do because of his back. The disability adviser was the same and no help. On the way to an appointment at the back to work scheme provider, his bus was held up with a number of roadworks and with no credit on his phone, he panicked. He arrived 10 minutes late and signed in at reception. The adviser sat glaring at Chris for a while as she typed away, before walking over to him and going at him verbally abusing him including a threat of a sanction. When the sanction happened I couldn’t believe it. In tears I asked an adviser what am I meant to do, chuck him out? She told me, ‘Fine, let us know when you’ve done it because we need to update the change of circumstances’. It was soul destroying. I had to support him on my benefits. I felt disrespected. They showed such callous, unfeeling indifference. In shock and shame and embarrassment, I went to a church food bank, their humanity and kindness and awareness of the huge struggles we all face made me weep. I still keep in touch with them.

Seven months later at the tribunal the papers clearly showed the adviser had lied [a regional manager of the work scheme provider had accepted that Chris should not have been sanctioned as he signed on but was just a bit late]. I felt sick to my stomach and really disturbed the whole time and I hated the politicians who spoke on the telly who strongly maintain that sanctions are rare, that it’s a last resort”.

She praised the tribunal and the food bank and finished by observing, “There but for the grace of God go any one of us in need”. Afterwards, when I asked her if I could have her speaking notes, because I said to her that I wanted to try to relay what she said to this House, she added—she said, “Please say this”, although she did not want to say it herself in the meeting—that her son had said to her at one point, “If it wasn’t for you, Mum, I’d throw myself on the tracks and kill myself”. This is what this inhumane system is doing to people. Its operation must be reviewed. I beg to move.

[The Earl of Listowel (CB)]

My Lords, I attached my name to this amendment because in past experiences of working with young people in hostels, I have often seen how the administrative machine makes mistakes and causes young people such hardship. On Friday I visited the First Love Foundation food bank in Poplar. I spoke with young people and families asking for help from the foundation. I heard that often, because of mistakes in sanctions, or because of sanctions, children were going hungry. I was also told of the case of a man who would be sanctioned if he failed to finish a course he was on, but who would also be sanctioned if he failed to attend the other course he was supposed to be doing. He was put in an impossible situation. This amendment is a reasonable request to make of the Government and I hope the Minister will accept it.

[Baroness Manzoor (LD)]

I accept everything the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, and the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, have said. The last time this Committee sat, noble Lords touched on the question of how we can learn lessons if we do not put reviews in place. If we do not review sanctions, how will the Government assess whether they have been effective or whether they can be adjusted to get people back into work? That is surely what it is about and why sanctions have been put there in the first place. We must have an independent review and I hope the Minister will look seriously at this issue.

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)]

My Lords, I do not object to reviews in principle. I have done some for the Government and I am now doing the official review of Part 2 of the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Act, which covers the impact on non-party political campaigning. They have a useful role and, in light of the work I have done for the Government, it would be strange if I objected in principle to what the noble Baroness and the other noble Lords proposing these amendments are saying. I leave aside the question of whether there is a real purpose here: the noble Baroness rather disregarded the Oakley review and other things as being of little value. If reviews are to have worthwhile purposes, they need to meet certain tests. Other noble Lords will have their own tests, but I will share three with the Committee this afternoon.

First is the question of timing. The full impact of legislation takes time to emerge. In these circumstances, we are obviously seeking to change people’s behaviour. Their first reaction may not be their last and further reactions—good or bad—may emerge over the months and years after the legislation comes into effect. The amendment suggests 31 March 2016 as the date by which the review must be set up into whether sanctions are an,

“effective and proportionate means of meeting the Government’s objectives”.

I doubt whether it is possible to adhere to that timescale and reach meaningful outcomes, given the complexity of the subjects we are discussing and the likely evolution of events and behaviours. I am therefore concerned about the timing.

The second question is about the remit, which is too narrow. Each statute contains a number of pieces, as in a jigsaw. If one piece of the jigsaw is moved, all the other pieces have to move as well. The amendment looks at just one piece and does not pay enough attention to the wider implications, strategic aims and objectives of the Bill as a whole. Its benefits and value suffer as a result of its proposers making it so narrow.

The third question is the terms of the review. To be worth while, a review has to be reasonably even-handed as it sets out. I notice that the word “sanctions” is used four times in the amendment. By no stretch of the imagination can “sanctions” be said to be a neutral word: it is a pejorative term. The review sets out with these terms in order to arrive at, and find, a particular outcome.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham (Lab)]

My Lords, does the noble Lord not agree that the word “sanctions” is employed in my noble friend’s amendment because that is the word the Government choose to use?

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts]

In these circumstances, a word such as “provisions” would be a better and more even-handed way of looking at the measure.

From my point of view, the timing proposed in the amendment is too soon, the remit is too narrow and the terms of reference are designed to achieve only one result. Therefore, I hope that my noble friend will reject it.

[Lord Beecham (Lab)]

My Lords, I also have a slight reservation about my noble friend’s amendment, but it is not the kind of semantic quibble which the noble Lord has just advanced, if I might term it that way. I would like to see the review of the out-of-work benefits regime and sanctions, which she rightly calls for, extended to certain other aspects of the welfare system as it is now operating.

In debates in your Lordships’ House, I have referred before to the area in Newcastle I represent as a councillor. It is a ward in the west end of the city with high levels of deprivation and a life expectancy 12 years lower than that of the area where I live, some 12 minutes’ drive away. The ward has six primary schools, two of which are Roman Catholic schools. All the schools, together with the Excelsior Academy, founded by a Conservative philanthropist, provide breakfast clubs for their pupils. The ward is served by the largest food bank in the country and poverty is a very real local issue.

On 26 November, I was contacted by a constituent, a single parent with two very young children, whose child tax credit payments had been stopped for eight weeks. The family was left with £33 a week child benefit and £117 a fortnight income support. The children’s milk tokens had also been stopped, and formula milk needed by one child who suffers from asthma could no longer be afforded. The parent of these children could not top up the gas meter, when required, to the usual extent.

Concentrix, the firm dealing with my constituent under contract to HMRC, had initially stated that it would take six weeks to check the eligibility for child tax credits. I forwarded the details and my reply to the constituent to the local Member of Parliament, and advised my constituent that I had done so and would also endeavour to take up the matter with the Minister. However, three days later, on 1 December, I was again contacted by my constituent, who told me that a further telephone conversation had taken place with Concentrix. The initial response—now nine weeks after payments ceased—was that inquiries were ongoing. A request was then made to speak to a supervisor. Initially, that led only to an assertion by the supervisor that the mandatory reconsideration was being carried out by another department which did not accept calls from claimants. However, after it was said in the course of this telephone conversation that the local Member of Parliament had been informed about the case, the problem was miraculously resolved and payments immediately resumed, even though for weeks Concentrix had claimed that this could not be done by the department to which the calls had been made.

This sorry saga raises serious questions about the administration of the child tax credit system in general, and by Concentrix in particular. Of course, it is right that claims should be validated, but your Lordships might think that even six weeks seems like a long time for payments to be suspended, let alone the nine weeks which had elapsed in this case and the even longer period which, but for the mention of the Member of Parliament, would otherwise have ensued.

There are also issues about the approach taken by Concentrix in dealing with the matter, not just the length of time taken. This US-owned company, another beneficiary of the passion for outsourcing these services, was featured in an article in the Independent in February. Staff claimed they were under pressure to start 40 or 50 inquiries a day into possibly fraudulent claims without any initial cause. In effect, they were asked to fish for fraud. As of August, the Mumsnet website carried 91 cases of applicants complaining about how they felt intimidated by the company’s approach and its demands, for example, for original documentation such as bank statements, rent payments or catalogue, fuel and other bills, which were often prefaced by unsubstantiated and false assertions that claimants were not lone parents but were living with someone.

All of this is symptomatic of a deeply troubling approach to an important component of our welfare system, or, as I prefer to characterise it, our system of social security, which in so many ways the provisions of this Bill threaten to undermine.

A week last Friday, I watched a recording of JB Priestley’s powerful and moving play “An Inspector Calls”, set more than a century ago, which deals with the tragic history of a young woman driven to suicide by poverty and the withholding of what was then known as poor relief. I am not, of course, suggesting that we are in a similar position today or that this Bill, however imperfect, will take us back there. But I believe it is time for an inspector to call not only on Concentrix but on HMRC, the department and the Government as a whole to review not just how the system is administered, but the implications for those in need of the policies embodied in this Bill.

17:30

I have already tabled a Written Question to the Minister to ask specifically about Concentrix. The question, which the noble Lord will no doubt be answering shortly in written form, so I do not expect him to answer it today, was:

“To ask … what provisions the contract with Concentrix regarding child tax credits and other benefits makes concerning the time within which decisions must be made about the eligibility for such benefits once they have been withdrawn, and … how the company has performed against any such requirements in respect of the number of cases in which that period has been exceeded”.

This is but one example of the potentially serious problems posed to people in dire circumstances by a system which relies on a commercial organisation performing what ought to be a public service as if it was a routine exercise under which it seeks to find, expose and penalise people who abuse the system, but in a way which causes distress and worse to people who are quite innocent of any such charge and who will be denied benefits, even for a period of weeks, before a decision is made.

In addition to the serious matters raised by my noble friend Lady Lister about sanctions in a slightly different context, I urge the Government to look very seriously at reviewing the operation of this system and, in particular, the operation of the company administering it, admittedly not on behalf of the Department for Work and Pensions but on behalf of HMRC.

[Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope (LD)]

My Lords, perhaps I may make two points on this very important subject, which will become more important as universal credit comes to be rolled out. That will happen significantly over the coming months and it is causing fear and anxiety that the sanctions regime, which at the moment affects individual benefits, as colleagues know, will start to be applied on a much wider scale on a wrapper which contains within it six benefits. The stakes are therefore a lot higher and, as I said last week and as the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, mentioned, I am getting strong signals that people are worried about universal credit, in a way that I hoped they would not be because of the extra 1 million people who will be embraced on full rollout. In steady state, universal credit will bring that new degree of conditionality, so we need to be careful to answer some of the questions that have been raised.

Some of the casework that we have heard about obviously needs to be thoroughly investigated, and we need to try to deal with that as much as we can. However, the issue for me is about working with interest groups, such as Gingerbread and others, to try to bridge the gulf—and it is a gulf at the moment—with what the Government say is actually happening. The noble Baroness, Lady Evans, did a valiant job against the clock last week in trying to set out what the Government believe to be the circumstances. I would just report that that explanation, while done in good faith, was met with incredulity by some of the specialists working in this field. It may be that they are dealing with families which are predisposed to the risk of the sanction effect, particularly in the lone-parent client category. But we really need to try to bridge the gap between what the Government think is happening and what the pressure groups, which we have all worked with for years and whose judgment I trust, feel is happening before universal credit gets too much further rolled out.

I am in favour of a review of the generic kind suggested by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister. Speaking for myself, what really needs to happen concerns decision-makers, particularly skilled and experienced decision-makers. The problem is that the people who I get access to in Jobcentre Plus offices are more likely to be experienced because, if I was the departmental manager, I would want visitors such as me to see experienced hands and I have been doing that for a long while, so I have factored that in. I am presupposing that the training and guidance have been rolled out properly; the departmental expenditure limit makes that harder and harder but the explanation of the noble Lord, Lord Freud, last week, which I accepted, was that you can front-load the staff because you save money on administration with the technology. But I am absolutely convinced that these decision-makers with experience are skilled and savvy enough to know whether a case in front of them is missing essential evidence. I do not think that they have enough discretion at the moment about freezing the application until they are satisfied that they have the information in front of them.

The trouble is that these cases are visited on them through the technology system, so they are not able to see the case all the way through in the way that case officers could in the old days. Jobs get passed around the system, which is technologically clever and efficient, but that deprives the decision-makers of being able to say “Look, there’s something missing here. I want this attended to, and within two weeks I need this other information. If it is absent, their sanction will be applied but if we can find it, I’d be much happier”. I do not think that that flexibility exists.

I know that the guidance is all online and people can see it, and that it all makes sense when read in a cold situation. But in a hot family situation, an experienced decision-maker should be given more latitude in looking at the papers which they have and estimating what other evidence, which because of their experience is likely to exist somewhere else, would make a difference. That would save a lot of money in successful appeals, which would be spawned once the evidence was received, and make the client’s experience a whole lot better. There are things that could and should be done, but my plea, as it is all through the Bill, is that we have to get these things straightened out to the best of our possible ability before universal credit is rolled out to 7.7 million households across the country by 2020 or thereabouts.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

My Lords, I would like to ask the Minister a question. Concerns have been expressed to me by legal advice centres and the local equivalents of CABs and so on. Anybody who is threatened with a sanction can obviously appeal or ask for a second opinion, and that would then go to an independent decision-maker. How long will that independent decision-maker take to arrive at their judgment? The advice I have been getting is that that is where it is being held up and that there are sometimes waits of six, eight, 10 or 12 weeks before a decision is made. As a result, there is a long queue for the independent decision-maker.

However, you cannot go to appeal, where the original decision may quite possibly be overturned, until it has been reviewed by the independent decision-maker. I am in favour of the department reviewing its own internal decision-making before we go through to the tribunal appeal process, but only if that is done speedily and competently, as well as fairly. Can we be reminded of those statistics, because I am advised in case after case that it is being used as a narrow gateway? It puts a lot of delay in and doubles the difficulties of the sanction procedure.

Then there is an entirely different question, not connected with that at all, which goes back to the Minister’s words towards the end of the last Committee day on work conditionality and sanctions and on the preparation for work interviews for those with a toddler aged two years or more—although the requirement to work does not bite until the toddler is three. Are people required to attend such work interviews or work preparation without their toddler? Consider a situation in which a lone parent has recently had to move, perhaps six months before, from a privately rented, mouldy property on an insecure tenancy to another property, and there is no support system in place. The little two year-old boy still does not speak, although he perhaps has the beginnings of a bit a temper. That child still needs to be fed and to have his nappies changed, but there is no local support network in place and the little boy has never been looked after by anyone other than his mother. Given that we are not talking about a work placement or continuous employment, as would happen when that toddler is three years old, but about attending, often on quite short notice, a work interview or work preparation training, may I have the Minister’s assurance that the lone parent may bring her two year-old toddler with her? In that case, are the jobcentres appropriately staffed and do they have provision for nappy-changing facilities and the like for such small infants?

[The Earl of Listowel]

May I correct something I said earlier? On my visit to the food bank in Tower Hamlets on Friday, the principal reasons given for people coming to food banks were mistakes in benefits and their own lack of knowledge about their entitlements; it was not to do with sanctions brought against them. I have checked my notes and apologise for my mistake.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)]

My Lords, I speak enthusiastically in support of Amendment 57, moved with her customary precision and passion by my noble friend Lady Lister. I am pleased that it also has the support of the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, the noble Baroness, Lady Manzoor, my noble friend Lord Beecham, and the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, with his particular focus on getting these things sorted out before we get fully into universal credit.

The amendment seeks a full and independent review of sanctions attached to working age benefits, with particular reference to their application to lone parents and disabled claimants. The review should also focus on the effectiveness of sanctions in moving claimants into sustained work. The noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, posed three tests for a review, based on timing, remit and even-handed terminology. I think that we have established that the terminology involved is that which the department itself uses. On timing, the issue here is that the hardship and detriment people are suffering because of the sanctions regime is happening to them now. They do not have the time to wait for a fuller, more extended review. On the remit, I doubt whether my noble friend would have great problems in seeing that expanded. We would be interested to know quite how much further detail the noble Lord wants.

The proposition follows a call from the House of Commons DWP Committee in its March 2015 report, referred to by my noble friend. We know the call has been rejected, but we hope that this debate will help the Government to change their mind. This is of course inextricably linked to conditionality issues, which we debated at some length on Wednesday. We can agree that conditionality has long been a component of social safety nets and needs a system to support compliance. But as the amendment makes clear, as did my noble friend in moving it, the system should be applied appropriately, fairly and proportionately, and with a clear focus on improving sustained employment outcomes. It should not be seen as a substitute for effective support to help individuals back into work.

We support the approach that says that the design and application of sanctions need to be considered alongside conditionality and employment support. The three go together. The coalition Government initiated the Oakley review, although as we have heard it was narrow in its remit. It focused on JSA claimants and back to work programmes, but the number of sanctions overwhelmingly associated with the Work Programme represented only some one-third of the total JSA sanctions in 2013.

17:45

So why a review now? There are a number of compelling reasons. The sanctions system was made significantly more onerous in the 2012 welfare reform legislation, with the higher-level sanctions potentially extended to three years. Perhaps the Minister can tell us how many three-year sanctions have been applied. Your Lordships will recall that at the time we were told there would only be a handful. How many have there been? We have JSA sanction levels amounting to 100% of the benefit, and there is a high threshold for access to hardship payments. There has been an unprecedented use of sanctions in recent years, with 6% of all claimants on JSA being sanctioned every month. In the space of less than three years, from October 2012 to 31 March 2015, 971,000 individual JSA claimants have been sanctioned—a truly staggering number.

There is concern that the sanctions system is actually discouraging claimants from staying on benefits. The share of the unemployed who are not claiming JSA continues to rise, meaning that such individuals not only are receiving no financial support but are not receiving any support to get back into work. It is also a matter of concern that a growing number of sanctions are being applied to people who have a health condition that limits their ability to work. The experience of ESA claimants appears to be overwhelmingly negative. Being sanctioned was found to have a series of so-called unintended consequences, pushing individuals into debt and hunger, straining relationships and exacerbating mental health problems.

There is evidence that young people are being disproportionately sanctioned. A report from Sheffield Hallam University, commissioned by Crisis, referred to an emerging evidence base that homeless service users are disproportionately affected by sanctions. They may be twice as likely to be sanctioned as the wider claimant population and this can be due to systemic and personal barriers rather than an unwillingness to comply.

There is also a series of horror stories that are received routinely in the postbags of MPs—reference to which was made when this issue was debated in another place. Specific cases were raised in your Lordships’ House last week and again today, including the harrowing examples given by my noble friends Lady Lister and Lord Beecham. There are always dangers in extrapolating from a few high-profile issues but the breadth of these examples is truly troubling. At the extreme, there are circumstances involving the suicide of claimants, and the department’s case for rejecting information about the circumstances where the claimant was subject to a benefit sanction is, frankly, pretty thin. Policy changes from such incidents are a proper area of inquiry.

There is also concern about the quality of some of the information emanating from the DWP on sanctions statistics. A leaflet had to be withdrawn because of manufactured comments. Changes to the way statistics are presented, as we have heard, have been recommended by the UK Statistics Authority following representations from Frank Field MP in his role as chair of the Select Committee. These touched upon multiple sanctions, where he pointed out that, for the application of more than a million low to intermediate sanctions and 137,000 decisions to apply high-level sanctions, there was no way of knowing for how long individuals had been without money. He also expressed concern about what happens to claimants once they have been sanctioned. What data does the Minister have which can help us on this point?

Prompted by Dr David Webster of Glasgow University, who we have heard about, the UK Statistics Authority is to write to the DWP—it may have done already—with a range of recommendations in an endeavour to obtain further clarity on what is actually happening on sanctions. This will include recommendations on repeat sanctions and hardship payments—at least a start to lifting the veil.

My noble friend has done us a service by bringing forward this issue. Given the pivotal role that sanctions are designed to play in helping deliver full employment and make progress in halving the disability employment gap, we need to be assured that the system is fit for purpose. An independent review must assist at this time. As my noble friend said, surely it is in the department’s interest to know, as well.

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)]

My Lords, the amendment, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, and supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Manzoor, the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, and the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, would put into statute an independent review of the sanctions system. However, we are not sure that that is necessary, as the Government already keep the operation of the sanctions system under constant review to ensure that it continues to function fairly and effectively.

There is clear evidence that sanctions are effective with more than 70% of JSA and more than 60% of ESA recipients saying that sanctions make it more likely that they will follow the rules, but, where we identify that there is an issue, we act to put it right. This is clearly shown in the improvements already made to the JSA and ESA sanction system following the recommendations of Matthew Oakley’s independent review last year. However, as I said, we do not stop reviewing the process to ensure that it is fair and effective. That is why we have accepted, or accepted in principle, many of the recommendations made by the Work and Pensions Select Committee’s recent report into sanctions.

The chair of the Work and Pensions Select Committee, the right honourable Member for Birkenhead, has welcomed our response and our willingness to work with the committee to ensure that the conditionality system works as it should. In our response to the committee, we announced that we will trial a sanctions warning system giving claimants a further two weeks to provide evidence of good reason before a decision is made. We believe that this will help to strike the right balance between conditionality and fairness.

I can confirm to the House that it is our intention that the trial will operate in Scotland from March 2016, running for approximately five months. A full evaluation of the trial will be undertaken, and findings will be available from autumn 2016.

The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, asked about the monitoring of the destinations of sanctioned claimants. DWP officials are currently quality-assuring the data for universal credit official statistics. As part of this review process, we will carefully consider the option of including destination data. We are not yet in a position to confirm which statistics will be provided in future.

We are also considering extending the list of JSA vulnerable groups for hardship payment purposes to include those with mental health conditions and those who are homeless. This will mean that these claimants can receive hardship payments from day one of their sanction, provided that they also meet the other criteria.

The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, also asked about sanctions being applied fairly. Any decision to sanction a claimant is not taken lightly, and there is a full and proper process that includes the claimant from the start. At the start of the claim, as noble Lords will know, all claimants receive a tailored claimant commitment, and the requirements take into account mental health conditions, disabilities or caring responsibilities. Any failure to meet a requirement is always thoroughly considered and claimants are given the opportunity to provide good reason for not complying before any decision to sanction is made by the decision-maker, but I will need to come back to the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, on the timescales that she asked about, because I do not have that information to hand.

The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, also mentioned the Crisis report. We absolutely understand that homelessness is a complex issue, and our priority is to ensure that individuals affected get the right support. That is why we have made more than £1 billion available to prevent and tackle homelessness and support vulnerable households since 2010, and we will continue to work closely with organisations such as Crisis to make sure that support is provided where it is needed most.

On the question of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, about lone parents being required to come to jobcentres without a toddler, no, requirements to attend appointments at the jobcentre should be tailored to take into account individual claimants’ caring responsibilities, and work coaches should be able to help to make appropriate arrangements, including helping to arrange appointments around childcare. I cannot speak about the range of facilities within jobcentres, but it is within the gift of the work coaches to be flexible in working with lone parents.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

So I have the Minister’s assurance that any lone parent who turns up with a toddler in tow will not as a result be sanctioned?

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

I have already said that I cannot speak to all the facilities, but as I am writing to the noble Baroness on a previous issue I will include that in that response.

It is important that we focus on ensuring that all the agreed recommendations proposed by the Work and Pensions Select Committee are delivered and can be embedded in the design and delivery of universal credit. To clarify for the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, I say that universal credit sanctions are just on the standard element, not on the whole amount. We believe that a call for a further independent review is unnecessary to embed this in legislation.

[Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope]

The noble Baroness said earlier that a pilot was being mounted in Scotland for five months. Is that for all of Scotland, or just individual areas within Scotland? I would be surprised if it was Scotland-wide.

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

No, it will be within a particular region of Scotland.

Sanctions play an important part in the labour market, encouraging people to comply with conditions which help them move into work. We want the sanctions system to be clear, fair and effective in promoting positive behaviours and we will continue to keep it under review so that it meets its aims, but also to ensure that it is flexibly delivered, as noble Lords said.

The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, asked about sanctions statistics. We will look carefully at the point raised and consider what further information is useful to inform public debate. We have made a start on this, and our statistical releases now include additional information on sanctions.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

Can the noble Baroness deal specifically with the issue of how many, if any, three-year sanctions there have been?

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

JSA sanctions continue to decrease, and the JSA monthly sanctions rate has slightly fallen—by 15%—over the past year. Each month, on average, 95% of JSA claimants comply with the reasonable requirements placed on them. On average, 5% of JSA claimants were sanctioned each month of last year. We can provide those figures; I will write to the noble Lord.

The noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, asked about the gulf between the department and what charities say about sanctions. I can only attempt to reassure him that officials are working closely with charities to investigate concerns. For instance, we have worked closely with Crisis and Gingerbread on improving communicating sanctions and will continue to do so. I will take the issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, back to the department, because I do not have some of the more detailed information that he was asking about.

On the basis of those responses, I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

I realise that this is a sensitive issue, but the amendment in the name of my noble friend has been tabled for some time on sanctions, time, efficaciousness and the need for a review. I would have expected in the Minister’s brief the detail of how many sanctions for how long, how long the decision-making is taking, the number of people going through as a result to appeal, and the results of the appeals. I would have expected two or three pages in her brief giving her the statistical detail which would empower her to answer many of the questions which, understandably, she is taking away today. I am surprised at that, because the amendment has been tabled for some time. The department will have the statistics, and they should have been made available to us in Committee, so that we have that material here today before we consider what we—and my noble friend in particular—may or may not do on Report.

I am in no sense criticising the Minister, but Ministers are coming to this House woefully underprepared with the information they need, which is of a detailed sort, to deal with the amendments being discussed. Members on the Opposition Benches have a right to expect Ministers to have that at their fingertips.

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Freud) (Con)]

My Lords, that was an unnecessary intervention. Most of the information that was asked for is available on public websites—in particular, on the question about the three-year sanctions. I will ensure that noble Lords have the address of that website to check.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

It should not be a question of going to a website. If a question is asked on the Floor of the House, and it is on a website, I would expect the Minister to have that detail in the briefing from the Box. That is their function—that is their job. I do not blame or criticise the Minister in any respect, but I would have expected a higher level of appropriate technical briefing for her, with which to equip her to answer what are obviously technical questions.

18:00

[The Earl of Listowel]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response on vulnerable groups, the mentally ill and others. Perhaps in the letter that the noble Lord has kindly offered to send me on care leavers, he can confirm that care leavers were flagged up in the welfare system and will get this special consideration before any sanction is made on them—and whether he might consider extending that. Currently, if a care leaver is participating in work or education, up to the age of 25, they are flagged up in the DWP system and special measures can be taken for them—but if they are not doing that, they do not get that support; it finishes at the age of 21. So 21 to 25 year-olds not in education or training are missing out. I encourage the Government to think about extending the kind of considerations to vulnerable groups that she was just describing to care leavers who are not in education or training but who would be called care-experienced adults. In a sense, they are the most vulnerable, because they are not in education or training but have been in care and face all the difficulties. I am sorry to speak for so long—but in that letter, I would appreciate some comments on that.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

I am very grateful to noble Lords who have spoken, particularly those who spoke in support of the amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, made the very important point that we need to be clear about this before universal credit is rolled out any further. Increasingly, I feel that we are in two parallel universes—the universe of those on the ground and the voluntary organisations and the universe of Ministers and officials. I am very glad that the Minister said that they are meeting to talk but, unfortunately, it seems as if they still operate within these parallel universes, where there is a completely different understanding of what is happening. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord McKenzie for the very comprehensive and thorough case that he made for an independent review. I am grateful, too, to the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, who said that he was not opposed in principle to reviews. Perhaps we could look again at his criteria.

My noble friend made the point about timescale—that people suffering as a result of sanctions need this review now. However, I am a very reasonable person and I accept that, by the time the Bill becomes law, it will not leave very long between that and the timescale in the amendment. I would be very happy to discuss with the Minister perhaps a more realistic timescale.

On the remit being too narrow, I say that the whole point of the criticisms of the Oakley review was that it was too narrow. Indeed, Matthew Oakley himself acknowledged the narrowness of his remit and suggested that perhaps something broader was needed. So I am delighted that the noble Lord would like a broader remit than the one suggested in the amendment. The point about the term “sanctions” has already been addressed, but I just wonder how many times the Minister actually used the word; it was probably at least as many times as in the amendment itself. Perhaps, given that the noble Lord does not oppose in principle the idea of a review, he might help me to produce a better amendment for Report, if we decide to come back to this issue.

I am grateful, too, to the Minister. She started by saying that she was not sure whether the proposal was necessary. That seemed a rather tentative statement about something so important because, on this side of the House, we are sure that it is necessary. We have heard from my noble friend Lord McKenzie and others why it is necessary. She did not seem to have taken on board what I said about the yellow-card system. I welcome what is proposed, but it is not exactly the original Work and Pensions Committee recommendation. I was a bit disappointed that she did not explain why there had been that unacknowledged shift from what had been recommended. Perhaps she could write to me, and pop the letter to other noble Lords who have spoken on the specific question that I asked, about why the Government have rejected the Work and Pensions Committee recommendation that there should be a specific evaluation of the efficacy and impact of a minimum of four weeks’ sanctions. That was rejected without any explanation in the response to the report. I asked for an explanation and would be very happy to have one in writing. That said, I am grateful to her for her response. I do not think that it will satisfy the kind of organisations mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, or the people living in the universe that is engaging on a day-to-day basis with claimants suffering as a result of sanctions. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 57 withdrawn.

House resumed.

Airport Capacity

Monday 14th December 2015 Lords Chamber

Statement

18:06

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport and Home Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)]

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in the other place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport. The Statement is as follows:

“With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a Statement about airport policy. Aviation is a British success story. Today we have the third-largest aviation network in the world, second only to the US and China, but with that success comes challenges. Heathrow is full; Gatwick is filling up. If no action is taken, the entire London system will be full by 2040. Yet we need new connections to new cities in new economies. There are other challenges, too. Airports create jobs and opportunities. Technology is changing. Planes are becoming quieter and more efficient. But there is still, inevitably, an environmental impact.

To some, the arguments seem simple—oppose all expansion anywhere, or back it, but always somewhere else. And yes, there are opportunities in our network of national airports, with global connections from cities such as Birmingham, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Manchester and Newcastle. But growth here will come alongside growth in the south-east, not instead of it. That is why in September 2012 Sir Howard Davies was asked to lead a commission on the issue. Its final report was published less than six months ago. It made a strong case for expansion in the south-east. We have considered the evidence. The Government accept the case for expansion, and accept the Airports Commission’s shortlist of options for expansion. We will begin work straightaway on preparing the building blocks for an airports national policy statement, in line with the Planning Act 2008. Putting this new framework into place will be essential groundwork for implementing the decisions we take on capacity, wherever new capacity is to be built. That is the issue I want to turn to now.

Sir Howard Davies and his team produced a powerful report. Heathrow Airport Ltd’s scheme was recommended by the Airports Commission, but all three schemes were deemed viable. We are continuing to consider all three schemes, and we want to see action, but we must get the next steps right, both for those keen to push ahead with expansion and for those who will be affected by it. So we will undertake a package of further work.

First, we must deal with air quality. I want to build confidence that expansion can take place within legal limits, so we will accept the Environmental Audit Committee’s recommendation to test the commission’s work against the Government’s new air quality plan. Secondly, we must deal with concerns about noise. I want to get the best possible outcome on this for local residents, so we will engage further with the promoters to make sure the best package of noise mitigation measures are in place. Thirdly, we must deal with carbon emissions, so we will look at measures to mitigate carbon impacts and address the sustainability concerns, particularly during construction. Fourthly, we must manage the other impacts on local communities. I want people who stand to lose their homes to be properly compensated for the impacts of expansion, and I want local people to have the best access to the opportunities that expansion will bring, including new jobs and apprenticeships. So we will develop detailed community mitigation measures for each of the shortlisted options.

We expect to conclude this package of work by the summer. Crucially, this means the timetable for delivering additional capacity set out by Sir Howard does not alter. The commission reported that an additional runway would be required by 2030, and we intend to meet that. In saying this, I am fully aware that some will wish we could go further and others will wish we were not making such progress. We are prepared for that because I want to get this decision right. That means getting the environmental response right and in the mean time getting on with the hard work to build new capacity to the timetable set out by Sir Howard in the commission’s report. I commend this Statement to the House”.

My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

18:10

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made in the other place this afternoon by the Secretary of State. It is typical of this Government that they should make the announcement that the commitment the Prime Minister gave to make a decision this month no longer stood, at a time when Parliament could not be told and was not in a position to hold the Government to account for nearly four days. I do not intend to spend any time on the entirely credible point that this Government’s decision to delay on a matter of national interest—not simply that of London and the south-east—is rooted in their own party political considerations, even though the Minister must know that has been an important factor.

I have one or two points to make, and then I have a number of questions. As recently as 23 November, in response to a Question from the noble Lord, Lord Spicer, the Government repeated the Prime Minister’s assurance that a decision on London’s airports would be made before Christmas. When another noble Lord asked for confirmation that that decision would be final, not simply interim, he was told by the Minister that the Government’s position had been made clear and that he was clutching at straws. As we now find out, just three weeks later, he was in reality clutching at incredibly strong straws.

One area where this Government and their Prime Minister are extremely decisive is when it comes to avoiding decisions. Airport capacity in the south-east is simply yet another such case. Bearing in mind that the Government recently repeated the Prime Minister’s assurance that a decision would be made before Christmas, what issue has arisen or what information has come to light between 23 November and last Thursday evening, 10 December, that is of such significance as to require a further delay in making a decision, and yet was not known about before 23 November and could not, and did not, come to light during the lengthy consideration by the Davies commission or in the six months since the commission published its findings and recommendations? That is six months during which the Government have been considering the findings and recommendations of the Davies commission report, including on environmental considerations and air quality, for which the commission said there should be statutory guarantees. The items to be looked at, as set out in the Statement, are not new. They should have been being looked at during the past six months, and should have been known about when the Government gave a commitment to make a decision this month.

What specific further investigations or studies do the Government now intend to undertake to enable them to come to a decision, who will undertake those and within what timescale? Will the Government give an assurance that the results of those further studies and investigations will be made public well before a final decision is made? Will the Davies commission be asked to consider them, and say whether they would have led it to reach different findings or recommendations, with the views of the commission again being made public well before a decision is made by the Government?

We agree that there is a clear and immediate need for additional runway capacity in the south-east of England and a need to ensure that environmental and community concerns are balanced against the economic and operational case for expansion. The Government recently announced the setting up of the National Infrastructure Commission, headed by the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, to provide independent, authoritative advice on the merits and compatibility of major infrastructure projects, including when they need to be undertaken. Will the Minister say why the Government believe that the lengthy indecision over future airport capacity and additional runways we have faced and continue to face would have been avoided under the new National Infrastructure Commission? What would have been different had the National Infrastructure Commission been in existence earlier? In view of the further government delay of many months in reaching a decision, will the Minister indicate whether the Government will now take the opportunity to seek the views and advice of the National Infrastructure Commission on the most appropriate long-term decision on airport expansion in the south-east?

Will the Minister confirm what, if anything, the Government are committed to in relation to increased airport capacity in the south-east? Are they committed to at least one additional runway somewhere in the south-east? Significantly, the Statement does not directly answer that question. Will the Government also say when they expect to announce a decision? The Statement does not specifically say when there will be such a decision, only when the Government expect a package of work to be concluded, which is a totally different issue.

We appear to have moved backwards in time, because the Government have indicated that the option of an additional runway at Gatwick is still in the frame, as well as that of a third runway at Heathrow, as recommended by the Davies commission. The uncertainty and blight for those living near Heathrow and Gatwick continue for an apparently potentially lengthy period, as it does for the less than impressed business community, which is worried about the impact on the economy.

Finally, we are still left to deal with the immediate problems of airport capacity in the south-east. Heathrow is effectively full, and Gatwick is operating at 85% capacity. What, if any, plans do the Government now have to ease this problem, which is already having adverse impacts? In the light of the apparent further lengthy delay in making a decision—which simply adds to the delay caused by the time it took to set up the Davies commission, and the decision that its report and recommendations should not appear until after the general election—do the Government intend to address the lack of capacity in the south-east as it stands, bearing in mind that additional capacity is clearly some considerable time away?

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

The Minister has my sympathy this evening because this delay is clearly all about Zac and Boris and has nothing to do with the need to look at air quality in greater detail. However, it gives us an opportunity to push the Government on the issues mentioned in the Statement and to test them. Surface transport access to Heathrow and Gatwick airports is an essential part of solving this problem, yet there is no reference to issues relating to it in the Statement. Will the Minister say whether there will be public investment in the surface transport infrastructure that is badly needed, or only private investment by Heathrow and Gatwick airports? Heathrow seems to believe that public investment will be needed; Gatwick seems to believe that it will not. I will be grateful for the Government’s take on this issue.

Given the further delay to which the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, just referred and the pressure it will cause, will the Government agree to look again at the increased use of regional airports alongside the work they are doing on the Davies solutions to airport capacity? Hub airports have moved on. We are in danger of answering yesterday’s question today; indeed, in the case of Heathrow, we are in danger of answering the day before yesterday’s question today, because this saga has gone on for so long. Dubai and Schiphol are now well established as the world’s hub airports, and a new generation of planes makes certain aspects of this issue redundant, so this question could be overtaken by events.

The Liberal Democrats have always believed that there needs to be much better use of existing spare capacity, which will need better surface connection before we expand Heathrow or Gatwick in the near future. However, if there is to be another air quality report, who will do it, to whom will it report and will that report be published in full? Any additional work on air quality must have greater public confidence than the work the Davies commission was able to produce.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord and the noble Baroness for their contributions. The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, asked a series of questions about the responses given in November and subsequently, and what factors have been considered. As I have said, we are emphasising the importance of environmental considerations regarding both air quality and other pollution, such as noise pollution.

One significant development, which I am sure the noble Lord is aware of, is that on 26 November a decision was taken by the Environmental Audit Committee specifically on outlining the need to ensure that, whatever decision is taken:

“On air quality, the Government will need to re-examine the Commission’s findings in the light of its finalised air quality strategy”.

I pick up the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, on the specific issue of air quality. The commission published a large amount of analysis on air quality and greenhouse gas emissions. We will therefore accept the committee’s recommendation to test the commission’s work against the Government’s new air quality plan, which I am sure she is aware will be published very shortly. We will develop measures to mitigate impacts on local people and the environment.

The noble Baroness rightly raised the important issue of surface access to airports. The Government have a plan for investment in road and rail transport networks to promote growth. The Government’s road strategy for 2015-20, which I am sure she is aware of, includes investments that will improve strategic road access to Gatwick, Manchester, East Midlands, Birmingham, Heathrow and Stansted airports. I know that she has mentioned, and is a strong advocate for, regional airports, which I also support. I have always said that they are part of the overall offering of UK plc when it comes to airport capacity.

The noble Baroness may well also be aware that, as part of the Thameslink programme, we will deliver new state-of-the-art trains on the line between Brighton, Gatwick Airport and London by 2016. By 2018 these trains will start operating on two direct services connecting Gatwick to Peterborough and Cambridge, following the completion of the Thameslink programme. Turning briefly to Heathrow, I am sure noble Lords will be aware that in 2019 Crossrail will start running to Heathrow Airport and improve access to London City Airport from the west. Most recently, there have been improvements to the station at Gatwick as well. I am sure that noble Lords acknowledge that surface transport is an important part of whatever final decision is taken.

The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, asked various questions, such as what additional steps may be taken with regard to the final decision that we will be moving to. I mentioned in my Statement that we are looking to move forward on this and come to our conclusions by summer 2016. In terms of reviewing the position on all three options, we will be giving further policy consideration and prioritisation to the commission’s package in respect of both Heathrow and Gatwick. We want the best deal for all affected communities, as I said, particularly on the areas of noise mitigation, including respite; air-quality mitigation strategies related to that; offers to local communities, which I mentioned in the Statement, specifically relating to compensation and job opportunities in terms of apprenticeships and employment; wider housing issues and infrastructure considerations; and of course the importance of carbon impact mitigation and sustainability, particularly during the construction phase. We will also be considering how to engage with and take account of community and wider aviation views. There will of course be further engagement with scheme promoters on expansion, specific mitigations, public commitments and the potential to maintain some competitiveness between the different options.

As I have said, the Government have moved forward on this. We have agreed with the Davies commission conclusions, which did not rule out any of the three options. We sustain these and continue to work on ensuring that the important issues of noise mitigation and wider environmental impacts are duly considered as part of the Government’s decision.

18:25

[Lord Spicer (Con)]

My Lords, “Zac 1, United Kingdom 0” just about sums up my own view about the present situation, although I have to say that the Opposition are not throwing any particular light on the issue or coming up with any solutions of their own. Would the Minister at least concede that if this goes on for much longer, Heathrow Airport will drop out of the premier league of international airports; that Britain will be an island without an airport entry point commensurate with its economic size; and that the loss of jobs and investment will be massive, just at the time when some people think there is going to be an economic recession? Is this not a rather serious situation?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

I thank my noble friend for his questions. He has been a consistent and vociferous questioner on this issue; indeed, he has another Question on the subject on Wednesday. He mentioned a particular scoreline. To get political for a moment, I certainly hope that there is a 1-0 scoreline when it comes to the May election in favour of my honourable friend in the other place.

My noble friend talked about the impact on the economy. I agree with him, and the Government feel very strongly that there is a need to make a decision that is based on the right decisions for the economy, the country and, as I have said specifically in my Statement, the environment.

We are now well connected. As my noble friend points out, there are constraints and they are beginning to bite. By 2040, all major south-eastern airports will be full. Failing to address this would cost passengers between £21 billion and £23 billion, and of course there would be wider indications for the economy, estimated to be in the region of £30 billion to £45 billion. However, with regard to the timetable of summer 2016 that I have talked about, the Davies commission reported that, whatever decision or option was chosen, we would need to complete by 2030. I assure the noble Lord that this would still allow for that decision to be taken and the appropriate expansion to take place in good time to meet the 2030 deadline.

[Lord Clinton-Davis (Lab)]

My Lords, this is an absolute abdication of responsibility. British aviation has been put in a secondary position compared with other vital industries. What has been advanced is the interests of the Conservative Party, and as a result our competitors are going to be richly rewarded. Putting aside the Minister’s discomfort, should we not consider how best British aviation can recover from this grievous blow? Meanwhile, words hurriedly uttered by the Minister are no alternative to government policy.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

I assure the noble Lord that we are moving forward. I have talked of the timetable that we are moving to. As I said earlier, it will ensure that we meet the required deadline. Whatever decision is taken, the Government have accepted in principle the findings of the Davies commission. Three options were put forward and none was discarded by the commission. We are ensuring that all three stay on the table, and we are firmly committed to south-eastern airport expansion. The important thing is to ensure that all considerations are taken into account. With the timetable that we have outlined, we will be able to proceed forward. It will be a great asset for UK plc to ensure that we reach a decision quickly on south-eastern airport expansion capacity in summer next year.

[Baroness Valentine (CB)]

Does the Minister understand how deeply frustrated the business community feels about this further delay? We had a three-year independent commission, which was supposed to take the politics out of it, but it has come back into political soup. It appears that the Government have answered the interim report of two years ago, which suggested that we focus on three options and that we accept that there was a need for expansion in the south-east. I do not understand what progress has been made in the last two years. In the interim report there was a recommendation for an independent noise ombudsman to sort out the noise issues. We have known for 15 years that we are in breach of European air-quality limits in London. It is simply unclear to me what the Government have been doing for the last three years.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

We are moving forward. We will begin work straightaway on preparing the building blocks for an airports national policy statement, as I said in my earlier Statement; that is the most appropriate vehicle to set the framework for the planning consent for new capacity. Noble Lords should be assured that, with the proposals we are moving forward on and the important consideration being given to environmental impacts, we will still be able to move forward on whatever decision is taken in line with the Davies commission proposals.

[The Lord Bishop of Bristol]

My Lords, can the Minister comment on the remarks made by the chief executive officer of International Airlines Group, who said that as far as the airlines are concerned there is basically no business case at all for the extension of Gatwick? When he focused his comments on the Heathrow proposal, he said that the runway would cost £182 million but the total cost would be somewhere around £18.6 billion. He went on to say that this is a,

“gold-plated airport to fleece its customers”,

and that he would consider moving his business either to Madrid or Dublin. If we are to spend all that money on one of these options and if the response of the airlines is to move business away, with the attendant jobs, will the Minister say something about that to your Lordships’ House?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

The right reverend Prelate raises the media report of comments made over the weekend by the chairman of IAG, which I have read. I assure the right reverend Prelate that we continue not just on this issue of airport expansion in the south-east but meet regularly with all airlines to ensure that, as we plan our infrastructure and how we plan to move forward on this agenda, airlines are part and parcel of our consultation. Obviously, the chairman has made some comments on issues he feels strongly about, but perhaps it would be inappropriate to speculate on the true intent behind his comments.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as a regular flyer from Scotland to London who avoids Heathrow at every possible opportunity because of congestion, and as a member of the Economic Affairs Committee, which interviewed Sir Howard Davies when he published his report. Can my noble friend say how much the Davies report cost? Given that it was a very expensive, thorough and authoritative report, what is the point of commissioning a report which makes a clear recommendation, at very considerable cost to the taxpayer, and then ignoring it?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

If I may, I will write specifically on the issue of cost, but it is not being ignored; estimates have been made of that. The important point my noble friend raises is about the commission. Yes, the previous Government initiated the commission in 2012. As I have said previously from this Dispatch Box, we have committed ourselves to ensuring that the report of the commission is duly considered, which we are doing and have done since its publication, and that will form the basis of however the Government choose to proceed. We are not discarding the findings of the Davies commission—on the contrary, we are supportive of them and are ensuring that all elements raised within the Davies commission and through the Audit Committee’s recent report are built into our response. We will move forward in a positive frame in that regard in the summer of next year.

[Lord Soley (Lab)]

My Lords, this is government with a vengeance: everything to do with the date of the mayoral elections in London and nothing to do with the environment. This has been trawled over for years. I will ask the Minister two specific questions. First, if the Government are going to resurrect the Gatwick proposal, has Gatwick local authority been consulted on the amount of storage space that will be required for all the cargo that arrives? Secondly, and very specifically—this is particularly important for the rest of the UK economy—have the Government taken into account the impact on the regional airports in the regions of Britain if Heathrow does not get that extra runway, thus enabling those regional airports to link into the global economy? Without that, there will be immense damage to business.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

The noble Lord raises an important point about air freight, which of course contributes over 40% of the UK’s non-EU trade and over £140 billion in total, which is a very important part of the offering. As the noble Lord rightly pointed out, this is an important issue and one of the many factors we are considering. We will be working on the proposals in front of us from the Davies commission to ensure that the best decision is taken for expansion of airport capacity in the south-east. It is an important consideration and it will be part of our discussions going forward.

[The Duke of Somerset (CB)]

My Lords, might the Government consider spreading the pain and pollution by treating both Gatwick and Heathrow as just different terminals of the same London airport? A new runway at Gatwick, linked by dedicated high-speed rail link, might solve many of the problems that have been outlined this evening, as well as joining up the rail system with the other improvements that the Minister alluded to earlier.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

The Davies commission put forward distinct proposals on south-east airport expansion. The important thing he raises, which the Government are fully committed to, as I have said earlier, is that when it comes not only to our airports in the south-east but our airports across the UK, we need to look at increased connectivity through surface transport. Indeed, a greater level of investment is going on through Crossrail, and the development of HS2 will ensure that our connectivity across our airports across the United Kingdom will be much stronger to allow for greater contributions to be made to economic development and to allow one airport to complement the other.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)]

My Lords, the Minister has made much of the need for more capacity in the south-east and in the London system. Will he at last take the opportunity to acknowledge the role that London Luton Airport can play in delivering that extra capacity? In 2011, Luton accounted for 7% of passengers at London airports and on DfT forecasts it will contribute 17% of London passenger growth by 2030. While the Government have been dithering, a local public/private partnership has been getting on with investing £13 million, and will have invested up to £18 million by 2020. Will the Minister at last just acknowledge that that is a real contribution?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

The noble Lord has asked me “at last” to acknowledge that, but I have previously done so and acknowledge again that London Luton Airport continues to be an important part of the UK plc airport offering. As he has just outlined, it has been a successful part of that contribution and I am confident that that contribution will grow in the months and years ahead.

[Lord Empey (UUP)]

My Lords, will the Minister not accept from me that even if a third runway at Heathrow or wherever were to be paved with gold, it matters little to some of us who cannot get access to it? The right reverend Prelate made the point about the comment made by the chief executive of IAG, which is only one comment. But the Minister will know of my interest in this matter; the regions do not have guaranteed access to a major piece of national infrastructure, and through European law the Secretary of State has no power to do anything about it and ensure access. Can the Minister revisit this issue, because it is fundamental? If it is a national piece of infrastructure, all parts of the nation should have access to it, but currently his department has no control over that.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

I know that the noble Lord has raised this issue before and, again, I assure him that the Government have an answer to this. If a particular route is affected—for example, Gatwick to Newquay—the Government have stepped in when public concern has been expressed and have guaranteed support and financing for the route. We continue to ensure that all routes that need to be supported are supported. The Government take very seriously connectivity across the whole of the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland.

[Lord Hughes of Woodside (Lab)]

My Lords, the Statement says:

“We expect to conclude this package of work by the summer”.

I take it that that is not a firm promise, as the Prime Minister said from the Dispatch Box that the decision would be made by Christmas. For the avoidance of doubt, for clarity and to stop this whole thing becoming a total Whitehall farce, will the Minister say when exactly we can expect to get this report?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

I think I have been clear in saying that it will be by the summer. If the noble Lord is asking me to specify the year, I do mean the summer of 2016.

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I remind the House of my interest as leader of a London borough council. Like hundreds of thousands of other Londoners, I welcome this stay of execution on Heathrow, although I see two nooses still hanging in the yard. The Minister referred to air quality and noise. A bigger Heathrow would fail on those. I put to him also the issue of security—it would be foolishness to fly another quarter of a million flights over our capital—and that good old Conservative principle of competition. How on earth can it be in our national interest to load more, as the right reverend Prelate reminded us, on to a single monopoly airport owned by foreign interests and hedge funds—our fair-weather friends in China and Qatar? Is not the truth that the Prime Minister took the right decision in 2010 with “no ifs, no buts”? Perhaps we should have got on with building the alternative then, and we should certainly do so now.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

The analogy with nooses that my noble friend draws is certainly not how I or the Government view it. This is an opportunity to expand airport capacity in the south-east, which is a central part of ensuring the growth of our country and our future development. As I said, it is important that we listen to all views—the Airports Commission produced a very detailed and thorough piece of work—and that we consider all environmental impacts, including air quality, noise and carbon emissions. I know that my noble friend has made representations in this regard and we are listening to those representations. It is important that we make the right decision for the south-east, for our country and for moving our economy forward.

[Lord Birt (CB)]

My Lords, someone coming anew to this debate and hearing the Minister’s opening remarks might think that Sir Howard and his colleagues set out three options, weighed them immaculately and left the choice open. It is hard to imagine a more thorough report than he and his colleagues wrote or a clearer conclusion and recommendation. What were the shortcomings in the report that have occasioned this delay? What did the commission not make clear?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

One issue, which I mentioned earlier and which was referred to by the Environmental Audit Committee, was the need to ensure that air quality standards are applied to each proposal within each of the options that we are considering. We feel quite strongly that those need to be considered, reviewed and analysed so that we make the right decision on the basis of not just the economy but important environmental considerations.

[Lord West of Spithead (Lab)]

My Lords, the failure to take this decision is seemingly either mind-blowingly incompetent or amazingly cynical. We have now had longer than the duration of the Second World War to think about this. As the noble Baroness said, in the last two years we seem to have gone round in circles. As I cannot believe that any Government would be so cynical over something so important for the wealth of our nation, I have to assume that it is mind-blowing incompetence. Will any heads roll in the Department for Transport because of this incompetence and failure to make a decision?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

I totally disagree with the noble Lord. I do not think that it is either of the issues he proposed. I am sure he will recognise that it is important that these decisions are considered: they have to be the right decisions based on all the issues in front of us. The environment and environmental issues have been raised, and these are important considerations to ensure that we get the required expansion. I will be absolutely clear. I mentioned the summer of 2016. That timetable will in no sense delay the proposals in the Davies commission for achieving extra capacity by 2030.

[Lord Kilclooney (CB)]

My Lords—

[Earl Attlee (Con)]

My Lords—

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

I believe that it is the turn of the Conservatives.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, can the Minister now answer the question from the noble Lord, Lord Rosser? What has changed since the Government told the House that we would have a decision before Christmas? Or is it merely that the Cabinet as a whole lacks the moral courage to make the decision?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My noble friend has said something that I cannot agree with—and nor do I agree with it on principle. The Government have moved forward. We have agreed that airport expansion will take place in the south-east, and I am sure that he will acknowledge the importance of the environmental considerations. I said specifically that in the interim, on 26 November, we received a reasonable and full assessment from the Environmental Audit Committee and I quoted from its report. I commend the report to my noble friend, as he will see that we need to ensure that all the key environmental considerations are taken into account in making the final decision.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, perhaps I may correct an earlier omission in not drawing attention to my aviation interest in the register.

Welfare Reform and Work Bill

Monday 14th December 2015 Lords Chamber

Committee (3rd Day) (Continued)

18:46

Amendment 58

Moved by

[Lord Low of Dalston]

58: After Clause 15, insert the following new Clause—
“Safeguarding of vulnerable claimants: guidance
(1) The Secretary of State shall issue statutory guidance for the safeguarding of vulnerable claimants in relation to any sanction, reduction of benefit, or disallowance of benefit (“the guidance”).
(2) The guidance shall incorporate all relevant provisions and operational protocols contained in the following Departmental operating guidance—
(a) procedural guidance within the Labour Market Conditions Guide;(b) universal credit guidance for agents;(c) Employment and Support Allowance (ESA) guidance for Jobcentres;(d) ESA operational guidance for benefit delivery centres;(e) ESA Incapacity Reference Guide;(f) Core Visits Guide;(g) Work Programme guidance;(h) guidance for health professionals.(3) The guidance shall specify—
(a) indicators of vulnerability and procedures for identification of vulnerable claimants;(b) situations which may demonstrate good cause for inability to participate in a work-focused interview, undertake work-related activity, or attend mandatory Work Programmes or back-to-work schemes;(c) where claimants must be referred for a Core Visit conducted by a Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) Visiting Officer;(d) how to support claimants with additional or complex needs;(e) liaison arrangements with mental health services where claimants are mental health service users; (f) collaborative approaches through which DWP can work with independent advice and support bodies in assisting such claimants;(g) who is responsible for ensuring that the guidance is complied with.(4) “Vulnerability” and “vulnerable claimants” shall be taken to refer to individuals who are identified as having complex needs or requiring additional support to enable them to access DWP benefits and use DWP services.
(5) Complex needs may refer to difficult personal circumstances, life events, or health, disability or incapacity conditions that affect the ability of individuals to access DWP benefits and services.
(6) In issuing the guidance the Secretary of State shall ensure consistency of definitions, terminology and language in the guidance.
(7) The Secretary of State shall ensure that consistent principles, good practice and fairness in safeguarding procedures is applied across all types of benefit claims, including Jobseeker’s Allowance claims, and by all agents involved in the assessment and administration of benefits.
(8) The Secretary of State shall report to Parliament annually on the application of the guidance.”

[Lord Low of Dalston (CB)]

My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendment 62. At Second Reading I spoke about two issues that had been highlighted for me by my work as chair of an independent commission which had been considering the future of advice and legal support on social welfare law in England and Wales: how to protect the most vulnerable from the worst effects of sanctions, and how claimants might get the advice and support they need to adjust to the changes brought about by welfare reform legislation. Amendment 58 deals with the first of these and Amendment 62 with the second.

Operational guidance has been developed over a number of years to build some minimum safeguards into the application of conditionality-based decision-making—for example, in dealing with claimants with serious mental health problems or cognitive impairments. It has been evolved in a piecemeal fashion around certain minimum requirements covering, in broad terms: the identification of claimants with mental health conditions or a background of mental illness and liaison with social and mental health services, with such cases referred to a higher managerial decision-maker before a benefit withdrawal decision is made; the requirement for the DWP to consider any good cause as to why a claimant may not have met a particular condition; and a requirement for the DWP to attempt to contact the claimant, conduct a face-to-face discussion about the conditionality and, if necessary, arrange a home visit if they do not accept that good cause.

Welfare reform legislation and new policy on sanctions since the 2012 Act in particular has complicated matters, although the same guidance on minimum requirements carries over to a significant extent. The guidance is, however, piecemeal and scattered over several different operational guidance manuals, each with subtle differences in language and terminology, leading to application and practice that is far less consistent than it should be. Overall, this has meant that the guidance is weaker in its application to new JSA claims—in fact, there is no JSA-specific guidance—universal credit claimants and clients of Work Programme providers.

Welfare rights workers can also point to numerous cases where the DWP has failed to apply safeguards correctly, especially following ESA work capability assessments. The consequences for vulnerable claimants can be devastating. In its inquiry on benefits sanctions beyond the Oakley review, the Work and Pensions Select Committee concluded that:

“Given the complexity of the existing legislation, there is a strong case for a review of the underpinning legislative framework for conditionality and sanctions, to ensure that the basis for sanctioning is clearly defined, and safeguards to protect vulnerable groups clearly set out”.

The Select Committee further recommended strengthening and clarifying guidance around the protocols and purposes of home visits or core visits. It also recommended better guidance on vulnerability specifically directed to Jobcentre Plus staff in identifying vulnerable JSA claimants, including those with mental problems and learning difficulties who may face difficulties in understanding and/or complying with benefit conditionality.

I have a number of cases that illustrate the need for a stronger legal framework to protect vulnerable claimants in situations where they potentially face sanctions. Given the time, I will mention only one, but it graphically makes the point. Mr D had his ESA stopped after failing to attend a work capability assessment. The DWP was aware of his history of mental ill health and that he was receiving support from his local NHS mental health service. However, it did not carry out safeguarding procedures and did not attempt to contact his local NHS mental health service to find out more about the risks to Mr D’s health if his income were to be stopped. After benefit was stopped, Mr D’s mental health deteriorated and he became suicidal. His psychiatrist assessed that the benefits stopping was a stressor that put Mr D at severe risk of suicide. Mr D was assisted in contacting the advice service by his psychiatric nurse. After the advice service challenged the DWP on its handling of the case, benefit was reinstated and Mr D was placed in the support group of ESA.

Amendment 58 would address the state of the guidance and the recommendations of the Select Committee by inserting a new clause in the Bill which would provide a clear statutory underpinning and codification for all safeguarding procedures and guidance; put all the guidance in one place, which should make it more accessible, user-friendly and easier for professionals to use; require consistency and robustness of application, especially consistency between new and legacy benefits systems; and require the Secretary of State to report annually to Parliament on the operation of the safeguarding procedures. As the language used in the amendment is drawn from existing guidance—for example, as regards the approach to vulnerability—it does not attempt to impose a higher threshold of safeguarding requirements in relation to conditionality but rather to ensure that existing standards are made more effective, consistent and transparent. The amendment is therefore consistent with the scope of the Bill, and the 2012 Act and its predecessor legislation.

Amendment 62 addresses the question of how claimants might get the advice and support they need to adjust to changes brought about by welfare reform legislation. The universal credit support service framework is a DWP-led collaborative project with the Local Government Association to deliver local support for more vulnerable claimants and to assist those who might be unable to use the digital claims process or who may need help budgeting, given the transition to monthly payments. The DWP drives a lot of the demand for advice as a result of delays and failures within the system, so it is only right that it should have an obligation to support and fund welfare rights advice. It therefore needs to be engaged in directly supporting the advice sector to help vulnerable claimants transition to new benefit regimes and/or adjust to new entitlement rules, as well as helping to challenge the system when it gets decisions wrong.

Amendment 62 would insert a new clause in the Bill providing that the Secretary of State shall publish guidance for local authorities about their role in developing schemes to support claimants, especially claimants with additional needs or indicators of vulnerability, and report annually to Parliament on the operation of the universal credit local support service framework. It provides that guidance shall specify, among other things, the role of local authorities in developing partnerships to deliver support and a priority role for independent local advice agencies. Finally, it provides that the Secretary of State shall ensure that the universal credit local support service framework is appropriately resourced so that it can be rolled out to all local authority areas. It is difficult to establish how far the DWP intends to roll out its local universal credit support services beyond the initial UC pilot areas and how the funding for this works. Therefore, it would be helpful if the Minister told us what the department’s plans are in this regard and what the relationship is between the universal credit local support service funding and other grants to local authorities, such as the troubled families programme, and the information and advice strategies required by the Care Act. I beg to move.

[The Earl of Listowel (CB)]

I rise to support both these amendments and have attached my name to Amendment 62. I have an interest in this as vice-chair for the last 10 years of the parliamentary group for children in care and care leavers, and as a carer of a mentally ill adult. I know how fragile many of the individuals seeking welfare support are. The Minister himself may have been shocked to discover the issues around mental health as he has done his important work in building capacity in jobcentres. I strongly support my noble friend’s amendments.

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, I intend to speak very briefly as we have had a good debate on sanctions and the noble Lord, Lord Low, introduced his amendment with characteristic care and detail.

I just want to say a couple of things to the Minister. I know that the department is not attracted to statutory guidance on universal credit in particular. One of the reasons is that it likes to make personalised decisions. Before the noble Baroness tells us how the system is meant to work, I want to flag something up. I worked in government and know that you always get complaints from non-profit organisations about how things are working. At some point, the noise being made reaches a certain level, and you know that maybe things are not working quite the way they are meant to work. It is my judgment that we are approaching that level. The level of concern expressed by charities about the way the sanctions environment is working, particularly for vulnerable groups, and about the severity of some individual mistakes that have been made, suggests there may be something systemic going wrong. I am not suggesting that means it is going wrong on a large scale across the caseload, but that something is going wrong often enough, and on occasions badly enough, to merit attention.

When the Minister responds, even if she is not attracted to the way the amendment might resolve this issue, could she address the underlying problems and tell us how the Government might like to deal with them?

19:00

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 58, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Low, seeks to make part of statute all guidance relating to the safeguarding of vulnerable claimants in relation to any sanction. It also seeks to define vulnerability and to commit the Secretary of State to report annually to Parliament on the application of the guidance. In his speech on this Bill on 17 November, the noble Lord, Lord Low, said that the Work and Pensions Select Committee had called for safeguarding measures to be included in legislation. However, it did not recommend that specific action and did not suggest that the guidance should be put on a statutory basis. Therefore we do not believe that the amendment will achieve what the noble Lord intends.

As a principle, the guidance that the department produces to support the implementation of key policies is comprehensive. It is also regularly reviewed and refreshed to ensure that it meets policy intent, reflects new evidence about its effect and implementation and allows us to introduce easements within the scope of the current legislation. Much of the guidance relating to the safeguarding of vulnerable claimants in relation to any sanction, reduction of benefit or disallowance of benefit is based on individual assessment of need. Defining the scope of vulnerability too closely or predetermining who these groups are in statute could create unintended consequences. One example is the plight of Syrian refugees: fixed guidance might not have been able to respond to the specific and varied needs of those fleeing the conflict. Embedding a definition which may appear fit for purpose today within statutory guidance would remove important flexibility to ensure that we can respond to change quickly tomorrow and thereafter.

It is also worth noting that the existing vulnerability guidance already provides detailed material to assist work coaches in identifying and supporting the complex needs of vulnerable claimants. It is linked to an online vulnerability hub which has been specifically created to support staff in dealing with all forms of vulnerability and to ensure that guidance is in one place, which is what the noble Lord is suggesting. For instance, the hub contains information such as the mental health toolkit and the hidden impairment toolkit, both of which have been developed in conjunction with health experts and DWP work psychologists to ensure its effectiveness.

The content of all eight sets of guidance is reviewed frequently and the department works with both internal and external stakeholders to ensure that it effectively recognises and supports vulnerable claimants. We are also currently changing elements of the guidance in response to a recommendation made by the Work and Pensions Select Committee to supplement the existing work coach guidance to illustrate how conditionality can be tailored to take account of individual claimants’ circumstances where they have complex needs or need additional support.

Amendment 62, in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Low, and the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, refers to the universal credit local support services framework, now called universal support delivered locally. Again, I am sure that the noble Lord has tabled this amendment to ensure that vulnerable claimants are identified and supported as we move to universal credit. However, again, we do not believe that the amendment is best placed to achieve this aim.

The universal support framework was developed in acknowledgement that some people will need additional help in making and maintaining a claim for universal credit, which for the majority of people will be an online service with payments made monthly direct to the household. The framework aims to align with a flexible approach to services for vulnerable complainants and those with complex needs and recognises that individual local needs may be best met through integrated localised support service offers. It aims to help DWP and local partners plan the level of appropriate services and delivery methods to support the delivery of universal credit and to support claimants in moving towards greater individual self-sufficiency and independence.

Universal support trials started across Great Britain in September 2014. Five of the trials ended on 31 August this year and the remaining six ended on 30 November. The trials tested digital inclusion, financial inclusion, different arrangements for triaging household needs and the sharing of data, skills and estates to create the right integrated local foundation to support more households into work. The final evaluation of these trials will published in late spring 2016, although a short summary of key learning will be published before then. The trials will also allow us to better understand the business case for universal credit delivered locally, claimants’ needs, funding requirements and the delivery approaches that tested best. This information will be used to inform a refreshed framework alongside the full universal credit digital service from May 2016 and a refreshed specification of requirements.

The intention is that the universal support framework sets out the principles and specifications but is not prescriptive about delivery, although learning from the trials and local expertise will be brought to bear to enable continuous improvement. We want to ensure that local areas support their local communities as best they can and it will be up to them to decide how they want to bring resources together and to effectively provide the support needed. For instances, trials in Greater Manchester, Kent and Flintshire have all produced different ways of working which have been effective for those local communities.

On the basis of this explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Low of Dalston]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her full and careful reply and my noble friend Lord Listowel and the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, for their speeches in support of the amendments.

I missed out the end of my speech. I would have said that I hoped the Minister might agree that these are two useful amendments, almost of a good housekeeping nature. The Minister has given a substantial reply to the points that I made. In particular, she has told us that the guidance is available and referred to the hub. It is perhaps in more of a one place than I allowed for when moving the amendments. However, all in the garden cannot be said to be lovely when cases of the kind I mentioned in my remarks come to notice. I had a good many more up my sleeve than there was time to tell noble Lords about.

Although the guidance may be found in one place, there still may be a need for some rationalisation. The noble Baroness has told us that it is constantly kept under review and has been updated and I like to think that the process of continuous rationalisation is taking place. However, I wish to read the noble Baroness’s remarks—there was a lot in them to digest all at once and I should like to take time to consider them carefully—go back to my advisers on the low commission, take further advice and, if we feel there are further points we could make to assist the department or that there are still matters to discuss with a view to improving the guidance, I hope the noble Baroness and her colleagues at the department would be prepared to meet us to discuss these matters.

Having said that, I propose for now to withdraw Amendment 58.

Amendment 58 withdrawn.

Amendment 59

Moved by

[Baroness Manzoor]

59: After Clause 15, insert the following new Clause—
“Universal Credit (Work Allowance)
The Universal Credit (Work Allowance) Amendment Regulations 2015 are repealed.”

[Baroness Manzoor (LD)]

My Lords, I am delighted that in his comprehensive spending review the Chancellor bowed to pressure and agreed with my fatal Motion to scrap the proposed cuts to tax credits for working families. He was lucky to receive a £27 billion windfall to enable him to do this, but it was the right thing for him to do. However, this is little consolation to families who start claiming universal credit after April 2016. Despite George Osborne’s decision in his Autumn Statement to scrap cuts to tax credits, the new universal credit system will mean a less generous benefit entitlement for working families.

The Institute for Fiscal Studies has estimated that 2.6 million working families can expect to be, on average, £1,600 a year worse off under universal credit than they would have been under the existing system. The institute says that the transitional protection means that potentially very different amounts of benefit could be paid to people in similar circumstances depending on when their universal credit claim started.

Universal credit transitional protection is the system the Government are implementing whereby an additional amount is paid to universal credit claimants to make up the shortfall. However, it can act as a barrier to taking on higher-paid work, according to the Social Market Foundation. This is because for many family types, universal credit will be less generous than the tax credit system it replaces. The foundation states that the difference will be quite substantial for some families. An example is that a two-earner family with two children could be £2,700 better off receiving tax credits as compared with universal credit if both parents are working full time and earning £7.20 per hour. As a consequence, many families will be understandably reluctant to move from tax credits on to universal credit.

That is because the transitional protection will cease to apply if the family undergoes any change in its circumstances, such as a partner moving in or out of the household, a person moving off universal credit due to a lot of earned income in just one particular month or one or both adults leaving work, or indeed even moving home. The Social Market Foundation illustrates the problem by citing an example, stating:

“Suppose a family was receiving transitional protection as a result of being moved from tax credits to UC. One partner is offered a better-paid job, but one that would require the family moving home. The family faces a dilemma. Do they move to take up the job offer, increasing their income but losing their transitional protection payments? Or do they refuse the job offer in order to continue the receipt of their transitional protection?”—

That protection may be important for the family, particularly when moving between low-paid jobs.

“This example … illustrates precisely the kind of situation that universal credit was designed to avoid: a barrier to taking up better-paid work. The problem will be exacerbated in April 2016 when the cuts to UC create considerable differences in the generosity of tax credits as compared with universal credit”.

Another problem is that, if income levels in a household fall, the universal credit entitlement does not rise to offset that fall until the transitional protection has been exhausted. Families losing work will face the double whammy of experiencing not only worklessness, but also of being transferred on to a much less generous welfare system under universal credit.

The Universal Credit (Work Allowance) Amendment Regulations 2015 will have exactly the same impact as the cuts to tax credits for working families which may need to have work allowance as part of their universal credit from April 2016. Under universal credit, cuts will be made to work allowance and large reductions will be made to how much families can earn before benefits start to be withdrawn—called work allowance under universal credit. This will mean that tax credits start to be withdrawn once family earnings are above £3,850 rather than the current £6,420 under tax credits. The IFS states that this will weaken the incentive for families to have someone in work.

As a result of the changes, universal credit, which when originally introduced by the coalition Government was intended to see 2.7 million working claimants better off, will now mean that 2.6 million working people will be worse off by an average, as I have said, of £1,600 a year. The whole point of universal credit is to make sure that it always pays more to be in work than on benefits. The Universal Credit (Work Allowance) Amendment Regulations 2015 further undermine that vital principle. They are an attack on hard-working, low-income families.

I know that the Minister supports the framework of university credit, and I applaud him for doing so because I support the framework as well. However, this undermines some of the fundamental principles that we are working towards. I would be grateful if the Minister could give an assurance that, in light of the Chancellor’s assurance to the public and to working families that work will always pay, the Government will consider repealing these regulations, or at the very least end the anomalies presented by them—particularly given that they were introduced, again, by secondary legislation.

Can the Minister also say what effect the Chancellor’s announcement in the Autumn Statement on the minimum income floor, which is in line with the national minimum wage, will have on self-employed people, particularly as this means that universal credit claimants who have been self-employed for more than 12 months are assumed to have earnings of at least 35 hours a week at the national living wage? I understand that there are exceptions, such as for those with caring responsibilities, but claimants will receive no additional support if their income drops below this level. I beg to move.

19:15

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, I rise to speak in support of Amendment 59, to which I was happy to add my name. The work allowance was one of the jewels in the crown of universal credit, heralding a shiny new era of improved work incentives and making work pay. How quickly it has turned into the Cinderella of the social security system: first frozen, then cut in real terms, frozen again, and abolished altogether for non-disabled, childless households. When I questioned the Minister on this in an Oral Question on 27 October, he justified what has happened by referring to the experience of single people, arguing that they do not in fact need the work allowance for the incentives. I have since read the Resolution Foundation analysis and I accept that there may be a case for abolishing the work allowance for this group, but the foundation recommended that that should be in the context of the need for improvements elsewhere—in particular, an increase in the work allowance for lone parents, who are very responsive to such incentives, and a shift in the balance of the allowance between the first and second earners in a couple, with a new work allowance for second earners in families, just as some of us argued for during the passage of the Welfare Reform Act 2012. The foundation went on to say that that is a,

“crucial step in making UC pro-women, a test it currently fails”.

The Social Security Advisory Committee picked this up in its report, Universal Credit: Priorities for Action, and agreed that second earners need further attention, and it recommended further consideration of the Resolution Foundation report to the Government. I would be grateful if the Minister told us what consideration has been given to that report.

The Resolution Foundation also emphasises the importance of uprating policy and argues that cuts in income tax should be passed on in full to families on universal credit via an equivalent adjustment to work allowance; otherwise, people on universal credit will not get the same benefit from an increase in tax allowances. Other analyses by the Child Poverty Action Group—I declare my interest as honorary president—and the TUC show that it is much more cost-effective to raise work allowance than to increase personal tax allowances in terms of getting parents into work and addressing child poverty.

In his reply to my Oral Question, I felt that the Minister tried to brush the cuts in work allowance aside as somehow inconsequential. The noble Baroness, Lady Manzoor, has spelt out just how consequential they are for new claimants of universal credit. In his oral evidence to the recent Work and Pensions Committee’s inquiry into tax credits, Torsten Bell of the Resolution Foundation said:

“That work allowance change is so large that our view is that it to a degree fundamentally changes how universal credit is going to feel for people on low hours”.

He gave an example and said:

“Before the Budget a single parent on the minimum wage could have worked 22 hours under universal credit before she had any of her universal credit entitlement taken away. After both the reduction in the work allowance, which falls to £5,000 for her next year, and the increase in the national minimum wage”—

I would say, the so-called national minimum wage—

“if she is on that, she will now only be able to work 10 hours before she starts to see quite a significant, 76%, tapering of her entitlement. It is exactly that kind of incentive that the welcome purpose of universal credit was aiming to get around”.

I think that he means disincentive. Picking up on the point made by the noble Baroness, Torsten Bell continued:

“When we are talking about these work incentives, more of the debate should be focused on what we have done to the original purpose of universal credit in these drastic cuts to the work allowances, in particular for single parents”.

I know that the Minister cared passionately about that original purpose of universal credit and I cannot believe that he is happy about what is happening to work allowances. I would welcome a more considered response than it was possible to give in Oral Questions, now that he has more time to give such a response.

[The Earl of Listowel]

I will speak to Amendment 62D in this group and apologise to your Lordships for giving so little notice of it. The issue was only drawn to my attention on Friday. I felt that it was important and timely so I asked for a manuscript amendment. I am very pleased to see that the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong of Hill Top, has attached her name. Unfortunately, she cannot be here. I have not had the opportunity to thank the Minister for saying that there would be a life chances strategy and I am sorry that I was so pessimistic. I was very pleased to read the comments made last week by Christine Lagarde, the head of the IMF, about the success of the economy in terms of employment and improving productivity. The Minister may feel that this is recognition of his good work and that of his colleagues in these areas.

This amendment was brought to my attention by the Family Rights Group and is supported by many other children’s charities. Its purpose is to ensure that lone parents under the age of 25 who are also care leavers continue in the same system under the new arrangements, so that they will be £780 a year better off. I very much welcome the extremely good work the Government have done and are doing for young people leaving care. The strategy has been a great success. Many people recognise that it is very difficult to get different departments to work together. Through the strategy, the DWP identified care leavers and can give them the additional support they need. Other departments also are aware of that. Staying Put has been a very important step forward. It recognises that young people leaving care should have the right to remain with their foster carer until the age of 21 where both parties agree. Some 50% of children in the general population stay with their parents until the age of 22, so these children should also be able to remain.

However, there is much further to go with these young people. Ofsted has recently started assessing care-leaving services. Its most recent report found that, of the local authorities it examined, 63% of the care-leaving services were inadequate or needed improvement. There is a very long way to go.

The Centre for Social Justice has done some important research on births. There is a much higher likelihood of teenagers leaving care becoming pregnant. One in 10 young people leaving care between the ages of 16 and 21 have their child removed. Often, they have been in care and then lose their own child. It is important that these lone-parent care leavers get all the support they can. This additional cash would be very important for them. They do not have the family network that many of our children have to support them. I hope the Minister is prepared to accept this amendment, and I look forward to his response.

[Baroness Sherlock]

My Lords, I will say a brief word on Amendment 62D and move on to the main amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Manzoor. The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, has clearly made the point about the particular vulnerability of young care leavers and the way the changes to the provision of support for under-25s and universal credit will affect them. In 2013, half of 22 year-olds in the UK still lived with their parents. This Bill makes it more likely that even more young people will need to live at home. The issue, of course, for care leavers is that they do not have a home to live in. One of the problems is that they are simply not in a position to depend on the kind of support and home environment that other young people can turn to as an alternative. Perhaps the Minister will comment on that in responding to this amendment.

Likewise, an important point was made by the noble Earl about the position of care leavers who are much more likely to become teenage mothers and, in turn, lose their children. Certainly, when they are supported appropriately by charities and given appropriate financial support, there is much more chance of their being able to keep the children with them and then try to break the cycle. Without that, there must be some risks. I will be very interested to hear the Minister’s comments.

I really want to talk about universal credit and the implications of the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Manzoor. We on these Benches have long supported the principle of universal credit. I know the Minister has done a lot of work to make sure that the new system will make work pay and will work for working families. But I am getting increasingly concerned, as are many people, about the Treasury’s continuous slashing away at the money involved, which makes it harder and harder for universal credit to do the job. I do not expect him to comment on that, but he has my sympathies.

The speed at which this is being rolled out is also making a difference. As we know, from October 2013 there should have been no more claims for the old legacy working-age benefits. In fact, everyone would have been transferred over by April 2017. By last March, we should have had 4.5 million households on universal credit. The last time I saw the figure, it was about 141,000. There have been various slippages in timing and now it will not be fully rolled out until, I think, 2021. That matters because it goes right to the heart of the transitional protection arrangements for people moving across, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Manzoor. Along the way, the Treasury has made six—this is the seventh—cuts to universal credit: £6 billion has been slashed from the budget before it has even been fully rolled out. There are some potentially serious traps down the line.

I unreservedly welcome the fact that, after pressure from all quarters and being asked to think again by this House—I pay tribute to my noble friend Lady Hollis and congratulate her on her successful delaying Motion, which caused Mr Osborne to have the opportunity to think again—the Chancellor decided not to proceed with the tax credit cuts. Three million working families would have lost an average of £1,300 a year.

However, as has been mentioned, he did not reverse the comparable cuts in universal credit. I want to understand the implications of that, so I hope the Minister can help us. The Autumn Statement suggested that the Government are still planning to take £10 billion from working families through cuts to universal credit during this Parliament, as a result of removing work incentives and work allowances. That means that 2.6 million families will still be £1,600 worse off by 2020, on average. Therefore, I am trying to understand why the Secretary of State, Iain Duncan Smith, when touring TV and radio stations last week, was able to say that universal credit is a big success. He said on “The Andrew Marr Show” that nobody will lose a penny from the UC cuts. How can that be true?

In the wake of the Autumn Statement, the OBR put more figures out to help people understand. I have been poring over them with a wet towel around my head to try to make sense of them. I suspect that I have not, but the Minister will put me right. There are three issues: whether people on UC will be better off than those on tax credits, whether people transferring from tax credits to universal credit will lose out, and whether anyone will lose out in cash terms come next April.

19:30

The House of Commons Library ran the figures for people on universal credit. It ran the figures for a single parent with two children working full-time on the minimum wage. The noble Baroness, Lady Manzoor, mentioned this. I could make sense of it only by imagining a person, so I shall call her Jane. Jane is living in the home that she shared with her husband but they have split up and he has moved out. They own the home, the two children are living with her and she is working full-time on the minimum wage. If she were currently claiming universal credit, the Library figures suggest that next April her UC award would fall by £3,084 a year. Dynamically—are noble Lords proud?—because her wages and her tax will change, she will not be £3,000 a year worse off; she will be £2,384 a year worse off. Maybe the Minister could tell me whether that is right and whether there are any working families on UC to whom that could happen next April.

The Library also ran the figures for someone in exactly the same circumstances but still on tax credits. I shall call him John; he lives next door to Jane. John, after paying tax and national insurance, and getting tax credits, will get tax credits worth £2,981 a year more than Jane’s, who lives next door in the same circumstances. Again, could that happen and is it right? If John’s circumstances change so that he ends up moving across to join Jane on universal credit, the real question that comes up is: does he get transitional protection? The Secretary of State seemed to think he would but I would be interested to know what happens. If his circumstances then change—maybe he gets a new job or meets a new partner—would he lose his transitional protection?

Jane and John are hypothetical but the questions are very real for the working families out there in the 98 areas where universal credit is running. There is widespread confusion about what kind of transitional protection is available. My understanding is that the last published document said that transitional protection is available only if you move on to universal credit as part of the mass migration of people who are moved from tax credits to UC. That will not now happen until 2018. However, the Secretary of State, Iain Duncan Smith, said that the DWP will somehow protect the other claimants—I think he said by using the flexible support fund. Could the Minister tell us whether that is right? The flexible support fund is a discretionary fund managed by jobcentres that is normally used to help people who have barriers to work. They might need to travel to interviews; they might need tools to do a job or that kind of thing. The fund’s budget is only £69 million, so if it is that, will the budget be increased to fund this and, if so, by how much?

There are four specific questions that I would be grateful if the Minister could answer. First, what transitional protection will be available for current universal credit claimants when their work allowances are cut in April? How long will it last and how will it be paid for? Secondly, if you are moved across to universal credit as part of the managed migration in 2018, will you get transitional protection and how long will it last? Thirdly, if, like John, you end up moving on to universal credit sooner, ahead of the mass migration, what transitional protection will you get? Finally, in any of these cases, what happens to transitional protection if your circumstances change? Does it stop? If so, can the Minister confirm precisely which circumstances? Would that mean that changing your job, meeting a new partner or having a baby could see your income reduced by thousands of pounds? What started as something that was meant to be a help to working families is becoming a source of real anxiety. I very much look forward to hearing the Minister’s answers.

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Freud) (Con)]

My Lords, the amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Manzoor, would repeal the Universal Credit (Work Allowance) Amendment Regulations 2015, which were laid before Parliament on 10 September 2015 and come into force next April. The amendment tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, and the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong, would increase the standard UC allowance payable for lone parents who are also care leavers. Both amendments refer to issues recently considered by this House. The work allowance regulations were lying before the House as recently as last month and we have already discussed care leavers in debates on the Bill, most recently last Wednesday.

The Bill does not make any changes to the standard allowances in universal credit, which are set out in the Universal Credit Regulations 2013, debated in this House in February of that year.

The Government set out in the summer Budget measures to transform Britain from a low-wage, high-tax, high-welfare society to a higher-wage, low-tax and low-welfare society. This package of measures included changes to UC and tax credit allowances but also the introduction of the national living wage and further increases to the personal tax allowance. Noble Lords will be aware that the Chancellor has subsequently announced changes to the tax credit element of this plan in response to concerns raised mainly by noble Lords about the timetable for implementation. However, the overall strategy remains unchanged. The welfare system needs to be brought under control to make it fair to the taxpayer and support economic growth.

This is perhaps a reasonable time to pick up the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, about all the improvements that there might be to universal credit. I acknowledge that there may well be improvements. One of the opportunities that we have, uniquely in universal credit, is to start doing randomised control trials to discover how we might improve it. Some of those suggestions may well work when we have discovered the dynamic effect of making those changes. We do not know at this moment, but we and future Governments will have the opportunity to test some of those propositions.

Doubtless noble Lords will have seen analyses published by various organisations assessing the impact of these changes on claimants and are clearly concerned about the possible impact on families. As I start trying to explain the impacts, it is important to explain why those analyses tell only part of the story. First, they fail to reflect that the summer Budget measures are a package. The comparator, which excludes work allowance changes but includes all other summer Budget measures, reflects the Government’s policies to deliver low taxes but not those to deliver low welfare. If we are to deliver our commitment to stable public finances, we cannot deliver one without the other.

Secondly, they fail to take account of all elements of government policy that will have an impact on families between now and 2020, including spending on vital public services such as the NHS and schools, on which so many families rely. If you take the sort of analysis that has been carried out by the IFS and the Resolution Foundation but instead compare the net incomes of those on tax credits in 2015 with what they would get under UC in 2020, taking into account the national living wage, increases in the personal allowance, better provision for childcare and economic growth, the cash position would look broadly similar in 2020.

Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, the analyses fail to take account of the dynamic impact of universal credit, or indeed of any changes in behaviour as a result of the measures in the Bill. We are introducing universal credit precisely to give people more choice and opportunity to get into and progress in the labour market. The early impact is already documented, but static analyses cannot help showing claimants as passive recipients of welfare, unresponsive to the new possibilities that this Government are opening up with these reforms. This is particularly important when we consider universal credit claimants directly affected by this change when it comes into effect next April. The overall numbers are of course small, given the controlled rollout. They are also made up primarily of childless singles.

Let us be clear about the group we are talking about. They are a group with no barriers to full-time work. Indeed, many of them already move off universal credit altogether by finding full-time employment. Those with residual universal credit awards in work are normally working part-time and would therefore have got absolutely nothing under the tax credits system. The changes in April will reduce that generosity but will still leave this group better off than under the previous system.

I recognise that there are some more complex cases in the current caseloads, with higher entitlements and greater barriers to increasing earnings. To respond to the first question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, I can say that the Secretary of State has announced that we will use adviser support and the flexible support fund to ensure that each of those families is supported through the change.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham (Lab)]

Would the noble Lord expand on that answer? How many lone-parent families? How much will they be supported by in terms of their finance—is he saying that it would be as though the cuts had not affected them—and for how long?

[Lord Freud]

It would be a small number of families; I do not have the precise number.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

Can he give us a feel: are we talking about 100 or 1,000?

[Lord Freud]

It is a small number. It is probably towards the lower end of that, but I do not have the precise number. We will use the flexible support fund—the measures the Secretary of State was talking about—to help them to make the transition, so that they manage the change.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

Does that mean that they will not be worse off in cash terms during their transition by virtue of the support system?

[Lord Freud]

It is not the same as transitional protection, as I was indicating. It is our means of helping people adjust to the change we are seeing in universal credit for those groups.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

How will that happen?

[Lord Freud]

We will help them make the transition. It will vary for each of those families: it might be some more work or it might be upskilling to earn more. The numbers are very particular and specific but they are clearly a focus of our obligation to those groups to help them to manage their position. We will put the resource in to help them to do that. That is what we are talking about. Helping those on lower income towards financial independence requires a tax and welfare system that encourages and rewards work, and one which provides people with the right support to progress in the labour market and provide their families with long-lasting security.

The next question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, was about how the transitional protection works. The people who get transitional protection are only those whom we have managed migration for, which, as the noble Baroness pointed out, will start in 2018. It is not designed to provide indefinite financial protection. Over time, transitional protection will be eroded as claimant circumstances change. It will be appropriate to end it when circumstances underlying the award are no longer recognisable as those on which the legacy calculation was made. We have not yet regulated for transitional protection, but we have described its principles. We will bring forward those regulations in due course.

[Baroness Manzoor]

Will the Minister say what those changes will be? The changes in circumstances are really important. The Minister has not highlighted those issues.

[Lord Freud]

We put them out at the time of the Bill. They were reasonably large changes. There is a list of them: re-partnering would trigger one, as would a new member of the household. Other changes might be a sustained drop in earnings—an equivalent almost to moving out of work—or one or both members stopping work. As I said, those are all indicated. We will set out those changes in due course.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

Can the noble Lord envisage a situation in which a couple—a family—received this, he moved out and she became poorer, but the result was a change in circumstances, so her reduced income was made worse because she no longer had transitional protection?

19:45

[Lord Freud]

The trouble is that one can make up particular stories and play around, but overall the position is that, as we get through to the time when the managed migrations happen and the national living wage and various other things come in, the norm will be pretty stable, as I said before.

I will move on to the next question on those people who move earlier—that is, not in the managed migration—and reconfirm that they are effectively making a new claim for universal credit. Therefore, they will not be transitionally protected. I think I have gone through those very specific questions.

[Baroness Manzoor]

In terms of the flexible element of the budget, can the Minister say, as the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, requested, how large that budget will be? It is not the transitional protection money but the other fund that may be available.

[Lord Freud]

I do not have the precise figures here so it is quite hard for me to know how much of that flexible support fund will need to be diverted, but it is a mixture of support and funding. It is a question of how that is combined. We do not anticipate a large amount because the numbers are not very large. We have not isolated the precise numbers. It is too difficult—we just have not done that—but our anticipation is that it is not a substantial amount.

Let me pick up the point from the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, on incentives to work. There are only two ways of reducing the cost of universal credit: looking at either the taper or the work allowances. The taper is what maintains the incentives to work and to work more. Keeping it at a steady rate so that people can understand exactly where they are, so that if they change their work hours they can understand exactly what happens in a way that they cannot with the present system, was something that we saw as a priority, particularly at a time when the economy is strong and there is work available. There may be a different dynamic at different stages of the cycle, but that is the position we are in now.

On the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Manzoor, the minimum income floor will continue to be calculated by reference to the national minimum wage, which includes the national living wage.

I turn now to Amendment 62D, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel. In the current system there is considerable complexity around the rates for young people, with some differences between benefits. The structure of age-related rates in universal credit is much simpler than the benefits it replaces, with just four rates of the standard allowance: two for singles, two for couples. That compares with 15 in employment and support allowance, for example.

The age-related rates are now established in universal credit and the Bill does not make changes in this area. Doing so would start to replicate some of the complexity that we are looking to remove and noble Lords have heard me grumble about “carbuncleising” enough to know what I mean. However, the Government do recognise the challenges which these young people face. We should be supporting vulnerable young people and parents to stabilise their lives and find work and we have a number of measures within the context of universal credit. We will ensure that care leavers claiming universal credit who need help managing their money and paying bills on time will have access to personal budgeting support. Care leavers are exempt from serving waiting days in universal credit to ensure a smooth financial transition, and single care leavers aged 18 to 21 are exempted from the shared accommodation rate for LHA housing costs. I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

I am still trying to make sense of the responses which the noble Lord very helpfully gave to my noble friend Lady Sherlock. I know that the Minister does not like hypothetical questions, but if we want a dynamic—to use his word—situation, we have to look at it in those terms. A lone parent with two children is currently on tax credits. Let us say that, in 2018, she re-partners. Her partner moves in and the tax credit transitional protection ends because his income floats it off. Within a year, he leaves her: does she then have to make a new claim to universal credit? Putting aside any question of the level of the national minimum wage, would that be at a lower rate, in cash terms, than she would have received on tax credits? In other words, what sort of linking would there be? If he moved out in less than six months, would she be able to resume her previous tax credit claim or will the cuts kick in at any point when there is a change in circumstance—even if it effectively only lasts for a fortnight—that takes her on to UC?

[Lord Freud]

We have not yet put out the detail of the transitional regulations and that is where one would expect to see them. We will be producing some precision in how the regulations will work.

[The Earl of Listowel]

My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister’s response and for the work which the Government do to support care leavers. I omitted to say why Amendment 62D was timely: today, research from the University of Lancaster highlighted a huge leap in the number of newborns being taken into care. In 2008 it was about 800, in 2013 it was over 2,000; a very considerable number. Some of that is down to better early intervention; taking children very quickly out of damaged families. However, Nicky Morgan, the Secretary of State, is concerned about this and it suggests, again, that we need to be even better at supporting these vulnerable families. I hear what the noble Lord has said and I will look carefully at it.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

Will the Minister say when, roughly, he expects to be publishing the transitional regulations? Will he, in his normal helpful way, commit to publishing a draft of the likely contents first, so noble Lords can discuss them, rather than just be presented with the actual regulations?

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

Before Report.

[Lord Freud]

I will take that request in the helpful way that it was offered. I will write to the noble Baroness to see if I can give her any comfort.

[Baroness Manzoor]

I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in discussing this group of amendments, particularly the noble Baronesses, Lady Lister, Lady Sherlock and Lady Hollis, and the noble Earl, Lord Listowel. I also thank the Minister for his considered response and for allowing me to intervene when he was speaking. A number of issues have been raised. The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, stated very clearly what happens to an individual when there is a change of circumstances. It is important that there is some guidance before Report. I have not been reassured by the answers which have been given. I have every sympathy for the Minister in terms of what he is trying to deliver, but I passionately believe that cuts are affecting people who want to work and will want to go into work under what is being proposed. I will consider what has been said, but I am likely to bring it back on Report. As the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, said, I would be grateful to receive any other information that would help us make our minds up. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment 59 withdrawn.

Amendment 60

Moved by

[Baroness Manzoor]

60: After Clause 15, insert the following new Clause—
“Housing benefit: age of entitlement
In section 130 of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 after subsection (1)(a) insert—“(aa) he is aged 16 or over”.”

[Baroness Manzoor]

My Lords, I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, has added his name to Amendment 60. Support for housing costs for 18 to 21 year-olds is not contained in the Bill but it was announced in the Budget. From April 2017, 18 to 21 year-olds making a new claim for universal credit will not be automatically entitled to support for their housing costs. As the Bill creates no new powers for this, these measures are likely to appear in regulations, using powers already contained in the Welfare Reform Act 2012. Crisis states that it has serious concerns that removing young people’s access to support for their housing costs will lead to an increase in youth homelessness. Crisis, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and the Homelessness Monitor state that youth homelessness is already on the rise, with 8% of 16 to 24 year-olds reporting being recently homeless.

According to the Crisis analysis of CHAIN data, in four years the number of young people sleeping rough in London has more than doubled. There are many reasons why young people may find themselves homeless, including parental relationship breakdowns; abuse and violence from family members; and leaving care. For many young people, housing benefit is all that stands between them and homelessness and is an important safety net.

My proposed new clause attempts to address this hole in support for young people. The amendment says “aged 16” in order to avoid excluding 16 year-olds already entitled to housing benefit from eligibility in the future. But the amendment is ultimately about stopping the Government’s attack on 18 to 21 year-old claimants. Some 15% of current 18 to 21 year-old claimants are in work. They need this housing benefit to subsidise their rents; one only has to look at the level of rent in cities such as London.

Housing benefit is also vital for those living in areas of low employment to enable them to move to somewhere where they will have more chance of getting a job. Does the Minister really believe that it is better for our economy, and our young people, for them to remain in the family home, away from possible employment opportunities, than to temporarily pay for their housing benefit? I recollect the “get on your bike” sentiments expressed by Norman Tebbit—now the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit. These appear to be holding little water now. I beg to move.

20:00

[Lord Low of Dalston]

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 62C. In the summer Budget, the Chancellor announced that under universal credit there will be no automatic entitlement to support for housing costs for 18 to 21 year-olds. This is to make sure that young people are unable to leave home and start claiming housing support unless they have a job. It is intended to mirror the choices made by young people who choose to live at home until they can afford to support themselves. The Government have been clear that vulnerable groups will be exempt, but have not yet confirmed how this will work in practice. Amendment 62C is intended to fill this gap by setting out the vulnerable groups which should be exempt. I am grateful to the organisation Crisis for briefing me on this amendment. It is also supported by Nacro, the Salvation Army, Caritas Social Action Network, Centrepoint, Shelter, Action for Children, St Mungo’s, Homeless Link, the YMCA, the Prison Reform Trust and the Albert Kennedy Trust, so we can be sure that there is a good deal of consensus as to the groups which should be exempt.

The Government have committed to protect care leavers, those with dependent children and those receiving the equivalent of ESA or income support. Young people living in homeless hostels or domestic violence refuges are also expected to be exempt given that they will continue to be funded through housing benefit and not universal credit, at least in the short term. If the groups listed in the amendment are not exempt, there is concern that we could see a further rise in youth homelessness. This could also damage the prospects of the young people affected finding employment. In four years, the number of young people sleeping rough in London has more than doubled, and 8% of 16 to 24 year-olds report recently being homeless. For young adults who are trying to rebuild their lives following a period of homelessness, failure to provide the safety net contained in this amendment—if the protections for the most vulnerable are not sufficient—may make it much harder to keep their lives on track.

For many young people housing benefit is all that stands between them and homelessness. This includes those who have experienced violence or abuse from family members. Some younger adults may be unable to live with their parents because of relationship breakdown but find this difficult to prove—for example, if they have been thrown out because they are gay or if a parent has remarried. To make sure that all young people at risk of homelessness are protected, the list of those who will be exempted from the proposals must take into account all the reasons young people may need support with their housing costs.

The projected savings from this measure are small in relation to the overall savings from the Welfare Reform and Work Bill. The Treasury has estimated that this measure will save the public purse £25 million in the first year, rising to £40 million a year in 2020-21. However, if the Government’s exemptions are not sufficient to protect young people at risk of homelessness, greater costs will be incurred. Homelessness is estimated to cost the Exchequer £1 billion a year. Investing in homelessness prevention on the other hand can make significant savings. Recent research commissioned by Crisis found that tackling homelessness early could save the Government between £3,000 and £18,000 for every person helped. The report uses illustrative vignettes, each based on qualitative data from 165 interviews to give an overview of the costs of homelessness. Each vignette explores two scenarios: one where homelessness is prevented or resolved and the other where homelessness persists for a year. One of these vignettes concerns a 19 year-old who is expected to leave the parental home and exhausts sofa-surfing arrangements with friends. In the first scenario she is helped into immediate temporary accommodation in supported housing for four weeks. She then receives a low-intensity floating support service during a short-term return to the parental home, which enables her to make a planned move into suitable shared private rented accommodation. Parental relationships become positive while she is able to live independently and she secures paid work within a year.

In the second scenario the local authority finds her ineligible for the homelessness duty. She receives a list of private rented accommodation but no other assistance. She relies initially on sofa-surfing but negative experiences from these arrangements lead to a deterioration in her mental health. She makes increasing use of homelessness services and uses drugs as a result of stress and depression. She has a non-elective long stay in hospital as a result of the deterioration in her health. She is admitted into a residential detoxification service for six weeks but lack of settled suitable housing presents major challenges. The research calculated that preventing her homelessness in the first scenario cost £1,554. By comparison, this cost rose to £11,733 when her homelessness was not properly resolved, as described in scenario 2. If this young person were unable to meet the eligibility threshold for claiming the housing costs element of universal credit, the first scenario would not be open to her.

I shall go through the groups of young people who would be protected by the amendment. Crucially, the system must be flexible enough to cover more difficult or complex cases. First, I shall address those who are owed a rehousing duty under the Housing Act 1996 and the comparable Scottish and Welsh legislation. By definition, people who are already homeless have nowhere else to live and should be exempted from these proposals or they will be at serious risk of street homelessness. Young people who approach their local authority and meet the statutory definition of unintentionally homeless in Scotland, and of being in priority need in England and Wales, should automatically qualify for support. Local authorities have a statutory duty to house those who meet this threshold, which they will be unable to meet if the young people owed the duty cannot claim the housing costs element of universal credit.

Secondly, I shall address those who are homeless or at risk of homelessness being supported by local authority housing options teams. In England, the threshold for priority need is high, however, and most single people will not meet it. Nevertheless, they are owed a general duty of advice and information about homelessness and the prevention of homelessness. Across England, Scotland and Wales, many homeless people are supported by local authority housing options teams to prevent or alleviate homelessness. In England, statutory homelessness guidance advises housing options teams to use family mediation services to prevent homelessness when family or friends are no longer able or willing to accommodate. It is therefore vital that those who fall short of the statutory homelessness threshold, as well as those young people at risk of becoming homeless, are protected.

Thirdly, I address those who are homeless or at risk of homelessness and are being supported by voluntary or statutory agencies into more settled accommodation. While many homeless young people are housed in supported accommodation which will continue to be funded through housing benefit, homeless hostels are not right for everyone who has experienced homelessness. Others may struggle to find a bed space since numbers of beds are declining. Those being supported by homelessness organisations to find and sustain alternative forms of accommodation should therefore be protected. This includes private rented sector access schemes and supported lodgings. Withdrawing support from young people using such schemes would undermine the Government’s own efforts, including significant investment to tackle single homelessness.

Fourthly, I address those who have formerly been homeless as young adults aged 16 or over. People who first become homeless when young are particularly vulnerable to repeat homelessness. To mitigate the risk of people becoming homeless again following a period of stability, it is important that young homeless people who qualify for the housing cost element of universal credit can continue to do so following a change in circumstances up to the age of 21. Young people ready to move on from a homeless hostel or domestic violence refuge must be able to access financial support to maintain a private tenancy, or moving on will be impossible. The chance to move on in this way will in turn enable other young homeless people and those experiencing domestic violence to access hostel and refuge places.

Fifthly, the amendment refers to,

“a person without family or for whom the home environment is not suitable to live in”.

The Government have been clear that those who cannot live at home will be protected. We welcome this commitment, since relationship breakdown is a leading cause of homeless young people no longer being accommodated by parents. A broad exemption to protect young people at risk of homelessness due to family breakdown will prevent young people having to become homeless before they can access support. This protection must apply to those without living parents or parents in the UK, and to those for whom it would be damaging to remain in or return to the family home. For example, up to 24% of homeless youth identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual or transsexual, and in 69% the primary cause identified is rejection or abuse after coming out to parents or caregivers.

Some young adults need to leave home because the family home is unsuitable or puts them at risk of harm. This may be because of overcrowding, for instance, if the family has downsized due to the social sector size criteria. Overcrowding is a form of hidden homelessness with implications for family cohesion and well-being. In some cases of severe overcrowding, councils may offer to rehouse adult children independently, rather than move the entire family. If young people in overcrowded homes can no longer access housing support, this will not be possible. For some young people, the neighbourhood may be unsuitable: for instance, due to risk of involvement with gangs or other anti-social and unlawful activity. A 2011 cross-government report, Ending Gang and Youth Violence, committed to roll out schemes to rehouse former gang members wanting to exit the gang lifestyle and cited joint police and council projects which seek accommodation for people at high risk from gang violence. This work will be significantly undermined if young people in such circumstances cannot access support for their housing costs.

Sixthly and finally, regarding “those leaving custody”, young people leaving custody are at particular risk of homelessness due to their higher levels of need, vulnerabilities and chaotic lives. Thirteen per cent of young homeless people are offenders and 22% have an offending history. Accommodation is critical for effective resettlement. A return to the family or neighbourhood may expose them or their families to risk of harm and the negative social networks which they are trying to leave behind. An exemption for young people at the point of release will provide stability and support to help them adjust at this critical time, when the risk of reoffending is greatest.

[Baroness Hollins (CB)]

I support Amendment 62C, as spoken to by my noble friend. I do not usually speak on homelessness but I have a keen interest in the mental health and well-being of young people. I am also a huge admirer of Crisis and other charities offering support to people experiencing homelessness. I was extremely concerned to hear that the number of young people sleeping rough in London has more than doubled in four years, and that 8% of 16 to 24 year-olds report having recently been homeless, for reasons such as those outlined by my noble friend—being victims of or at risk of violence or abuse, or a breakdown in family relationships. According to Crisis, tackling homelessness early can save the Government between £3,000 and £18,000 per person. Can the Minister describe exactly which homeless young people will be entitled to the housing costs element of universal credit?

20:15

[Lord Best (CB)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 62C, in the names of my noble friends Lord Low of Dalston and Lady Hollins. This is one of a number of amendments to the Bill addressing issues of special concern to charities seeking to help homeless—very often, young homeless—people.

I see the tension here between the objectives of the Department for Work and Pensions, which is so very concerned to see the huge housing benefit bill reduced, and the objectives of the Department for Communities and Local Government, which of course wants to see rising homelessness reduced. It is not going to be possible for the objectives of both departments to be met and a balance between these conflicting aims has to be achieved. It is utterly pointless for the DWP to win in cutting the benefit bill for housing costs if the homelessness position deteriorates further. The supposed savings will then look very paltry, not least when set against the costs to other government departments in physical and mental health, social care, criminal justice and more. This anxiety that cost-cutting measures will undermine homelessness charities is reflected in the list of 12 charities seeking to persuade your Lordships to accept this amendment, as set out by the noble Lord, Lord Low, with Crisis as the co-ordinator of their efforts. They are a roll-call of nationally important charities trying very hard to tackle the horrors of homelessness.

Amendment 62C addresses a key concern of the charities, which has been very well spelled out by my two colleagues: that the vulnerable 18 to 21 year-olds who come within the priority categories set out in the amendment will no longer be able to get enough financial help with their rent to obtain the accommodation and support which they need and which the charities and local authorities can organise or provide for them if the rental funds are forthcoming. If the charities have to turn away young people because they are denied access to sufficient support with their rent, then street homelessness—as the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, has said, it has doubled in London since 2011—will get worse. That means more young people sleeping rough and facing the cold, the abuse, the violence and the illness that goes with that.

Later amendments in my name also address the same issue of the problems which will emerge if benefit payments for housing—in this case, the entitlement to the housing element in universal credit—are reduced for vulnerable young people. The other reductions, for us to discuss in detail later, which potentially affect housing costs for young homeless people are, first, the proposed 1% per annum cut to social housing rents, which could put some social housing charities out of business and, secondly, the new idea that rents in social housing should be capped at the local housing allowance levels set for private landlords, although the charities’ rents may include special support services that no private landlord would ever supply.

I am making the overarching point in respect of all these cuts that the DWP’s earnest desire to reduce the costs of housing benefit—in future, of universal credit—really must avoid crushing efforts to help those who are or will be homeless. To save time in our later deliberations, I simply flag up the common policy point which relates to all these amendments, since the Minister may want to respond in the round. I hope that he can provide reassurance that the DWP’s different ways of reducing benefits for housing will stop short of squeezing those people in the most acute difficulty and those bodies desperately trying to help them.

I think all of us, and every Government I have worked with over the last 45 years, have been clear that we must give special attention to trying to ensure that young people at risk of homelessness are supported. If we fail, and yet another young person ends up living on the streets, it is incredibly hard for that person to keep away from crime, alcohol, drugs, depression and ill-health and to get back on their feet, as we all know and as was so well illustrated by the example quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Low.

I feel sure the Minister gets this and has no desire for the Government’s welfare cuts to pull the rug out from under the charities that are trying so hard to address the evils of homelessness. This amendment would remove one of the new threats to these bodies continuing their vital work by ensuring a range of vulnerable young people are not going to be denied housing support just because they are aged 18 to 21 and will be in at least no worse a position to pay their rent than those who are older. Indeed, 18 to 21 year-olds may have a greater need for help simply because they are young. I commend the amendment to the Minister and hope he will be able to tell us that Government recognise the case being made and have no intention of harming the vital work of the charities that can offer a life-saving lifeline to very vulnerable young people.

[The Earl of Listowel]

My Lords, I rise very briefly to support the amendment of my noble friends. On a visit to a Centrepoint hostel in Soho several years ago, I spoke with a very young girl—16 or 17 perhaps—and asked her why she was there. She said that her mother had a new boyfriend who did not want her around. The OECD said in its report on family formation that this country will overtake the United States in the 2030s in terms of the numbers of young people growing up without a father in the home. We have to think about the changes in families and about the Children’s Commissioner’s report on the sexual exploitation of children. Most sexual exploitation takes place within the family, from people within the family who the children know. Some 90% of lone parents are going to be women, and if different men are regularly coming into the household, this issue of girls in such households having worries about sexual exploitation or being sexually exploited also has to be considered. I commend the amendment to the Minister.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)]

My Lords, as your Lordships have heard, we have added out name to Amendment 60 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Manzoor, and I cannot think why we did not do likewise for Amendment 62C, which we support and which also has the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, the noble Lord, Lord Best, and the noble Earl, Lord Listowel.

The proposition to remove access to the housing element of universal credit for 18 to 21 year-olds from April 2017 has been some time in the making. Its progression—or, more likely, regression—can be tracked from a series of references by the Prime Minister at his party conference. Its original focus was to remove housing benefit for people aged 16 to 24, but this has now been narrowed, as we have heard, to 18 to 21 year-olds for universal credit. There are of course already lower levels of housing benefit allowances for single people under 25 and couples under 18, as well as restrictions under the shared accommodation rate. Can the Minister confirm that the Prime Minister’s desire to have an extended denial of housing benefit or universal credit for 16 to 25 year-olds is now off the agenda? The rationale for the policy has a familiar refrain:

“This will ensure young people in the benefits system face the same choices as young people who work and who may not be able to afford to leave home”.

That is a simplistic view of the choices facing many young people and in any event ignores the fact that housing benefit can be claimed by those in work.

This policy is being introduced at the same time as the new youth obligation for 18 to 21 year-olds on universal credit—the so-called boot camp. As the noble Lord, Lord Low, points out, we are promised that there will be exemptions, and the amendment is probing what might be available. The policy starts from April 2017 for 18 to 21 year-olds who are out of work. Can the Minister confirm specifically that there will be protection for vulnerable claimants, as spelt out by the noble Lord, Lord Low, and that they will definitely include those with recent experience of work, young people living in homeless hostels or domestic violence refugees, care leavers, those with dependent children, those receiving ESA, or its equivalent, or income support and those who cannot live at home?

Like the noble Lord, Lord Low, we are grateful for the briefing provided by Crisis and its insights into the consequences of these proposals should they not be ameliorated—in particular, the consequences for those who are homeless or who have experienced or are at risk of homelessness. Its briefing reminds us that if the protections and exemptions are not sufficient, any savings from this measure will be wiped out by costs elsewhere, mostly from increased homelessness.

The policy has generated a range of criticism, as we have heard. The Chartered Institute of Housing says that it could mean young people being less willing to take risks in moving for work because of the removal of a safety net. Centrepoint says that claiming housing benefit is for many a short-term solution to a situation they find themselves in, providing them with a safety net from which they can get their lives back on track. Shelter opposes the measure because it asserts that,

“every young adult deserves somewhere safe and decent to live”—

and who could disagree with that?

House of Commons briefing paper number No. 06473 of 26 August 2015 refers to the Uncertain Futures paper published by YMCA England. This points out that, of the estimated 3.2 million 18 to 21 year-olds, just over 19,000 young people are currently claiming jobseeker’s allowance and housing benefit, and that 71% of the 18 to 21 year olds who access JSA do so for less than six months. It also points out that 7,200 young care leavers between 19 and 21 years-old in England are currently out of work and would potentially be able to claim JSA and housing benefit and that nearly 1,400 18 to 21 year-olds are currently living in YMCA supported accommodation and claim JSA and housing benefit. It points out, on lifestyle choice and the assertion that people just want to live on the dole, that most young people are entitled to £57.90 a week in JSA—frankly, what we would blow on a meal at the weekend.

YMCA England concludes:

“By removing automatic entitlement to Housing Benefit for 18 to 21 year olds the Government could be in danger of inadvertently taking away support from the young people who need it most and in doing so, exposing many more vulnerable young people to the risk of becoming homeless and therefore damaging their prospects of finding work in the future. Action is needed to address youth unemployment, but without protections thousands of vulnerable young people will face uncertain futures, not knowing if they will have anywhere they can call home and leaving them less able to find work”.

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, the Government’s policy proposal is to remove automatic entitlement to the housing cost elements of universal credit for certain young people aged 18 to 21. I confirm to the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, that that is the Government’s policy. It will apply only to relevant 18 to 21 year-old claimants who make new claims in the areas where UC digital has rolled out. This will ensure young people in the benefits system face the same choices as young people who work and who may not be able to afford to leave the family home.

I start with the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Manzoor. It is not fair that taxpayers should have to pay for young people who are not working to be able to live independently when young people in work or education may not be able to afford to do so. Having said that, the Government recognise that vulnerable people need to be protected. Work is currently being undertaken with a wide range of stakeholder groups to understand who these vulnerable young people may be. I can reassure the noble Baroness that the policy will not stop people looking for work in other areas of the country in the same way that young people not reliant on benefits can look for opportunities away from where they live.

We need to complete the consultation work in order to ensure that a robust policy is put in place. I acknowledge the remarks of a wide range of noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Low, the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, and the noble Lords, Lord Best and Lord McKenzie, but we are doing this work. It is too soon to make decisions on the specific exemptions that will be applied, but we will bring forward detailed proposals once the work is completed—although, to anticipate the question, that will not be in time for Report. Indeed, to jog back to the previous amendment, I do not anticipate that the work on the work allowances that we discussed in UC would be done in time for Report. As I mentioned previously, the change will apply only to new universal credit claims from April 2017.

20:30

On the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Low, we recognise that there will be vulnerable young people who do not have the stability of a family home to rely on, and we want to do everything we can to help them. That is why we will ensure that the exemptions that I have just discussed will be in place to protect those who are vulnerable. We are discussing this policy with landlords, housing associations, including Crisis, and charities. As these groups are often closest to young people, they have a unique perspective on the support that they require.

I shall leave the rounder issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Best, until we move into housing, which will be later on in the consideration of this Committee. I urge the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Manzoor]

I thank all noble Lords who took part in discussing the two amendments. I am very grateful to the Minister for stating that there are likely to be exemptions in certain aspects of this area. Of course, my amendment referred to current entitlement—the 16 year-olds who currently are entitled to housing benefit—and I wanted to safeguard that same provision for the future, for the reasons so well articulated by noble Lords. I personally would have preferred to see what the exemption said.

On that basis, I am particularly keen to explore this area much further, because I am very concerned about those of 16-plus and the fact that they are excluded from the 18 to 21 year-old group, for their vulnerability in terms of work and where they are going out to work. I am thinking of someone living in a small village. That comes to mind when I think of two young people who may well be searching for work; they are very likely to go into low-paid work. That means that if they are going into the city, which is quite a number of miles away from them, they cannot come backwards and forwards from home. In fact, it would be very expensive for them to do so, so they would be looking for accommodation in the cities. They would be unable to do so as matters stand, under this Bill.

I feel very strongly that there needs to be a clause such as the one that I have indicated. Indeed, I take on board the other amendment—and like other noble Lords I am not sure why I did not have my name to it. I understand where the noble Lord, Lord Low, and others are coming from.

I give notice that I shall come back to this amendment on Report. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 60 withdrawn.

Amendment 61

Moved by

[Baroness Donaghy]

61: After Clause 15, insert the following new Clause—
“Self-employment and minimum income floor
In Schedule 1 to the Welfare Reform Act 2012 (universal credit: supplementary regulation-making powers), in paragraph 4, at end of sub-paragraph (4) insert “, and may prescribe modifications of such provisions in respect of particular persons or classes of persons”.”

[Baroness Donaghy (Lab)]

In moving Amendment 61, I shall speak also to Amendment 66 in my name. The detailed amendment comes before the general one, but it is about the self-employed—and the Minister will not be surprised by that because I raised this in the Welfare Reform Bill discussions. I am coming back to haunt him.

With approximately 4.8 million self-employed people, this is an important area for growth in our economy, which makes it even more surprising that this Bill makes no reference to the particular and varied needs of the self-employed at such time that they might need some support from the social security system. I am grateful to the Low Incomes Tax Reform Group for its briefing.

Amendment 66 would add a new reporting obligation on the Government about self-employment and the impact of the minimum income floor in particular. The self-employed are a very diverse group which includes freelancers, farmers, seasonal traders and workers in construction and IT. Their needs will be different if their businesses are start-ups or are ongoing business. We need an annual government assessment. Some will take up to five years before their business is viable, and some will experience extremes of volatility in their income depending on their profession. We do not know enough about how this diversity fits into the social security system. The self-employed might be flexible, but their experience of the system is anything but.

I am arguing for a different system for the self-employed and for groups within the self-employed, particularly bearing in mind the Chancellor’s announcement that the minimum income floor will be the equivalent of the national living wage from next April, when it was originally the statutory national minimum wage. That is comparatively good news for the employed, but is bad news for the self-employed. To require the self-employed claimant to achieve an earnings pattern similar to that of the employed claimant is fundamentally to misunderstand the nature of profit and to ignore the fact that a business has to meet its costs and expenses before it can declare a profit. They include rent, heating, lighting, office equipment, vans, tools et cetera.

Reporting to Parliament would help to reveal what work is organised and regular under the new, much more stringent test to qualify for working tax credit. It would help to reveal how monthly reporting to DWP for universal credit purposes adds to the difficulty in the lives of the self-employed. This also has to be seen in the context of the Chancellor’s recent announcement that small businesses will have to report quarterly from 2020 instead of annually, just as our largest companies are dropping quarterly reports to their shareholders. Apparently, it is going to be made easy because the Government are,

“going to build one of the most digitally advanced tax administrations in the world”.—[Official Report, Commons, 25/11/15; col. 1361.]

Does that statement not fill you with terror?

The assumption is that more frequent reporting will improve accuracy, but that is far from the case. It does not take account of annual reconciliation, disputes about holidays or sickness, seasonal working or long periods of not working for freelancers, particularly writers and actors. We have the best actors in the world, but it is important that they do not all come from Eton. Equity recently conducted a survey of its members and found that 20% had claimed some form of benefit in the previous 12 months and more than half of them had claimed tax credits. When asked about their earnings, 25% of Equity members said that they earned between £5,000 and £10,000 from their self-employed work in the previous 12 months, and just over 23% earned between £10,000 and £20,000. Equity has said that when you factor in net profit figures, it is clear that many will hit the problem of the minimum income floor. I hope I will be forgiven for repeating what I said at Second Reading, which is that is that a minimum income floor is set for the self-employed who are deemed to be earning the national minimum wage—recently changed to the national living wage—whether or not they earn it.

You could argue that at least this is equal misery for all under the new system, but it is worse for those self-employed people with fluctuating earnings. If earnings in any month from April 2016 onwards are high enough to disentitle the claimant from universal credit, the surplus earnings regulations will apply to bring the surplus earnings in that month into account as earnings for universal credit purposes in each of the next five months. To summarise, actors will be worse off because of the application of the minimum income floor. That is why I ask in Amendment 61 for more flexibility to be applied to certain work groups because of their fluctuating earnings. It may seem an obscure amendment because it refers to the Welfare Reform Act 2012. However, the purpose is the same as it was when we discussed the self-employed during the debates on that Act. There is no evidence that a flexible approach has been adopted since the Act, and I do not believe it is impossible to prescribe the modifications that I have asked for.

To be self-employed, activity needs to be undertaken on a commercial basis, with a view to making a profit, and, as I said earlier, it must be organised and regular. With effect from April 2016, a self-employed claimant must register as self-employed with HMRC for self-assessment and provide their unique taxpayer reference with their working tax credit claim. It remains uncertain how HMRC will determine whether an activity is undertaken on a commercial basis; whether there will be different interpretations of whether someone is employed or self-employed for tax and tax credit purposes; and how claimants and prospective claimants will be helped to ensure that they claim on the correct basis to avoid unwittingly incurring an overpayment. HMRC is still developing its guidance, apparently.

The Minister’s letter to Peers of 25 November 2015 says that the same tests for determining the commerciality of a trade will be applied to tax credits as to income tax. However, the Minister goes on to say that if HMRC decides that the test is not met for tax credit purposes, the income from the activity will still be subject to income tax. It would be interesting to know on what basis that income would be taxed; if it were taxed as profits of a trade, it would be an indication that the tests of commerciality are not the same.

The minimum income floor will be particularly problematic—a word that I cannot say—for seasonal trades and trades that take more than 12 months to move into profit; newly established businesses taking on their first employee; businesses experiencing a downturn, a bad debt or the bankruptcy of a key customer; businesses depending on the weather; and businesses that incur large expenses in certain months. I have already mentioned entertainers and those in other unpredictable trades, but there are also bed and breakfast owners in the winter season; arable farmers who earn all their profit at or around harvest time; and livestock farmers, who face the cost of rearing and getting their livestock to market.

The fundamental objection to the monthly minimum income floor is that it opens up a gap in the treatment of employed as opposed to self-employed claimants. For example, a livestock farmer who has had his universal credit restricted by the minimum income floor in the seven months of the year when he makes little or no profit, and who receives no universal credit at all in the five months in which his business becomes profitable, will be entitled to considerably less universal credit over the course of the year than an employed claimant who may earn the same over the whole year but whose earnings are spread evenly over 12 months. It is wholly wrong that the amount of welfare support that a worker receives should depend so much on cash flow rather than earnings. The position is made worse by carrying forward surplus income and expenditure with a view to total annual profits being assessed over the course of the year, as the minimum income floor will continue to be applied on a monthly basis.

Many self-employed claimants will be disadvantaged by the minimum income floor even when their annual profits exceed it. Given that the intention of universal credit is to assist claimants at the point when they most need help, it seems perverse to restrict entitlement when cash flow is at its lowest and to exclude from entitlement when profit from that expenditure is finally received.

For claimants whose income and expenditure arise unevenly, would the Minister consider accepting Amendment 61 so that they may opt for appropriate and tailored conditionality instead of the minimum income floor? This would limit the risk to the DWP while addressing an otherwise unfair anomaly. Assuming that a statistical framework is already in place for self-employed and the minimum income floor, why should it not be made publicly available and sector-specific so that we can see who is most disadvantaged?

20:45

In discussions during the passage of the Welfare Reform Act, I seem to remember making a plea that the exemption period of one year for a start-up, while welcome, would not be sufficient for most businesses. The Prince’s Trust indicated that one year is simply too short a time to assess the profitability of a business. The Government’s response is to demand monthly returns for working tax credit and quarterly returns for income tax. I am rather fearful of asking government for any improvements if it risks the retaliatory response that the self-employed will in future have to report on a daily basis.

The Child Poverty Action Group has also raised concerns about the minimum income floor and its alignment to the national living wage. It says:

“The median weekly income of self-employed workers is £207, yet the minimum income floor is currently £234.50 and will rise to £252 a week”.

It goes on to say:

“A self-employed worker with two children earning £207 a week already losing out on universal credit … combined with a reduction in the work allowance and the cut to the first child element this family will lose £1,252 next year if they are renting and £2,102 if they are non-renters”.

In conclusion, there is a need for more publicly available information about the self-employed, the wide diversity of groups and the impact of the minimum income floor. There is also a need for flexible alternatives to the minimum income floor; I suggest some tailored conditionality. The requirement for monthly returns is bureaucratic, inefficient and will not lead to desired outcomes. There must be a more efficient system; for example, averaging profits over a period that is appropriate to businesses, which should be a minimum of one year. I hope the Minister will acknowledge that the self-employed do not fit into the social security system easily, even though there may be periods of their lives when they desperately need help.

[Baroness Campbell of Surbiton (CB)]

My Lords, before I speak to Amendment 67 I apologise to the Minister for not being here at Second Reading. Unfortunately, it clashed with the hearing of the Select Committee on the Equality Act on disability provisions and I was very torn as where to go, so I ask him to forgive me for not being there at that time.

I am delighted that Amendment 67 has the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, and my noble friends Lord Low of Dalston and Lady Hollins. Amendment 67 would require the Secretary of State to report each year on the Government’s progress in meeting their commitments to halving the disability employment gap. My amendment is designed to ensure that this commitment has the prominence it needs if it is to come to fruition.

I was delighted and honoured to receive many invitations last month to speak on the 20th anniversary of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. One of the key objectives that drove our campaign at the time was to end discrimination faced by disabled people in the workplace. The Disability Discrimination Act made it unlawful to discriminate against disabled employees, which was a good start, but we all know that legislation alone cannot provide all the solutions—and it did not.

One need only glance at the statistics to see that disabled people are still facing significant challenges which prevent them pursuing interesting careers. At present, the employment rate for disabled people is 47.6%; for non-disabled people, it is 80.5%—a gap of over 30%, and it has been stuck at that level for more than a decade. The Government identified this gap as one of their election priorities and committed to halving it by the end of the term. That was a very bold commitment but one that I praised enormously.

The Minister for Disabled People in another place has put his weight behind the Disability Confident campaign to raise employers’ awareness of disabled people’s potential, in the hope that they will get the same opportunities as their non-disabled peers. It is a laudable aim but not quite as new as it purports to be. The Business Disability Forum has been promoting a similar campaign in great detail for years upon years. Nor is this a solution to the gap. It helps, of course, but it will not achieve the objective on its own. As many organisations working in the field have found, awareness-raising is important but it goes only so far—and not that far, I am afraid.

The disability employment gap illustrates the systemic and deep-seated inequality that disabled people in the workplace face. It is constantly there, whether the economy is booming or in recession. That is why the Government need to step up their oversight and target action where it is needed. It is not enough simply to count the employment numbers. It is the employment gap that needs to be measured in more detail. The Minister for Disabled People in the other place said that measuring progress towards full employment will include some—I repeat: some—reporting of the gap. That is of course welcome but, if change is to be driven across government, we need to have a proper reporting mechanism enshrined in law to incentivise all departments to scrutinise what goes on beyond the headline figure. Reporting against specific groups of disabled people will give the Government a greater understanding of how to tackle the complex reef of barriers to work. These are deeply ingrained at every stage of the path to employment, including further and higher education and apprenticeships, which I shall come to later.

Support for disabled people in other areas is crucial to their ability to work. It also needs factoring in when addressing the employment gap, as I shall briefly illustrate. In a recent research study carried out by the charity Scope, 79% of disabled users of social care said that support services are vital to help them to work, seek work, volunteer and study. The research further showed that fewer than half of disabled people now receive the support they need to live independently and access jobs.

Inadequate support for independent living is another massive barrier to the employment of disabled people. Without assistance to get out of bed, wash, dress, have breakfast and leave the house, it is nigh-on impossible to find and retain a job. The lack of work income has an impact on the independence of disabled people, and in the end creates a vicious circle. Therefore, reporting on the gap would help the Government to get a more accurate picture of what is behind these figures. It would enable them to plan a well-co-ordinated cross-departmental response to the long-term chronic unemployment cycle in which disabled people are caught.

In the recent spending review it was announced that more than £115 million would be invested in the joint health and work unit. A requirement to report annually to departments on progress towards halving the disability employment gap, in the detail set out in my amendment, would support the unit and provide a cross-departmental employment focus.

I look forward to the Minister’s response to my amendment. I hope he will appreciate that it is an enabling amendment that is intended to be helpful and to ensure that the Government continue to support disabled people in playing an active role in our country’s growing economy. It is time to move on from awareness raising.

[Baroness Doocey (LD)]

My Lords, I rise to support Amendment 67 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell of Surbiton, and in particular to support the right of disabled people to access employment. As the noble Baroness has just said, it is quite shameful that almost half the working age population of disabled people is without a job.

The Bill includes little detail on how the Government plan to halve the disability employment gap. Perhaps the Minister could kindly tell the House what practical and measurable steps they are taking to achieve the target and how they plan to involve disabled people themselves in formulating the plans.

Disabled people clearly know from personal experience the barriers they face to finding and staying in work; despite the best intentions of successive Governments, disabled people face major discrimination when trying to get work. Employer attitudes are a particular problem, not because employers do not care but because they often see disabled people as “risky hires”.

One of my friends, who has an excellent degree, exceptional IT skills and is very personable, has spent 10 years trying to get work without success. The fact that he is blind has been a major problem, largely because employers have absolutely no idea what specialist equipment is available that would allow him to play a full part in the workplace. He tells stories of explaining to employers that he can type because there is a special programme. It is not that employers do not care; they do not know. It is therefore essential to find ways to educate employers about the specialist employment support that is available to disabled people. Although I am sure that the large employers understand what systems are available, I have spoken to about 50 SMEs and the vast majority have little or no idea of how disabled people operate and the huge contribution they could make to their business.

In the latest spending review the Government announced plans for a new work and health programme to provide specialist support for claimants with health conditions or disabilities and those who have been unemployed for more than two years. Can the Minister confirm that the programme will be similar to the Work Choice model and say whether it will respond directly to the specific barriers to work that disabled people experience?

Access to Work is a vital scheme that enables many disabled people to stay and progress in work. The Government also announced in the spending review a real-terms increase in spending on Access to Work. This is extremely welcome, but it can only make a difference if employers and disabled people know that it exists. This is not the case all the time. The investment also comes with a great opportunity to improve Access to Work itself. Will the Minister, for example, consider an approach which delivers Access to Work through a single personal budget for employment support that is available both before and during employment? Disabled people tell me that this could make a huge difference, because it would guarantee prospective employers that any adjustments a disabled person needed would follow the person and would already be in place. It would take away the concern that they would not be able to provide what was needed.

If reporting requirements are included in the Bill, it will provide a departmental and cross-government focus on these laudable goals and ensure that achieving them is embedded in the organisational culture. It will also ensure that successive Governments remain committed to delivering the changes in policy, practice and, more particularly, public attitudes that mean that disabled people can find the employment they want and so desperately need.

21:00

[Baroness Pitkeathley (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendment 64 concerns those people who are kept out of the workforce as a result of their caring role. Every year, 2.1 million people take on an unpaid caring role and nearly 2.1 million people find their caring role comes to an end. While not of all of those whose caring role finishes have given up work to care or may be of working age, a considerable number of them are in that situation. Indeed, Carers UK research shows that 2.3 million people have given up work at some point to care, unpaid, for loved ones.

People give up work to become a carer for all kinds of reasons. It may be simply through personal choice or because there are some unreliable services out there that provide substitute care. Others feel forced to leave through a lack of carer-friendly employment practices such as flexible working and paid care leave.

The Government do not currently collect information about the number of working-age carers who remain out of work after their caring role ends. However, evidence from Carers UK’s Caring and Family Finances inquiry indicated that former carers who are of working age remain significantly less likely to be in work than non-carers of working age.

Leaving work to care puts pressure on the day-to-day finances of carers and their families, but it can also have far-reaching consequences for their long-term financial independence as they struggle to return to work after a caring role. Former carers out of work report high reductions in their income as a result of the legacy of caring, with over 80% saying that their income was more than £10,000 a year less than it would have been if they had not been carers.

The end of caring responsibilities can cause complete disruption to family finances, but the wider economic impact is also vast. Research from Age UK and Carers UK indicates that £5.3 billion has been wiped from the economy in lost earnings because of people who have dropped out of the workforce due to caring. Providing the right amount of support to enable carers to return to work is essential, not only for their health, well-being and finances but for the wider economy.

Our ageing population and the fact that more people are living with long-term conditions means that the demand for care will rise. Measures therefore need to be in place for those who choose to give up work to be able to return. A requirement to report on the support available to former carers and the number of former carers in employment would ensure that this often-hidden group would be given the tailored support they need. Does the Minister acknowledge that more needs to be done to help former carers back into employment and will he undertake a review of the support currently available to former carers? Does he agree that helping former carers back to work benefits both the carer’s own personal health and finances and the economy as a whole?

[Baroness Hollins]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 67, in support of my noble friend Lady Campbell. Given the Government’s ambitious commitment to halve the disability employment gap, it seems logical and common sense to require the Secretary of State to report on progress, but such a report would need to be broken down by disability or impairment. For example, the Spinal Injuries Association draws attention to a number of issues that prevent people with new spinal cord injuries returning to work. I shall mention just two of those. The first is the need to have the right care and support package in place that is flexible enough to enable a person to work. The second is the need for accessible transport to and from work.

The employment rate for people with learning disabilities, mental illness and autism remains stubbornly low, which highlights the very real structural and attitudinal barriers that exist for them. Worryingly, the Health & Social Care Information Centre reports that the percentage of people with learning disabilities in paid work has dropped from 7.1% to 6% in the past few years. To be frank, the current government employment schemes have failed people with learning disabilities. The National Development Team for Inclusion has done some thorough research into the cost-effectiveness of employment support for people with mental health problems and learning disabilities. It shows that much of the current public spending in this area is being wasted, as it goes on non-evidence-based models that are more expensive and have poorer outcomes than the approaches that do work. If scaled up, effective interventions could be expected to support up to three times as many people in retaining paid work. This would save considerable sums in traditional care services.

A major obstacle for people with learning disabilities to getting into work is the lack of aspiration, for themselves if they have grown up not having any expectation of working, and of their families, their supporters and the professionals who advise them. The two approaches found by the NDTi to be effective were individual placement support and supported employment. I declare an interest here as I have published a book for employers which tells the story of Gary Butler and his work at St George’s, University of London, where he is employed to teach medical students how to communicate with people with learning disabilities. It is interesting because it is a job which only those with learning disabilities can do. The normal image of work that is suitable for such people is traditionally along the lines of collecting trolleys at Sainsbury’s and so on, but there are jobs which are particularly suited to people’s own needs and interests. St George’s has been employing two people with learning disabilities as trainers for 23 years. It is something that I initiated after having seen a similar kind of scheme in Boston.

With the right support, people with learning disabilities and those with mental illness make valued employees who are more likely to stay in work with lower sickness rates than non-disabled people, and there is research evidence for this. I hope that the Minister will recognise the value of a detailed report so as to understand any remaining barriers to halving the disability employment gap and, as my noble friend said, to get behind the figures.

[Baroness Drake (Lab)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 64A. On 25 November, the Chancellor stated that he was determined that the economic recovery would be,

“for all, felt in all parts of our nation”.—[Official Report, Commons, 25/11/15; col. 1358.]

Increasing employment is a key indicator of the benefits of economic recovery, but there is much debate about whether the increase has been at the cost of job quality, weak pay growth and productivity performance, and rising and deepening job insecurity for a significant number of workers. Understanding the reality and extent of these concerns is important to understanding progress to full employment. Level of employment is a necessary but not sufficient indicator of whether the recovery is benefiting all parts of the nation and providing opportunity for all, which the Chancellor aspires to.

The plethora of amendments to the Clause 1 obligation to report on progress to full employment reveals that many noble Lords share that concern, if for slightly different reasons. Amendment 64A requires the report to address additionally what is happening within the labour market, in particular but not exclusively in terms of changing employment practices and types of employment, as well as on self-employment, non-guaranteed hours of work, quantitative and qualitative underemployment—that is, people working fewer hours than they want, or at a lower level of skill than they are capable of—and younger workers.

The UK Commission for Employment and Skills reports that, since 2008, the UK labour market has been more efficient than some other economies in keeping people at work, but that there have been significant changes in the nature of that employment and that those at the margin are impacted especially harshly. Labour productivity is struggling to recover. This results from factors such as the decline in youth employment, rising underemployment, a falling number of jobs in middle-skill occupations and a shift to a lower-wage, lower-skill economy. There are concentrations of unemployment and evidence of quantitative and qualitative underemployment. The commission found that nearly half of establishments reported that they had employees with skills more advanced than their job required, which accounts for 16% of the workforce and 4.3 million workers—indeed, more than are considered to have a skills gap.

If the commission is correct, when it comes to considering how full employment is interpreted, the available supply of labour will be much bigger than those officially classified as unemployed. Economic growth has increased employment but not always of the type and with the hours that people seek. If the Government want to achieve opportunity for all and lower welfare, the higher minimum wage cannot be a direct replacement for welfare. Arithmetic tells us that the £4 billion rise in pay it will produce will not compensate many whose benefits will fall as a result of the £12 billion cuts. The minimum wage targets the hourly pay of low earners and we hope that it will deliver increased productivity. Welfare supports low-income families. A goal to benefit all families needs the progress report to cover types of employment and practices.

The rise in self-employment—83% of net gains in employment between 2007 and 2014, rising to 4.5 million and 15% of workers—was accompanied by a 22% fall in self-employed average median income. The Resolution Foundation found that more than half of full-time, self-employed people are low paid, compared to around one in five employees. My noble friend Lady Donaghy gave an excellent articulation of the problem and any repetition from me would merely detract from that clarity. To restate, increasing the minimum wage is a solution largely confined to those directly employed. The minimum wage does not apply to low earning, self-employed people. Whether self-employment falls with recovery is uncertain, but policies focused on increasing high-wage employment need to deliver for the self-employed too.

The labour market has witnessed the rise of other precarious forms of employment, such as a sustained increase in the use of fixed-period contracts, casual employment, short-term arrangements and non-guaranteed hours. Recent ONS updates on the use of non-guaranteed hours contracts—zero hours for short—reveal around 1.5 million such contracts where work was carried out in the survey period, which is an increase of 6%. But in addition to the 1.5 million, there were 1.9 million contracts where no work was carried out, which is up from 1.3 million. This is not a small business phenomenon, as nearly half of businesses with employment of 250 or more make use of non-guaranteed hours contracts, compared with 10% of businesses with less than 20.

The key observation is that the increased use of non-guaranteed hours contracts over a period of stronger employment recovery suggests that they are becoming a permanent feature. The Resolution Foundation comments that,

“it is clear that this form of working is not fading away as our employment recovery gains ground … some people value the flexibility offered by ZHCs, for many they bring deep insecurity … for those affected—particularly in low-paying sectors … the danger is that job insecurity is becoming deeper”.

The Clause 1 report needs to inform us whether such contracts are becoming a standard form of employment in low-paid sectors, such as hospitality, care and retail, and how the Government will respond.

21:15

The Government aspire to a higher-wage economy but, given the extent of polarisation in the labour market, with the growth of both low and high-skilled jobs and the decline of middle-skilled jobs, this is uncertain. What is certain is that a route out of in-work poverty is job progression or upskilling, but how will that be achieved in industries characterised by sustained insecure and low-paid jobs?

The Commission for Employment and Skills observed that chief among those affected by tough labour market conditions are young people. Their participation has diverged markedly from the rest of the workforce. Between 2007 and 2013, 1.2 million over-50s found work, while 400,000 fewer younger people were employed. Yet we know that for young people sustained unemployment can have a scarring effect, lowering their future earnings and employment outcomes.

I am sure the Minister will assert that there are indications that the quality of labour market participation is improving, but whether those improvements are sustained, whether economic recovery benefits all parts of our nation and what that means for the definition of and progress towards full employment—in terms of the available supply of labour—should all be considered against the evidence over the course of the Parliament. That is the purpose of Amendment 64A.

[Baroness Manzoor]

My Lords, I shall speak to my Amendment 65. I recognise that my proposed new clause may be imperfectly drafted, as the word “disabled” should perhaps have been defined. As this is a probing amendment, I hope the Committee will make allowances.

My amendment is pretty self-explanatory, in that it requires the Secretary of State to,

“lay a report before Parliament annually on the progress which has been made towards halving the disability employment gap”.

It also requires that,

“the report must set out how the Secretary of State has interpreted ‘disability employment gap’ for these purposes”.

I would like the report to include,

“an assessment of the sectors in which disabled people have primarily secured jobs … an assessment of the type and level of jobs primarily secured by disabled people, and … an assessment of the progression of disabled people within the job market”.

My amendment will help to improve the transparency of employment outcomes for disabled people and allow monitoring of the Government’s target.

I am, however, rather concerned because we have asked the Minister for reviews of sanctions, conditionality criteria and so on. From my perspective, we have not had an answer that might have given us some hope. However, I hope the Minister will give this measure careful consideration because, across the Committee, I see there is some support for it.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

My Lords, I shall speak briefly in support of Amendment 64 in the name of my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley, an indefatigable champion of the rights of carers. I also express my support for other amendments, particularly those concerning the disability employment gap, on which we heard very eloquent arguments from the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell of Surbiton.

It is very welcome that the constraints on labour market participation created by the care of children are much better recognised now than they were in the past, but we still have a long way to go with regard to carers, who are an increasingly important part of the labour force. I hope that the carer strategy the Government are working on will address the need for policies that make it easier to combine paid work and care, such as the statutory paid care leave for just a few days a year which many other countries provide. I have argued for this very important policy in relation to a number of Bills going through your Lordships’ House. We are becoming a laggard compared with other countries. We can learn a lot from them.

As care is such an important part of the economy, the amendment underlines the case for reporting on the position of carers and former carers in the labour market as part of any duty to report on employment trends. I suggest that it might go a bit further, so that any such report includes information on those who combine paid work and care and those who have had to give up paid work to care, as well as former carers.

[Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)]

My Lords, I speak in support of Amendment 67 in the name of my noble friend Lady Campbell of Surbiton. I wholeheartedly support the Government’s laudable aim to halve the employment gap. Leonard Cheshire has called it the most ambitious and exciting commitment to disabled people in the last decade. However—I am sure that the Minister was expecting a “however” from me—without reporting it becomes just awareness. Awareness will not do it. There has been awareness-raising for as long as I can remember. There is a moment of “wake up”, when people realise they should be slightly more open to disabled people, but then they forget what they are meant to do. Charities such as Scope, Mind and Mencap, to name a few, have had amazing public campaigns to raise awareness. There is a host of such organisations. Disability Confident is a bit of a step forward, but the shift in attitude is minute. We know that because the employment gap still exists.

It is important to look at the reality of how this changes for specific impairment groups. We are not one homogeneous group. We are not “the disabled”; we are disabled people. Different solutions will be required for different people: two wheelchair users do not require the same solutions, let alone the difference between me as a wheelchair user and somebody with a learning disability. We can all be treated and discriminated against in very different ways. With changes to things such as disabled students’ awards and Access to Work, which is too complicated and inflexible—it takes too long to apply to get support—and the other changes that have come in, a number of people have written to me to say that their access to work has been cut with extremely short notice. They have gone from full-time support to suddenly having 12 hours a week. They are then pushed out of work. Instead of helping them it is making their lives far more complicated.

Disabled people are tired of awareness; we are tired of waiting. Disabled people just need a bit of help. The biggest change will come if we move away from awareness. If the Government are really serious about closing the employment gap, the tone must come from this Chamber and the other place with them accepting the amendment.

[The Lord Bishop of St Albans]

My Lords, I rise briefly to support Amendment 65 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Manzoor, and Amendment 67 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell of Surbiton, which would legislate for a disability employment gap reporting obligation.

If we are to take the Government at their word—that the measures in the Bill reducing benefits for the disabled are about incentivising work, rather than simply cutting the cost of the benefit budget—I freely applaud the intention, if not necessarily the execution. The disability employment gap is, of course, a sad indictment of a society that has for perhaps too long been willing to ignore the aspirations of the disabled to engage fully in society through work. As the Government’s own impact assessment found, 61% of those in the work-related activity group want the opportunity to earn a living. It is quite right that the Government have committed to this laudable aim of halving the disability employment gap. We all applaud that.

There are, of course, measures within the present Bill that the Government claim will contribute towards reducing the employment gap by incentivising paid employment; the WRAG cut is the obvious example. However, as was evidenced in this Chamber last week, there are quite a few people with a great deal of experience in this area who have grave concerns about the effectiveness of the measures. This kind of carrot-and-stick approach cannot be a substitute for the proper strategic, joined-up thinking across the departments that will be required if we are to help disabled people overcome the considerable challenges they face in entering or re-entering the workplace.

I acknowledge that the Government are making good progress on this issue on some fronts. For example, I welcome the announcement in the spending review of the new work and health programme. However, a proper reporting obligation will bring much needed clarity and transparency to the issue of disability employment, as well as allowing the Government to think more strategically about how best to allocate resources in an effort to close the gap. This obligation is made even more essential, given the seriousness of the implications of measures like the ESA WRAG cut for those who currently rely on such benefits. If the WRAG cut does not facilitate increased numbers of disabled people moving into work—or, even worse, makes it harder for them to find employment, as a number of charitable bodies have suggested—we need to know about it. These amendments would cost the Government almost nothing, but would give them a sound platform going forward as they seek to fulfil this excellent pledge to close the disability employment gap. I therefore hope that they will support some form of these amendments as we go forward.

[Lord Suri (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to be able to support Amendment 67, which is crucial. At present, the disability employment gap means that disabled people are over 20% less likely than their counterparts to be in full-time employment. Employment has many benefits other than the obvious one of economic advantage. The recognition of your employment acts as an important societal signal, improving your reputation among your peers. Furthermore, in what the Prime Minister has termed the “global race”, the cost to the country of having unutilised human capital is immense. Quite simply, high levels of unemployment for the disabled are not something we can afford.

The new clause which Amendment 67 would introduce would nudge the Secretary of State into dealing properly with this issue, and laying out a clear strategy to close the disability employment gap. The current Secretary of State has made significant strides towards helping the disabled into work. It would also allow Members of Parliament and Peers to scrutinise the work done in this field separate from any other scrutiny of employment statistics which goes on. Some might argue that this is not required or that it is impracticable to have a separate report for disabled people but, as the amendment says, these people are,

“marginalised from the labour force and require a specific focus”.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, before I get to Amendment 62, I will comment on the range of amendments which other noble Lords have spoken to. Each of these has the aspiration of getting appropriate reporting requirements from the Government, particularly to address the challenge of closing the disability employment gap. We heard from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans about the importance of reporting, particularly in the context of something such as the ESA WRAG. If that is going to challenge closing the employment gap then reporting is needed to make sure it is better addressed. He said that we have ignored for too long the aspiration of disabled people to work.

21:30

The noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, supports the ambition of halving the disability employment gap, stressed the importance of reporting to help achieve that and thought that Access to Work was too inflexible as a programme. The noble Baroness, Lady Manzoor, stressed the importance of making sure that the various sectors of the economy accessed by disabled people—the types of jobs—are effectively reported on as well, not just the crude aggregates. My noble friend Lady Drake made a not dissimilar point in terms of looking not just at aggregates but at job quality, job security, underemployment and upskilling, and asked why we have this growth of zero-hours contracts when the economy is growing. The noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, said that if we are committed to halving the disability employment gap, it is logical that we report on progress, and spoke about programmes involving individual placement and support. The noble Lord, Lord Suri, said that we cannot afford not to address this issue through reporting.

My noble friends Lady Pitkeathley and Lady Lister focused on carers, and said that the report must include people who have been kept out of the workplace because of their caring responsibilities and wish to return to it. That issue has probably been too long overlooked. The noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, focused on the issue of employer attitudes.

The noble Baroness, Lady Campbell, as ever, gave a very authoritative view of what is needed. She identified that there is still systematic and deep-rooted discrimination; that we need to change employer attitudes and reporting each year will be important to seek to address that; that this will need a cross-government approach; and that it is time to move away from awareness-raising.

My noble friend Lady Donaghy focused extensively, and with great authority, on the self-employed, making the point that the tax credits system is not effectively geared to deal with self-employed people who do not readily fit the procedures. She was less than pleased with the concept of monthly returns, suggesting that they were bureaucratic. My noble friend touches on hugely important issues, given the growing importance of self-employment to our economy.

As I said, we have Amendment 62 in this group, which offers a definition of full employment as 80% of the working population. As a number of the other amendments do, it also calls for the report on full employment to specify what progress has been made towards halving the disability employment gap. In this latter regard it covers the same ground as amendments in the name of the noble Baronesses, Lady Manzoor and Lady Campbell, and others, which reasonably require more ongoing details—for example, of the type of jobs that disabled people are able to secure and what steps are required when progress is insufficient. We have no difficulty in being able to support those.

We welcome the Government’s commitment to report on progress made towards full employment, as we do their stated aim of halving the disability employment gap. We note that the definition of full employment is to be left to the Secretary of State to interpret at each annual report, and so could be a movable feast. As we did in the other place, we offer 80% for the definition, and hope that Ministers in your Lordships’ House will be a little more forthcoming on how they would approach that measurement. Perhaps we can at least have some indication of how the Government propose to construct their definition. Will it be a single measure regardless of the components of the data? What about the progress, for example, of former carers—the subject of the amendment of my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley? We know, for example, from the ONS that there are some three-quarters of a million contracts with no guaranteed term—more than 100,000 up on a year ago—and that 1.5 million contracts do not guarantee a minimum number of hours. My noble friend Lady Drake touched upon these issues as well. In 2014, just under one in 10, or 3 million people, wanted to work more hours. They are the underemployed. How will these issues be included in the reporting?

My noble friends Lady Donaghy and Lady Drake raised various matters about the self-employed. Perhaps the Minister can say something about how the reporting is going to cover their situations. These are very relevant issues and I support their amendments. We know that the rise in total employment since 2008 has predominantly been through self-employment, a point which I think my noble friend Lady Drake raised. In 2014, there were 4.6 million people who were self-employed in their main job—15% of those in work. There were also almost a third of a million employees who had a second job in which they were self-employed.

Let us compare the second quarter of 2014 to the first quarter of 2008. Unemployment among the self-employed rose by 732,000 but the number of employees rose by 339,000. As the inflow rate has stayed fairly steady, the increase seems attributable to a decline in the off-flow rate, rather than a great flood of entrepreneurial activity. Although it is mainly men who are self-employed, the most common roles being in construction, taxi driving and management consultancy, the number of women in self-employment is increasing at a faster rate than for men. According to the ONS, the average income for the self-employed has actually fallen by 22% over the period since 2008-09, which again was a point that I think my noble friend Lady Drake referred to. The purpose of touching upon these issues is to emphasise that employment policy is not just about counting aggregates but should be about the quality of jobs—“decent work” is a term that is growing in use. We hear that what gets measured and reported on will get the attention of government, so how wide will their attention span be on this issue?

We have long since signed up to the importance of work and supporting those who can get back into work. We adhere to the Waddell and Burton doctrine about work—good work—being good for one’s health. But the proposition about work being the best route out of poverty is, as we have discussed on a number of recent occasions, coming under strain. It certainly will without in-work benefit support from government. However, 80% of the active population is an ambitious target to have for full employment. It was one adopted by the previous Labour Government and noted at the time by the noble Lord, Lord Freud, as ambitious, although good progress was made before the banking crisis of 2008. We know that the Minister is wary of targets, but on what will the Government base their judgment of full employment?

My right honourable friend Stephen Timms MP picked up on the suggestion that the Government would prefer a formulation to the effect that the target employment rate should be the highest in the G7. I cannot imagine that this would satisfy a purist such as the Minister, but he may wish to comment. Of course the UK, at 73%, is currently somewhere in the middle: I believe it is behind Germany and Japan but ahead of the US and France.

Reaching or making progress towards full employment must inevitably entail the Government beginning to deliver on their commitment to close the disability employment gap. The employment gap between disabled people and the rest of the working-age population stands at an alarming 33%. It has been remarkably stubborn around that level for a number of years and, as we have heard, that statistic masks a range of different outcomes, as we discussed when debating the ESA changes and the review produced by the noble Lord, Lord Low, and his colleagues. The employment rate for those with learning disabilities is just about 8%, and for those with autism about 15%.

The consensus is, I think, that if progress is to be made on this gap it will require a radical reform of the employment support being delivered to disabled people. It also needs a change in public and employer perceptions. Debate in another place referred to the failure of the Work Programme, and the highly regarded Work Choice looked as though it lacked sufficient focus.

In the other place, the Minister said that it was necessary to report on closing the gap because it is inextricably linked to reporting on full employment. The difficulty with that position is that there will be a range of issues which impact on attaining full employment. Even if the Minister does not accept our 80% this evening, could he outline how he sees the target rate being constructed and the extent to which it will address a range of issues which noble Lords, in their amendments, have identified this evening?

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, I start by addressing the amendments relating to self-employment, Amendments 61 and 66, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy. Amendment 61 relates to self-employment and the minimum income floor, and how it works within universal credit. Universal credit is there to support those on low incomes and ensure that work always pays. It supports self-employment where it is a realistic route to financial self-sufficiency, alongside other support available to help businesses.

However, the welfare system is not there to prop up unproductive or loss-making businesses. The minimum income floor is there to incentivise individuals to increase their earnings from their self-employment. Those subject to the minimum income floor are exempt from having to search for or carry out any other work, allowing them to concentrate on making a success of their business and maximising their returns up to and beyond the level of the minimum income floor. I should just point out that the changes to the national living wage mean that the pay of the competitor to the self-employed will go up, so in relative terms they have an opportunity also to increase their pay. The other thing that the minimum income floor does is address a loop-hole in the tax credits system whereby individuals can report little or zero income but still receive full financial support, which is neither a desirable or sustainable situation to maintain.

Amendment 61 seeks to allow for flexibility in the application of the MIF. This power already exists and provides a number of significant easements on when the MIF is first applied and the level it is set at. The most significant example of this is our exemption from the MIF, for up to 12 months, of claimants who are within one year of starting out in self-employment and are taking active steps to increase their earnings. Monthly reporting allows universal credit to be adjusted on a monthly basis, which ensures that claimants whose income from self-employment falls do not have to wait several months for an increase in their universal credit. Following a report from SSAC, we have put in big disregards on the surplus earnings on a monthly basis. This approach eradicates the overpayment and underpayment issue generated by the current system, which is done on assumed average earnings.

The noble Baroness was quite right that we need to make this work for particular groups. She picked out Equity, with which we do have regular meetings, to make sure that we understand not so much its concerns as the reality of the working lives of people within Equity and adjust to them. We are testing how to provide support for the self-employed and to help them increase their earnings, employing some specialised work coaches in a trial. We will test all this out as we roll out. The noble Baroness is, of course, well ahead of the game. The number who are self-employed among universal credit claimants is currently low. We need to monitor how all this works, including the implementation of the minimum income floor, as we roll out universal credit with more self-employed in it.

21:45

I turn to a series of amendments to provide for the annual report on full employment to include specific data on various groups. I must point out that we have not built into universal credit the requirement to capture specific new management information associated with the amendments under our current plans. In my view, seeking to do so now would not represent value for money, given the relatively short timescale for which we want to report the information. More importantly, I think, it could disrupt the universal credit implementation timeline.

Amendment 66, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, would extend the reporting duty to include information about the self-employed. The UK labour market is one of the most diverse in the world, with self-employment accounting for more than a quarter of the growth in employment since 2010. As we want to do all we can to encourage entrepreneurs, the Government have launched two reviews to consider how we can better support self-employment. In addition, the new enterprise allowance provides a weekly allowance during the first six months to all JSA and ESA claimants, income support lone parents and some universal credit claimants from day one of their claim to help them build their business.

The amendment would require the annual report on progress towards full employment to include information on the number of people who are self-employed. As noble Lords will be aware, these figures are published every month by the ONS as part of labour market data. We do not feel, therefore, that we need to monitor specifically the share of self-employed jobs.

I turn to the other amendments in the group. I think that the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, misspoke: he said Amendment 62—he meant Amendment 63. I am sure that everyone else in the Chamber understood exactly what he was referring to. He said that full employment should mean 80% of the working-age population. I of course blushed with pleasure when he mentioned my piece in 2007 on reducing dependency, which set out the challenges that the country needed to face if it was to be serious about full employment. As he rightly said, I wrote about it in the context of the then Labour Government’s aspiration to achieve employment of 80% of the working-age population.

Quite a lot has changed in that 80% figure. The first reason we have to adjust is that the ONS definition of the population has moved as a result of equalisation of pension age at 65 for both men and women, which means that the 80% aspiration has moved down to 78% mechanically. There is another, slightly less mechanical change, which is the make-up of the population moving towards older people and young people entering the labour market later because their participation in education has been increasing. The combined effect of those changes, I have estimated—I had a feeling that the noble Lord might want a very detailed analysis—probably pulls the 80% figure to nearer 75%.

The manifesto commitment uses as the comparator the highest employment rate of the big seven industrialised countries. As things stand, ironically, that would mean raising our employment rate to around 75%—more or less the same figure. I am using the UK stated rates, not the international comparison rates. From today, it is moving from 73.7%, in the latest reported figures, to 75%, which is roughly a million people. That would represent our highest employment rate—actually, we currently have our highest employment rate—but the target also means that, if the other competitive countries move up further, that pulls our target up with it. On balance, achieving the target would put us pretty close to something as challenging as I wrote about way back in 2007.

The first part of Amendment 63, along with Amendments 65 and 67, tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Manzoor and Lady Hollins, and the noble Lord, Lord Low, would require a separate annual report on the progress being made towards halving the disability employment gap. The latter amendments would also require some specific information, such as the employment rates of different groups of disabled people. However, as progress against the disability employment gap commitment is a key factor of our overall commitment to full employment, these amendments are not necessary, as that progress will be reported in the annual report on full employment in any case.

The point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell, on how we need to bring together employment, health and social care to support disabled people into work is one that we accept. One of the things that we are proposing, which the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, has called for, is a radical reform of how we provide this support, which is what we intend to do with a White Paper in 2016 which will set out our proposals in this area.

On the access to work issue, the spending review announced a real-terms increase in funding, which will allow it to expand sustainably. That is in response to a query from the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson.

A similar request was made in Amendment 64 on carers. This Government recognise the vital role that carers provide; many carers are also in work. The current Family Resources Survey data show that in 2013-14 around half of all carers were in some kind of work, with 34% working full time. The ONS already publishes information on the number of people who are outside the labour market and looking after family or home, but the reality is that it would be very difficult to track all former carers who have returned to employment following the end of their caring role, because some will not claim benefits as they will be able to move back into work without the help of Jobcentre Plus. Those who start looking for work and initially claim benefits can get access to a range of support through the Jobcentre Plus network. Work coaches can tailor appropriate help drawn from a menu of provision to prepare people for a return to work, but when they successfully move into work they do not have to tell Jobcentre Plus the reason why they have ended their claim.

The noble Baroness, Lady Drake, proposed Amendment 64A, which would require the report to include information on the self-employed, which I have already discussed, NEETs and underemployed groups. In discussing some of the trends, she made the point that self-employment makes up most of the total employment growth since 2007—that is a slightly statistical quirk, since it happened because the number of employees fell sharply in the recession, as it always does. All the losses in employee numbers have since been regained and figures are up by 1.5 million since 2010.

[Baroness Drake]

The Minister is taking us through a series of reasons why he cannot give the granularity in the report that people seek. Given that the Chancellor said that it was his aspiration to have a higher-wage, low-welfare economy that benefits all, unless Parliament has some granularity in the metrics for assessing that progress, it sounds as though the Chancellor is setting his own aspiration and his own marking system. Everyone agrees that there has been a material change in the nature of employment over the last 10 years, which influences what people can earn and how they can participate in the labour force. If one aspires to a low-welfare economy that benefits all, we need to understand these trends and what is happening to people with disabilities, the self-employed, carers, people on zero-hours contracts and so on. The Minister seems to be listing why that cannot be provided.

[Lord Freud]

As the noble Baroness knows perfectly well, so I do not have to tell her, a lot of these issues are quite contentious and there is a lot of analysis going on, some of which takes many years to complete and to come to fruition. Our problem is that this commitment runs through the rest of this Government to 2020, and putting in some of the management information requirements that these amendments in practice look for is expensive and risks delaying universal credit, because we are on a tight timetable. I know noble Lords have a primary interest in seeing us move with as much speed as we safely can. We would probably not be provided with adequate information anyway, given the length of time it takes to get it into shape, to take us out to the 2020 deadline. I hope that has cleanly summarised why we are not objecting with horror to the prospect. We looked at it very deeply, but we have to use the information that is available and the extra information we are gathering to get this report to work.

[Baroness Drake]

I am not trying to put an argument for deferring universal credit, and I understand some of the difficulties, but at the very least the Government should be able to commit to giving us an interim report on the progress they are making on these issues, so we can begin to understand the likely developments and how successful the Chancellor’s aspirations are.

[Lord Freud]

The whole point of our clause is that we will set out our proposals on how we intend to report on employment. Clearly, a lot of the thoughts expressed here and the specific requests and reasoning are pretty valuable to us as we develop how best we can do a good report on what is happening to our progress to full employment.

Our latest figures on NEETs are rather encouraging and show that around 14% of 16 to 24 year-olds are NEETs, which is the lowest figure on record. It is a constantly changing group, and many people leave the labour market for short periods between jobs, so it does not tell us, of itself, where we stand in relation to full employment. Zero hours—which I almost thought I would not talk about, because we always have a little snip at each other about it—is only 2% of the market and we have outlawed exclusivity clauses in those contracts. Over the past year, part-time work has been driven entirely by people choosing to work part-time, which might not have been the case in the depth of the recession. Again, it is a constantly changing group.

On some of the concerns expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, I sometimes feel I am living in a parallel universe. Employment growth has been dominated by full-time and permanent employment. It has risen in all regions since 2010. Underemployment is on the turn and going the right way. Wages are now growing quite a lot faster than inflation and temporary work in the UK is among the lowest, so the trends are a lot more encouraging than they have been.

Given these arguments, and given that statistics on these issues are already widely available, I do not believe that specifying them in the report is necessary. However, I understand that full employment is not just about a particular percentage of working-age adults in work, and, as I have said, we will give further consideration to how this annual report can best reflect the diversity of labour. I apologise for the length of my response. I urge noble Lords not to press their amendments.

22:00

[Baroness Donaghy]

I thank the Minister for his response, which I will read carefully in Hansard. I thank noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. In view of the time, I shall be brief. The point of this group of amendments to this important part of the Bill was to indicate that some of us do not think there is sufficient focus on these areas when the issue of social security comes into consideration. These are not add-ons. Like the Minister, we sometimes think we live in a parallel universe. It is not a question of propping up failing businesses; it is a question of some seasonal and fluctuating businesses wanting their annual income to be taken into consideration, so there is some fairness when they claim for social security. The Minister says that there is some flexibility already and the powers already exist, but I have to say there is very little evidence for that, apart from the grand announcement that those in the first year of business will be exempt.

Yes, the number of self-employed on universal credit is low, but if you see an articulated lorry thundering down the middle of the road towards you, you probably have an idea that you might get run over if you stay in the same place. All I am trying to say is that the establishment of a minimum income floor will cause trouble with universal credit in future—and it would be well to heed that warning. In view of the time, though, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 61 withdrawn.

Amendments 62 and 62A not moved.

Amendment 62B

Moved by

[Baroness Sherlock]

62B: After Clause 15, insert the following new Clause—
“Disability living allowance (mobility component) for young children
In section 73 of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 (the mobility component), for subsection (1) substitute—“(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, a person shall be entitled to the mobility component of a disability living allowance for any period and throughout which—
(a) he or she, from birth and on account of a condition, must always be accompanied by bulky medical equipment which cannot be carried around with him or her without great difficulty; or(b) he or she, from birth and on account of a condition, must always be kept near a motor vehicle so that, if necessary, treatment for that condition can be given in the vehicle or the child can be taken quickly in the vehicle to a place where such treatment can be given; or(c) he or she is over the age of five and is suffering from physical disablement such that he or she is either unable to walk or virtually unable to do so; or (d) he or she is over the age of five and falls within subsection (2) below; or(e) he or she is over the age of five and falls within subsection (3) below; or(f) he or she is over the age of five and is able to walk but is so severely disabled physically or mentally that, disregarding any ability he or she may have to use routes which are familiar to him or her on his or her own, he or she cannot take advantage of the faculty out of doors without guidance or supervision from another person most of the time.””

[Baroness Sherlock]

My Lords, I seek clarification on an issue that was raised with me by a charity called Together for Short Lives, which represents parents and children with life-limiting and life-threatening conditions. The amendment is brief but the issue is this: I understand that children under three are not eligible for the higher-rate mobility component of DLA. I believe that the rationale is that children under three are generally not independently mobile, although anyone who has babysat a toddler might disagree. The assumption is that under-threes will have to be carried in arms, lifted into prams and buggies and from them into cars and car seats anyway, whether or not they have a disability.

For most children and their parents that is true, but Together for Short Lives points out that there are small numbers of children who need help and should have access to the mobility component of DLA. That is because there is a small group of children who depend on ventilators for survival, who may have one or more shunts and IV lines for feeding or drug administration, or other technologies that are life-sustaining. The children are in effect constantly attached to life-sustaining equipment that is often bulky or heavy. The child has to be placed in a wheelchair or medical buggy capable of carrying the equipment, monitors and so on, so that the lines and tubes can be securely attached to the child. Parents therefore need specially adapted or broad-based vehicles capable of carrying these small children, linked together with their decidedly not small equipment, securely. The children cannot easily be lifted in and out of cars like most children of their age.

I want to put to the Minister the case for why this small group of children needs the mobility allowance. Some of the children always have to be placed in a medical buggy or wheelchair when not in bed because they need postural support. These are heavy items. In addition to the life-sustaining equipment attached to them, most of these children require a variety of equipment to go with them wherever they are. This could include a spare ventilator and battery, monitors, oxygen supply, a mask, emergency tracheotomy kits and feeding kits. That is on top of the usual paraphernalia that all parents of children under three find that they need to carry with them at all times. The children cannot travel on public transport, because buses will not take oxygen bottles, and there is the inevitable risk of infection.

As well as being susceptible to infection, the children are often prone to medical crises, such as fitting, and their parents need to be able to get them to hospital immediately for life-saving treatment 24/7. If they do not have a car, the children may not be assessed as safe to live at home and will need to remain in hospital or a hospice. As well as being heart-breaking for families and their children, that could, of course, cost rather more than the higher-rate mobility allowance of £57.45 per week.

What would this all cost? As a result of the Welfare Reform Act 2012, disability living allowance has been replaced by PIP for people aged over 16, but DLA is still given to under-16s. This amendment seeks to open up access to the higher-rate mobility component of DLA for under-threes who require life-sustaining equipment as described above. I am told that there are nearly 49,000 children with life-limiting and life-threatening conditions, but only a very small proportion are under-threes who require life-sustaining equipment.

To establish how many might need this component of DLA, Together for Short Lives submitted a freedom of information request to the Department for Transport in 2014 to ask how many parents of children under three had asked for a blue badge because their child was dependent on heavy medical equipment or needed to be near a vehicle in case they need emergency medical treatment. It found that 1,530 children had blue badges. The wording of this amendment is aligned to the criteria for blue badges. If those figures are correct, the cost of giving all 1,530 children access to the higher-rate mobility component of DLA of £57.45 a week would be about £4.5 million. That is a small sum for DWP but would transform the lives of families with a child with a threatening or life-limiting condition.

What I have described feels to me like an anomaly—I cannot believe that the department intended this to happen. I hope that the Minister will give it a very careful response. I am sure that there cannot be anybody listening to this debate here or outside whose hearts would not go out to the children and families in these circumstances. I hope that the Minister agrees that I have made the case that babies and children under three who depend on big and heavy life-sustaining equipment to stay alive and/or have need for immediate access to transport for medical reasons should be regarded as having an additional mobility need and become eligible for the mobility element of DLA. I beg to move.

[Lord Freud]

I thank the noble Baroness for tabling the amendment and for providing that degree of clarity over its purpose. I must express my own empathy regarding the intention of what this amendment aims to achieve. There can be no doubt about the harrowing position of families with very young, severely disabled children. However, I find myself in the unusual situation of needing to reflect a position set out by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, some six years ago when he was the government Minister for Work and Pensions.

On that occasion, what was to become the Welfare Reform Act 2009 was being debated in Grand Committee. Noble Peers may recall that that Act introduced, by way of amendment in the other place, a new provision which now gives access to the higher rate mobility component of DLA to severely visually impaired people. In Committee a further amendment, in much the same terms or at least intended as the amendment we are discussing today, was introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, who is not in her place today. On that occasion the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, was sympathetic to the situation set out by the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, but ultimately resisted the motion. He said that,

“in this difficult financial climate, we need to consider carefully the potential cost of any such change … This amendment would, of course, result in additional costs”.

He estimated costs at that time to be around £15 million a year and went on to say:

“This would obviously be a significant increase in what is, unfortunately, a difficult economic situation, and is simply not affordable in the current context”.—[Official Report, 25/6/09; col. GC 538.]

I have never been sadder to have to agree with the noble Lord and to resist an amendment.

On the techie side, the amendment confers entitlement to neither the higher or lower rate of the mobility component. That is because the distinction between the two rates has been lost. There would also be some unintended consequences of the amendment—most notably that it would remove entitlement from the 16,500 children and adults who currently receive the higher-rate mobility component as a consequence of a severe visual impairment. However, I think that that is just a matter of drafting and I would not want to dwell on that issue—we could always sort it out.

The primary reason for there being a lower age limit for entitlement is that, while many children can walk by the age of three, not all will do so, regardless of disability, and few will be able to walk for any considerable distance. Age three therefore provides a reasonable boundary line between what may be considered developmental delay and walking difficulties arising from a disability or long-term health condition.

I think we can all agree that the majority of very young children, whether disabled or not, will need a considerable degree of support and help from parents and carers. Most parents will also be reliant on a range of bulky and possibly heavy items, such as prams or buggies, and items of equipment for feeding and changing. Nevertheless, I recognise that some young children with particular conditions may be heavily reliant on additional therapeutic equipment, some of which can be bulky and heavy. However, such technologies are improving all the time and in some instances equipment is becoming lighter, smaller or in other ways more transportable.

Despite the mobility component being unavailable to children solely on the basis of a need for such equipment, there already exists a range of provisions, financial and in kind, which can help support such children and their parents. For example, the care component of DLA places no restriction on how it can be used, and any entitlement to DLA can bring with it access to the disability premiums in the income-related benefits or tax credits. Parents may also be able to receive a blue badge for free parking if their child is reliant on heavy equipment or needs to be near a vehicle for treatment.

That, in turn, leads me to question the provision in the amendment which focuses on children who need to be near a vehicle for treatment or where a vehicle is used to transport them for such treatment. I question this for two reasons. The first is on the basis that the provision could help only those parents who already have use of a motor vehicle or who would gain access to one through the higher-rate mobility component of DLA. As I said earlier, the amendment is not clear in its intent regarding the rate at which children under three should become entitled, meaning that, by effect, it is also not clear whether such children would be given access to the Motability scheme and, in turn, a motor vehicle. Hence, the amendment as currently drafted would exclude families without access to a vehicle.

Secondly, I question this provision on a more practical basis. If a child requires emergency transportation along with bulky medical equipment, it is doubtful whether transportation by the parents would be a reasonable and practical expectation. Our emergency services, which are much better equipped in terms of medical training and suitable vehicles, are in place for exactly this kind of situation.

Finally, I must turn to the financial implications of the amendment, which are estimated to be still in the order of £15 million. Clearly, this amendment goes further than that debated previously and, in the time available, we have been unable to determine how many children could potentially be entitled on the basis of access to a nearby vehicle. However, patently that would add to what is already a significant extra cost burden and would further damage our capacity to stay within the welfare cap.

I am sympathetic to the broad intentions behind the amendment but, particularly now, the Government cannot accept it on the basis of the unfunded cost implications. Therefore, regrettably, I have to agree with the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, and I urge the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.

[Baroness Sherlock]

My Lords, before I withdraw the amendment, which I will do, can the Minister tell me how many children his costings are based on?

[Lord Freud]

I thought that I knew the answer to that, but I am a bit uncertain. I hope that inspiration is striking.

Sorry, it is not 1,600; 18,500 children under the age of three are in receipt of DLA and 5,500 children impacted.

22:15

[Baroness Sherlock]

I am grateful to the Minister for that. I am grateful also for his thoughtful reply. When he reads Hansard, and given all that he tells us of his view of the current economic situation and how it compares to when my noble friend Lord McKenzie was in office, he might like to reflect on whether his own assessment may be different from that. However, I can see that the two men are obviously of one mind. I ask the Minister to think very hard. My noble friend Lord McKenzie has put his name to this amendment and is very much supportive of it.

I wonder whether the Minister might also be willing for his department to meet somebody from Together for Short Lives, perhaps with me. I think that they would like to be able to understand the basis of the arguments that he was making, not so much in terms of the money but in terms of other things.

[Lord Freud]

I would appreciate meeting them with the noble Baroness. I really regret what I have had to say.

[Baroness Sherlock]

I thank the Minister for that. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 62B withdrawn.

Amendments 62C to 64A not moved.

Clause 1 agreed.

Amendments 65 to 67 not moved.

Clause 2: Apprenticeships reporting obligation

Amendment 68

Tabled by

[Lord Young of Norwood Green]

68: Clause 2, page 1, line 16, after “target,” insert—
“( ) information about the uptake of apprenticeships broken down by region, age, ethnicity, disability, sector, qualification and level,( ) a report by the UK Commission on Employment and Skills on the quality of apprenticeships being provided,”

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

My Lords, before the noble Lord gets to his feet to move his amendment, I have had discussions with the Chief Whip and I am not terribly happy about us proceeding as late as we are. I do not think it is right or proper, particularly since a number of colleagues in your Lordships’ House are severely disabled and they are spending a lot of late hours working on this Bill. I am prepared for us to proceed with this group of amendments, but I hope that this debate can be relatively short, notwithstanding the importance of the issues. I hope colleagues will see sense in that; we should not be working as late as this on this sort of legislation.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach (Con)]

I say to the Opposition Chief Whip that the order of consideration was designed at the request of the Opposition, so that those who are severely disabled could participate in the debates in Committee at the beginning of business. I admit that, today, we have had other business to deal with. However, the truth is that we are still not at the point at which we were due to start business on the third day, which was Amendment 72. This House has a tradition that it tries to deliver the business. I understand that I need the support of the Opposition in doing that. I believe that we should complete one more group of amendments, which will take us past the normal hour for taxis but that is not unusual in this House. Given the unusual nature of the discussions that have taken place on this Bill, that is not an unreasonable thing to ask. I hope that the noble Lord—my “usual channels” partner—is prepared to accept my decision. We still have not reached the target we set ourselves when we discussed this matter earlier today.

[Lord Young of Norwood Green (Lab)]

My Lords, given the time, I shall endeavour to be succinct and to the point. Nevertheless, Amendment 68 is important as it seeks to ensure that we receive a proper report from the Government on the various aspects of apprenticeships defined in it. I shall speak also to the other two amendments in the group.

The Government have set themselves an ambitious target of 3 million apprenticeships during the life of this Parliament. The challenge will be to ensure that they sustain quality as well as quantity. A recent report by Ofsted said that the expansion of apprenticeships has been a disaster, with too many poor-quality programmes that fail to give young people new skills or better chances of a job. The Chief Inspector of Schools, Sir Michael Wilshaw, accuses some employers of wasting public funds on low-quality schemes that undermine the value of apprenticeships. Indeed, a recent Channel 4 episode of “Dispatches” revealed exploitation of apprentices working for the retailer Next.

Poor-quality apprenticeships were particularly prevalent in retail, healthcare, customer service and administration according to the highly critical report from Ofsted. About 140,000 people started apprenticeships in business administration last year and 130,000 began healthcare apprenticeships. Standards were much higher in the motor vehicle, construction and engineering industries, where numbers were much smaller. So far, apprenticeships have not trained enough people for sectors with skills shortages, smaller businesses are not being involved and not enough advanced schemes leading to higher skills and wages are being created. Widespread concern has been expressed by business about the introduction and application of the proposed new training levy.

Amendment 68A, tabled by my noble friend Lady Nye, seeks to ensure accurate reporting of information in the areas of disability, gender and so on. It also contains an important point about the destination data for those completing apprenticeships.

Amendment 69 again draws to our attention the worrying situation for disabled people under the age of 25 seeking apprenticeships. We know that apprenticeships provide an excellent route into work for young people, including disabled people. However, too often apprenticeships are inaccessible to disabled people. The proportion of disabled apprenticeships has declined from 11.5% in 2007-08 to 8.7% in 2014-15. During the passage of the Bill, we would like to see further commitments from the Government to support more disabled people to participate in apprenticeships. This is why I welcome Amendment 69.

I have a few questions for the Minister which I am sure she will enjoy. What steps is she taking to ensure the quality of apprenticeships and to prevent the exploitation of young people, recognising the damage this can cause to the reputation of apprenticeships, and the waste of public funds? What steps are the Government taking to ensure that all schools give career advice on apprenticeships, bearing in mind the need to encourage young women, black and ethnic minority groups and disabled people to recognise the advantages of apprenticeships as a career option? Bearing in mind that only 5% of youngsters aged 16 currently go into an apprenticeship scheme, how will she ensure that young people are made aware of their right to receive proper training and education in a safe working environment?

What steps are the Government taking to expand the participation of small and medium-sized enterprises in apprenticeship schemes, given that only some 25% of them currently take on apprentices? Do the Government plan to expand the use of group training associations and ATAs? What will be the nature of and timetable for the introduction of the new training levy, which I presume will be accompanied by a statutory instrument and an impact assessment? I would be grateful if the Minister confirmed that. Finally, can the Minister comment on the future of UKCES, the United Kingdom skills body? I beg to move.

[Baroness Campbell of Surbiton]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 69, tabled in my name, and to which I am delighted to see that my noble friends Lord Addington, Lord Low of Dalston and Lady Grey-Thompson have added their names in support. I also support Amendment 68, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Young, and Amendment 68A, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Nye.

My amendment is intended to address the particular barriers faced by disabled people wishing to enter apprenticeships. It places a duty on the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament a report on the number of disabled people aged under 25 who are seeking apprenticeships in order to identify the barriers that prevent successful take-up. The amendment also requires the report to set out examples of good practice by employees and apprenticeship providers that remove such barriers.

I welcome the Government’s commitment to create 3 million apprenticeship opportunities over this Parliament. Apprenticeships provide an excellent opportunity for disabled students wanting to engage in vocational education alongside their non-disabled peers. For many disabled people, it will be the first time they experience mainstream employment and education. Apprenticeships introduce disabled people to the world of work in a supportive learning environment, which is much needed by young people who are facing additional barriers to entering the world of work. In addition, apprenticeships are crucial to the Government’s commitment to halving the disability employment gap—a central plank of their incredibly ambitious aim to cut the welfare budget.

In 2014, Disability Rights UK with the support of Barclays published a guide called Into Apprenticeships. It demonstrated through case studies that apprenticeships provide opportunities for young disabled people to secure training for employment. Such schemes also help employers to become “disability confident”. Noble Lords will recognise that this is also the name of a current campaign being supported by the Minister for Disabled People in another place to encourage employers to remove those disabling barriers. This will boost employment outcomes for disabled people. However, as I said when speaking to my previous amendment, I am sure that the Minister appreciates that awareness and education alone will not shrink the significant employment gap between disabled and non-disabled people. There must also be regular reviews of progress. Existing barriers that prevent disabled people from accessing apprenticeship opportunities must be removed. This is echoed by the Equality and Human Rights Commission in its recent report, Is Britain Fairer?

The requirement for non-specific industry qualifications to access apprenticeships is one of the greatest barriers. In Peter Little’s 2012 report, Creating an Inclusive Apprenticeship Offer, he says: “Apprentices with LDD”—learning difficulties and disabilities—

“are often disadvantaged due to the fact”,

that functional and GCSE,

“qualifications are assessed out of context. Thus an Apprentice working to the vocabulary and numeracy associated with a particular job may find it difficult to relate to a completely different set of language and numbers presented during assessment”.

There is substantive evidence that significant numbers of disabled people, especially people with learning disabilities, are prevented from gaining an apprenticeship certificate because they have not got GCSE maths and English. These requirements could so easily be replaced by the successful completion of work-related requirements such as the relevant industry-accepted vocational qualifications. The National Voice for Lifelong Learning, which has been working with the Government on apprenticeship placements, has said:

“Some learners are more than capable of achieving the competence and knowledge based elements of an apprenticeship but, due to their learning difficulty are unable to achieve English and maths at the required standard. Until there is a relaxing of this rule disabled learners will continue to be disadvantaged in work and training”.

22:30

In evidence submitted by the Alliance for Inclusive Education to the Lords post-legislative committee on the Equality Act and disability, it gave an example of a horticultural college reluctant to,

“allow [horticulture] students on the course because of the functional skills aspect. To me, this seems to discriminate against students with LDD, especially one who is working on a level 2 standard in his vocational subject”.

In a progressive labour market, I believe such artificial barriers to apprenticeships miss out on talent and stigmatise certain groups of disabled people as unemployable. Recently, I was captivated by a TV series, “Kitchen Impossible with Michel Roux Jr”, in which a group of disabled people were recruited on an apprenticeship programme by one of the finest chefs in the country. At the end of the apprenticeships, four of the candidates entered the world of work. The programme did not in any way contrive to be something that it was not. It took place in a restaurant with paying customers. Of the experience, Michel Roux said:

“It wasn’t perfect, but they grew from that and that’s the thing, because they were given the chance and also because I was fairly strict on them and treated them like I would any other apprentice. It was a privilege to work with these guys ... it’s certainly opened up my eyes to disabled people”,

in the hospitality industry. Disabled people have so much potential. Most candidates did not have GCSE maths or English at the required grade.

The apprenticeship route provides a great opportunity for the Government to meet their objective of enabling more disabled people to secure long-term, paid employment. This aim can be achieved only if the Government have the appropriate information on the uptake of young disabled people’s participation in apprenticeships. The Government then will be able to respond by removing the barriers that prevent those young people from accessing such an important route into education, training and employment.

This amendment is a cost-neutral initiative. It is an enabling amendment whereby the Government could genuinely make a difference to young disabled people’s apprenticeship experience and their chance of a job afterwards. I am sure that the Minister in the other place would see this amendment as giving added value and the information that he needs to bring disability confidence to apprenticeships as well as to work. I look forward to the Minister’s response to this amendment.

[Baroness Grey-Thompson]

My Lords, I support Amendment 69, to which my name is added. When I added my name, I received lots of really good examples of how apprenticeships can work for disabled people, especially when there was understanding of the needs of the disabled person and flexibility in some of the cases where it was required. As my noble friend Lady Campbell said, apprenticeships are really important. It is a massive opportunity for disabled people to develop their skills. But the barriers into apprenticeships can be very different from those into work, which is why this amendment is so important. One person who contacted me said that he wanted to offer an apprenticeship to a 19 year-old young man who has autism. The young man wanted a job and he was good with computers. He said that he wanted to get away from under his parents’ feet. He was offered an apprenticeship through a college. However, they then got stuck in the process of the assessments, which derailed everything. The college wanted to do the assessment in the college and not in the workplace, which made the young man feel very uncomfortable. He then went through this whole process of “dithering” and the young man pulled out because he could not get clear support for the opportunity he was going to be offered. It is a massive mistake and a real shame that young people are getting so close to being offered an apprenticeship but then feel that they cannot take it.

Another young man, who has a visual impairment, has lost out on two positions. He started working but lost out because his employers were unable to be flexible with the opportunity offered.

I have been sent many more good examples than bad examples; it is a shame that we are not using them. This amendment would provide an incredibly useful resource to help others and, if it is reported on in the right way, would help the Government achieve their aim of getting more disabled people into apprenticeships.

[Baroness Nye (Lab)]

Before I speak to Amendment 68A, I apologise for not being able to take part at Second Reading. I also take this opportunity to declare an interest as a trustee of the Young Women’s Trust, to which I am grateful for the briefing it provided.

My amendment calls on the Government to include in the report the number of apprentices disaggregated by protected characteristics. As I support the other amendments in this group in the name of my noble friend and others, I shall concentrate on young women and apprenticeships.

The Government’s target of 3 million apprenticeships by 2020 is to be welcomed because they can be an important route to skills development and work for all young people, but only if they are of high quality and reach those such as the under-25s who are in the most need. It is also welcome that the Government propose to report on progress each year, but it is important that the information contained in that report is useful and not just a pat on the back for numbers going through the system. The report should identify areas where more attention is needed and inform policy development, because evidence shows that apprenticeships are not working as well for young women as they are for young men.

The Young Women’s Trust aims to improve the lifelong opportunities for young women aged 16 to 30 with few or no qualifications, who might be unemployed or in precarious or insecure employment and who are on very low or no pay. Because of a lack of understanding, the Young Women’s Trust undertook a year-long inquiry into the problems of young women who are not in education, employment or training. It produced a report called Scarred for Life?, which was based on consultations with young women and other interested parties, as well as polling conducted by ComRes.

The polling showed that young women work in fewer sectors than men. Two-thirds of female apprentices work in just five sectors, while the same proportion of men work in more than 10. Female apprentices account for fewer than 2% of apprentices in construction, 4% per cent in engineering and still only 12% in IT and telecoms, but 93% of early-years childcare and beauty places are female. The IPPR has said that traditionally masculine areas may receive better-quality training and these sectors also lead to better employment and further education prospects. As young women are less likely to receive training as part of their apprenticeship, they are more likely to be out of work at the end. This is compounded by other research which shows that employment gains from further education are generally not as great for women as they are for men.

The apprenticeship wage also deters women without parental support from applying. Young women say they understand the logic of earning less before being qualified but the pay is just too low to support themselves. Young women also receive less hourly pay on average than men; they could earn £2,000 less over the course of a year. Apprentice equal pay day was marked on 28 October—for the following 64 days, female apprentices would be working for free.

Young women also recognised that when apprenticeships worked well they were a good route into employment. However, they were concerned about how to meet their current needs while training. There is insufficient flexibility to balance apprenticeships and other responsibilities such as caring. They therefore have different priorities in considering apprenticeships.

Data from the Skills Funding Agency and BIS show that 90% of apprentices are aged over 25, with a greater proportion of women in that age group. It is therefore likely that they have been recruited from the existing workforce and that opportunities are not being provided to young people who are just starting out or who are NEET. These challenges prevent thousands of young women making the most of their potential as well as meaning that the wider economy and companies miss out on a vital source of talent.

Destination data are especially important in measuring quality. Apprenticeships are worth while only if they develop skills in all young people and provide a good route into employment. Young women are three times more likely than young men to be out of work after completing an apprenticeship. University education has long been assessed against destination data. Similar measures should be applied to apprenticeships if the esteem in which they are held is to be raised.

If the figures in the Government’s proposed annual report were disaggregated, it would also give added impetus to employers to develop a diversity policy for their apprenticeship schemes; to monitor the protected characteristics of their intake; and to work with careers services, schools and others to attract a diverse workforce, which I believe would command support from all quarters. Without any measurement of the quality of the apprenticeships, the jobs that might or might not follow, or the impact on the reduction of low wages, they offer no real route out of poverty.

I will listen with interest to the Minister’s reply to the questions posed by my noble friend, but, given the lateness of the hour, I will not add to them.

[Baroness Manzoor]

My Lords, I have added my name to Amendment 68. The only thing that I wanted to add—all other noble Lords have eloquently put forward the reasons why there should be reporting obligations relating to apprenticeships—is that I note that gender is missing from the amendment. It was an oversight, rather than because we did not care passionately about this particular issue. Once again, I am pleading with the Minister: we really need to be able to differentiate between the different groups to see where apprenticeships fall and who is getting what apprenticeship. The noble Baroness, Lady Nye, made a very important argument relating to young women, but the same applies to disability, race and so forth. There are variations that we need to bottom out so that employers can then have appropriate strategies in place to address the anomalies.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

My Lords, I will speak very briefly in support of my noble friend Lady Nye, who has made such a good case about gender. She made most of the points I want to make, but I have been sent information by City & Guilds, which has done research into careers advice, which shows how gender-biased careers advice is channelling young women into a very gender-biased labour market. So it is being reinforced. It is crucial that the apprenticeship system does not reinforce and aggregate that gender bias which we have heard about from my noble friend. As other noble Lords have said, it is about not just quantity but quality. From a gender perspective, quality is about the sectors within which young women and young men are being channelled.

[The Lord Bishop of Durham]

My Lords, in the north-east I get to see apprentices in the car industry, the subsea industry, traditional industries such as stonemasonry, farming, and all kinds of sectors in schools. It is brilliant to be able to see them face to face, to meet them and talk to them. There are brilliant apprenticeships and we need to grow them. Therefore, the 3 million target is fantastic, but I have to say that where the Bill refers to,

“information about the progress made in the reporting period towards the apprenticeships target”,

which is simply the figure of 3 million, that does not give the information about the types of apprenticeship that there are. In the light of the previous comments, I add that in two particular manufacturing industries I went to there were fantastic apprenticeships with brilliant young men, but no young women at all. I am told that there have not been any. We need this kind of information to ensure that apprenticeships are of the quality and standard needed. Because of the lateness of the hour, I will stop at that.

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

My Lords, I will attempt to respond to various points, but again, due to the lateness of the hour, I will try to keep my remarks brief. Where I do not respond to points I will endeavour to get further information to noble Lords relatively quickly.

The Government are committed to reaching 3 million apprenticeship starts in England in 2020. Clause 2 will place a duty on the Secretary of State to report annually on progress towards meeting that target. The amendments that have been tabled would place additional reporting requirements on the Secretary of State to publish a range of information as part of the annual apprenticeship reporting requirement set out in the Bill.

22:45

In relation to Amendments 68 and 68A, tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Sherlock, Lady Manzoor, and Lady Nye, and the noble Lords, Lord McKenzie, and Lord Young, I can reassure noble Lords that the Government already report on apprenticeship figures by region, age, gender, ethnicity, disability, sector, qualification and level as part of their quarterly statistical first release. We will continue to do this and I can assure the noble Baroness that we will report a breakdown of figures on age and disability. We also publish information on the courses in which apprentices are enrolled in each academic year as part of our national aims report and we will continue to do this as part of the annual reporting requirement set out in the Bill.

The Government do not provide information on other protected characteristics, as set out in the Equality Act 2010, such as sexual orientation, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, in order to lessen the burden on training providers, which we are keen to do. In addition, these characteristics do not determine funding. I can reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Nye, that the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills measures the destinations of apprentices once they have completed an apprenticeship in a number of ways. This includes measuring longer-term wage and employment outcomes, short-term employment outcomes, self-reported impacts and the progression of advanced apprentices to higher education. We will continue to publish this information.

In relation to the first part of Amendment 69, tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Campbell and Lady Grey-Thompson, and the noble Lords, Lord Low and Lord Addington, where a young person has applied for a vacancy via the “find an apprenticeship” system and has self-reported their disability status, it is possible to count applications made. BIS is currently exploring whether it is then possible to track whether a young person has subsequently started an apprenticeship. However, it is not possible to count the number of applications made direct to employers. Therefore, on the basis that the information would be incomplete, we do not believe it is practicable to require the Secretary of State to report in this way.

I turn to apprenticeship quality and the second part of Amendment 68. I can reassure noble Lords that the Government are already committed to a range of measures to ensure the quality of apprenticeships. I know that this subject is very dear to the heart of the noble Lord, Lord Young, and we have discussed it on several other occasions. We have already ensured that all apprenticeships are real paid jobs, have a minimum duration of a year, include substantial on and off-the-job training and include English and maths when not already achieved. In addition, as announced by the Chancellor in the spending review, the Government intend to establish a new institute for apprenticeships. This will support employer-led reforms to ensure quality. We anticipate that this will be active from 2017 onwards The noble Lord, Lord Young, asked about the role of UKCES. It has played a valuable role since its launch but the Government have decided to create the new body which I have just mentioned. We are therefore working with UKCES to explore the implications of the spending review and will make an announcement in due course. In answer to the noble Lord’s question about small business access to apprenticeships, small businesses are directly involved in all phases of trailblazers, such as the Test Factory for digital industries. We have made clear in the implementation plan and trailblazer guidance that standards must have wide support from employers across the sector.

In relation to careers advice, noble Lords will be aware that schools are legally required to secure independent careers guidance for 12 to 18 year-olds. This must be delivered in an impartial manner and include information about a range of options, including apprenticeships. Statutory guidance published in March 2015 is clear that schools should give employers, and other providers delivering apprenticeships, the opportunity to inform all pupils directly, on school premises, about what they offer. Finally, on timetables for the apprenticeship levy, more detail will be available in due course. I cannot say any more than that at this point. Ofsted and Ofqual will also continue to play an essential role in ensuring the quality of apprenticeships.

Finally, I turn to the latter part of Amendment 69. The Government believe that the overwhelming majority of young people with special educational needs and disabilities are capable of sustainable, paid employment with appropriate preparation and support, and we already know that thousands of disabled people have benefited from apprenticeships. In 2014-15, 44,090 of those starting an apprenticeship declared a disability or learning difficulty; that is, 8.8% of total starts. I reassure noble Lords that we are committed to building on this success.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell, mentioned, Peter Little OBE undertook a detailed review of the inclusiveness of apprenticeships for people with learning difficulties or disabilities, and since its publication we have done more to try to ensure that apprenticeships are accessible. For instance, the National Institute of Adult Continuing Education has produced an employer toolkit and the Education and Training Foundation’s Excellence Gateway contains a section on special educational needs and disability with resources. In addition, apprentices can apply for Access to Work funding for adjustments to the workplace and training providers can use funding to support the apprentice’s learning. Reasonable adjustments are available for qualifications to ensure that an apprentice with a disability has the chance to show what he or she knows or can do. Appropriate adjustments will depend, among other things, on the individual, their disability, and the qualification, but may include extra time, a special room, assistive technology or the use of a scribe.

Turning to the third part of the amendment, I reassure noble Lords that the Skills Funding Agency has funded a number of case studies in recent years specifically looking at accessibility and best practice for apprentices with learning difficulties or disabilities, which are available for employers to access through the employer toolkit.

Again, I apologise for the quick run through. As I say, I will endeavour to get back to noble Lords on other points that I have missed, but I hope that, on the basis of this explanation, noble Lords will consider not pressing their amendments.

[Lord Young of Norwood Green]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for dealing with all those questions without hesitation, repetition or deviation. That was a brilliant effort. I would like a bit more detail on some points and welcome her further comments. I am sure that I am not the only person in that situation. Although she gave us lots of assurances, given the importance of these issues I only wish that schools were applying those assurances in practice in relation to both careers advice and access by employers. My experience is that many are not doing that despite the legal obligations. Given that we have seen a statistical decline in the number of apprenticeships for people with disabilities, it would be useful if we could meet the noble Baroness to go through some of these issues. Nevertheless, on the understanding that we will look carefully at the response to the questions in Hansard, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 68 withdrawn.

Amendments 68A and 69 not moved.

Clause 2 agreed.

House resumed.

House adjourned at 10.53 pm.