House of Commons
(8 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(8 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(8 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chloe Smith (Norwich North) (Con)
1. What plans the Government have to increase the number of young people registered to vote.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
7. What plans the Government have to encourage more young people to engage with the political process.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (John Penrose)
The Government’s new online electoral registration system has made it easier and quicker for everyone, especially young people, to register to vote. The process now takes less time than boiling an egg. We are also working with groups such as Bite The Ballot on the national voter registration drive, which is an excellent initiative to persuade more people to register to vote that runs for the whole of next week, in which I encourage everyone to get involved. The British Youth Council’s Make Your Mark ballot led to nearly 1 million young people voting throughout the UK and informed the Youth Parliament’s debates in this Chamber.
Chloe Smith
I welcome the Minister’s support for next week’s national voter registration drive. Last year’s drive helped nearly 500,000 young electors to register to vote. Would he support repeating last year’s projection of an image of a ballot box on to the Elizabeth Tower? I understand that you, Mr Speaker, are a fan of that, as am I, so we need to persuade Westminster City Council to allow that.
John Penrose
My hon. Friend deserves top marks for creative marketing ideas, but after the use of the Elizabeth Tower for unauthorised projections, including of Australian cricketers and various bits of Gail Porter, I am told that the subject excites strong passions in Westminster council and, quite possibly, the House authorities, so I should probably urge her to discuss her proposals carefully with them.
Mark Pawsey
When I visited Harris school in my constituency recently to talk to its pupils about the role of an MP, I met bright youngsters who wanted to learn more about how Parliament works. Does the Minister agree that getting more public figures to talk and answer questions in schools would be a great way of engaging young people with the political process?
John Penrose
I do. My hon. Friend has set a great example and shown that public figures—even MPs—can stimulate interest and engagement in democracy.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
What further Government or private sector databases are the Minister’s Department thinking of using to boost registration among young people?
John Penrose
The hon. Gentleman raised this point with me a little while ago and asked about credit reference agencies, among others. We might be able to use other sources of data, but some base a lot of their information on the electoral roll itself, so we would need to ensure that the process did not become circular. There may be things that other people can add, however, and all sources of data offer potential ways to reduce the cost, and improve the quality and speed, of our registration efforts.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
During the 2014 Scottish independence referendum, a huge number of young people became politically active and engaged in Scotland, but the current generation of 16 and 17-year-olds will not have the opportunity to vote in the EU referendum, although they will have to live with its consequences for much longer than most people in the Chamber. Why do the Government not accept that the best way to encourage young people to vote is actually to give them the vote?
John Penrose
Since the general election, we have debated this particular question four or five times—perhaps more—and collectively decided against it, with healthy majorities, on every single occasion. We can go over this again, and I am happy to have further debates with the hon. Lady as needed, but the House has made its collective decision plain.
Gloria De Piero (Ashfield) (Lab)
The Labour party’s initial analysis shows big drops in registered voters in many university towns. The figure for Canterbury is down 13%, while those for Cambridge and Dundee West are both down 11% on last year. Those universities that have enabled students to register to vote when they enrol have all seen high levels of student registration. Will the Government issue guidance to all vice-chancellors immediately to suggest that they adopt such a system in September?
John Penrose
It is not quite that simple, but I sympathise with the hon. Lady, in that several new approaches that are being trialled in universities throughout the country are extremely promising. We want to pursue those, so perhaps the hon. Lady and I can discuss that further at our meeting later today.
Lucy Frazer (South East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
2. What steps the Government are taking to increase social mobility in the civil service.
The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Matthew Hancock)
Social mobility is mission critical to our plan to ensure that the civil service is fully representative of the nation that it serves and benefits from talent in every part of Britain.
Lucy Frazer
I welcome that answer. May I ask the Minister to give the House an update on research by the Bridge Group on social mobility in the fast stream?
Matthew Hancock
We asked the Bridge Group to look into social mobility in the fast stream and the people who are joining the civil service, and it will report very soon. I can tell my hon. Friend the number of new apprenticeships in the civil service: 884 since we introduced the scheme in 2013—another part of broadening access to the civil service.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
Many young people from working-class estates across the United Kingdom lack the capacity and training skills to join the civil service. What are the Government doing to ensure that they have the greater skills required to get on the ladder into the civil service?
Matthew Hancock
Great training is available for people once they are in, but I want to broaden the number of people from different backgrounds coming into the civil service right at the start, which means people from all over the United Kingdom: from all parts, from all groups, from all ethnic backgrounds, men and women, to make sure that we make the very best use of the talent that is available.
Mr Tom Watson (West Bromwich East) (Lab)
I see that the Minister’s right hon. Friend the Chancellor has his own mission critical approach to social mobility. His closest adviser got a 42% pay rise while most public servants got a pay freeze; he has five times the usual number of special advisers while 80,000 jobs have been cut in the civil service; and this week it was revealed by The Sunday Times that the permanent secretary in his Department has used a loophole to avoid paying tax on his pension pot. Is it the Minister’s view that that is an appropriate leadership approach in the civil service, and is it not true that when it comes to tax, the Chancellor’s friends in Google get special treatment, and when it comes to social mobility in the civil service it helps to be a friend of the Chancellor?
Matthew Hancock
It is disappointing that we do not have a cross-party approach to improving access to the civil service—who comes into it—to make sure that we have the very best people working for the common aim of delivering the Government’s agenda to improve the lives of citizens whom we serve, because that is the job that we focus on.
Dr Phillip Lee (Bracknell) (Con)
4. What assessment he has made of the performance of the National Citizen Service.
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)
5. What assessment he has made of the performance of the National Citizen Service.
The Minister for Civil Society (Mr Rob Wilson)
The National Citizen Service is helping to build a more responsible, cohesive and engaged society. The latest annual figures show a 46% increase in participation, making it the fastest growing youth programme for a century. Every £1 spent on NCS generates nearly £4 of social benefits—something that everyone in the House and the country should be proud of.
Mr Wilson
My hon. Friend will be aware that NCS was not specifically designed to tackle extremism in our communities. However, the programme plays a significant role in promoting tolerance by breaking down barriers between communities. NCS helps young people to learn about other cultures and creates positive bonds between people from different backgrounds. In 2014, 27% of NCS participants were from non-white backgrounds compared with 19% of the general population.
Steve Double
Through my involvement with NCS in Cornwall I have seen first-hand the truly life-changing experience that the programme provides. Will the Minister join me in thanking and congratulating all those people across the country who deliver the programme successfully, and does he agree that NCS is a clear example that this Government are truly a one nation Government?
Mr Wilson
My hon. Friend is a strong advocate of NCS in Cornwall, where 580 young people have recently benefited from a life-changing experience on the programme. A one nation Government helps everyone to reach their full potential. That principle is at the heart of NCS. We support everyone who participates regardless of background, and provide bursaries to those who need financial support. NCS achieves a diverse mix of young people, working together to develop new skills and giving back to their community.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister will be aware that many Labour Members are great supporters of the programme, but can we be sure that the content has real, hard substance, such as democratic values and the equality of women in British life? Are those emphasised enough to young people on the programme?
Mr Wilson
Yes, the hon. Gentleman can be assured of that. According to the figures, 72% of participants felt more confident about getting a job after they had taken part in NCS. A year on, people are still benefiting from taking part in the NCS programme, according to the research.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
11. In Cleethorpes and north-east Lincolnshire the NCS programme has been doing a lot of work in the local St Andrew’s hospice, which has had a great impact on young people. Will the Minister join me in congratulating Lee Stephens, Graham Rodger and their team in north-east Lincolnshire, who do tremendous work?
Mr Wilson
Of course I join my hon. Friend in congratulating the people in his constituency and across the country who take part in NCS. To date NCS participants have volunteered an estimated total of 8 million hours in their local communities, developing vital skills in the process. The programme benefits the participants and the local community.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
6. What plans he has to bring forward legislative proposals to amend the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
9. What plans he has to bring forward legislative proposals to amend the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Matthew Hancock)
The Government are committed to transparency and freedom of information. The independent commission on freedom of information was established to review the working of the Act and we will consider the report when it is received.
Peter Grant
There are any number of instances that we can all point to where the publication of information that the authorities would rather have kept hidden has led to significant public benefits. The expenses affair in this place was one example. I do not know of a single case where the release of information through the Freedom of Information Act has caused any significant public damage. Does the Minister agree that any change to the Act should be designed to make it easier, rather than harder, for citizens to find out what the Government are doing?
Mr Speaker
The hon. Gentleman is a softly spoken fellow but I want to hear him very fully—louder in future.
Matthew Hancock
I am happy to hear more from the hon. Gentleman because I am a great supporter of freedom of information and the Act, and of transparency. We have to make sure that its workings are accurate and we look forward to listening and seeing what the commission comes up with when it reports in due course.
Stuart C. McDonald
Is it not the case that introducing fees for FOI requests would reduce opportunities for exposing injustice and bad practice? Will the Minister take this opportunity to rule out introducing any such fees?
Matthew Hancock
The hon. Gentleman tempts me, but I shall wait until the commission reports. We will respond in due course.
Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
May I inform my right hon. Friend that the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee will be scrutinising those proposals very carefully indeed? We want to make sure that the judges are interpreting the Freedom of Information Act as Parliament truly intended, but I can tell him that there is no going back on freedom of information.
Matthew Hancock
Indeed. The Freedom of Information Act has brought to light many things that it is in the public interest to have in the public domain. I have no doubt that my hon. Friend’s Committee will scrutinise the proposals very carefully, not least to ensure that the will of Parliament is the law of the land. I look forward to working with him on that.
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
I did not have to use the Freedom of Information Act because I went on to the gov.uk website to find out that the excellent Mark Price, managing director of Waitrose, is now a non-executive director of the board of the Cabinet Office. May I say what a wise choice that is? What is my right hon. Friend doing to ensure that similar people are appointed to other Government Departments?
Matthew Hancock
Crikey! Where to start? Mark Price is, indeed, an incredibly impressive businessman and I look forward to working with him on the Cabinet Office board. That information was published on our award-winning gov.uk website, which has had billions of hits because there is so much good information to be found there.
Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)
Is the Minister aware that despite all his fine words, there are many, including me, who believe that the purpose of the review is to undermine the Freedom of Information Act introduced by a Labour Government? So many of the abuses that have been revealed have become known to the public only as a result of the Act. The Government should be defending freedom of information, not trying to undermine it.
Matthew Hancock
I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was listening, but I said that much information is in the public domain, and it is in the public interest that it is public, thanks to the Freedom of Information Act. That is my position. I look forward to hearing what the commission has to say about the operational working of the Act to ensure that it is working in the way Parliament intended.
Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)
It is confusing to hear the Minister claim to be such a fan of transparency, given that the Cabinet Office has set up a commission designed to weaken FOI—an ex-coalition Minister has described that as a “rigged jury”—botched the release of Cabinet papers, watered down consultation rules, and is now being investigated by the Information Commissioner for withholding thousands of items of spending data. If sunlight really is the best disinfectant, why has the Minister now abolished every single senior civil service post with responsibility for transparency?
Matthew Hancock
As a matter of fact, we are the most transparent Government ever. What is more, the hon. Lady will be delighted to know that only this morning the Cabinet Office published further spending information to ensure that we keep that mantle.
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
10. What assessment he made of the effectiveness of the Major Projects Authority prior to January 2016.
The Minister without Portfolio (Robert Halfon)
The Major Projects Authority—now the Infrastructure and Projects Authority—was set up in 2011 to establish the Government’s major projects portfolio and ensure high-quality project assurance and support. Since 2012 it has produced an annual report summarising progress and delivery of major Government projects.
Meg Hillier
The Minister for the Cabinet Office talks about the Government being the most open ever. Will the Minister without Portfolio sanction the Infrastructure and Projects Authority to release more information about which projects are green, amber or red so that taxpayers know what is going on?
Robert Halfon
The hon. Lady will know, because the Public Accounts Committee, which she chairs, recently questioned the Infrastructure and Projects Authority, that we do publish the information she mentioned. She should be excited by the new Infrastructure and Projects Authority, because it brings together the experience of the Treasury and the Cabinet Office, it saves taxpayers’ money, in the light of spending review priorities, and it brings under one roof support for major projects such as Crossrail and the Thames tideway tunnel, as well as major transformational projects such as universal credit.
John Pugh (Southport) (LD)
Does the Minister think that it is a matter of regret that one can still become a permanent secretary without being directly associated with a major project?
Robert Halfon
As I have said, the Infrastructure and Projects Authority will make a huge difference, transform the way infrastructure projects are done in our country and save taxpayers’ money, and it will do a number of other things as well.
Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab)
12. What recent progress he has made on implementing the Government’s transparency agenda.
The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Matthew Hancock)
This morning we published further spending transparency data, which the Cabinet Office is committed to do as part of our agenda to be the most transparent Government ever.
Carolyn Harris
I thank the Minister of transparency for that response, but does he not agree that it is very difficult for him to lead by example on the transparency agenda when his own Department is being investigated by the Information Commissioner for refusing to publish routine spending data?
Matthew Hancock
It sounds like the hon. Lady wrote her supplementary question before she got the previous answer, because we published that information this morning. What is more, we are publishing Cabinet minutes at twice the pace that we ever saw under the previous Labour Government.
Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP)
13. What recent discussions he has had with Sir John Chilcot on the final publication date of the Iraq inquiry.
The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Matthew Hancock)
The Government continue to publish a wide range of data sets. More than 22,000 are now available on the Government website.
Ronnie Cowan
With no Chilcot report, no lessons learnt and seemingly none the wiser, will the Minister agree that the constant delays are unacceptable and are an insult both to those involved in the conflict and to those who lost loved ones?
Matthew Hancock
We have had this debate many times. The Chilcot inquiry is rightly independent, so it would not be right for me to comment on the timings, but a timetable has now been published, which I am sure the hon. Gentleman will welcome.
Chloe Smith (Norwich North) (Con)
T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr Oliver Letwin)
The Cabinet Office is responsible for efficiency in reforming Government and helping the Prime Minister to deliver the Government’s agenda. This Government have made huge strides in transforming online services for the citizen. I am glad to tell the House that we are now embarking on an ambitious programme to change the culture of public services by using online complaints to deal with problems and sort them out quicker.
Chloe Smith
Will my right hon. Friend provide more information on the Government’s plans for digital government?
Mr Letwin
I am very happy to do that. I do not know whether my hon. Friend has recently had the opportunity to use the gov.uk services, but the universal impression is that for the first time in our country’s history one can now quickly get hold of what one needs to online. The service is also hugely responsive and takes account of feedback—something from which previous Governments were not able to benefit.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
T3. The Minister for transparency does talk some utter guff sometimes. How can he be the advocate-in-chief for transparency when his Department has the worst record in answering freedom of information requests?
The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Matthew Hancock)
We answer freedom of information requests all the time. What is more, we are not only publishing more information but making sure that it is published in a usable way so that people can benefit from it right across this country.
Mr Ranil Jayawardena (North East Hampshire) (Con)
T2. Does the Minister agree that taking a public appointment is an excellent way for people across the country to play their part in shaping our society, and that it is important that people from different backgrounds have the opportunity to do so?
Matthew Hancock
Right across the public sector, thousands of public appointments are made each year. It is vital that people from all backgrounds, from all ethnicities, and both men and women, from all parts of our country, put their names forward so that they can help in our great mission of improving the lives of the citizens of the UK.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
T4. In the past year, one in seven peers did not speak at all in the other place, despite many of them claiming allowances. If the Government are so keen to reduce the cost of politics, why are they not doing anything about this?
Karen Lumley (Redditch) (Con)
T6. Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating Robert Holdcroft, who owns the McDonald’s in Redditch, for hosting “snack and chat” events in his restaurant that allow sixth formers to question their Member of Parliament and increase their interest in politics? Perhaps he might like to join me at one of these events.
Matthew Hancock
I always love going to Redditch, and even more so if I can go with my hon. Friend. I pass on my congratulations to Mr Holdcroft and all the restaurants that hold “snack and chat” events. As for the idea of a McSurgery in a McDonald’s, I’m lovin’ it.
Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)
T5. Many people in my constituency have filled out one form for the whole household to register to vote, as happened under the old system. Their registrations are being processed, but will they be counted in the figures?
Mr Letwin
The hon. Lady will know that anybody who is not on the register as a result of the individual electoral registration exercise will have been approached on nine separate occasions to try to get them to register individually. Everybody now has the chance to register individually under IER on the rolling register in time for the elections.
Nigel Adams (Selby and Ainsty) (Con)
T8. Will the Minister tell the House what plans the Government have to further reduce their property portfolio?
Matthew Hancock
We have been making significant savings in Government property, and the estate is already 20% smaller than it was in 2010. We have saved over £750 million in running costs, but there is much more to do. We have far more work to do to make sure that we are as efficient as possible in the use of property, and I look forward to leading that work.
Mr Stephen Hepburn (Jarrow) (Lab)
T10. Does the Minister agree that the Cabinet Office could be far more effective in running the Government if it did not have in another Department a Chancellor who goes out and agrees pig-in-a-poke deals with Google, which everybody knows does not pay its fair share of tax, at a time when millions are filling in their tax returns?
Matthew Hancock
The tax to which the hon. Gentleman refers was of course due from activities under a Labour Government. It was never paid under a Labour Government, but it has been delivered under this Conservative Government.
Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)
T9. Again this year, many tens of thousands of young people will benefit from the National Citizen Service programme. However, there are still too many young people who have never been introduced to the programme or had the opportunity to “Say yes” to NCS. Will my right hon. Friend work with colleagues from across the House to make sure that every young person has the opportunity to understand this project and can sign up for this summer’s programmes?
Matthew Hancock
As my hon. Friend puts it, NCS is a fantastic opportunity for young people. It massively expanded during the last Parliament, and we have ambitious plans to make sure that every young person who wants to do so can benefit from NCS, which does so much to inspire and enrich people’s lives.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
T7. New research has uncovered that there has been a greater fall in UK civil service employment in Scotland than in any other UK nation. Between 2011 and 2015, 5,000 civil servants working for UK Departments in Scotland lost their jobs. Will the Minister tell me and my constituents whether that is his definition of “better together”?
Matthew Hancock
Of course we have had to make savings in the number of civil servants as we have reduced the deficit, but there are far more UK civil servants working in Scotland than civil servants working for the Scottish Government. It just shows that, for Scotland as well as for the rest of this United Kingdom, we are that much better together.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
In supporting citizenship and volunteering, what lessons can be learned from the excellent Team Rubicon UK, led by my constituent General Sir Nick Parker? It involves recruiting veterans and ex-servicemen to do great work, notably during the recent flooding.
Matthew Hancock
I want to pay tribute to Team Rubicon and all those who work with it. The role that veterans can play in shaping the future of young people and showing what it is to serve their nation is invaluable, and it is a lesson from which all of us can learn.
Ms Harriet Harman (Camberwell and Peckham) (Lab)
The Cabinet Office is responsible for the guidelines on Government proposals. As the Joint Committee on Human Rights discovered when we went to Scotland earlier this month, there is a strong feeling about the consultation on the Human Rights Act 1998. Will the right hon. Gentleman make sure that the voice of people in Scotland is heard, and that they will not be gagged by the fact that the consultation will be issued during purdah following the dissolution of the Scottish Parliament? Will he give such a guarantee?
Mr Letwin
As the right hon. and learned Lady will know, the consultation principles, which we have recently promulgated—I spoke to the Joint Committee about them recently—have the effect that every Department should make sure that all consultations are proportionate, and that we make due allowance for any time during which it would be difficult for people to respond so that we get a full and adequate consultation on every occasion.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
Q1. If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 27 January.
The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)
I know the whole House will want to join me in marking Holocaust Memorial Day. It is right that our whole country should stand together to remember the darkest hour of humanity.
Last year, on the 70th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz, I said we would build a striking national memorial in London to show the importance Britain places on preserving the memory of the holocaust. Today, I can tell the House that this memorial will be built in Victoria Tower Gardens. It will stand beside Parliament as a permanent statement of our values as a nation, and it will be something for our children to visit for generations to come. I am grateful to all those who have made this possible, and who have given this work the cross-party status that it so profoundly deserves.
This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, and in addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.
Peter Aldous
I echo the Prime Minister’s sentiments regarding Holocaust Memorial Day. We must never forget.
The North sea oil and gas industry, on which many people in my Waveney constituency are dependent for their livelihoods, is facing very serious challenges at the current time. The Government have taken steps to address the situation, but more is required if the industry is first to survive, and then to thrive. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that he recognises the seriousness of the situation, and will he do all he can to get the industry through these very difficult times?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise this. I do recognise the seriousness of the situation. The oil price decline is the longest in 20 years and nearly the steepest, and this causes real difficulties for the North sea. We can see the effects in the east of England, of course across Scotland, particularly in Aberdeen, and in other parts of our country, too. We discussed this at Cabinet yesterday. I am determined that we build a bridge to the future for all those involved in the North sea. We are going to help the sector export its world-class expertise. We are going to help such economies diversify. We announced £1.3 billion of support last year for the North sea. We are implementing the Wood review. I will be going to Aberdeen tomorrow, where we will be saying more about what we can do to help this vital industry at this vital time.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
On behalf of the Opposition, I welcome the remarks the Prime Minister made about Holocaust Memorial Day. It is the 71st anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz-Birkenau. We have to remember the deepest, darkest days of inhumanity that happened then and the genocides that have sadly happened since. We must educate another generation to avoid those for all time.
Independent experts have suggested that Google is paying an effective tax rate on its UK profits of around 3%. Does the Prime Minister dispute that figure?
The Prime Minister
Let us be clear what we are talking about here. We are talking about tax that should have been collected under a Labour Government being raised by a Conservative Government. I do dispute the figures the right hon. Gentleman gives. It is right that this is done independently by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, but I am absolutely clear that no Government have done more than this one to crack down on tax evasion and aggressive tax avoidance—no Government, and certainly not the last Labour Government.
Jeremy Corbyn
My question was whether the Prime Minister thinks an effective tax rate of 3% is right or wrong. He did not answer it. The Chancellor of the Exchequer described this arrangement as a “major success”, while the Prime Minister’s official spokesperson only called it a “step forward”. The Mayor of London described the payment as “quite derisory”. What exactly is the Government’s position on this 3% rate of taxation?
The Prime Minister
But we have put in place the diverted profits tax, which means that this company and other companies will pay more tax in future. They will pay more tax than they ever paid under Labour, when the tax rate for Google was 0%. That is what we faced.
Let me tell the right hon. Gentleman what we have done. We have changed the tax laws so many times that we raised an extra £100 billion from business in the last Parliament. When I came to power, banks did not pay tax on all their profits—allowed under Labour, stopped under the Tories; investment companies could cut their tax bill by flipping the currency their accounts were in—allowed under Labour, stopped under the Tories; and companies could fiddle accounting rules to make losses appear out of thin air—allowed under Labour, stopped under the Tories. We have done more on tax evasion and tax avoidance than Labour ever did. The truth is that they are running to catch up, but they haven’t got a leg to stand on.
Jeremy Corbyn
It was under a Labour Government that the inquiries into Google were begun. In addition, as a percentage of GDP, corporation tax receipts are lower under this Government than under previous Governments.
I have a question here from a gentleman called Jeff. [Interruption.] You might well laugh, but Jeff speaks for millions of people when he says to me:
“Can you ask the Prime Minister…if as a working man of over 30 years whether there is a scheme which I can join that pays the same rate of tax as Google and other large…corporations?”
What does the Prime Minister say to Jeff?
The Prime Minister
What I say to Jeff is that his taxes are coming down under this Government, and Google’s taxes are going up under this Government. Something the right hon. Gentleman said in his last question was factually inaccurate. He said that corporation tax receipts have gone down. They have actually gone up by 20% under this Government because we have a strong economy, with businesses making money, employing people, investing in our country and paying taxes into the Exchequer.
If, like me, the right hon. Gentleman is genuinely angry about what happened to Google under Labour, there are a few people he could call. Maybe he should start by calling Tony Blair. You can get him at J. P. Morgan. Call Gordon Brown. Apparently, you can get him at a Californian bond dealer called Pimco. He could call Alistair Darling. I think he’s at Morgan Stanley, but it’s hard to keep up. Those are the people to blame for Google not paying its taxes. We are the ones who got it to pay.
Jeremy Corbyn
The problem is that the Prime Minister is the Prime Minister, and is responsible for the Government and therefore responsible for tax collection. Google made profits of £6 billion in the UK between 2005 and 2015 and is paying £130 million in tax for the whole of that decade. Millions of people this week are filling in their tax returns to get them in by the 31st. They have to send the form back. They do not get the option of 25 meetings with 17 Ministers to decide what their rate of tax is. Many people going to their HMRC offices or returning their forms online this week will say this: why is there one rule for big multinational companies and another for ordinary small businesses and self-employed workers?
The Prime Minister
All those people filling in their tax returns are going to be paying lower taxes under this Government. That is what is happening. I have to say to the right hon. Gentleman, he can, if he wants, criticise HMRC, but HMRC’s work is investigated by the National Audit Office, and when it did that, it found that the settlements that it has reached with companies are fair. That is how it works. [Interruption.] The shadow Chancellor is pointing. The idea that those two right hon. Gentlemen would stand up to anyone in this regard is laughable. Look at their record over the last week. They met the unions and they gave them flying pickets. They met the Argentinians; they gave them the Falkland Islands. They met a bunch of migrants in Calais; they said they could all come to Britain. The only people they never stand up for are the British people and hard-working taxpayers.
Jeremy Corbyn
We have had no answers on Google; we have had no answers for Jeff.
Can I raise with the Prime Minister another unfair tax policy that affects many people in this country? This morning the Court of Appeal ruled that the bedroom tax is discriminatory, because of its impact—[Interruption.] I don’t know why Members opposite find this funny, because it isn’t for those who have to pay it. The ruling was made because of the bedroom tax’s impact on vulnerable individuals, including victims of domestic violence and disabled children. Will the Prime Minister now read the judgment and finally abandon this cruel and unjust policy, which has now been ruled to be illegal?
The Prime Minister
We always look very carefully at the judgments on these occasions, but of course our fundamental position is that it is unfair to subsidise spare rooms in the social sector if we do not subsidise them in the private sector where people are paying housing benefit. That is a basic issue of fairness, but isn’t it interesting that the first pledge the right hon. Gentleman makes is something that could cost as much as £2.5 billion in the next Parliament? Who is going to pay for that? Jeff will pay for it. The people filling in their tax returns will pay for it. Why is it that the right hon. Gentleman always wants to see more welfare, higher taxes and more borrowing—all the things that got us into the mess in the first place?
Jeremy Corbyn
We have not had any answers on Google or the bedroom tax, but I ask the Prime Minister this. Shortly before coming into the Chamber, I became aware of the final report of the United Nations panel of experts on Yemen, which has been sent to the Government. It makes very disturbing reading. The report says that the panel has documented that coalition forces have
“conducted airstrikes targeting civilians and civilian objects, in violation of international humanitarian law, including camps for internally displaced persons and refugees…civilian residential areas; medical facilities; schools; mosques”.
These are very disturbing reports. In the light of this, will the Prime Minister agree to launch immediately an inquiry and a full review into the arms export licences to Saudi Arabia and suspend those arms sales until that review has been concluded?
The Prime Minister
As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we have the strictest rules for arms exports of almost any country anywhere in the world. Let me remind him that we are not a member of the Saudi-led coalition; we are not directly involved in the Saudi-led coalition’s operations; and British personnel are not involved in carrying out strikes. I will look at that report as I look at all other reports, but our arms exports are carefully controlled and we are backing the legitimate Government of the Yemen, not least because terrorist attacks planned in the Yemen would have a direct effect on people in our country. I refuse to run a foreign policy by press release, which is what he wants. I want a foreign policy that is in the interests of the British people.
Nusrat Ghani (Wealden) (Con)
Q2. The recent explosion of spurious legal claims against British troops, including those pursued by the law firm that has donated tens of thousands of pounds to the shadow Defence Secretary, undermine the ability of our armed forces to do their job. Will the Prime Minister join me in repudiating the disdain that this shows to our brave servicewomen and our brave servicemen?
The Prime Minister
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. Of course, we hold our service personnel to the highest standards, and it is right that we do, but it is quite clear that there is now an industry trying to profit from spurious claims that are lodged against our brave servicemen and women. I am determined to do everything we can to close that bogus industry down. We should start by making it clear that we will take action against any legal firm that we find to have abused the system to pursue fabricated claims. That is absolutely not acceptable.
Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP)
I begin by associating the Scottish National party with the comments of the Prime Minister in relation to Holocaust Memorial Day, and commend Governments across the United Kingdom for supporting the Holocaust Educational Trust for the important work it does.
Does the Prime Minister agree that there is no justification for discrimination or unfairness towards women in the private sector or the public sector, or by the Government?
The Prime Minister
First of all, I welcome what the right hon. Gentleman says about the Holocaust Educational Trust. I remember as a new constituency MP meeting people from the trust and seeing the incredible work they do in my constituency. They work extremely hard around the clock but this day is particularly important for them. I urge colleagues who have not visited Auschwitz to do so: it is something they will never forget, no matter what they have read, films they have seen or books they have interrogated. There is nothing like seeing for yourself what happened in the darkest hour for humanity.
In terms of wanting to end discrimination against women in the public sector, the private sector, in politics and in this place: yes, absolutely.
Angus Robertson
I very much welcome what the Prime Minister says on both counts. He is aware of the state pension inequality that is impacting on many women, and that, on pension equalisation, this Parliament voted unanimously for the Government to
“immediately introduce transitional arrangements for those women negatively affected by that equalisation.”
What will the Prime Minister do to respect the decision of this Parliament and to help those women who are affected—those born in the 1950s—who should have had proper notice to plan their finances and their retirement?
The Prime Minister
First of all, the equalisation of the retirement age came about on the basis of equality, which was a judgment by the European Court. We put it in place in the 1990s. When this Government decided—rightly, in my view—to raise the retirement age, we made the decision that no one should suffer a greater than 18-month increase in their retirement age. That is the decision that this House of Commons took. The introduction of the single-tier pension at £155 a week will be one of the best ways that we can end discrimination in the pension system, because so many women retiring will get so much more in their pension which, of course, under this Government, is triple-lock protected, so they will get inflation, earnings or 2.5%, and never again a derisory 75p increase.
Charlotte Leslie (Bristol North West) (Con)
Q3. Our prisons can still be centres of radicalisation. Will the Prime Minister look at all measures, including those in the all-party parliamentary group for boxing report, for preventing troubled young people from falling into the jaws of those dangerously screwed up and predatory extremists?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is very disturbing that, when people are in our care and when the state is looking after them, on some occasions, they have been radicalised because of what they have heard in prison either from other prisoners, or on occasion, from visiting imams. We need to sort this situation out. The Justice Secretary has put in place a review. I will look carefully at the report my hon. Friend mentions, but, if anything, we must ensure that people who are already radicalised when they go to prison are de-radicalised rather than made worse.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (SNP)
Q5. Since the Chancellor of the Exchequer took control of the public purse, he has utterly failed to get the deficit under control. To date this year, he has borrowed over £74 billion to plug the gap or—to use the vernacular his party is fond of using for a hypothetical independent Scotland—the monumental financial black hole in his books. Is he now likely to breach his own deficit reduction target for the year by somewhere in the region of £9 billion? Will the Prime Minister finally concede—
Mr Speaker
Order. I do not wish to be unkind to the hon. Lady, but I think we have the gist.
Mr Speaker
Order. That was a polite way of saying that the hon. Lady had concluded her question.
The Prime Minister
My right hon. Friend the Chancellor, and the economic strategy the Government have pursued, has cut the deficit in half from the record level we inherited. Soon it will be down by two-thirds. We are meeting what we want to see in terms of debt falling as a share of our GDP. What a contrast with the situation Scotland would be facing if it had voted for independence. In just six weeks, we have seen a 94% collapse in oil revenues. Because we have the broad shoulders of the United Kingdom, the collapse in the oil price and taxation will not affect people in Scotland. Had Scotland been independent, it would be a very, very dark day indeed.
James Morris (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con)
Q4. Recently, I held a mental health forum in my constituency. I brought service users and commissioners together to explore how we could improve mental health services in Dudley and Sandwell. I welcome the Prime Minister’s recent announcement on increased funding for mental health services. Does he agree that, despite the fact we have more work to do, his commitments are a clear indication of our desire to have a revolution in mental health services in Britain? He has delivered some commitments on that.
The Prime Minister
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend. There is further to go, but the Government are investing more in mental health. We introduced the waiting times, most recently saying that young people suffering episodes of psychosis should be seen within two weeks. There is funding, there is parity of esteem, there is waiting time. There also needs to be a bigger culture change not just in the NHS but right across the public and private sectors, so that mental health conditions are given the attention they deserve.
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)
Q6. From April, a woman who works full time stands to lose thousands of pounds in tax credits if she becomes pregnant with her first child. When will the Prime Minister stop attacking working people?
The Prime Minister
What we are doing for women like that is making sure that this year they can earn £11,000 without paying any income tax. If they are on low wages, if they are on the minimum wage, they will get a 7% pay increase because of the national living wage. For the first time, there will be 30 hours of free childcare for those people. That is what we are doing for hard-working people. Do we need to reform welfare? Yes, we do. If the hon. Gentleman had read the report into why his party lost the election—not the one it published, of course; the secret one we all read over the weekend—he would see that, by its endlessly arguing for higher and higher welfare, the British public rightly concluded that under Labour there would be higher and higher taxes.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Q8. I warmly welcome the Prime Minister’s words on creating a national memorial to the victims of the holocaust. Tonight in Harrow, representatives of the whole community will come together to listen to the people who survived the holocaust. This is the only way we can preserve their memory. My right hon. Friend rightly alluded to the wonderful work of the Holocaust Educational Trust in allowing literally thousands of young people to visit Auschwitz-Birkenau and to see it at first hand. Will he commit the Government to continue funding the Holocaust Educational Trust, so that many thousands more can see the horrors of the holocaust?
The Prime Minister
I can certainly make that commitment. We have funded the trust with over £10 million since I became Prime Minister. As I said in answer to an earlier question, it does excellent work. I also think there is a real need now as, tragically, the remaining holocaust survivors are coming to the end of their lives. Many of them—I will be spending some time today with some of them—are now speaking up in the most moving and powerful way. Recording their testimonies, which must be part of our memorial, is absolutely vital. Their description of what they went through and the friends and family they lost, is so powerful and moving we must capture it for generations to come.
Sue Hayman (Workington) (Lab)
Q7. In 2013, the Energy and Climate Change Select Committee recommended extending the retention of business rates to include new build nuclear power stations. The Centre of Nuclear Excellence is in my constituency, and the new build at Moorside is vital for our economic prosperity. Given the Government cuts to Cumbria’s councils, does the Prime Minister agree that if we are truly to build a northern powerhouse, our local authorities must retain all business rates from the nuclear new build in west Cumbria?
The Prime Minister
I will consider very carefully what the hon. Lady says. We are committed to the new nuclear industry, and we are obviously making good progress with Hinkley Point, but we need another big station to go ahead. I will consider very carefully her comments about business rates retention and business rates more broadly, but the most important thing is to have energy infrastructure that allows for the delivery of new nuclear power stations. That is the Government’s position.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
Q11. What steps the Government are taking to help overcome the social and economic problems facing coastal towns.
The Prime Minister
The Government are absolutely committed to regenerating our coastal towns and ensuring that everyone, regardless of where they live in this country, has access to high-quality public services and the very best opportunities. I am happy to reaffirm that to the House today.
Mr Speaker
I do beg your pardon. We must hear from Mr Vickers first. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] Let us hear from the hon. Gentleman.
Martin Vickers
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
I recognise the initiatives the Government have taken, but the Prime Minister will know that many coastal towns, such as Cleethorpes, suffer from poor educational standards. We have many high-performing academies trying to reverse that and ensure that our young people have access to sport, arts and culture at the highest level. The council is preparing a report with the private sector. Will he commit the Government to working with me and the council to deliver regeneration to Cleethorpes?
The Prime Minister
No one, Mr Speaker, could silence the voice of the Humber. That was not going to happen.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I am happy to look at the proposal with him. We have to make sure we tackle both failing schools and coasting schools, and there are some in coastal areas of our country. One issue is making sure we get very talented teachers and leaders into those schools, and that is what the national leaders of education service is all about, but I am happy to talk further with him.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
Déjà vu.
Rathlin island is the only inhabited coastal village or town in my constituency. No British Prime Minister has ever had the honour to visit that part of Ulster. When does the Prime Minister plan to visit this remote location, which has considerable economic needs and could generate more employment and tourism?
The Prime Minister
I have been the first British Prime Minister to visit many parts of our country—I was the first to go to Shetland for about 30 years—but I fear, if I went to this island, people might like me to stay. I will certainly bear it in mind, however, the next time I visit the Province.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
Q13. Rugby is the fastest-growing town in the west midlands, and work is under way to provide 6,200 much-needed new homes at the Rugby Radio site. My constituents are keen to ensure that public services keep pace with those developments and to see more services at their local hospital, St Cross. Does the Prime Minister agree with the NHS chief executive, Simon Stevens, that district hospitals such as St Cross play an excellent role in the NHS?
The Prime Minister
I am a believer in district general hospitals, and I know what a strong supporter of St Cross my hon. Friend is and that there is a new dedicated children’s outpatient facility there, which is welcome. If we are to achieve our aggressive house building targets, more houses will be built in most of our constituencies, and it is important that we try, as far as we can, to welcome that and make sure that the infrastructure that goes with these necessary houses is provided.
Caroline Flint (Don Valley) (Lab)
Q9. Not everybody is as satisfied as the Chancellor with what for Google is loose change to cover its tax liabilities. On Monday, the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) called on the Government to make companies publish their tax returns. In that way, we can all see how they make the journey from their cash profits to their tax bills. Does the Prime Minister agree?
The Prime Minister
I do wonder whether the right hon. Lady ever raised this issue when she sat in the Labour Cabinet when Google was paying zero tax. What we have is a situation where we make the rules in this House and HMRC has to enforce those rules. That is the system that we need to make work.
Chris Green (Bolton West) (Con)
Q14. As cancer survival rates continue to improve and given that this is cancer talk week, will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming a new state-of-the-art cancer information centre due to open at Royal Bolton hospital, and will he praise the collaboration of Macmillan Cancer Support, Bolton People Affected by Cancer, Bolton hospice and the Bolton clinical commissioning group, which are all making this happen?
The Prime Minister
I am happy to join my hon. Friend in that. Everyone in the House knows someone or has a family member who has been touched by cancer, and many people have lost loved ones to cancer. The good news is that cancer survival rates are improving, and we need to ensure they improve across all types of cancer, not just the best known ones. What I think my hon. Friend is saying is that this is not just an issue for the NHS; it is also about all those big society bodies that want to campaign and act on helping cancer sufferers, which have such a big role to play.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
Q10. In the summer of 2014 when I was the leader of Highland Council, I wrote to the Prime Minister asking him to join the Scottish Government and Highland Council in taking forward a city deal for Inverness. Highland Council has submitted a detailed plan on the theme of “a region for young people”. Will the Prime Minister now commit to giving this the green light in the coming weeks?
The Prime Minister
We are committed to examining the city deal with Inverness, just as we have made very good progress on the city deal with Aberdeen. I think these bring together the best of what the Scottish Government can put on the table, but also the best of what the UK Government can put on the table. Without wanting to be too political about it, the two Governments working together can do even more.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
I thank the Prime Minister for meeting the deposed Maldivian President Nasheed and his legal team in No. 10 on Saturday. Will my right hon. Friend commit to work towards an international consensus on targeted sanctions, so that the Maldivian regime might reconsider its appalling human rights record and its record on democracy?
The Prime Minister
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this issue. It was an honour to meet former President Nasheed, who I think did an excellent job for his country in cutting out corruption and turning that important country round. He suffered terribly from being in prison, and it is good that he is able to get out to seek medical treatment, but we want to see a change in behaviour from the Maldivian Government to make sure that political prisoners are set free. Yes, we are prepared to consider targeted action against individuals if further progress is not made. Let us hope that the diplomatic efforts, including by the Commonwealth action group, will lead to the changes we want to see. Britain and its allies, including Sri Lanka and India, are watching the situation very closely.
Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab)
Q12. Forty-six per cent. of five-year-old children in Bradford suffer from dental decay, compared with just 28% across England. Fewer than half of the children living in the Bradford district have seen a dentist in the last two years. Given that the cost of treating tooth decay far exceeds the cost of prevention, will the Prime Minister look at the lack of availability of NHS dentists in Bradford South as a matter of urgency?
The Prime Minister
I am happy to look at what the hon. Lady says. If we take a view across the country, before 2010 we had those huge queues round the block when a new NHS dentist turned up because there were not enough of them. We have seen a very big— [Interruption.] Labour Members may shake their heads, but that is what happened, and some of us can remember it. We have seen a big increase in NHS dentistry since, but I will look carefully at the situation in Bradford.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
As my right hon. Friend knows, the peninsula rail taskforce is set to deliver its report on a resilient railway to Devon and Cornwall. Would he be willing to meet me and a number of colleagues to ensure that Network Rail and the taskforce have enough funding for the two studies into the electrification of the line and the necessary reduction of journey times?
The Prime Minister
I had an excellent meeting with the south-west peninsula rail taskforce, which has been working closely with the Government. I will make sure that we continue to liaise closely with it. Clearly, we need to find an answer and we need to find the funding to make it work. We cannot allow to happen what happened in the past when a problem on our railways led to the peninsula being cut off. We cannot see that happen again.
Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)
Q15. Will the Prime Minister join me in congratulating my constituents Dominic and Rebecca from Mitcham on the birth of their daughter Alice. Like every parent, they want their daughter to have better opportunities than they had, but with average London house prices increasing by £40,000 in 2013 alone and the average house in London now worth more than half a million pounds, does he understand their fears that Alice will never have the chance they had to buy her own home in the area she was born in?
The Prime Minister
I want to help Alice, and many others like her in London, to get on to the housing ladder. That is why we are introducing shared ownership, which brings housing into the reach of many more people. It is why we have Help to Buy London, which is twice as generous as the Help to Buy scheme in the rest of the country. It is why we are selling off the most expensive council houses and rebuilding more affordable homes. All those measures have been taken under the guidance and drive of Zac Goldsmith, who would make an excellent Mayor of London. That is Alice’s best chance of a home: to have a Conservative Mayor and a Conservative Government working together, hand in glove.
Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)
Someone who is experiencing a mental health crisis and goes to A&E in desperation needs prompt specialist help. I welcome my right hon. Friend’s recognition of psychiatric liaison in his recent speech on life chances. Does he agree that the provision of 24/7 psychiatric liaison in A&E departments is an important step towards parity of esteem for mental and physical health in a seven-day NHS?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We are seeing more mental health and psychiatric liaison in our A&Es. We are seeing it in some of them now, but we need, over time, to see it in all of them, because people so often arrive in a setting that is not the one in which they should be looked after. Whether we are talking about getting people with mental health conditions out of police cells, making sure that they are treated properly in prisons, or, crucially, making sure that they are given the right treatment when they arrive at A&E, that is very much part of our life chances plan.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
I commend the Prime Minister for his remarks about Holocaust Memorial Day. In honouring the memory of those who were murdered by the Nazis, we provide the best antidote to extremism and anti-Semitism in our own age.
The biggest challenge facing Europe today is posed by the 3 million refugees who, it is predicted, will flee to our continent in 2016. Many of them will die along the way. Does the Prime Minister agree that the only way in which to challenge a crisis of that magnitude is to start to work with our European colleagues at the heart of a united Europe, and will he take this final opportunity to welcome in and provide a home for 3,000 unaccompanied children, as recommended by Save the Children?
The Prime Minister
I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the importance of taking action to help with the refugee crisis. No country in Europe has been more generous than Britain in funding refugee camps, whether they are in Syria, Turkey, Lebanon or Jordan. However, I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman’s view that the right answer is for Britain to opt into the EU relocation and resettlement schemes. Let me tell him why. We said that we would resettle 20,000 people in our country, and we promised to resettle 1,000 by Christmas. Because of the hard work of my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Richard Harrington), the Under-Secretary of State for Refugees, we achieved that. If we add up all that Europe has done under its relocation and resettlement schemes, we find that all the other 27 member states have done less than we have done here in the United Kingdom, because of those 1,000.
Yes, we should take part in European schemes when it is in our interests to do so, and help to secure the external European border; but we are out of Schengen, we keep our own borders, and under this Government that is the way it will stay.
Planning and studentification (Chester)
(8 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
I beg leave to present to the House a petition on planning policy relating to studentification, signed by my constituents and others, including the constituents of my right hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw), who I see in his place. My constituents seek a change in planning law better to secure the character of local communities during expansion of universities.
The petition states:
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House urges the Government to make provision for legislation to ensure that local authorities sustainably manage the interests of all parties when considering where student accommodation is developed.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The Humble Petition of residents of the City of Chester,
Declares that Government planning guidance requires amendment to ensure that it includes a statutory strategic studentification policy and to ensure that student accommodation demand is factored into housing assessment made as part of any emerging Strategic Local Plan; further that the Government should make clear all development options and locations concerned with delivery of amenities to meet higher education growth; further that student accommodation has been and continues to be permitted at inappropriate locations to house increasing numbers of students in the City of Chester; further that this adversely affects the working city and residential local community; further that the Local Authority and Inspectorate decisions taken to allow this accommodation undermines commitments made on the Petitioners' behalf in the recently adopted Strategic Local Plan to bring a growing West Cheshire elderly population and required future workforce into the city; further that this undermines the Government's National Planning Policy Framework commitment to protect the character of local areas and to defend people's rights to tranquillity as well as compromising delivery of required affordable and mixed residential accommodation; further that in Chester the loss of potential inner city development sites are having adverse effects; and further that in 2011 the Council voted in favour of consolidating a significant body of student intake into a single area by way of a student village solution but despite this, student accommodation is appearing in many areas in the city, causing unbalanced outcomes.
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House urges the Government to make provision for legislation to ensure that local authorities sustainably manage the interests of all parties when considering where student accommodation is developed.
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, &c.]
[P001671]
Points of Order
(8 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Paula Sherriff (Dewsbury) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
We will come to the hon. Lady’s point of order, but I should like to be able to hear it, and I should like there to be an attentive atmosphere for her benefit, mine, and that of the House.
Mr Speaker
The hon. Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess) has no cause for concern. He has never been forgotten before, and he will not be forgotten now. We are storing him up.
Paula Sherriff
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. At Cabinet Office questions before the recess, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster stated in response to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen (Jo Cox) that Kirklees Council had
“£200 million in useable and unused reserves”—[Official Report, 9 December 2015; Vol. 603, c. 979.]
and concluded that the problems that we reported were facing our constituents were, therefore, “not real ones”. I have now had it confirmed, not just by officers of the local authority, that its unused reserves are nowhere remotely close to that figure. Even including reserves that are already allocated and not useable, the figure is nowhere near £200 million. Through a written answer, the Minister with responsibility for local government, the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones), has confirmed that according to the Government’s own figures Kirklees Council had less than a fifth of that amount in unallocated financial reserves at the end of the last financial year. May I ask you, Mr Speaker, what recourse there is for Members when a Minister has, even if unintentionally, misled this House on a matter that so seriously affects our constituents?
Mr Speaker
The short answer to the hon. Lady’s question is that every Member of this House, including Ministers, must take responsibility for the veracity or otherwise of what he or she says. If somebody thinks the House has been inadvertently misled by a Member, the Member is responsible for correcting the record. That is the first point. The second point is that the recourse available to the hon. Lady lies in the Order Paper and the advice proffered by the Table Office. What I mean by that is that persistence pays, and if the hon. Lady thinks she has a good point, she should repeat it. She will have heard me make the observation that repetition is not a novel phenomenon in the House of Commons, and if she wants to keep making her point, she can take advice from the welter of sagacious and experienced colleagues around her as to how best to do so; most of them are very practised at the art, as I am sure the hon. Lady will be, too.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The House will have heard many tributes made to Holocaust Memorial Day today and the Holocaust Educational Trust campaign, “Don’t stand by.” In the light of that and in that spirit, do you agree that it was inappropriate for the Prime Minister, in referring to the refugee crisis in Europe, to use language such as “a bunch of migrants”? Do you think that it would be appropriate for the House to ask the Prime Minister to withdraw that language and use much more statesmanlike language about the need to build a cross-party consensus on such a complex and sensitive issue?
Mr Speaker
The right hon. Lady speaks with enormous experience in this House and I respect what she says. I completely identify and empathise with her observations about the Holocaust Memorial Day, which she and I on other occasions have marked at events together, so I take what she says extremely seriously. I do have to say to her and the House, however, that the observation in question was not disorderly; it was not unparliamentary. Everybody must take responsibility for the remarks he or she makes in this House and it is very clear that the right hon. Lady would not have used that term. It is open to the Prime Minister to comment on it if he wishes, but I am not entitled to try to oblige him to say anything on the matter. The right hon. Lady has made her point very clearly, however; it is on the record and people will make their own assessments of this matter.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. The hon. Member for Dundee West (Chris Law) was becoming moderately agitated, so let’s have a point of order from him; let’s hear the man.
Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. At business questions last week I asked a question relating to post-study work visas, an issue that is subject to an ongoing inquiry by the Scottish Affairs Committee. The Leader of the House responded by stating that this was
“an area that was not in the Smith commission report.”—[Official Report, 21 January 2016; Vol. 604, c. 1566.]
However, I have a copy of the report with me, and page 28 states that
“the Scottish and UK Governments should work together to... explore the possibility of introducing formal schemes to allow international higher education students graduating from Scottish further and higher education institutions to remain in Scotland and contribute to economic activity for a defined period of time.”
May I ask your advice, Mr Speaker, on how the Leader of the House can correct the record and offer a commitment that the Government will now seriously consider this issue, as recommended by the cross-party Smith commission?
Mr Speaker
Notwithstanding the serious and statesmanlike countenance of the hon. Gentleman as he rose to raise his point of order, it suffered from the material disadvantage of being many things but not a point of order for the Chair. We can all read the Smith report. I confess that I am not myself familiar with, or do not have an instant recall of, page 28, so the hon. Gentleman has the advantage of me there, but he asks what opportunity there is for him to try to hold the Leader of the House to account, and the short answer is tomorrow at business questions. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will be in his place, and if he is, I will see him.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In recent weeks, Ministers have made a number of statements here and in Westminster Hall about the steel industry, and in particular about the crucial issue of the Government’s procurement measures. It was therefore extraordinary to get a written answer from the Ministry of Defence yesterday stating that
“the Ministry of Defence (MOD) does not hold a complete, centralised record of steel procurement for projects and equipment, either in terms of quantity or country of origin”.
In the light of that extraordinary revelation, Mr Speaker, how would you advise me to gain greater clarity on whether the Government’s claims about what they are doing on procurement in the steel industry are actually the case, given that they do not appear even to be keeping records?
Mr Speaker
As I think the hon. Gentleman knows, his salvation lies in further questions and in the pursuit of debate, and there are opportunities to seek Adjournment debates. I say in no spirit of unkindness or discourtesy to him that I think it is evident from his puckish grin that he was more interested in making his point to me than in anything I might have had to say to him. We will leave it there for now.
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. A few minutes ago, in response to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh), the Prime Minister referred to the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) by his first name. It could of course be the case that the hon. Member for Richmond Park has recently been appointed as the Crown steward or bailiff of the Manor of Northstead, or perhaps the steward of the Chiltern hundreds of Stoke, Burnham and Desborough, but I do not believe that that is the case, and he should therefore be referred to in this House by his constituency. I believe that the Prime Minister did it in order to gain electoral advantage on this evening’s news coverage in London by using a name that most viewers would recognise. I also believe that the Prime Minister has been disrespectful to the House and to its procedures in seeking electoral advantage for the Conservative party. I wonder whether you concur with that, Sir, and I seek your advice on how we might upbraid the Prime Minister for that discourtesy.
Mr Speaker
I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who has rather magnified the issue by raising it this way. I do not disrespect him for that; I simply make that point en passant. I would say two things to him. First, Members should of course be referred to by their constituencies and not by their names. Secondly, I think this was almost certainly an oversight. Even the Prime Minister, who is immensely experienced and dexterous at the Dispatch Box, can be responsible for an oversight in the heat of the moment. I think that it was nothing more than that, just as when I momentarily forgot to call Mr Vickers to ask his question. We are all fallible—even, I suspect, the hon. Gentleman, on a bad day.
Driving Instructors (Registration)
(8 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision about the registration of driving instructors.
The Bill provides for two deregulatory measures to simplify the registration of driving instructors. The first measure allows a driving instructor to request voluntary removal from the register of driving instructors. The second simplifies the process for re-joining the register where a person’s registration has lapsed for between one and four years.
To become registered as an approved driving instructor—or ADI as they are known—a person currently has to pass three examinations that test theory, driving ability and instructional skill. They must be medically fit and a fit and proper person to be entered on the register. The total cost of taking all the required tests, obtaining a trainee licence and joining the ADI register is approximately £750.
A driving instructor’s name is added to the register on qualification and remains on the list for four years. Once a person is on the register, they are required to take a standards check within four years to ensure that they are still instructing to an approved standard.
Under current legislation, a person can be removed from the register only—I find this quite extraordinary—if the registration runs out or they are removed from the register for conduct, competence or disciplinary reasons. The Bill would allow for voluntary removal from the register in the case of illness or other commitments such as caring for an older relative, maternity leave or a period of residence overseas.
Let me give three examples, which have been brought to my attention, of how the current legislation impacts on ADIs who wish to leave the register. The first is an ADI who was caring for his terminally ill parent and could not attend his standards check. Under current legislation, he had to be removed from the register for disciplinary reasons, which was absolutely ridiculous. To return to the register, he would have to requalify via the three-part qualification route, and his disciplinary record would be taken into consideration.
The second example is a female ADI who felt compelled to renew her registration despite taking a career break from instruction to bring up her two young children. If she had not renewed her registration at a cost of £300 it would have lapsed and she would then have had to undergo the three-part requalification process, which is crazy. The ADI felt that that was discriminatory. She would have preferred to leave the register voluntarily and return at a later date via the shortened route.
The third and final example is of an ADI who allowed his registration to lapse after having a heart attack. At the end of the 12-month period in which he could reregister without requalifying, the ADI was still on medication and did not feel well enough to resume instructing. The registrar did allow him a two-month grace period, but although that was welcome the ADI felt that he had been placed under undue stress, which could impact on his recovery.
Currently, if an ADI has been off the register for less than a year, they can reapply and will be added back on to the register, subject to conduct and medical fitness requirements. However, if the ADI’s registration had lapsed for more than a year at the time they reapplied, they would have to retake the three ADI qualification exams.
The problems caused by the current legislation were brought to my attention by a constituent who runs a driving school that employs 200 drivers. His reasons for contacting me on this issue are as follows. The driving instructor industry is, for a number of reasons, losing driving instructors—I was surprised by this—and the process of qualifying can be a long one due to the waiting times for tests. As a result, the UK has a shortage of driving instructors, of which I am sure that the House was not aware. My constituent’s company has a waiting list of some six weeks for pupils to start to learn to drive, which is hindering many young adults in their careers. This is a common issue across the country, and my constituent has spoken to many driving school owners in Thurrock and in Essex more widely who are experiencing the same issues.
As the role of a driving instructor is not a physical one, many ex-driving instructors would like to get back to instructing, but the lengthy requalifying process is making them decide against it, which is a shame as they have much in the way of skills and experience to give the industry. If the ADI is within 12 months of their registration finishing, however, they can just reapply without having to go through the whole process again. To help alleviate the problems of getting ex-instructors back into the industry we need to streamline the process, and, if possible, extend the 12-month period.
The cost of retaking the three qualifying exams and the time taken to complete them are both cited as reasons why such a small number of instructors return to the profession after a break. It is extraordinary that, of the 43,000 registered ADIs, only 25, on average, wish to return each year.
Simplifying the process of returning to the register after a break of one to four years by allowing the instructor to pass a standards check instead would reduce the qualifying time from 36 weeks to only six weeks and avoid the £194 cost of undergoing the three-part qualification. The standards check that returning instructors would take would be the same as the one that practising ADIs currently take during the period of their registration to ensure their continued competence to instruct.
A person applying to re-join the register by that route would have a maximum of three attempts at passing the standards check. If they failed three times they would have to repeat the full requalification process if they wanted to re-join the register, thus ensuring that the highest standards are maintained. This faster route would not be available to those removed from the register for disciplinary reasons.
The majority of driving instructors in Great Britain—they are in all of our constituencies—are very small businesses or self-employed. The changes to current legislation, which I was told by the Department for Transport were necessary to meet the concerns of my constituent, are outlined in the Bill. They would allow ADIs to be placed on the register more quickly and at a lower cost, benefiting both instructors and driving school owners such as my constituent. There would be no lowering of standards as the returning instructors would be tested to the same rigorous standard as their colleagues already on the register. I should warn the House that it is not my intent to give instructions on how to drive or to set up a school of motoring.
The geographical extent of the Bill will be for Great Britain, excluding Northern Ireland. This Bill will allow instructors voluntarily to leave the register for a period of time for health reasons or for family commitments and provide a simple, cost-effective way for them to return to their profession without compromising instruction standards. I commend the measure to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Sir David Amess, Rosie Cooper, Martyn Day, Margaret Ferrier, Mr Roger Godsiff, Kevin Hollinrake, Steve McCabe, Wendy Morton, John Redwood, Andrew Rosindell, Dame Angela Watkinson and Mr Mark Williams present the Bill.
Sir David Amess accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 5 February, and to be printed (Bill 125).
Opposition Day
(8 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Housing Benefit and Supported Housing
(8 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
16:00 - The House divided: - Ayes: 239 / Noes: 286 - Question accordingly negatived.
Mr Speaker
Before I call the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) who speaks for the Opposition on these matters, let me say that it may be of interest to the House and useful to those on the Front Benches to know that no fewer than 19 Back-Bench Members are seeking to catch my eye. In deciding on a time limit, I shall have to take account of the length of contributions from the Front Bench, and those on the Front Bench, being ever considerate, will, I am sure, wish to ensure that their contributions are tailored to allow for the views of Back Benchers to be expressed.
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House believes that the Government’s planned cuts to housing benefit support for vulnerable people in specialist housing, including the elderly and people who are homeless, disabled or fleeing domestic violence, risk leading to the widespread closure of this accommodation; notes the concern from charities, housing associations, councils and others across the country about the severe effect of these cuts; further notes that supported housing has already suffered as a result of Government spending cuts and policy decisions; notes that the planned changes will apply to all new tenancies from April 2016; notes the clear evidence that the Government’s proposal to mitigate these cuts with discretionary housing payments will not work; and calls on the Government to urgently exempt supported housing from these housing benefit cuts and to consult fully with supported housing providers to safeguard this essential accommodation.
We have called the debate to give voice to hundreds of thousands of elderly and vulnerable people whose homes have been put at risk by the Government. It is very encouraging to know that 19 Members from both sides of the House wish to express their concern and to make a contribution to this debate.
We have also called the debate to expose the decision to challenge; and to expose it to compassion and to care. We want to expose it, too, to common sense. In his November spending review, the Chancellor announced that
“housing benefit in the social sector will be capped at the relevant local housing allowance.”—[Official Report, 25 November 2015; Vol. 602, c. 1360.]
With one short, sweeping sentence, he put at risk almost all supported and sheltered housing for the frail elderly, the homeless, young adults leaving care, those suffering with dementia, people with mental illness or learning disabilities, veterans and women fleeing domestic violence. According to those who provide that type of housing, he condemns nearly half of all such housing schemes to closure. He has already caused the cancellation of building work on nearly 2,500 new homes for people in those groups. The shadow Work and Pensions Secretary—my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Owen Smith)—and I therefore joined forces to use the motion and the debate to draw attention to how the Chancellor’s crude housing benefit cut could hit the lives of hundreds of thousands of people who totally depend on such specialist housing, many of whom are the most vulnerable people with nowhere else to turn.
The National Housing Federation says that 156,000 homes—at least that number of people will be affected—are set to close. A survey by Inside Housing found that one in four supported housing providers are set to close everything, while 19 out of 20 say that they will close some of their supported accommodation.
Since the spending review, as you might expect, Mr Speaker, I have been asking Ministers for evidence regarding the decision. I asked the Minister for Housing and Planning how many elderly people will be affected by the Chancellor’s cut, but he told me that the Government do not know. I asked how many women fleeing from domestic violence will be affected—don’t know; how many people with mental health problems—don’t know; how many young people leaving care—don’t know. The Government do not even know how many people in supported housing receive the housing benefit that they plan to cut.
The Minister did tell me, however, that the Government have commissioned an evidence review. It started in December 2014 and should have been completed by November 2015, but was not. Why not? In response to a parliamentary question, the Minister told me that the delay was due to
“the emerging complexity in the design and delivery of the review”
and “General Election Purdah restrictions”. The Minister therefore did not know what he was doing when he commissioned the review, and he must have been alone in the House and the country in not knowing that there was a general election in May last year. He says that the review will be ready later this year, so he does not even know when he will know what, at the moment, he does not know. What a shambles! What a serious dereliction of duty from a Government who should be making policy on the basis of evidence, especially when that policy affects the lives of so many very vulnerable people.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that one helpful thing that the Minister could do during the debate would be to make it clear that the cap applies to housing benefit, not to the service charge applied to so many in supported accommodation?
John Healey
I do not often disagree with my hon. Friend, but I do not agree that that is the solution. It is absolutely clear, as the motion says, that the Government need to act immediately and confirm that they will exempt in full supported housing from these housing benefit cuts. They then need to work with housing providers to ensure that such housing can be developed and secured for the future. I hope that my hon. Friend accepts that argument and will back us in the Lobby today.
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend suggests that the Government do not know what they are doing, but does he agree that it could be suggested that they do not care about the people whom they are directly affecting? They should care, however, that the Homes and Communities Agency has estimated that its investment in supported housing results in a net benefit of £640 million a year.
John Healey
My hon. Friend makes an important point and I shall come on to touch on that matter, albeit lightly. People will make their own judgments about whether Ministers and the Government know and care enough so that they act to stop the cuts.
The devastating decision has been made with no consultation, no impact assessment and no evidence. This is not a tussle between Government and Opposition Front Benchers because the situation concerns each and every Member of the House. Every MP has in their constituency hundreds of residents in supported or sheltered housing, many of whom cannot pay their rent and service charges for themselves and totally depend on housing benefit to help to cover their costs.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
Is not the real unfairness that supported housing, for many of our constituents, is an expensive but necessary choice? Without additional support from the housing benefit system, those people would not be able to afford such accommodation, which is vital to their everyday needs.
John Healey
My hon. Friend characteristically puts in a couple of sentences the main point that I am making, and he does so extremely well.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
The right hon. Gentleman rightly says that we all have constituents in accommodation such as sheltered housing, and he knows that all Members, irrespective of their party, care about our constituents. Will he dissociate himself from the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle) that Conservative Members, in seeking to bring forward changes, do not care, because we do?
John Healey
It is down to the hon. Gentleman and his Front-Bench colleagues to demonstrate that case to those who are watching the debate, and especially to the people whose homes and lives are at risk.
As I said, every Member of the House has constituents who are threatened by the Chancellor’s crude housing benefit cut. In the Minister for Housing and Planning’s local authority area of Great Yarmouth, there are some 258 people in supported housing and at least 139 in sheltered housing. The numbers are even higher for Swindon and Tunbridge Wells. What do we say to these residents and their families? What do we say to the committed charities, churches, housing associations and other groups that provide such specialist housing and are so concerned?
Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)
Surely the right hon. Gentleman concedes that this is not a back-of-a-fag-packet policy and that the Government are doing a sensible thing by collating all the information and demonstrable data as part of a proper scoping exercise on assisted housing, with an impact assessment. They have also put aside nearly £500 million for discretionary housing payments and the changes will not take effect until April 2018. Surely that is a sensible policy for the Government to pursue.
John Healey
We have not seen the information and we have not seen the evidence—we have not even seen the fag packet. Without the information and the evidence, why on earth did the Chancellor take this decision in the spending review before Christmas, thus pre-empting exactly what good policy and decision making should be based on?
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
Given that the right hon. Gentleman has not seen the evidence, why is he holding the debate now?
John Healey
My hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd and I called the debate to give voice to widespread concerns, to try to make the Government think again and to say that they must make exemptions from the cut. I shall set out in a moment why Ministers need to take a decision immediately.
Let me explain how the process will work. The Chancellor’s decision caps housing benefit for social tenants at a new rate, which is the same amount that private rental tenants receive through the local housing allowance. For most general council and housing association homes, this will not cause tenants any immediate concerns as their rents are lower than that level. However, specialist housing services and schemes that provide extra care and support involve much higher housing costs, with their higher rents and service charges often covered by housing benefit. The Government know that from their 2011 report on supported housing, which listed the main reasons:
“providing 24 hour housing management cover…providing more housing related support than in mainstream housing…organising more frequent repairs or refurbishment…providing more frequent mediating between tenants; and providing extra CCTV and security services”.
That is why rents in that type of accommodation do not mirror the rates in general private rented accommodation in the local area, but that is the level of the Chancellor’s cut and cap.
Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)
My right hon. Friend will know that, in Nottingham, the housing charity Framework is appalled at the impact of the change on the supported accommodation it provides for some of the most vulnerable people in my constituency. It says that hundreds and hundreds of spaces will have to close by 2018 if the change goes ahead. This is a very real problem facing some of the most deprived and vulnerable people in the country, and I applaud the fact that he has called this Opposition debate.
John Healey
I thank my hon. Friend and applaud his effort to talk to providers in his constituency. The fears that Framework expressed are widely voiced and shared by providers who offer that type of housing and support. I do not know what figures he has for Nottingham, but Homeless Link cites figures in Birmingham that expose the shortfall. The average national rent in a homeless hostel is about £180 per week. The local housing allowance rate in Birmingham is half that figure, at £98.87 a week. The local housing allowance rate for a room in a shared house, which is all that single people under 35 are entitled to, is just £57.34 a week—a shortfall of over £120 per week, per tenant.
Supported housing is not just an emergency bed or a roof over someone’s head; the support helps people to get their lives back together. Last year, 1,500—or two in five—people housed by St Mungo’s in its hostels moved on from supported housing into individual accommodation. Last year, St Vincent’s—the Manchester-based housing charity—saw 15 of its young Foyer residents go on to university, one to Oxford. For thousands of other people with severe autism, learning disabilities, dementia and mental illness, living as independently as possible in supported housing, there is no alternative but hospital and residential care, which are much more institutionalised for the residents and much more expensive for the taxpayer. This policy risks turning the clock back on people’s lives and standards of care by 40 years.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend has illustrated his case by referring to people for whom the alternative may be much more expensive and less adequate care. There are other people, such as women fleeing domestic violence with their children, who come to very good accommodation in my constituency, who will have no alternative at all if those places are closed down as a result of these measures.
John Healey
My hon. Friend, who chairs the Select Committee on Communities and Local Government, understands this better perhaps than anyone in the House. There is no alternative to the supported housing needed by many of the most vulnerable people, and which they have at present. That is why Ministers must act immediately to exempt supported housing in full from the crude cuts and undertake a detailed consultation with providers about how such housing can be secured in future. Before Christmas, I revealed the scale of the problems facing people in specialist supported housing.
John Healey
No, I will carry on for the moment.
Since then, we have had a series of half-baked statements from the Government. The first was, “This is unnecessary scaremongering.” Not true—we are giving voice to the warnings and evidence from those who have the facts and will have to manage the consequences. Those are organisations the British public trust and respect, including Age UK, Mencap and Women’s Aid. Secondly,
“nothing will change until 2018.”
Not true—the cut and the cap apply to new tenancies from April this year, so the problem is immediate. My local housing association, South Yorkshire Housing Association, has told me that
“it takes time to rehouse anyone, let alone the most vulnerable people. Consultation on scheme closures will need to begin within a matter of weeks”.
No one will sign contracts for supported housing when they do not know whether the basic costs can be covered. New investment has already been stopped in its tracks: one in five providers have frozen investment and new schemes, according to the Inside Housing survey. Golden Lane Housing, Mencap’s housing arm, had plans for £100 million of investment over the next five years in supported housing across England, but they have been scrapped.
Thirdly,
“Additional discretionary housing payment funding will be made available to local authorities, to protect the most vulnerable, including those in supported housing”.
Not true—the fund is run by councils to deal with emergency applications from people already coping with the bedroom tax, the benefits cap, and the cuts in the last Parliament to the local housing allowance. Awards often run for only a few months. The fund is currently £120 million a year, and it is a short-term and overstretched measure.
Policy costing in the autumn statement scores the cost of the Chancellor’s housing benefit cut at £515 million. The Government proposed to top up the discretionary housing payments fund by not £515 million but £70 million. Housing organisations rightly dismiss the idea that the fund is the solution, saying that that is “nonsense and unworkable”.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
The insufficiency of discretionary housing payments for the bedroom tax has been shown again and again. I am delighted that today at least one case involving a family of carers has been exempted. Does my right hon. Friend agree that facing this sort of situation preys on the minds of vulnerable people, as they know that they have to apply for a discretionary housing payment and may not get it?
John Healey
I think that my hon. Friend is discussing the case in the High Court, which found the Government to be in breach of equality legislation. We have always said that the bedroom tax is unfair, punishing people who often cannot afford to make up the difference, and that it should be scrapped. I hope that today’s High Court judgment will lead Ministers to think again about the bedroom tax and to act to stop the housing benefit cut damaging the prospects of many people.
The question for the Minister for Housing and Planning and for the Secretary of State—who was in the Chamber a moment ago, but then scarpered—is: did they discuss the cut with Treasury Ministers before the spending review? Was the Department even consulted? Either they did not spot it or they did not stop it. Either way, the Minister, the Secretary of State and the Department have been disregarded and overruled by the Chancellor.
The Housing and Planning Minister is in the Chamber to try to explain why housing schemes supporting more than 150,000 of the most vulnerable people, with nowhere else to turn, are set to close, while the real culprit keeps his head down in the Treasury. Forced to backtrack on tax credits when a tough stance on benefits backfired, the Chancellor turned to housing benefit cuts across the board to make his fiscal sums add up. With this, he has made the same errors of judgment. He has put politics above good policy and even basic humanity. He announces first, and asks questions later. He is failing many vulnerable people, and he is failing the taxpayer too.
This decision is a big test for the Conservative Government. The Prime Minister said just before the election:
“I don’t want to leave anyone behind. The test of a good society is you look after the elderly, the frail, the vulnerable, the poorest in our society.”
So will the Government act immediately and confirm that they will exempt in full from this crude, sweeping housing benefits cut those in supported and sheltered housing? Will they work with those who provide that housing to ensure that it is secure for the future? The only decision for Ministers to take on the motion before the House is to exempt that housing—a decision that would be based on evidence, compassion and care.
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Brandon Lewis)
Once again, I stand at the Dispatch Box grateful for the subject chosen by the Opposition for debate. We are always happy to discuss welfare reform, because it is at the heart of the Government’s agenda. We make no apology for this commitment to the people of Britain.
Our aim is simple. We need to balance the books and introduce a welfare system that is fair to taxpayers, where work pays and where having a job is always preferable to a life on benefits. The right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) speaks as though we are debating in a vacuum. We have to bear in mind where we have come from in order to understand where we are going, and the wider picture. Let us remember that in 2010 we inherited a welfare system that failed to reward work, hurt taxpayers, and was a millstone around the neck of the British economy. During the 13 years of the Labour Government, welfare spending had shot up by 60% in real terms and 1.4 million people had spent most of the previous decade trapped on out-of-work benefits. The result was a benefits system in disarray, which was costing taxpayers an extra £3,000 a year.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
Was my hon. Friend as surprised as I was when he heard his opposite number talking about good policy, when in the last 10 years of the Labour Government housing benefits increased by 46% in real terms? How could that be considered good policy?
Brandon Lewis
My hon. Friend, as ever, makes a powerful point about the way the Labour Government worked to trap people in dependency. We want to work with people to drive aspiration, while giving a fair deal to the British taxpayer.
Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the contribution from the Opposition Front Bench was long on flannel but short on facts? The independent Institute for Fiscal Studies predicts that despite small initial savings, there will be long-term benefits from capping housing benefit. My hon. Friend may wish to comment on that.
Brandon Lewis
My hon. Friend highlights the weakness of the Opposition’s position. They never look at the entire picture; they just want to make short-term political points.
Owen Smith (Pontypridd) (Lab)
Will the Minister confirm that the coalition Government, including the Tory party, spent £130 billion more than the previous Labour Government on welfare, breaching £1 trillion for the first time under any Government? Is that not a fact?
Brandon Lewis
The hon. Gentleman highlights the terrible mess that the coalition Government inherited. There was no fairness for hard-working taxpayers in such a system. There was nothing progressive in trapping people in lives without hope for a brighter future. The welfare system that his party left was broken, yet the Opposition have since then opposed every single decision we have taken to fix it. We have never heard from them proposals for alternative reforms, which can mean only that they oppose making any difficult decisions at all. It is easy to make noise, but much harder to do the right thing by the British people. We have seen one tactic time and again—scaremongering, exploiting the concerns of the very people they claim to represent, and playing politics with the lives of vulnerable people. Today’s debate is no exception.
Chris Leslie
If the Minister wants a specific proposal to save money on housing benefit and welfare, why does he not look at the £4.6 billion lost through fraud and error in the administration of our housing benefit system? Why does he not get a grip on that and introduce some better credit rating agency checks for applications? That is where the savings should be made, rather than on the backs of the most vulnerable people in our society.
Brandon Lewis
We have been clear about protecting the most vulnerable people in our society; I will come to that in a moment. The hon. Gentleman is right. We need to continue to make progress in cracking down on fraud and error, and in local government as well—something that the Labour Government did nothing about.
Graham Evans
My hon. Friend is making some powerful points. Will he remind the House that the Government are issuing £800 million to be allocated to local authorities for discretionary housing payments, and that a further £40 million was announced in the autumn statement for supporting the vulnerable, particularly for refuges for beaten women?
Brandon Lewis
My hon. Friend makes a strong point. It is rare that I disagree with him, but the figure is slightly better than he says. There is £870 million coming through. He highlights the Government’s clear focus on these issues.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend share my surprise that until we heard from the former shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, we had not heard, in 25 minutes of listening to the shadow Minister, any suggestion or acknowledgement that housing benefit is now an issue that any responsible Chancellor needs to look at? We spend more on housing benefit than on secondary education and it represents 50% of what we spend on the defence budget. No responsible Chancellor of the Exchequer would not be losing sleep about housing benefit and looking to reform it.
Brandon Lewis
My hon. Friend makes another clear and important point. Not just in the past 25 minutes, but in the past six years, Labour has said nothing constructive about how to deal with these issues for the benefit of the British taxpayer.
Several hon. Members rose—
Brandon Lewis
I shall make a little progress and then take more interventions.
This Government have always been clear that the most vulnerable will be supported through our welfare reforms. We know that the welfare system is vital for supporting vulnerable people, and we know it is essential that all vulnerable people have a roof over their heads. That is why we have been determined to support their housing needs. We have set aside over £500 million to create a strong safety net against homelessness; we recently pledged £40 million for domestic abuse services, ensuring that no victim is turned away from the support they need; at the autumn statement we announced a further £400 million to deliver 8,000 specialist affordable homes for the vulnerable, elderly or those with disabilities; and the Department of Health committed to fund up to 7,500 further specialised homes for disabled and older people.
We spent an extra £2 billion on main disability benefits over the course of the last Parliament, and by 2020 we will be spending at least £10 billion a year extra over and above inflation on the NHS, including a record £11.4 billion a year on mental health, which we can do because of the stronger economy that the Chancellor has brought to our country.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)
The Minister is giving us the statistics on how much money the Government have put aside or will be spending. I ask him a straight question: will people currently in supported housing be protected, rather than being turfed out and made homeless? That is a simple question.
Brandon Lewis
As I will set out in more detail later, we will make sure that the most vulnerable people are protected. That is what the welfare system is all about.
Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
The Minister talks about women’s refuges. The manager of Monklands Women’s Aid, Sharon Aitchison, has just emailed me. She says:
“There is no doubt that our current set-up with housing benefit is already stretched to the max, so the refuge provisions viability would most certainly be in question and the reality is we would be unable to fund refuge provision if the cap went ahead for us.”
What does the Minister say to Sharon Aitchison, the manager of my local women’s refuge, which provides a brilliant service for women and children in desperate situations?
Brandon Lewis
As I have just outlined, this Government announced an extra £40 million for domestic abuse services.
Funding for supported housing is part of the Government’s wider financial settlement to councils, which includes £5.3 billion in the better care fund in 2015-16 to deliver faster and deeper integration of health and social care. That will result in councils being better able to work together and invest in early action to help people live safely in their own homes for longer.
Barbara Keeley
I am amazed. The Minister has started trotting out figures for the better care fund. That fund is back-loaded: the money will not reach councils until 2019-20, and is cancelled out by the new homes bonus being taken back at the same time. We have already lost an awful lot of support for older and vulnerable people.
Does the Minister believe, as he seems to have just said, that the most vulnerable will be supported by the welfare reforms? That is just not true, as we see from all the court cases that are going through. How will people in 2,300 units of housing for older people in Salford be protected? I advise the Minister not to talk about discretionary housing payments, as those have been shown to be insufficient.
Brandon Lewis
I think that the hon. Lady, in talking about the settlement, is referring to the new £1.5 billion coming through. As I am sure she is aware, our affordable homes programme actually delivers 6% more supported homes a year than Labour’s equivalent did.
Of course, the supported housing sector is wide and varied, but all the different kinds of provision have one thing in common: they all provide dedicated support for some of our country’s most vulnerable people.
Several hon. Members rose—
Brandon Lewis
I am going to make some progress, because many Members wish to speak, but I will give way again shortly.
Many supported housing tenants have multiple physical and mental health problems, histories of offending and dependency issues. They might be elderly, socially isolated or face barriers to accessing employment or living independently. We know that supported housing can also reduce costs to the wider public sector—for example, in health and adult social care or in criminal justice.
I am sure that the whole House will agree that we want all our families, friends and constituents to live fulfilling and independent lives, wherever possible in a home of their own. Some people need more help to do that, and supported housing gives them that assistance. It provides a place of safety and stability. It helps people get their lives in order. It improves their health and wellbeing, and it provides the platform from which they can reach their full potential.
My ministerial colleagues and I have been out and seen for ourselves, over not only the past few months but the past few years, the difference that supported housing can make. Homeless hostels, such as Shekinah in Plymouth, which I visited last January, provide not only accommodation but invaluable opportunities for people in recovery. The same is true for specialised housing for older or disabled people, such as the Lady Susan Court development in Basingstoke, which I have visited. The residents there are delighted with their homes, which have allowed them to maintain their independence. Their only regret is not having moved in sooner.
My colleague Baroness Williams has also seen how domestic abuse refuges, such as the Saheli Asian Women’s Project in Manchester, are helping women flee terrible abuse and violent relationships and start new lives. Protecting the most vulnerable in society and supporting their housing needs is just as much a priority as driving down the deficit. There need be no contradiction between those two aims.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
Last week I visited Camberwell Foyer in my constituency, which is run by Centrepoint; I was shown around by Shante and Tia, who live there. The Foyer provides brilliant support for young people who would otherwise be homeless for a period of time. It has expressed grave concerns to me about the impact that the withdrawal of housing benefit from 16 to 21-year-olds will have on youth homelessness, in relation to the demand for their services, which it fears it would be unable to meet, and also on young people who are ready to move on and will not be able to access housing benefit for the homes they need. How does the Minister answer that point?
Brandon Lewis
I think there was an intervention somewhere in that speech. The hon. Lady has experience of the excellent work that those organisations do, as do I—I was a trustee of a Foyer. That is why it is important that we ensure that we protect the most vulnerable in society.
Mr Jackson
Is not the difference between the two sides of the House the fact that we on the Government side have got 339,000 disabled people into work and off benefits, whereas in 2010 the Labour party, to its eternal shame, presided over a situation in which 70% of people on disability living allowance had never been systematically re-assessed? That is a shocking and disgraceful record.
Brandon Lewis
My hon. Friend highlights the difference between the two parties. We want to ensure that we get a deal that protects the most vulnerable in society, helps them out and gives them an aspirational opportunity to move forward in their lives while getting a right and proper deal for the hard-working taxpayer.
In the autumn statement we announced that social sector rents eligible for housing benefit will be limited to the level of the relevant local housing allowance rate, including the shared accommodation rate for single claimants under 35 who do not have dependent children. It will be effective from 1 April 2018, affecting all tenancies that commenced from 1 April 2016. I know that has raised some concerns, so let me be clear that we will always ensure appropriate protections for the most vulnerable in supported housing. We will work closely with the sector, through the supported housing review, to ensure that we do that in exactly the right way.
Several hon. Members rose—
Brandon Lewis
I give way to the Chair of the Communities and Local Government Committee.
Mr Betts
The Minister has rightly recognised the importance of supported and specialist housing. He has now just indicated that the Government will somehow protect people in these circumstances. Can he give any indication of how that will be done and when these measures will be announced, given that housing associations are already having to plan for potential change in 2018 that could lead to the closure of existing accommodation and to new accommodation not being built?
Brandon Lewis
The hon. Gentleman has effectively asked me to continue my speech, because I was just about to say, as I am sure he will appreciate, that the underlying principles are the bedrock of this policy formation. He, along with the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne, urges the Government to note the concerns of supported housing providers, so let me reassure all Members of the House that we have of course been listening very carefully to those concerns, and we will continue to do so.
My ministerial colleagues and I have met representatives of the National Housing Federation and chief executives of housing associations that provide supported housing. We have listened very carefully to all these representations and noted everything that we have been told. We know that the costs of supported housing provision are higher than general needs housing and that providers rely on housing benefit funding for support elements such as wardens, security and the up-keep of communal facilities.
Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for finally giving way. Could he just point out exactly how he has been helping to protect the most vulnerable in the 34 specialist women’s refuges that have shut since the Conservatives came to power? I also wonder whether he would like to join me this afternoon at the all-party group on domestic violence to meet pretty much every CEO from all the Women’s Aid organisations across the country and see what they think.
Brandon Lewis
I am slightly surprised by the hon. Lady’s comments. If she looks back at the Hansard report of this debate, she will see how many interventions I have already taken, so she might want to talk to her colleagues about the fact that they got in before her. I am sure that she appreciates that I will always take an intervention from the Chair of the Select Committee first.
The future of supported housing matters, which is why my Department and the Department for Work and Pensions have jointly commissioned a fact-finding review of the sector. This will report by the end of March and will deepen our knowledge and understanding. The research has included extensive consultation with local authorities, supported accommodation commissioners and all categories of supported housing providers, be they charities, housing associations or, indeed, those in the commercial sector. It will provide us with a better picture of the supported accommodation sector.
In the meantime—Lord Freud has written to all interested parties outlining this today—the 1% reduction will be deferred for 12 months for supported accommodation. We will get the findings of the review in the spring. We will work with the sector to ensure that the essential services it delivers continue to be provided while protecting the taxpayer, making sure that we make best use of the taxpayer’s money and meet the Government’s fiscal commitments. We will look at this urgently to provide certainty for the sector.
Andrew Gwynne
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way and for setting out the next steps. I put it to him politely that he ought to have done that kind of research before making the announcement in the first place. In order to give those housing providers certainty, can he now also tell the House precisely what kinds of measures will be implemented to offset the changes in housing benefit?
Brandon Lewis
I say gently to the hon. Gentleman that the financial mess in which the previous Labour Government left this country means that we have to make difficult decisions and move quickly to ensure that hard-working taxpayers are properly protected. I am proud to be working with a Chancellor who sees that as one of our first and foremost duties.
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)
Can I be the first on the Government side of the House to warmly welcome the announcement that my hon. Friend has just made? It makes eminent sense to postpone this decision for one year on the basis of proper evidence and facts. His supported housing review will report at the end of March. After the review has concluded, will he come to conclusions on the matter rapidly? I was lobbied about this on Saturday by Bromford housing association in my constituency. There is a lot of uncertainty in the sector, so I urge him to come to conclusions rapidly after the review has concluded.
Brandon Lewis
As my hon. Friend rightly says, as the findings of the review come in we will look to work urgently with those in the sector to provide certainty for them.
John Healey
I welcome this partial step as an indication of progress. It has taken Labour’s forcing this debate to get Ministers to take this 12-month backward step on the reduction in rents. However, what about the cuts to housing benefit for supported and sheltered housing? A pause is not enough. It will not remove the alarm or anxiety of residents or the uncertainty for providers, and it will not affect the schemes that have already been scrapped. The Minister must provide an exemption. Will he announce that now?
Brandon Lewis
It is almost as though the right hon. Gentleman forgets that when he was a Minister—I think in the DCLG, although he might well still have been at the Treasury—the Government of the time moved the spare room subsidy, which was first introduced under Labour, into the private sector and created the unfairness that we now see. I am not going to stand here and take a lecture from him about this Government doing the right thing in working with the sector to deliver the right outcome and to do what we have always done, which is to protect the most vulnerable in our society. Labour—I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman is guilty of this—simply wants to get a headline by scaremongering around the country.
Craig Williams (Cardiff North) (Con)
I, too, hugely welcome the exemption for a year as a really meaningful announcement. Like the £40 million for domestic violence refuges—a tripling of the budget—it is really significant and contrasts with the political point-scoring we have heard from the Opposition.
Brandon Lewis
My hon. Friend clearly highlights the difference between the two parties. Labour spends a lot of time on bluster while the Government are focused on getting the job done for the people of Great Britain.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
Can my hon. Friend confirm that those who will benefit from this exception from the 1% rent reduction during this year of consideration include those fleeing domestic abuse, and that it affects homeless provision and housing for ex-offenders as well as supported housing for older and disabled people? Does he recognise how much this will be welcomed by many of us? Will he pay tribute to those who are working with him on it, including Homeless Link and St Mungo’s?
Brandon Lewis
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. A large number of people provide phenomenal services, across the sector and across the country, in working with the most vulnerable. We are keen to work with them to make sure that, as we have said all along, the right protections are in place for the most vulnerable people.
Let there be no doubt: this Government will always protect the most vulnerable and provide them with the support they need and a safe home to live in. We are a one nation Government. We want everyone to have the opportunity to live happy and fulfilling lives, whoever they are and wherever they live. We want workers to earn a living wage and benefit from our strong economic growth. We want to support aspiration, boost productivity, reward work over welfare, and allow people to keep more of the money they have earned in their own pockets. That is our new settlement for Britain—to keep moving from a low-wage, high-tax, high-welfare economy to a higher-wage, lower-tax, lower-welfare country.
On this journey, we will, I repeat, always support vulnerable people and make sure they have a safe home to live in. The whole House should support that aim. Instead, Labour Members are resorting to their favourite tactic of scaremongering for a short-term political headline. It is time to stop that kind of poor politics. It is time to stop playing politics with the lives of vulnerable people while we are working to help to provide the support they need and deserve—and we will provide it.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)
Order. I remind hon. Members that there will be a speech limit of six minutes after the SNP Front-Bench spokesperson has finished.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
I rise to support the motion in the name of the shadow Front Bench.
The starting point on issues surrounding housing benefit was the decision made a couple of months ago in a Delegated Legislation Committee to freeze housing benefit for four years. Once again, a decision was made in a Delegated Legislation Committee that should have been made through debate in this House. I am glad that the Independent newspaper, among others, has started to highlight this mechanism that the Government are using to bring in their most damaging policies affecting the country. I represent a constituency where 40% of homes are in the social rented sector and 10% in the private rented sector, so any changes in housing benefit will have an impact.
What has been most startling about these proposed changes, and the key thing to note, is that the Government have not produced any statistics on the number of housing benefit claimants who receive the benefit to pay for supported accommodation. In other words, the UK Government are proposing to cap lower LHA—local housing allowance—with no knowledge of how that impacts on women’s refuges and sheltered and supported complexes for pensioners, among other types of accommodation. No statistics are available on the number of residents in supported housing who are in receipt of full or partial housing benefit. On 17 November 2015, the Government were asked for the latest figures on the number of supported housing schemes in England that participate in such a scheme. Baroness Williams of Trafford answered for the Government:
“We do not hold this information. More information on the scale, shape and cost of the supported accommodation sector should be available through the evidence review jointly commissioned by the Department for Communities and Local Government and the Department for Work and Pensions.”
If the Government do not know the impact of the change, why make it?
This Tory Government must halt their continued assault on housing benefit so as to ensure that those who need supported housing are not literally left out in the cold. Supported housing provides vital help to tens of thousands of people. It plays a crucial role in securing a safe home and supports people to live independently. Supported housing provides the support for older people to maintain independent lives. It provides emergency refuge and support for victims of domestic violence, helping them to stabilise their lives and to engage with other services that they require. Supported housing providers work with homeless people with complex and multiple needs and help them to make the transition from life on the street to a settled home, education, training and employment. In my constituency, I know the work of a charity called Soldiers Off The Street that supports military veterans who are homeless and struggle to meet the challenge of civilian life, having served in our armed forces.
Supported housing assists people with mental health needs to stabilise their lives, recover and live more independently. It supports people with learning disabilities in the longer term to maximise independent living and exercise more choice and control over their lives. The stark reality is that any change to housing benefit can undermine the ability of such tenants to pay their rent, thereby putting their home at risk and threatening their physical and mental wellbeing, as well as posing a threat to the financial stability of housing associations. Single people under 35 will lose out, as well as those who need supported housing. Analysis by the Institute for Fiscal Studies concluded that the savings arising out of this measure would be small in the short run, cutting housing benefit expenditure by £255 million in 2020-21.
The longer-term impact of the change is expected to be more significant. If applied to all social tenants now, housing benefit would be cut by £1.1 billion from a base of about £25 billion, with 800,000 households losing an average of £1,300 per year across the UK. An Inside Housing article from 21 January 2016 claims that 95% of supported housing providers would be forced to close their schemes. The Scottish Federation of Housing Associations has arrived at figures that point to the potential cash impact of the policy, as it stands, in Scotland, based on a small-scale piece of research that it conducted with its members in the weeks since the autumn statement.
The proposed changes could have a devastating effect on the future provision of refuge accommodation in Scotland, because that accommodation is in the ownership of either housing associations or local authorities. LHA rates do not take into account the additional cost to refuge providers of leasing accommodation from social landlords and the associated service charge costs. A range of additional costs are involved in providing and managing refuge accommodation for women and children fleeing domestic violence. These costs derive from the more intensive housing management due to the crisis nature of admission, the special vulnerability of the women and children concerned, and the variable lengths of stay and rapid turnover. Other requirements include the need for increased safety and security measures, and the provision of furniture, bedding and equipment. Many refuges also include additional facilities such as communal rooms for counselling and therapeutic playrooms for children.
An analysis by the Angus branch of Scottish Women’s Aid found that in all cases, refuge rent and service charge costs are significantly higher than the LHA rate. It provides the example of a rural area where introducing a cap linked to the LHA rate would result in an annual loss of £5,800 for a two-bedroom refuge flat. In other examples, the annual loss on a one-bedroom refuge flat in an urban area is £7,100 per year, while the loss on a three-bedroom refuge in a semi-urban area is £11,600 per year. In each case, the financial cost will be multiplied by the number of refuge spaces provided. Without the existing level of housing benefit to cover costs, refuges may be forced to close. It is estimated that 62% of housing association tenants rely on housing benefit to help them to pay their rent.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. His point about the protection of refuges is important. In addition to our opposition to the Government measures, is it not quite clear that in Scotland, where housing is devolving—leaving the Scottish Government to protect the general stock, end the right to buy and fund new build housing and new supported accommodation—we need the full devolution of housing benefit to square the circle and to allow us to protect the most vulnerable and our general housing?
Chris Stephens
I agree with my hon. Friend. The SNP has been pursuing the full devolution of housing benefit.
The proposed introduction of the under-35s shared accommodation rate in social rented housing means that younger people will struggle to meet their rents, and it places women under the age of 35 at much greater risk of further abuse. The Scottish Federation of Housing Associations has found, based on its own analysis of the figures, that a single person aged under 35 who is reliant on housing benefit would face a weekly shortfall of £6.22, which is £323.44 per year. That translates into a rental loss of £2.8 million per year for housing associations in Scotland. The SFHA comments that that is likely to be a conservative estimate, given that, in August 2015, there were already 67,462 housing benefit claimants in social housing tenancies with housing associations in Scotland under the age of 35.
If women under the age of 35 are unable to access refuge accommodation or move into their own tenancy because of a restriction on their entitlement to housing benefit, that will in effect prevent them from leaving an abusive partner. In 2014-15, the 26 to 30-year-old age group had the highest incident rate of domestic abuse recorded by the police in Scotland. Women in that age group clearly have a significant need for domestic abuse support services, including refuge accommodation.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
I thank my hon. Friend for making very important points about women in vulnerable circumstances. Does he agree that there are issues about universal credit, in that women in domestic abuse situations may find themselves in difficulty if it is split? That would put them in a vulnerable position, which would be compounded by their not having a refuge to go to.
Chris Stephens
That factor would compound the original error. My hon. Friend is absolutely correct to raise that issue.
Discretionary housing payment to top up the gap between LHA rates and the actual costs of providing supported accommodation is simply not secure enough in these uncertain financial times. The autumn statement indicated that additional discretionary housing payment would be made available to local authorities to protect the most vulnerable. This type of discretionary funding for the social sector is far too insecure and uncertain a funding mechanism to allow providers to continue to provide specialised accommodation, such as refuge accommodation. It would mean local authorities deciding at an individual level whose support needs would or would not be met. That would create a postcode lottery, as well as distressing tenants, worrying about whether they would be successful.
The Angus branch of Scottish Women’s Aid claims that that would create additional barriers, not to mention risk, particularly for those women and children experiencing domestic abuse who are seeking refuge. In April 2013, Lord Freud responded to Scottish Women’s Aid with his commitment to protect refuge accommodation from any unintended consequences of the welfare reforms. In order to ensure that such vital supported accommodation is protected, the UK Government must commit to at least exempting refuge providers from further squeezes. The Department for Work and Pensions has stated that the extent to which supported accommodation, including refuges, will be included within the cap is still to be decided. The DHP fund is a cash-limited annual allocation and the future of the payment is not secure, particularly if the pot is stretched to meet growing numbers. The DHP fund should not be used to top up benefit; instead, the changes—leaving gaping holes in the support for those that need it most to keep a roof over their heads—should not go ahead.
The proposed capping will lock out those who need support from seeking it or being able to afford it. The gap between the LHA paid and the price of supported housing could mean that many at-risk individuals will not receive the support they need from a residential tenancy. The Scottish Federation of Housing Associations argues that uncertainty about the allocation of DHP could leave potential tenants reluctant to take up supported accommodation that better suits their needs. Furthermore, it argues that the uncertainty and distress about access to appropriate support could create a vicious cycle of tenants not accessing support and associations being left with empty properties.
Alan Brown
Is it not absolutely contrary of the Government to say that they will protect the most vulnerable by providing additional DHP? The only way in which they can actually protect vulnerable people is by completely exempting them from the proposals for such types of accommodation, rather than by providing additional DHP.
Chris Stephens
I agree with my hon. Friend. It was interesting that the Minister, in his response to the Labour spokesman, made no mention of the additional cost of the proposals to the health service and other social services across the board. In some respects, these are penny-pinching proposals, given the higher costs that will arise in future.
The proposed cuts come in the context of additional Tory planned restrictions on housing benefit for some of the most disadvantaged people in society. As part of summer Budget 2015, the Chancellor announced the removal of entitlement to the housing element of universal credit from young people aged 18 to 21, with some exceptions, from April 2017. The regressive rationale is to
“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.”
The measure is forecast to save £40 million by 2020-21. Certain categories of young people will be exempt from the removal of housing benefit, including vulnerable young people, those who may not be able to return home to live with their parents, parents themselves, and those who have been in work for six months prior to making a claim. Organisations such as Shelter, Crisis and Centrepoint have welcomed the limitation of the impact to 18 to 21-year-olds, as opposed to the wider age group of 16 to 24-year-olds, but are actively lobbying against the removal of what they describe as an “essential safety net”, which can offer a lifeline to young people faced with homelessness.
Only with full power over social security can we fully protect individuals in Scotland from future housing benefit cuts. The Smith commission recommended that powers over discretionary housing payment be devolved to the Scottish Parliament. Clause 23 of the Scotland Bill allows for DHP to be paid in exceptional circumstances, where applicants would not normally be eligible. The Smith commission also recommended that the Scottish Parliament have the power to vary the housing costs element of universal credit. Clause 27 gives Scottish Ministers powers to vary the calculation of the housing costs element of universal credit, subject to consultation with the Secretary of State about the practicability of implementation. The Scottish Government are already protecting low-income families from the impact of the bedroom tax, with total funding of £90 million in mitigation of this draconian measure.
I am proud to represent a constituency rich in the history of helping and championing the less fortunate, and of standing up to those guilty of exploitation. In Glasgow South West only a few months ago, we commemorated the centenary of the Glasgow rent strikes, which were led by the great Mary Barbour. As is explained in early-day motion 684, which I commend to all hon. Members, that fight against unscrupulous landlords who increased rents on the home front took place during a time of sacrifice on the western front. It may have been a century ago, but we have come full circle, as exploitation of one of the most basic human needs—shelter and a place to raise a family—is once more a key issue in Parliament. That is why my right hon. and hon. Friends and I will vote for the motion.
Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)
I want to put on the record my support for the one-year moratorium that has been announced, which demonstrates that being in government is about listening to a wide-ranging debate and taking on board the views of the key stakeholders. It is very welcome. Government is about matching policy principles, such as fairness and social equity, with practical policy implementation.
We have seen the usual hysterical shroud waving from the Labour party. It is working with people in the housing sector to scaremonger and to frighten the most vulnerable tenants.
Mr Jackson
No, I will not.
The question has to be, where is the Labour party’s policy? Where is the coherence? Where is the comprehensive costing? Where is the alternative? It is not there. And this from the party that voted against every single welfare change that we made in the last Parliament. What would it have done? It allowed housing benefit claims to reach £104,000 for a single year. They are the people who saw a 46% rise in the housing benefit bill. They are the people who consigned millions of families to welfare dependency, with a record number of children in workless households. This Government are doing something about that.
Maria Caulfield (Lewes) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend recall that Labour Members recently voted against the pay-to-stay policy in the Housing and Planning Bill, under which higher earners in social rented accommodation will pay more and housing associations will keep the revenue to invest in supported housing?
Mr Jackson
Exactly; that is a fairness issue. How can it be fair that working families effectively give a direct payment to other people in social housing, who are often not working? That cannot be fair. We have to deal with the issue of welfare dependency.
Mr Jackson
No, I will not.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Julian Knight) said, these are difficult decisions. In the short term, they will deliver £240 million in savings. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has said that in the long term, they will save £1.1 billion. We have to do this, given the fiscal inheritance that we took on.
The Government have a responsibility—it was a manifesto commitment, so there is a mandate from the people of this country—to deliver welfare reform. The hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) is no longer in his place, but if Labour Members really believe, after reading the report by Deborah Mattinson on the BritainThinks focus group, that the Labour party will ever be trusted on the economy, and particularly on welfare, with the policies it is pursuing—the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) knows that this is the case—they are completely wrong. They have to understand that completely opposing everything the Government do on welfare reform, in favour of more spending, more taxing and more debt, will never deliver another majority Labour Government.
I say gently to housing associations that the 1% cut in rents will have a direct impact on all their tenants in general needs housing. There will be a 12% reduction in average rents by the end of the Parliament. We give £13 billion a year to housing associations so that they can discharge their duty to house people. They have to raise their game and meet the challenge. This is not often commented on, but housing associations are not subject to the Freedom of Information Act. We need to see that they are as efficient as possible. They are very efficient when it comes to campaigning against the Government, but they are not so efficient in resource allocation to deliver front-line services to the most vulnerable tenants.
Richard Graham
On that point, does my hon. Friend agree that over the past five years, large sections of the public sector have stepped up to the plate, delivered more for less and executed changes that have saved the taxpayer money and helped the public finances, and that housing associations should be able to follow that example?
Mr Jackson
I agree with my hon. Friend.
There will be an impact assessment and an evidence-based review of the whole assisted and supported housing regime. We do not know what the final decision will be, but it is for local housing associations to stop complaining and to work with planners, developers and other key partners, such as those in the national health service—
Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr Jackson
Sorry, I would love to, but I do not have time.
Housing associations must work with those partners to deliver the projects that they want to deliver.
I am not wholly supportive of the Government on this issue and I will tell the House why. There has to be a comprehensive and holistic approach to meeting the crisis that the demographic time bomb of older people will bring to acute social care and acute hospital care. We have to reduce those numbers. We have to use the tax system—
Mr Jackson
I will not, I am afraid. The hon. Lady is not taking the hint, but I cannot give way because I do not have time.
We must use the tax system and the expertise that we have to deliver good adult social care and to care for women who have been subject to domestic abuse. That is a massive issue. Of course, we have put £40 million into it. Mention was made earlier of discretionary housing payments, which will assist those tenants directly. Incidentally, we have talked about the spare room subsidy, but those payments were not always drawn down fully by local authorities, often Labour ones, because of inefficiency.
I say to Ministers that the Opposition spokesman made the fair point that we need further clarity. It cannot be the will of the Government to make it more difficult to develop more extra care facilities. We do not want non-viable projects to go forward. It is therefore important that the Treasury, the Department for Work and Pensions and the Department for Communities and Local Government get round the table and work out together how we can deal with this.
We have a duty and a responsibility to deal with the fiscal inheritance, including the out-of-control welfare spending, but we must balance that with practical, pragmatic solutions that deliver adult social care and that are fair to the most vulnerable people in our society, whom we all care about—memo to the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle). Fairness and equity are important, but if we demand tax revenue from our constituents, we must deliver value for money. That is why I will not support the Labour party tonight, but will support the Government.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
We are here today for one of two reasons. Either the Government set out, as a matter of deliberate policy, to bring about the closure of specialist and supported housing—perhaps they are not bothered whether such housing units close—or this is an unintended consequence of a wider policy to change housing benefit that we have to deal with today because the Government did not do a proper impact assessment of the policy right at the beginning. We should have had an impact assessment before we began the process, rather than when concerns were rightly raised up and down the country about the potential impact. I welcome what the Minister has said today. It is right that a proper review will be carried out, and that the Government will not simply carry on with this policy and its potential consequences.
Government Members have said that there has been political point scoring and scaremongering by Opposition Members and the housing association movement. That is not true. When I am rung up by Tony Stacey, the chief executive of South Yorkshire Housing Association, who is widely respected by people on both sides of the House because of the work of his association and his personal commitment, and he says that the impact of these measures will be a £2.8 million reduction in the income of the association, out of a £20 million budget, that is a matter of major concern. That would lead to the closure of about 1,000 supported housing places and, because of the financial impact, the housing association would have to start acting on those closures within the next few months and would not be able to wait until 2018. That is not scaremongering; it is the financial reality for an association that has to balance its books over that period. That is why we are here debating the issue today.
Having welcomed what the Minister said, I have one or two questions. First, he talked about a review by the end of March. When is a conclusion likely to be reached to provide certainty for housing associations and others, including local councils, about the impact of these measures or the changed measures that I hope the Government will bring forward? In conducting the review and coming to a conclusion, will the Government talk not only to the National Housing Federation, which they must rightly talk to, but to the Local Government Association, because council schemes and voluntary schemes are also involved? Will the Minister ensure that all relevant parties are consulted? Will he indicate when conclusions will be reached so that there can be certainty?
Secondly, will the changes for new tenants that are due to be introduced in April 2016 now be postponed, or will new tenancies be created in 2016 on the basis of the changes proposed at present, before the review? I hope the Minister will say that no changes will be introduced, and that the full costs of supported housing will be covered through housing benefit for new tenancies from April 2016 until the review is concluded.
Finally, I also welcome what the Minister said about rent increases for supported housing—that the 1% reduction will not go ahead for next year, while the review is being undertaken. Does that mean that the changes in the Budget will not be implemented, that the 1% reduction will not now happen and that CPI plus 1% will be allowed for next year, or that rents will simply be frozen? There is quite a big difference for associations, because even the rent changes, without the housing benefit changes, have an impact on supported housing. Can we have clarification on that as well?
I welcome the direction of travel that the Government seem to be moving in now, back to a more realistic position. Perhaps the Communities and Local Government Committee will want to have a look at this as well. I hope the Minister will fully consult and take on board the real concerns that the housing association movement and local councils have raised about these measures. None of us wants to see supported housing units closed.
Graham Evans (Weaver Vale) (Con)
I would like to put it on record that I, too, welcome the announcement on the 1%.
We spend more on family benefits in Britain than they do in Germany, France or Sweden. There is no doubt that social housing is invaluable for hundreds of thousands of people in this country who need help in getting accommodation, but it cannot be right to continue to subsidise people to live in houses that are bigger than they need while there are 375,000 families living in overcrowded conditions. Nor can it be right to subsidise people to live in houses that are out of reach or unaffordable for hard-working taxpayers.
Page 97 of Labour’s 2009 Budget summarised the problem:
“Indications…are that some claimants may be able to afford accommodation that is out of reach of working families on low incomes. Furthermore, costs of Housing Benefit have been rising above inflation despite static caseloads.”
In fact, between 1999 and 2010, the cost of housing benefit rose by 46% in real terms, reaching £21 billion. Housing benefit was truly out of control, with the maximum housing benefit award reaching over £100,000 a year. Even after the benefit cap, people can seek support for housing up to a rate of £20,000 a year. What would a working family paying tax have to be earning to afford rent of £20,000 a year? They would have to be earning £60,000, £70,000 or £80,000 a year.
Rents in the social sector increased by 20% over the three years from 2010-11 and were markedly higher on average than for like-for-like properties in the private sector. That is clearly unsustainable and helped to fuel the something-for-nothing culture that Labour presided over for 13 years. Some 1.4 million people spent most of the previous decade trapped on out-of-work benefits, while the number of households where no member had ever worked nearly doubled under Labour.
The announcements in the autumn statement followed on from reforms in the last Parliament to better align the rules between social and private landlords, ensuring fairness between those receiving housing benefit and the hard-working taxpayers who have to pay for it.
Graham Evans
No, I will not.
Those who oppose making difficult decisions on welfare must say what they would cut or what taxes they would put up to pay for it. However, it would seem from some contributions by Opposition Members that Labour and its leader have still not learned the lessons of the past. Their plans to spend more, borrow more and tax more are exactly what got us into the mess before; and, as Labour’s great recession showed, it is working people and their families who end up paying the price for it. When we came into government in 2010, the country was borrowing over £150 billion a year. One in every four pounds spent by the then Labour Government was borrowed. Unemployment had increased by nearly half a million. Britain had suffered the deepest recession since the war and had the second biggest structural deficit of any major economy.
We have halved the deficit and are working to eradicate it by 2020. It is a fundamental truth that without sound public finances there can be no economic security for working families and the country cannot pay for the hospitals, schools and housing that people rely on. It is this Government’s long-term economic plan that is turning this country into a high-wage, low-tax, low-welfare economy. The Labour party is out of touch with hard-working people. Labour is out of touch, out of ideas on welfare and out of office—and, based on this debate, will be for a very long time.
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
I was just about to point out to the House, and in particular to Government Members, that a fairly easy way of finding out what this afternoon’s debate is about is to actually read the title. It is about homelessness services and the unintended consequences, or maybe intended consequences, of the cap on housing benefit. It is about the potentially catastrophic outcome of these changes for people in specialist housing, homelessness arrangements or specialist schemes for dependent drinkers, for example—the catastrophic outcome for their rents, their circumstances and, indeed, the organisations that seek to house and provide services for them. That is what this afternoon’s debate is about and we need to concentrate on that.
I must say that I was remarkably disappointed by the fact-free bluster that we heard from the Minister. I suppose one can only forgive him that, because there was never any impact assessment of these changes. Therefore, if he has not come here today armed with an impact assessment, he presumably does not really have any facts to defend his side of the argument in the first place. I want to provide a little impact assessment of my own. I want to base it on an organisation that is based in my constituency, but which nevertheless provides services for homeless people, people with severe and enduring mental health problems and people with alcohol or substance misuse problems, as well as specialist services for ex-offenders, in Southampton and around.
That organisation is called the Society of St James, and—[Interruption.] Government Members who are playing with their phones might put them to better use by looking up that organisation’s website, because if there is any dispute in this debate about who cares, then the Society of St James certainly does care. It cares deeply about all the people it is trying to house and help, and it assists by housing or helping some 2,500 people across Hampshire.
The Society of St James has looked at the impact of the changes on its various housing schemes across south Hampshire and calculates that the average rent reduction will be 40% across the 300-odd people who are housed at any one time, although that does not include the wider group of people it helps with various schemes, in addition to those it houses. The Society of St James calculates a sum of £1.03 million per annum, which means, quite simply and straightforwardly, that all those schemes are at risk over the next period, because it will not be able to fund them properly.
It has been said that the discretionary housing payment scheme might help in the longer term, but as its name suggests, it is discretionary. It covers temporary situations and cannot give the long-term revenue security that these organisations need to plan their future housing needs.
Anna Turley (Redcar) (Lab/Co-op)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the discretionary housing fund is already barely covering the number of people applying for it, given the impact of the bedroom tax? What we are seeing is just another attempt to stretch it further, when it is already not going far enough.
Dr Whitehead
Indeed, and my hon. Friend makes an important point. I was perhaps being a little kind to the discretionary housing fund, in that so many things are being poured into it that the chances of it having a material impact in this field, even on a limited basis, look to be fairly low.
The other question is what happens with new schemes that develop in future. The Society of St James has recently received substantial capital donations to develop new properties to extend its services, but there is no chance that those sorts of schemes can now go ahead, because there is no prospect of them being funded properly once they have been built. Indeed, it would be deeply irresponsible.
Marie Rimmer
I have one experience already from St Helens. Helena housing has stopped four extra care schemes totalling 500 units. The impact of the change on those schemes alone is a £2.3 million deficit.
Dr Whitehead
My hon. Friend underlines powerfully the importance of understanding just how early organisations such as the Society of St James and the ones her constituency have to take decisions about what they do in future. In that context, a one-year moratorium will not make any difference to those decisions, because those schemes are concerned about the long-term security of revenue. It is very likely—it is certainly not scaremongering—that those schemes will disappear immediately, not in the future. The whole system will be greatly the poorer as a result.
Whether the Minister thinks in retrospect that the problem was not of his own making because he did not notice it arriving from the Treasury, or whether he was told too late for him to do anything about it, or whether he did something and the Treasury ignored him, there is an issue for him to address right now. The central question for the Minister in my mind boils down to this: if we assess the impact on the organisations at the heart of the process of caring—in addition, they save the state large amounts of future public expenditure because they keep the people they care for and assist out of prisons, psychiatric institutions and emergency services by securing their accommodation in the community—what will he do immediately that specifically puts the problem right for the Society of St James in Southampton?
If the Minister does not have an answer to that question, he has a great deal of thinking to do about the wider issue. Up and down the country, those organisations—they are voluntary organisations rather than local authority organisations—find themselves holed below the water line. Unless the Minister can come up urgently with either a patch or a new boat, that will be the reality of the situation over the next period. I urge him to take action at the earliest possible opportunity to ensure that important organisations such as the Society of St James can continue their good work in future.
Maria Caulfield (Lewes) (Con)
I welcome the opportunity to talk about this important issue. I am concerned that the shadow Housing and Planning Minister and Opposition Members are confusing general needs housing and supported housing. Currently, no legislation going through will cap housing benefit in supported housing. An evidence review is being conducted. The hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead) talked about not having an impact assessment, but that is exactly what is happening. Either Opposition Members do not understand the difference or they are scaremongering.
I am a big supporter of supported housing. I was a cabinet member for housing in a unitary authority under the Labour Government. Funding supported housing at that time was difficult because of the year-on-year cuts to our supported housing grant. We funded sheltered housing blocks—both our own stock, and through housing associations and charities. With those cuts, we had to dip in and find the difference to fund our sheltered housing services. The same applied to our learning disability clients who were funded in supported houses. Let us not pretend that Opposition Members did not cut that money when they were in government.
Up until recently, I was a trustee of a homeless charity. It helps people who have hit rock bottom through drug and alcohol dependency. That may not be of interest to Opposition Members, but it is of interest to people living in those hostels. They are supported not just through rehab, but in gaining independence and in sustaining a tenancy on their own in the long term. Supported housing benefit makes a huge difference.
General needs housing benefit is being capped, but there is currently no change to supported housing benefit—it is under review. Opposition Members need to be clear about that.
Maria Caulfield
No, I will not give way.
The Housing and Planning Minister’s announcement today that the 1% reduction in social rents will not apply to supported housing for another year must be welcomed.
Maria Caulfield
No, I will not give way because I am conscious of the time and that other Members want to speak.
Let us look at the reasons why we are having to cap housing benefit. It is not just because of the economy, but because of the impact of the local housing allowance in constituencies such as mine. I have the town of Newhaven in my constituency. It is on the same LHA rate as Brighton and Hove, which is a much higher rate than the rest of East Sussex. The shadow Minister does not want to listen to this, but the LHA rate has artificially pushed up private rented rates for the ordinary person who is not on housing benefit. They can no longer afford to stay in Newhaven—the only people who can are those on general needs housing benefit. That has artificially increased the rental market and has not helped young families in my constituency.
If Opposition Members do not want to cap general needs housing benefit, how will they tackle the welfare bill, which they are proud of saying they will be able to manage so much better than the Government? Will they reduce money on the NHS, schools, the police service or the armed forces? They have to make a decision—[Interruption.] As an hon. Friend says, they could put up taxes. They need to be honest with the British public on how they would manage that.
To conclude—I know time is tight—I am a passionate supporter of supported housing. In the review that is taking place, will the Minister come to my constituency and visit Newhaven Foyer? We heard just yesterday that money is secure for that housing placement, where young people who have had a really rough start in life can have a secure tenancy for a period of time. They are able to gain skills and get into the workforce. Will he come and meet those young people and see the difference that supported housing is making for them? They are not under threat from the housing benefit cap because it is not currently relevant to supported housing. I will not support Opposition Members—they are misleading the most vulnerable in our society and scaremongering—and I will not support their motion.
Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)
The confusion and lack of clarity on supported accommodation will have a devastating effect on my constituency. It is curtailing homelessness prevention strategies and jeopardising new extra care housing developments. For example, in Wigan, a need of 500 extra units of extra care housing was identified to meet housing needs, and to reduce the reliance on very expensive residential care facilities and future demands on the health service. That housing would allow people to live independently in the community for much longer—all hon. Members would agree that that would be a great outcome for the individual, the family, the local authority and the NHS.
Two years ago, work started on implementing that strategy, and a scheme comprising 130 flats and bungalows with community facilities at a site in Orrell was identified. A partner, Torus, was selected, the scheme was designed and consulted upon, and planning permission was obtained. Funding was obtained from the Homes and Communities Agency, and the valuable site was transferred at nominal cost. With the support of all, the start date was imminent. I say “was”, because with the change to the LHA rate, the scheme—a £13 million project that we desperately need—has stalled.
That is not the only future project under threat. Eighty units in partnership with Arena in Wigan, and 121 in partnership with Torus in Leigh, are also on hold. What about those projects that are in the process of being built? Wigan & Leigh Homes is building 25 units for older people in Hindley and a 39-unit sheltered plus scheme in Goose Green in my constituency. The financial projections for both those schemes do not now add up unless the Government exempt this type of accommodation from the cap.
I have given some examples of how future schemes are threatened, with the result that there will not be the houses for people to move into the community, but what about existing provision? Adactus Housing and Wigan & Leigh Homes have contacted me about this. Across the borough, approximately 400 properties provide homes for people with long-term care and support needs, ranging from learning disabilities to autism. These are people who are unable to live in, and become a valued part of, the community. Their security, and the ability of others to move from a care setting into this type of accommodation, is under threat due to the high rent and support charges required for such specialist accommodation. In fact, one mother has already contacted Wigan & Leigh Homes about her severely autistic 17-year-old son, saying, “Will I now have to have him in the home permanently?” She had scratches all down her arms where he had attacked her.
Marie Rimmer
Does my hon. Friend recognise the case of a 19-year-old with serious mental health problems and autism, who was talked down from a bridge in St Helens, where he was threatening to commit suicide? He was awaiting a mental health bed. The only bed offered to him was in France or Germany. I have written to the Minister about this case and am waiting for a response. What comfort can be given to that young man and his parents?
Yvonne Fovargue
I agree with my hon. Friend: there is cold comfort in many constituencies for parents caring for young people with severe autism and mental health disabilities. They are finding their choices on the best place for their sons and daughters becoming limited.
I return to the price that will be paid by people who are homeless or fleeing domestic violence. There will be an immediate impact on some 35 units of dispersed accommodation, which, by their nature, are short-term and for single people, saving them from going into hostels, which are not always the appropriate environment. For example, a young man came to see me whose parents had thrown him out when they found out he was gay. They had also emptied his bank account. All I could find for him was the local Salvation Army hostel, which was not a safe place for him at that time.
A further 100 units of homelessness accommodation, ranging from hostels to young mum and baby units, are threatened. Perhaps I can mention just one of the units I visited. It is a self-contained flat in a block where young mums aged between 16 and 25 and their babies are supported, for a maximum of two years, to live independent lives. They learn from staff and from each other in a safe environment. They then leave with the confidence and skills to live in the community, and be excellent role models, providers and parents for their children. How can we threaten that type of service? What will be the cost, both human and financial?
Women’s refuges provide a safe haven for those who have suffered emotional and physical abuse. They also provide activities to improve their life and family skills. The Government’s solution to this is discretionary housing payments! That is not a solution. It is an excuse to continue with an ill-thought-out policy. No housing provider can build a business model and forecast finances with any degree of accuracy when their client base has to rely on cash-limited payments that are not guaranteed, but payable after all aspects are considered—that is, at discretion. How will we assist vulnerable people to apply for these payments? What will that cost? How many people will be deterred from living independently?
The policy has not been thought through. I welcome the announcement that there will be a review. As it stands, it will affect the most vulnerable and their families, those charged with making sure the best quality of life is available for all, the old, the ill and those at risk—in fact, anyone who is vulnerable at any stage of their life. It will end with increased costs and burdens on other services, for example the NHS. I urge the Minister to listen and to provide the clarity that is needed soon, and not to rely on discretionary payments, so that my constituents and others across the country can have a home that best suits their needs.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)
Order. The speech limit is now five minutes.
Seema Kennedy (South Ribble) (Con)
The background to this debate is the deep changes in our society: a growing population, an ageing population, and more and more of our constituents living with long-term disabilities and illnesses as a result of medical advances. Not all, but many of the speeches from the Opposition have been rather simplistic. In fact, the situation is incredibly complex.
A wide range of our constituents live in supported housing: the elderly, refugees, victims of domestic violence and people living with mental health problems. Some will live in this environment for a matter of months, others for practically their whole lives. Members on both sides of the House have spoken passionately about organisations in their constituencies that work with those people. It is evident that we will need more supported housing. If that is the case, we need to ask very honestly: is this accommodation suitable and are the services that go with it suitable? Is supported living getting the best value for taxpayers’ money? If it is not, it will be unsustainable over the long term. In the end, it will be the vulnerable in our society and in our communities who will suffer.
I very much welcome the fact that this is a consultation. The Government are listening. We see that from the one-year moratorium announced today. This debate will be a part of that, as will representations from housing associations.
We have to talk about sustainability because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale (Graham Evans) outlined, the housing benefit bill increased by 46% between 1999 and 2010. That was not a fair balance between those families living in social housing and the hard-working families who did not quite meet the threshold. Supported housing has to be on a sustainable footing. This policy is still being developed. With that in mind, I would be grateful if the Minister looked very closely at the representations from my local housing association, Progress Housing, which serves people all over South Ribble, but is based in Leyland. It has refuges and supports people with a wide range of difficulties.
I take great issue with some of the statements from those on the Opposition Benches that we on the Government Benches do not care about the vulnerable in our society. It is very easy to throw money at a problem and have a quick fix. We want to put supported living on a long-term sustainable basis, after a thorough consultation, so that it works for everybody—not just now and not just till the next election, but for the next 20 or 30 years. That is a clear plan of action, rather than criticism with no answers.
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)
Let me start by saying that I agree with many of the contributions already made from the Opposition Benches and I am happy to speak in support of the motion today.
Surely the mark of a civilised society is that it looks after its most vulnerable, yet here again we have a Government seeking to remove some of the support mechanisms for the most vulnerable in our supposed civilised society.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (SNP)
Does my hon. Friend agree that supported housing provides the support older people need to maintain their independence? It also helps homeless people with complex and multiple needs to make the transition from life on the street to a settled home and education, training or employment. Surely any change to housing benefit could undermine the ability of such tenants to pay their rent, and threaten both their physical and mental wellbeing.
Martyn Day
I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend, and not only does it affect the individuals; it can have a devastating effect on the organisations providing the services.
What is the purpose of the reforms? Is it to save money? According to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, any initial savings would be “small”. Indeed, not only will there be little saving to the public purse, but expenditure could rise as a result of the unintended consequences of this poorly thought out measure. This is a classic case of robbing Peter to pay Paul: a small saving on the housing benefit bill might be massively outweighed by the rise in costs associated with providing institutional care, funding an increase in hospital stays, the higher cost of private landlord housing and, in the worst case, the increased costs of imprisonment. This must surely be the very definition of fiscal irresponsibility.
The Scottish Federation of Housing Associations has identified that associations in Scotland could lose between £5 million and £14 million per year. This is completely unsustainable and will inevitably lead to the closure of accommodation that supports some of the most vulnerable in our society. Top-ups from discretionary housing payments will simply not provide the security that accommodation providers require to continue even the current level of specialised accommodation, let alone plan for additional provision in the years to come.
I am concerned about the potential effect of these changes on vulnerable young people. Open Door Accommodation Project, which operates in my constituency, has nine supported flats throughout West Lothian that can accommodate up to 16 young people between the ages of 16 and 21. The flats are fully furnished and most are shared accommodation. The aim is to prepare young people for their own tenancy. When a young person joins the supported flats service, they are allocated a dedicated support worker who works with them to give personal and practical support, helping them to develop the self-confidence and skills needed to live independently.
The young people being supported are already experiencing issues with the time it takes to receive benefit payments, and this wait can have a huge impact on the likelihood of them sustaining their accommodation. A major concern is that there is no longer a seven-day run-on between accommodation, meaning that young people have to move immediately when they sign up for a tenancy, which gives them no time to set up utilities or apply to the social welfare fund for the most basic of necessities. The uncertainty about the reductions in housing benefit can only exacerbate these issues and, worryingly, might even put this vital supported accommodation at risk. How will such organisations plan for the future when faced with yet more funding challenges?
I come now to one of the most serious of the unintended consequences: the impact on the funding for supported accommodation for people with substance abuse problems. Many such organisations are doing amazing work, especially with ex-offenders, helping people to rebuild their lives and rejoin society. Threats to funding for this type of supported accommodation are intolerable. There is a young offenders institution in my constituency. On leaving it, young people will be dependent on the very supported accommodation that is at risk if these draconian funding proposals are implemented.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
Might the reforms not be a false economy, given that prison often costs more than £30,000 per year per prisoner?
Martyn Day
My hon. Friend makes her point very well. It is a completely false economy, and I believe it will end up costing the public purse far more than the Government are trying to save. Again, we must look at the fiscal implications of a saving in housing benefit that leads to a lack of supported accommodation for young ex-offenders. How many of these vulnerable young people will end up back in prison—the point she just made—at a higher cost to the public purse?
It is my firm belief that the Government must halt the continuing assault on housing benefits, or at least ensure that supported accommodation is exempt from these future changes. Scotland has already had to mitigate the effects of the unfair bedroom tax—a tax that, given today’s court ruling, might be illegal. Will this reform to housing benefit be yet another botched Tory attempt at savings that simply moves an increased burden on to Holyrood? Only with full power over social security can we fully protect those in need from future housing benefit cuts.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Martyn Day).
I hope all Members agree that housing and homes are important. The security of a roof over one’s head—be it owned, or rented privately or socially—or of a place of succour and sanctuary, temporary or permanent, at a time of emergency, is important. For that reason, Labour’s position should be condemned. We have heard precisely what we are used to hearing from Labour. I have found this debate slightly annoying. I am annoyed not that the motion has been tabled—[Laughter.] If hon. Members would listen, they might hear a view that sheds some light on their prejudice. I am annoyed not that this important issue is being debated, but by the odour of smug hand wringing and crocodile tears from Labour Members.
Labour Members always purport to have a monopoly on caring. They believe that we are the nasty bunch—that we could not give a damn about anything. But we are not. As I said in an intervention on the shadow Minister, we all have constituents in sheltered housing and we all want to ensure the best provision for them. There is nothing kind or caring about trying to prop up an inflated and unsustainable welfare system.
Dr Philippa Whitford
Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that it is the ridiculous rents in many urban centres that are inflated? That is the private system. That is why housing benefit is out of control. It is not the social sector.
Simon Hoare
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for making the kernel of the argument for why a cap on housing benefit is important. The absence of a cap—of any control on housing benefit—has been the fuel to the fire of those who have sought to ramp up rents. A bottomless purse—a pit that always delivers the funding—provides the dynamic for higher rents. We believe that a cap will act as a brake on this runaway train.
Whenever a welfare reform is proposed, the default position of many Opposition Members is to say no. It is their eternal cry, the golden thread running through their political approach. As we have heard from my hon. Friends, Labour has not supported a single welfare reform. It has learned no lessons from last May’s general election.
Marie Rimmer
These schemes have demonstrated clear success in providing a better quality of life for residents and delivering better social care and health outcomes. Failure to provide these schemes in the future will put greater pressures on health and social care services, as housing providers will not be able to deliver good quality independent living places. That means people going back to residential settings, old folks’ homes, languishing in hospital beds—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)
Order. The hon. Lady’s interventions are very long, and this is a time-limited debate.
Simon Hoare
The hon. Lady speaks with enormous passion, and I understand that. Of course, service providers want some certainty, and the pressing of the pause button announced by the Government today will be welcomed, but what has added precious little certainty to providers seeking to make short, medium and longer-term financial commitments has been Labour Members’ panic-stricken shroud waving. They have been trotting round the country desperately trying to stoke this up for party political advantage.
Simon Hoare
I can never resist the hon. Lady. The hon. Member for St Helens South and Whiston (Marie Rimmer) is passionate about this issue, but the hon. Lady exceeds her.
Jess Phillips
Will the hon. Gentleman recognise that it is not shroud waving? In this term and the last one, the Government exempted this group from every single one of their welfare reforms, having been forced to do so by alleged shroud waving. We are not saying no to the reform; we seek only an exemption for this group.
Simon Hoare
As the hon. Lady will have heard, as did we all, that was the point made by my hon. Friend the Minister when he referred to gathering the evidence, talking to experts and then producing a policy in due course. In all seriousness, I would hope that the hon. Lady could draw some comfort and satisfaction from that. She can put her shroud away, contain herself for a few moments and the debate can go on.
On the subject of service providers, I have spoken to all the housing associations covering my constituency. I hope I will not be misquoting them if I characterise their response as follows—things change; systems and procedures change from time to time. New policies usually present new challenges, but my housing associations are saying, “We will meet them. We will reform, change and recast what we do—but the central core of our ethos, and why we are in business, will remain intact.” I think that is an important point to make.
The right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey), as shadow Minister—he is no longer in his place—had the absolute brass neck to accuse my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of putting politics before policy. If his speech did anything, it was precisely that. We heard the crocodile tears of, “We care for these people who need these sorts of homes.” We all recognise that, but it is shameful to drape the issue with the flag of party politics.
At the heart of what Her Majesty’s Government are doing is an attempt to provide fairness, equity and equality. In my judgment, it is absolutely right that social sector housing benefit should be capped to mirror that of the local authority level—the same rates as those in the private sector. The reforms seek to align those two sectors and, as I said to the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford), to prevent private social landlords from artificial rent inflation. On the Conservative side, we care about getting this right, about fairness for taxpayers and about quality provision of housing. What we do not care for is the shroud waving, the hand wringing and the crocodile tears of Labour Members.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
I have listened and I am afraid that the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) exemplifies the brand “Same Old Tories”.
Let me make it clear from the start that I am a big fan of welfare reform. I believe that as we move to the second half of this decade, we need an active welfare system. However, the difficulty I have with measures such as the bedroom tax, the local housing allowance and caps on housing benefit is that I am not convinced that they are genuine welfare reforms. They ignore the supply problems in housing, rapacious landlords and the lack of specialist supportive accommodation. We treat all tenants as if their circumstances are the same. In fact, we simply passport cuts from the Department for Work and Pensions to the Department for Communities and Local Government without any regard to the consequences.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
This particular measure smacks of what in the 1960s we used to call “Rachmanism”. A lot of families will find themselves destitute on this route because they will not be able to pay those rents. It is a private landlord’s charter to make money.
Steve McCabe
Almost everyone now realises that we cannot have action on housing benefit without having action on rents. That is self-evident.
We are having this debate because those who are the targets of this change are not the workshy and the feckless. Too many of them are vulnerable people—the very people that many of us, including many Conservative Members, came into politics wanting to help, such as elderly people no longer fit to wholly look after themselves, veterans, youngsters leaving care and those fleeing domestic violence. The National Housing Federation claims the Chancellor’s changes could cost some people up to £60 a week, enough to force them to leave their accommodation and in some cases add to the growing number of casualties sleeping on our streets as a homelessness crisis sweeps our country like a plague.
The NHF also speculates that the changes may lead to the closure of thousands of homes. The kind of places we are talking about are retirement homes, active elderly establishments designed to improve the quality of life, supported accommodation and temporary accommodation. Is that really the kind of reform that Conservative Members want? There is already a 16,000 shortfall in meeting demand for supportive accommodation, and estimates say that is likely to double by the end of this Parliament.
Simon Danczuk (Rochdale) (Ind)
I recently had the privilege of officially opening the Hare Hill extra care scheme, which has predicted that if the cap goes ahead, residents there will have to pay an extra £50 a week. That is completely unsustainable.
Steve McCabe
We have heard from some Government Members that they have the same fears. A lot now rides on this review.
Without exemption, we are about to witness a housing disaster for those with a clear learning disability who live in supported accommodation. After years of talking about rights and independence, are we seriously going to banish them to institutions and substandard care homes? Seven out of 10 people with a learning disability would prefer to live by themselves or with friends rather than in a registered care home or with their parents. Are they not entitled to aspire to that? Are they not entitled to that degree of independence? Cannot this society, whatever cuts we want to make, afford to show just a bit of generosity to such people? How will the Government ever succeed in closing places like Winterbourne View and delivering on NHS England’s 2015 strategy “Building the Right Support” without a supported housing plan for those with learning disabilities?
What about young people leaving care? How are they going to make the first step on the ladder to independence? Vulnerable young people, especially care leavers, should be excluded from the under-35 shared accommodation rule. We should hear that announced today. Is the Minister now in a position to tell us when the housing benefit regulations for those aged between 18 and 21 will be published? How, too, have we got to a situation where the cap applies to any tenancy signed after 1 April—only 62 days away—and where housing associations are still not clear about the plans?
The Minister has offered no details of his review, and his party has form on promising things during debates on which it subsequently backtracks. In fact, everyone knows there is a dangerous air of hubris about Government Ministers these days. I believe they might find a degree of support if these measures were intended for working-age adults in general-needs housing only, instead of being such a sweeping threat to the vulnerable.
Allowing for the comment of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) when I intervened on him earlier, I believe that the Minister would ease the situation a little if he could say today that service charges will not be included in the cap. It is obvious that sheltered accommodation, support of housing schemes and extra care measures command higher rents than service charges since they are more expensive to build and manage, yet they bring huge savings to the NHS and other services. Some housing associations, including Midland Heart, as we heard earlier, fear that these proposals could cost a huge shortfall of over £1 million, and in some cases discretionary housing payments will not deal with the problem.
Before this debate concludes, the Minister needs to tell us that he has plans to protect vulnerable people. He needs to give some clue as to what they are, and he needs to demonstrate that he has listened to the plight of those in supportive accommodation. We want to hear that he will definitely exclude them from these measures.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe).
These measures are about striking a fair deal: a fair deal for those in accommodation, a fair deal for those who provide accommodation and a fair deal for the taxpayer. There needs to be a balance between the rent increases in the social housing sector and those in the private rented sector. Over the past 10 years, there has been a 60% increase in the social housing sector and a 23% increase in the private rented sector. I therefore consider that the 1% reduction in housing benefit is a fair measure. It is fair to the taxpayer and to tenants, but it is also a fair deal for the housing associations, and one that I believe they can manage.
This is, of course, all about balancing the books, which UK Governments have done in only 28 of the last 34 years. That has led to a cumulative debt of £1.6 trillion. The present Government have reduced the deficit from £150 billion to £75 billion, but there is much more to do. In the last eight months, since I have been in the House, the Opposition have opposed every single cut. So how would they balance the books? Would they cut funds for healthcare, the armed forces, welfare or pensions? I invite them to make constructive suggestions.
Housing associations have a responsibility to use taxpayers’ money wisely. The top 100 housing associations employ, collectively, 91,000 people, and the number has been growing. Is a 1% reduction per annum feasible in an organisation with 1,000 employees? Yes, I believe it is. It is managed on a regular basis in the private sector.
Not only are these changes fair, but they will result in huge savings. They will save £255 million by the end of this Parliament, and £1.1 billion a year will be saved by future Parliaments. Of course, consolidation and greater efficiency may be needed.
Anna Turley
Does the hon. Gentleman not recognise that the impact on supported housing will fly in the face of any notion of economic credibility? When accommodation of that kind is closed, there will be knock-on effects: people will resort to NHS care or more costly residential care, and the impact on the taxpayer will be higher. This is not good economic policy.
Kevin Hollinrake
There is no doubt that we need to house vulnerable people in supported and specialist accommodation, and that our homes, hostels, refuges and sheltered housing need such support. They constitute a much more labour-intensive part of the market, involving personal care, supervision and maintenance.
Dr Philippa Whitford
May I take up the point made by the hon. Member for Redcar (Anna Turley)? It costs an extra £18,500 to house those with the most complex needs, and most users of supported living are over 70. In our health debates, we talk about trying to get people into the community. As a result of this measure, people will end up in expensive alternatives.
Kevin Hollinrake
I accept the hon. Lady’s point. We need to ensure that we protect our most vulnerable people, and that is what I believe we will do.
Many of the providers of supported housing and specialist accommodation are part of much larger organisations which are able to blend reductions across their estates, but we want to ensure that specialist providers continue to supply accommodation. This policy is in its early stages, and is currently the subject of consultation. I welcome the Minister’s announcement of a one-year delay, or interruption, so that we can get it right. However, it has been referred to before. In September last year, my hon. Friend the Minister for homelessness—the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones)—said that specialised supported accommodation was likely to be exempted. I do not think that there is any need for Opposition Members to frighten residents and make them fear that they will lose their homes. That is irresponsible.
It should also be borne in mind that, during the current Parliament, there will be £800 million in discretionary housing payments for the most vulnerable tenants, and £40 million for those who suffer domestic violence.
I suggest that Opposition Members should wait to see the results of a policy which I believe will provide a fair deal for the most vulnerable people.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)
I have listened to all the speeches that have been made by Conservative Members today, and have found myself wondering whether some of them are attending the right debate. If they consult the Order Paper, they will see that this debate is about supported housing. It is not about housing bills or taxation; it is about a very specific, vulnerable group of people.
We keep being told to wait and see what the proposals are. Would it not have been sensible for the Government to work out the costs of their proposals and establish the issues involved at the outset, and then conduct a review before making their announcement? If they had conducted the review properly, they might have established that the proposals were counter-productive in both economic and moral terms. If they had done their homework first, we might not be having this debate.
To suggest that mine are crocodile tears are very unfair. I rarely cry, but when I do, my tears are real. I assure the House that Labour Members care about people, and we care about people because it is what the Labour party was founded for. As for the suggestion made by some Conservative Members that social housing organisations have pots of money and spend millions of pounds on campaigning, that is absolute rubbish. I have been contacted by a number of housing associations and charities that look after vulnerable people in my constituency, and I assure Members that they do not have money to waste on campaigning. I have visited those places and I know what happens there.
Let me enlighten the House. At least three organisations in my constituency are doing valuable work. The main provider of social housing is Bolton at Home, whose representatives have contacted me—and I speak to them regularly in any event—to say that thousands of children will be made homeless, as well as hundreds of adults. Bolton at Home also provides supported housing, and it is important to remember what “supported housing” means. It means support for the vulnerable, the disabled, the elderly, those with mental health issues, and the young. The suggestion that turfing them out of their supported housing will enable the Government to economise and cut costs is absolute rubbish, because the state will then have to pick up an even bigger tab.
Another organisation in my constituency, St Vincent’s Housing Association, is a charity which runs a secure unit for about six adults. It relies on housing benefit to look after those people, who have mental health and drug problems. They are extremely vulnerable. If they are put on the streets, they will probably commit crimes and end up in the courts or in prison, and that will cost the state even more money.
Emmaus runs a “companions” system. It, too, looks after vulnerable people, using housing benefit to support them. I do not understand why the Government seem to think that their proposed cuts will save money. In fact, they are counter-productive.
Simon Hoare
In the words of the late Ronald Reagan, “There you go again.” The hon. Lady seems to be suggesting that she has a monopoly on understanding. Does she not accept that Conservative Members also talk to service providers in our constituencies, and also know what is going on?
Yasmin Qureshi
Sometimes I genuinely struggle with the question whether some Conservative Members either care or are bothered. If you were really concerned about disabled and vulnerable people, you would have spent your five-minute speech talking about them, rather than criticising Labour Members for raising this issue and accusing us of shedding crocodile tears. I do not know how many times you used that phrase.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)
Order. The hon. Lady is speaking through the Chair, and should not do so.
Yasmin Qureshi
I am so sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker; I got carried away.
If Members on the Government Benches were genuinely concerned about the vulnerable, they would be supporting our motion today, because it is only about specific sets and groups of people with a whole range of issues.
Going back to Emmaus and its companions, it gets £132 in housing benefit that it uses for them, but the companions then have to come off other social security benefits. The cost to the charity of providing a home for these people is £1,000, but it does it because it wants to help them learn skills and reintegrate into society. This cut in benefits will mean it will have to find even more money in order to support these people.
If the people in St Vincent’s housing, for example, are turfed out, that will cost the state far more than cutting their housing benefit. So I go back to the question I asked the Minister right at the beginning when he opened this debate: can he guarantee to us that people currently in supported housing will not be turfed out of their home? Will they be supported and protected? I have still not had an answer to that.
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
Since my election in 2015 I have worked closely with my main housing association in Bexhill and Battle, AmicusHorizon, which I believe does a superb job in looking after its tenants.
Getting more people into homes was a key election priority for me: we have a huge shortage of properties in my constituency and I am pleased that this Government have set out their ambition of delivering 1 million new homes by 2020, and I applaud the doubling of the housing budget to £2 billion in order to make this happen. While this Government are rightly increasing spending on the housing budget, difficult decisions must be made if this Government are to deliver a Budget surplus by 2020. With these ambitions in mind, I am conscious that the housing benefit bill has increased by £6.7 billion between 1997 and 2010, to reach a total of £23 billion.
I welcome the Government’s general intention to reduce the housing benefit bill by measures such as reducing the number of weeks a claimant can be absent from this country, reducing some rents by 1%, and requiring higher-income social tenants to pay near-market rents. So while I recognise the concerns raised in this motion, I fully understand the reasons why the Government are looking to cap the amount of rent that housing benefit will cover in the social sector to that of the local housing allowance, thus limiting this to the rate paid to private renters on housing benefit.
I am also conscious that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) mentioned, over the past 10 years average social rents have risen by over 60%, compared with 23% in the private rented sector. There have been understandable concerns that ever-increasing costs of rent in the social sector are chasing up the housing benefit bill, and that this needs reform.
However, my leading local housing association provider wrote to me, prior to the Government’s welcome announcement, to express its concerns as to how it will be able to cover the additional funding required for supported housing for those with complex needs. I am further told that, as a result of these concerns, a proposed extra care scheme that is due to open in a new development in Bexhill, the Orangery, could be shelved. Representing a constituency where the proportion of over-65-year-olds is 28%, compared with a national average of 17%, bestows an even greater duty on me to ensure that the sometimes complex needs of my constituents are properly recognised and taken into account. So I welcome the Government’s intention to build a framework to support the most vulnerable at the same time as delivering the reforms to housing benefit, which I also support. To this end, I am conscious that the Government recognise that our new reforms will need time to bed in and will cost millions, and that the Government will have to pump money in to support these reforms, as they did in the last term in respect of housing benefit reform.
In addition to the £465 million of discretionary housing payments that this Government have pledged, they have now pledged an extra £70 million, which I welcome. I would ask the Minister if, as part of this review, it would be possible to build in some form of supported housing LHA which would embrace the concept of the capped amount with some top-up to cover the reasonable cost requirements of housing associations to provide for the most vulnerable. Until this time, I do hope that speculation from this House does not lead to the most vulnerable being driven to worry about what may not in fact occur.
While on the topic of housing associations, I would like to reference the importance of all housing associations acting with care and compassion to their tenants. I have recently acted on behalf of a number of concerned residents from Hilltop in Rye, which falls on the border of my constituency. The tenants of Hilltop were informed last year, in writing, that their landlord, Orbit, was looking to decant the properties. There was scant detail given to residents who had lived in their home for years. There being no other Orbit properties locally, there was talk of moving these residents out of their town. At a time when this Government are giving housing association tenants a right to buy their property, I was staggered that these residents, who work in their town, educate their children in their town and volunteer in their town—in one case on a lifeboat—could actually lose their homes. I am pleased that the Government, having signed an order paper for the disposal, require that:
“Any tenants decanted from properties to be sold under this policy are suitably re-housed to their satisfaction before the date of completion of the disposal.”
In my interpretation, this means that the test of whether alternatives are “suitable” is a subjective one from the perspective of my constituents and I will be working on their behalf to achieve a better outcome than that feared.
I use this example because I feel it is essential, in circumstances where this Government are rightly giving rights to tenants to buy their own housing association properties, that the law of unintended consequences does not kick in to deprive tenants of these new rights.
In conclusion, I welcome the desire of this Government to make savings in the housing benefits bill and use these proceeds to build more houses. I also welcome the fact that the Government are looking at how they can support housing association tenants who are vulnerable and need additional support. I look forward to continuing to champion the needs of all my constituents who live in housing association properties.
Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
I am grateful for the opportunity to take part in this important debate and congratulate Labour on bringing it before the House today. I also commend the excellent contributions by my hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) and for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Martyn Day). I also support the pertinent points and questions posed by the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), and I hope the Minister was taking note and will respond to them. I also recommend that the hon. Member for Lewes (Maria Caulfield) and some others on the Government Benches look at the Library briefing on this subject and the Chancellor’s autumn statement, as I do not believe their speeches bore any resemblance to either of them.
A secure, warm and fit-for-purpose home is a right we should all enjoy; it should never be threatened, least of all by the state. Yet I am afraid that this Government are doing just that. We have already seen what they are capable of through the expansion of the bedroom tax, and we are again seeing it here in the proposals to cut housing benefit.
On the subject of the bedroom tax, we hear today that the Court of Appeal has ruled in two cases that the policy is discriminatory. In the light of this ruling—and the overwhelming evidence of how detrimental this policy has been—the UK Government must now think again on the bedroom tax, and indeed on this proposal to cut housing benefit, and not just think about it for a year, but do so for good. They should get back to the drawing board and start again from a basis of supporting people in their homes, not threatening to evict them.
In Scotland, the SNP Scottish Government have committed to building 50,000 affordable homes over the course of the next Scottish Parliament should the SNP be returned. Those homes will provide much-needed capacity in the social rented sector, because we recognise the need to build houses, not cut support to housing benefit recipients. The Scottish Government have also taken the necessary steps to mitigate the draconian bedroom tax by providing funding of £90 million to more than 70,000 households, which have escaped rental arrears and the threat of eviction. The Scottish Government have done this despite the overall budget being cut by 12.5%—by one eighth—since the SNP came to power in 2007. In Scotland we realise that a house is a home, and it would serve the UK Government well to bear that in mind as well.
This cut threatens the very roofs over the heads of housing benefit claimants. The House of Commons Library briefing for this debate estimates that over 800,000 families across the UK will be affected by these cuts, costing them on average £1,300 a year. Where will this shortfall in annual rent bills be found? It cannot come from discretionary housing payments as this type of discretionary funding for the social sector is far too insecure and uncertain a funding mechanism to allow such providers to continue to provide specialised accommodation such as refuge accommodation. The Scottish Federation of Housing Associations has estimated that a single person under the age of 35 who is in receipt of housing benefit will face a weekly shortfall of £6.22, which equates to an annual loss of £323.44 and a total loss to the housing associations of £2.8 million a year.
The area in which this cut is of greatest concern is women’s refuges. Scottish Women’s Aid wrote to Lord Freud last week about the impact these cuts will have on its ability to provide a refuge service for women and children fleeing domestic violence. In its letter to the Minister, Scottish Women’s Aid highlighted information that, frankly, the Government should have been aware of. Had they carried out an impact assessment, it would have been as clear as day to them. There is a range of additional costs involved in providing and managing refuge accommodation for women and children fleeing domestic violence.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West and Scottish Women’s Aid have eloquently outlined, local housing allowance rates bear no resemblance to the actual costs incurred by women’s aid groups, such as Monklands Women’s Aid in my constituency, or to the way in which they provide refuge facilities. I have been working closely with Sharon Aitchison, who manages Monklands Women’s Aid. It operates on very fine margins to provide a brilliant service for incredibly vulnerable women and children in their time of desperate need. It has already had its funding challenges, but this cut to housing benefit will put it out of the game. That will be the consequence of the Government’s latest cut. While I am on this subject, I hope that the Chancellor will reply to my letter of 26 November last year regarding his announcement on the tampon tax fund. To date, I have not had so much as an acknowledgment.
Brilliant work has been done in recent years to highlight and tackle domestic violence and to provide better support for women and children fleeing from abusive relationships. All that work will be undone at a stroke as a result of this cut, because Monklands Women’s Aid will not be the only refuge that is forced to close. This is a cut that will once again hit those who need our support the most, and it is time that it was scrapped.
Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)
Let us all ready ourselves for some “shroud waving”. I rise to speak as perhaps the only Member here today—and perhaps the only Member in the whole House of Commons—who has run one of these precious services. Let me tell you, it has been so frustrating today to listen to the lack of understanding of the practicalities and the reality of how these services actually work. It has been mind-boggling, so I apologise if any of my comments come out as aggression.
There are many women, and even more children, who have lived in a refuge who stick in my head, but none more so than Amirah. You learn to live with it, but she was the only woman who brought tears to my eyes. Amirah, who was pregnant, was found on the side of the road after she had drunk bleach in an attempt to end her life. She had been kept chained to a table and fed scraps like an abused animal by her perpetrator. In the refuge, we had to teach her to eat again, with small portions. It was slow progress. When her beautiful daughter was born, it was a refuge worker who held her hand while she was in labour and a refuge manager who picked her up from the hospital and took her back home. The women in the refuge became her family. Refuges are amazing.
I think back to the Conservative Members I walked round the women’s refuges where I worked and where Amirah lived. I remember drinking tea with the hon. Member for Halesowen and Rowley Regis (James Morris) and the then Minister Francis Maude in the playroom of one of our refuges. That playroom, in which the Minister so delighted in posing for his photo opportunity, will not be there if these changes come to pass. The likelihood is that they would not have had a refuge to visit at all if those measures had been in place then.
They were not our most eminent guests, however. That accolade goes to the Home Secretary, who was a keen visitor to my domestic violence services. If the Government’s plans to reduce housing benefit do not exempt this group, Ministers will be letting the Home Secretary down in a big way. In every safety net that she tries to put in place, these proposals without exemptions will snip a hole that women and children will fall through. Ministers here today should make no mistake that when people slip through these safety nets, no amount of hard work or personal responsibility will help them. They will face danger, abuse and, in too many cases, death.
The coalition Government and some Departments in this Government have shown their commitment to these families. The Home Office, while by no means perfect, has tried to invest pots of money and to create schemes for improved access to services. It has taken a good hard look at laws that will help these victims. There is a lot more to do, but it is not that the Home Office is not trying. I believe that its Ministers care, but they are being woefully let down by other Government Departments, which fail to recognise the Home Office’s role in the fight to end domestic abuse. There is no greater offender than the Department for Communities and Local Government, whose brutal cuts to local authorities have already closed 34 specialist women’s refuges since 2010. Just before the election last year, facing “shroud waving” from Women’s Aid, the Department suddenly had an epiphany and released a fund to stimulate increases in the number of refuge bed spaces.
Anna Turley
Does my hon. Friend agree that these constant references to “shroud waving” are an insult to those refuges and housing associations that are genuinely concerned that they are going to have to close accommodation for the most vulnerable people? For example, Thirteen, which does great work in the Tees valley with veterans, ex-offenders, women fleeing domestic violence and people recovering from addictions, is going to have to close supported accommodation. If the Conservatives are so genuinely bothered about scaremongering and shroud waving, they could put an end to it by doing something about this policy today.
Jess Phillips
I could not agree more. The simple thing to do is to exempt this category. I think we all know that the Government are properly going to do that. We have waved our shrouds and, do you know what, in every single case, they listened. So stop me having to talk about this! Stop making me a shroud waver! Just do it!
Anyway, the 10 million quid over 12 months that the Government gave just before the election was intended to create new beds, and I have heard Ministers stand at that Dispatch Box and talk about the number of extra bed spaces that they have created. However, I know that every single bid that was put in for that fund will have made its calculation based on the existing rates of housing benefit. I also know that every bid, as part of its sustainability plan beyond the 12 months, will have contained calculations based on the existing rates of housing benefit. Without the housing benefit-plus settlement, the £10 million offered would have been completely meaningless. I know that because I helped to write three of the successful bids.
I have run refuges that survived solely on housing benefit contributions, without any recourse to the now non-existent Supporting People funds. At my charity, when times were tough and our refuge funding was cut in half, we sucked it up, made tough decisions and found new ways and new funds. We worked on different models to bring in support staff to our refuges. None of that would have been possible without the existing system of housing benefit. We got all those Tories coming to see us because we had done such a great job of cutting our cloth to suit our needs, but we were only able do it because of housing benefit. Day one of this change would have closed at least 20 of our bed spaces. That would have resulted in turning away more than a hundred women and at least as many vulnerable children every year.
This week, I spoke in the debate on childcare and begged once again for the responsible Minister to consider exempting victims of domestic violence from the rules on the 16-hour threshold for increased childcare. He stopped me in my tracks and made that commitment. I am begging the Ministers here today to do what he did, and what the Home Secretary is trying to do, to protect victims of domestic violence and their children. The Minister might think that this is hyperbole, but I shall say it anyway: without the exemption, what he is proposing will, for many, be a death penalty. Please don’t do it.
Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)
It is becoming increasingly apparent that this Government are one of the most pusillanimous in living memory when it comes to tackling the powerful and vested interests in this country. This pusillanimous approach extends to the interests of the media, the utilities and any companies that replenish the coffers of the Tory party. In fact, it also extends to the international community as well. The obsequious kowtowing to foreign Governments, such as those of China and Saudi Arabia, is cringe-worthy, embarrassing and not worthy of a British Government. It comes to something when the Italian Government have managed to get more taxes out of big corporations than the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and that is saying something.
It does not matter whether a person is young, old, disabled—either physically or mentally—distressed, unemployed, on low pay, or on temporary or zero-hours contracts, they are fair game for this Government. This is a Government who challenge the weak, the vulnerable and the needy and dress it up as a virtue or something that is character building. The trend now is for the Government to discredit anyone who gets in their way, or who they think is getting in their way. The Government could teach the mafia a thing or two about extortion, but without the charm.
The House of Lords, the bastion of the Tory party for decades, challenges the Government, so the Government are now giving thought to how to clip its wings. It is strange that they have managed to do that only now when they no longer have a built-in majority in the Lords.
Let me turn now to the banks and the bankers. Today, we are seeing the continued fall-out from their reckless decisions that led to the crisis, with the Royal Bank of Scotland having to put aside a further £2 billion to cover its incompetence. Ministers sound like a stuck record, as they once again blame the previous Labour Government. Yet those are the people who, in the form of the shadow Cabinet in 2007, wanted to deregulate the banking and financial services sector lock stock and barrel through their “Freeing Britain to Compete” document. Following the banking crisis, which was caused by their friends in the City, they quietly buried that document much to the chagrin of the right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) who co-ordinated it. Although that document is as rare as rocking horse dung, I do suggest, none the less, that Government Members try to acquaint themselves with it—that is if they can find a copy of it.
I noticed the Prime Minister patting himself on the back today when he talked about the Government’s record on tax collection. If that is the best this Government can do, it is no wonder they are having to penalise those who can least afford it. If they cannot get the money off the corporations, they will get it off the dispossessed.
Yet again we are hearing about another policy that has not been thought through. The fact that the Minister has announced some delay in the proposed cuts to supported housing is evidence of that. The long-term impact on the finances of local government and of the health service are potentially catastrophic. It is significantly cheaper to have elderly people living in supported accommodation than it is to have them in residential care. There is a danger that these proposals will bring forward that cost with the transfer to residential care. Not content with penalising older people for being old, the Government are now on a roll, as they tackle homeless people, those escaping domestic violence and people with disabilities. Around 440,000 homes are potentially affected. Discretionary support will not make up the difference. Charlotte Norman of Place Shapers and St Vincent’s Housing Association says that the proposals look like having a more detrimental effect than any other recent housing or welfare announcement. In my own constituency, Anchor Housing will struggle. The average rent in sheltered housing schemes is £123 a week, which will leave a shortfall of £32. There will be a significant detrimental effect on those organisations that support the most vulnerable.
When we talk about the most vulnerable, the Government accuse us of shroud waving. We are not shroud waving; we are telling the facts as they are, or possibly as they could be. Those on the Government Benches can wring their hands and accuse my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) of being a scaremonger, but they are putting their heads in the sand. It is the responsibility of the Ministers on the Front Bench and this House to get a grip of the situation and get the Chancellor to change his mind for the umpteenth time.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
My city of Cambridge is a high-cost area in the grip of a housing crisis. The problem is multi-faceted and complicated, and every single thing that the Government are doing is making it worse. This policy is no exception. We have been asked by Government Members what we would do. Well, I can tell them that three-year tenancies without any unexpected rent rises would be a very good start, and I commend that idea to them.
I have spent the past few days talking to providers of supported housing in Cambridge. What struck me was that every single one of them warned about the dangers of this policy and the effect that it will have on our cities. I will relay a few of the things that I was told. Let me start at the YMCA, which has 80 residents—a mixture of students and people in work—70 of whom receive housing benefit. I was told that if housing benefit is cut, the residents will be turfed out on to the streets. The YMCA does not want to do that, but it will have no choice. That would, of course, completely undermine recovery programmes and cause yet more young people to end up living on not the Conservatives’ spin-happy road to recovery, but the street.
What of the local council? Cambridge City Council directly provides or manages more than 100 units of accommodation for homeless households, including three hostels, 22 units of move-on accommodation for adults recovering from mental health conditions, and 13 sheltered housing schemes for older people—more than 460 tenancies. This will be the same story for every Member across the House. The council rightly says that, if this policy goes ahead, it will inevitably result in their tenants facing a higher net weekly payable rent. There will be no more income to pay the rent, just a higher rent. These are vulnerable people who will struggle to prioritise paying that rent, so we know what will happen: they will either sink into a spiral of debt or lose their accommodation—or, most likely, both.
My council also tells me that its inevitable loss of income will force it to reduce the services that it provides, which means fewer wardens, less support and less preventive work to stop people needing to go to hospital. My local NHS already has severe well-documented problems, which have recently been rehearsed in the Chamber, but the changes will just make that situation worse. We hear about joined-up government—I do not think so—but the policy will cost more money. It will just pass the buck by putting the cost on our hospitals and homeless services, which are already overstretched and working flat out.
Housing associations will also be affected. CHS Group tells me that the overall impact of the LHA cap will be a loss of income of £537,000 a year and that four of its support schemes in Cambridge will be plunged into a significant operating loss. Those schemes house 47 people—vulnerable teenagers, people with learning difficulties, and vulnerable women and older people—yet that provision will be under immediate threat.
Let me be generous for a moment. Perhaps the Government will change their mind, as happened when they thought again on tax credit cuts, after being presented with the facts. We have heard powerful and persuasive arguments from Labour Members today. Maybe the Government did not really understand the consequences of their proposals, but if that is the case, they should listen carefully now.
I shall conclude by being slightly less generous, however. I think that the proposal is part of a deadly cocktail of housing reforms that will decimate the sector and make our country’s housing problems worse. There is constantly a gap between what the Government say and what they do. They talk about helping our country to live within its means, but in reality they are just mean. I urge the Government to think again. We all make mistakes, so there is no shame in their admitting that sometimes they get things wrong. It would be far better to change course now than to risk inflicting such harm on so many vulnerable people.
Owen Smith (Pontypridd) (Lab)
In my part of the world, often the best thing that is said about the Conservative party is, “You know where you are with them: they may be cruel, but at least they’re competent.” Following today’s debate, however, and particularly after this week for the Department for Work and Pensions, one must wonder about at least the latter part of that sentence.
We began the week with the Government’s defeat in the other place on their ludicrous suggestion that incomes should be carved out of the meaningful measure of child poverty that the previous Labour Government introduced. The Government then had to acknowledge that they should exempt those in receipt of carer’s allowance from the punishment of the benefit cap, despite the fact that they spent £50,000 in the courts just a few weeks ago defending the inclusion of carers under the aegis of that cap.
This morning, we saw extraordinary events in the Court of Appeal as the Government found their bedroom tax ruled not only cruel, but unlawful, because it discriminates against disabled people—in particular my friend and fellow countryman, Paul Rutherford, his wife, Susan, and their profoundly disabled child, Warren. He was discriminated against by the bedroom tax for many years, but he had his day in court today. I can only hope that the Government reflect on the meaning of that ruling with a little more grace than the Prime Minister during today’s Question Time, and that they will come back to the House to give us satisfaction by getting rid of the bedroom tax.
Barbara Keeley
Does my hon. Friend agree that it was always unfair to include carers under the bedroom tax and the benefit cap because their caring role means that they cannot go out to work or increase the number of hours that they do? These 60,000 unpaid family carers already save the state billions, so is it not time for them to be exempted? We call on the Government to take action straight away.
Owen Smith
Is not that just shroud waving? We have heard for the past few years—not just months or today—that we are shroud waving about the bedroom tax and its effects on the vulnerable. Indeed, we have been told that it is shroud waving to suggest that the bedroom tax might be unlawful, but it turns out that it is illegal, so the Government must come back to the House to address the situation—[Interruption.] The Minister for Housing and Planning is chuntering, but this afternoon there was a welcome yet extraordinary turn of events in the House. Despite Labour Members and others interested in the social rented sector asking him on hundreds of occasions in recent months to make the change, the Minister has only now said that he agrees with us.
We should address the deeply unfair 1% cut to social housing rents which is but part of the problem that the social supported housing sector faces. I welcome the fact that the Minister, without much good grace, conceded that there should be a delay. It is extraordinary that his Government have been looking at the policy not, I have to tell my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey), since 2014 but since 2011, which is when they first suggested that they ought to address the question of, in their view, high social rented costs versus local housing allowance. Five years later, they still have not reached a conclusion on what they are going to do. It is incompetence on a gross scale.
In the Welfare Reform and Work Bill Committee, we lost count of the number of occasions on which we were offered excuses as to why the change could not possibly be made, and why the moratorium—or, as we asked for, a full exemption—was not affordable or allowable. In Committee, I believe that the words, “shroud waving” were used on a number of occasions. We were accused of jumping the gun, and told that the measures would not be introduced for a while, so there was plenty of time for the Government to get their papers in order and get the policy right.
Mr Jackson
The hon. Gentleman makes an eloquent case. Can he explain to the House why, in benign economic times, his own Government failed to deliver tax breaks to encourage the development of extra care facilities and specialist housing facilities? Why did they stand still when there was plenty of money coming in and they had the opportunity to do so?
Owen Smith
The National Audit Office concluded that under the Tory and Liberal Government there was a 45% reduction in the amount of funding for the supported housing sector. That is the reality.
Owen Smith
We have not been in power for six years, and there is only so long that the hon. Gentleman can keeping waving that shroud at me. The key point is that under the hon. Gentleman’s Government there was a 40% cut, and we face the prospect of the end of supported housing in this country unless there is a change of course from his Government.
There is a lot of misunderstanding among Government Members about what we are talking about. I do not know whether they do not read the briefing from the Whips or the Whips do not tell them the truth, but there are two measures that we are debating. On the first measure—a 1% cut in social housing rents—there is now a one-year stay of execution. The second and more important measure, which the Minister did not address despite the questions raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne, is the equalising of the amount of housing benefit available to people in social rented accommodation with the local housing allowance. That is the biggest, most substantive change that the Government propose to make.
The hon. Member for Lewes (Maria Caulfield) said that the measure had not been introduced and is not happening yet. She really ought to read the Government’s statements. I shall read from the autumn statement, which said at paragraph 1.125:
“The Government will cap the amount of rent that Housing Benefit will cover in the social sector to the relevant local housing allowance. This will apply to tenancies signed after 1 April 2016”.
According to my maths, that is in a couple of months, with housing benefit entitlements changing across the board from April 2018. This is not shroud waving, nor is it jumping the gun: it is the Opposition drawing to the attention of the House and, it would seem, Government Members, a measure that will impact on their constituents in just a few months’ time.
Maria Caulfield
The hon. Gentleman is being misleading, because the motion is about supported housing. Now he is speaking about general needs housing benefit, and there is a difference. There is no change in legislation: an extensive review is under way on housing benefit for people in supported housing. There is a difference, and I am sorry that he does not appreciate that.
Owen Smith
I am, unusually, lost for words. It is extraordinary that the hon. Lady does not understand what we are talking about. Supported housing—specified housing—is caught within the envelope of social housing.
Owen Smith
I will not give way to the hon. Lady. There is no point—she does not understand.
Owen Smith
I will give way to the Minister if he will tell us what he is going to do about local housing allowance.
Brandon Lewis
The hon. Gentleman has managed to brush over the fact that his colleague who spoke earlier was a Minister who was involved in bringing in the spare room subsidy originally. Perhaps he could confirm that our affordable housing programme has delivered 6% more supported homes per year than did the Labour equivalent?
Owen Smith
It is interesting that the Minister did not ride to the rescue of his hon. Friend the Member for Lewes: he knows that she does not know what she is talking about on this subject.
The hon. Lady could have a further look at the Budget book produced by the Government for the same spending review, which shows clearly that £515 million is the saving anticipated from the cuts. The IFS goes further and says that by the time the cuts are fully implemented, the Government might save £1.1 billion. The largest part of that is the change equalising housing benefit with local housing allowance, not the one-year stay of execution that we have heard about today. Now that I have explained the position, does the hon. Lady wish to intervene?
Maria Caulfield
I thank the shadow Minister for his reply. I am even more worried that he does not understand the difference. The supported housing allowance is much higher than the ordinary general needs housing benefit. The Opposition called this debate and we are supposed to be discussing supported housing, not general needs housing. I am shocked that the shadow Minister does not understand the difference.
Owen Smith
I have made the point about general social housing catching specified supported housing. That is clear. It is also clear, because Ministers admitted it at the Dispatch Box today, that the hon. Lady is right—supported housing does cost more because it is bespoke and it is intended for people with, for example, complex autistic needs or physical disabilities, women fleeing persecution and violence, or elderly vulnerable people. It costs more money to look after those people because an in-house concierge and other things are needed. That is why it is so wrong for the Government to equalise the amount of housing benefit that they can get with local housing allowances available for the private rented sector. That is the issue we are discussing.
The issue was not raised by us initially. Those in the sector have approached us and Ministers on many occasions. I shall quote a few. Andrew Redfern, chief executive of the specialist housing association Framework, said that the planned cut
“ would mean the end of supported housing. All our schemes would close, and I think all others would as well.”
That seems fairly straightforward. Other housing organisations such as Great Places, New Charter, Hightown Praetorian and Family Mosaic all confirmed that many of their schemes would be unviable if the cut went ahead. AmicusHorizon, which I believe has 119 such supported housing bodies across London, has confirmed that it will have to close supported housing in London and elsewhere if these changes go ahead. Charlotte Norman of PlaceShapers and St Vincent’s housing said:
“We cannot believe that government understands the consequences of these changes and the vast extra costs that would fall to the public purse as a result of scheme closures. Nothing short of exemption for all such housing will be adequate and we very much hope that common sense will prevail.”
We heard a lot of common sense from Opposition Members, including from the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) and in particular from my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), the Chairman of the Select Committee, who asked the central question: what will happen to the LHA equalisation with housing benefit that the Minister failed to mention? Will there be an exemption for supported housing associations and for specified housing? He asked a further question that the Minister failed to answer, which I hope the Under-Secretary of State for Disabled People will answer in a moment. If the rents are to go up next year and are not cut by 1%, will they go up in line with the formula, as they would have done ordinarily, or are they to be frozen? I would be grateful for an answer from the Minister.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead) talked about the Society of St James, which helps 2,000 people and will lose £1 million. The hon. Member for Macclesfield (David Rutley) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi), drawing on their personal experience and deep knowledge, spoke about what this will mean for their constituents. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) spoke with particular expertise about her experience of running a women’s refuge. She explained how these changes would shut that refuge and begged Ministers to listen to her and to the Home Secretary about the value of women’s refuges and the damage that will be done to them. My hon. Friends the Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd) and for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) also spoke.
On the Government side, Members were sanguine. On the Government side, Members dissembled. On the Government side, Members have a choice about what to do today. Will they agree with us that nothing short of the exemption of specialised supported housing is required in order to safeguard the most vulnerable in our communities and that what we have heard today from the Government is welcome but insufficient? When the Minister comes to the Dispatch Box, will he agree with me that it is time for the Government to admit that they got it wrong and, as they have done so many times this week, reverse ferret?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Disabled People (Justin Tomlinson)
This has been a powerful and important debate, and we have listened to the arguments from both sides of the Chamber. A number of important points were raised and questions asked, and I will do my best to cover as many of them as I can.
Our welfare reform is about bringing wide-ranging reforms to the welfare system and bringing the budget back under control after years of overspending by Labour. My hon. Friends the Members for Peterborough (Mr Jackson), for Weaver Vale (Graham Evans) and for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) set out eloquently how important that is. Our reforms are bringing fairness for hard-working taxpayers, making work pay and making welfare sustainable for the future.
Protecting the most vulnerable is the key part of today’s debate. As we have progressed with these important and necessary reforms, we have stuck to our principle of protecting the most vulnerable. As the Minister for Disabled People, I hold that principle to be particularly important. I know how important the right housing is for an individual’s needs. I am proud of our record on helping those who need the most support.
I want to remind the House that we have spent around £50 billion every year on benefits to support people with disabilities or health conditions, and that spending will be higher in every year until 2020 than it was in 2010. We are spending £400 million to deliver 8,000 specialist homes for the vulnerable, elderly or those with disabilities, and funding for the disabled facilities grant, which funds around 40,000 adaptations a year, is due to increase by nearly 80% next year. We are providing £870 million of support through discretionary housing payment over the next five years to help those who need support, and the Department of Health has committed to funding up to 7,500 further specialist homes for disabled and older people.
We are also providing support to other vulnerable groups. For example, we are providing £40 million for victims of domestic abuse, which is a tripling of the support, ensuring that no one is turned away from the support they need. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) for focusing the House on the absolute importance of the services that refuges provide, bringing real dynamism and realism to the debate. I understand that, because I have done a lot of work with Women’s Aid, particularly in the last Parliament, and I pay tribute to the women’s refuge in Swindon. It cannot boast about what it does, because it has to be behind closed doors. The hon. Lady has really focused minds, which is an important thing to do. More than £500 million has been spent since 2010 on tackling homelessness, preventing almost 1 million households from becoming homeless.
Let me turn to supported housing. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Maria Caulfield) and the hon. Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue), who drew upon their real-life experience and set out some of the challenges and opportunities faced in this area. We recognise the value of the supported housing sector and want to ensure that the essential services it delivers continue to be provided, within the context of driving appropriate value for money. Many Members have put that on the record today and spoken about that support, which is very important. We want to ensure that the sector can continue to deliver the important services it provides, which is why we will be putting in place a one-year exemption from the 1% rent reduction for all supported accommodation. That will give us time to study the evidence from the supported housing review, which is due to report in the spring, and consider a longer-term solution for the sector.
The hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) asked a number of questions, including about what happens to rents for supported housing next year during the one-year delay. They will be uprated by CPI plus 1% up until April 2017, then reviewed after that.
The review will tell us the size, scale and scope of supported housing funded through housing benefits. The policy options will be considered after the report is published, in consultation with a wide range of stakeholders, and conclusions will be reached in due course as that is brought together.
Mr Jackson
I am reassured by the Minister’s comments. Will he ensure that the Treasury and NHS England are involved in this issue, because it is important that there is proper co-ordination between acute hospital care and social care as we face demographic issues in the future?
Justin Tomlinson
We all accept that this issue goes far wider, and we must look at all that in the consultation.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Seema Kennedy) asked me to take on board the comments from Progress Housing, and I will happily do so. The hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) talked about the YMCA, which is an important organisation. I am pleased that Denise Hatton, YMCA England’s chief executive, has already tweeted:
“It is positive that the Government has listened to the concerns of the sector and we welcome the fact it has taken appropriate action to protect supported housing.”
John Healey
If the House is to take the Minister at his word that he wants to have the evidence from the review, then a consultation, in order to make these policy decisions, will he place a moratorium on the application of the LHA benefit cut, as he proposes with the rent cut, so that new tenancies from April this year will not be affected in the way that the Chancellor announced?
Justin Tomlinson
For new tenants, the change comes into effect in 2016; for existing ones, it will come into effect in 2018. The delay on the 1% is just for supported housing, so I am afraid that I cannot give that commitment.
Justin Tomlinson
The changes do not come into effect at that point. That is why we said that we will urgently take forward the review based on the points that have been raised.
I can assure Members that DWP and DCLG will work closely together to ensure that the appropriate protections are in place for those in supported housing.
Justin Tomlinson
I have made it clear that, for those in supported housing, the change will be delayed for a year as we conduct the urgent review.
On the rationale for changes in the social rented sector, we will stick to our principles of protecting the most vulnerable. However, these are important reforms. We inherited a burgeoning housing benefits bill that we had to get control of. We have started to do that, but we need to go further. The housing benefit bill for England has risen by over 20% during the past 10 years, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) said. Part of the reason is that the rises in social rents have outstripped those in the private sector, as highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake). Social rents are up by 60% compared with 23% in the private sector. In the private sector, the local housing allowance curbs the spiralling housing benefit bill, but there is no similar restraint in the social sector. That is why we are going to cap social sector rents in the same way as in the private sector, thereby reducing rents in the social sector. We should remember that this will help the one third of people in this sector who do not claim any housing benefit and whose rents will come down. However, we will continue to protect the most vulnerable.
This is just part of our wider housing reforms. We are improving access, creating more choice and building more affordable homes. We are doubling the housing budget to more than £20 billion over the next five years to help to ensure that housing is prioritised for those who need it most.
Justin Tomlinson
No. I am short of time.
Under Labour, the number of social and affordable rented homes fell by 400,000, but under the Conservative Government, 700,000 new homes have been built in the past five years, of which 270,000 are affordable homes. We are broadening opportunities for people to access housing through Help to Buy, right to buy and the £8 billion commitment to deliver 400,000 more affordable home starts. This Government are tackling the chronic problems of under-supply and access to housing, which the Labour party failed to do.
In conclusion, we will not fall into the trap of Labour’s blank-cheque approach by paying away problems without making any real or meaningful reforms to welfare. Our reforms bring fairness for hard-working taxpayers and make the welfare budget more sustainable for the future, and we are doing that while providing the right protection for the most vulnerable in society.
Question put.
Prisons and Probation
(8 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
18:59 - The House divided: - Ayes: 186 / Noes: 278 - Question accordingly negatived.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House believes UK prisons are in crisis; notes the increasingly high rates of violence, self-harm and drug use in prisons, and the resulting pressure on the NHS; further notes that the last report by the outgoing Chief Inspector of Prisons warned that outcomes across the prison estate were the worst for ten years; believes that no prison staff should have to go to work facing a threat to their safety; notes with concern the decision of the Scottish Government, announced in its recent draft Scottish Budget for 2016-17, to reduce funding for the Scottish Prison Service by almost £40 million in cash terms; is appalled by the disturbing allegations of violence at Medway Secure Training Centre; regrets the Government’s inadequate response to the Harris Review and to mental health in prisons; is concerned that re-offending rates are so high; believes the Government lets down victims of crime by failing to enshrine their rights in law; regrets the Government’s reckless privatisation of the probation service and the job losses in community rehabilitation companies; and calls on the Government to put all G4S-run prisons, STCs and detention centres into special measures, to immediately review the implementation of Transforming Rehabilitation and to publish the Memorandum of Understanding on Judicial Cooperation with Saudi Arabia.
Prison and probation staff have some of the toughest jobs in our country. With few exceptions, they work with industry, compassion and resolution to protect the public and to help to change lives through rehabilitation. All of us in this House owe them our gratitude. Over six years in the shadow Justice team, but also as MP for one of Britain’s most iconic prisons, HMP Wormwood Scrubs, and, in the past, as a criminal barrister, I have visited many prisons and spoken to both prisoners and staff, and to their representatives in the Prisoner Learning Alliance and Napo, to which I also pay tribute.
The inescapable conclusion is that the prison system in this country—I use the term to include both the adult and youth estates—is not working, contrary to the famous pronouncement of the noble Lord Howard. From the Lord Chancellor’s statements and speeches so far, I think he may agree. The question for today is: what are he and his Government going to do about it? It is certainly the view of many in his party that prison is not working. We have waited some time for a parliamentary debate on the crisis in our prisons. This will be the fourth in a week. I hope that is a reflection of the new priority that parliamentarians in both Houses are giving to this issue.
Sir Edward Garnier (Harborough) (Con)
When I was in the hon. Gentleman’s position as shadow prisons Minister 10 years ago, I could have tabled a motion in the name of the official Opposition in exactly the same terms as the first four and three-quarter lines of his motion. Why did he not do something about the problem then?
Andy Slaughter
I take the intervention in the spirit in which it is meant, but I hope we are not going to have a war over who did what when. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman will see in a moment, we are talking not about the last 10 years, but the last 50 years.
I should make a special mention of the debate on prison reform in the other place on 21 January in the name of the noble Lord Fowler. Lest the Lord Chancellor take exception to the wording of today’s motion—
“That this House believes UK prisons are in crisis”—
the noble Lord ended his excellent speech with these words:
“In 1970, we faced a prisons crisis; today, we face a prisons scandal.”
Every speech in that debate was superb, and I hope this House can live up to those high standards today.
Lord Fowler set out five proposals. In concluding the debate, the Minister, Lord Faulks, said he
“had no difficulty in supporting any of them”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 21 January 2016; Vol. 768, c. 910-940.]
I assume the same can be said for the Lord Chancellor. To remind him, the five proposals are: deprivation of liberty, but not to make life as uncomfortable as possible; end overcrowding; reduce the number of people sent to prison; do so by re-examining sentences; and pass responsibility to the governor and staff. The Lord Chancellor has spoken approvingly of the last of those points, but does he agree with Lord Fowler and his Minister on the other four points? More importantly, if he does, how will he set out to accomplish them? That is not a trick question. I do not know whether the Lord Chancellor is in muesli mode or Shipley mode today. He has made some fine rhetorical flourishes on the subject of prison reform and set reviews in progress, but what action do his Government intend to take?
I am happy to give the Lord Chancellor a platform today to add some substance to the rhetoric—it is a platform rather than a scaffold—but I will do so by setting out the scale of the task before him. Let me begin with the basic issue of safety. In the 12 months to September 2015, there were 267 deaths in prison custody—95 suicides, up from 60 in the same period in 2010; 153 deaths from natural causes, up from 123; and seven homicides. There have been the same number of homicides in prison in the past two years as there were in the preceding eight. In the 12 months to June 2015, there were 28,881 reported incidents of self-harm, up by 21% in just a year; 4,156 assaults on staff, a 20% rise from the year before; and 578 serious assaults on staff, a rise of 42% from the year before. Tragically, a prison officer, Lorraine Barwell—it was the first such incident of its type in a quarter of a century—died in July last year after being the victim of an attack in the line of duty one month earlier. We owe it to her and her family to ensure that her colleagues are as safe as possible.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
My hon. Friend has started by setting out staggering and appalling statistics on the number of prisoners who have sadly taken their own lives or who are self-harming. Does that not underline the problems of mental health in prisons? What more should the Government do to tackle the serious problem of mental ill health among the prisoner population?
Andy Slaughter
My hon. Friend—I know he speaks from a position of knowledge on the subject—is right. I will come to that in a moment.
The prison riot squad was called out 343 times last year—once a day on average—compared with 223 times the year before and 118 times in 2010. Alcohol finds have nearly trebled since 2010. From mobile phones to drugs and legal highs, the list of what people can smuggle into prison at the moment is elastic. According to one prisoner at HMP Oakwood, a prison that the previous Lord Chancellor called
“an excellent model for the future”—[Official Report, 5 February 2013; Vol. 558, c. 114.],
it was easier to get drugs than soap, so there are some restrictions. Earlier this month, seven officers reported suffering ill effects from inadvertently inhaling legal highs. You couldn’t make that up.
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
It would be remiss at this point not to place it on the record that the Psychoactive Substances Bill, which passed through the House last week, will make possession inside the secure estate a criminal offence. I think the hon. Gentleman welcomed that.
Andy Slaughter
I agree with most, if not all, of the provisions in the Bill. The issue we are dealing with here, however, is smuggling contraband into prisons by a number of means, including the increasing use of drones.
Turning to overcrowding, figures released by the Prisons Minister on Monday showed that 25% of all prisoners are in overcrowded cells. In some prisons, such as Wandsworth, the figure rises to over 80%. It is, in the words of the chief inspector,
“sometimes exacerbated by extremely poor environments and squalid conditions.”
This memorably led one member of staff to tell him, of a cell in Wormwood Scrubs, that he
“wouldn’t keep a dog in there”.
In the past 25 years, the prison population has almost doubled, from under 45,000 in 1990 to over 85,000 now. It is projected to increase to 90,000 by 2020. Staff are already struggling, following cuts on an unprecedented scale. There are 9,760 fewer operational prison staff than in 2010, and nearly 5,000 fewer prison officers since 2010. Some 250 prison governors resigned or moved jobs in the past five years.
On education, the Prisoners Education Trust reports that prisoners tell them they have to choose between going to the library and having a shower, because of the lack of staff to escort them. Nearly half of prisoners report having no qualifications and 42% of people in prison say they had been expelled or permanently excluded from school. The Lord Chancellor appointed Dame Sally Coates, the distinguished former head of Burlington Danes Academy, to review prisoner education. Perhaps he will let us know what progress she has made.
On mental health, according to an answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger), 60% of prisoners who took their own life last year were not receiving assistance under the assessment, care in custody and teamwork process, which is supposed to identify prisoners at a heightened risk of suicide or self-harm.
Steve Rotheram (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)
My constituency has two prisons—Altcourse, which is privately run by G4S, and Liverpool Walton. Both were inspected recently. The common factor in both inspections was understaffing. Does my hon. Friend think that some of the factors he is identifying are due to the staff numbers at both prisons being the lowest in living memory?
Andy Slaughter
The cuts in staff lie at the root of many of the problems I am identifying. The fact that in many cases prisoners now spend 22 or 23 hours in their cell, and have restrictions on work, education and association, is leading to increased violence and poor behaviour in prisons. That is a very short-sighted development. I think the Government realise that, but perhaps too late.
Turning to probation and reoffending, figures I obtained last month revealed that almost one in 10 offenders are convicted of an offence within 18 days of release. HM inspectorate of probation’s fourth report on the implementation of transforming rehabilitation was published on 15 January. It highlighted the disparity in performance between the national probation service, which is still part of the National Offender Management Service, and the 21 community rehabilitation companies managed by private providers. For CRCs, one quarter of the offenders sampled had been convicted of a further offence, whereas for the NPS the figure was less than one fifth. On child protection and safeguarding on home visits, the NPS again outperformed CRCs. Earlier this month, the Lord Chancellor’s Department stopped publishing figures relating to staffing figures at CRCs. Why was this, except to conceal the hundreds of experienced probation staff being laid off across the country to promote the bottom line for the CRCs’ owners?
Let me turn to the youth estate, and in particular the role of G4S. We welcome the measures announced yesterday by the Lord Chancellor to effectively put Medway secure training centre into special measures. This is unsurprising, as they are exactly what I called for in an urgent question two weeks ago. I also welcome the decision by the director of Medway to stand down. However, individuals should not bear the entirety of the blame for what looks like corporate failure by G4S. I have now written to the Serious Fraud Office to ask that it investigates the allegations, made in the BBC “Panorama” programme on Medway, that instances of disorder were concealed to avoid G4S incurring fines under its contract. This is in addition to the ongoing SFO investigation into G4S and Serco’s manipulation of the tagging contracts for financial gain.
G4S has a truly dismal record of managing public contracts here and abroad. At Rainsbrook STC, six staff were dismissed and the contract was terminated last September, following an inspection report that said some staff were on drugs while on duty, colluded with detainees and behaved extremely inappropriately with young people. The company taking over the contract is MTCnovo. It is a name not well known in this country because, in origin, it is a US prison firm. As such, it presided over a riot in an Arizona state prison and ran a youth facility in Mississippi that a judge described as
“struggling with disorder, periodic mayhem, and staff ineptitude which leads to perpetual danger to the inmates and staff.”
It probably left that reference out of its application, along with the fact that its directors helped to set up Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad.
The problems of the youth estate go way beyond G4S, however, which is why the chief inspector of prisons has called for an inquiry into the failings at Medway and the implications for the wider youth justice system.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
On the Justice Committee, we interviewed the chief inspector and found his answers on ministerial interference in his reports very interesting. Does my hon. Friend agree that, to the outside world, the fact that the chief inspector’s contract is not being renewed makes it look like he was doing an effective job in holding the MOJ to account, and is now being silenced?
Andy Slaughter
My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point, and one that I will come on to.
If the Lord Chancellor is a prison reformer, as he is now billed, we are prepared to work with him. He could start with the Prison Reform Trust report, “Correction or care? the use of custody for children in trouble”, published last year, which looked at successful models around the world. Successful prisons are becoming smaller, more focused and more rooted locally, which is why he is right to abandon his predecessor’s plans for a new borstal. Although he is also to be commended for wishing to close unsuitable prisons, if, as a consequence, prisons are built a long way from friends and family or we move from local to titan prisons, that will have its own drawbacks.
We need prison watchdogs with real teeth and independence. The outgoing inspector, Nick Hardwick, has done a great job in spite of, not because of the Government. This brings me to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq). The reports last week that the MOJ had tried to control or muzzle him were outrageous. I welcome the Lord Chancellor’s announcement yesterday that he will retain Mr Hardwick’s expertise as head of the Parole Board, but let us use this opportunity to shake things up. We need a stronger, more independent inspectorate that is able to produce reports with total independence from the MOJ and to conduct more frequent and unannounced inspections.
Lucy Frazer (South East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman paints a bleak picture. Of course we must always do more, but does he accept that, according to a recent report by the chief inspector, outcomes for women have improved and the number of children in custody has fallen?
Andy Slaughter
I accept entirely what the hon. Lady says. I am painting a realistic picture, as the necessary starting point for the improvements that Members on both sides of the House wish to see. There have been improvements. The decline in the number of people in youth custody, from more than 3,000 to less than 1,000, is extremely impressive. It has happened under successive Governments. We are concerned, however, about the condition and treatment of the young people still in custody and the type of facility they are in. The incidents at Medway and elsewhere are examples of how things are failing in that sector as much as elsewhere.
My hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Jenny Chapman) wrote in response to a prison report:
“Too often we see the response to a poor inspection report centre on the appointment of a new governor or the assertion that things have improved dramatically since the poor inspection took place.”
It is time we put much greater effort into preventing people from getting involved in crime in the first place. We need a renewed focus on education and stepping in to divert young people from a life of crime. We must do better for trans people in our prison system. The “Dying for Justice” report, by the Institute of Race Relations, and the Harris review both revealed that black, Asian and minority ethnic people were over-represented at every stage of the criminal justice process. Yesterday, I spoke at a meeting here on the discriminatory effects of joint enterprise charging decisions on BAME individuals and groups, and asked the Lord Chancellor to examine that area of law, which his predecessor failed to do.
In the light of the number of Members wishing to speak, I shall terminate my remarks. I welcome the change in tone on prisons since the Lord Chancellor’s appointment, but so far that is about all it is. It is possible to be tough on crime, to put the protection of the public first and to make sure prisons play their role in punishment as well as in rehabilitation, but it is also true, to quote Dostoevsky, who knew a thing or two about crime and punishment, that,
“the degree of civilisation of a society can be judged by entering its prisons.”
It is in the self-interest of every citizen that prisoners, having served their time, become productive members of society and do not continue to pose a risk through reoffending. The Lord Chancellor may not be “a muesli muncher”, as he put it yesterday, but he is the Minister for porridge—and it is about time he served up something substantial.
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Michael Gove)
Coming as I do from Aberdeen, I know that porridge is not necessarily something that we consider to be unattractive. My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) might be relieved to hear that.
Let me first congratulate the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) on securing this debate. I thank him for the serious way in which he laid out the scale of the challenge that my Department faces—and, indeed, that faces all of us in this House. He rightly drew attention to the fact that this is the fourth debate on prisons and probation in the last week. He was absolutely right to draw attention in particular to the excellent debate conducted in the other place last week. It was a debate on a motion initiated by Lord Fowler, a former Conservative Cabinet Minister, and it is striking that so many Conservative colleagues are here today. It is important to recognise across the House that the cause of prison reform is one that is shared by people from every political party and should not be regarded as the province of any particular political organisation or caucus.
In thanking the speakers in the House of Lords, I draw attention to the fact that the hon. Member for Hammersmith, as well as most of them, took the opportunity in the time allowed to them to thank those who work in our prisons. It is important for us all to place on the record if we have time—I recognise that many want to contribute to the debate—our gratitude for the courage and the idealism of those who work in our prisons. I mean not just prison officers, but chaplains, volunteers, teachers and others.
In tandem with the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous), who is the prisons Minister, I had the opportunity last year to visit Manchester prison, or Strangeways as it used to be known. I spoke to a young man who works in the segregation unit and I asked him why he had chosen to work with some of the most challenging offenders. He explained movingly that he had come from a part of the city that was particularly affected by crime, and he wanted to do something in his own career and profession to help make his community safer. He chose to work with those challenging prisoners in the segregation unit because he believed that the personal relationships he could form with individuals there might be able to change their lives for the better while making his community safer. I believe that sort of idealism is typical of those who work in our prisons, and it reinforces an essential point: the quality of the relationship between those who work in our prisons and those for whom they care is not soft or in any way a retreat from public safety, but critical to ensuring it.
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)
The right hon. Gentleman may be aware that the number of attacks on our prison staff has increased by 42%, and these range from severe cuts to damages to internal organs and fractures. In order to keep safe the people who, as he has outlined, work so hard in our prisons, will he order a review into safety at work for prison staff?
Michael Gove
The hon. Lady makes an entirely fair point. I do not deny the scale of the problem revealed in the statistics that she and her hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith deployed. The National Offender Management Service runs a violence reduction programme that involves studying precisely why there has been this upsurge in violence. Factors, which have been acknowledged by Members on both sides of the House, have contributed to that. One is the pattern of offenders. Prisons contain more people who have been convicted of violent and other challenging offences. It is also the case that the spread of new psychoactive substances—which have been misleadingly called “legal highs”, but which the Under-Secretary has more accurately termed “lethal highs”—has contributed to a lack of self-control and to psychosis, increased mental health problems and violence in our prison system. We must make some difficult choices to ensure that we limit the currently widespread availability of those drugs, and also keep people safe in our prisons. I shall talk about one or two of those choices shortly.
I agree that we face a problem—let me emphasise that—but I do not wish to use the word “crisis”, for two reasons. First, I think that it has the potential to undermine the morale of the people who work in our prisons. Secondly, I think that it might draw attention away from the incremental changes that we need to make, which can add up to a significant programme of prison reform. If we allow ourselves to be panicked by headlines and scared into overreaction, we may not be able to take the solid incremental steps that we need to take if we are to improve the present situation.
I was struck by the concern expressed by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram) about prison staff numbers. Those of us who care about not just the safety of staff but the effectiveness of the prison regime are understandably keen for our prisons to be staffed effectively, but let me make two points. First, the number of prison officers has increased by more than 500 in the last year. Secondly, there is no absolute correlation between the number of prison officers and the nature of the regime, and the number of violent incidents. I do not deny for a moment that we need to ensure that prisons are properly staffed and prison officers are safe, but the extent of the security that individuals enjoy in a prison is a consequence of a number of factors.
Steve Rotheram
The Secretary of State is absolutely right. Not only should there be safe staffing levels, but we have a duty of care to ensure that that is the case. However, it was Her Majesty’s chief inspector of prisons, not me, who identified the correlation between low staff numbers and the propensity for drug-taking on the prison estate.
Michael Gove
The hon. Gentleman is right to say that, if we are to deal with this problem, we must be vigilant in ensuring that we have not just staff but the training that is needed to support them.
The hon. Gentleman’s mention of the chief inspector of prisons gives me an opportunity to repeat what I had a chance to say only briefly yesterday, and again to express my gratitude to Nick Hardwick for the role that he has played. His latest annual report certainly does not make comfortable reading for someone in my job, but I would far rather have someone who told us the truth, and ensured that we performed our duties as elected representatives and as Ministers in the full knowledge of the truth, than someone who felt, for whatever reason, that they had to varnish or edit the truth. As I think most people would acknowledge, Nick Hardwick and I do not come from exactly the same point on the ideological spectrum, but because I am committed to using every talented voice and experienced pair of hands that I can find in order to improve our prison system, I am delighted that he accepted my invitation to chair the Parole Board.
It is understandable that, during an Opposition day debate, the hon. Member for Hammersmith should point the finger at failings that he alleges are unique to the Conservatives, and it is understandable that he should focus on the trends and statistics that appear to have worsened under a Conservative Government. However, it is also appropriate to recognise that, as was pointed out by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir Edward Garnier), there were problems under Labour as well. For example, the incidence of reoffending—which I think provides a real index of the effectiveness of our prisons—is broadly unchanged. I do not say that because I want to make a partisan point; I say it merely because I want to emphasise the difficulties that we all face in improving our prison and probation service. In 2009, 46.9% of those who served custodial sentences went on to reoffend. The figure is now 45.1%. If I wanted to make a partisan point, I would say that the number of reoffenders had declined, but in fact the difference is statistically insignificant, and it is a reproach to all of us.
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
My right hon. Friend has made an important point about reoffending. I wonder whether he has had a chance to consider my suggestion that the probation and police services should be merged so that offender management outside the prison estate becomes the responsibility of the police, who, in the end, are having to pick up the pieces. Might we not see a step change in the numbers that he has just outlined if we made that move, as well as quite a large financial saving?
Michael Gove
I thank my hon. Friend for the work he did as Deputy Mayor of London, when he was responsible for policing and crime and made a significant contribution to reducing knife crime on our streets and in deploying the Metropolitan police more effectively. I think all of us would agree that prisons and probation cannot work effectively unless there is a close working relationship with the police service. However, I would caution against making a change at this point of the kind my hon. Friend suggests. It is a fascinating idea, and it has been put to me by others whom I respect, but we are just 12 months into the transforming rehabilitation programme initiated by my predecessor, and it is only appropriate that we acknowledge that that programme has already seen an increase in the number of frontline probation officers, again of more than 500.[Official Report, 23 February 2016, Vol. 606, c. 3-4MC.] Yes, it has brought in commercial expertise, but it has also brought in the charitable and voluntary sector and, for the first time, there is a direct requirement to provide support for those prisoners who leave after serving sentences of 12 months or less.
I think that was a humane and wise decision on the part of my predecessor, because we know that people who serve shorter sentences are more likely to reoffend. We can debate the factors that drive that, but what is undeniable is that if someone has served a shorter sentence—if they are part of that cohort more likely to reoffend—they deserve the support of probation just as much as, if not more than, other offenders.
The situation that used to prevail, where these offenders would be given £46 and left to their own devices as they went through the prison gate, was replaced by my predecessor and it is only appropriate that this House, whatever other criticisms it directs at this Government, acknowledges that that was a step forward for which he was responsible.
Andrew Gwynne
The right hon. Gentleman is right to highlight the persistent failure in reducing reoffending rates. Of course part of the challenge in successfully rehabilitating a prisoner is making sure their health and welfare are looked after while they are in prison and also that, when they are released from prison, there is adequate support in the community, particularly for their mental health needs. What more does the right hon. Gentleman think should be done, that is not being done at present, to improve that?
Michael Gove
The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point, and let me answer it by saying a little more about my analysis—our shared view on the Front Bench—of what contributes to crime, and therefore how we might reduce it.
There are more than 85,000 people in our prisons; 5,000 of them are female prisoners, and almost 10,000 are foreign national offenders, and we obviously want to try to reduce that number by having as many as possible serving sentences abroad. Of the remainder, some have made a conscious decision to do the wrong thing; they have crossed a moral line and society has to make it clear, with a serious punishment, that they should not be let out. It is not just that they are a danger to others; we have got to enforce the principle—the clear, bright line between right and wrong. But there are others in our prison system who will be suffering from mental health problems, and sometimes very serious personality disorders, and while they pose a danger to the public, they also pose a danger to themselves. We need to ensure we improve what is called diversion and liaison—the early detection of these problems and making sure there is an appropriate health solution—and if we do need to keep them safe, whether in a secure hospital or a prison, we also need to ensure that there is the right mental health provision for them.
One of the things I have been doing in the last two weeks is talking to the Secretary of State for Health and the Minister with responsibility for prisoners’ health, my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Ben Gummer), and I am due to talk to Simon Stevens, the director of the NHS, in order to ensure we can develop a more sophisticated approach. I am also grateful for the work done in this area by Lord Bradley, whose report on offenders’ mental health under the last Government contains a number of powerful recommendations.
Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)
I have done work in my local area of Tyneside with a veterans group, many of whom are suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder. One thing we have done is develop work in the United States, which has a veterans’ treatment course. The course in Buffalo is the best example; it was the first to be set up and, out of 300 cases, not one reoffended. Will the Secretary of State meet the people involved in this work to try to see if we can make this work, in everybody’s interests?
Michael Gove
The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. We already take seriously the position of veterans in the criminal justice system. At the behest of my predecessor, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Stephen Phillips) has produced a report on the care of those offenders, and the Minister for Policing, Crime and Criminal Justice, is carrying forward that work. In particular, he is working with Care after Combat, a charity that supports offenders who have been in the military.
The hon. Gentleman’s point about problem-solving courts is also powerful. When I had the opportunity to visit the United States of America, I saw how veterans courts, drugs courts and problem-solving courts can make a real difference in keeping people out of jail and helping them to put their lives back together, so I would be more than happy to ensure that the Minister talks to the hon. Gentleman.
The hon. Gentleman’s intervention brings me on to my next point. Yes, there are some people in our prisons who deserve to be there because they have done wrong. Yes, there are some people in our prisons who are there because of mental health or personality disorders. And then there are other people who have made profound mistakes, crossed the line and committed crimes, but whose actions deserve to be placed in context. I am not for a moment suggesting that the pain a victim feels is any less as a result of the difficult circumstances that some people have been brought up in, but if we want to ensure that there are fewer victims and less pain, we need to ask ourselves what led that young man or woman into criminal activity.
In many cases, the individual will have grown up in a home where violence was the norm. They might have witnessed domestic violence in their very early years. Their brain development might have been arrested by a failure to ensure that there was a loving and secure attachment to a parent or carer who put them first. There might have been an absence not only of love but of loving authority—perhaps no one cared enough about them to teach them the difference between right and wrong. Someone who grew up in such circumstances could go to primary school ill-equipped to benefit from good teaching and go on to secondary school still unable to read.
Such people could find in the culture of gangs on the streets a warmth, a false camaraderie and a sense of self-esteem that they had never found anywhere else. That individual could then go on to commit crimes. Of course, once that individual has broken the law, justice must be done. However, as well as ensuring that justice is done in our courts, we must also ensure that social justice is done on our streets. That means looking at some of the root causes—family breakdown, substance abuse, domestic violence—that contribute to the difficulties that these young people grow up in.
Kit Malthouse
My right hon. Friend is making a profound and powerful point, with which I agree. Does he also agree that the involvement of alcohol is one of the largest drivers of short sentences, and that it often tips people over the edge? He will be aware of the compulsory sobriety project, which has been running in Croydon with powerful results. Now that he has licensed its use across the country, will he put some of his Department’s resources into spreading this disposal, which avoids the need for people to go to prison altogether and is a much more effective treatment for the problem? In removing alcohol, it removes offending.
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. The Minister for Policing has been closely involved in that pilot. So far as we can see, sobriety tags have made a significant contribution to reducing reoffending, and we hope that they will be able to form part of a significant extension of what is known as electronic monitoring, or tagging—in other words, ways in which individuals can be monitored to ensure that they stay on the straight and narrow, as far as possible, in a cheaper and more effective way that can often enable them to maintain their links with work, family or education, which are critical to improving their lives.
That brings me to the hon. Member for Hammersmith’s challenge: what are we going to do about these things? I will be honest: I came into this job not expecting to be in it, but I have found it fascinating and challenging and I have found some of those with whom I have to work inspiring. In contrast to the time that I spent at the Department for Education—I had three years to shadow; when I came to office I had a clear plan that I wished to implement, although not one that necessarily recommended itself to all parts of the House—I have deliberately set out to listen and to learn. I have asked people whose idealism is not in doubt and whose ability is clear to explore the landscape for me. That is why I asked Sally Coates, who cares about the education of the disadvantaged, to look at education in our prison system. Her report will be published in the next couple of months.
It is already clear, as a result of a decision made at the time of the autumn statement, that money that was previously spent by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills will now be spent by us in a way that suits prisoners and the needs of offenders and of wider society rather than the requirements of a further education framework that was not appropriate for all offenders. More will be said by Sally in due course and by Charlie Taylor, who has devoted most of his career to working with some of the most difficult young people and who, in his review of the youth estate, has drawn preliminary lessons similar to those highlighted by the hon. Member for Hammersmith.
Yes, it is the case that young offenders are, in many cases, better cared for in smaller environments. Yes, it is the case that they need structure and discipline in their lives, but they also need a clear path towards educational attainment. One problem in our prisons is that, for many, educational attainment is capped by the way in which qualifications have been funded and educational providers have been procured. Prisoners have had diet after diet after diet of level 2 qualifications, which initially may give them a sense of purpose and renewed hope, but ultimately end up with them on a hamster wheel where they are not making the progress—in terms of education and of rehabilitation—that we would like to see.
I have addressed the issue of improving education. I have also asked the Under-Secretary to lead a programme to ensure that we can get more prisoners working fruitfully. That will mean: building on the success of organisations such as Halfords and Timpson that have done so much to recruit offenders; incarnating the lessons that the Mayor of London pointed out last week when he said that many employers found that ex-offenders are more honest and more reliable than many of those whom they hire; and providing new incentives for prison governors to give their inmates meaningful work. We must think hard about how we can expand the use of release on temporary licence.
We need to give governors more power to ensure that offenders, at a particular point in their sentence when the governor is as sure as he or she can be that that individual’s risk to others is diminishing, have the opportunity to go out during the day to work or to acquire educational qualifications to prepare them for life on the outside. Almost every prisoner will be let out at some point; we cannot keep every criminal in jail forever. If we are to release prisoners at some point, it is far, far better that they have, by a process of acclimatisation and growth, learned what it is to work responsibly in an appropriate environment or to work hard to acquire the educational qualifications that will give them a new start.
As well as giving governors more power over release on temporary licence, we want to give them more autonomy overall. In offering governors more autonomy, I know that there will be some—perhaps it will be colleagues in the Prison Officers Association—who think that this is a Trojan horse for privatisation or for a bigger role for the private sector. Let me say two things. First, the private sector has had something to offer in prisons, and that is something that unites both Front-Bench teams. There was a growth in the number of private prisons under Labour, and private prisons such as G4S’s Prison Parc in Bridgend do an exemplary job. That is underlined in every inspection.
I want to see governors who are currently in the system—people who joined the National Offender Management Service because of their idealism—given more freedom within the state sector to do what they do best. Baldly, my model is one of academy principals or of the chief executives and clinical directors of NHS foundation trusts who have shown that, with increased autonomy within a structure of clear accountability, they can achieve significant improvements.
I began by saying that I was grateful for the tone in which this debate was opened by the hon. Member for Hammersmith and I am looking forward to hearing and reading as many of the contributions as possible. Let me apologise to the House for the fact that I will have to leave the Chamber at 5.30, although I hope to return at 6.30. Every single contribution to this debate matters. All 85,000 of the prison population, which is so often out of sight and out of mind, are individuals whom we should see not as liabilities but as potential assets. Many of them have led broken lives and many of them have brought pain and misery into the lives of others, but we want to ensure that, in the future, they can contribute to our society rather than bring more pain and misery.
We are tough on crime in the Conservative party, and we appreciate that really being tough on crime means being intellectually tough enough to wrestle with the problems of why crime occurs and how to stop criminals from offending again. What is truly soft on crime is being intellectually soft and reaching for easy, simple soundbites instead of intellectually rigorous solutions, and that is why I commend the Government’s prison reform programme to the House.
Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP)
The question of how prisons cope with offenders safely and securely is incredibly important, so I welcome the opportunity to speak in the debate. The concern that prisons are becoming an increasingly dangerous environment for staff and prisoners must be addressed. On the one hand, we have people with the incredibly tough job of regulating and ensuring the safety of those in prisons and, on the other hand, we have offenders who are themselves vulnerable, especially in relation to their mental health. The claim by the outgoing chief inspector of prisons for England and Wales that prisons are at their worst for 10 years is therefore alarming. Deaths in prison custody, incidents of self-harm and assaults on staff are grave issues, so it is important not only that they are tackled, but that we discover their root causes and develop legislation that aims to curb negative behaviours.
Prisons are a devolved issue in Scotland, and the approach of the Scottish Government is distinct from that for England and Wales. While we might be dealing with similar challenges on crime and punishment, we respond to offenders differently. The strategy in Scotland reflects our reshaping of penal policy. The decision not to proceed with the women’s prison in Inverclyde highlights the fact that the Scottish Government are listening and want to reform prisons to make things better for those serving their sentences and the people who work there. Funding will instead go to alternative initiatives further to reduce reoffending with an emphasis on rehabilitation and effective reintegration. Reducing reoffending is a key aspect of resolving the problems faced by the prison system and society as a whole. Reoffending costs about £3 billion a year. It creates victims, damages communities and wastes potential.
The Scottish Government recognise the specific needs of female offenders. Some £1.5 million of community-based justice services for women and support for specialist services for female offenders have been costed. They are based on recommendations by the commission on women offenders and include intensive support to overcome problems caused by alcohol, drugs, mental health and domestic abuse trauma, as evidence shows that they can be drivers of offending behaviour.
The change of policy has been widely accepted. Sharon Stirrat, the director of operations west of Sacro, the community justice organisation, voiced her support of the Scottish Government’s plans. She said that Sacro supports
“the use of credible alternatives to imprisonment for women, many of whom present with multiple and complex issues. The strong focus on recovery, improved partnership working and the investment in community-based services offer an encouraging way forward.”
The Scottish Government believe that short-term prison sentences are ineffective and contribute to several of the problems cited in the motion, yet community-based alternatives such as electronic monitoring and community support initiatives can curb the violence, abuses and ill mental health associated with prison life. Such an approach has already been successful in Scotland.
The Scottish National party’s vision for Scottish penal reform reflects our aim of trying to mitigate some of the effects of austerity on vulnerable people. Through such reform, the SNP offers a safe and effective alternative to the prison system with a focus on rehabilitation, reintegration and a reduction in reoffending. The policy is deliverable within the Scottish budget and tackles the root causes of the very issues that Labour opposes in its motion.
Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Con)
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir Edward Garnier) said that some of the dire descriptions of the state of affairs in the prison system could have been given in the House several times in the past few decades. Twenty-five years ago, when I was Home Secretary, and responsible for the prison system, we had debates such as this one, and we have not made enough progress since then, I quite agree.
I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor has provided a new impetus with positive new ideas, and the tone of his speech—and the tone of his speeches since he began to address the issue after, as he said, studying the subject and propounding the way he meant to go on—has been extremely reassuring. The prison system is what we are all rightly concentrating on, as that is where the problems are. I agree with what has been said: the prison system serves two purposes. One is just retribution and punishment, both for serious crime where people have deliberately decided for personal advantage to defy the law, and for people who commit dangerous and violent acts when they lose, or fail to keep, self-control.
The second principal purpose of prison is to try to reform prisoners and to try to ensure that as many of them as possible are cured of their former behaviour when they leave prison so that they find a new purpose in life and do not offend again. Every prisoner reformed means fewer crimes and fewer victims in future. I am delighted that in his approach to his task the Lord Chancellor has put rehabilitation of offenders, where offenders are prepared to take advantage of the opportunities, at the forefront of his aims.
I made speeches in the last Parliament when I was Lord Chancellor covering much of this ground, but I will not repeat any of that. Those fascinated by my ancient views can go back and read them again. My right hon. Friend has spoken about raising the standard of education in prison. Far too many prisoners do not attain any basic standards of literacy or numeracy. Raising skills levels for outside employment is important, as far too many prisoners have never had a job in their life, and we should bring yet more businesses in to join the existing excellent businesses that give proper skills training to prisoners in prison.
We need to tackle drug abuse, which remains scandalously high in prison. We must deal with mental health problems, which are the biggest single issue in raising the healthcare standards of people in prison. I agree with all of that, and I support my right hon. Friend’s enlightened policies. Rehabilitation has been the Government’s agenda ever since we were first elected. Looking back at our performance, I concede that I am disappointed by the progress we have made. Prison management in the Ministry of Justice is infinitely better than it was 25 years ago, and some things have improved. Staff are keen to see the progress described by my right hon. Friend, and there are successes in the treatment of women offenders and young offenders, despite the problems in some institutions, as has been said.
The test that I apply is on the success that we have achieved in rehabilitation. No one shrinks from the fact that we still have to confess that 45% of adult offenders reoffend within 12 months of release. For offenders who serve sentences of less than 12 months, the figure, I believe, is 58%, which means that the prison system is not working as effectively as it should to protect honest citizens outside.
No one knows exactly why that problem is so persistent, but I remain strongly of the view that part of the trouble, if we look at enlightened policies not delivering the results—that is the test we should consider—is the fact that there are too many prisoners in prison. We cannot deliver these policies in squalid overcrowded slums where we do not have the space or the resources to deliver education, training, proper healthcare and better attitudes of the kind we wish to give.
A few years ago when I was Lord Chancellor I complained that the prison population had doubled since I was Home Secretary, despite the fact that the level of crime in the country had markedly dropped. I do not think there was any relation between the two because crime has dropped across the entire western world, in those countries that have shortened their incarceration rate and in those that have extended it. We now have the highest incarceration rate in democratic Europe. We are second only to the United States, where many states now are making determined efforts with even right-wing leadership to get the incarceration rate down and get out of the prisons the people who should not be there.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?
Mr Clarke
No. I am sorry. I know my hon. Friend’s views. That is not the reason that I am not giving way. I look forward to hearing them in the short time available, but I do not want to cut anybody out of this debate.
I believe that we should set out as one of our objectives reducing the prison population. I say to my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor, who is still in his place, that I set out to do that, not only because I believed that there were people in prison who should not be there, but because that reduction underpinned the bold spending commitments that I offered to the Treasury and which it gratefully accepted. I proposed a 30% cut in the budget of the Department that I had walked into, partly based—there were other savings as well—on getting down the ridiculously excessive prison population. I got it sagging, but it has gone up again, and it is about where it was when we came into office.
My right hon. Friend should not shrink from sentencing reform. He should consult my friend Lord Justice Treacy, who is in charge of the Sentencing Council, face up to the fact that mandatory minimum levels of all kinds do not match the reality of the varied circumstances of cases, develop better non-custodial sentences and so on. There is a whole speech to be made on that.
Finally, I shall concentrate on one positive suggestion, on which I think my right hon. Friend could proceed, serving the cause of justice, which above all we have to follow, and also meeting the needs of the moment by reducing unnecessary overcrowding. I urge him to get rid of the last vestiges of indeterminate sentences and those who are still serving such sentences in prison. Those sentences were introduced in 2003, they took off surprisingly, and I abolished them in 2012. They were sentences where a minimum tariff was given to reflect the crime but the prisoner would be held in prison indefinitely until he was able to satisfy the Parole Board that he was no longer a risk, or rather that the risks were manageable. I assumed that once we abolished those sentences so that no more would receive them, we would not keep for long those who were already serving such sentences as they steadily earned their release. That has not happened.
When I was Lord Chancellor, there were over 6,000 prisoners serving indeterminate sentences. The forecast was that there would be 8,000 or 9,000 by 2015. We have over 4,000 still there. Of those, three quarters have now exceeded the tariff—the sentence that the judge gave them for their offence—and 392 prisoners have already served five times the sentence imposed on them. Some of them will never be released unless we change the sentencing system. My right hon. Friend has the power to do so.
I wanted to get rid of those sentences altogether and let people out as they reached the tariff. Senior colleagues were understandably nervous and cautious about that and I was not allowed to take the step I wanted to take to achieve that. I took the power in the Bill. If my right hon. Friend studies the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, he will see that he has the power to alter the terms of reference for the Parole Board. At the moment, the individual prisoner has to prove to the Parole Board that he poses no risk. Of course, no prisoner could make any of us certain that he will not reoffend when released; we just hope that most of them will not. The burden should be the other way around: we should only keep a prisoner indefinitely—some of them will stay for life if we are not careful—when there is reason to believe that he would pose a risk if released.
There are 4,000 prisoners that my right hon. Friend could steadily and more rapidly get rid of. I think that easing the pressures on the Prison Service would help him achieve all his goals. I very much hope that he achieves them. If he can deliver what he has decided to try to deliver, he will indeed be a great reforming Lord Chancellor.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. After we hear from Ian Lavery, I will put a six-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches.
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)
The tone of this debate has been very civil, so let us hope that that continues—I am not sure whether it will. I am reassured by the civil tone taken by the Justice Secretary, a man I have a lot of respect for, as I do for the Prisons Minister, who I have met on many occasions to discuss the prison nearest my constituency. The Opposition’s motion is well crafted and spells out clearly the situation facing not only the Prison Service, but the probation service—the debate so far has not focused enough on the probation service.
It is absolutely clear that the Prison Service is in utter chaos. Now, I am not looking to put the blame on anybody. I am not looking to hold these six fingers up and say, “You’ve been in for six years, so you should have cleared it by now.” And I do not want anybody to intervene and ask, “What did you do when you were in power?” That is not the issue; the issue is how we put this situation right. The Prison Service is in utter chaos, and I am not bothered about what anybody says, because I have had constituents coming to see me about it, including prisoners, members of the public, teachers, chaplains, people who work on the prisons estate and members of the Prison Officers Association. It is right to place on the record our high praise for the men and women in the Prison Service and the probation service, who do a fantastic job in the most difficult circumstances. It is important that they realise that Members of this House understand the problems they face.
It was not just the unions or individuals who have suggested that the Prison Service has deteriorated; it was the chief inspector of prisons himself. He said that they were the worst he had seen them for 10 years. At the same time as the prison population continues to increase—a record 85,000-plus people are now in prison—we are seeing a reduction in the number of staff on the prisons estate. We have more prisoners but fewer people looking after them. Surely that is a recipe for disaster.
The Justice Secretary said there have been 500 new recruits over the past year or so, but we must consider the staff reductions on the prisons estate before then. We lost lots of people with tremendous experience from the Prison Service, and the people who filled that hole are on lower wages, have worse terms and conditions and lack any experience in what is an important occupation. We lost that experience from the Prison Service and have not regained that ground.
All of us, as politicians, have deep concerns about this situation, and I will tell Members why. This has been mentioned already, but let us look at the bare statistics on what is happening in the Prison Service as we sit here debating. Deaths in custody are up by 14%, self-harming is up by 21%, and prisoner-on-prisoner assaults are up by 13%. There were 4,156 staff assaulted by prisoners last year—a 20% increase, which has got to horrify everyone—and 572 serious assaults on staff, an increase of 42%, as Members on both sides of the House have said. At the very least, we should be ensuring that members of the Prison Service, who are doing the job that they are paid to do, should be safe in doing so. These rates show that there must be fear and stress every time they get out of bed in the morning or the evening. We are not looking after them—the statistics show that. We have seen the horrific injuries that many of them have received while doing a day’s work to put shoes on the kids and bread on the table. We should be looking at ways and means of ensuring that these statistics are greatly reduced.
The right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) talked about reoffending rates. The adult reoffending rate is now 45.8%—that is wholly unacceptable—and the juvenile reoffending rate is 66.5%. We have to get to the bottom of this, because if we do not, the rates will continue to increase and there will be further chaos on the prison estate. It is frightening. I am not being alarmist, but the Prison Service is in complete and utter meltdown and mayhem.
When we talk about the privatisation of prisons, which has happened many times, it is said, “Well, the Opposition privatised prisons when they were in government.” That is true—it is pointless my standing here trying to erase historical facts—but that does not make it any better when we see what is happening in some privatised prisons today. Sodexo was the successful bidder to operate HMP Northumberland, the prison nearest to my constituency. Immediately, the Sodexo model was to reduce the workforce from 440 to 270. That frightened so many experienced people—I have mentioned them before—that there was a rush for redundancies and many of them left the service, something that we did not want to see.
People who come to see me are frightened. We hear reports about what is happening in the likes of HMP Northumberland with the drugs and the Spice. Spice must be unbelievable. I am not sure if anybody here will admit to having taken it. Certainly I have not, and it would not be my intention to do so. People reckon that Spice is rife—that everybody in the prison is on it, and if not there is something wrong with them, so they should be on it. How are they getting this stuff into the prison? Why has it been allowed to escalate to the proportions it has? Someone mentioned earlier the Bill on legal highs that is passing through Parliament. It does not matter whether these highs are legal or illegal—we must stamp them out on the prison estate, because they are causing problems with violence and everything else associated with the things we are discussing.
Alcohol is a huge problem. There is alcohol in the prisons. People are making their own alcohol. Not last Christmas but the Christmas before, there was an emergency situation in HMP Northumberland where the contact room could not get in contact with one of the prison officers. He was a man who had just been employed; he had not even been checked. He was one of the people who had no experience, but he knew from where he lived a few of the prisoners, who were his mates. Those in charge looked for him and tried to contact him—this was on new year’s day—and when they eventually went up on the wing, where the doors were open and everyone in the prison was having a whale of a time, they found not the prisoners lying intoxicated on their beds, but the prison officer. The real crime was that the keys for the wing were lying there for anybody to get hold of, which I believe is considered a cardinal sin.
I have raised such points with the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous), who has responsibility for prisons. Similar things are happening. We have people with mobile phones arranging crimes from their cells. That cannot be right, and we must stamp it out. We have discussed such things. We have bullying and intimidation as we have never seen them before. Another incident at HMP Northumberland that we need to look at happened when there were not enough prison staff to ensure the segregation of vulnerable prisoners from ordinary, mainstream ones. That caused absolute mayhem, as hon. Members can understand. Faeces were found in the vulnerable prisoners’ food, which cannot be allowed to happen in the modern day.
I will wrap up simply by saying that I hope, in this debate on prisons and probation, that someone will speak about the probation side. Since privatisation, the fragmentation of the probation service has caused lots of problems within the service, which is something else we need to consider.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. There is now a six-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches.
Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
It is a pleasure and a privilege to speak in this very important debate. I recognise the serious tone that has been adopted by hon. Members thus far.
I particularly commend the Lord Chancellor for his immensely impressive analysis. He was spot on both about the cause of offending and about the way forward. I commend his analysis to my hon. Friends not just as thorough and thoughtful, but, from my point of view, as profoundly Conservative. As he rightly observed, none of us has a monopoly on understanding the need for prison reform.
The issues are intractable. When I started to make prison visits as a young barrister some 30—nearer 40—years ago, institutions or facilities such as Wandsworth, Holloway and Wormwood Scrubs were already unsatisfactory and not fit for purpose. They have not got better since, and the pressures have become greater. The pressures of overcrowding and of contraband entering prisons existed then—contraband has long been an issue; what has changed is simply the nature of the technology of the contraband and the means by which it is brought in—so these are long-standing issues.
The Lord Chancellor and his team deserve credit for addressing such issues, and particularly for having the imagination to replace our ageing Victorian prison estate when it is virtually impossible to carry out serious rehabilitative work, and given that dealing with the very real mental health and psychological issues of many prisoners is and should also be a top priority. Now that he has set out a vision, I hope that the Lord Chancellor will very swiftly give the House detailed proposals on how we can move forward.
The Justice Committee is currently carrying out an inquiry concentrating on young adult offenders, which is a particularly difficult subset of the prison population. The inquiry is influenced by the excellent review by Lord Harris of Haringey; in fairness, I should say that his work was done at the request of the previous Lord Chancellor in the coalition Government. The Government have responded to Lord Harris’s review, but I would argue that its detail—it goes beyond purely the specifics of young offenders to draw many other lessons—deserves a more detailed and substantive response than has been made so far. Much that is of general application can be taken from the review.
Safety in prisons is a critical issue. I do not doubt the quality of our prison staff. In the course of our inquiry, the Select Committee has visited Holloway prison and the young offenders institution at Aylesbury, where excellent people are working. My concern is that the senior management of NOMS do not always give the impression that, in their operations on the ground, they have worked through in practice the assurances they have given us in the Select Committee or elsewhere. It is important that NOMS has a genuinely flexible and responsive management system. There is scope for further review of the way in which NOMS delivers its laudable objectives in practice. I am sure that the new chief inspector, whom we look forward to having back before the Select Committee in about three months’ time, will have a strategy on that matter that he will want to discuss with the Lord Chancellor.
The Select Committee was particularly struck during the inquiry by the evidence we took from the families of young people who had died in custody. It was profoundly moving and demonstrated that there have been repeated and needless failings in some areas, such as sharing information and acting swiftly and decisively on information that could have been addressed. Those things can be put right through fairly basic measures.
There are successes and failings in the prison estate, but neither the successes nor the failings are unique to either privatised or publicly run prisons. We need to be realistic and not simplistic about that. We welcome the evidence that the prisons Minister and the chief executive of NOMS have given to us, but we think that there needs to be a specific programme, with action plans, to tackle violence and self-harm in prisons. I agree that there must certainly be more of an emphasis on rehabilitation.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) was right to refer to the pointlessness of continuing with the so-called indeterminate public protection sentences. Yesterday, I was at the same event as the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter), where that point, among others, was made powerfully. We could start work on that swiftly.
We should recognise that a structured life and meaningful work are important in prison. Perhaps we should see whether we can remove some of the legal constraints that prevent meaningful and paid employment. Perhaps it would be right for prisoners to do work that is taxable. The money that they earned could be set aside for them and their families upon release. The Lord Chancellor’s vision points in that direction and I hope that he will give us more detail on how that might be achieved.
Finally, it is important that we have a robust inspectorate to ensure compliance. I wish the new inspector well. I hope that the protocol that was referred to when the permanent secretary and the outgoing chief inspector gave evidence to us recently will be put in place swiftly to ensure that resourcing and independence are not an issue in the ability of the inspectorate to deliver its important work.
All in all, this is an important and thoughtful debate. Those who believe in genuine reform and not in simplistic sloganising, and those who have spent much of their working lives in the system will welcome it.
Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) for his tenacity in at last securing this Opposition day debate on prisons.
In preparing this speech, I thought about the different angles from which I could come at the topic. I could have picked radicalisation, women offenders, mental health, drugs, violence, opportunities for early intervention and diversion, or young people. There are plenty of ways to approach the topic of prisons, but I will talk mostly about staff. I spent five years shadowing prisons Ministers. As one would expect, I visited prisons regularly and met hundreds of prison staff, as well as offenders and victims of crime. I cannot tell you, Mr Deputy Speaker, how poorly understood, undervalued and ignored our criminal justice workforce feel and, indeed, have become.
That was brought home to me in the starkest possible way when a custody officer, Lorraine Barwell, lost her life at the hands of a prisoner at work. When serving armed forces personnel lose their lives in the course of duty or when, occasionally, police officers sadly lose their lives in the course of duty, their names are rightly read out at the beginning of Prime Minister’s questions that week. No such honour was afforded to Lorraine. I know that no disrespect was intended, but it does illustrate the disparity in the esteem in which prison officers and other uniformed services are held.
Those of us in the House with an interest in prisons policy—it is great that there is so much interest today that there is a speaking limit—have the capability and, I would say, the duty to change that, and change it we must. There is no doubt in my mind that our prisons are in a dreadful state, but, with the right leadership from the Government, it is prison staff who hold the key to unlocking the rehabilitation revolution that we all want.
Several Government Members have said that it is all very well our presenting this motion to the House, but we could have presented it six years ago, in 2010, when things were just as bad. They should take absolutely no pride or comfort in that fact. I want to be part of a Parliament that sees improvement. The opportunity to deliver the rehabilitation revolution that the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) promised us—and that I believe he so dearly wanted and tried to deliver—has been completely wasted in the last five years. We have seen a deterioration of standards in our prisons and no improvement at all.
So how bad is it really? It is my view—and the data from the Ministry of Justice bear this out—that our jails have never been less safe. Further, the interventions put in place by Government have been ineffective in putting prisons on course for improvement. They are getting worse; they are not getting better. Last year there were 95 self-inflicted deaths in prison. That means that, once every four days, someone in prison takes their own life. There have been seven murders in our prisons. These events are devastating for the families concerned, they sometimes leave victims feeling cheated and they can be deeply traumatic for staff.
The secret to safer prisons is in staffing, and I do not mean just staffing numbers—we have spoken about that already—although that is incredibly important. What I am talking about is what our staff actually do. All staff I have spoken to can tell us of occasions when they believed they made a difference, but they can also tell us of many more occasions when they wished they could have done more. I am all for bringing experts and specialists into prisons to help to deliver education, rehabilitative courses and the like—some of them work and do some good—but what we should be doing more of is using the experienced staff resource that is present on the wing, day in, day out. When a visit is cancelled, when news of a loved one dying needs imparting or when a fight breaks out, it is the officers who are there. They are the staff who should be demonstrating, and are demonstrating on a daily basis, how to keep one’s cool, de-escalate a situation or sometimes, for example, even just how to take a joke properly. It is not psychologists, counsellors or boards of visitors who are present; it is prison officers. They are undervalued, undertrained and underutilised.
There are undeniably problems with substance misuse and mental health, particularly for women prisoners, when we look at the suicide rate.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I am interested to hear the hon. Lady refer to substance abuse. She will know that the figures indicate that there is a greater incidence of those addicted to substances in prison than there is outside. There is also the issue of how the drugs come in. How does she feel the Prison Service should stop drugs coming through the prison gates—perhaps the Minister could respond to that—and ensure that those inside who were not drug users before do not become drug users when they leave?
Jenny Chapman
I am extremely grateful for that intervention. The way we solve that is through staff, because they are there and it is their job to deal with it. There are not enough of them and they are not sufficiently well trained to perform that task to the standard that we want them to. I want our prisons to be safer, because if they are safer, they are doing their job of rehabilitation properly.
I want to raise one thing with the Minister. The Harris report on deaths in custody recommended that the Minister should phone the family of anybody who dies in prison by taking their own life. He has rejected that recommendation, but I would ask him to adopt it today—to phone the family of anyone who takes their own life and any member of staff who finds somebody who has taken their own life. That would focus his attention, but just as importantly it would focus the attention of his officials and senior staff in NOMS. Facing that reality is something that no official wants to do. They certainly do not want to have to prepare their Minister to do it. There is one self-inflicted death every four days. That is not good enough. He needs to take personal responsibility for that. It would be a welcome move on his part if he could commit that small amount of time to contact the family of someone who dies in our prisons, in our care, each time it occurs.
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
Sadly, I cannot support the motion on the Order Paper, but I agree with parts of it. As the hon. Member for Darlington (Jenny Chapman) said, we have high rates of violence, self-harm and drug use in prisons, which I agree puts pressure on our NHS. I agree that no staff member should have to go to work to face threats to their safety. Who is not concerned with rehabilitation? The question concerns what we do about it.
I want to focus on prisons. Let me begin by reading a short passage to the House:
“The justice budget is far too high. Over the course of the last two decades, the vision for the justice system has been a maximalist one: expanding the reach of the system into people’s lives; expanding state interference through…legislation; expanding the numbers of people entering the courts and, ultimately, entering prison. The justice budget therefore could and should be cut substantially, but it must be cut in the right way.”
Hon. Members could be forgiven for thinking that that is a quote from a Conservative manifesto or a right-leaning think-tank, but they would be wrong. It is the opening paragraph from the 2015 spending review submission from the Howard League for Penal Reform.
I believe that we have a golden opportunity in this country. We have a new Government, a reforming Justice Secretary—my goodness, did he not prove that today?—a tough financial environment and a third sector crying out for a different approach. It is therefore good that the Prime Minister said the following in his party conference speech last autumn:
“We have got to get away from the sterile lock-em-up or let-em-out debate, and get smart about this”.
He was quite right.
Our aim has to be to reduce the incidence of crime and the factors that pull people into the criminal justice system in the first place. Is our reason for doing so money? Yes, it is about money and the need to find big savings in the Department, but it is also about effective government. I believe—this is not often said in the House—that it is also the Christian thing to do. Nearly half of all inmates go into prison with no qualifications. Many of them come out with none. All the problems that may have led them to that life remain unchanged, including, as the Secretary of State said, drug addiction, mental health problems and childhood abuse. Prison is literally locking poverty into our country and we as a society are paying the bills.
What is the intellectual basis for that? I have never been more sure that prison reform is compassionate Conservatism in action, both financial and social. That is why I would argue that criminal justice policy is not solely about the Ministry of Justice; it is as much about our education and welfare reforms. In my opinion, prison is the ultimate state failure, so a smaller secure estate is a smaller, cheaper and more effective state. That should be a cause that all Conservatives can rally around.
Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that, if we are going to reduce the strain on our prisons, it is essential that we devise community penalties that are more robust and, frankly, more onerous, so that they can command the respect of the public, who rightly expect crime to be punished?
Steve Brine
I will come on to that. The community courts that I saw in the United States were a good step towards that. My hon. Friend will find that the Government are very interested in what is happening over there.
The Ministry of Justice is currently a demand-led Department—demand for prison places and probation services is fed by the criminal courts, which are in turn fed by the police and prosecution services, which are in turn fed by the incidence of crime. My view is that we should seek to place the penal system on a more sustainable footing by seeking to reduce demand on the system, particularly in respect of prison numbers, rather than pursuing the old, tired predict-and-provide policy.
If austerity did not force our hand, we should do it anyway. Austerity did not lead to the Right on Crime initiative in Texas, but we should look to it. The Justice Committee of the last Parliament, of which I was a member alongside the current Leader of the Opposition, visited Austin and Houston, where we met Republican state representative Jerry Madden, who is no fluffy liberal—he describes himself as a typical Texan Republican. He told us this:
“30% of the people in prison today we’re scared of - 70% we’re just mad at. We need to lock up the 30 and get a whole lot smarter about the 70.”
I think he is right. Let me be clear before anyone gets excited: this is not about throwing open the doors, but about slowing down the rate at which prisoners come in by providing less costly and more effective alternatives to sentences.
Custody should not be the only means through which society expresses its disapproval. Treatment should be a way of doing that, too. The Texan focus would therefore be to give judges options and to finally tackle the underlying causes of repeat offending. Madden made what must have been a welcome call on the Texas Governor of the time to recommend that he halve the budget earmarked for new prisoners and spend the rest on treatment instead. The drug courts that followed are one of his most striking creations. I spent an afternoon in Houston in Judge Denise Bradley’s STAR drug court in Harris County observing this new justice in action. Every one of the young people coming before it has been in prison before and is now a non-violent reoffender, which is why they are back.
Drug courts are a tough alternative. Offenders live in halfway house-style premises, but they hold jobs and maintain links with their families and, most importantly, their children. Every two weeks they come back to court for a kind of progress report. It is working. Recidivism rates in Texas are falling fast, so it is very welcome that the Government are exploring how we can bring these courts here to England and Wales.
There will always be serious offenders who need locking up and need to stay there. No one, neither here nor in Texas, is arguing any differently, but there are the others and we cannot afford the ongoing rate of state failure that they represent. I agree we should close the old Victorian prisons, but we should not just build more like-for-like. To be clear, I absolutely am saying we should reduce the prison population significantly. The Government should look again at older prisoners, the fastest-growing group in the estate, return to the 82 recommendations from Lord Bradley on the over-representation of people with mental health problems, and look again at Jean Corston’s work on women prisoners.
The Justice Secretary said, in his first major speech last summer, that there is
“treasure in the heart of man”.
I believe he is right. I believe that, like me, he is an optimist about the human condition. My right hon. Friend will know that Winston Churchill said:
“there is a treasure…in the heart of…man”—[Official Report, 20 July 1910; Vol. 19, c. 1354.]
at that Dispatch Box when he was Home Secretary with responsibility for police, prisons and prisoners. We have a much more fragmented system these days, but the basics have not changed. We can lock ’em up and spend a fortune biting off our nose to spite our face in the long run, but it is time to try something different.
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)
I welcome the tone of the debate, and I welcome the Justice Secretary’s approach in listening to those who work in the prison service and those who experience it. I have spoken to prison officers in my constituency, as well as to social workers who work with young offenders and to education workers in our prisons, in putting together my speech for this debate.
HMP Lancaster Farms is in my constituency and it employs a great number of my constituents. In the summer, I had the opportunity to visit the prison and meet staff and representatives of the Prison Officers Association. It was during that visit that I observed a control and restraint training session. It was clear that the physical requirements of being a prison officer were considerable. A concern raised with me by prison officers—they asked me to raise it in the House—is whether, with the increase in the retirement age to 68, we are expecting our prison officers to remain in effective service until that age, given what they face with incredibly strong, often young prisoners who challenge them physically as well as verbally.
Since November, it has been a criminal offence to throw items into a prison without authorisation, but at Lancaster Farms 36 parcels have been thrown over the fence and retrieved by staff. One such parcel contained a hunting knife—a horrific weapon that could have done a massive amount of damage had it made it into the hands of the prisoner it was intended for. During my visit, I had the opportunity to speak with Sarah Rigby, the POA branch chair at HMP Lancaster Farms. She raised concerns about the reduced staffing levels she has seen in the eight years she has worked at the prison. In the interests of listening to the voices in the profession, I hope the House will indulge me if I read from an email she sent me yesterday:
“the reduced staffing levels do mean that my colleagues and I do not feel as safe or confident in dealing with prisoners as we previously have done. When I first started working at Lancaster Farms there could be between 8 and 10 prison officers to supervise meal time when all of the wing would be unlocked. This meant that if a prisoner became non-compliant, or there was an incident (a fight, an assault for example) there was an adequate amount of staff to deal with the incident and to continue to supervise the rest of the wing. There are now 3 Prison Officers to supervise at meal times when the whole wing is unlocked and the majority of the time it is very difficult to find enough staff to ensure there are the minimum 3 we require before we are able to unlock. This is stressful and impacts on both staff and prisoners alike. It can also mean you deal with a situation very differently if you find yourself isolated with a prisoner threatening you. This would not have happened when we had more staff as there was always someone available to come to your aid. The reduced staffing levels also have an impact on prisoners in that we struggle to deliver as high a level of care as we used to be able to. There is little time for general conversation and for building good staff/prisoner relationships.”
The latter point ties in with the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Jenny Chapman).
In all my meetings with Sarah, she has always been passionate about her job—she is passionate about the rehabilitation of prisoners—but the reduced staffing levels are clearly distressing for her and her colleagues working with these vulnerable adults and trying to do their best by them. Assault is a fairly regular occurrence. I recently took on some casework on behalf of two prison officers at Lancaster Farms who were assaulted when a mixture of urine and faeces was thrown at them. The prisoner was prosecuted by the police, but when the victims are asked for their victim impact statements after the prisoner has been sentenced, what message does that send to our prison staff? It sends a message to prisoners that staff are there to be abused and assaulted with little or no consequences for their actions. This view is shared by prison officers I have spoken to in my constituency.
This week in Lancaster Farms, three members of staff were injured in an incident when restraining two prisoners who would not stop fighting. Further to this, two female officers have been assaulted in the last week. Sarah told me that
“neither were considered to be ‘serious’ as there were no visible injuries. Speaking from experience...there may be no visible injuries but these incidents always have a negative impact on staff - it is irrelevant whether or not they are considered to be serious.”
These incidents and experiences of prison staff at HMP Lancaster Farms are sadly far from unique. The Government are presiding over a crisis in our prisons. Too many of our prisons are unsafe, overcrowded, understaffed and violent. It is not right that people go to work fearing violence, but that is the sad reality for our prison officers.
The latest statistics, which have been mentioned, are shocking: a 42% increase in the number of assaults on prison officers in the last year. Does the Minister think it acceptable that any prison officer should have to go to work facing such a threat of violence? We need the best and brightest to enter the profession to rehabilitate our prisoners. What message are we sending people considering this as a career option, when so many of them are being assaulted at work? The state of our prisons is letting down our prison staff, prisoners struggling to rehabilitate themselves, victims of crime and society.
Rebecca Harris (Castle Point) (Con)
I am delighted the Government have recognised the problems in our Prison Service that need to be addressed. In order to bring down crime rates, it is vital that we tackle reoffending rates in Britain, which we know are far too high. Those reoffending rates are no coincidence. Many prisoners who reoffend are habitual offenders who have been offered little or no rehabilitation during their time in prison. Often they have already been victims themselves. They have been failed by the inability of successive Governments, of all colours, to address problems such as drug addiction, mental health issues and poor education in wider society and the prison system.
That is why I believe it is vital to open up our prisons to many more outside organisations with new and fresh ideas. I want to mention the amazing work of my constituent, Jackie Hewitt-Main, of whom I am immensely proud, and the charity she founded, the Cascade Foundation, of which, I am proud to declare, I am a patron. The charity does amazing work. It has carried out a pilot at Chelmsford prison in Essex and is now working with the National Offender Management Service and Manchester college in Doncaster prison.
Cascade helps offenders at every stage in prison—from when they arrive, following through with education and then release and beyond, as it houses many prisoners when they leave. The primary focus is on assisting offenders who suffer from dyslexia or other learning difficulties and particularly head injuries, who have often long been overlooked and let down by their early experience in schools. We know that more than 70% of prisoners have low levels of literacy, and it is no wonder they are in prison. Many of them are not even able to take the theory part of the test for a driving licence, which would help them to get some legal work.
It is vital to approach such prisoners, but they have often not been well served by the prison education system. Many had a phobia about the classroom environment, and the novel multi-sensory techniques of the Cascade Foundation are superb for reaching those prisoners in a one-to-one way. Jackie and her team of trained ex-offenders and other prisoners use all kind of techniques, including the use of glitter, toothpaste, sand, even pastry cutters to try to engage these often illiterate prisoners, many of whom might be starting with pre-entry-level English.
By using these means, Jackie has achieved some extraordinary successes. The success stories speak for themselves and are inspirational. That is so much the case that Jackie’s work has been honoured by the TV programme “Surprise Surprise”, and she even became The Sun “wonder mum of the year” for 2015 in recognition of the work she has done with so many of these youngsters.
When Jackie was working on her programme in Chelmsford prison, she had incredible success rates in reducing reoffending. Indeed, the rates plummeted to less than 6% among the people she took on in her cohort. Six years later, the rate was massively below the national average. Three of those who had served more than 40 years in prison did not reoffend. I challenge anyone to discount looking at such an innovative idea that has brought such extraordinary success rates.
Jackie is getting amazing results in her current work in Doncaster, bringing people with pre-entry levels of English up to level 2 and beyond within a matter of months. Some make a whole year’s progress within a month, having utilised her extraordinary methods. Let me cite what John Biggin, the previous governor of Doncaster prison, said:
“The potential for sustained and often life-changing results for prisoners going through this programme cannot be underestimated…The potential for good that this programme can deliver is not only worth investing in, but embracing as part of the DNA of our prison.”
Another great success story from Doncaster prison is about an ex-prisoner called DL, who had spent virtually his entire adult life in prison for 22 years. He was deemed to be one of the most disruptive and disengaged men in the prison. He had had a troubled upbringing and successive school failures, giving him a fear of the classroom. With the use of small spaces and multi-sensory learning, he was taught to read and write the alphabet for the first time, and he subsequently made rapid progress—eight years’ progress in eight months! DL says:
“I’ve spent 22 years in prison. I’ve beaten up staff and everything. I’ve just had my 40th birthday and it’s the first one outside prison as an adult. Now I can attend job interviews and I’m planning to take the driving theory test which I’ve always feared to do before.”
I would recommend anyone not impressed by those results and the possible transformative effects that can be seen if we change our approach to rehabilitation in prison to visit the Cascade website.
I mentioned Jackie Hewitt-Main not just to draw attention to her amazing work—it is easy to tell that I am very proud of it—but to stress the transformative role that outside independently run agencies can achieve by bringing new ideas into the Prison Service. I also commend Doncaster prison because two ex-prisoners from the previous project at Chelmsford prison—Colin Nugent and Phil Aldis—have trained as teachers. These are the only ex-offenders ever to be able to teach within a prison setting. I commend the work of Doncaster prison, which is run by Serco. I say congratulations on adopting that innovative approach.
I believe that freezing funding for prisons and outside agencies to offer assistance to offenders will be an absolute disaster. We need to do more to open up to further new innovative ideas—supporting the work both of prison staff and prison governors. They should be able to innovate, to bring in new ideas and new organisations, and to experiment. We need to do something new, because much of what has been done for years has not worked. Anything that works to bring down rates of offending will also bring down the number of victims.
Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)
The corrosive effect of imprisonment on young people, particularly those entering custody for the first time, is absolutely appalling. Is incarceration, in its present form, suitable for the overwhelming majority of young people? I believe that prevention is far better than cure, and that if we catch them when they are young, we can do so much good.
Report after report highlights the vulnerability of most of these young people, who have been bullied, abused and neglected, emotionally, physically and sexually, and it also highlights their lack of education. If prison is to be justified, as a last resort, it must operate in a small, rehabilitative and therapeutic environment. I speak on the basis of my experience as chairman of Red Bank, a small secure children’s home in St Helens North, when I was leader of the borough council. The staff and board of the home were absolutely committed to the young people’s reform, care and rehabilitation, and they were treated with the respect and empathy that such children need in order to develop trusting relationships and change their behaviour. They were able to learn and understand about society, about why and how their behaviour was unacceptable, and about why they needed to change.
The Red Bank home was given the first “excellent” educational rating that had been achieved in our borough. The children were able to engage in purposeful activities such as cookery, “Dine With Me”, car valeting, woodwork and gardening. They took part in discussion groups, and they learnt how to decorate a home and paint murals. When I saw the programme about the Medway secure training centre, I found myself comparing it to the Red Bank.
We were given a grant of £7 million, which we used to create a purpose-built secure education unit, but it became redundant within two years of being opened. Sadly, we did not receive the capital allocation that we needed to replace the appalling living conditions, and as a result we were not awarded a Youth Justice Board contract. It was traumatic and disruptive for those young people to have to move to different places where they were not given the same care and attention, and the purpose-built education block stands empty now.
Prisons do not work. The outcomes are extremely poor. Prisons have revolving gates. My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith) asked how drugs get into prisons. Well, one answer is drones: there were eight drops last year. Another is potatoes, which are scooped out and filled with drugs before being delivered with other cooking materials. Sometimes drugs are kicked over walls. Visitors are coerced into taking them into prisons, as, of course, are staff. Spice is big business. It is cheap, it does not involve much risk because it is not a crime, and there is a big market for it in prisons. I hope that the criminalisation of the act of taking drugs into prisons, which will take effect in April, will help to reduce the problem.
Last week, along with the other members of the Justice Committee, I had the privilege of meeting some young adults who had been released on temporary licence. I use the word ”privilege” because it heartened me—particularly after the Medway case—to see the good work that was being done. Young people working with the St Giles Trust were involved in all kinds of social work and education. Some were working for degrees, and some were helping other people by, for instance, answering calls. All were enthusiastic and proud of what they were doing, and I was proud to meet and talk to them.
I also met the parents of two young people who had died, and heard about the traumatic times that they had experienced. I heard that they had been let down by institutions that did not hand over the reports that had been given to them, and had been put in inappropriate secure accommodation when they were experiencing mental health problems. Risley remand centre is short of staff, and cannot provide rehabilitation or engage with young people. Older people had also been segregated in inappropriate secure units, for as long as 22 hours a day.
I have often said that my passion is prison reform. I have often asked who would be brave enough to stand up in the House and say what is necessary and to see it through. I listened very carefully to the Secretary of State, and I think he means business. I hope the Government and this House give the necessary support to bring about the change that we owe to society, because at present we are wasting millions and millions of pounds and breeding more hardened criminals. We are doing an injustice to young people who are mentally ill, and we are doing an injustice to their parents who have tried to get help.
There is lots going on in prisons that is wrong, of course; we have all read the reports. I urge that we address the issues raised in the Harris review and the many other reviews. I look forward to being in this Chamber to see, and be part of, the reform and rehabilitation of the punitive system in this country.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
First, may I apologise to you, Mr Speaker, and other Members: I have a meeting at 6.15 pm with the relevant Minister about the flooding in my constituency so I will be away from the debate for that time? No discourtesy is intended, and I hope my apology will be accepted.
I want to concentrate on one thing that I believe is seriously overlooked in debates on justice: the use of fixed-term recalls, one of the biggest injustices in the criminal justice system. Most people believe that if someone is let out of prison early—whether halfway through their sentence, a quarter of the way through on home detention curfew, or at some other point before they should be let out—if they reoffend during that time or breach their licence conditions, they should go back to prison to serve the rest of their original sentence at the very least, and some, like me, might argue that they should be sent to prison for longer. Unfortunately, that is not always, or even often, the case.
The Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 amended the Criminal Justice Act 2003 to introduce fixed-term recalls. It was not done because it was the right thing to do; it was done to reduce the prison population when it got out of hand under the last Labour Government and they did not have the necessary capacity. A fixed-term recall occurs when an offender reoffends or breaches their licence conditions, and as a result they do not go to prison for the remainder of their original sentence; they go back for 28 days—just 28 days.
The overwhelming majority of the public believe offenders should serve the whole of the sentence they were given in the first place. In fact, a poll by Lord Ashcroft found that 80% of police officers, 81% of the general public and 82% of victims believe sentences are already too lenient, but thanks to the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, as of 3 December 2012, the eligibility criteria for fixed-term recalls were relaxed further to make them available to previously denied prisoners. These were offenders serving a sentence for certain violent or sexual offences, those subject to a home detention curfew and those who had previously been given a fixed-term recall for breaching their licence within the same original prison sentence.
I recently asked a parliamentary question and found that in 2014 an astonishing 7,486 people were given this 28-day, all-inclusive mini-break in prison for reoffending or breaching their licence conditions. These included a staggering 3,849 burglars and 546 people whose original offence involved violence against another person, including wounding, manslaughter and even murder.
The sheer number of offenders being returned on these 28-day recalls appears to show that people are being let out when they are not ready to be released into society, yet those who have committed the most serious offences, such as murder, who are released and breach their licence conditions are still required to come back to prison only for a mere 28 days. Anyone who thinks someone on licence for murder should simply be returned to prison for 28 days for reoffending or breaching their licence condition surely needs their head tested. This kind of initiative is ridiculous in an age when public confidence in the criminal justice system is so low.
The Ashcroft poll found that more than two thirds of people—69% —believed that rates of reoffending were high because sentences were too short and prison life was not hard enough. Just recently I was made aware of a case of a local serial offender who was released early on licence for burglary only to commit multiple offences weeks afterwards. That offender was returned to prison, but he was not required to stay there until early 2017, as he would have been if he had had to serve his sentence in full. He was just given his 28-day fixed-term recall. How can that possibly be right? How can that possibly protect the public? That should be the first duty of the Government, rather than making speeches in here trying to make it look to the wider world as though we are compassionate. Do I want people to think that I am compassionate just for the sake of my own reputation? We should be concentrating on how we protect the public from becoming the unnecessary victims of crime.
Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)
Surely, if rehabilitation is effective, it will protect the public and reduce the number of future victims of crime. Is not my hon. Friend making the wrong argument on that point?
Philip Davies
According to the Ministry of Justice’s own figures—the Minister can confirm this—the longer people spend in prison, the less likely they are to reoffend. There should be a lesson in there for my hon. Friend. In fact, the punishments with the lowest reoffending rate of all were the indeterminate sentences that were introduced in the name of public protection—the very punishments that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) scrapped, even though he said at the time that his main purpose was to reduce reoffending. Let us stick to the facts about what actually works, rather than trying to make ourselves sound good to our constituents and to the wider public.
An equally staggering fact is that many of the offenders who are released on licence and who then reoffend or breach their licence conditions and are recalled for 28 days and then go on to reoffend or breach their licence conditions again once they have been re-released are still only recalled for 28 days on that second or subsequent occasion. Between September 2013 and September 2014, 1,160 offenders received more than one fixed-term recall, including 49 offenders who were serving sentences for violence against the person and 705 who were serving sentences for burglary. That is absolutely outrageous, as my constituents in Wilsden and Harden, who are facing a spate of burglaries at the moment, will know only too well. Perhaps we should ask them to listen to some of this liberal claptrap while they are having their homes burgled every five minutes by people who have been released from prison on fixed-term recall.
This weak response to reoffending is becoming so well-known in the criminal community that some people are taking their chances and reoffending, knowing that the punishment will be pathetic. Worse still, some are deliberately trying to get themselves back into prison for 28 days, as that is just enough time for them to make money from dealing drugs and committing other crimes on the inside before being released again. They are deliberately going back into prison because they know that it will only be for 28 days, and that they will not have to serve the rest of their original sentence. The concept of the fixed-term recall takes dishonesty in sentencing—which is already bad enough with people only serving a maximum of half their sentence—to a new low. Fixed-term recalls are completely unjust and unjustifiable, and they should be scrapped with immediate effect.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
The prison system is a source of much frustration for many people involved in justice in Wales, and I welcome this opportunity to raise a number of specific issues. Despite recommendations from the police, unions and independent commissions, as well as from a cross-section of politicians, this remains a reserved matter for the UK Government, and the consequences for Wales are clear. In spite of the excellent work done by many justice officers, our prisons are neither located nor designed with the needs of Welsh citizens in mind. We still do not have a women’s prison in Wales—
Liz Saville Roberts
I will return to that.
There is nowhere in Wales for women prisoners to go. Young offenders from the north must also be housed in England, as there is no facility in the north of Wales. What we do have is a plan from the UK Government to build a so-called super-prison in the north, but it is not being built to serve the needs of Wales. It is a priority for an England-centred justice system—a monolithic pack-them-in-and-pile-them-high type of prison to house offenders from all over the north-west of England. There will be around 700 prisoners from Wales, but double that number will be transported in. Its raison d’être is to meet the needs of north-west England, not those of north Wales. This is about overcrowding in English prisons. The prison happens to be in Wales as a matter of convenience, rather than being for Wales as a matter of strategic design.
This is not just nation-building from Plaid Cymru. This is about ensuring that young people can be housed in their own country, and that women do not have to cross the border into England, far away from the stability of their families and loved ones, as they will surely have to do if we do not have a women’s prison in our own country. Has there been a cold evaluation of the wider cost to Wales, especially to the Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board, which will carry the cost of providing healthcare to 2,100 prisoners? If healthcare at HMP Cardiff costs £2.24 million, has any estimate been made of the Wrexham care costs, as that prison is set to house two and a half times more prisoners? How much additional money will be made available to the health board by the UK Government via the Welsh Government? What are the wider costs of housing released prisoners, especially those deemed vulnerable and thus with priority housing status, and what indeed of the additional policing costs?
Ian C. Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)
I represent the constituency in which Wrexham prison is being built. Does the hon. Lady not welcome the fact that there will be a prison in north Wales for the first time? I am as conscious as she is of the pressure on resources. I know that it is vital, and I will hold the Minister’s feet to the fire on the matter of resources for health and for other services for my constituents.
Liz Saville Roberts
I welcome the presence of a prison, but the size of this prison is over and above the needs of Wales, and it will bring with it many social problems as well as the costs that I have outlined.
We know that the demand for prison places in the north of Wales is around 700, not more than 2,000. If we are to have a new prison, it would surely make more sense to have a conventional prison that responds to the needs of north Wales, with places for 700 prisoners and separate wings for women and young offenders.
Provision for women who commit crimes in Wales needs to be overhauled to become fit for the 21st century. I support the campaign of the former MP for Swansea East, Siân James, to seek restorative methods that recognise that women’s criminal behaviour has often different motivations to that of men. Too often these women are the victims of the toxic trio of domestic abuse, mental health problems and substance misuse. Female criminals need different solutions to break the patterns of criminal behaviour.
Society needs not just a roll-call of ever-increasing prisoner numbers, but results. We need a justice system that reforms criminals, not one that merely holds them in captivity and out of sight.
The probation system in Wales is facing extreme pressure at present. The probation service was underfunded and did not have the resources that it needed, and yet it showed itself to be far more effective than short-term prison sentences in rehabilitating offenders. The service has met almost all the targets it has been set in recent years and was even awarded a British quality gold award for excellence, and yet, even though it was not broken, we have seen the changes that it has suffered. It did not need fixing. There was no need for privatisation. It was an ideological choice by the Tories, who have scant interest in results, value for money or public safety. Their interest lies in lining private sector pockets.
We firmly believe that the Welsh Government are in the best place to make decisions for the justice system in Wales. Plaid Cymru is not alone in calling for the devolution of justice. There has been an almost unanimous call from legal experts, who have been giving evidence to the Welsh Affairs Committee during the pre-legislative procedures of the draft Wales Bill, that a distinct legal jurisdiction in Wales should be established, which would, in turn, pave the way for the devolution of justice, including policing, prisons and probation.
I reiterate that Plaid Cymru opposes entirely the building of a super-prison but, in the interests of improving access to justice in Wales, if it is to go ahead, the recommendations and the adaptations that have been suggested, particularly to provide separate wings for women and young people, must be considered.
Heather Wheeler (South Derbyshire) (Con)
I rise to speak in this very important debate as the queen of prisons. I have the women’s prison of Foston in my constituency, and Sudbury open prison and Marchington prison on my border, so the area of Derbyshire and Staffordshire is well placed for prisons and for understanding prison problems. I do not agree with the motion on the Order Paper, as there is no real understanding of the changes that have been made to the prison system.
I will focus my remarks on Foston women’s prison because it is the one in my constituency. A number of changes have been made. There is help for the ladies who have financial problems, and care for those with mental health issues. There is also advice for those who know they will leaving, and what that will mean in terms of their family—whether they can still stay with them or whether they need to make new arrangements. They have also been given tools to help them not only with their numeracy and so that they are better equipped for reading and writing but, even more importantly, to cope with financial pressures when they come out of prison.
All that has been made possible by tremendous innovative thinking and, specifically, the excellent work of my local citizens advice bureau. We found that people were making repeat visits to the CAB, so it built up a dossier of the needs of women leaving Foston prison, after which it put together a bid, which I was delighted to support. The scheme has now gone out to other prisons throughout the country because it is working so well. The programme is totally cost-effective and it is not fluffy bunny stuff. Talking as the South Derbyshire MP, I can say that unless such a scheme is tried and tested, offers value for money and helps people in our society, it will not get my signature, but the programme ticks all the boxes.
I am proud that our Government are taking such an innovative approach because we do not want people to reoffend. We want people to go back to having a family life. We want them to give something back to society because that is a meaningful part of rehabilitation not only for them, but for their victims. The scheme should be considered even more deeply and I hope that more prisons throughout the estate will get the opportunity to adopt it.
In the couple of minutes remaining, I shall talk about victim support in the context of parole boards and prisons. Regretfully, I know of a horrendous constituency case, of which the Minister is aware, in which owing to a mess in the civil service, an inmate was allowed a second go before a parole board, despite having previously been turned down. He passed the second time, and of course went out and created mayhem, as we knew would happen. Fortunately, he has now been locked up again. I have not heard that the civil servant responsible for the mistake has apologised or been sacked. Even now, I have not heard any apology from the civil service for the fact that the prisoner could get out and create mayhem. I do not want the Minister to apologise today because that would not be fair on him, and that is not what we are here for—we are here to vote against this ridiculous motion. We are here because we want to ensure that people learn from mistakes and that victims are supported to the same extent as inmates through rehabilitation.
Liz McInnes (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab)
The motion, which is far from ridiculous, states
“this House believes…prisons are in crisis”.
Our prisons are becoming less safe for staff and prisoners. With rising prisoner numbers and fewer staff, will prisons be able to continue to provide programmes and activities, or will rehabilitative work be squeezed out as they struggle simply to contain their populations? The outgoing chief inspector of prisons argues in his annual report that prisons are at their worst for 10 years, with the deficiencies most acute in adult male prisons. In addition, we face the reckless privatisation of the probation service.
The most recent Ministry of Justice statistics show that deaths from natural causes, self-inflicted deaths and homicides in prisons have increased. The rate of self-harm incidents in prisons has increased, as have rates of prisoner-on-prisoner and prisoner-on-staff assaults. Mental ill health is more prevalent among prisoners than the general population. Between April and September last week, 343 prisoners who had been sectioned under the Mental Health Act waited more than 14 days for hospital treatment.
The Howard League for Penal Reform report entitled “Breaking point: Understaffing and overcrowding in prisons” points out that the number of front-line prison officers in England and Wales dropped by 30% between 2010 and 2013 from 27,650 to 19,325. In some prisons, the number of officers has halved in only three years, and many prisons have been forced to operate with 40% fewer staff. However, the prison population has not reduced. In April 2014, it was 85,264—255 more than in May 2010.
The motion refers to “increasingly high rates” of drug use in prison, and there is clear evidence of inmates developing drug addiction inside prison. Drug seizures from prisoners have hit a new high, with almost 6,000 finds of illicit substances in 2014. As many hon. Members have mentioned, the use of new psychoactive substances is rife in prisons. The chief inspector of prisons published a report last month stating that so many prisoners abused psychoactive drugs that that put a strain on local ambulance services. Additionally, there are some frightening statistics on drug-related deaths of prisoners after their release. Such deaths are seven and a half times higher among UK prisoners in the first fortnight after release. Many of those deaths are due to opiate use, which could be prevented with the use of Naloxone, a synthetic drug that blocks opiate receptors in the nervous system. Prisoners are failed by local authorities that do not provide access to Naloxone for opiate users in the community, disregarding the recommendations of the World Health Organisation and Public Health England. Healthcare provision in all UK prisons should include the issue of Naloxone on release where appropriate, and NHS England, Public Health England and local authorities should develop a joint strategy and funding arrangements for such provision.
The motion is headed, “Prisons and probation”, and I want to say a few words about the probation service. My hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) has discussed reoffending rates, with one in 12 criminals committing another offence within three weeks of release. The probation service, however, suffers from a staffing crisis as a result of cuts and reforms. The Government have split the service in two, outsourcing the least complex work to privately run groups known as community rehabilitation companies or CRCs. In 2015, at least 1,200 staff left the probation service as a result of planned redundancy, retirement and career changes due to disillusionment. I should like to quote a senior probation officer, who has chosen to remain anonymous:
“Collectively the service is having a nervous breakdown and my guess is that at least 80% of staff are just looking to get out by any means. The damage is done; there’s worse to come and there’s absolutely nothing that can stop it. I’m pessimistic about the future and it will take a couple of serious murders, prison riots or similar for politicians and the public to take the slightest notice”.
Those are the words of someone working in the probation service, and I truly hope that they do not come true. I hope that we can address the crisis in the probation service. The staff and the work that they do are valued, but they are struggling with an excessive workload and loss of expertise, which has had a detrimental effect on complex cases, including those involving sexual and domestic violence.
In conclusion, I am encouraged by the approach of the Justice Secretary. Like him, I am a great believer in the rehabilitation of prisoners, but I was surprised to hear him refer to the prison in Manchester as “formerly known as Strangeways”. I think that we will achieve prison reform sooner than the good people of Manchester stop referring to that building as Strangeways.
Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak in this important debate, and I am grateful to have been called.
I shall focus on two main areas—first, victims, and secondly, rehabilitation. It is not a case of either/or; the two can go hand in hand. Rehabilitation can protect the public by helping to prevent future victims. There is a clear link between securing employment and a reduction in reoffending. Offenders who leave prison and secure employment reoffend at the rate of 32%, which is still too high. For those who fail to secure employment, the reoffending rate goes up to 69%. There is a demonstrable link.
As the Secretary of State invited us to do, I place on record my thanks to those who work in our prisons. I shall pick out three aspects, all of which have links to Dorset. First, the Footprints project is a volunteer scheme that mentors offenders recently released from prison and those serving community sentences. It serves the area of Dorset, Somerset and Hampshire. Encouragingly, ex-offenders often want and aim to become mentors themselves, such is the success of the scheme.
Secondly, Clean Sheet is an independent charity focused on the employment of ex-offenders. It delivers a “Ways to Work” employability scheme. I know that the Secretary of State has visited Guys Marsh prison and, importantly, the Jubilee wing, which is in my neighbouring constituency, North Dorset. There is a less formal environment there, the regime is less strict, and prisoners are encouraged, for example, to make their own meals. As of 2015, only four out of 58 prisoners had reoffended—a striking example. I invite the Minister to look again at that model and see whether it could be rolled out more widely.
Finally, I would like to mention the work of Peter Jones from the Counselling in Prisons Network. He is a constituent of mine and has produced a document on promoting excellence in therapy in prisons. Through counselling and psychological therapy, he works with victims of sexual violence and trauma who are themselves in a custodial setting. This helps to prevent reoffending.
All three of those initiatives have a link with Dorset, but there is a more important link—the passion to reduce reoffending and ensure that ex-offenders get back on the straight and narrow. For me, there is not a choice between victims first or rehabilitation. It has to be both. Victims are very much at the heart of our criminal justice system, but so too should be rehabilitation. Get that right, and there will be fewer victims.
Mr Ranil Jayawardena (North East Hampshire) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to speak in this debate. I know that others wish to make their contribution so I shall be brief.
It is incumbent on us all to protect the society in which we live. Rehabilitation, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Michael Tomlinson) says, is an integral part of that, but rehabilitation is not new. Those of us who worship from the Book of Common Prayer will recognise the words that God
“desires not the death of sinners, but rather that they may turn from their wickedness and live”.
That has been with this country for many centuries. It is important that the Lord Chancellor outlined today, as he has done previously, the increasing focus on rehabilitation, but I would like to temper that enthusiasm and that positivity with a note of caution.
We must be mindful of those who do not wish to change, those who show no remorse, those who should be punished so that if they are locked up, they are not a risk to the good people of our country. But to be positive and to return to the agenda that the Government have outlined, it is right that we give those who want to change the opportunity to do that. They should not be written off by society, but should be seen as individuals and given the tools to make a contribution to our country.
A troubling issue at the moment is the number of individuals returning from fighting with so-called Islamic State—the satanic state, as I call it, because those people are not followers of Islam. The number of such individuals continues to rise, so it is inevitable that our prisons will soon be housing unprecedented numbers of extremists. We must address the unfortunate truth that British prisons have in some cases been incubators of extremism. I urge Ministers to ensure that we develop an ever-more successful de-radicalisation programme; one that can both punish and rehabilitate, and transform extremists into more tolerant individuals while they serve their time and repay their debt to society. That is a huge task, but it is a vital one. If properly carried out, not only will it tackle the problem of radicalisation in British prisons, but, if we can show that these abhorrent ideologies can be defeated, it will do much to challenge extremist groups in Britain and across the world.
Since 2010, those who break the law have been more likely to go to prison, and for longer, than they would have been in the past. I cannot support the motion because I do not believe that that is wrong in all cases. I do not believe that rehabilitation is right in all cases, as I have outlined. I believe that prison can give us the opportunity, as a country, to change those who wish to change for the better.
Kwasi Kwarteng (Spelthorne) (Con)
I am grateful to you, Mr Speaker, for giving me an opportunity to speak in this important debate. There are constraints on time, so I will keep my remarks brief. I want to make three main points, some of which I do not think have been made in the debate.
First, I am very proud to have in my constituency HMP Bronzefield, which is an excellent women’s prison. It is run privately. Some disparaging remarks have been made about privatisation and the involvement of the private sector in prisons. I think the example of HMP Bronzefield belies all those disparaging remarks. It is progressive, highly effective and very efficient. Interestingly, the prison was opened in 2004, seven years into the previous Labour Government. I think that sort of development should be welcomed.
Secondly, and we have not spoken about this enough, it is an incredible success that crime is down 30%. That is the broad context in which our constituents understand the criminal justice system. The figures that really worry the people of this country are the overall crime figures—the likelihood of being a victim of crime. That sits at the top of people’s concerns. It is to the Government’s real credit that those figures have come down considerably over the past five years. That point should always be made.
Lastly, I completely understand the need for punishment, as my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) mentioned—I share some of his views on these matters, but not all of them. Rehabilitation is clearly a very important part of any criminal justice system. What I will say—I fear that this is a slightly partisan point—is that when times were good we did not invest enough in maintaining our criminal justice infrastructure, by building and modernising prisons and by moving away from the model of the old Victorian prisons. That was a missed opportunity. I am glad that, under the guidance of my right hon. Friend the Justice Secretary, we are trying, despite a constrained budget, to bring about reform in this respect. He is to be commended for that.
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
Helping prisoners to maintain stable family relationships improves rehabilitation and reduces reoffending rates, making a real contribution towards improving the life chances of a prisoner after they leave. There are already a number of positive Government and volunteer projects alive to that and they are seeing exceptional returns on investment. Sadly, however, despite the recognition of the stability and quality of prisoners’ family relationships as a key contributor to rehabilitation, NOMS’s own review of parenting and relationship support has found that there is considerable variation in the quality of provision across the country, and that only a third of offenders are given help in maintaining family ties.
Will Ministers consider including the issue in the outcomes that governors will be expected to deliver as they have greater autonomy? There are some really good examples that could be replicated more widely, including informal projects such as the family visit days run at Thorn Cross, where prisoners can eat family meals together and do crafts with their children. There is also the involvement of families of victims and perpetrators in restorative justice programmes. It is important for families of offenders to be involved and to hear their apologies. That enables them to see their father, husband or son say they are sorry and show a desire to live differently, and gives them, as a family, the chance to forgive their loved one, too.
There are more formal programmes such as the Stronger Families and Building Bridges programme. The Family Man programme, which, in effect, pays for itself in preventing reoffending, citing returns of £1.33 for every £1 invested, uses drama, group discussions and written work to help to improve relationship skills—skills that we all need and can be learned in the absence of positive role models in early life.
It is also critical that we enable prisoners to maintain contact with their young children. That is vital if we are to improve the life chances of not only the offender but their children, and break the potential cycle of reoffending into the next generation. At present, two thirds of young males separated from imprisoned fathers in childhood go on to commit crime themselves. The numbers are substantial. A recent report by Barnardo’s estimates that 200,000 children have a parent in jail. That is why courses like Time to Connect, the work of family engagement workers, and even the marriage course at HMP Spring Hill are so important in helping families to communicate and understand each other better.
Will Ministers look at how such courses can be replicated in other prisons? Will they take steps to ensure that such initiatives are highlighted to governors and consider how they can be expanded to help offenders to build strong, positive relationships and give their families a better start when they come out of prison?
David Warburton (Somerton and Frome) (Con)
I not only join others in celebrating the conduct of this debate but commend the Opposition for their choice of topic.
Fluffy bunnies aside, I think it is fair to say that there is perhaps no greater test of a civilisation than how it treats those who have fallen foul of its laws. Those who do so often come from deprived, or certainly more vulnerable, sections of society. The Lord Chancellor’s speeches on this subject over the past twelve months or so, like those of Ministers, have been among the most thoughtful and the most wide-ranging I can remember on this subject, and today’s was no exception. The focus on prison education and the redemptive power of work, along with, of course, the necessity for prison to act as a place of punishment, is very encouraging and reflects the importance of answering coherently the question of what prison is actually for. At no time and in no other area will the state have such a direct influence over our lives as with those who are in its care, and it is of course absolutely right that we should be held to the most rigorous standards.
Work and education are the real arteries of rehabilitation. Prisoners are removed from society, but they do not stop being a part of it. Through work and education, they can see beyond the confines of the prison. As my hon. Friend the prisons Minister pointed out yesterday, employers who subsequently hire ex-offenders talk about a higher than average level of commitment and loyalty. Last August, the Government brought in mandatory assessment of maths and English for all newly arrived prisoners. This, combined with the Coates review, which will report in March, and the proposals to give prison governors more control over their own prisons, offers hope to all those who see education as a transformational force within our prisons. Almost half of those in prison were expelled or otherwise excluded from education. It is obvious that a relationship of cause and effect is at work: society is paying the price for its failure to offer these people a route to the future.
Of course there are ongoing problems that we need to address, and, as this debate has shown, are addressing, but we are seeing signs of progress. The £1.3 billion investment in modernising the prison estate, shifting it away from its Dickensian infrastructure and improving the lives of inmates, and a renewed focus on education and work as tools of redemption and rehabilitation, are very welcome, but there is still much more to do.
Lucy Frazer (South East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
The hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) opened the debate by saying that it was not one about blame. He was right to do so because it would be absolutely wrong to suggest that the problems in our prison service can be laid at the foot of a particular Government or that the other party has a monopoly on the answers or on success. Government after Government have grappled with the problem of how to reduce recidivism. Throughout the Blair and Brown years, prisoners reoffended in their tens of thousands.
To understand the problems, it is important to start with some statistics. Some 67% of young people who leave custody reoffend within a year, while 72% of those young people regularly played truant from school and more than half of them do not have any qualifications. Those few facts tell us that it is the disadvantaged in society who end up in prison. The Secretary of State is therefore absolutely right to look into the provision of education in our prisons, as he is doing. We know, as the Centre for Social Justice reported, that prisoners who do not take part in any education or training during their years in prison are three times more likely to be reconvicted on release.
It is important to look not only at the availability of education—it is already currently offered—but at how we can encourage people to take up such education. I hope that Dame Sally Coates will consider in her review whether it is appropriate for education to form part of a prison sentence, and whether a reduction in a sentence might incentivise prisoners to improve their skills.
Nelson Mandela said that
“no one truly knows a nation until one has been inside its jails. A nation should not be judged by how it treats its highest citizens, but its lowest ones.”
Our nation—our one nation—should hold out a hand and help all those who need a step up and a step out of their current world. However, our ambition should not just end there. We should aim to cut not reoffending, but all offending. For those who are vulnerable, who lack skills and who mix in circles where there is truancy and crime, the other world may be daunting and difficult. Fear is sometimes the greatest prison of all. Victor Hugo said:
“He who opens a school door, closes a prison.”
Let us continue to invest further in the education of the next generation to ensure not simply that our young criminals do not reoffend, but that they do not offend in the first place.
Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab)
I thank all hon. Members for their contributions to the debate. The tone of the debate has been one of consensus. Hon. Members from both sides of the House want improvements, perhaps with the exception of the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies). He appears to want to take us back to the penal system of the 18th century. Fortunately, penal policy has moved on since then, and I often think it would be nice if he did so too. There have been many notable speeches, and I apologise in advance that the constraints of time mean I cannot mention everybody.
We heard from the former Lord Chancellor, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke). He said he was disappointed by the progress made on rehabilitation and criticised our ridiculously excessive prison population. He referred to the last vestiges of indeterminate sentences, and I look forward to hearing from the Minister about any plans he has about such sentences. My hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) made a wide-ranging speech, and gave examples of the terrible things going on at HMP Northumberland.
The Chair of the Justice Committee, the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), spoke about the excellent report by Lord Harris, which has not been fully implemented. He referred to the protocol we would like for the chief inspector of prisons. It would ensure that his independence does not become compromised, as was suggested in a recent Justice Committee hearing.
I particularly want to mention the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Jenny Chapman), who is very experienced in these areas. She talked about the tragic case of Lorraine Barwell, and made two requests of the Minister—about naming prison officers killed on duty at the start of Prime Minister’s questions, and about the Harris report recommendation for a personal telephone call to be made to the family of prisoners who take their own lives and to the officers who find them.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith) asked whether a retirement age of 68 is too high for prison officers and whether it is safe for them to continue working up to that age. My hon. Friend the Member for St Helens South and Whiston (Marie Rimmer) spoke from personal experience as the chair of a secure unit for children in her borough, and did so with great passion. Finally, my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton (Liz McInnes) rightly highlighted the problems in probation since privatisation.
The public and victims of crime need to have confidence that justice is being done, that offenders are being punished appropriately and rehabilitated, and that communities are being protected. Making prisons work is not only the right thing to do; it will save us money and make us all safer. What we have heard in this debate is deeply concerning. We have a prison service that is at breaking point, with nearly 85,000 people in our prisons. We have the highest imprisonment rate in western Europe, with an average annual cost per place of over £36,000. There is projected to be an increase in the prison population at a time when the Ministry of Justice is required, under the Chancellor’s spending review, to reduce its running costs by £600 million by 2019-20. That is what it costs to run 30 medium-to-large prisons annually.
It does no one any favours—not the Government, the Ministry of Justice, those working in the prisons sector, taxpayers or prisoners themselves—to ignore the fact that we have, despite what the Justice Secretary said earlier, a crisis on our hands. That crisis was eloquently summed up by the current chief inspector of prisons, Nick Hardwick, whom the Justice Secretary rightly praised yesterday and again today in this House. His annual report stated:
“You were more likely to die in prison than five years ago. More prisoners were murdered, killed themselves, self-harmed and were victims of assaults than five years ago. There were more serious assaults and the number of assaults and serious assaults against staff also rose.”
Here is just one example of what that looks like. At Cardiff prison in my constituency, Darren Thomas, who was jailed for breaching an antisocial behaviour order for street begging in the city centre, was stabbed to death with a ballpoint pen in his cell by his cellmate. The perpetrator was convicted of Darren’s murder last year.
We need to look wider than Medway. According to press reports that feature in Private Eye this week, the failure of the operators of a G4S-run prison to allow medical assistance to be given to a 37-year-old prisoner meant that he died in his cell because his epilepsy had not been diagnosed. That prison was HMP Parc in Bridgend, which the Justice Secretary singled out for praise this afternoon, so I repeat the Opposition’s call for him to instigate a review of all G4S-run prisons.
Prison staff are not safe either. Serious assaults on staff are up by 42%. The prison watchdog has warned that the increasing use of psychoactive drugs is the most serious threat to the safety and security of jails. The use of those drugs increased by 615% between 2014 and 2015, and the use of the drug Spice has increased by 4,813% over the past four years. I know that the Justice Secretary has said that the legislation on psychoactive substances is making possession within prison a specific offence, but does he really think that that alone will solve the problem in our prisons? As my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) has pointed out, the issue is the smuggling of the drugs into prisons.
The combination of a growing prison population, prisons awash with drugs and alcohol, cuts to staffing and prison budget cuts is a very dangerous mix. The former chief inspector of prisons predicted the danger in a report published as long ago as 2010:
“The hidden and incremental pressures this produces should not be underestimated, even though they are at present being contained. As I said…there are two risks: of increased instability in inherently fragile environments, and of reducing prisons’ capacity to rehabilitate those they hold.”
What was predicted has now happened. All of these problems have costs. They cost lives, they cost livelihoods and they cost taxpayers’ money.
We all agree that we need to reduce our prison population. We can solve the problem only through effective prevention. Prisons try to teach offenders to be good prisoners and to be compliant, but it is more important that we teach them to be good citizens and to be able to show initiative and independence to prepare them for reintegration into our communities. That is why the reckless privatisation of the probation service by the coalition Government was such a mistake, artificially splitting responsibility for offenders between two separate organisations based on different levels of risk, while taking no account of how risk levels fluctuate.
Jo Stevens
I am sorry, I do not have time.
What was predicted by probation professionals, outside experts, Napo and service users has happened: chaos; huge numbers of redundancies—up to 40% of staff in some community rehabilitation companies—and IT systems not fit for purpose; cases falling through the cracks; and service in South Yorkshire, which the Government gave to a French catering company to run, under threat of renationalisation. Will the Minister tell the House whether the rumours of renationalisation of the South Yorkshire CRC are correct? Decisions on the supervision of dangerous offenders should be determined by public safety rather than profit.
I believe the Justice Secretary is trying his best, and I almost have some sympathy for him. It cannot be easy having to take up his role equipped with a shovel to clear up what I will politely call the residue that his predecessor, now Leader of the House, left him. Perhaps when he has finished shovelling that up—which will obviously take some time—we will see more than just an acknowledgement of the problems or references to prison reform strategy, and instead see concrete steps taken to address the scale of the crisis. This is the third time the Conservatives have promised a rehabilitation revolution. I look forward to hearing soon the Justice Secretary’s explanation of what went wrong last time and what will be different this time round on his watch.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Andrew Selous)
We have had an excellent debate, with 22 Members taking part. I want to start, as others have, by putting on record my thanks to the men and women of our probation and prison services. They are outstanding public servants. They are often not in the public eye and do not get the thanks and appreciation they deserve. Probation officers make difficult professional judgments every day, often to tight timescales for the courts and the parole service. Prison officers face unacceptable violence, which we do not tolerate and are determined to reduce.
The Government are not in denial about the problems we face. We are not rehabilitating or reducing reoffending enough in order to keep the public safe. That is why our reforms are so vital, to protect the public by better rehabilitating offenders. That is why I am delighted that we have more support for prison reform from the top of Government than we have had for very many years. Reoffending has been too high for too long. That is why we have brought together the best of the voluntary, charitable and private sectors to join our excellent public service probation workers in bringing in our probation reforms. That has meant that we have extended probation supervision to some 40,000 short-sentence offenders who did not get it before. We have also introduced a through-the-gate service, joining up probation from prison into the community.
We have created the National Probation Service, and I should tell Members that 19 of the 22 CRCs are being run with a staff mutual or a voluntary, charitable or social enterprise sector body alongside their owners. We monitor their performance very carefully indeed, and the October 2015 performance figures showed that we are advancing in performance in almost all areas. South Yorkshire CRC has developed an action plan to deal with the issues it faces, but I can tell the House that no CRC is in a formal remedial plan. I can also tell the House that there are 560 more probation officers than there were 12 months ago. That is the largest intake of newly qualified probation officers for some considerable period.[Official Report, 23 February 2016, Vol. 606, c. 4MC.]
In the Prison Service, we saw a net increase of 540 prison officers in the year to 30 September last year. We have appointed some 2,340 extra prison officers. As of last week, we have increased prison officer training to 10 weeks, to make sure they are able to deal with many of the serious issues that colleagues from around the House have mentioned. We are going to carry on recruiting at that rate to make sure that we run safe prisons.
Many Members raised the very serious issue of self-inflicted deaths. I want to reassure the House that the Justice Secretary and I continue to take it very seriously indeed. We have acted on the vast majority of the recommendations of the prisons and probation ombudsman and will continue to do so. We have put more money into providing safer custody in prisons and at a regional level. We have also revised and improved our case management system for at-risk prisoners, which is being implemented.
We are reviewing early days care—sadly, prisoners often take their life in the first few days of their sentence. I draw the House’s attention to our extensive use of the Samaritans-trained prisoner volunteer listener scheme. That is extremely worth while and very much appreciated by prison officers.
I attend every single inter-ministerial group on deaths in custody and will continue to do so. We will carry on learning lessons around the system.
Andrew Selous
I will mention the hon. Lady’s points. I regularly meet victims and commit to keep on doing so, but she raises a good point. I will increase the amount of victims that I meet, specifically and particularly the families of those who have lost their life in prison. However, as the prisons and probation ombudsman has said, there is no simple, well-evidenced answer as to why self-inflicted deaths have increased so sharply.
Many Members mentioned violence within our prisons. We are taking a lot of measures to equip prison officers better. We are trialling body-worn cameras in 23 prisons. That evaluation is progressing well, and both staff and prisoners see the benefits of it. We are ensuring that every conversation a prison officer has with prisoners is productive and supportive.
We have better multidisciplinary case management involving psychologists and mental health workers to get on top of violence in prisons. For the first time, we have introduced a national protocol to ensure that the police and the Crown Prosecution Service work as closely as they should with the National Offender Management Service to ensure that cases are dealt with seriously. I will take up the specific case that the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith) mentioned, when a victim impact assessment appears not to have been addressed in time. We have given clearer guidance to staff on defending themselves and will do everything to get on top of this issue, which is not acceptable. A positive, rehabilitative culture, with rigorous education, purposeful work and strengthened family links, is absolutely central to dealing with it.
Part of the reason why violence and assaults have gone up is that we have too many drugs within our prisons, specifically the new psychoactive substances. The good news is that this month, at last, we start to test for those new types of drugs, which we have not had the ability to do in the past. We will extend that testing to all prisons by 1 April this year. We are currently evaluating a full-body scanner in one of our prisons, which will give us the technology to help us to get on top of that problem. We have trained drug dogs and made it illegal to throw anything over the wall—it was not illegal in the past—and we are communicating in every possible way with prisoners about the dangers of those substances.
As many Members have said, there are too many mobile phones within prisons. We are acutely aware of that and are investing in new technology such as metal-detecting wands, body orifice scanning chairs, signal detectors and blockers, and dogs that can specifically find phones. However, we recognise that more needs to be done. We will carry on until we are on top of that issue.
Many colleagues who have spoken today mentioned the prison estate. It is excellent news that the Chancellor committed to invest £1.3 billion to build nine new prisons in addition to the new prison that we are building in north Wales, which has not had a prison for well over 100 years. We will design out the features of the new prisons that facilitate bullying, drug taking and violence, so that we get on top of those problems.
Many Members rightly said that it is not acceptable that people go into prison with educational qualifications and leave with none. We are determined to do better in this area. We want prisoners to have the literacy, numeracy and information communications technology skills they need to get on, get a job and sustain that job. It is excellent that the Secretary of State has got Dame Sally Coates—
Mr Alan Campbell (Tynemouth) (Lab)
claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36).
Question put forthwith, That the Question be now put.
Question agreed to.
Main Question accordingly put.
Business without Debate
(8 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
delegated legislation
(8 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
petition
(8 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
I beg leave to present to the House a petition on planning policy relating to studentification, signed by my constituents and others, including the constituents of my right hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw), who I see in his place. My constituents seek a change in planning law better to secure the character of local communities during expansion of universities.
The petition states:
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House urges the Government to make provision for legislation to ensure that local authorities sustainably manage the interests of all parties when considering where student accommodation is developed.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The Humble Petition of residents of the City of Chester,
Declares that Government planning guidance requires amendment to ensure that it includes a statutory strategic studentification policy and to ensure that student accommodation demand is factored into housing assessment made as part of any emerging Strategic Local Plan; further that the Government should make clear all development options and locations concerned with delivery of amenities to meet higher education growth; further that student accommodation has been and continues to be permitted at inappropriate locations to house increasing numbers of students in the City of Chester; further that this adversely affects the working city and residential local community; further that the Local Authority and Inspectorate decisions taken to allow this accommodation undermines commitments made on the Petitioners' behalf in the recently adopted Strategic Local Plan to bring a growing West Cheshire elderly population and required future workforce into the city; further that this undermines the Government's National Planning Policy Framework commitment to protect the character of local areas and to defend people's rights to tranquillity as well as compromising delivery of required affordable and mixed residential accommodation; further that in Chester the loss of potential inner city development sites are having adverse effects; and further that in 2011 the Council voted in favour of consolidating a significant body of student intake into a single area by way of a student village solution but despite this, student accommodation is appearing in many areas in the city, causing unbalanced outcomes.
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House urges the Government to make provision for legislation to ensure that local authorities sustainably manage the interests of all parties when considering where student accommodation is developed.
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, &c.]
[P001671]
Flood Defences (Leeds)
(8 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)
The River Aire runs through my constituency on its way through west Yorkshire to the heart of Leeds city centre and towards the East Riding of Yorkshire. The Aire has been central to the life and development of Leeds, and Kirkstall specifically, for centuries. Kirkstall Abbey, a Cistercian monastery founded in the Aire valley in 1152, served as a centre of work, education and welfare for hundreds of years. A corn mill built by the monks on the river’s banks survived the abbey’s dissolution to power iron production and the manufacture of agricultural tools. Around Kirkstall forge grew engineering works that became a centre for steam train and automotive manufacturing, and the forge is now the focus of a major redevelopment and regeneration scheme which includes the building of a new railway station.
The industry and inventiveness of the local community has seen Kirkstall through the ups and downs of history, and today the area is home to more entrepreneurial people and businesses than ever. On Boxing day night, however, the Aire showed its full force when it rose to its highest-ever level of 5.2 metres—more than a metre higher than it has been since its previous peak in 1886—and its banks burst, devastating local businesses, families and the community. At the latest count, 519 businesses across Leeds were affected, along with 2,113 residential properties and 14 other properties, including the industrial museum at Armley Mills and Rodley nature reserve in my constituency.
In Kirkstall, approximately 250 businesses employing 2,500 people were affected. Businesses of all sizes lost machinery and stock, workers were laid off, and jobs were lost. Many small businesses have not yet been able to reopen, and many have laid off staff. I have heard from some that may never open their doors again. Furthermore, £8 million-worth of key infrastructure across the city was damaged. The A65 Kirkstall Road, one of the main routes into and out of our city, had to close, as did the railway line from Leeds to Ilkley and Bradford.
The clean-up operation that took place so intensively in Kirkstall was a tribute to the community, as well as to Leeds City Council and our emergency services. With nearly 1,000 volunteers in Kirkstall alone, my constituency saw countless acts of everyday heroism that will be remembered by the people of Leeds for years to come. It is at times of adversity that we often see communities at their strongest, and we are reminded that together we can achieve so much more than we can alone. I have never been so proud to represent the people of Leeds West in Parliament.
I intend to focus on the flood defence scheme in Leeds, but let me first touch briefly on two other issues: flood insurance, and the funds that are available for immediate support. There is absolutely no guarantee that the businesses that are able to open their doors again after the floods will be able to gain access to affordable flood insurance. The Flood Re scheme, which is very welcome, applies to residential properties, but will not help small businesses in my constituency. The Government must immediately review the extent of the challenges faced by businesses, and think about how they can step in to help when markets fail.
Sue Hayman (Workington) (Lab)
One of the problems with flood insurance for businesses is the fact that they often have to pay huge excesses. It is not just a question of obtaining affordable insurance; it is a question of ensuring that the excesses are manageable.
Rachel Reeves
I entirely agree. Many businesses, particularly in Kirkstall industrial park, have spoken of excesses of £8,000 or more. Others were underinsured. Because it was Christmas, a number of businesses had more stock than they would usually have, so their insurance claims will not meet the full extent of their losses.
Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing this important debate. The whole of Leeds was affected by these terrible floods. She has highlighted many of the businesses that were affected. Does she agree that one of the greatest tragedies was that of Duffield Printers, which has been in existence for many decades, and which has been forced to close with the shedding of 27 skilled jobs because of the under-insurance and its inability to get future insurance? That is a tragedy for everybody in Leeds.
Rachel Reeves
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. He is right to say that Duffield Printers has had to lay off 27 workers. The Sheesh Mahal on Kirkstall Road, which has been open for 26 years, has also closed, and there are fears for the future of those businesses and many others, in part, because of the worries about their being able to access affordable insurance in the future.
The second point I wanted to make was about immediate support. Leeds must continue to receive the immediate funding it needs. The people have played their part in the clean-up operation, and now it is time for the Government to play theirs. The city has received £4.7 million up to 11 January in Government grants to help with the clear-up and recovery efforts from the recent flooding, but that is still not half the overall £11.44 million that is deemed to be needed. I urge Ministers to release the additional funds without any further delay and, importantly, to allow local authorities dealing with these situations as much flexibility as possible in how these funds are spent, so that there are no unhelpful barriers preventing them from assisting local residents and businesses.
Now let me turn to the crucial issue of flood defences in Leeds.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
As well as the river that ran down Kirkstall Road, residents and businesses around the The Calls, Dock Street and Stourton were affected. Given that we have known in Leeds for a long time that there was a risk of serious flooding, which is why the full flood defence scheme was drawn up in 2011, does my hon. Friend agree that the only way to give the city and the economy of Leeds the protection it needs is by having a full scheme now, funded by the Government?
Rachel Reeves
I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention. He speaks with great authority on these matters, and of course the constituency of Leeds Central was badly affected by the floods. I agree wholeheartedly with what he says and I will come now to why it is so important that we have a full and comprehensive flood defence scheme in Leeds.
As my right hon. Friend said, in 2011 there were plans on the table for a £188 million flood defence scheme. This would have provided a one-in-200-year standard of flood protection for our city, yet the decision was taken to split the defence scheme into three phases and funding was available only for phase 1. This phase, which has the aim of defending the city centre against a one-in-75-year flood event, is under way with additional funding from Leeds city council.
Phases 2 and 3, which would cover the 12-mile stretch from Newlay bridge through Kirkstall and the city centre to Woodlesford to provide a one-in-200-year standard of protection, was cancelled in 2011. I recognise that the scheme is expensive, but let me also say this: the costs of inaction exceed the costs of investing in infrastructure. A full flood defence system does not come cheap but, according to previous estimates, if the flood had happened on a normal working weekday the cost would have been about £400 million, twice as much as the cost of investing in the first place.
Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)
I praise the hon. Lady for securing the debate and the work she is doing to co-ordinate this matter—the wonderful Kirkstall Bridge inn in her constituency, where a lot of help was necessary, is run by constituents of mine. Does she agree that the statement made by Ministers in 2011 that we did not need this Rolls-Royce scheme for the River Aire, but that a family-car scheme would do, was a flawed decision? We still have not had answers and, considering the damage, it was an utterly false economy.
Rachel Reeves
For the reasons I have outlined, I agree with the hon. Gentleman. It is a false economy not to make these investments in flood defences because of the damage that has been done to businesses and prosperity in cities such as Leeds. The president of Leeds chamber of commerce, Gerald Jennings, has this week also described the failure to invest in flood defences as a false economy, and I agree with him, as do many other hon. Members in the Chamber this evening.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
It gives me no pleasure to say this, but what will my hon. Friend’s constituents think when they reflect on the fact that my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) and my predecessor, George Mudie, spoke in this place in 2011 of the flooding that could happen in Leeds if their dire warnings were not heeded? I am afraid that those warnings were not heeded.
Rachel Reeves
My hon. Friend is right to say that we gave those warnings in 2011. Many people have been affected by the floods—whether it is their houses or their businesses that have been flooded, or whether they have lost their jobs—and they are all asking how many warnings have to be given and how many times Leeds has to flood before we get the flood defences we need. That is why I am asking the Minister to listen carefully to what we are saying and to make the investments that our city desperately needs.
Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)
We heard in the meeting with Leeds City Council’s leaders that, had the flooding happened on a weekday, 27,000 office workers would have been trapped in the city centre with no road or rail exits. Does my hon. Friend agree that we would not tolerate that lack of resilience in any other large city in the country? It is totally unacceptable for this country’s third-largest city to be left so vulnerable.
Rachel Reeves
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend.
I want to turn now to the economic effects on Leeds of the floods. The workforce in Leeds total 470,000 people, with a huge number travelling into the city from the surrounding areas every day. If the flood had happened on a working day, thousands of people would have been unable either to get to work or to get out of the city, resulting in huge amounts of congestion and countless working days being lost. The disruption to mobile telecoms infrastructure was bad on Boxing day, but it could have been worse. Significant risks have been identified at key infrastructure sites, including the Vodafone site off Kirkstall Road, which provides important communications to the council, the police and the national health service, and the power substation on Redcote Lane in Kirkstall, which powers 50,000 properties. Both were disrupted on Boxing day and for days afterwards. Leeds is also the regional centre for emergency and specialist healthcare, hosting the largest teaching hospital in Europe, and it relies on that infrastructure on a daily basis. For that reason as well, the city needs to be accessible by road and by rail.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
In York, 50,000 phone lines went down and vital emergency infrastructure was impacted, including the lifeline that 700 elderly residents depend on. Is it not right that telecoms should now be part of the gold command and silver command operations, to ensure that we have full support for our communications?
Rachel Reeves
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, whose constituency has also been devastated by the floods.
The point is that important infrastructure sites such as the Vodafone site off Kirkstall Road and the power substation on Redcote Lane were not protected and were badly damaged on Boxing day. In Kirkstall, in my constituency, the consequences for the local economy of having no investment in flood defences is devastating. Businesses will leave, and new businesses will not come. We risk creating ghost towns if we take no action.
Last week, I and my fellow Leeds MPs—all eight of us—along with Leeds City Council leader Judith Blake and the council chief executive Tom Riordan, met the Secretary of State to ask for the reinstatement of the flood defence scheme in Leeds. We welcomed her saying that further flood protection for Leeds was a priority for the Government, but we were disappointed that no firm commitment was made to provide funding—not even the £3 million required to commence urgent design and preparatory work for flood defences over and above phase 1. We need that money for flood defences if we are to turn her commitment into a reality. I fully appreciate the budgetary challenges relating to flood defences, but we must all acknowledge the significance of the flooding arising from Storm Eva and the significant economic risk that the city of Leeds, and thus the UK economy, will therefore face without adequate investment in flood defences.
Stuart Andrew (Pudsey) (Con)
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way, and I am pleased that she has been able to secure this debate. I, too, welcome the fact that the Secretary of State has said that flood protection for Leeds is a priority. I have also had a meeting with the Chancellor, who has promised to look at this matter personally. Although there is a role for Government, does she agree that there is also a role for local councils in looking at where future housing will be built, because the rain that may fall in my constituency could have a severely adverse effect on her constituency?
Rachel Reeves
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. Leeds City Council helped to fund phase 1 of the flood defence scheme in Leeds, recognising that it was important to make that contribution to protect our city. Of course we need to consider where housing is built, and it is right, as the Secretary of State has said, to look at the whole catchment area, and not just at the parts of the river that flood. As the hon. Gentleman will agree, we need £3 million to carry out an urgent feasibility study to see what the flood defence scheme will look like. That said, we need the flood defence scheme to protect our city. Many constituents from Pudsey rely on the A65 and the train links to get to work, so the problem affects both our constituencies.
Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con)
On the point about catchment areas, in Calder Valley, which of course has high-sided valleys, it is a case of not just building walls down the river, but looking at the moors above, tree planting, and how we slow water coming down the valley. If we do not stop the water in the Calder valley, Leeds will flood anyway.
Rachel Reeves
The hon. Gentleman speaks with great authority and knowledge because of the flooding that he has seen on many occasions in his constituency. Again, I agree that we need to take a whole catchment area approach. It is now more than a month since those floods happened, and we do need those feasibility studies to be quickly carried out, so that we are protected in the future.
In his letter to the Chancellor this week, Gerald Jennings of the Leeds chamber of commerce said:
“As the engine room of the Yorkshire economy, Leeds already plays a major role in driving forward economic prosperity; we have seen significant private sector investment over the last 25 years. The city has created jobs in large numbers as a consequence, which have benefited the entire city region. Without further investment in flood defences, businesses may be forced to reconsider their own investment plans and the ability to attract new investment will be curtailed.”
People’s homes, jobs and livelihoods are at stake, and so too are communities, local economies and the future of the northern powerhouse. The community played its part in the immediate aftermath of the floods, clearing up, rebuilding and repairing, but now the Government must do their part, too. They must ensure that there is affordable and available flood insurance; that financial support is available to those most affected; and that they build the flood defences that our city so desperately needs. To fail to do so will let down the people who turn to Government to harness our collective effort. Let us build the northern powerhouse—let us not sink it before it has a chance even to set sail.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Rory Stewart)
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) for her powerful speech in which she made a very strong case for the unique status of Leeds and its importance as a city—and, indeed, as the hub of a whole city region. That is the nub of the discussion that we are having today. We must strike the right balance between the unique needs of Leeds and being fair across the country to many other communities. I absolutely agree with the hon. Lady that Leeds is unique in many ways and requires unique treatment. I will try to come back to that point, hopefully with some good news, at the end of my speech.
Let me develop a few points to put the whole matter in context. Clearly, the challenge that we face in dealing with a floods budget—it does not really matter how much money a Government have—is being fair across the country and trying to find a way of looking different communities in the face and explaining why we are investing in one place rather than another. There are 250,000 houses in the Humber which are below the mean sea level. If the water were to over-top the defences there, there would be a national emergency. In 1953-54, 400 people were killed there. An investment of £80 million in the Humber would protect 50,000 homes.
The challenge that Leeds faces—we can go back in time to the shadow Foreign Secretary’s involvement with this between 2008 and 2011—involves that funding formula, and getting the right balance between the hon. Lady’s good points about Leeds’s enormous importance as one of our great cities, and the number of houses protected and the level of protection offered to them. I defend the Environment Agency because I think that it works transparently and straightforwardly, and it has always clearly explained how its decisions are made. However, I agree that it is time to look again at Leeds for reasons that I shall come on to later.
I also pay huge tribute to the people of Leeds for their response to this extraordinary event. As the hon. Lady pointed out, flooding of this sort has not occurred on the Kirkstall Road since 1866, so it was very unusual. The 24-hour, 48-hour and monthly rainfall records were broken. In addition to the 1866 flooding, there was flooding on the Kirkstall Road in 1946, but with the exception of those two cases, we have not seen an event of anything like this sort, which was why the historical decision was taken to invest south of the train station. It is absolutely right that £10 million of the £44 million investment has come from Leeds City Council, but that was not the only source of funding. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has put £23 million into flood defences in Leeds. All the protection that covers Asda and the Royal Armouries, and the work on the movable weir and the canal, was done not on the basis of the traditional formula, but through our growth fund, because we recognise the unique importance of Leeds and its real importance to the broader economy.
We should pay tribute to the shadow Foreign Secretary for his work to make that innovative scheme possible. From the first installations of weirs in 1699 right the way through to 1816, as the canal network developed, the large concern was how to keep water in the centre of Leeds for navigation and to power the wool industry. Those weirs therefore existed to keep water back. There are still navigation needs in Leeds, which means that there has to be a way in which those weirs can remain when the water is low, but we now have a kevlar solution that allows us to demount them and to let the weirs down so that the water can come out. Furthermore, the important Knostrop scheme will benefit constituents further upstream. By taking away the distinction between the canal and the river, we are essentially creating a catchment lagoon downstream that will benefit people a long way beyond the upper walls.
Let us move on from the past because we need to think about the future. The hon. Lady said that she had a good meeting with the Secretary of State. I do not think that I am sharing any secrets when I say that the Secretary of State is genuinely moved by what happened in Leeds. I believe that her parents live there and she is committed to the city. She cares about proving that something can be done in Leeds, so I hope that the hon. Lady sensed that during their meeting.
A cross-party case needs to be made, because we will need to have difficult conversations with other communities throughout the country to explain why we are acting in such a way, but we will build a case together exactly along the lines of what the hon. Lady set out. We need to point out that Leeds is the UK’s second, third or fourth largest city, depending on where we put the boundaries. It certainly has the second largest legal centre in the United Kingdom after London. It is one of our leading financial centres, with an economy worth £54 billion. It is an extraordinary transport hub. It has, after London, the second or third busiest commuter train station in the United Kingdom with 140,000 people a day passing through it. If we get this right, there is enormous potential in Leeds for not only existing businesses, but development land. With its many brownfield sites, Leeds has more potential than almost anywhere else that one can think of for the development of new businesses. The headquarters of businesses such as Asda and Direct Line are in Leeds city centre.
Over the next six years, we will invest £2.3 billion in flood defences, and the £44 million for Leeds, or at least our contribution to that, forms part of that investment. To make this new argument, which I am fully behind, we need to focus on a different kind of economic case—not the traditional formula, but a case about how a northern powerhouse requires a great northern city. If we get this right, there could be huge economic benefits, as well as in terms of amenities, because people coming to see the river and canal could bring benefits similar to those experienced by cities such as Newcastle.
We are keen to work with Leeds City Council, and the Environment Agency had another meeting with it yesterday. May I break with protocol, Madam Deputy Speaker, and ask whether the shadow Minister intends to speak, or whether I can take a couple of minutes to develop my argument?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
The shadow Minister is not allowed to take part in the debate. The Minister has nearly five minutes left.
Rory Stewart
Thank you very much indeed, Madam Deputy Speaker. In that case, I shall exploit my five minutes.
The right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) made a powerful argument as someone who was involved. To some extent, he embraced the £44 million scheme, but he would like much more to be done and a higher level of protection throughout the city. The hon. Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) made a powerful contribution, with an argument for an economic centre. We also heard from the hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon), my hon. Friends the Members for Calder Valley (Craig Whittaker) and for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew), and finally from the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh), who made a strong argument about how all of this should be tied together.
Rory Stewart
Many apologies. The hon. Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland) also made a good case.
There has to be a cross-party approach, because we need investment from businesses and councils. We have to deal with communities upstream or downstream that are concerned about the impact of the flood defences that we are putting in. We need a communications drive across the country. I am happy to confirm that we will now go ahead with the feasibility study that the hon. Member for Leeds West requested. That money will be made available, and we will make a full analysis of the Leeds scheme. That will allow us not just to complete phase 1 but to look at the future.
We will have to look at various options. Outside the window in the apartment of the right hon. Member for Leeds Central, he would be looking at the possibility of raising those walls that are already going in. There is not much more that we can do downstream, as that work has already been done with the moveable weirs. Upstream on the Kirkstall Road, we would have to look at putting in walls where walls do not currently exist, and higher than that we will have to look at the possibility of two different types of reservoir: permanent reservoirs and offline reservoirs—in other words, farmland can occasionally be used. We can also look, as my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley said, at the potential of measures on upstream catchments to slow the water coming downstream.
The feasibility study will address the catchment coming through Leeds. It will look at upstream mitigation, reservoirs and the potential for walls to be built along the road, which will involve many hon. Members discussing with local residents whether they are prepared to have their views cut off, how high the walls should go, and to what extent companies want to contribute to those walls. I believe that, after this flooding event, the political will is there and residents will be happy to do that. It will have to go all the way down to the constituency of the right hon. Member for Leeds Central, where we will have to look at raising the walls of that £44 million scheme.
On that, and with great thanks to the hon. Member for Leeds West, I wish to say a huge thank you for all the work that has been done by people in Leeds, including the leader of Leeds City Council, who has put a huge amount of heart and soul into this, and by the thousand volunteers who were mentioned. May I assure the people of Leeds, as was made absolutely clear by the Secretary of State, that Leeds is a priority, exactly because of the unique characteristics that have been raised so powerfully in this debate?
Question put and agreed to.
Safeguarding and Clergy Discipline Measure
DIOCESAN STIPENDS FUNDS (AMENDMENT) MEASURE
(8 years, 10 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Chair
Good morning everyone. It may be helpful to the Committee if I explain the procedure. We have two Measures before us today. If there is no objection, the Committee will have a single debate of no longer than one and a half hours covering both Measures. If any Member objected, the Measures would be debated in turn for a maximum of one and a half hours each. For a single debate, I will ask the Second Church Estates Commissioner to move the motion on the first Measure and to speak to both of them. At the end of the debate, I will put the Question on the first motion and then ask the Second Church Estates Commissioner to move the remaining motion formally.
The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Mrs Caroline Spelman)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the Safeguarding and Clergy Discipline Measure (HC 722).
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider the Diocesan Stipends Fund (Amendment) Measure (HC 723).
Mrs Spelman
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hanson.
The first occasion in this Parliament on which ecclesiastical legislation has come to the House in this form marks an important moment in the calendar. For many Members, this will be a new experience. The kind of legislation that we are considering goes through the Ecclesiastical Committee first—it met on 17 November to approve the Measures—and then comes before a Delegated Legislation Committee.
The first Measure should be seen in the context of the commitment to make the Church of England a safe Church. The Measure is only part of the work being undertaken and is before the Committee because the Church believes that it needs to improve its arrangements, first, to prevent the abuse of children and vulnerable adults in the Church community and, secondly, to deal effectively with those in authority within the Church who seek to harm children and vulnerable adults. The Measure follows wide consultation within the Church on the appropriate legislative steps that need to be taken. When it received final approval in the General Synod, the Measure had unanimous support among those who voted: 28 bishops, 145 clergy and 149 of the laity voted in favour, with no votes cast against in any House and no recorded abstentions.
An important provision in the Measure is to be found in section 5, which imposes a new safeguarding duty on those in authority within the Church. All ordained clergy who are authorised to exercise ministry, all archdeacons, bishops, licensed readers and lay workers, churchwardens and parochial church council members will now be under a specific duty to have due regard to the Church’s safeguarding policies and guidance issued by the House of Bishops.
Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend explain the wording in proposed new paragraph (e) in section 1(1), which appears to restrict the right of a bishop to act, because the requirement is that
“the bishop of the diocese is satisfied, on the basis of information provided by a local authority or the police”.
That would appear to indicate that if evidence is given by a doctor who has examined the child, a member of the public or a parent, the bishop may not act on it.
Mrs Spelman
With respect to my right hon. Friend, that is not the case. The purpose of the new paragraph is to empower the bishop. Given previous cases of abuse, of which I am sure my right hon. Friend is aware, we had a lengthy debate in the Ecclesiastical Committee about how to empower a bishop to act. The Church was heavily criticised for not taking action on the basis of information given in previous cases. It is important to have a legislative provision that empowers the bishop to take action. The Church needs to be seen to act, as I am sure my right hon. Friend agrees.
Sir Greg Knight
I understand and hear what my right hon. Friend has to say, but she has not answered my question about why the bishop has to be satisfied on the basis of information that comes from a very limited source—either the police or a local authority.
Mrs Spelman
In a way, this goes to the heart of the matter. This was debated in the Ecclesiastical Committee, as those who were present on 17 November will remember. A balance has to be struck regarding the fairness of hearsay—gossip—and the bishop being satisfied that there is a basis on which to act to suspend a professional from their position. That happens in other institutions—we all know other institutions in our constituencies, public services, where a suspension is necessary. I am sure that my right hon. Friend would agree that the basis needs to be present. Information supplied by the police or a local authority is compelling information, on which it would be expected that some action would be taken. Obviously, the bishop has to use judgment in that case. The way the legislation is crafted—
The Chair
Order. I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Lady. Could she face the Chair, because it is difficult for Hansard to record her comments when she is facing the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire?
Mrs Spelman
Sorry, Mr Hanson. I should remember that, as on the Floor of the House, the courtesy is to turn towards you in order to address my colleague through my back. He will understand that that is no discourtesy to him.
Obviously, the bishop would share information with the police and there would always be a consultation. As I said earlier, the heart of the Measure is the question of balance, getting the judgment right about acting in the case of information being given without being unfair to the parties concerned.
Stephen Phillips (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Stephen Phillips
I am grateful to her for giving way. I am afraid that I share the dissatisfaction experienced by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire. What if a bishop or an archbishop is satisfied that a suspension is required on the basis of, for example, information provided or furnished by the producers of the “Panorama” programme or another television company that is investigating child abuse? On that basis, the bishop cannot act, even though he is satisfied. The question for my right hon. Friend the Second Church Estates Commissioner is why there are two safeguards: first, that the bishop or archbishop has to be satisfied; and secondly, that the information has to come from a local authority or the police. That is the point that our right hon. Friend is making and I regret to say I have not yet heard an answer.
Mrs Spelman
The bishop is not prevented from acting on other sources of information that may give rise to a suspension. Obviously, within the workplace it is customary for people to blow the whistle when something is wrong. The trouble is that previously bishops could ignore the existing guidelines and some have done so. Under the safeguarding Measure before us today, the bishops are for the first time personally responsible and also potentially personally at risk. The Measure assigns personal responsibility to them to act upon information. Any information, such as the type described by my hon. and learned Friend that the media or another source produce, should be shared with the police and the local authority. I hope that provides reassurance on that point.
I would like to continue with my speech. I was discussing the Church’s safeguarding policies. As I just mentioned, previously bishops could and did ignore the guidelines. Under the Measure, that will no longer possible. It will be misconduct for a clerk in holy orders to fail to comply with that duty.
Parochial church councils will be required in future to state in their annual reports whether they have complied with the new duty. That is a very significant change because churchwardens and parochial church councils, together with the incumbent, play an important part at parish level in the life and mission of the Church. They occupy positions of responsibility in the parish, where they are trusted and respected by others. The Church therefore needs to be able to stop those who are unsuitable from a safeguarding perspective from serving as churchwardens or as PCC members, and sections 2 and 3 of the safeguarding Measure will do that. Any person who is on a barred list under the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006 will be disqualified from holding office as churchwarden, serving on a PCC or being appointed PCC secretary or treasurer.
Furthermore, under section 3 of the Measure, members, secretaries and treasurers of PCCs will be disqualified if convicted of an offence listed in schedule 1 to the Children and Young Persons Act 1933. Those grounds for disqualification already apply to churchwardens under the Churchwardens Measure 2001, but when the Synod and the Ecclesiastical Committee scrutinised that legislation they realised that other office-holding roles in the parish needed to be added.
The Measure will enable a bishop to suspend churchwardens, PCC members, treasurers and secretaries on certain safeguarding grounds. The bishop will have new powers to suspend them if they are arrested on suspicion of committing an offence listed in schedule 1 to the 1933 Act. To protect lay officers from being unfairly suspended, they will have a right to appeal to the President of Tribunals, an independent senior judge, against the suspension. The bishop will also have new powers to suspend clergy on the basis of information supplied by the police or a local authority, as we just discussed.
We realise that there are judgments to be made about where is the right balance to be struck between protecting children and vulnerable adults and suspending clergy when there has not yet been an arrest or a charge, but we believe that the Measure does that. The bishop will be able to suspend only if satisfied that the cleric presents a significant risk of harm and, before the bishop does suspend, he or she will have to consult the safeguarding officer and such other people as the bishop considers appropriate. Furthermore, the suspended cleric will have a right of appeal against the suspension through the independent President of Tribunals and will be eligible to apply for Church legal aid for representation to pursue such an appeal.
Under the existing provisions of the Clergy Discipline Measure, disciplinary proceedings against clergy must be started within one year of the alleged misconduct unless the President of Tribunals, upon application, grants permission to make the complaint out of time. That is important. In such cases the President has to be satisfied that there was good reason why proceedings were not instituted at an earlier date. The one-year limitation has been criticised for inhibiting survivors of abuse making complaints, because it may take many years before they are ready to come forward to make complaints, but section 7 of the new Measure will remove the current one-year limitation for any complaint against a cleric alleging misconduct of a sexual nature towards a child or vulnerable adult. That will help survivors to achieve justice.
Under section 8 of the new Measure, in cases where the limitation period does still apply, such as in complaints that are not concerned with sexual misconduct towards a child or vulnerable adult, the bishop will have new powers of suspension so that, in serious cases, the cleric can be suspended while the President of Tribunals considers an application to allow a complaint out of time to proceed. To protect the cleric, the test the bishop must apply will be one of necessity: the bishop will have to be satisfied that it is necessary for a suspension to be imposed, and the bishop will first have to seek legal advice from the diocesan registrar. The suspended cleric will have a right of appeal to the independent President of Tribunals.
As I indicated earlier, in all cases of alleged sexual abuse or any other alleged misconduct case we need to strike the right balance between protecting the vulnerable and the damaged on the one hand and, on the other hand, ensuring that the rights of clergy are not unfairly impeded. We believe we do have that right balance in this Measure.
Stephen Phillips
My right hon. Friend is quite right that in section 8(3) the bishop cannot suspend unless he considers a suspension necessary in the circumstances of the case. Necessary for what purposes? No guidance seems to be given. Is it necessary for the purposes of the church, for the complainant, to protect other potential victims? What matters are meant to be taken into account by the bishop in reaching a decision on whether a suspension is necessary in
“all the circumstances of the case”?
Mrs Spelman
Obviously and primarily the aim is to protect children and vulnerable adults and for the bishop to satisfy himself that the steps he has taken in suspending will prevent harm from occurring. The primary purpose of the Measure is preventive and protective, in the light of the fact that, previously, when bishops could ignore the guidelines, they did. That is why it is important to introduce the Measure, and I commend it to the Committee.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Mr Hanson.
I thank the Second Church Estates Commissioner for giving me advance sight of her comments today. That is not usually a courtesy extended to the Opposition in Delegated Legislation Committees, but for an important and rarely examined matter such as the Measures before us it was particularly helpful to my scrutiny.
Safeguarding is a vital issue. We agree with the right hon. Lady that the provisions in the Measure are an important step in safeguarding children and vulnerable people, which must be our primary consideration, in addition to restoration of the public’s confidence in the Church to manage its organisation in a manner that reflects their concerns.
I am minded to support the Measures, in particular in the light of the right hon. Lady’s comments about the Ecclesiastical Committee and collective agreement, but I have some concerns and questions. Some matters have also been raised in interventions and I will address those shortly.
The right hon. Lady said that the Measure had unanimous support in the General Synod. It comes at an important time, because we have reached an important moment in society after many years when victims felt that they were unable to report their experiences or to speak out against the people who had abused them, in particular if those people held positions of societal importance or were shown deference. Finally, people are rightly no longer restricted by such conventions and are coming forward to report.
The specific provisions in the Measure to dissuade and discourage individuals from engaging in certain actions are important. People should understand that there will be serious repercussions. The Measure is a positive step, because it means that victims may seek justice and we will be able to bring the abusers to justice. Also, importantly, it might encourage institutions to review how something might have occurred in the first place and to change their practises to ensure that it never does again.
The right hon. Lady rightly highlighted that the amendments in the Measure are part of a package of changes to practice. I hope she can reassure me that that includes appropriate support being offered to victims, but also openness on making routes to reporting at an early stage clear and available within the Church’s structures—for example, through ChildLine, the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, the police or health and social services. That would ensure that people never feel that they do not have anywhere to turn in the event of experiencing such approaches from a member of the Church.
Similarly, as a safeguard for Church staff and the clergy’s own protection, as well as that of vulnerable people, sufficient guidance and training should be provided to ensure that people do not find themselves inadvertently in positions of vulnerability, open to either accusations or abuse. Within that sphere of additional guidance, I hope that due regard will be given to tackling abuse via the internet and to appropriate rules surrounding use of Church property—although I fully accept that that is outwith the Measures.
I agree with the spirit in which the right hon. Lady outlined the Measure. It seems to offer additional safeguards, adding a further layer of statutory safeguarding in the Church. Recognition of the horrors of abuse is an important part of moving on, but we can all agree that ultimately we want organisations to prevent any more child abuse from ever happening again.
I have some questions about a few specific points in the Measure. The right hon. Member for East Yorkshire raised the issue of the bishop being “satisfied”. I come to it from a slightly different angle. My concern is that the public be assured of how that satisfaction has been reached and, as mentioned by the hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, of the sources of information for that satisfaction being limited to a local authority or the police. The right hon. Lady has commented on that but I would like her to expand further.
With regard to clergy suspension, proposed new subsection (2B)(b) in section 1(3) refers to the bishop considering measures to be “appropriate”. I would like confirmation that the considerations are made with the vulnerable person or child at the centre of them. I appreciate that the right hon, Lady mentioned the need to have a balance. For too long, the public sense has been that the balance has not been towards the victim. I would like to ensure that the victim is at the centre of considerations.
Throughout the document there are references to filing a copy in the diocesan registry. With my limited knowledge of Church practices and procedures, I wondered whether that was in the public domain. Will that requirement be sufficient to restore public confidence?
Turning to the church wardens’ suspension, I was surprised to see in proposed new section 6A(10) in section 2 that
“the bishop shall give each of the following written notification—”.
That is followed by a number of individuals who will receive written notification of suspension or revocation of suspension.
There is no similar reference to such extensive notification with regard to clergy. I am concerned that there might be a greater burden on the reputation of church wardens and PCCs, for which there is also an extended list. I am referring to members of parochial church councils, not police and crime commissioners. My perspective is that there is higher trust of the clergy in the community. If the same level of scrutiny is applied to individual members of the clergy as to the church wardens and PCCs, would there be parity across the board? I would appreciate a comment on that.
Proposed new section 8(1A) in section 2 (8) concerns reinstatement following revocation of the suspension and says,
“if the office has remained vacant”.
I am considering that in the context of employment law and the responsibilities of the Church as an employer. Were somebody to be suspended for three months, or an extended period of six months while an investigation was ongoing, and it were found that there was no case to answer and the individual could be reinstated, there should not have been an appointment on a permanent basis to their position in their absence. The wording
“if the office has remained vacant”
suggests that somebody could be appointed during a temporary absence. That could give rise to a claim of constructive dismissal, which no one would want.
I also have a question about independence in relation to section 2 (9). The post holder is referred to as the “diocesan safeguarding advisor”. [Interruption.] We are being invaded. That was a meteor.
Melanie Onn
I want to ask about the independence of that role and how we demonstrate confidence in that post holder, who will play such a significant and pivotal role under the new Measures, which are to be welcomed.
Regarding the rules for appeal, the guidance specifies that “child” means up to the age of 18 and a vulnerable person is as described. Is there additional consideration of care leavers, for whom local authorities retain a duty of care until the age of 21 or occasionally until the age of 24, or are they included in that description?
The right hon. Lady’s document talks about clerics’ access to appeals. Again, this is a matter of clarification due to my personal ignorance of the matter, but does the term “cleric” include church wardens and members of the PCCs? You referenced that in response to an intervention, so you may have already covered it.
Melanie Onn
“She”—I apologise, Mr Hanson.
Finally, have the circumstances in which Church legal aid may be refused been considered at all? If someone wishes to appeal, will that be universally available and what guidance is there on that?
The Measure that the Minister brings before us seems to offer some additional support and a further layer of statutory safeguarding to the Church. I look forward to her response.
The Chair
Before the right hon. Lady responds, may I remind the Committee that we are debating in this hour and a half both Measures? The right hon. Lady has not yet spoken, should she still wish to, about the Diocesan Stipends Fund (Amendment) Measure (HC 723). If other Members wish to speak on that Measure, they are free to do so.
Mrs Spelman
Thank you, Mr Hanson. I chose to deal with the Measures sequentially because they are very different. The first matter we are dealing with is quite complex, but I sincerely hope that the second proves to be not so complicated.
The first and important question that the hon. Member for Great Grimsby raised was about support for victims. I cannot emphasise enough how important the Church regards it to listen to victims and ensure that they are properly supported. Pastoral support for victims is the responsibility of the diocesan bishop, who has to ensure that sufficient support is in place. I hope that I have reassured her on that.
The hon. Lady asked about written notifications. It is important that the Measure gives the bishop the power to suspend someone who, indeed, has not been arrested, and therefore an investigation has to take place. As with suspensions from professional duties in other public services in our society, there is a question about how widely information should be distributed about the suspension. It is obvious that those with whom the individual would be working need to be notified of the professional’s suspension, hence the specific list of written notifications that the hon. Lady drew to my attention. It is a written notification to the suspended individual’s immediate working colleagues. They need to know, and it is a need-to-know list set out in the Measure; it is not designed to go wider or more narrowly. It is worked out on the practical basis of who needs to know what has happened.
As regards reinstatement, there cannot be a replacement for the incumbent while the incumbent is suspended. Often, members of the clergy help out other parishes when something such as this happens. An ordained minister will come in and do baptisms, marriages, funerals and so on. As the hon. Lady says, the individual under suspension cannot just be replaced; the law of the land dictates that.
The independence of the post holder in section 6B(9), to which the hon. Lady referred, is very important and has to be guaranteed. Regulations are being prepared under the amending canon No. 34 of the Church of England to regulate the appointment and position of the diocesan safeguarding adviser.
As I explained at the beginning, the Measure is not the only instrument that the Church has at its disposal to prevent harm to children and vulnerable adults. A canon, which was debated at length in Synod, accompanies it for precisely the reason that the hon. Lady mentioned. A care leaver up to the age of 24 certainly would be covered by the definition of a vulnerable person. When we discuss legislation in this House, we all recognise that young adults who are 18 are not magically less vulnerable at 19 and sadly that is particularly true of those leaving care.
Church legal aid is universally available, as far as I am aware. It is the responsibility of the Church’s legal advisers to decide on individual cases, but the Measure provides recourse to legal aid for the suspended individual.
One question arrived at the same time as a noise occurred in the room—I did not quite catch that one. If the hon. Lady feels that I have not covered any of the points she raised, I am more than happy to write to her to provide clarification.
With the leave of the Committee, I will turn to the Measure on diocesan stipends. This short and technical Measure amends the Diocesan Stipends Funds Measure 1953 to ensure that diocesan boards of finance have the same powers to make decisions about the balance of investments in the diocesan stipends fund as they have in relation to their other charitable property. Since 2013, charities with permanent endowment have had the power to pass a resolution to invest and use their investment returns, whether income or capital gains, on a total return basis. That is to say that no distinction is made between income and capital gain in determining how much of a return is available for spending on a charity’s purposes and how much should be retained to protect the value of the endowment.
In order to pass such a resolution, the trustees must be persuaded that that is in the best interests of the charity. The 1953 Measure specifies in some detail the purposes for which the income account and the capital account of the diocesan stipends fund may be used. Income may be used for payment of clergy stipends, for repair of parsonages and for associated purposes. Capital may be invested in certain kinds of property or used for the provision or improvement of parsonages. That detailed prescription constitutes a statutory restriction that prevents the trustees from passing a total return resolution and also prevents the Charity Commission from making an order permitting total return. Therefore, only income returns on investment may be used for payment of stipends, so dioceses may find that they are locked into an unhelpfully restrictive and potentially sub-optimal investment policy because of the need to generate income returns to preserve the ability to make stipend payments. That is particularly problematic at a time when income returns on investments are, broadly speaking, low, and seeking a high income return could lead to choosing risky investments.
The Measure does not alter the purposes for which diocesan stipends funds could be used, but it permits diocesan boards of finance, like any other permanently endowed charity, to pass a total return resolution and allocate returns to the income fund and the capital fund at their discretion. That would free the DBF to invest more flexibly.
The Measure does not compel any DBF to alter its investment policy relating to its stipends fund. If a DBF feels that its present arrangements are satisfactory, it will be perfectly at liberty to continue investing its stipends fund exactly as it does at present. The new provision is purely permissive, enabling a DBF that wishes to do so to invest and allocate returns more flexibly than at present.
To bring that alive, the initiative came from the Lincoln diocese, which is a large, rural diocese where some clergy, bless them, run as many as 12 parishes. I am sure we can all see that that would be an enormous strain on any individual. There is a shortage of ordained clergy and a desire to train more clergy; and the new flexibility that the Measure would provide would make that possible not just for Lincoln but for other dioceses in that position.
Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your stewardship, Mr Hanson.
I think it is incumbent on everyone, when we are dealing with the question of safeguarding children, to have their tuppence-worth, and that is why I wanted to speak in the debate. I say that as a registered social worker who has been directly involved in the investigation of child abuse cases at both individual and institutional level, and who has written policies on the matter. I thought it important to make my views known.
The question must be set in the context of what Bishop Paul Butler said at the Synod:
“We all want every single one of our churches and institutions to be safer places and communities for all people; notably for children and adults at times of risk and harm, whether that be long or short term.”
The context in which to consider the Measure before the Committee must be the spirit of the view he expressed. Grave and egregious offences have taken place in the past, which had to be dealt with—and continue to have to be dealt with. There have been many past scandals. As my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby says, there is always a balance to be struck, but it must always be with the intention of keeping the child—the victim in this case—at the fore. My practice over the years has been about keeping children to the fore, in any investigation.
We do not want too much hiding behind confidentiality. There must be a balance in confidentiality, because there is a crucial need to share information. In relevant circumstances there will always be the concern: “If the police don’t report it and another authority doesn’t report it, how does the bishop make the decision?” I think that on balance the proposals have that about right, but I suspect they could always be revisited in due course if they appear not to be fit for purpose.
As I have said, the proposals must be set in the context of the general safeguarding practices of the Church at a national level, and the potential for tweaking them to fit local circumstances at diocesan level. That is important as well, and the Measure sets in statute certain obligations that have not existed before, such as relating to a safeguarding adviser and, of course, the power of an archbishop or bishop to order risk assessments.
On balance I support the proposals, but always with the view that we would need to come back to them if we did not feel that they were fit for purpose.
Mrs Spelman
I thank the hon. Gentleman for those observations, born of his experience in practice, before he came to this place. It shows what a benefit it is when people bring professional experience to the House. I appreciate very much the way he reflects, for all of us, the importance of putting the victim at the heart of what happens.
The Measure is being brought before the Committee today because of a recognition that the existing protection was not adequate. In passing it we will increase the level of protection, and improve the preventive power that the Church has to ensure that harm does not come to children and vulnerable adults. I completely share the hon. Gentleman’s primary concern with that.
The Church of course regularly reviews the effectiveness of the policies that it has in place for safeguarding and protection. The hon. Gentleman’s speech has allowed me to recall something that his Front-Bench colleague, the hon. Member for Great Grimsby, raised. Perhaps I can give them reassurance as a former Sunday school teacher—not a very good one, I hasten to add, because I could not control a class of nine-year-old boys for love nor money on a Sunday morning. I clearly do not have the natural teaching skills. I was, however, given significant training.
As an individual in the Church with responsibility for children in my care and for teaching them, I had to go through rigorous Criminal Records Bureau checks—now called DBS checks from the Disclosure and Barring Service. Every Sunday school teacher and everyone in a position of responsibility within the Church who has contact with children has to do the same and every church has to appoint a child protection officer.
Those policies have arisen as a result of learning that protective measures were not adequate or not in place. Policies arise from wider societal experience of our need to improve protection for children and vulnerable adults. We need to continue reviewing the effectiveness of our provisions. I reassure hon. Members on those points.
Melanie Onn
I thank the right hon. Lady again for sight of her comments before our sitting this morning.
I agree that the second Measure is a small, technical one, and it is not my intention to oppose it today. It makes sense to allow the Church greater flexibility and to give it parity with charities. Many dioceses face increasingly difficult financial decisions and it is important to give them the options that they need to do the best they can in constrained times. We will support the Measure, but I want to ask a few questions, for the record.
What work is being done to ensure that church trustees have the required skills and training to carry out the decisions extended to them under the Measure? Have the Government done any work to assess the levels of demand for the legislation, or on any tangible impact that it might have on churches, their parishioners and the wider communities they serve? Finally, are there projections of the type of returns that dioceses may see as a result of the change, although that could be more difficult to predict?
To conclude our debate on the Measures, my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle recognised well our great opportunity in this place to take a view on the rules in the Church, which is an important organisation and institution of the community of this country. When we leave the Committee Room, it is important for us all to feel completely reassured and comfortable with the fact the Measures are sufficient to reassure the public and to ensure that abuse of a type that we have seen will be sufficiently dissuaded by the legislation.
Mrs Spelman
I thank the hon. Lady. I reassure her about training for trustees. Certainly as a Church Estates Commissioner I had to join all new commissioners to undergo trustee training on the overall management of Church finances. The Church is the second largest charity in the United Kingdom, with assets worth £7 billion. It is important that those who agree to serve in a trustee capacity are conversant with the law on charities and on the management of financial assets.
Dioceses are autonomous, so trustees are appointed to diocesan boards of finance, and, as with other charities, the process has become more rigorous, with greater use of training and headhunters to establish that the people coming on to the boards that take important decisions about the finances of dioceses are adequately equipped, skilled and trained to take them. I hope that that reassures the hon. Lady.
The hon. Lady asked about the practical impact of the Measure for parishioners. Hopefully, for she or I, in one of those Lincolnshire parishes where we had one twelfth of a vicar, it will mean that in future we have a larger share in a vicar, or indeed, our own incumbent. In large, rural areas in particular, where clergy have multiple parishes to administer to with long driving distances between the parishes, there is a sub-optimal situation whereby a significant amount of time is spent on the road. Sometimes, as clergy in remote, rural areas have explained to me, that involves perilously driving in the teeth of winter from one parish to the other to make sure that a service takes place. Parishioners should see a big change over time, with more trained clergy. The Church does have a shortage of ordinands nationally, which is estimated to be 40%, and that perhaps underlines the importance of this Measure, which will release the funds that we need. On the total returns, that is a practical question, and the answer will vary from diocese to diocese according to how their funds are allocated.
To return to safeguarding, I could not agree more with the hon. Lady that we need to leave here feeling completely reassured that these provisions will increase the protection for children and vulnerable adults. They will move the Church from a position whereby previously, bishops could have and did ignore the guidelines that existed, to one whereby they are personally responsible for making sure that the guidelines are adhered to and they can be held to account. That responsibility is being extended to all those with authority in the Church. That is bound to provide a far better level of protection than existed before, where things did go wrong. I hope that she comes away reassured that the Church has used its utmost endeavour, through debate, discussion and working through previous cases, to get the strongest protection in place that we can achieve.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the Safeguarding and Clergy Discipline Measure (HC 722).
DIOCESAN STIPENDS FUND (AMENDMENT) MEASURE
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the Diocesan Stipends Fund (Amendment) Measure (HC 723).—(Mrs Spelman.)
Ministerial Correction
(8 years, 10 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Business, Innovation and Skills
(8 years, 10 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Joseph Johnson
The number of United Kingdom companies that are exporting is growing strongly—it has increased by 18% since 2010—and Scottish companies are also exporting more. In 2011 there were 9,300 Scottish exporters; now there are 11,100. Our trade deficit is responding, and narrowed in the three months to November.
[Official Report, 13 January 2016, Vol. 604, c. 959.]
Letter of correction from the Minister for Universities and Science.
An error has been identified in the closing speech to the debate. The correct statistics should have been:
Joseph Johnson
The number of companies in Great Britain that are exporting is growing strongly—it has increased by 18% since 2010—and Scottish companies are also exporting more. In 2011 there were 9,300 Scottish exporters; now there are 11,100. Our trade deficit is responding, and narrowed in the three months to November.
Petitions
Funding formula for Leicestershire Constabulary
Police Cuts in Merseyside
Westminster Hall
(8 years, 10 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Disabled People: Support
(8 years, 10 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the changes to funding of support for disabled people.
I thank you, Mr Crausby, for chairing this important debate, and I thank everyone for attending. I also thank all the organisations—especially the Disability Benefits Consortium—that have briefed MPs on today’s debate. [Interruption.] I also thank whoever is phoning.
The debate is important. The disadvantage experienced by disabled people is well evidenced. They are twice as likely as other people to live in poverty. The percentage of working-age disabled people in employment has dropped in recent years. Even in work, disabled people are worse off than non-disabled people. According to the Equality and Human Rights Commission, disabled men in work face an 11% pay gap, while disabled women face a 22% pay gap.
Disabled people also experience higher routine costs of living. The Scope-facilitated Extra Costs Commission, which began its work in 2014, has set out in detail the hundreds of pounds that many disabled people spend every week as a direct result of living with certain health conditions and impairments. Sadly, Government policies—particularly since 2010—have made things far worse for disabled people and caused them greater difficulty.
As to my personal background on this issue, my mum has schizophrenia, and that contributed to my work choices —I worked for the Disability Rights Commission, the National Centre for Independent Living and Disability Alliance UK among others. The issue is also very relevant to my constituency, because we have a higher incidence of certain mental health conditions, and about 12,500 disabled people—about one in nine of my constituents —live in Bermondsey and Old Southwark, according to the Library. The issue should, however, matter to everyone, because we should facilitate a society in which anyone can contribute, to the maximum of their potential. Sadly, however, that possibility is being undermined.
The debate’s timing is useful. Tomorrow is the last day of the Government’s consultation on the future of personal independence payments. Fears about disabled people losing work as a direct result of the introduction of personal independence payments are beginning to be realised. Over the weekend, the Daily Mirror covered the case of Denise Haddon which is yet another example of a disabled person who uses a Motability vehicle for work, but who could see that vehicle withdrawn, with them being forced out of work as a direct result of Government policy.
Today, colleagues in the House of Lords—certainly, Labour colleagues—will also be pushing amendments on the work-related activity group cuts in the Welfare Reform and Work Bill, which will affect half a million disabled people. This afternoon, we will have an Opposition day debate on supported housing, in which we will call for an exemption for such housing from housing benefit cuts. This debate is therefore very timely.
The Government have their priorities wrong. They keep coming back to disabled people and undermining support, rather than focusing on areas where there is more potential. Just this week, for example, we saw the Google fiasco, which demonstrates yet again that we are not all in this together and that there is a significant imbalance in whom the Government choose to squeeze more out of.
What is worse, the Government suggest that their measures are about supporting disabled people into work or about providing more support to those who need it most. If they believe that any group of disabled people has definitely benefited more as a direct result of any policy since 2010, I would welcome the Minister providing evidence to back that up.
On work, 53% of working-age disabled people were in work in 2010, but the figure is now under 50%. The Library has pointed out that, of the 320,000 disabled people on employment and support allowance referred to the Work programme since 2011, only 16% got a job. Although 43% of those on Work Choice—a more specialised programme—could be supported into work, which is of benefit, the Government have announced that the two schemes will be merged in 2017. It would be useful to have a stronger indication from the Minister whether we will see a levelling up or a levelling down of the support provided to disabled people. Will we see a return to more specialised, localised support, with smaller suppliers who are better able to provide the dedicated support that many disabled people need? We saw good schemes under things such as the future jobs fund and the working neighbourhoods fund, which were more localised and specialised, but which were unable to compete following the changes introduced in 2010.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. Does he agree that the issue is sometimes ensuring that training makes the right skills available for disabled people? Many disabled people want to get into work, but they are prevented from doing so by the inability to access the very skills they need to get into the workplace.
Neil Coyle
I completely agree that that training needs to be there. It would be useful to hear from the Minister how whatever new programme is put in place in 2017 will make training and dedicated, specialised support available.
Another thing we have seen is that the number of disability employment advisers, who have specialist knowledge, has dropped by 20% since 2010. There is now less than one adviser per 600 disabled people who are meant to be supported, so we are heading in the wrong direction.
People have been in touch with me about the Access to Work programme. For anyone who is unfamiliar with it, it is a specialised programme that helps disabled people to retain or attain work. The Department for Work and Pensions used to accept—it seems to shy away from accepting this know—that, for every pound spent on Access to Work, about £1.48 was returned through things such as national insurance contributions and income tax. However, fewer disabled people are now supported under Access to Work than in 2009-10—the figure has dropped from just over 37,000 to 36,700. That needs addressing, and it would be welcome if the Minister told us whether there will be more targeted support under Access to Work to increase those numbers.
In 2014, the Government said they were expanding Access to Work to include work placements acquired by the individual disabled person. I have asked questions about that and received no information to show whether the Government are actually delivering on that. In 2011, the Government said that they accepted all the recommendations of the Sayce review, including those on Access to Work. Perhaps we could have an update on how they are taking forward the review’s retention and promotion aspects. In the 2015 spending review, the Government announced that Access to Work funding would support 25,000 additional disabled people by providing IT help, but we have no information on what that means or how it will be rolled out in practice. It would be useful to hear more about that significant target.
The Down’s Syndrome Association has been in touch and has provided briefing for the debate to highlight its WorkFit programme. The association says the programme has supported 75 individuals with Down’s syndrome into work, but that only three have met the stringent eligibility criteria for Access to Work. The association feels that that needs to change, and it is keen to hear from the Minister whether the Government will take forward its recommendations.
I want to raise the issue of assessments and accessible information. I have a constituent called Norma who lives in Walworth. Her daughter, who is about 50, has learning disabilities and a visual impairment, and she is deaf. The DWP has been contacting Norma to press for her daughter to be assessed, and Norma feels that her daughter is being told she should be working, even though she cannot leave her home without support. Norma feels she is under considerable pressure. I will write to the Minister about this specific example after the debate, and I will encourage him to explain why Norma and her daughter feel they are under such pressure from the DWP.
Disabled people have also been in touch with significant concerns about universal credit. Some projections suggest that universal credit will be about 1,000 years in delivery, so perhaps some of the fears are unnecessary, as we will not be here. However, it appears that the Government have scrapped the limited capability for work element before any disabled person has been able to access it, which will leave 116,000 working disabled people £40 a week worse off. Once again, the idea that the Government want to support people into work is undermined by their policies. Citizens Advice has also highlighted in a report that in-work single disabled people will be worse off because of the scrapping of the severe disability premium, which will leave almost 250,000 disabled people worse off by between £28 and £58 a week. The Children’s Society has pointed out that, under universal credit, 100,000 disabled children could also lose £28 a week. I ask the Minister what message that sends to those disabled people.
Employment and support allowance is also a significant concern for many of my constituents, 5,630 of whom receive it. The Government recently announced that a cut of £1.4 billion will affect disabled people in the work-related activity group; that is £30 a week for half a million disabled people. DWP statistics show who those people are. They include a quarter of a million people with learning disabilities, autism or significant mental health problems. Again, I ask the Minister why those specific people were chosen for that measure. What are the Government seeking to achieve by targeting such a disadvantaged and vulnerable group?
An example given to me by Parkinson’s UK shows something of the challenge that disabled people have in accepting that the Government agenda is genuine. In a written answer to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr Godsiff) on Monday, the Minister for Employment revealed that since 2008, when ESA was introduced, 200 people with Parkinson’s in the work-related activity group were assessed and given a medical prognosis by the DWP that they would not be able to return to work for at least two years, or longer. The Department is telling people whom it has assessed as unable to work for two years that they will be receiving £1,500 less per year to get them back into work within that period. I hope that the Minister will comment on that. I hope, too, that he will answer the suggestion raised elsewhere that there will be no change for those already in the work-related activity group. Does that include those whose circumstances change, and those who undergo repeat assessments?
The change to ESA follows previous changes, including the time limiting of some support, which has left 280,000 disabled people with no out-of-work benefit. Some have very low incomes, and it is most unfortunate that the Government have managed to pick that group for an increase in poverty. I would welcome a comment from the Minister about that.
I want briefly to cover sanctions. In its briefing, the Child Poverty Action Group highlighted the fact that some sanctions mean that 100% of a person’s financial support goes. Those sanctions can last up to three years, under the increasingly automated system introduced by the previous Government. [Interruption.] I am glad that some Members find that funny. I find that very strange. Would the hon. Gentleman like to intervene?
Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con)
No, because I am about to make a speech, but I thank the hon. Gentleman for the offer.
Neil Coyle
The hon. Gentleman is welcome. Perhaps I will enjoy his contribution as much as he appears to be enjoying mine.
The concern that I have about sanctions is the growing number of disabled people who experience them; 70,000 sanctions have been imposed on ESA claimants between December 2012 and June 2015 alone. The Select Committee on Work and Pensions highlighted the fact that safeguards may not always work effectively. My question for the Minister is: if he believes the system is adequate, how has he responded to the Committee’s recommendations, and when will the Department publish its own findings of a review of sanctions? Furthermore, as sanctions and benefit changes are specifically mentioned in some people’s suicide notes, how does the Department support Jobcentre Plus staff and other agencies in handling suicidal claimants and those who raise the matter of suicide in meetings with Government officials?
Disability living allowance and personal independence payments are a growing concern for many disabled people. In Bermondsey and Old Southwark, 3,600 working-age disabled people will be affected by the abolition of DLA and hundreds more children will be affected as they reach the age of 16. The DWP has revealed that 607,000 disabled people will lose help with the abolition of DLA. That struck me as quite odd, given that a former Minister for Disabled People accused charities of scaremongering, such as when the Disability Action Alliance suggested that half a million disabled people would be affected. Now that the Government have revealed that the figure will be 607,000, perhaps Ministers should apologise to the charities they accused. Instead, the Government attacks charities’ ability to challenge the Government agenda, which is most unfortunate.
The Disability Benefits Consortium, among others, recommended that there should be better trials of the new assessment process. The DWP chose to ignore that advice; then the National Audit Office reported that the early operational performance of PIP was poor, and the Public Accounts Committee suggested that early delivery was
“nothing short of a fiasco”.
What assessment is the Minister making and what monitoring is the Department undertaking of those changes and how they are affecting disabled people’s ability to work, in the context of the stories about Denise Haddon and others? What is the impact of the changes on NHS demand, for example? It would also be useful to have an update on the backlog of PIP assessments. Citizens Advice reported in August that PIP has now overtaken ESA as the most complained-about benefit system.
I want briefly to focus on the bedroom tax. The DWP acknowledges that two out of three people affected by the bedroom tax are disabled people. That is 440,000 disabled people. Assuming that average amount is £14 per week since the introduction of the bedroom tax, by the time it reaches its third birthday at the end of April, it will amount to a disability tax of almost £1 billion. Disabled people are also affected by issues such as the freezing of benefit of uprating. Even for those on ESA, the value of the uprating for the vast majority of their benefits is lower than the rises in their energy bills or transport costs, for example.
On housing, I have been contacted by John, who is pleased about this debate and the one this afternoon. He says that he lives in supported housing, which he relies on to live independently. He says that he has
“lived securely, independently and safely in a social housing wheelchair designated flat provided by Habinteg for 27 years and this is now potentially under threat.”
Many of his neighbours have considerably greater needs and are equally threatened. He finds the threat alone destabilising, let alone what could happen if the changes go through as the Government intend. He believes that the Government’s plans will stem the supply of wheelchair-accessible housing, particularly as there is already a shortfall in the availability of genuinely accessible housing. Has the Minister undertaken any impact assessment of how that specific change will affect the supply of accessible housing over time, given that we have an ageing population and growing demand for wheelchair-accessible homes?
On social care, a recent report from the Royal National Institute of Blind People and Age UK suggested that more than 12,000 blind and partially sighted people over 65 lost access to social care between 2009 and 2013. That is more than a third of those who were previously getting support. The role of the Under-Secretary of State for Disabled People should not just be to act as an apologist for the DWP. It should be cross-Government. I am intrigued to know what monitoring the Minister is undertaking with colleagues at the Department for Communities and Local Government, or the Department of Health, about where those disabled people go next if they lose social care. For example, is there a rise in demand for NHS services? Reductions in support for disabled people inevitably mean an increase in the demand for informal carers, who, without adequate support, can go on to experience health conditions and impairments of their own. There has been a rise in the number of children providing support for disabled parents and grandparents, which is a risk to their own long-term prospects if they do not receive sufficient support.
The independent living fund is being abolished. Its 18,000 users are very nervous about what happens next. It would be useful to have an indication from the Minister about how the people who lose it will be monitored, to see where they go next, given that the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services estimates that social care has lost £3.5 billion in funding since 2010. Many councils are losing about 28% of their budget but are spending about a third of their entire budget on social care. Councils cannot pick up the loss; they cannot step in and fill that gap.
I am sure that the Minister will want to mention the better care fund. My understanding of that fund is that it will only support new services, so those losing independent living fund support may not qualify for help. Scope, Mencap, Leonard Cheshire Disability and the National Autistic Society have estimated that one in six care users have fallen out of the system since 2008, and a further 36,000 working-age disabled people could lose access under the latest cuts as a result of the autumn statement. Will the Minister comment on what that loss could mean for other Government services?
Not only have social security and social care services been undermined by changes since 2010, but changes to a whole range of services used and needed by disabled people have had a negative impact. For example, there are 3,000 fewer nurses and hundreds fewer doctors in mental healthcare than in 2010. In my borough, we have therefore seen a rise in crisis treatment—that is, a rise in the number of people with mental health problems arriving at A&E, rather than having the right support further upstream.
In education, we have seen changes to the disabled students’ allowance. Randstad provided a briefing for this debate in which it highlights its concerns about both the changes to DSA and the regulatory change to how provision is administered. It quotes its survey of disabled students, which found that almost 28% of disabled students would not have attended university if DSA had not been available. Another third said they were unsure whether they would have attended university. The survey also found that more than three quarters of disabled students said that attending university as a disabled student was more expensive, with 42% saying they were more likely to drop out as a result of losing DSA. Furthermore, 87% of students said they were concerned that not completing their studies would impact on their future employment prospects. Will the Minister try to demonstrate that the Government are taking a long-term approach and looking at what DSA changes might mean in lowering income for disabled people and lowering tax contributions to the Government in the longer term?
Even on legal aid, the Government have acknowledged that changes to funding have the potential to discriminate against disabled people unduly. That is borne out in the case summaries since the changes. In 2011-12, there were 7,676 disability discrimination-related cases. That has fallen to 3,106 cases—less than half—in the last year stats were available. That collapse is not due to discrimination ending, though it would be useful if that were so. The Government’s concern should be that, without disabled people receiving the right support, the Government will not meet their commendable target to cut the employment gap for disabled people.
I suspect that the Minister will mention in his contribution the £50 billion a year spent on disabled people. The Resolution Foundation estimates that disabled people have lost more than £28 billion in support under a range of funding changes since 2010. If the Minister were to use that figure, he would therefore acknowledge that the Government have cut resources by about one third. That is not a record I would trumpet. It would be welcome if that figure were broken down into the different pots of support it covers. My concern is that it includes social care funding, without taking into account the charges that many disabled people pay to use social services, so it is not representative.
I want to conclude with a reference to the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities inquiry into the rights of people with disabilities in the UK, which should report next year. Investigations by the committee are confidential, and the process, extent and scope of the inquiry are unknown, but it is widely believed that it will consider policies introduced by the coalition Government since 2010 in relation to welfare and social security benefits and, in particular, their compatibility with articles 19 and 28 of the convention on the rights of persons with disabilities, which cover their rights to live independently and to enjoy an adequate standard of living.
The UK is the first country in the world to be investigated by the UN in relation to that convention. We have moved from being at the forefront of disability rights, respect and inclusion globally to being the first state in the world under investigation for rolling back disabled people’s rights and undermining their equal citizenship. I simply end by asking the Minister this: can he genuinely be proud of that position for the UK?
Mr David Crausby (in the Chair)
I intend to call the three Front-Bench Members starting at 10.30 am. If they could give Mr Coyle an opportunity to sum up briefly at the end, I would appreciate it. I do not intend to impose a time limit, but if Members could self-regulate, that would be best.
Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Crausby. I congratulate the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle) on his wide-ranging speech and obvious knowledge of the issues concerned.
I have learned in my time in the House that it is often best not to attack an individual Member before they have stood up to speak, just in case that Member might actually intend to be helpful to the cause. At least the hon. Gentleman has saved me that dilemma, in a sense. I learned another lesson today, which is never to have stray thoughts during any parliamentary debate. I was not expecting to be here today—I was due to have a meeting at 10 o’clock, which got cancelled. I had an ironic thought about why it had been cancelled and the chance that I happened to be here, but if the hon. Gentleman in any way took offence at me making an audible noise, I apologise.
Since the hon. Gentleman thought I was referring to sanctions, let us talk about that for a few minutes. Sanctions are a particular concern in my constituency. I was fortunate to serve with the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams), on the Select Committee on Work and Pensions, where we looked into sanctions. Indeed, I tabled amendments to our Committee’s report that went beyond anything even the shadow Minister felt able to table.
The hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark mentioned suicide notes citing sanctions. I remain a firm supporter of the idea that where there is any question of the benefits system playing a role in any untoward event, there should be a body—similar in scope to the Independent Police Complaints Commission, perhaps—that looks at the individual’s entire journey, from the first day they engaged with any Government Department to the end of their life, to establish what went wrong and where. Often, the fact that people experience a sanction is the end of a process of being poorly served by the benefits system, not the start of a process. I was pleased to see that mentioned in the final report.
I also gently make the point to the hon. Gentleman that much of what the Government brought forward in response to our Committee’s report far exceeded my reasonable expectation. I am sure it did not satisfy the shadow Minister, because she and I rarely agreed in our time on that Committee, but it went beyond what I reasonably expected the Government to deliver, so I welcome that.
The other interesting lesson I have drawn today, in addition to how I should keep a straight face during debates, is what happens when I walk past an annunciator. Walking past an annunciator yesterday, I saw that the short title of today’s debate was, “Support for disabled people,” and I thought, “Gosh! That’s very wide, isn’t it? That could almost cover anything at all.” I see today, however, that the title is actually, “Changes to funding of support for disabled people.”
An interesting observation we can make here is that support can never just be financial. One frustration I have found in my six years in this place is that when we discuss disability, we often start from a financial perspective. Most of the critique is about the amount of money going left, right and centre. I do not dispute for a moment that without a stable financial base of support for disabled people and a well run benefits system giving support to those who need it most, anything else is simply window-dressing. We always need to look at the wider picture of disability: support needs to be about more than just the amount of money we happen to give someone in some way. The Minister’s role has to be far more than administering our benefits system. Indeed, the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark pointed out that the Minister’s role has to be cross-governmental; it cannot just be located within DWP.
The hon. Gentleman rightly mentioned the Government’s welcome commitment to halve the disability employment gap. I said in this place just over a week ago that the Conservative party was the only party to make that commitment. We get a lot of credit from the various component parts of the Disability Benefits Consortium for making that commitment. They want to see it evidenced in policy, and I accept that entirely. I know how hard the Minister is working on the Disability Confident campaign, which may be nebulous in its concept and hard to measure but is fundamental to changing the nature of the debate. Once again, it is about not only the amount of money that the state gives but the amount of money that individuals themselves can obtain through employment, and the benefits that will flow from that.
We need to take other aspects of funding of support for disabled people into account as well. Given the hon. Gentleman’s professional background before he came into the House, I am sure that he is aware of Scope’s Extra Costs Commission, which reported just before the last election. The commission looked at the issue of the “purple pound”, as we like to call it now, and why we often talk about the poverty premium as a disability premium, too. It is a cost that people face.
Although disability living allowance and the personal independence payment are there to cover extra costs faced by disabled people, very often they cannot cover all of them. Scope rightly tried to look at how we can not only increase PIP, but decrease the extra costs. Why is it so hard for charities to perform collective energy price switching on behalf of many of their members and supporters? Why has there never been a Competition and Markets Authority investigation into why aids and appliances seem to have over-inflated prices, compared with the cost of producing them? The commission produced a thick, voluminous report, full of very challenging ideas, many of which can be taken hold of not only by Government but by the market. The hon. Gentleman talked about the Minister having a more wide-ranging role, and that is the sort of thing I envisage.
The hon. Gentleman was right to draw attention to the current controversy over employment and support allowance and the work-related activity group, and I do not disagree that it is a difficult area for Government. His speech was a bit of a Christmas tree of briefings from all the different charities within the DBC, many of which I have met too. They seem to have great unanimity on what the Government are doing wrong, but when it comes to solutions and what we should do instead, I have found great differences in what they are suggesting. Each charity seems to have its own answer about what should be done, even though their analysis appears to have a degree of commonality.
I certainly see a specific problem in my constituency. People may not pass or get the result that they want from their work capability assessment. They may then not accept the judgment and might even reject participation in the ongoing process, but what they do not feel able to do is transition on to jobseeker’s allowance, whereby they might get different, more appropriate levels of help that might get them back into work. They get stuck in a no man’s land, because of the financial jeopardy of losing money as they transition on to jobseeker’s allowance. I accept that removing that financial gap is not the answer for every single person, but it is an honest attempt, in my view, to solve what I see as a real problem in my constituency.
In the longer term, however, I urge the Government to look at ESA as a whole. To me, it is now one of the last in the suite of disability benefits that was conceived when we saw disability mainly as a physical manifestation. Nowadays, we know about the interaction between mental health and physical health, and I think that benefits now—particularly PIP—are doing much more to look at how mental health comes into the picture.
I think that ESA needs more than just tinkering with; it needs substantial reform, because two people with an identical degenerative condition might be at the same stage in their prognosis but might be responding to that undoubtedly terrible news in very different ways. One might have a positive get-up-and-go approach and the other might be totally bowled over by it and unable to cope. Both responses are perfectly legitimate, but they have a major impact on how that person engages in the workplace. The benefit system has to be able to accommodate both those outcomes, without judging them in any way, shape or form. At the moment, I am not convinced that ESA is able to do that. That is why I would argue for a much more fundamental reform. As with other reviews of both WCA and PIP tests, for which we have the annual review, I feel that all we are seeing is more and more people being placed in the support group, almost as a default doctrine. I do not think that would fulfil the Government’s policy objective in the medium term.
I realise that we are trying to keep speeches brief, so I will try to do so. The hon. Gentleman mentioned Access to Work. We are always right to keep pressing the Government about how they are spending Access to Work money, which is a really important pot of money. The fact that there is no cap on it means that I would always argue for more ways to spend it, and he identified a few. I am very keen to see apprenticeships and pre-work situations being brought into the programme’s remit. Many people find, for example, that when they leave university they cannot access the help they need to demonstrate that they can do a job, so that they can get credibility with an employer and get the job offer. Bringing that process to a pre-appointment stage might give employers slightly more confidence that the person they want to employ can be employed and supported in the job. I continue to urge that we do far more to use Access to Work to keep people in work. I know that the Minister is doing more on that issue, but I think more could still be done.
The hon. Gentleman talked about IT. In my understanding, that relates mainly to some of the more mental health-focused interventions that Access to Work is now involved in. There has been, if I recall correctly, a 200% increase in the number of people benefiting from mental health interventions. Given the current levels of demand, I suspect that that needs to be 2,000%, but it is a good start none the less.
Finally, when it comes to financial support for disabled people—if we take that as the title of the debate—there is always room for continuous improvement in the delivery of benefits. I cannot think of a single suite of benefits that the Work and Pensions Committee could look at and not find recommendations on how it could be improved. I live in a constituency that is perhaps a bit similar to the hon. Gentleman’s, with a very high level of transience in the population. Many people do not have addresses that are stable from month to month. The methods of communication are often not suited to those highly vulnerable people, who are often facing addiction challenges of one sort of another. There are always ways of improving how we deliver the benefits necessary to support the most vulnerable, so the Minister’s role will always be about continuous improvement, but it cannot just be about managing a benefit system, because financial support has to come in numerous ways. Part of that financial support is considering what else the Government can do to lower the extra costs across the community—it is not just about how we give people more money to meet those extra costs. Both are important, and we need to give more attention to how we meet some of the extra costs through non-benefit means as well.
My speech was not short enough, but it was an attempt at being short, Mr Crausby.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr David Crausby (in the Chair)
Order. If Members can keep their contributions to around seven minutes, they should all get in.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate with you as our Chair, Mr Crausby. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle) on securing this important debate and on the excellent way in which he opened it.
I want to touch on the impact that the Government’s policies and proposals are having and are likely to have not only on disabled people, but on their family carers. The toxic combination of cuts to local authority budgets and changes to support are having a significant negative impact on disabled people and on their carers. My hon. Friend gave an excellent analysis of many of those impacts.
Social care is widely seen to be in crisis. The most recent survey by the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services reported that 400,000 fewer people are receiving social care services than in 2009-10. Of those who are still supported, a significant number are now getting less care. Most directors expect that still fewer people will get access to services over the next two years.
There have been five years of funding reductions, totalling £4.6 billion and representing nearly one third of real-terms net budgets for local authorities. This year, adult social care budgets will reduce by a further half a billion pounds in cash terms. Taking the growth in numbers of older and disabled people into account, an additional £1.1 billion would be needed to provide just the same level of service as last year. Before the Minister tells us that the Government are putting £3.5 billion back into social care in future years, I should tell him that I see the Government’s funding plans for social care as risky, uncertain and late.
Proposed increases to the better care fund are risky, because they are so back-loaded. They do not reach £1.5 billion until 2019, but as I said, demand is growing each year before then and we have already lost £4.6 billion. Funding from the social care precept is uncertain; it can only raise £1.6 billion by 2019-20 if every single council decides to raise council tax by the maximum possible, and they may not do so. However, adult social care is in crisis now and there have been significant cuts since 2010. Local authorities are not helped by Government funding that is too little and that comes too late.
Two months ago, the High Court ruled that the benefit cap unfairly discriminates against disabled people and their carers. I am glad that the Government are finally conforming to the Court’s ruling and exempting full-time carers from the benefit cap. However, other changes to social security are still in the pipeline and are causing serious concern for carers. The Government have announced consultation on the possible devolution of attendance allowance to local authorities in England and Wales. I know that Carers UK is deeply concerned about that announcement.
Attendance allowance is an important source of financial support for older people with care needs. It is a gateway benefit entitling the carer to claim carer’s allowance. Currently 295,000 people receive carer’s allowance or other financial support because they are caring for somebody who is receiving attendance allowance. There are deep concerns that the Government’s proposals will mean further delays and variations in people receiving these essential benefits. Local authorities, such as mine, Salford City Council, are still under severe financial pressure due to budget cuts. Salford has had to cut its budget for adult social care by £15 million since 2010.
Without ring-fencing, it is feared that the funding for attendance allowance will be absorbed into local authority social care budgets and then start to be subject to ongoing cuts. It is unclear whether local authorities will be allowed to change the eligibility criteria and level of payment for attendance allowance. If they are given that flexibility, it could lead to eligible carers losing the right to receive their carer’s allowance.
I am sure we all accept that carers provide the bulk of the social care in this country and save the state billions of pounds. If carers are unable to claim carer’s allowance they may be unable to continue caring and be forced back to work, putting pressure on local NHS and care services. Will the Minister say what steps are planned to ensure that the availability of attendance allowance and the eligibility criteria for it will be protected from local variations? It would be helpful if he told us whether he has assessed how many carers would lose access to carer’s allowance as a result of the proposed changes to personal independence payment eligibility. I will come to that.
The proposals to alter the aids and appliances eligibility criteria for PIP may also mean that fewer disabled people will receive the support they need. Currently, 35% of people who are ill or disabled qualify for PIP solely through the aids and appliances descriptors. As PIP is also a gateway benefit for carer’s allowance, any move to restrict PIP eligibility will have a significant impact for carers. I understand that the evidence base for the proposed reforms to PIP is based on an analysis of only 105 claimants when over 611,000 people are claiming PIP. That seems to be an absurd evidence base. The PIP assessment cannot encompass the complexity and fluctuating nature of many health conditions, such as multiple sclerosis and Parkinson’s disease.
The Government’s rushed consultation on the changes will close on 29 January. Disability and carer’s charities have said that all five of the Government’s proposed changes would restrict access to PIP and therefore carer’s allowance. Cutting PIP further is likely to put disabled people and their carers at risk. There are currently more than 7 million carers in the UK and hundreds of thousands of them may be hit by the Government’s proposed changes to support for disabled people. In a submission to the Government, Carers Trust has said:
“Failing to support carers means failing to protect and secure the longevity of our health and social care system.”
Continued underfunding of social care will undermine plans for the NHS and the integration of health and social care. The key point is that it will also damage the health of carers, many of whom—Carers UK reports—are already reaching breaking point.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to participate in this debate, Mr Crausby. It was also a pleasure to hear the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle) setting out clearly what many of us feel about the system that, with great respect, fails the people who need it most. That is what I feel and, in fairness, I believe that it is what everyone in the House feels.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned a number of charities and I will not give a roll-call of them, but they have also contacted me. More than 30, including Mencap, Macmillan Cancer Support, Parkinson’s UK, RNIB, the MS Society UK and Mind, have written to the Minister outlining their deep concerns at the cuts in support for disabled people. This is not the first time we have discussed this matter in Westminster Hall. A debate not long ago was initiated by the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard).
A poll by Populus on behalf of charities found that 71% of people think cuts to welfare will make the UK a worse place for disabled people to live. How will the Government address that? The Minister is always gracious in his responses and I know he will provide some answers and information. Just 6% of people thought the Welfare Reform and Work Bill would make the UK a better place for disabled people. In other words, 94% did not think that. Whatever people say about statistics, that cannot be ignored—94% of people are not satisfied or convinced.
We all know there needs to be an effort to make public finances sounder and that we must be careful with the budget for which the House, particularly the Government, is responsible. All Departments are being made to tighten their belts, but it is clear that public opinion sees these latest reforms as an attack on some of the most vulnerable people in our society. I judge society by its attitude to those who are less well off. My duty in the House is to help vulnerable people to manage better and that is also the Government’s responsibility.
Despite great services, such as the Access to Work programme, the proportion of people with a learning disability in paid employment has remained stubbornly low and, according to Mencap, which represents people with learning difficulties, seems immune to economic factors. That is worrying for us all. Indeed, the proportion of learning-disabled people known to social services in paid employment fell from 7% in 2012-13 to 6.8% in 2013-14, so there has been a fall. Perhaps the Minister will give us some idea of how the Government will respond to that and how they will directly address the issue.
The majority of people with a learning disability can and want to work, so let us encourage them and give them the opportunity. The figures are stark when the national employment rate of 76% is compared with an overall disability employment rate of just below 50%. In the Conservative party’s manifesto, the Government pledged to halve the disability employment gap. I am sure the Minister will say how the Government are trying to meet that manifesto commitment. Welcome moves have been made to realise that commitment, but the facts show that more needs to be done and more action needs to be taken.
In Northern Ireland, we have a scheme to help to reduce the disability employment gap. In addition to the Access to Work programme, Workable (NI) is delivered by a range of providers contracted by the Department for Employment and Learning. The matter is devolved. These organisations have extensive experience of meeting the vocational needs of people with disabilities. Using them is a great way of advancing social enterprise and supporting the sector. Sometimes, it is necessary to innovate, to be different and to think outside the box. The Minister is aware of our scheme and what we do, so I respectfully ask whether the Government are considering it for the mainland. If they are, it would be good news. Perhaps the Government will look at how the devolved Administrations are working to assist disabled people into work and at the solutions to the long-term problem that can be shared across the United Kingdom’s institutions of government.
On the face of it, these changes look completely contradictory to the Government’s manifesto promise and are seen not as a genuine attempt to put more disabled people who can work into work, but as an ideologically driven policy. The Minister will give us statistics, which I am keen to hear, but the cuts are at risk of doing the exact opposite of what they are designed to do. Disabled people already find it much harder to get and keep jobs and to access employment compared with non-disabled people. Their chances will be even less if they are unable to pay telephone or broadband bills, or afford smart clothes and transport to interviews or the jobcentre. Those are all necessities for job searching and they will be even harder to afford when the cuts have been made. When someone goes for an interview, presentation is so important. Employers know that, as do MPs who see people who come to us for jobs.
Some £640 million will be saved by 2020-21, but should we really be targeting vulnerable groups to make savings in public finances? It is already hard enough for ESA recipients to survive on £5,300 a year. Expecting new claimants to be more likely to find work on £3,800 is, with respect, nonsensical. In addition to these cuts, Department for Work and Pensions data show that between 2011 and 2015 the number of jobcentres employing a full-time advisor to help disabled people fell by over 60% from 226 to just 90, with reductions in every recorded year.The reduction in jobcentre disability advisers is surely contradictory to the Government’s commitment to reduce the disability employment gap. The effects of those cuts to services need to be closely monitored to ensure that they are not having an adverse effect on the efforts to reduce disability unemployment.
I will conclude, Mr Crausby, because I am conscious of what you said about keeping contributions to seven minutes. The Government need to look again at the proposals and ask whether this is really the right approach to getting more disabled people back into work, especially when such a plethora of stakeholders are making it clear that the proposals will have the opposite effect to what is intended. That is the opinion of those who are at the coalface and know what is happening; they have concerns. We want the number of disabled people in work to increase, but cutting ESA will only make it harder for disabled people who can work, to find work; and ultimately all the savings will be hindered by the increased payment of benefits when disabled people who want to work simply cannot afford to go on the job hunt itself.
Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)
It is a great honour to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Crausby. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle) on securing the debate. I agree with the sentiment that he expressed in his excellent speech with regard to the UN investigation and I agree with my right hon. Friend the leader of the Labour party, who, at Prime Minister’s questions on 21 October last year, said that it was very sad that the UK was being investigated by the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. However, judging by the speeches this morning and from disabled people’s accounts of their experiences, it is little surprise that we are in this state.
I am pleased to say that I am a member of the all-party parliamentary group for muscular dystrophy. I would like to highlight how the Government’s reforms have affected people who suffer from muscular dystrophy and other muscle-wasting conditions. It is worth bearing in mind that such conditions are serious and progressive; they range from mild to severe disability and even result in premature death. Nationally, more than 70,000 people are affected. That is one in every 1,000 people in our constituencies.
The charity Muscular Dystrophy UK, which works with and for people with muscle-wasting conditions, has called for the Government to abolish the spare room subsidy, which we all know as the bedroom tax, because of its devastating impact on those who are struggling financially while facing the challenges of living with a long-term disability. For many people in that situation, extra space is essential for vital home adaptations and to store equipment, but only those who have been designated as needing 24-hour care and assistance from an overnight carer from outside the family are exempt. That means that many disabled people, who fall outside the exemption, are forced to pay the bedroom tax even though they need the extra bedroom to store essential equipment because of their condition. For many, finding that extra payment from a limited budget is a cause of great stress in their already challenging existence.
A number of those living with muscle-wasting conditions rely on Motability vehicles so that they can live independently and have a quality of life beyond the confines of their home. However, the Government’s decision to replace the DLA’s 50-metre rule with a 20-metre rule under PIP means that those who do not meet the criteria will not access the enhanced mobility rate and could lose their mobility schemes. Although Motability has devised a scheme offering a lump sum to people who joined prior to PIP being rolled out, it is offering only three “free” weeks to accommodate the mandatory reconsideration and appeal. That means that people will have only a seven-week period to resolve the issue if they feel that they have been inappropriately reassessed, but the reality is that in most cases that will take a lot longer. I ask the Minister what steps the Government will take to support those people whose appeal takes longer than the allocated seven weeks.
Muscular Dystrophy UK has been given many examples showing an alarming lack of knowledge among those carrying out assessments for PIP. For example, one woman, who has a long-term and progressive neuromuscular condition, was told that she might “get better”. Sadly, the organisation has found numerous examples showing that people are being treated with a lack of dignity and respect.
The organisation has also found that there are issues with the provision of employment and support allowance. Those have already been outlined by hon. Members. There seems to be a significant lack of understanding of the nature of neuromuscular conditions when cases involve a refusal to award ESA due to the misconception that with physiotherapy and/or other treatments, the condition can improve; it simply cannot.
Most worrying to Muscular Dystrophy UK is the cut of £30 a week for new claimants in the ESA work-related activity group, as it takes away the support that people with progressive and disabling muscle-wasting conditions need in order to look for and secure work.
The total effect of the cuts will seriously affect the ability of disabled people to live independently and play a part in society. Moreover, the cuts will lead to more pressure on health and social care budgets as those with complex needs deteriorate more rapidly without the correct support. The concerns raised by Muscular Dystrophy UK are based on the real experiences of people with neuromuscular conditions, so I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark will not mind if I take this opportunity to ask the Minister whether he will meet some of those people and Muscular Dystrophy UK to discuss their concerns in person and in more detail.
Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
As ever, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Crausby. I congratulate the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle) on bringing the debate to the House. As he said, it is timely not only because of the debate in the House of Lords later today, but because of yesterday’s developments regarding carer’s allowance. Indeed, as we have been sitting here in the debate this morning, the Court of Appeal has ruled that the bedroom tax is discriminatory. These things all stack up. They show that the Government’s approach to support, including financial support, for disabled people is completely wrong.
Barbara Keeley
I had not heard the news that the hon. Lady has just announced, and I am delighted to hear it. I introduced a ten-minute rule Bill to exempt carers from the bedroom tax, but Government Members shamefully spoke against it.
Dr Whiteford
I thank the hon. Lady for making that point. She has a very strong track record of standing up for carers.
Disabled people and those with long-term health problems have faced huge upheaval and uncertainty during the past few years as the austerity measures have kicked in. For many, the changes to social security have already left them significantly worse off and living in precarious and reduced circumstances.
A couple of weeks ago, I was privileged to meet some of the disabled people who came to Parliament as part of the lobby organised by the Disability Benefits Consortium. I pay tribute to it and the other organisations that brief us on the real experiences of disabled people. We need to listen to them, because their experience should inform policy far more than it does at the moment.
As I mentioned, we are having this debate on the day when the Lords will vote on aspects of the Welfare Reform and Work Bill. There has been speculation that the Government may well face another defeat, on the cuts to employment and support allowance that were mentioned earlier. I moved amendments to the Bill on Report, which I am pleased to say were supported by Opposition parties, that would have removed those changes. They are deeply regressive and punitive on people whose disabilities are so severe that even under the very flawed work capability assessment, they have been found unfit for work.
I would be among the first to acknowledge the shortcomings of the work-related activity group classification. It has not been helpful or effective for anyone, and I echo the wider point made by the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard) about the ESA process. However, the key point in our debate today is that people placed in the WRAG are people who are not currently fit for work. There is a wealth of evidence that piling financial or moral pressure on people when they are recovering from illness or living with long-term health conditions does not motivate them to get better any faster; it actually makes them more ill. Living in poverty while too unwell to work simply compounds the challenges that sick and disabled people already face and slows their recovery.
We get to the heart of the matter when we look back at the original announcement. Last summer, during his Budget statement, the Chancellor said that ESA was supposed to end what he termed
“some of the perverse incentives in the old incapacity benefit, but instead it has introduced new ones.”—[Official Report, 8 July 2015; Vol. 598, c. 333.]
Quite seriously, that is what he said. He seems to think that ESA creates incentives for people to be disabled or sick. It is the Chancellor’s thinking that is perverse, because there is absolutely no incentive for any person to live with the limitations, the pain, the social insecurity and the material disadvantage of disability. If the Chancellor thinks that £102 a week of ESA creates an incentive, he must be wired to the moon.
Research published by the Disability Benefits Consortium for an earlier stage of the Welfare Reform and Work Bill showed that 70% of the disabled people surveyed by the consortium believed that further cuts to ESA would cause their health to suffer. Other hon. Members have alluded to that. The word “further” is most telling, because we need to understand the context of the cut in the work-related activity component. As others have said, it comes on the back of the Welfare Reform Act 2012, which allowed for the transition from disability living allowance to personal independence payment, cutting the budget for support for disabled people by £1.5 billion a year and significantly raising the bar on who can receive support.
Let us not forget that the bedroom tax was also a direct assault on the incomes of disabled people. Even when the legislation was going through Parliament, the DWP’s impact assessment showed that two thirds of the households that would be affected were home to someone with a disability. In Scotland the impact was magnified, and eight of 10 households affected were home to a disabled person. I am glad that the courts have ruled that the policy is discriminatory, as has been said all along and as hon. Members stated repeatedly in the House at the time. When we talk about the latest cuts, we must remember that the people who are being sanctioned are disproportionately affected by disability. We really should not need courts to determine those things when we have the evidence before our eyes.
We must take cognisance of the fact that the new measures come at a time when disabled people are already struggling on reduced incomes—and they are really struggling. The hon. Member for North Tyneside (Mary Glindon) laid out in some detail just some of the practical ways in which that manifests itself. The Disability Benefits Consortium research revealed that 57% of respondents had found that the amount of ESA that they currently received did not cover the extra costs of living with disability, and, as a consequence, many experienced difficulties in paying for essentials like food, extra heating and the extra transport costs that they may incur.
I want to touch briefly on the parliamentary review, “Halving The Gap?” led by Lord Low, Baroness Meacher and Baroness Grey-Thompson, which makes valuable recommendations. The report notes that some 500,000 people with physical or learning disabilities, mental health problems or autism are currently assessed as being unfit for work. I want to emphasise that that is the reality. People in the work-related activity group have been assessed as not fit for work, even under the stringent criteria of the work capability assessment, and slashing their incomes by £30 a week is only punitive. It cannot make them better more quickly. It will not incentivise them back to work. It will only make them poorer. For some, it will damage their health. The Government say that they want to halve the disability employment gap, but the policy is still without substance. We are still waiting for a strategy, and I hope that the Minister will bring forward more substantial proposals.
The barriers that disabled people face in accessing and sustaining employment are real, so concrete support through the social security system is vital. Often, it is financial support that people need. The difficulty is the Government’s track record; they have had to be dragged through legal processes to force them to make changes. Last time we debated the matter, I raised the High Court ruling that the DWP had unlawfully discriminated against disabled people on the issue of carers and the benefit cap, as the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) mentioned. Yesterday’s Government U-turn was not announced in a parliamentary statement; it was sneaked out on Twitter. That is an interesting way to do things.
It is sad that it has taken a legal challenge for the Tories to accept the damage that their obsession with austerity, and their willingness to put disabled people on the frontline of austerity cuts, is inflicting on disabled people. Disabled people should not have to fight through the courts for recognition of their rights, and we should not need a High Court judge or a Court of Appeal judge to determine that the benefit cap and the bedroom tax discriminate against those people. I am glad that the Government have been forced into retreat on the matter, but I hope that they will now take far more seriously the disproportionate impact that their cuts are having on disabled people, who are already disadvantaged.
The inquiry by the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities is a real indictment of the Government’s approach to supporting disabled people. I reiterate the point that the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark made in opening the debate: the UK is the first country to be investigated by the UN in relation to the convention. The Prime Minister has tried to dismiss the investigation by saying that
“when you look at these investigations you find that they are not necessarily all they are originally cracked up to be.”—[Official Report, 21 October 2015; Vol. 950, c. 600.]
It is completely and utterly shameful for the UK Government not to take the matter more seriously. The UK is being investigated on the world stage for
“grave and systematic violations of the Convention”,
and the Government need to learn some humility.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) raised some devolved matters from a Northern Ireland perspective. In Scotland, we have made serious efforts to distance ourselves from the UK Government’s shameless and regressive approach. We have tried to insulate the most disadvantaged people from the worst aspects of austerity cuts by establishing the welfare fund and the Scottish independent living fund, and by mitigating the bedroom tax in full. No one is complacent about the impact that income cuts and sanctions are having on sick and disabled people, however, and there is a lot more that we all need to do.
The UK Government, first and foremost, need to start listening to disabled people and taking their views on board. They seem to want to bulldoze through cuts to ESA. I strongly urge them to learn from the High Court judgment, the Court of Appeal judgment and the UN, and to think again.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
It is lovely to see you in the Chair again, Mr Crausby. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle) on securing the debate and making an excellent, comprehensive and thorough speech. I will recap some of the points that he made.
Since 2010, 13 policy measures in the Welfare Reform Act 2012 have reduced financial support for 3.7 million people to the tune of £23.8 billion. I will not go through the list, but it is extensive, and it is there for people to read at their leisure. On top of that, as has been said, the closure of the independent living fund and the transfer of responsibility to local authorities have caused immense distress to many families of people with the most extreme disabilities. Because not all local authorities have chosen to ring-fence that funding, those people have experienced a cut of £1.2 billion.
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)
Does the hon. Lady agree that we are not just talking about dealing with stress? The cuts are also likely to exacerbate any mental health difficulties that disabled people may have, leading them to feel hopeless and depressed, and, in some cases, leading to self-harm and suicidality.
Debbie Abrahams
The hon. Lady makes a good point. One of the woeful things about the measures has been the Government’s lack of assessment of their impact on poverty, on disability and on any other health conditions that disabled people experience. That is a real indictment of the Government.
I return to the cuts to social care. We know from the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services that £3.6 billion has been cut from social care, and that figure is likely to increase to £4.3 billion by 2020. That has led to a reduction in the amount of state-funded support for older and disabled people. In 2014, 500,000 fewer people were able to access social care support, and 12% fewer older and disabled people were able to get essential home adaptations through the disabled facilities grant.
Mencap has identified a whole range of issues with health services provisions for people with learning disabilities. Only 49% of trusts have a full-time learning-disabled nurse. In addition to the cuts to social security and to health and social care, there have been cuts to access to justice, 42% cuts to the access to transport funding that enables people with mobility issues to get out and about, and cuts—described as a “ticking time bomb”—to funding for training teachers who provide mental health support to school pupils. It goes on and on. My hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark mentioned the cuts in the disabled students allowances. That is a looming threat.
Hon. Members have mentioned other cuts that are on the horizon, particularly as a result of the Welfare Reform and Work Bill, which is currently in the Lords. The cuts to the ESA WRAG were mentioned. In effect, there will be cuts of £30 a week for people in that group—people who have been found not fit for work, including 5,000 people with progressive conditions such as Parkinson’s and MS, and people with cancer. A survey conducted by the charity Macmillan Cancer Support found that one in 10 cancer patients would struggle to pay their rent or mortgage if ESA were cut. The woeful impact assessment has not assessed the impact of poverty on disabled people and the effects on their health conditions, but we know that half a million people will be affected by the cuts of £640 million in addition to the £23.8 billion I mentioned previously. Of 11 million disabled people, more than 5 million live in poverty. The cuts will exacerbate their plight, as 80% of people who live in poverty do so as a direct result of their disability.
The ESA WRAG cut is just one of the cuts facing disabled people. There is also the freeze in social security support over the next four years. My hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark mentioned the cut to universal credit, which will affect disabled people. Liverpool Economics estimates that it will cause an average loss of £2,000 a year to each disabled person.
Friday’s closure of the consultation on PIP has been mentioned. A result of that consultation will definitely be another cut, based on a review of 105 of the 611,121 current PIP claimants. That is all in the context of a Tory manifesto that included a pledge not to cut disability benefits. I can only assume that the consultation is the result of the Government getting a little bit anxious that more people will qualify for PIP, because the 105 claimants included in the review were all awarded the daily living component as they would benefit from aids and appliances. I am reminded of a statement made by the Institute for Fiscal Studies just after the spending review:
“The OBR has significantly reduced its forecast of savings from disability benefit reforms—in particular the move from disability living allowance to personal independence payment. This is familiar. Year after year expected savings from this reform go down. In fact this change in forecast would have ensured that the welfare cap in 2020-21 would have been breached.”
That is on top of everything else.
A UN committee has been investigating the UK for breaches of the UN convention on the rights of persons with disabilities, to which we are a signatory. That is an indictment of our record. The Government’s mantra for disabled people of working age is that work holds the key, but we have heard about the lack of support that has been provided with the Work programme, Access to Work and Disability Confident.
My final remark is that my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark is absolutely right: this is down to Government choices. The Government have tried—and I say tried—to regenerate the economy on the back of the poor and disabled. Instead of denigrating social security, we should value it. Like our NHS, the social security system is based on the principles of inclusion, support and security for all, ensuring all of us dignity in the basics of life should any one of us become ill or disabled, or fall on hard times. The Government need to remember that that is the case and stop their attacks on disabled people.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Disabled People (Justin Tomlinson)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Crausby. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle) for calling the debate. He is a formidable campaigner with a wealth of experience having been the head of policy at the National Centre for Independent Living, the director of policy at the Disability Alliance and the director of policy and campaigns at Disability Rights UK. His speech demonstrated a genuine and wide-ranging knowledge. I am grateful for the huge range of issues that have been raised. I will do my very best, in a limited time, to cover as many of them as possible and I will keep going until I run out of time. I pay tribute to all the other speakers who contributed to what was mostly a proactive and constructive debate in which genuine concerns were raised and suggestions made about how we can continue to make improvements.
My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard) once again demonstrated his huge wealth of experience, setting out practical solutions, particularly regarding apprenticeships. His point was timely as I am due to meet the relevant Minister from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills to discuss that issue. I hope that my hon. Friend will be kind enough to join me in that meeting as I would like to push the subject.
The hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) asked whether PIP recognises fluctuating health conditions. I feel that it does better than the DLA. The trained assessors are better at picking up on those conditions compared with the former DLA assessment. The main thrust of her speech concentrated on social care and attendance allowance. I understand that as I spent 10 years as an elected borough councillor, but I support the principle of localising the decisions. As a country, we have agreed that we will continue to devolve more responsibilities, particularly to Scotland, but I trust our English authorities to have the same responsibilities and opportunities. We have introduced the better care fund, the social care precept and the Health and Social Care (Safety and Quality) Act 2015.
Barbara Keeley
There is a fear about variations and carers losing their eligibility because some councils are so cash-strapped. The difference is very unfair. Even the social care precept will be different, as authorities can raise different amounts. It is an unfair and varied field now.
Justin Tomlinson
I understand, and we introduced the Health and Social Care (Safety and Quality) Act to set those standards. To be fair, this issue could be a debate in itself and I am conscious that there were so many other points that I need to come to. I am happy to discuss the matter further.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) was right to highlight the fact that more needs to be done. He is a vociferous speaker; I have never taken part in a debate in which he has not contributed. He is right to challenge and is always proactive in making suggestions, particularly regarding learning disabilities. The proportion of people with learning disabilities in paid employment is typically 6% to 8% regardless of whether the economy is on the up or the down. It is the one stubborn area with which Government after Government have struggled and wrestled to try to make genuine progress. I am interested to hear more about the scheme in Northern Ireland that the hon. Gentleman talked about, and I would be keen to meet him to discuss that further.
I have had a good meeting with the hon. Member for North Tyneside (Mary Glindon) previously. I would be happy to meet with the group she described to discuss those issues further. We are taking action on the time it takes for appeals to be considered. First, the mandatory reconsideration process comes in before the independent appeal and picks up the majority of those cases in which new information has come forward and a mistake has been made. We continue to work on how we can access better information because, more often than not, decisions are changed when new information comes to light. To get that earlier would be beneficial for all. On the point about accessible housing, the discretionary housing payment funds will be increased over this Parliament by £800 million. I think everyone would welcome that.
To the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford), to be fair, external groups, cross-party MPs, Lords, stakeholders and charities do get to influence policies. I spend a lot of my time meeting those groups. Her speech contained a lot of criticism. There are opportunities to make changes. We are reforming ESA through the Work and Health programme and the White Paper. Sometimes, it is good to suggest things that could work, rather than just saying which things are wrong. I reassure her that we do not announce things through Twitter. In the modern world, some people would welcome our doing so, but this week’s announcement about carers and the benefit cap was not made through Twitter. Lord Freud made the announcement in Parliament on Monday during the passage of the Welfare Reform and Work Bill. I hope that provides some reassurance.
I will address as many of the points that have been made as I can. First, on unemployment, we all welcome the Prime Minister’s pledge that we will halve the disability employment gap. Some 339,000 more people with disabilities have been in work over the past two years, which is a good start, but we still have a long way to go. There is a real-terms funding increase in spending to help people with health conditions and disabilities to return to and remain in work. There is support throughout the system, and we are multi-skilling our coaches to ensure that they are all aware how to support people with disabilities. There will be opportunities to make improvements through the White Paper.
The point about smaller, localised, flexible options is important. I get to make many good visits, and I have seen local solutions meeting market needs to create and train the skills where the jobs are. I made an enjoyable visit before Christmas to Foxes Academy, where I was corrected on my inability to cut carrots—it was the hotel featured on Channel 5. Early this week, I visited Ignition, a local brewery that employs people with learning disabilities, where it is socially acceptable to sample the goods at 11 am.
We have introduced the Fit for Work service particularly to focus on helping people remain in work. It is a lot easier to help people remain than to help them back into work. The current figure for Access to Work is 36,760, with four years of growth. It is a demand-led scheme, but a funding increase for an extra 25,000 places has been confirmed, which is significant. We are actively considering the best ways to do that. We have an open mind, and I welcome any suggestions, but obviously greater promotion is key, particularly to smaller businesses where the scheme would be particularly helpful in removing barriers. Specialist employment support has doubled the job outcomes of residential training colleges, which is good progress.
We constantly evaluate PIP, and we work with external stakeholders, charities and users to look at ways we can continue to improve PIP. The waiting time for assessments has reduced by more than three quarters since June 2014. We are now at five weeks for an assessment, and 11 weeks median end-to-end for the process. It is fair to say that the launch of PIP was not good. The reviews highlighted that, and my predecessors will have spent a lot of time in Westminster Hall and in the other Chamber discussing it, but PIP has been in a settled state for quite some time.
Debbie Abrahams
Will the Minister confirm whether that will mean a cut to PIP for people?
Debbie Abrahams
After the consultation, will PIP be protected, or will people see a loss in their PIP allowance?
Justin Tomlinson
The consultation is just completing, and we will analyse what people have had to say. We were right to do that following the Paul Gray review. He highlighted the issue following court judgments. On an earlier point, rather than waiting for the courts to continue to drag it through, it is right and proper that we have a thorough look at it, but I do not want to pre-empt any consultation. We are continuing to look to improve the PIP process, and I look forward to reading the hon. Lady’s comments, assuming that she has fed into that consultation.
Only 16% of DLA claimants secured the highest rate, and the figure is now 22.5% under PIP. As a specific example of an area of disability where people have benefited from the changes, 22% of those with a mental health condition would get the highest rate of DLA, but now 68% of mental health claimants are on enhanced PIP.
Neil Coyle
But that is not someone getting more support but someone qualifying for exactly the same support that existed previously under DLA, a system that actually cost less to run.
Justin Tomlinson
My point is that only 22% of those with mental health conditions would have qualified, and now the figure is at 68%, so more people with a mental health condition are qualifying for the enhanced rate. That is one example, and there are others.
We are in the process of the full roll-out, taking the 1.7 million DLA claimants over to PIP, but please be assured that that is being done in a controlled, measured and timely manner that learns the lessons of the reviews. We are doing the roll-out in a manner that meets the available capacity so as not to repeat the mistakes of when PIP was first launched. The disabled facilities grant currently funds about 40,000 house adaptations a year, and I am delighted that funding is due to increase by 79% next year from £220 million to £394 million.
A number of Members talked about working across the Government, which is a big part of my role. I meet not only Ministers but Opposition Members and Lords stakeholders. I make lots of visits, which is a part of my role that I very much enjoy. My door is always open, and I have met a number of speakers here today.
Some 16,900 have transferred from the independent living fund, of whom 91% already had some form of their care provided by the local authority. The funding was transferred in full. The protection was underwritten by the Care Act 2014. The Department for Work and Pensions, the Department of Health, the Department for Communities and Local Government and the Treasury are keeping a close eye on that as it progresses. I understand the importance of the issue, on which we have had many debates.
We must not forget that ESA WRAG was not a golden solution; it had been criticised by all parties for a long time. Only 1% of claimants a month were coming off that benefit into work. No Government ever invented could have spun that as anything other than failing the people it was meant to serve. Those already receiving ESA will see no cash loss. Anyone whose capacity to work is limited by severe work-limiting health conditions and disabilities will continue to remain in that support group. Existing claimants who undergo a work capability reassessment after April 2017 and are placed in, or remain in, the WRAG will continue to receive that additional rate.
The Government have invested an extra £1.25 billion in mental health support, and in our area we are doing a series of pilots on group work, telephone support, face to face, online and inside jobcentres to look seriously at how we can do that and scale it across the country to help people as quickly as possible, which is clearly the key. On the disabled students allowance, we recognise that progress has been made since the Equality Acts. Universities, like all public sector bodies, have a duty to comply with the law. We should not be paying for things that they should be doing and are underwritten by law. I have had a number of meetings on that, and I will continue to keep a close eye on it.
Finally, on accessible information, the Royal National Institute of Blind People rightly challenged me because it felt that the Government were inconsistent in how they presented information. It is important that my Department leads on that, as well as pushing the rest of the Government, so I set up a taskforce that includes the RNIB and a number of organisations and people with a wealth of experience who will work through how we communicate our information. I understand that, when people are looking to use services and claim benefits, we need to make their journey as easy and as helpful as possible, and I am delighted that so many organisations are supporting that valuable work.
It is a pleasure to have responded to this helpful debate, which is a credit to the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark.
Neil Coyle
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Crausby. I thank everyone who has contributed to this debate. The Minister seems to have left most of my questions unanswered, particularly on unemployment—there was just some indication there. I share the concern of the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) that, although we welcome the commitment to halve the gap, there is a reverse-Ronseal approach coming from the Government. The approach is not doing what it says on the tin. The number of people supported by Access to Work, for example, seems to be heading the wrong way.
On DSA and universities needing to do more, it goes back to the point raised by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford) and my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams). Look at the court case today: the Government do not do what they are meant to do on impact assessing or following their own Equality Act obligations. That from the Department that is directly responsible for representing disabled people and much of central Government disability policy. The Government are not doing enough, and to try to pass responsibility on to universities when the Government are failing to uphold their own responsibilities is crude.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) for her contribution. I completely share her concern about the Government’s risky, uncertain and late approach, and I thank her for all her work with Carers UK, which is based in my constituency. I consider her an honorary constituent simply because of the amount of time she spends with Carers UK.
The hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard) mentioned funding, but the Government still do not seem to co-ordinate a longer-term approach to planning. What happens when disabled people lose support and end up making increased demands on the NHS? He made lots of points about the extra costs of disability and then seemed to suggest, in some kind of sick joke, that disabled people in the work-related activity group of ESA should get JSA, which would be a considerable reduction in financial payment, because it might incentivise them into work sooner when we know they have health issues. That is a completely unacceptable approach, and sadly that is what we see time and again from a Government whose priorities are upside down—tax is not collected where it should be, and they keep coming back to disabled people for more.
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).
Business Transactions: Cash Retentions
(8 years, 10 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered cash retentions in business transactions.
As I lead off in this debate, I will say first that I know that some of my own party colleagues and others have indicated that they want to make some form of intervention. Time is limited, so I will try to keep my points to a minimum to allow as many people in as possible, Mr Crausby, if that is okay with you. If it is not possible, I hope that anyone who does not manage to get in will please accept my apologies.
Let me start with this point: cash retentions, specifically in the construction industry, are currently responsible for £30 million of moneys being held back from small firms. Normal guidelines state that cash retentions are calculated at around 5% of the amount certified as due to the contractor. I must add that this 5% is very often the firm’s profit margin.
By and large, the lead contractor will get paid in instalments throughout the term of a contract, as very often there is a large turnover on specific jobs. This has been normal practice for many years. However, we then must turn our focus to the issue of subcontractors and fair payment practices.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
This is a massive issue and it is good to see the Minister for Small Business, Industry and Enterprise in her place; I hope that she will give a very positive response to the debate. Just today, the news back home in Northern Ireland is that the Groceries Code Adjudicator has found Tesco guilty of holding back moneys and of delaying invoice processing as well. At long last, we have an adjudicator that has teeth. It is just a pity that the legislative power to impose fines was not used, because the inquiry into this case started before it existed. Does my hon. Friend agree that at long last the adjudicator can make companies pay?
David Simpson
Yes, I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. We have raised this issue of the Groceries Code Adjudicator in the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee as well. It is good to see some power coming into this area, so that the larger companies can pay this money.
I mentioned subcontractors and fair payment practices. This area is where we begin to see major difficulties and cash-flow problems for companies. I can report in this debate today that £40 million worth of cash retentions were lost by small firms in 2015.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. Was he as disappointed as I was last year when the Government failed to act on this issue and did not implement my amendment to the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015, which was specifically about cash retentions? And does he hope that the Minister and the Government will listen as the Enterprise Bill goes to the House, which is another opportunity for this issue to be addressed?
David Simpson
I agree that that was disappointing, and I will touch on it further in my remarks later. I think we have a listening ear from this Minister, but we will see when she responds to the debate.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. He mentioned subcontractors. May I quote to him a subcontractor in my constituency—Steve Murray, the managing director of W T Jenkins? He told me:
“Cash retention is harming our sector and our company in particular. We have to wait far too long for the retentions, if we receive them at all. We have lost a lot of revenue over the last five years due to many companies going into administration and taking our monies with them.”
On Monday in his office, Mr Murray showed me a shelf full of files about firms that owe him money, in some cases for more than eight, nine or even 10 years.
David Simpson
Again, I agree with the hon. Member. I could do exactly the same thing in my constituency and I am sure that other Members could do the same in their constituencies. This situation is unacceptable and we will address it as we go through the debate.
David Simpson
I will give way to the hon. Lady; I will never be forgiven if I do not.
Ms Ritchie
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way and I congratulate him on securing this debate. Does he agree that although the Government are now undertaking a cost-benefit analysis of the retention system with the express aim of eliminating these retentions by 2025, there is a need for a statutory retention deposit scheme, which could be brought in through the Enterprise Bill and which would be similar to the tenancy deposit scheme as a means of protection?
David Simpson
We will deal with that as well—great minds think alike.
The figure that is reported is some £40 million, which is horrendous. Small companies come to the stage where they are forced to write off money they are owed, because the cost of recouping it would be far greater than the sum itself and therefore it is futile for them to try to recoup it.
The Government have been very vocal in leading the business community to look forward and they have encouraged businesses on sustained growth and productivity, which is a good thing. I know that the Minister has done that; she is very pro-business. I have been approached by firms in my constituency, and I know that this is a UK-wide problem. The firms in my constituency say they are on their knees, largely due to the retention of moneys they cannot recover from larger contractors that have already been paid for the job they have done.
A firm in my constituency reported to me only last week that it has had to wait up to four years for retention money when contractual agreements state that 12 months is the limit. They have categorically stated that this situation hinders their plans for growth. In the majority of these cases, the contractor has already been paid but holds on to these moneys to counteract discounts.
A significant employer in Northern Ireland forced a loss of £10 million to a large number of subcontractors and suppliers when it went into insolvency. While that big company faced the headlines, many of the small contractors were simply unable to sustain their business; they simply had to bow down and close their doors, which resulted in significant job losses.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate; he has made some good points. On that point about cash flow, I am a civil engineer and have worked in the construction industry, so I am well aware of the effects that cash-flow problems can have on small firms.
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Scottish Government are currently trialling in the area of public procurement the operation of project bank accounts, which are underpinned by legal trust status? The system allows payments to be made into a project bank account, where the money is legally protected for subcontractors, so they actually get their money quicker. Of course, that system can be used to manage retentions as well, completely eliminating the cash-flow problem. Does he agree that the Minister should perhaps consider that system and speak to the Scottish Government about that trial?
David Simpson
I thank the hon. Member for that intervention and his point certainly has validity; it is worth looking at, to see whether something could be done in that field to try to resolve this issue for small companies.
I know that the Government are pro-business; the Democratic Unionist party and other Northern Ireland parties have seen our economy in Northern Ireland grow. It is the role of Government, MPs and other politicians to create the circumstances for businesses to develop. I speak as a businessperson myself—my business interests are set out in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests—and it has taken my company 36 years to get to where it is today. Government have played their part in that, but this issue of cash retentions goes right to the core of small businesses.
Jim Shannon
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way again. I know that he and the hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie) have been involved in the Patton Group issue. When the Patton Group became insolvent, almost £10 million in cash retention was lost. Does he agree that the reintroduction of the aggregates levy scheme and the exemptions within that scheme would enable and help cash flow?
David Simpson
I think so, yes. I will touch on that later. My hon. Friend mentioned a company that I referred to earlier, although not by name. It was a major blow for subcontractors in Northern Ireland. In 2012, poor payment practices were discussed in the Northern Ireland Assembly, and my hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson), who was the then Minister of Finance and Personnel, was questioned on why Government should intervene. His answer was:
“The reason that it is so important is that the businesses at the receiving end of this unacceptable practice are, more often than not, small and medium-sized enterprises…on which we are depending to help rebuild our economy.”
That is not just the economy of Northern Ireland, but the economy of the whole United Kingdom.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for securing this important debate. Does he agree with the points that SELECT, which is the Scottish electrical contractors association, raised with me? If companies are ending up propping up larger businesses, they have less money to invest in education, training and innovation within their own business.
David Simpson
That is right, and that is exactly the problem. The issue needs to be addressed. Speaking from Northern Ireland’s point of view, it has been a major obstacle to small and medium-sized companies moving forward. To add to that, those SMEs have no protection against cash retentions. Banks do not consider unprotected retentions as sufficient security for lending purposes, and that is a major problem for SMEs. Even though that money is on the books, the banks will not let them use it as security for overdraft facilities. In addition, and perhaps most alarming of all, public bodies and large companies are using millions of pounds of small firms’ retentions to boost working capital. That is happening with a lot of the major supermarket chains. They are using the money that they hold back to move their companies forward, to buy premises and to buy land. That has been the story for some considerable time. That is not just speculation; it is happening in today’s society while the Government are reviewing the matter but have not yet agreed to legislate, and we need to see that legislation.
My next comment is on a somewhat disappointing matter. In 2015, the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, Baroness Neville-Rolfe, acknowledged the problem and said:
“issues with retentions go to the heart of the industry’s business models…low levels of capitalisation mean that the industry is heavily reliant on cash flow.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 3 March 2015; Vol. 760, c. 127-28.]
In addition, she said that the Government had no plans to legislate to tackle the issue. That point was raised earlier, and I again emphasise that the Government need to look at that.
While the sector is delighted that the Government recognise that there is a problem—they are to be supported in their efforts to eliminate cash retentions by 2025—and I very much welcome their long overdue review of the retentions system, we need to see some action.
Ms Ritchie
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way again. He is making a compelling case for the elimination of cash retentions. Would he agree with me that the situation, particularly in Northern Ireland, for those involved in the construction industry was compounded when the aggregates levy credit scheme was withdrawn? That was remedied in the European Commission and the European Court of Justice some months ago, but the British Aggregates Association is now taking a further case against the Commission ruling. That could plunge our industry into further peril and financial difficulties.
David Simpson
That is an excellent point, and we have been lobbied on that over the past days and weeks. That case could have a devastating impact on the construction industry in Northern Ireland, so it will be fought tooth and nail. We hope that the Government will support people in that.
It is not enough for the Government to talk about removing retentions by 2025; we need to see some form of legislation to stop retentions. We cannot sit back and ignore a potential loss of £360 million over the next nine years, as calculated by the loss of £40 million in 2015, while the Government work towards elimination but have no plans to legislate. That is grossly unfair and frankly hugely debilitating to the construction sector and the UK economy.
There has been huge interest in the debate. I am sure that many Members, like me, have been briefed by the Specialist Engineering Contractors Group, which has been the voice for SMEs on this poor payment practice. Like many here today, I recognise that cash retentions work in theory. They were originally established as a protection against any defects that might have been left when a job was finished or left unfinished. These days, since all contractors have to go through a lengthy pre-qualification process to be able to take on any job, there should no longer be any need for retentions to be withheld. However—this is quite embarrassing for the UK—we still have not legislated to have retention moneys placed in safe keeping. France, Germany, America and Australia are already leading the way and have put in place effective processes to secure the money, should the larger contractors go into insolvency or adopt poor payment practices when releasing the finance to their subcontractors.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
My hon. Friend is being very generous with his time. Does he believe that there is a parallel with the legal industry, where a solicitor can exercise a lien over something of importance until the contract is concluded, whether that is deeds, money or cash? That is regulated by the Law Society. Lessons could be learned from the regularised and legislated procedure of a solicitor’s lien.
David Simpson
That question could only come from a barrister, but my hon. Friend is right. There is a role for that. As MPs, we all have companies that come to our offices or that we go and visit. Time and again, retentions are the issue that is raised, and some companies and subcontractors are begging us to try to resolve it.
I listened carefully to what the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) said, and there is an option to look at that, but as the hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie) said, we already have a suitable model in place under the Housing Act 2004 with the tenancy deposit schemes. Deposits paid in connection with shorthold tenancies must be placed in a Government-authorised deposit scheme. Similarly, retention moneys could be placed in a secure deposit account, as already happens in many other countries. That option is there, so perhaps the Government could look at that to try to ease the burden.
The Government and the Minister know that the construction industry in particular has gone through a devastating time. That is perhaps not so much the case in London and the big cities on the mainland—I think there was something like 12% or 13% growth last year in the City of London alone—but the regions of the United Kingdom have found it difficult to try to get the construction industry moving again. Money is being held back and banks will not take retentions as guarantees. The industry is struggling with cash flow.
I will finish now because I am excited to hear what the Minister is going to say to us, but I must ask the Government why they would object to developing a model for the funds that would allow our SMEs, which I and other Members often champion in our constituencies, to be the backbone of our growing economy. We need protection against poor payment practices and the misuse of SME funds, because it is their money.
The Minister for Small Business, Industry and Enterprise (Anna Soubry)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Crausby. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson) not only on securing the debate but on the powerful speech that he made. There have been many interventions, and powerful points and arguments have been made.
This has been a good debate, although it has not been a real debate, because we have not heard anybody who does not agree that there are strong and powerful arguments for taking action on the problem of cash retentions. Hon. Members are probably getting the drift of the fact that in some ways, they are banging at an open door with this Minister. I absolutely understand the arguments about the need for reform, including the powerful arguments this morning.
I want to mention someone who came to see me, Mr Simon Bingham, who is head of one of the small businesses that the hon. Member for Upper Bann referred to. Mr Bingham’s business is just 100 metres over the constituency border in the seat next to mine, which is held by the hon. Member for Ashfield (Gloria De Piero), so strictly speaking he should have gone to her, but he came my way because I made an error, and we had a great conversation. He has a company called Caunton Engineering Ltd. He also chairs the contracts committee of the British Constructional Steelwork Association, and he gave me the real-life evidence that the hon. Member for Upper Bann referred to, because he lives in the real world with the outdated way of doing things that we have heard about.
There are good reasons and arguments for having some sort of retention. I do not think any of us disagree with that. We know about snagging, and the faults that exist, and things that have not been done properly that come to light only six months after the completion of work on a contract, or even later. There needs to be provision so that such things can be rectified. As the hon. Gentleman and, I suspect, the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) know, in major construction projects, such as the recent tram project in my constituency, problems occur and we need a device to make sure the job is properly done and finished.
Equally, we know from our experiences that in the case of large housing developments, bonds are put in place at the beginning of the process, before the first sod is turned, to ensure that if the developer or builder gets into difficulty, funds will be available to make sure that the roads are properly finished. I have an example in my constituency, which I will not bore hon. Members with, but bonds are specifically put in place at the insistence of local authorities so that roads are completed and all the other work is done, and so that money is available in the event of somebody going under or some other catastrophe happening.
I cannot understand why a similar scheme cannot be operated in the construction industry. That sounds like good news, but I may be about to disappoint hon. Members. I fervently ask hon. Members not to seek to amend the Enterprise Bill, only because we have launched a review. I am grateful to Andrew Wolstenholme, the chief executive of Crossrail, who absolutely understands the problem and has agreed to oversee the review. It will be an extensive review that will take evidence and look at evidence, but its work will not be completed until the end of this year, when its recommendations will go out for further consultation. I accept that it could be said that that is an inordinate length of time, but I promise that I will look at the time that we have currently given to that review, because there is a growing feeling among all parties that we really need to get on and sort it out.
Debbie Abrahams
The review seems like good news. I am sure the SEC Group and others who, like me, have been campaigning on this issue for five years will see it as good news. However, promises have been made in the past, and there will be concerns that this will be seen as yet another prevarication to address the issue.
Anna Soubry
It could never be said that this Government would prevaricate in any way or seek to knock things into the long grass.
Anna Soubry
Never. I can absolutely assure the hon. Lady that I take the issue very seriously and know that we need to make progress. There are reasons why we would want some sort of retention, but not in a way that is onerous, particularly for small businesses. As I said earlier, Simon Bingham came to see me and gave me real-life examples of how some of the bigger companies effectively use retentions for their cash flow. The money can sit with them for year after year, and the small business takes a serious hit.
David Simpson
I accept what the Minister is saying, and it will be of some comfort to some companies. However, she will surely agree that large companies should not be allowed to hold on to money and use it to their own advantage to build their own businesses while small companies suffer.
Anna Soubry
I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman. What happened yesterday with the Groceries Code Adjudicator has already been mentioned. I am grateful for the comments of the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on that. It was a very important day to see the Groceries Code Adjudicator not holding back, not pulling any punches, and absolutely making it clear that Tesco had flagrantly breached the groceries code in a way that was completely unacceptable. That will have consequences for Tesco, although it will not be subject to a fine because the provisions have only just come in. I pay tribute to the Groceries Code Adjudicator. Bigger companies have got to learn and understand that none of us will tolerate their not playing fairly and properly, especially in relation to smaller businesses.
Our definition of smaller businesses, which is accepted by everybody, is any company that employs fewer than 250 people, so they can be quite large small businesses, not just sole traders who might employ one or two people. My officials are keen for me to say that the Government tell various agencies that when they handle taxpayers’ money, they must follow guidance and not engage in poor practices. It is not mandatory, but we provide subtle hints and nudges. Apparently the Highways Agency does a good job, but not everybody does, so there is much more work to be done. I undertake to take the matter forward with my officials to see whether we can make progress.
Good points have been well made today. Such practices must be brought into 2016. We must make sure we do the best thing by our small businesses.
David Simpson
We can all sympathise with the companies in their difficulties with banks and so on, but sympathy does not get the job done. That is what the companies tell me when I meet them. I can go on to the next case or deal with another constituency issue, but they want action. I am grateful for what the Minister has said thus far, and I trust that the Government will deliver on it.
Anna Soubry
I could not have put it better. I will definitely see what progress we can make. I am happy to continue to work with the hon. Gentleman and with the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth to try to sort this out once and for all and as soon as possible.
Question put and agreed to.
Syrian Refugees: Resettlement
(8 years, 10 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the resettlement of Syrian refugees.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I thank the Minister and all hon. Members for their attendance to discuss this subject, which seems particularly fitting on Holocaust Memorial Day.
I am told that Syrian refugees arriving in Britain are asking three questions in particular: when can I learn English; when can I work; and when can my child go to school? A family who arrived in Kent in December already has an answer to the third of those questions. Their six-year-old daughter has now been at school in Ashford for four days. She proudly says that she has made a friend and learned how to write “dog” and “cat”. Her parents only wish that her sister could be at school, too, but her sister died last year in a refugee camp of a lung infection.
Damian Green (Ashford) (Con)
I am sorry to intervene so early in my hon. Friend’s speech, but she mentioned Ashford, so this is an appropriate time to ask her to join me in welcoming the courageous and correct initiative of Ashford Borough Council, which was so early in saying that it will provide accommodation for 250 Syrian families over the next five years, and its success in beginning to integrate them into British society.
Helen Whately
Ashford is one of several councils I have spoken to and the effort, commitment and even enthusiasm it is putting into welcoming refugees are inspiring. It is at the forefront of that effort.
Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab)
This is different, but I have a list of asylum seekers in receipt of section 95 support who have been in the country for longer than the Syrian refugees arriving now. As far as I can see, under the previous regime, Ashford provides a home to only one asylum seeker. Other boroughs in the country provide homes for more than 1,000. Why does the hon. Lady think that places such as Ashford and her own local authorities are stepping up to the plate now, but have not been prepared to do so in the past?
Helen Whately
I hope we can explore many questions in the debate, such as how well we are doing at resettling not only Syrian refugees now, but asylum seekers who are already in the country, many of whom are in Kent. I will come on to the question of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children already in Kent, and perhaps the hon. Gentleman will address his own point if he makes a speech.
I was speaking of the family who arrived in Ashford. Theirs is only one story. Throughout our history, Britain has offered a safe haven to vulnerable people, from the French Huguenots in the 18th century, to the Kindertransport or the Ugandan Asians in the 1970s and now to the 20,000 Syrians, but recently we have heard about asylum seekers being made to wear wristbands or their doors being painted red, which is a reminder that, however well-intentioned we may be, we do not always get things right. That is why I asked for the debate.
After all the focus, particularly last year, on the number of refugees whom we should accept—people are still calling for more—it is time to talk about the practicalities of resettling our 20,000 refugees, to ensure that we are doing a good job with them. Have those who have already arrived settled in well? Are the children in school? Are the adults learning English? Are they in decent accommodation? How have they been received by their host communities? Are we on track to take 20,000? Will we manage that, or might we overshoot?
I look forward to hearing answers from the Minister and to hearing from colleagues, especially as I am sure that several of you represent constituencies that are taking refugees. If your constituency is not taking many, you might be able to encourage them to step up and take some more.
Mr James Gray (in the Chair)
Order. Whether my constituency does or does not, I am not taking part in the debate.
Helen Whately
Thank you for reminding me, Mr Gray. I will do my best to use the right language.
Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
I accept that the debate today is about the resettlement of Syrian refugees here in the UK, but does my hon. Friend agree that we should also use our substantial Department for International Development influence and clout to get large multinational corporations establishing free zones to ensure that significant numbers of refugees in Lebanon and Jordan have opportunities to work there, so that they may stay in the region, although that may well be for months and years, and then to return to Syria, rather than coming to Europe?
Helen Whately
My right hon. Friend makes an important point. I have visited a refugee camp in Turkey and one of the things that struck me was people’s frustration that they could not work, which was one of the reasons why they wanted to leave the camps. Exploring work opportunities for people in the region is important, yes.
Having visited that camp in Turkey, as well as the migrant camp in Calais some time ago, I felt that humanitarian instinct, “Wouldn’t it be wonderful if we could take in more refugees?” However, I feel strongly that there is no point bringing people away from the middle east, across Europe and far from their homes, their extended family and their friends, to a different culture and a very different climate in the UK unless we can offer them something better than the life they were leading in those countries in the region.
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
The hon. Lady is being generous with her time. On Thursday I, too, visited the jungle camp, with Secours Catholique who said that up to 300 people there in Calais probably have leave to remain in the UK but are trying to get here illegally because they do not know their legal rights. The Government are not providing enough access to lawyers or legal advice to get such people back into a country where they have leave to remain.
Helen Whately
I am sympathetic to what the hon. Gentleman says and I have seen the desperation of the people in Calais. It is important that those who might have a right to live in the UK should be helped to explore the possibilities, but on the detail of the right way to do so, which is complicated, I will defer to the Minister.
Those whom we are bringing to this country through the resettlement scheme are among the most vulnerable—for example, they may have specialist medical needs or have suffered from religious or sexual persecution. We have a particular responsibility to get resettlement right for those vulnerable people. Only when we are confident that we are doing that should we have the conversation about whether to increase the number of refugees we are taking.
One thousand refugees were resettled in this country before Christmas, and we are due to take about 4,000 more this year. The Government, in my view rightly, have said that they will not impose refugees on any area, because that would be unlikely to result in a good experience for the refugees and possibly lead to resentment locally. The councils I have spoken to have welcomed the fact that it therefore feels as though it is their choice how many refugees they take. Those that have been quick to offer to house refugees feel proud to be at the forefront of the effort.
In the absence of centralised distribution, however, there is great uncertainty about where the refugees will go and how the 20,000 target will be met. Perhaps the Minister will tell us whether enough local councils have come forward and offered enough places for the coming year. Is the accommodation secured? Is this a commitment or an aspiration to accommodate the refugees? Are there enough places in the pipeline for us to achieve the 20,000 over the five-year period?
My constituency covers two boroughs, Swale and Maidstone. Swale Borough Council has committed to take two families a year. It previously resettled two Afghan interpreters, learning in the process about the pitfalls of placing migrants in a small, rural village in Kent. Maidstone Borough Council plans over the five years to take six single men, because of its shortage of family accommodation.
Councils tell me the settlement of about £8,500 per person is reasonable, if not generous, but some have told me that they are worried about what happens should the refugees move, as they are free to do. The funding follows the refugees, but what if the council has commissioned services or taken out leases, so its incurred costs will continue? Also, the funding for subsequent years decreases. Refugees are likely to cost less as they settle in, get work—I hope—and are more independent, but the worry among some councils is that future funding might not be sufficient. Will the Minister clarify how councils can ensure the necessary funding?
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray, and I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. She makes some persuasive points about local councils. In my constituency and in the broader district of Bradford, under the previous gateway settlement programme, we housed many Syrian refugees who have made a positive contribution to the fabric of the district. On the cost to councils and the concerns that they have, many councils, including Bradford, are really suffering as a result of the Government’s cuts and they are rightly concerned because they are often left to pick up the tab. I ask the hon. Lady to reinforce that point, which perhaps the Minister can answer and give some clarification on as well.
Helen Whately
The wider question of Government funding for local councils is probably beyond the scope of the debate.
Helen Whately
Thank you, Mr Gray. I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s reference to the gateway scheme, which is highly spoken of both in this country and around the world as a good example of how to resettle refugees. We can use that experience to ensure that we do a good job with the Syrian refuges and this scheme.
On housing refugees, in the south-east, where my constituency is, the shortage of housing is a particular problem. Even though we are talking about small numbers of refugees—just a few families a year—many of my constituents wait years for social housing, private rents are high and only a limited stock of private rental housing can be paid for with housing benefit. However, the lesson from some councils is not to be deterred by those barriers. Councils should ask themselves and their communities not “Can we accommodate refugees?” but “How can we accommodate them?”
Kingston upon Thames is encouraging people who have empty properties, such as those who have elderly relatives in care, to rent them out to Syrian families, which has led to several homes becoming available. In Ashford and in Tunbridge Wells, some landlords and Churches have offered accommodation specifically for Syrian refugees. Those councils are finding properties that are not in the letting market rather than having Syrians compete for scarce market properties. In Faversham, in my constituency, Sir Bob Geldof has offered to put up three Syrian families in his home.
To secure a future in Britain, refugees need to work. In a refugee camp in Turkey, I saw for myself the frustration and demoralisation of refugees who are unable to work. It is therefore important that Syrian refugees are settled in areas where there are jobs so that they can work and there is no resentment that they are competing with British people for scarce jobs.
Mark Field
This is more of an issue for the Minister, but, given my hon. Friend’s experience on the ground, no doubt she will have a view. Given the acute crisis in the camps, which, I fear, are now a big recruiting base for extremism, is there any case for accelerating the process and having more migrants, provided that local authorities can cope, or is 20,000 over the next five years on a progressive basis the right way forward?
Helen Whately
My right hon. Friend makes an important point. I, too, heard about connections between camps and people going back to Syria to fight to get an income. I would be keen to hear from the Minister about accelerating the scheme and whether we could front-load or bring more people more quickly, but that must be done in the context of making sure that we are doing a good job with those we are bringing here. To ensure that we do the job well, it is important that the scheme where councils volunteer to take people continues and that councils do not have numbers imposed on them.
On jobs and qualifications, there are many examples over the years of people who have come here from places such as Afghanistan, where they were skilled professionals such as dentists, engineers, teachers and even doctors, but they find that their qualifications are not recognised in this country. They therefore find themselves doing other jobs and not making full use of those qualifications. I understand that it takes about two years to get a foreign qualification recognised in the UK, so will my hon. Friend the Minister tell us whether it is possible to expedite the process to get international and Syrian qualifications recognised in the UK? Obviously, there must be a requirement for appropriate language skills; it is clearly important that people speak English as well as having professional skills.
Some hon. Members are calling on the Government to take in around 3,000 more child refugees. That sounds like a wonderful thing to do. In Kent, however, already about 1,400 unaccompanied asylum-seeking children and care leavers are being looked after by the county council, so services in Kent are under immense strain and foster homes are completely full. We have limited school places.
In November, the Government called on other local authorities to volunteer to take in some of the unaccompanied asylum-seeking children; but unfortunately, few have done so. Offers have materialised for just 35 of the young people. Kent has therefore welcomed an amendment to the Immigration Bill, which is currently going through Parliament, to make it possible to compel local authorities to accept young asylum-seeking children. While it would be a good thing to take in more refugee children and it should be considered seriously, I ask Members who are urging the Government to do that to urge their local councils to ensure, if possible, that they to step up and take their fair share of the young asylum-seeking children and minors we have in the country at the moment. We have got to do a good job by the ones who are here before we start taking in more.
We must not overlook the challenges of integration. There are cultural barriers, but because integration is a two-way process, there is also an opportunity to harness the good will of the British people. We have seen an enormous upsurge in people who want to help, which was triggered particularly by the pictures of what is going on in Europe and the image of the child on the beach last summer.
Communities have seized on the arrival of refugees as an opportunity to do something practical. I heard about a teacher in Tunbridge Wells who has given up their time to teach English to a recently arrived refugee. In Ashford, council staff started their own fund for refugees and donated toys to be given to children. The challenge, however, can be in channelling such offers, and some charities and councils have struggled to co-ordinate enormous numbers of volunteers, so I wonder whether some businesses might be able to help with match-making technology and in other ways or whether the Government could facilitate that, given that this is a problem throughout the country.
Our experiences show that if councils and communities embrace the refugee programme, it could be an incredibly positive experience. People in places such as Ashford and Kingston, and not least their councils, feel a real sense of pride in what they are doing. It is easy to think of reasons not to take refugees and to think about the barriers, but it is much better to think of ways to overcome those barriers, especially when the numbers are so small. If each of the UK’s 391 local authorities took just 51 individuals over the five years—that is about 10 families each—we would achieve the 20,000 target, and some are already planning to take five times that number.
Councils should be bold and take this opportunity to do the right thing. Those who are reluctant and cautious may be surprised by the support that they would receive from voters.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing the debate. She is talking with some pride about the many people who want to be of assistance in this unprecedented crisis, but does she agree that while some countries in the middle east are inundated with migrants, some nation states have not done anything to help? If we could see some of those nation states helping, that would certainly help people in the UK feel that everyone was putting their shoulder to the wheel to try to address this unprecedented humanitarian crisis.
Helen Whately
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. We all—the whole of Europe and of the middle east—need to be seen to be doing our part. Some countries have been particularly criticised for not taking more refugees. I have heard, for instance, Saudi Arabia’s name come up. I am aware of countries that are taking refugees but not making such a noise about it. Some of this may be a question of communication, with countries taking refugees but not calling them refugees and giving them resident status. Those refugees are being integrated, and they have family members with them. In some areas, the process is just not so visible. There is no question but that the countries in the region around Syria are taking enormous numbers of refugees and putting a lot of resource into supporting them.
The Government should take on the role of facilitating the sharing of expertise on taking in refugees. We have lots of expertise, but some areas may be taking refugees for the first time and will be doing their very best but might not know what the risks are. I would like to see the Government ensuring that we do the best we can across the country and providing more ongoing transparency about how well the resettlement programme is going. Mistakes can and almost inevitably will be made. There is a risk that the generous funding—it is a substantial amount of money—might not be spent in the best possible way. Any mistakes should be quickly identified and addressed, to ensure they are not repeated elsewhere.
My final questions for the Minister are as follows. What is being done to help councils to access people or organisations with the expertise to help them with the resettlement programme? How are the Government enabling the sharing of that expertise and information on what is already known about how to resettle refugees effectively? How are the Government monitoring the resettlement programme to identify how well it is going, to pick up any problems as they emerge and to celebrate the successes?
I want to emphasise that final point: we should celebrate success. We should feel proud that Britain is the second largest donor to refugees in and around Syria, where the British pound goes much further than it does here in the UK. We should feel proud that we are giving thousands of the most vulnerable refugees a chance of a new life in Britain. Kofi Annan recently told “Newsnight” that Britain’s “effective and smooth” approach is the right one. We should celebrate the councils and communities that are stepping up to take refugees and the charities and the volunteers who are helping, while encouraging all those who are reluctant or sceptical to support this thoughtful strategy. Britain rightly has a reputation as a compassionate country of opportunity that welcomes people from around the world. Some have doubted us recently, but we should make that a reality for 20,000 Syrians.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr James Gray (in the Chair)
Before I call the next speaker, it is perhaps worth pointing out that a number of Members are trying to catch my eye. While I am not keen on formal time limits, I would have thought five minutes is about right for most speeches, out of courtesy to one another.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray, and a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately). She made an excellent speech, and I can happily say that I agree with everything she said. She has brought this important and serious topic to the House not only because we should be proud of what Britain has done but also because there are problems ahead that we need to address. The people of Kent and her local council need to be congratulated on what they have done.
I want to do something pretty rare: get up and congratulate a Home Office Minister on his performance. This could be the end of his career, but I want to commend the Under-Secretary of State for Refugees, the hon. Member for Watford (Richard Harrington), for the work he has done in this area and for overseeing the one immigration target that the Government have actually managed to reach—certainly in the eight years that I have been Chairman of the Select Committee on Home Affairs. That target was the Prime Minister’s pledge, made in a full and open way, to ensure we have 1,000 Syrian refugees resettled in Britain by Christmas. The Minister did it, and he should be commended for doing so. Because of that success, our Committee will be pressing him even harder to ensure he delivers on the rest of the Prime Minister’s pledge.
We need to be conscious that this is not a crisis on its own. It is part of the most difficult crisis the European Union faces: the migration crisis. It is not going to get easier; it is going to get much worse. As we saw at the meeting in Brussels yesterday of EU Home Affairs Ministers, the crisis is dividing Europe and showing the fault lines that exist. There is a challenge to ensure that the overall refugee crisis and the migration crisis affecting the EU are seen in a much wider context than just what is happening in Syria.
All European countries need to be commended for the way in which they have singled out those from Syria in need of a fast-track service, which at the moment is being provided by the United Kingdom but not necessarily by other EU countries. When the Minister responds, I hope he will tell us more about what is happening on the deal made with Turkey. The European Union has pledged €3 billion to Turkey in order to ask it to provide better and greater assistance to those who have landed within its area.
Of course we need to do what we promised to do and take in the numbers that the Prime Minister mentioned. However, we also need to ensure that good allies such as Turkey and good members of the EU such as Greece are doing their bit to ensure that when Syrian refugees arrive in the EU, they are treated well. Indeed, if Turkey fulfils the promise it made to the leaders of the EU, it will be able to take EU funds and provide the kind of assistance that a number of hon. Members have said it should provide. The Minister will be aware that the way to solve the Syrian crisis is through the political situation in Syria. Unless we deal with that, and unless we have a stable Government in Syria, we will not see an end to a crisis that is clearly engulfing the European Union.
I have just three further points to make within your informal time limit, Mr Gray. The first is about the big and open offer made by a number of residents of the United Kingdom—including, I should say, my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) and the Archbishop of Canterbury—to provide assistance and shelter for Syrian refugees who are coming over. The hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent said that Mr Geldof—or Sir Bob, as he is now known—has offered sanctuary to some Syrian refugees. I cannot quite understand why the Government still have not acted on such offers from the British people.
In the Minister’s eloquent evidence to my Select Committee, he said that the Archbishop of Canterbury should, in effect, contact Lambeth Council if he had an offer of support. I can just imagine the archbishop on the phone to Lambeth Council, waiting to go through its automated system, finally getting through to some caseworker in the housing department and saying, “This is the Archbishop of Canterbury on the phone. The Minister for Syrian refugees has suggested I should ring and offer some of the rooms I have at Lambeth Palace. Could you tell me what to do?” I imagine the phone would probably be put down or the call transferred to another section of Lambeth Council—maybe the health department. We need something more concrete. Big offers have been made by the British people. Let us take those up.
The hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) and I were present at the Home Affairs Committee’s session yesterday when we heard from G4S, one of the Government’s providers of asylum accommodation, which I know is different from what is provided for Syrian refugees. G4S said that the number of asylum seekers in this country for whom it has to find accommodation has gone up from 9,000 to 17,000 in the space of just three years.
The pressure on council housing, and indeed the private rented sector, is now enormous. It will be extremely difficult to find available housing for those who are coming over. We need to be very serious about the issue of housing, because we do not want Syrian refugees to be placed in the same position as some asylum seekers in Middlesbrough were. Our Select Committee looked at that very subject yesterday, because we have enormous concerns about how asylum seekers were being housed there.
My final point relates to regular information. In the Minister’s celebrated appearance before our Committee, I asked him—he keeps reminding me of this—seven times to tell us how many Syrian refugees had arrived. He batted the question away like a great cricketer at the crease, faced by a number of fast-coming balls. He said he was not prepared to give a running commentary on the numbers who had come in and that we had to wait for the statistics that are published on a quarterly basis. He told everyone that except, of course, the Prime Minister, who decided not to wait till the publication of the quarterly statistics, but to tell the House of Commons first, in the last questions session before Christmas, to give us all a warm glow and a feeling of happiness that the Minister had reached his target. We think we should have regular information, and not just about the numbers who come in. We do not need to wait for the quarterly statistics, and we need to include information about inclusion, as the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent said.
When the Ugandan Asians came to Leicester and enriched that city and places such as Watford, where the Minister comes from, and other constituencies represented by Members here, we were able to include them in the mainstream of our country’s activities. Some of the Syrian refugees will want to go back to Syria when the country is stable and returns to prosperity, there is no doubt about that. Some will want to stay and be part of our country and live here for the rest of their lives. It is important to include the diaspora—there are many people of Syrian origin who have lived in this country for many years—in a formal or informal resettlement board, because Whitehall does not know best about these issues.
Thirty years on from when the Ugandan Asians arrived in Leicester, they are now an integral part of this country—indeed, some have even been elected to the House of Commons—and they have shown themselves to be model citizens. Let us use that example of what Britain does best, provide asylum to those who need asylum and include those people in the mainstream of our public life.
Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to take part in this debate, Mr Gray. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately) on her speech, which was so comprehensive that what she said about the practical elements of resettlement does not need to be repeated. I will therefore take a wider view, although it will permeate through to the practicalities of providing the dignity that we all want to provide for those seeking refuge.
It is right that we are debating this issue on Holocaust Memorial Day, the theme of which is not to stand by when genocide is taking place. We have to say what it is: although we are responding to a humanitarian crisis, which is referred to as a migration crisis, we are also responding to genocide. It is important to say that, because the Yazidis and the Christians have been victims of genocide. It is important to say that—indeed, I call on the Government to say it properly and not to wait for international courts to say it—because there are implications of doing that, not least for resettlement. When we are resettling victims of genocide, calling it that will have a profound impact and a long-term effect, so we need to do that.
Part of what we are remembering today is those who did not stand by; those who stood up and took notice. The Minister knows about those individuals, families and communities all too well. They are very much part of his legacy and family history, and his motivation for the great work that he is doing is the heroes who did not stand by and who rallied individuals, families and communities. That led to refuge being found from the Nazis for thousands of individuals. That motivation must permeate all the way through what we are doing in our response.
I welcome the fact that the Prime Minister extended the relocation programme in September in response to cross-party calls, which had gone on for some time, to welcome more refugees. This is an issue of numbers—although politicians and the media can get stuck on that side of the issue, we do need to hold the Minister to account on the numbers, because of the pledge that was made. I welcome what the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee, on which I am proud to serve, said about holding the Minister and the Government to account.
However, there is also the fundamental issue of human dignity. In many ways, I see the number of 20,000 as a minimum. We need to be ready to have that flexibility, and to respond to people’s vulnerability in this tragic situation. We need human dignity both in the assessment stage—the Minister is working hard to get the assessment right to ensure that the most vulnerable refugees can make their way into this country—and all the way down the line to when people are received into our constituencies.
Sadly, that contrasts with the reports that we examined yesterday of the painted doors that identified asylum seekers. We have no truck with that in the way that we do things—it is not the British way or the decent way. On the Home Affairs Committee yesterday, we were concerned that the company involved, G4S, said that it did not know about that because there had been no complaints from asylum seekers. That is not the right response. Such companies should respond properly and responsibly, as a matter of human dignity. They should not wait for some complaints process to be activated. We must ensure that we deal with the people seeking refuge with care and attention, based on human dignity, not on whether they are agitated.
I welcome the Government’s primary response of providing international aid of well over £1.1 billion. That is important, because it is tackling the issue as everyone in non-governmental organisations says we need to tackle it—at its root and by ensuring that we support the regions. The World Food Programme has made it clear that the lack of humanitarian assistance for Syrian refugees and the barriers to securing legal access to livelihoods—my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field) picked up on that point—are directly linked to the increase in flow of those fleeing to Europe. We must focus on that.
I welcome the leadership of the Secretary of State for International Development and her conference, “Supporting Syria and the Region”, which will take place shortly. It is important to identify particularly vulnerable groups— women, children and young people—and ensure that other countries step up to the plate and provide aid. I am concerned that religious minorities are not included in the invitation list and are not recognised, and they are some of the most vulnerable groups. When we are looking at who is the most vulnerable—I understand that the resettlement and relocation programme is based on that—we should ensure that we do not ignore some of the most vulnerable groups.
The Select Committee on International Development, which is chaired by my predecessor in my constituency, the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg), produced an excellent report. It identified, as NGOs have, that the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex community, religious minorities and children are the most vulnerable and are discriminated against, whether in access to healthcare, in not being able to return to their country of origin, or particularly in not being able to go into camps.
Ninety per cent. of Syrian refugees are not from camps. As the Minister has said in response to questions from me and others, it is not just about having a programme of relocation from camps. Most of the most vulnerable refugees are outside the camps—indeed, the relocation programme includes relocating from outside camps. The problem is registration. Many people, particularly from religious communities—particularly Christians, it has to be said—will not go to the camps, because they fear double persecution there. They do not want to come out into the limelight. They seek refuge through churches and other communities and are dispersed. They are not being registered, and we need to recognise that they, among others, are the most vulnerable groups. We need to ensure that the relocation programme involves Christians as well.
We must also respond to the wider calls relating to unaccompanied minors. The Committee heard horrific statistics from an Italian parliamentarian yesterday—that 4,000 unaccompanied minors were lost in 2014, which has gone up to 6,000 now. They risk exploitation, and it is not just a Syrian issue. It involves young Eritreans who are being trafficked. We must tackle the issue well, given our leadership on modern slavery, and ensure that we do not stand by, whether as a Government, as parliamentarians or individually. I very much welcome us taking practical action through this debate.
Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP)
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately) for securing a debate that will no doubt be followed closely by the many individuals and organisations around the UK who hold a relevant interest in this subject. I am particularly grateful to the hon. Lady, because I believe the debate today is an important opportunity for all Members to reflect on the process of resettling the Syrian refugees who will now be calling the UK home.
I also welcome the chance to discuss some of the measures being undertaken in my constituency of Inverclyde, and I hope we are able to share examples of best practice from all our local areas. I am aware that in some instances, there is a wide variation in the approach being taken to resettlement and we can improve the process by resolving the problems that have been identified as the first group of Syrian refugees are welcomed into our communities.
I am pleased to put on record that due to the efforts of the Scottish Government and Inverclyde council the resettlement program in my constituency has been an overall success. Inverclyde Council’s previous experience in participating in the Afghan resettlement scheme has been invaluable in taking forward the practicalities of the Syrian resettlement. In that programme, Afghans fleeing persecution, including former British Army interpreters, have found a new home in Inverclyde. One Afghan couple was so delighted that their most recent child had been born in Scotland that they insisted on giving it a Scottish name—it may be the first Scots-Afghan baby born in my constituency.
Inverclyde Council has made an initial commitment to support 10 Syrian families over the five-year life of the vulnerable persons relocation scheme. Periodic reviews of the process will help to determine whether the council can make a further commitment to take more.
The first two families arrived in November 2015, and a third family arrived shortly afterwards. On arriving in Scotland, they were met at the airport by council staff and transported to Inverclyde, where they temporarily stayed in a hotel, before moving to permanent accommodation. Housing was provided by locally registered social landlords, and the three families now live within walking distance of each other. In placing the families in accommodation, the local authority felt that it was best to cluster them together, but not to concentrate them too much. That allows them to live within a comfortable distance of each other, but it also ensures that they can integrate more effectively with their neighbours.
Inverclyde Council has assisted the families by helping them to establish bank accounts and by registering them with local GPs and dental practices. I am pleased to report that, throughout the entire settlement process, there have been no major incidents or problems, and the Syrian families continue to settle into their new community.
Helen Whately
The hon. Gentleman is doing exactly what I had hoped: he is bringing up examples of how well things are working practically. He mentioned his council clustering people, but not putting them too close together, and that is exactly the kind of good practice I have heard about in other places. I thank him for bringing up that detail.
Ronnie Cowan
I thank the hon. Lady.
I am proud of the people of Inverclyde, who have shown such generosity in offering clothing, food, cash and their time to support their new neighbours.
Despite the warm welcome offered by local residents and the range of services available from Inverclyde Council, however, challenges remain for the incoming Syrian families. Most notably, refugees may experience difficulties in seeking work, because of language difficulties or because their professional qualifications are not recognised in the UK. Furthermore, if refugees have been victims of torture, we must ensure that local authorities continue to have the necessary physical and mental health support services to enable them to settle and thrive.
I would like to turn briefly to the issue of asylum seeker dispersal areas. The UK Government have asked local authorities in Scotland whether they would like to become dispersal areas for incoming asylum seekers. That is pertinent to the debate, because many of those fleeing Syria will have to make a claim for asylum before possibly being granted refugee status in the UK. As one of the few local authorities with a declining population, Inverclyde would usually give serious consideration to becoming a dispersal area, because that would be an opportunity to bring a younger population into our community.
The UK Government are, however, making their request without a commitment to provide funding to cover the cost of the additional support services that would be required. A properly thought-out and fully funded package of funding would likely see a number of Scottish councils willing to become dispersal areas, but authorities will be reluctant to risk the success they have already achieved in resettling Syrian refugees by taking on the many challenges of becoming an asylum seeker dispersal area without the required funding support. I hope the UK Government will consider those concerns as they move ahead with plans to establish more asylum seeker dispersal areas in Scotland.
In closing, I reiterate my thanks to the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent for securing the debate. I hope we will continue this discussion outside the Chamber over the next five years. In doing so, we will ensure that the resettlement program continues to build on the successes we have already achieved.
Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I congratulate the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately) on securing the debate.
In April 1939, a 10-year-old Jewish refugee from a small industrial town called Ostrava in what was then Czechoslovakia was put on a train by his mum and teenage sisters. He was the only member of his family allowed to leave, and it was the last time he would see the other members of his family, because they were murdered in the holocaust. He grew up to become the youngest grammar school headmaster in the country, and he was honoured with an MBE for his charitable work and his services to education. He adopted four children, of whom I am the second. I therefore know all about how Britain has welcomed refugees and about the benefits that they have brought to our communities and our country.
In January 1939, Kurt Flossman, a 14-year-old German refugee arrived at Dudley’s grammar school. His father had died in 1937, and he travelled all the way across Europe on his own. Students at the school clubbed together to raise the £50 a year in fees and expenses that he needed to go to their school, and local firms sponsored his clothes. Stories such as that show how Dudley has always worked to welcome those in need and to build a tolerant community.
Over the years, Dudley has welcomed refugees from all sorts of conflicts all around the world, including from Vietnam in the 1960s, and, later, from Uganda and Kosovo. No one can say that we are not doing our bit now in Dudley and the black country; in, fact there are as many asylum seekers in the black country as there are in the south-west, the south-east and the east of England put together. Although people in Dudley are proud of Britain’s history of providing a safe haven for the victims of fascism and persecution, it cannot be right that Dudley supports nearly half as many asylum seekers as the entire south-east.
Refugees are overwhelmingly concentrated in poor communities in the north and the midlands. Birmingham and Liverpool provide a home for 1,400 asylum seekers each, while Rochdale, Manchester and Bolton have more than 900 apiece.
Mike Kane
My hon. Friend makes a powerful case that draws on his own personal testimony. The problem with the resettlement programme thus far has been that it has involved a private sector contract with Serco, under which asylum seekers are flown into Manchester airport in my constituency, put up for a number of nights and then dispersed around the conurbation, going overwhelmingly to Bolton and Rochdale, in Greater Manchester, which has more asylum seekers than the whole of the south put together, and without any redress to any of the councils for the services that are affected. Does my hon. Friend agree that we must do better?
Ian Austin
My hon. Friend is completely right. The central point I want to make today is that, when the Government embark on their new programme, they must learn from the mistakes they made in the past when housing people who came to this country to seek asylum.
My hon. Friend mentioned Bolton and Rochdale. There are also 850 asylum seekers in Leicester, 800 in Nottingham and 750 in Middlesbrough. Bradford, Derby, Leeds, Newcastle, Oldham, Stockton, Wigan and Coventry each have 500 or 600.
Meanwhile, much wealthier, much posher communities in the south have turned their backs on the world’s poorest and most vulnerable. Local authorities represented by the Prime Minister, the Secretaries of State for Defence and for Communities and Local Government and seven other Cabinet Ministers have not opened their doors to a single asylum seeker. There are just 380 asylum seekers in all the seats covered by all the local authorities represented by all the Cabinet—fewer than in individual local authorities such as Sandwell or Wolverhampton. The local authorities of Swale and Maidstone, which are represented by the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent, who called the debate, have housed just three asylum seekers between them. Watford has housed 15. Camden has housed 21. Islington houses just 34, while Hackney houses only 38, and Oxford houses just 12.
Dudley has pledged to step up and to house Syrian refugees coming to this country, but if the 20,000 Syrian refugees are housed around the country in the same way as those who currently seek asylum are, the north-west will have almost 5,000 and the west midlands will have almost 3,000, while the south-east, the south-west and the east of England will house just 1,200 between them.
I would therefore like the Minister to recognise that the impact of our response to this crisis should be spread much more evenly across the country. The hon. Lady said her local authority had pledged to take six asylum seekers, but if every local authority across the country was prepared to share the work equally, they would each take about 50 or 60 over the next five years.
The way people have been dispersed and then concentrated in localised areas can put pressure on public services such as housing, schools and the NHS, which are already under great strain. That is also unfair on the refugees themselves, who are moved to communities without sufficient Government support and then left waiting for years for their applications to be processed. That is the result of what can only be described as a shambles in the Departments responsible.
In parts of the country such as London, these issues are balanced by the presence of wealthy migrants. It might come as a surprise to hon. Members taking part in the debate, however, to learn that we do not get many millionaire American bankers, German City traders or French hedge fund managers moving to areas such as the black country. Will the Minister therefore examine how the economic benefits that migration brings to some parts of Britain can be used to reduce the pressure elsewhere on schools, housing and other public services, and to improve local infrastructure and public services in places such as the black country? Could he also consider how unspent EU structural funds that the Government are not drawing down could be used in areas such as the black country that face the greatest pressures on public services, to employ the extra primary school teachers or GPs needed so that we can more easily accommodate people in need from around the world?
People in Dudley will rise to the challenge and play a full part in welcoming those fleeing persecution abroad, just as we have in the past; but it is about time people elsewhere did the same.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately) on securing this important debate. It has been four months since I wrote to the Prime Minister, along with many others, to urge him to respond to the escalating refugee crisis affecting mainland Europe. When he and his Government finally woke up, their response was modest and insufficient. By committing themselves to resettling only 20,000 Syrian refugees—a far smaller number than the EU, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, many in Parliament, the Scottish Government and the country demanded—the Government may have damaged our humanitarian reputation overseas.
The Government have rigidly stuck by that decision, but whereas their response was lethargic, our communities responded rather differently. I am immensely proud that my constituents welcomed the refugees with open arms. People in Paisley and Renfrewshire collected donations, opened shops, travelled to Calais and did anything and everything in their power to help those in need. The first refugees arrived in my constituency in November, landing at Glasgow airport. It may have been an all-too-typical cold and wet night, but the response that our new friends received would have shown them the warmth of Scotland —and the UK. Our new Syrian friends are living in local authority areas throughout Scotland and well over 3,000 individuals have signed up to help them resettle, through the “Scotland Welcomes Refugees” website.
My local town of Paisley has helped to resettle 50 refugees, and it appears that they have met the traditional warm welcome that I would expect from Paisley “buddies”. The Sunday Herald asked one of the new families whether they were happy in Paisley. They responded:
“It feels like we never left our families back in Syria because of the warm welcome we received in Scotland. We are among our families again.”
It should be noted that a lot of work has been done to ensure the smooth resettlement of our new Syrian neighbours. My office is part of a working group in Renfrewshire, which came together to ensure that the refugees’ arrival, introduction to, and integration with, Renfrewshire was as smooth as possible. That all-party and cross-sector group is attended by religious leaders, council officers, elected members from all levels of government and other important local stakeholders, and we have all worked to make sure that our new Paisley “buddies” settle into the area as smoothly as possible.
Renfrewshire has been opening its doors, but in turn our Syrian neighbours have opened theirs. They have been sharing Syrian food and culture with local people. They have appreciated the beauty of Scotland and we too appreciate their humility and hope. Despite all they have suffered, which is more than any of us can imagine, they look ahead to a new life, making plans—
Ian Austin
I was just flicking through the figures. It is fantastic to hear how well the Syrian refugees have been welcomed—absolutely brilliant, and I am delighted to hear it—but why has North Lanarkshire not housed a single section 95 asylum seeker over the past few years? The other local authority that the hon. Gentleman mentioned was Renfrewshire, which housed just two.
Gavin Newlands
That is not the subject of the debate today, but the hon. Gentleman is treading a well-worn path.
Mr Burrowes
There was a person in my constituency wanting to be accommodated under section 95 in Enfield, but he was unable to do that. He was directed to be housed not in Enfield but in Cardiff, in an area where the Government have a programme of section 95 support. Therefore he is being provided with support in the community, and voluntarily, in Enfield. Perhaps that will throw the figures given by the hon. Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin) into sharp relief. There is a need to ensure that there is shared responsibility; but, unfortunately, authorities that want to open their doors as has been suggested may not be able to, because of the particular section 95 programme.
Ian Austin
I am very grateful. I just want to point out that a number of people currently housed and seeking asylum in Dudley, from local authorities in north London, were sent there by those local authorities, which are paying for their care but prefer housing them in cheaper accommodation in the midlands to looking after them in north London. Perhaps the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) should discuss that with the local authorities.
Gavin Newlands
I think the hon. Gentleman has made his point. Obviously, that is not really the issue that is being debated today.
Overwhelmingly, the families who have come to Renfrewshire have met a warm response; however, there is still a small vocal section of the population who are not so welcoming. My local paper, the Paisley Daily Express, ran a story with the headline “Shame on You”, which highlighted, exposed and shamed locals who posted nasty and bigoted messages on social media. I salute my local paper for shooting down those bigots and racists, but the story is a reminder that there still exists a section of the population that we have not won over.
The Government have committed to resettling only 20,000 refugees, compared with Germany’s 800,000. That rather larger “bunch of migrants” is 4,000% more than the UK’s. The question we should now all be asking ourselves is “What’s next?” What do we do next to help those still caught up and affected by the crisis? First, we need to reassess whether accepting 20,000 Syrian refugees is the limit of our compassion, capability and capacity. I argued at the time that we should be doing more to help play our part in this crisis, and I support Citizens UK in its call for a target of 50,000 rather than 20,000. The families and children fleeing conflict never asked for war, and it is important that we do all that we can to help them. That is why I would echo the calls made by Melanie Ward of the International Rescue Committee, who said:
“It cannot be argued that accepting 4,000 Syrian refugees per year—or around six per parliamentary constituency—is our fair share of the millions who have fled Syria—this is more the case now than ever before”.
Mike Kane
To house 50,000 refugees requires massive local government resources; yet the Scottish National party Government in Edinburgh is cutting Glasgow’s budget—it is the mainstay of asylum seeker reception in Scotland—by £130 million a year. How can the hon. Gentleman justify calling for 50,000 refugees while the council’s budget is being cut by that much?
Gavin Newlands
The Syrian refugees are obviously funded from central Government. The Scottish Government is funded by Westminster Government, so unfortunately—
Gavin Newlands
It is everybody else’s fault. The powers that are going to flow through the Scotland Bill are not yet there.
Mr James Gray (in the Chair)
Order. I think the debate has lost some of its direction, format and balance. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman might like to address himself to the topic we are debating.
Gavin Newlands
I will gladly go back to the topic in hand—thanks very much.
As well as reassessing the 20,000 target, the UK Government have to look at the funding of local authorities that are housing refugee families. I have spoken with the leader of Renfrewshire Council, who has confirmed that, although there is an indication that there may be funding allocated for years 2 to 5, that, and the level of any future funding, are still to be confirmed. Will the Minister give Renfrewshire Council that guarantee and, if so, let it know to what level the funding will be allocated?
Let us debate this issue but let us also follow up our debate with meaningful action. We have a proud humanitarian tradition in this country. However, with the UK now taking more formal and direct military intervention in Syria, we have an onus and responsibility to take more Syrian families, who are now fleeing not only Daesh and Assad but bombs dropped from American, Saudi, French, Australian, Turkish, Jordanian and British bombers. As we are now very much one of the push factors involved in the mass migration, we owe it to those in flight to offer refuge for a lot more than 20,000.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately) on bringing this matter forward for debate. It is an important issue that cannot be ignored. Everyone has an opinion on it and it is nearly impossible to avoid it. The migrant crisis was one of the defining issues of 2015, because it affected everyone. Whether it is the negative consequences in Cologne or the success stories of relocated refugees settling into their new society, it is a major issue that will take some time to resolve. At the extremes in the UK are those who say we can take no more, and those who say, “Open the door wide.” Somewhere in between we must get a balance, and I think, in fairness, the Government have grasped that to an extent.
More than 13.5 million Syrians need help, of whom 6.5 million are internally displaced, and 4.2 million Syrians have fled abroad, mostly to neighbouring countries in the region. The hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) spoke of the plight of persecuted Christians, and 600,000 Christians have been displaced in Syria. They went all over the place. Many were given the ultimatum: convert or die. To continue to practise their religious beliefs, they had to leave. We cannot ignore those issues.
Many of those who fled were traumatised, as well, so it is about not just finding a new home but living with the horrors that they have experienced. The Minister has done extremely well, and the Prime Minister has given his commitment. The Government clearly have an objective of addressing the issues, and British DFID funding is very effective.
Syrian nationals were only the fourth largest group of asylum applicants in the year ending September 2015. We need to be careful about the migrant crisis, because it is clear that some illegal immigrants set on purely economic migration are capitalising on the plight of Syrian refugees. Figures from the UNHCR show that about 60% of migrants arriving in the bloc countries are now economic migrants. Slightly more than 10% of Syrians who have fled the conflict have sought protection in Europe, and some 681,700 asylum applications were made between April 2011 and October 2015. I am not a pro-European—you will know that, Mr Gray, as will other hon. Members—but the European Commission has given each resettled Syrian refugee some €6,000, and money can be drawn down. In reality, the numbers that we have are only the tip of the iceberg, and thousands more people are making their way through Europe undocumented.
Regardless of the approach we take, we need to ensure that refugees are processed correctly to give genuine refugees the dignity they deserve and to root out potential criminal elements or security threats, which have clearly happened. Northern Ireland has offered free English lessons, a move that is sure to help vulnerable people to settle and to integrate into their host society. Some 1,000 refugees crossed to Northern Ireland just last year. Those lessons will make life easier for everyone by helping refugees to integrate and offsetting any social or cultural tensions that may arise. They will cost some £20,000 a year and will be a long-term investment, ensuring translation services and covering other expenses associated with providing services to those who cannot speak English, to help integration into Ulster and Northern Irish society. Those who want to learn Ulster Scots can do so, but it is most important that they learn English. Some may want to learn Irish also. The lessons will apply only to refugees and not to economic migrants, a move that will ensure that only those in real need will benefit from lessons at a cost to the public purse. Illegal economic migrants cannot take advantage of the generosity being offered to refugees.
Many churches and charities have been involved, as hon. Members have said. Whenever there is a crisis, people come together and those who can help do help. Churches in Northern Ireland have risen to the challenge, as have charities.
Sweden and other countries have provided social instruction classes, particularly on how to treat women, because it is important to address such issues. Those classes have been successful in helping to educate refugees about how to behave appropriately in western society. We could learn from that innovative approach, which would go some way to improving integration and ensuring we do not have another Cologne.
We have all seen the distressing images of people drowning while desperately trying to cross the Mediterranean. One would have a heart of stone not to have been moved by some of things we have seen. However, the European Commission’s chief spokesman has admitted that the majority of people moving across Europe are in fact economic migrants. We need to ensure that only those in genuine need can avail themselves of services such as the English lessons in Northern Ireland, and that we discourage those who are not in such desperate need from making the perilous and often fatal journey to Europe.
We must address the migration issue in Syria—we cannot address it only here. We are reactive, but we need to be proactive in Syria. The issue will not go away, and as we start to welcome more and more refugees into the United Kingdom the innovative approaches in Northern Ireland that I have mentioned should be shared and discussed in Scotland and across the United Kingdom’s political institutions, to ensure that the resettling and integration of refugees is as efficient and smooth as possible.
Jim Shannon
I think you will want me to finish, Mr Gray, as many Members want to speak, but I give way to the hon. Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin).
Ian Austin
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that British military action in Syria is confined to bombing oil fields, disrupting ISIS and helping to bring the conflict to a conclusion? It is unlikely to result in a wave of more refugees arriving on our shores, as the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) suggested a moment ago.
Jim Shannon
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. Obviously he has a particular point of view, and an important one, but when we need a global strategy, we must sometimes do deals with people we do not want to do deals with. We have to look at how best we can come together as a world—NATO, Europe as a whole and the countries bordering Syria—to ensure that some sort of stability is returned to it. If that happens, people can go home again, and I think that is where they really want to be.
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I thank the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately) for bringing this extremely important and timeous debate to the House. It is a pleasure to have the opportunity to speak in it as a member of the Select Committee on International Development, having been involved in the recent inquiry into the Syrian refugee crisis.
Feedback from Scotland, including from local authorities, is positive—400 refugees of the initial 1,000 have been settled in Scotland. There is still a long way to go, but we are certainly making excellent progress in that regard. I understand that Ministers are visiting refugees around Scotland as we speak. More work is needed to ensure that refugees do not feel isolated and that we have English classes that are appropriate and sufficient for their needs.
It is important that refugees’ needs are matched to local areas and that over the longer term, they can utilise any skills, qualifications and experience they may have. As the hon. Lady said, that process should be expedited and any healthcare and psychological support that may be required to help their adaptation should be provided.
Following on from the International Development Committee’s report, I echo the comment of the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) that it is extremely important to ensure that the most vulnerable individuals are assessed and registered by UNHCR. They are not all able to reach camps, particularly those with disabilities or learning difficulties, those in rural areas, Christians and minority groups. Will the Minister ensure that data are disaggregated so that we can ensure that vulnerable groups across the board are fully included in the resettlement process?
I commend DFID and the Minister for their work on resettlement and in the camps. It is important to ensure, as DFID has tried to do, that children have access to education, safety and child protection, and that refugees have the opportunity to work. That is a task in progress.
However, humanitarian crisis funding is not sufficient for long-term planning, particularly when crises are protracted over many years. We must look at funding issues and ensure that needs are met in the long term. Will the Minister ensure in discussions with Turkey and other partners that stipulations on the provision of assistance are met, so that refugees have access to education, healthcare and employment, and that a scrutiny process is enacted and long-term outcome data are collected?
Reports by Save the Children estimate that 26,000 child refugees arrived in Europe without any family in 2015. Children on their own are extremely vulnerable, and figures reported by Italy indicate that of the 13,000 unaccompanied children who arrived through its borders in 2014, almost 4,000 have subsequently disappeared, with concerns that they may have fallen victim to people trafficking. A study from Belgium in 2008 revealed that unaccompanied refugee children and adolescents are five time more likely than accompanied refugee minors to demonstrate severe or very severe symptoms of anxiety, depression and post-traumatic stress disorder. That obviously has implications for their vulnerability and resettlement.
Save the Children has led calls for 3,000 unaccompanied child refugees in Europe to be resettled in the UK, in addition to the 20,000 already accepted. That amounts to five children per parliamentary constituency. In September 2015, the Prime Minister indicated that the Government will continue to discuss the proposal, but no decision has yet been made. I reiterate that unaccompanied child refugees are a particularly vulnerable group and need urgent help.
The recommendation of the International Development Committee was resettlement in the UK of 3,000 unaccompanied children, and that proposal is supported by the Scottish Government. However, that is the tip of the iceberg in Europe. I request that the Minister collaborate and speak with European partners to ensure that unaccompanied children are registered, that child protection issues are engaged with extremely quickly, that childcare workers and staff are employed and that children do not continue to go missing within Europe.
I thank the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent again. She spoke extensively and eloquently about the efforts that her local authority has made and about the emotional and practical requirements of refugees when they are resettled and local arrangements are made. She described her own profound experience of visiting refugee camps and the impact that has had on her understanding.
The right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) discussed the importance of delivering on the pledge, raised important issues in relation to the EU and the wider context, and said that it is vital to address the political situation in Syria. Of course, we would all agree about that.
The hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate discussed the issues of human dignity and vulnerability and reiterated points about minority groups, which I emphasise. My hon. Friend the Member for Inverclyde (Ronnie Cowan) spoke about local best practice initiatives and shared learning on resettlement in his area. The hon. Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin) spoke eloquently about his own historical family situation and about the need for councils across the UK to engage equally in the process. That should also be addressed.
James Berry (Kingston and Surbiton) (Con)
On that point, will the hon. Lady give way?
Mr James Gray (in the Chair)
Order. The hon. Lady should be concluding her remarks. I call Dr Cameron.
Dr Cameron
Thank you, Mr Gray.
My hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) discussed what we gain from having refugees in the country. We should be proud of what we are doing, but we should continually ask what more we can do.
Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I know that a number of—
Mr James Gray (in the Chair)
Order. I say to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) that it is a normal courtesy for those who have taken part in the debate to remain present throughout the winding-up speeches. It is not considered courteous to leave the debate during the winding-up speeches, but if any hon. Member does so, he will find that he is not called in subsequent debates. [Interruption.] Order. The hon. Gentleman will resume his seat. [Interruption.] Order.
Keir Starmer
A number of hon. Members have asked specific questions of the Minister. Therefore, I will be brief so that he gets the chance to give answers to the questions that people want answered.
I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately), not only on securing the debate but on the tone and content of her contribution at the start. I, too, have been to the camp in Calais. I went just three weeks ago. I went to Calais and to Dunkirk, and the conditions there are truly appalling. That is the case particularly at Dunkirk, which—for those hon. Members who have not been—is basically a forest in which there is a swamp. On the ground is mud, water, urine and everything else that one would expect to find mixed in when there are no toilets or running water. In the middle of that, on any piece of semi-firm soil, are pitched flimsy tents. I do not think that anybody could go in any capacity to those camps and not come back a changed person.
Of course, the camps include Syrians among other nationalities. That is not surprising. The figures have already been given. More than half of the pre-war population of Syria are in need of help—13.5 million of 22 million—6.6 million people are internally displaced and 4.3 million have fled abroad, so there are Syrians in Dunkirk, Calais and many other places across Europe. I saw there—in Dunkirk in particular—in the flimsy tents, settling down for the night, at 4.30 because there is no electricity and no lights and it was getting dark, children the same age as my own. I met individuals such as the Iraqi Kurd who showed me around. He explained that he had fled with his family because he was given an ultimatum by ISIS as it was coming into his town to join it or die. He ran for his life with such of his family as he could and is now in Dunkirk.
I acknowledge everything that the Minister has done in his brief so far. He will know just how important language is. I ask him, for that Iraqi Kurd and the others in the camps, whether he will distance himself from what I thought were disappointing comments from the Prime Minister this morning when he described people in those camps as “a bunch of migrants”. Some of the people in the camps will have been deeply disappointed and hurt to have been described in that way, because they hold our politicians—our leaders—in very high esteem.
May I touch on a couple of issues of process? In those camps and others across Europe, among the Syrians who have fled are individuals who are undoubtedly entitled, under the Dublin III arrangements, to be reunited with their families already in the UK, yet on the ground it is clear that that process is not working; it is not working in Calais or Dunkirk. I ask the Minister whether it is possible to have an urgent review of the Dublin III arrangements—the practical operation on the ground.
The voluntary resettlement programme was started, I think, in January 2014 and extended in September 2015 to the 20,000 Syrian refugees. That is welcome. On all sides, we should always say that it is welcome that that initiative has been taken by the Government; and the Government are right to ensure and insist that there are proper arrangements for those arriving, so that they can be housed, they have proper welfare, they have proper support and they have education. Given the various contributions made today, it may be time to review quite how and where people are located, but it is a very welcome initiative.
It was perhaps wrong to fix a cap in 2015 when we do not know what will happen during the next five years. I hope that the number can be revisited, because all the predictions are for a greater number of refugees next year even though we have already had a record year. We may need to come back to the 20,000 figure to see whether it needs to be revised.
I do ask the Minister and the Government—I have done so on a number of occasions—to give serious consideration to the question of unaccompanied children. There are 26,000 across Europe; 3,000 have been specifically identified by Save the Children and others. These are children on their own in Europe. Some may well have the right to be reunited with people in this country. It is probably unlikely to be their mother and father, but could be more distant family. This is Holocaust Memorial Day—a very important day when we consider children on their own in Europe. I ask the Government to look very seriously at the now very powerful case for taking some among that number of unaccompanied children.
I will turn now to two issues raised by other Members. When asylum seekers arrive in this country, whether from Syria or elsewhere, it is important that they are treated with dignity and respect. We have had, for the second week running, examples of treatment that has not been thought through and is deeply offensive to anybody with any experience of working with and for refugees. The red doors policy in Middlesbrough was raised in the House last week, and it was the wristbands in Cardiff this week. We need to appreciate several important points in those cases. Both examples have come to the attention of the House and been debated only because of the work of journalists. As I understand it, a Home Office inspection regime looks at the arrangements for asylum seekers to ensure the quality and so on of the accommodation and support that they are given. I called last week, and I call again now, for an urgent review of the arrangements to ensure that those sorts of crass arrangements are weeded out as fast as possible and to ensure that they were confined to Middlesbrough and Cardiff—in other words, to check that similar practices in other parts of the country will not come to the attention of the House in future weeks. Such a review is much needed.
I return to where I started. The steps that have been taken so far are welcome and should be supported on all sides, but it is time for the Government to look at whether we can go further in a number of material respects.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Refugees (Richard Harrington)
As always, it is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately) for securing the debate and for her contribution. The Opposition, in all their forms—Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition, the Scottish National party and everyone else—have been very helpful in everything that the Government have done on the Syrian resettlement programme. That does not mean that the Opposition have not been critical, but I think we all realise that we all have exactly the same intention.
However, ladies and gentlemen of the jury—if this were a jury, as in the former profession of the hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) —I am a little bit off my normal form, owing to the shock of being complimented by the Chair of the Select Committee on Home Affairs, the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz). That stopped me concentrating for a moment.
Helen Whately
I want to reiterate something that the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) said, which I may have overlooked in my comments. During my research for the debate, I heard so many positive things about the Home Office and the Minister’s work. He certainly deserves the praise that he has received.
Richard Harrington
I thank my hon. Friend for her comments. If I could receive such comments during the rest of my political career, I would be fortunate. We have very little time. With permission, I will attempt to answer most of the questions that have been asked, but if by chance I miss anything, I would be happy to discuss it privately with any Member of this House. Quite a few of the questions were grouped together, so I will try to summarise them.
There has been a bit of a misunderstanding about local authorities and the criteria for deciding where refugees should be settled. I have a lot of respect for the hon. Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin)—we are both very interested in holocaust affairs and are involved in the Holocaust Educational Trust, of which I am a trustee—and we agree on most things. However, the list of people settled under the asylum programme is fundamentally different from the system that is used in the resettlement programme, and that is the reason for the confusion between him and my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent. Local authorities have come forward to help in many areas, such as Ashford in Kent. I pay tribute to the leader of Ashford Borough Council, who passed around a video to other local authorities saying how welcome refugees are in Ashford. The council has resettled quite a lot of families.
Richard Harrington
I am sorry, but I really do not have time, because we have only got five minutes and I have got loads of things to say. Participation in the resettlement scheme is voluntary for local authorities. I would like to cover the finance point, because one of the very good contributions from the Scottish Members had a slight mistake in it. It is not just year 1 funding that has been arranged; there is a full programme for years 2 to 5. I am happy to go into detail in writing or to talk to hon. Members about it. Suffice it to say, within the time available, that most local authority leaders are quite satisfied with the funding, because years 2 to 5 are provided for.
As far as local authorities are concerned, the Government are conscious of the fact that settlement requires more than housing. That housing is provided predominantly by private landlords and paid for through local authorities, but with Government funds, deliberately so as not to interfere with the housing stock in those areas. In addition, each area is responsible for programmes to welcome people, introduce them to the local community and ensure that they register with doctors, schools and so on. I mention that because one of the faults of previous such programmes was that people were housed but forgotten about, and we are determined that that will not happen. Those are valid points to raise.
The Chair of the Home Affairs Committee made many erudite points, one of which was to ask what the Government were going to do about all the offers of spare rooms and shelter. He mentioned the Archbishop of Canterbury, whom I was with this morning—
Richard Harrington
Indeed, and your name was mentioned—not your name, Mr Gray, but the right hon. Gentleman’s. I apologise for not mentioning your name to the Archbishop, Mr Gray; I know that you know him very well.
On a serious point, we cannot take up the kind offers of spare rooms in people’s houses because we are not interested in providing temporary accommodation to refugees. Our programme is intended to settle people where they will live, if not permanently, for the foreseeable future. However, that does not mean that we are not using all those offers of help. I discussed the matter this morning with the Archbishop. He is, by the way, in touch with Lambeth Council, and I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Leicester East has such a low opinion of Labour councils and their housing departments that he thinks that he would not be treated properly.
Putting that to one side for the moment, we are considering lots of other things through community sponsorship so that those kind offers can be used. One example is mentoring people into jobs, which is being trialled in a scheme in Bradford at the moment. Another is twinning families with other families, who can help by taking them to job interviews and English language lessons, which we are encouraging. We are doing lots of community sponsorship things—I would be happy to go into them on another occasion, but I am conscious of the time—so the good will of those people is absolutely not being turned away.
I will leave the right hon. Gentleman’s running commentary points for the moment, because there may be another occasion to discuss that. He said that it was very important that we include the diaspora of Syrians who already live here. I met all the groups during my first few weeks in office and I asked them to form one umbrella organisation, which they have done. I met some of them yesterday, and I will meet more of them tomorrow, to make sure that they are used in all the areas where they have people. A slight problem is that they are concentrated in certain areas and not present in many areas where refugees are going, but they are being very co-operative.
The point about religious minorities is particularly important, because there has been a general belief that our system of taking people from the UNHCR, using the vulnerability criteria, is all well and good, but that some people—particularly Christians, but also other minorities—have been left out. I am determined that that will not happen. There is one rule on which I think the Government have every right to be inflexible, and that is that people have to register with the UNHCR, because it is the only way in which we can work out the vulnerability points, such as health and all the other things that we deal with. However, I have asked the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Catholic Bishop Patrick Lynch, whom I met last week, and every other body that we work with to give us evidence of places where there are pockets of people who are not registered. The Department for International Development is funding the UNHCR to provide outreach staff to register those people. I am pleased to tell my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) that on meeting a Catholic bishop who came back from Jordan last week, I was told for the first time that there are green shoots, with more evidence of Christians registering. I want to make it clear that the Government have no policy of discriminating against Christians or anybody else, because what we are interested in is vulnerability.
As far as the contributions from Scottish Members are concerned—I am sorry to group them together, but there is not time to go through their individual contributions—I pay tribute to the way in which the Scottish Government, the Scottish local authorities and the Home Office have worked together. It is a very good model for democracy, because no one cares about who is in which party or about trying to score points off each other, and the end product has been extremely good. I cannot stress that enough, and I can say that because I have experienced it myself.
This is a very complex issue. A lot of people have mentioned the 3,000 children, and have said that 20,000 refugees is not enough. It is certainly true that hundreds of thousands could be picked out. I would like to stress two points in my remaining time. First, hon. and right hon. Members must remember that the 20,000 is a small part of our overall humanitarian policy. Most of our work is in the countries adjoining Syria, such as Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey, and I think that this country can be proud of that work. One Member mentioned Germany. Germany has a lot of migrants, but compared with Germany, we do a lot of work on the ground on matters such as accommodation and health. It works both ways. There has been a lot of talk about the children, and all I can say in the few seconds I have left is that the Prime Minister is considering the situation, and I believe we can expect an announcement shortly. I am sorry that I cannot give any more information than that, but the points have been very well made.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the resettlement of Syrian refugees.
Small Businesses: Late Payments
(8 years, 10 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Alok Sharma (Reading West) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered late payments to small businesses.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Owen, for the first time in this Parliament.
One of the biggest drags on small and medium-sized businesses—
Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.
Alok Sharma
As I was saying, one of the biggest drags on small and medium-sized businesses is the scourge of late payments. Timely cash inflow is the lifeblood of a small business. It is the difference between growth and stagnation, between profit and loss and, in some cases, between success and failure. There are some 5.4 million private sector businesses operating in this country, and more than 99% of them are small businesses, with 4.1 million consisting of just one person. The last thing someone in that position needs is the late payment of invoices by customers.
A recent survey by the Federation of Small Businesses concluded that central Government Departments and Government agencies tend to pay reasonably promptly, with more than 70% of invoices being paid early or on time. By contrast, more than 50% of invoices from SMEs to larger businesses are paid late. Research from Bacs Payment Schemes Ltd, published in February 2015, revealed that more than three quarters of UK businesses are being forced to wait at least a month beyond their agreed contract terms before getting paid. The Bacs research also found that SMEs bear the brunt of late payments. At the time, £41.5 billion was owed in late payments across the British economy. Some £9 billion was owed to larger corporates but a staggering £32 billion was owed to small and medium-sized businesses.
The late payment difficulties for SMEs are further compounded by the additional costs that have to be borne by businesses as a result of late payments, which average around £700 a month per SME, including staff costs for chasing late invoices. That equates to a total cost to small businesses across the year of more than £8 billion. The Minister is working incredibly hard on this, and the Government are committed to cutting £10 billion of red tape over the course of this Parliament. Can colleagues imagine what would happen if we also managed to eradicate £8 billion of late payment costs from SMEs? It would provide exactly the sort of boost to jobs, productivity and economic growth that the Government want to encourage.
Smaller companies have told the FSB about the very real costs of late payments: reduced profitability; lateness in paying their own suppliers; difficulties in paying staff; lateness in paying Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, and all the negative consequences of that action; and, ultimately, lost contracts. There is also the very real risk of insolvency.
Andrew Bingham (High Peak) (Con)
Turnover and sales are the predominant drivers for a small businessman, but does my hon. Friend agree that cash flow is a big problem and that the smaller the business, the bigger the problem it is? Consequently, when large companies withhold payment, a small business often cannot implement any early payment schemes because the large company can just go to somebody else and another small business will take the hit for them.
Alok Sharma
The adage that cash is king matters most to the smallest businesses, so my hon. Friend is right that cash flow is vital for a small business, as it is for larger businesses. The sum total of all this is that the very real risk of insolvency sometimes results from late payments. A poll of 1,000 business owners carried out in August 2015 by the electronic invoicing network Tungsten showed that more than 20% of businesses faced with unpaid invoices were having a brush with insolvency, and some of them, sadly, were having more than a brush.
The complaints that have come in to me from the Thames valley area as a result of my work with the FSB are wide-ranging and come from a range of industry sectors. I hear that large companies apply pressure in all sorts of different ways. Pressure is being applied to accept 90 to 180-day payment plans, fees are being charged to remain an approved supplier, and all sorts of complicated processes for submitting invoices have to be followed. Sometimes, payment is simply delayed with no reasonable excuse whatsoever.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. Many SMEs in my constituency have expressed exactly the same concerns and fears. Does he agree that SMEs are effectively at the mercy of larger companies and that their survival depends on these cash payments being paid, and being paid quickly?
Alok Sharma
The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point, and I will address the culture of late payments within big businesses, which is sadly prevalent in the UK but is perhaps not always the case in other jurisdictions.
I will quote some of the businesses with which I have been in contact. A machined plastic parts supplier that has been doing business for 50 years without any problems suddenly found that a large company it had been dealing with demanded payment of a non-negotiable fee to a third party to remain on an approved supplier list. The supplier said that it had reported the situation to the large company’s
“own ethics team who seem to think it is normal business practice and I have had it confirmed that we will be de-listed if we do not pay.”
An SME with 10 people and a turnover of less than £2 million that supplies goods and services to large telecommunications companies in the UK and Ireland contacted me:
“I could write a book on the various hoops we have to jump through”.
The examples provided by the SME include self-imposed cash arrangements by large companies and pressure to accept long payment terms.
A direct supplier to a local authority contacted me. It has had that contract for a long time, but it was suddenly told that it had to procure work through a particular procurement portal. The supplier told me:
“It was free to register (ignoring the not-insignificant effort in doing so), but the portal company then informed us that ‘a 5% fee...will be deducted from your agreed rate for each work opportunity you secure via the portal’”.
That is a 5% mandatory fee being put on a small business, which is completely unacceptable. The owner of the business went on to tell me in conversation:
“In our opinion as a small business unable to fight the process, this amounts to supplier bullying.”
I have had businesses in the construction sector contact me. One said:
“Our industry (construction) is full of poor payment practices despite the Construction Act.”
Finally, a service provider that supports pharma and medical device companies across Europe wrote:
“We have experienced very late payments with UK based companies only, either by paying after 90 days…or after starting legal proceedings. In contrast working for a German based company we do get our invoices settled usually within 2 weeks.”
The hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) made a point about corporate culture. As we have heard, these problems are cross-sector and do not relate to just one part of British industry. Having run a business in Germany myself, I can tell the House from personal experience that German corporates are generally pretty good at paying on time. In Britain, some large businesses have developed a culture of late payment over the years. Squeezing small suppliers has been considered normal business practice, and hang the negative consequences for the supplier. The risk of late payment in Britain is considered to be higher than in many other European nations, according to the latest European payment index, and it is clearly not an acceptable way of carrying on.
In the past few days, colleagues will have seen the outcome of the Tesco discussions. To be fair, Tesco contacted me before this debate and told me:
“Smaller suppliers with spend from us under £100,000 a year, will move to 14 day payment terms.”
That is a win for the adjudicator, for small businesses and, ultimately, for Tesco and British business in addressing the culture of large companies in doing business with small suppliers.
What are the Government doing? I am sure the Minister will talk about the measures to address late payments that have been implemented, or are planned to be implemented, but I will highlight a few areas on which I would be interested in getting feedback either now or in writing, if the answers are not readily available.
The first is the strengthening of the prompt payment code, which clearly has happened because of Government encouragement. It is a real success and a badge of honour for businesses. Also, thanks to the input from the Government, not only has the number of companies signing up to the code increased but the code has been strengthened so that 30-day payment terms are now considered standard and 60-day payment terms a maximum.
One of the suggestions made to me by the FSB is that the Government should commit to making sure that any supplier that supplies to Government should sign up to the code; being a signatory should be an absolute requirement before a company starts to supply any Government body or agency. I would be very interested in hearing the Minister’s views on that suggestion.
The second point is with regard to the EU directive relating to late payments. Of course, that directive was originally based on pre-existing UK law and it requires that businesses pay their suppliers within 60 days or face interest payments on money owed. However, the UK implementation of the directive allows businesses to agree longer terms
“provided it is not unfair to the creditor.”
For a small business, even 90 days is a very long time to wait to get paid. Given that the prompt payment code suggests that 60 days be considered a maximum period for payment, will the Minister consider amending the legislation to ensure that 60 days is considered the mandatory maximum period for paying suppliers?
Thirdly, I welcome the requirement from April this year for large and listed companies to publish their payment practices twice a year. Can the Minister confirm whether this piece of secondary legislation is on track and what the definition of a “large company” is? Is it one that has more than 250 employees? That is certainly the European definition of a large company.
My fourth and final point relates to the Government’s plans to establish a small business commissioner, who will help to solve complaints from small businesses about late payments. I hope that the Minister will agree that the commissioner needs to be an individual who commands respect across the business community. Perhaps it could be a former chief executive officer of a large business. I would not go so far as to say that we should get a poacher turned into a gamekeeper, but I think she will know what I mean. I know that we will have the Second Reading debate of the Enterprise Bill in the coming days, but hopefully she can provide a bit of commentary on the role of the commissioner. I welcome the creation of the commissioner; they will help SMEs, but only if they are seen to have some real teeth. If they come to be seen simply as a postbox for complaints, I am afraid they will lose the confidence of SMEs and will not command the respect of large businesses.
The FSB wants the scope and remit of the commissioner to be broadened to consider complaints about poor payment practices in the public sector as well, which I understand is not currently the role that has been prescribed for it. The FSB is also rather keen that the commissioner should have the power to make referrals to the Competition and Markets Authority. Both these suggestions are worthy of serious consideration. I would be interested to know the Minister and the Government’s view of them, if not today then perhaps in the Second Reading debate.
As I have said, there are more than 5 million small businesses in the UK. I do not think anyone expects that the commissioner will set up a huge administrative bureaucracy, mechanically processing complaints, so there needs to be a holistic approach for dealing with complaints. What I would like to see is the commissioner establishing a public register or website, loosely based on those that review holiday destinations, on which SMEs could enter verified complaints about late payments or poor supplier policies practiced by their customers.
Once SMEs start coming forward with issues, many of which will be recurring in terms of their scope and the identity of offending large companies, that will enable the commissioner to spot patterns of poor behaviour within different sectors. The commissioner should certainly have the power to bring CEOs from big companies around a table to ensure that they act collectively to end poor practices. I think we would find that if we were able to tackle 20% of the problems that are identified, that would solve 80% of the problems related to late payments.
Eradicating late payments will provide a boost to jobs, growth and productivity, and I am absolutely convinced that greater transparency will help to eliminate what I regard as a corporate disease.
Albert Owen (in the Chair)
Before I call the Minister to respond, I remind Members that the debate was suspended for 10 minutes, so it will now finish at 4.40 pm.
The Minister for Small Business, Industry and Enterprise (Anna Soubry)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Owen.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Reading West (Alok Sharma) on securing this debate on an important topic. We know that late payment is one of the biggest complaints that small businesses have. They rightly complain about what are effectively two types of late payment. One is when they supply services or goods to people, and as part of the terms and conditions of the contract they find themselves almost over a barrel. They do not want to turn away business or fall out with an important customer, so they sign up to terms and conditions that in a modern age are, frankly, unacceptable.
Of course, someone can take action against anybody who breaks the terms of a contract. They can go to court, but for obvious reasons there is a reluctance to go to court. It costs money, and it could also sour the relationship between the two parties, which would not be good for the smaller business. It is important to put on the record that, for our purposes, when we refer to a small business we are referring to any business that employs fewer than 250 people. That ranges from a very small business, or even a microbusiness that employs between one and five people, to companies with much bigger turnovers that employ up to 250 people. The small business sector is huge and, as we know, it is absolutely the engine of our economy.
The second type of complaint comes from businesses that have signed up to being paid within a certain period, only to find that term or condition of the contract is broken. As I have explained, they feel reluctant to go to law, but there is a remedy available to them.
As I say, there are two types of complainants: those who find themselves signing up to onerous terms and conditions in the first place, and those who, having signed up to a contract that may on paper include good terms regarding when payment will be made, nevertheless find that the company’s practice is to breach those terms. They do not really want to go to law. I accept, and the Government absolutely recognise, the case that my hon. Friend makes that the situation we find ourselves in is unacceptable. Things have been getting better, but we know there is more to be done.
It is important that I put on the record my thanks to the Groceries Code Adjudicator for what happened yesterday, which in many ways was astonishing. What Tesco was doing was a scandal, but it was a great day for smaller businesses, which found themselves having a champion who did not pull her punches in criticising and exposing Tesco. After a year-long investigation, she made it very clear what Tesco had done, which was a flagrant breach of the groceries code.
As we know, since last April the Groceries Code Adjudicator, which was set up by the last Conservative-led Government, has had the power to impose fines of up to 1% of turnover. That is serious money for any business, but especially for big businesses. So credit where credit is due; yesterday was a good day for smaller businesses, and full credit to the adjudicator and to the last Government for doing all of that.
I will deal with a few important points, then I will come to my hon. Friend’s asks in a minute. The small business commissioner, which will be set up by the Enterprise Bill, will have a specific role of considering the problem of late payment. The commissioner might want to look at other things as well, but primarily he or she will look specifically at that problem.
We know that people can go to law if there is a breach of contract. The small business commissioner will look at the practices that lead to unfair terms and conditions and at those that mean people breach terms and conditions and make late payments. What I am looking for in the commissioner is somebody who will take up the complaints of much smaller businesses, which invariably reflect trends in what bigger companies are doing.
The real aim is to change the culture. My hon. Friend said that the problem stems from a culture that is unacceptable in this day and age, and I want the small business commissioner to change that culture. He was right to ask for the commissioner to have some teeth, but then they would turn into a very different creature and we would have to go down the route of having someone whose role was quasi-judicial. In any event, people can take to court a claim for breach of contract, and we will be wildly encouraging mediation. That will be another role of the small business commissioner. We do not want to create a quasi-judicial role, because we would be beginning to get into quango land. I want someone who has respect and authority, so that when a phone call is made the bigger companies do not flinch but pick up the phone. It is about banging heads together and changing the culture.
Alok Sharma
I agree with the Minister, of course; we certainly do not want another quango. That would not help anyone, particularly small businesses. Does she agree that whoever is appointed to the role has to be a serious and hugely respected business figure? They have to be respected by small and large businesses, because it is the office and their individual personality that will help to drive things and get large businesses around a table when heads need to be banged together.
Anna Soubry
I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. He is absolutely right. The person we appoint will be critical in achieving what we want. We want someone with gravitas, so that when a telephone call goes to a chief executive, that chief executive does not hesitate to say, “This is a call I have to take. This is someone I have to listen to.” When I spoke to the Australian equivalent, what struck me was that when he has that conversation with a chief executive and tells them, “Did you know what your finance team are now saying has to be in the terms and conditions for small businesses?”, invariably the chief executive says, “I had no idea what was going on. That is absolutely unacceptable, and that is not how we do business.” It is fair to say that the new chief executive of Tesco, for example, was clear yesterday that it will no longer treat smaller businesses in that dreadful way. I welcome the change in policy so that very small suppliers will be paid within 14 days, but we must be clear that they supply only about £150,000 of goods to Tesco. They are very small contracts, and I look forward to Tesco extending its new-found policies to all its suppliers across the piece.
The small business commissioner will be expected to have a website. I want it to be a series of portals that will show small businesses where they can go for advice, especially on mediation. I am not sure about the idea of turning it into a sort of TripAdvisor. I always get a little nervous about people being able to post things, which would require a lot of regulation to ensure that no one was saying anything defamatory. I want to make it absolutely clear that the small business commissioner will produce an annual report, in which they will be expected to name and shame all those who are not doing the right thing by small businesses, especially in relation to prompt payment. What happened with Tesco yesterday was so important because it was all across the media, and damage to a business’s reputation is hugely important and hugely powerful.
Alok Sharma
The Minister is being generous with her time. I hear what she is saying about the potential risks of a TripAdvisor-type website, although such websites of course operate already, so I am sure that it is possible to construct something that might work. Whatever mechanism is used, we need to ensure that there is a way of getting complaints in and processed in a timely and fast way. I reiterate that the last thing we want is a quango, and I know she does not want that either.
Anna Soubry
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Speed is of the essence. We have reduced the maximum size of company that can make a complaint. The limit will be around the 50-employee mark, because we anticipate that there will be a lot of complaints. Those companies will be symptomatic of a way of doing things in particularly large businesses and of culture. We think that we are aiming in the right direction to get the sort of results that we want.
We introduced new reporting requirements in 2015 for the UK’s largest companies to report on their payment practices and performance, including invoices paid beyond agreed terms. I want to make it clear that those reports will be published in a central digital location, which sounds pretty ghastly, but most importantly it will do the trick. It will bring in the oxygen of publicity, which invariably cleanses things and makes them better. I am going to say something slightly controversial and be very blunt.
Anna Soubry
I know. It is not like me, and my officials are now having huge palpitations, but it says on my brief:
“Government is leading by example by paying its suppliers fairly and promptly.”
I wonder whether we really are. Shall we be truly honest about this? My hon. Friend gave an example of a local authority that is not doing that, and I have examples of local authorities that are not doing that. I have an example that was brought to me—I will not go into the detail of it now, but I will be taking it up in a serious way.
We all know that we have to be careful. We can make great headline statements, but when we drill down into the reality—most of us, certainly on the Government Benches, live in the real world—what sounds like a good headline is not borne out in practice. I have seen evidence that by the time something that looks like a Government contract has come through the first subcontractor, the next subcontractor and the next one, the payment terms are something in the region of 120 days, and I am concerned about that. That is not a fault of Government, because we have been clear about what we expect, but the danger with over-regulation is that there is always a way around it. The most important thing is changing the culture and policing it. People will be very clever in looking for the loopholes and different ways of doing things, but we have to ensure that we find them, track them down, expose them and ensure that those sorts of practices cease. I will be keen to take that up so that we practice what we preach.
Alok Sharma
The Minister is always at her best when she is being controversial. She raises the issue of how the public sector deals with small businesses, so can I come back to one point? Will she at least have another look at whether the small business commissioner should cover Government quasi-public bodies as well as private sector companies?
Anna Soubry
I absolutely do not have a problem with looking at that. I place on record, however, that I am looking at that now. I will not bore Members with all the details, but someone who is not a constituent came to see me. He runs an excellent small business called Caunton Engineering. By bad fortune for some of the contractors, he happens to chair the relevant committee for his sector. I am taking the issue seriously, and we will look into it to ensure that we are doing the right thing.
The last Government made huge strides forward with the prompt payment code and the publications that bigger companies have to make. The directive that my hon. Friend mentioned is wishy-washy. Am I going to say that we should change it? Actually, I do not want to over-regulate. I would much rather that we changed the culture rather than put strictures on small business, but he makes a good point. I will look at all the points he has raised, and I congratulate him on bringing the matter to our attention.
I feel proud: the Conservative party is undoubtedly the party of small business. We get it. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] My hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mark Spencer) is here, and he runs a small business, no doubt extremely well. We know the area and we understand it. What we now have to do is this: I ask all Members to bring me their examples, and I will not hesitate to take them up with bigger companies and be the champion of small businesses, to ensure that we deliver in the way that we want and encourage small businesses.
Alok Sharma
I am really pleased that the Minister has thrown out that challenge to Members. Will she commit to sit down with me over the coming weeks—
Albert Owen (in the Chair)
Order. There is plenty of time to sit down with the hon. Gentleman.
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).
Iraq Historic Allegations Team
(8 years, 10 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Richard Benyon (Newbury) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the Iraq Historic Allegations Team.
Albert Owen (in the Chair)
Because of time factors, if the Member who secured the debate takes 10 minutes, all the seven Back Benchers, including Mr Stewart, who have indicated that they want to speak will have four minutes before I bring in the Scottish National party and Labour party spokespersons for five minutes each, and the Minister will have 10 minutes to respond.
Richard Benyon
Thank you, Mr Owen, for overseeing our proceedings today. I am grateful to the Minister for being in her place and to so many colleagues for showing so much interest in this important matter.
I have a view of our armed forces that is similar to my view of other public services. Just as with the NHS and the police, I revere the people who work for those services for being the best at what they do and for showing exceptional courage and professionalism. I also accept that the armed forces, like other public servants, sometimes fail. In wanting them to remain the best armed forces in the world, I want there to be a proper sanctioned system, clearly understood by all ranks, to act as a deterrent against those who might break the rules of law. Here I admit a prejudice. As somebody who has served on operations and saw men under my command have their self-control tested to the extreme, I constantly wonder how young men, often with little education, can show such intelligent restraint at times of great provocation. I am only talking about Northern Ireland.
This year sees the 25th anniversary of the first Gulf war. Hundreds of thousands of young men and women have seen more combat in the quarter century since than in any period since the Korean war. To mark it, Help for Heroes, in conjunction with King’s College London, has produced an in-depth report that shows that roughly between 60,000 and 70,000 regular veterans and around 20,000 reservists will need our support in the coming years as they face the effects of combat. Those are the people I will talk about today and they should be our absolute priority.
I secured this debate because something has happened to some of our veterans in recent years that I think needs the urgent attention of Government. Some call it “lawfare”. It is having a profound effect on the morale of our armed forces and on how we will be able to fight wars in the future.
Mark Spencer (Sherwood) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that, in the security of this Chamber, it is difficult to second-guess the decision-making processes in the theatre of war, where the environment is entirely different?
Richard Benyon
My hon. Friend is right, and I would add that when decisions are taken through judicial process, with the benefit of hindsight, sometimes more than a decade later, it is very hard to try and put oneself in the position of those who are taking the difficult action.
Nusrat Ghani (Wealden) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree with one of my constituents who explained in an email that the present wars are not the same as wars in the past, where it was obvious who the enemy was and certain standards were adhered to on both sides? We are working in very difficult times at the moment.
Richard Benyon
Most of the asymmetric conflicts that we have fought in recent years are extremely difficult. We are fighting an enemy who does not sign up to the Geneva convention and the basic rules of war. I will make suggestions for the Minister that I think might address those concerns. My hon. Friend is, as always, absolutely right.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat) co-wrote a landmark report last year called, “Clearing the Fog of Law”. I recommend it to hon. Members. In it he makes some recommendations that are intellectually researched and will go a long way to address the problem that we discuss today. I am also grateful for any contribution to the debate from my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis) whose understanding of these issues within the machinery of Government is second to none.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Sir Nicholas Soames), who has asked me to say he is sorry he cannot be here as he is in hospital, wrote a powerful article last week in which he described an action in which a sniper shot and killed an insurgent who was about to fire an RPG-7 round towards troops. The shot was made from 1,200 metres—an act of skill that is hard to imagine. However, in absolutist terms, it could be that this fatality was illegal as the sniper did not issue a verbal warning. To give such a warning in a language that an assailant can understand over that distance is clearly a ridiculous concept, even before you try to second-guess the thoughts racing through the sniper’s mind as he balanced the rules of engagement with the safety of his mates. I think he did the right thing. Now we are led to believe that he is being investigated because a firm of lawyers—sitting, no doubt, in the comfort of offices in London or Birmingham—have realised that there is money to be made here. The lawyers have tracked down the deceased’s family, who have no doubt been told of the riches available on a no win, no fee basis or possibly from legal aid. This has to stop.
The Iraq Historic Allegations Team was being set up in the last days of the previous Labour Government. It was put into operation by the coalition Government for a perfectly respectable reason, and no doubt also to offset some of the threats from international judicial processes, to tackle alleged crimes in that conflict.
Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful case. I was an opponent of the International Criminal Court Bill that was proposed by the Labour Government and would have subjected our soldiers to the International Criminal Court. I said at the time that
“we must foresee the possibility of the court saying that this country has been unwilling to take action although we believe that it would be inappropriate for our national courts to do so. In such circumstances we must provide maximum protection to our troops.”—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 1 May 2001; c. 247-48.]
Is it not the case that the Government introduced this because it feared that otherwise our troops would have been taken to the International Criminal Court?
Richard Benyon
I find it depressing that we are talking about this so long after my right hon. Friend made those remarks. It will be interesting to hear from the Minister what advice she has received about the need for the Iraq Historic Allegations Team. Perhaps the debate will be able to draw out some of the reasoning for it.
As we know, IHAT was set up in 2010 by the then Minister, Sir Nick Harvey, who in a written statement said that he expected it to complete its work within two years. In July 2014, the Secretary of State recognised that IHAT’s work was not going to be completed by the end of 2016. He approved additional funding of £24 million to cover the period from the end of 2016 to the end of 2019, which increased the level of funding of IHAT to £57.2 million. I want us to think of 2019 in relation to when some of the instances it is investigating actually took place.
IHAT employs 145 people and is still recruiting. The job specs actually say that contracts are initially short term, but are likely to be extended for significantly longer. The IHAT website gives 2019 as the likely date when it will complete its work. If it was exposing systematic and institutionalised war crimes, I would at least understand why such persistence was a good idea, and feel that the cost to the British taxpayer was justified. Estimates in the press say it costs £5 million a year, but other estimates vary. A look at IHAT’s website shows that 18 investigations have been completed, one of which has resulted in measures being taken against somebody, and a £3,000 fine being awarded. Of the others, 15 cases have been dropped and two cases have been passed to other authorities, but no action has been forthcoming.
By June last year, following a huge increase in IHAT’s caseload, the diagnosis was even worse. It is not necessary to be a mathematician to appreciate that, at this rate, the task of investigating allegations arising from the activities of British armed forces in Iraq will never be fully completed. The Ministry of Defence guide describes what has happened to the 59 allegations of unlawful killing that IHAT has reviewed up to this month: 34 cases have been closed, or are in the process of being closed, with no further disciplinary action; seven are currently subject to further limited, focused lines of inquiry; and 17 are under investigation. Only one of those cases was referred to the Director of Prosecutions, who directed that there should be no prosecution. So, on the face of it, that is not a great record.
At this stage, I want to make it clear that I do not blame the Iraq Historic Allegations Team. It no doubt has worthy detectives sifting the evidence, but after 10 years it is finding two things: evidential trails have run cold; and it is being inundated with claims, many spurious and many the result of the malign actions of lawyers, who see this is a Klondike-style fee-fest or, perhaps, as a way to get at the system that conducted what they believe to be an unjust war. If anyone doubts my last remark, I suggest looking at the interview on YouTube given by Mr Phil Shiner of Public Interest Lawyers to that great beacon of impartiality, Russia Today.
IHAT’s caseload now involves just over 1,500 alleged victims, 1,235 of whom are victims of ill treatment and 280 of unlawful killing. Given that backlog, the burden will hang over the heads of many of our veterans for many more months and probably years. That is utterly intolerable.
All that falls into the concept of what “Clearing the Fog of Law” calls “legal imperialism”. The worst case of such a culture are the allegations that culminated in the al-Sweady inquiry. The allegations surround actions taken during what became known as the battle for Danny Boy, a brutal attack on a checkpoint of that name resulting in a fierce firefight. British troops showed exceptional courage and resolve, and a number were decorated for bravery. The inquiry that followed cost £31 million; the fees were about £5 million. Some mistreatment was discovered, but the allegations of torture, mutilation and murder were baseless and the product, according to the judge, of “deliberate and calculated lies”.
The Government and many others have accused the two firms promoting the cases, Public Interest Lawyers and Leigh Day, of attempting “to traduce” the reputations of the Army units concerned. We have heard that the alleged actions of one of the law firms, Leigh Day, have resulted in referral to the Solicitors Regulation Authority. I hear that Public Interest Lawyers might also be referred to that body.
We could all take up lots of time venting our collective spleen at the behaviour of firms that trawl places such as Basra trying to convince people of the great riches in proving that they were victims of bad behaviour. We could take up much more time asking the shadow Defence Secretary, the hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry), why she and the Labour party thought it right to accept donations or donations in kind from those firms.
Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on his speech. Does it not speak legions that virtually no Labour Member is attending the debate today? What does that show about Labour’s position on the military?
Richard Benyon
I share my hon. Friend’s feelings. Rather than spend the time talking about our views of those lawyers, however, which would be self-indulgent, I want to get to the bottom of this concept of legal imperialism.
I am glad that since I requested the debate the Prime Minister has announced that he has asked the National Security Council to produce a comprehensive plan to stamp out the industry. He is looking at banning no win, no fee schemes; he is speeding up the planned legal aid residency test; and he is strengthening penalties against firms that abuse the system, possibly even including suing those who have been found deliberately to withhold facts that could prove the innocence of the servicemen or women concerned.
That is all good stuff, but I want to press the Minister for more information on the timescale for the reforms. I suggest that they can only be seen as work in progress. May I respectfully suggest that the Minister add to the Prime Minister’s wish list the suggestions made in the report by my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling?
In order to draw a line under the situation, for recent and future conflicts the Prime Minister should consider these powerful recommendations. The Government should derogate from the European convention on human rights in respect of future overseas armed conflicts, using the mechanism of article 15 of the convention. The Government should revive the armed forces’ Crown immunity from actions in tort during all future “warlike operations” overseas by ministerial Order under the Crown Proceedings (Armed Forces) Act 1987. The Government should take the lead—this is important—in supporting efforts by the International Committee of the Red Cross to strengthen the Geneva conventions on the conditions of modern warfare, which addresses the point made in an early intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Nusrat Ghani). The Government should make an authoritative pronouncement of state policy, declaring the primacy of the Geneva conventions in governing the conduct of British forces on the battlefield.
Danny Kinahan (South Antrim) (UUP)
I am grateful that we are having this debate. Does the hon. Gentleman feel that alongside the conflicts of the past we need to concentrate on the past in Northern Ireland as well? We should also look at a proactive media presence so that we are in front when defending our servicemen, rather than waiting for every case to get to the papers.
Richard Benyon
The hon. Gentleman is right. I support the plea by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth) that incidents such as that of the arrest of Lance Corporal J of the Paras under caution should cease. Society wants a line drawn under such things. We seem to have moved too far towards favouring the actions of our enemies and we do not seem mindful enough of those to whom we owe a great debt.
The recommendations I have just outlined are clearly set out in the report of my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling. It makes it clear that we are not only talking about alleged victims of war crimes, excessive violence in combat or the mistreatment of prisoners. The definition of “lawfare” extends to the ability of the courts to judge the actions of commanders—decisions often taken in the heat of battle and then judged years later by people for whom such circumstances are alien and with the mantle of hindsight.
I go back to my own experience. I got to know well a 19-year-old soldier who, in a tense situation, shot and killed someone contrary to the so-called “yellow card” rules for opening fire. He was convicted for murder. The case has haunted me for 34 years. My worry is that the legal imperialism we have seen in recent years and the existence of organisations such as IHAT will put a dangerous caution in the minds of the sniper of the future. Rather than taking a life to save many, caution prompted by a fear of legal implications might, to quote my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex,
“put a splint around his trigger finger”.
The analogy extends into every area of war, involving everyone from the most junior soldier just out of training to the most gnarled veteran of a quarter century of expeditionary warfare. The Apache pilot, the mortar platoon commander and the frontline rifleman all need to be governed by the rule of law—but which law? That is the matter that the Minister and the Government must tackle with haste. However despicable we might think the actions of certain lawyers are, they are only responding to circumstances created by Governments past and present. My argument is that the rules we have created put our servicemen and women in greater danger in future. That cannot be right.
Albert Owen (in the Chair)
Given the length of the last speech, the remaining speakers have three minutes each.
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)
I pay huge tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon) for such an excellent speech and for bringing the subject to the Westminster Hall Chamber. I will now gabble through my speech in two minutes and 51 seconds.
As a former soldier, I welcome the opportunity to put on the record how deeply disturbing I find the relentless pursuit of our servicemen and women by unscrupulous and opportunistic lawyers. I welcome the Prime Minister’s commitment to clamp down on the abuse, but I wish he would go further. I understand, however, that shutting investigations down would create an even more legalistic nightmare.
We all acknowledge that if and when atrocities are committed, or are alleged to have been committed, they need to be investigated. The Iraq Historic Allegations Team was established for that purpose in a genuine attempt to right historic wrongs and to deliver effective criminal investigation of allegations of murder, abuse and torture. In the case of Baha Mousa, for example, it worked.
One of the problems of the investigations now is the time that they are taking. Over the past five years, only a small number of the 1,500 cases have been looked at, and then only after nearly £60 million was given to IHAT to look into the allegations. Will the Minister comment on that when she sums up?
Another problem is that hundreds of the cases were fed to IHAT by only two legal firms, Public Interest Lawyers and Leigh Day.
Richard Drax
I really do not have time, so I will fire on, if I may.
The perception is that left-leaning lawyers are intent on undermining one of the pillars of the establishment—namely, the armed forces. Given the opportunity, they are jumping to the task with relish. Unbelievably, it is alleged that middlemen touting for clients in Iraq received referral fees, which are prohibited, thus inviting fabrication and fantasy, which was never the intention. Those self-serving and unscrupulous firms have wrapped themselves in the banner of human rights, creating a compensation industry funded by the taxpayer.
Although I am delighted to learn that the gravy train is now coming off the rails, with both firms facing the Solicitors Regulation Authority and Leigh Day now referred to the solicitors disciplinary tribunal, the damage has been done and remains in the huge backlog of cases. For example, one British soldier could now in turn face investigations by the Iraq Historic Allegations Team and the International Criminal Court at the Hague; civil claims for compensation in the High Court; and finally an inquest by the Iraq fatality investigations—you couldn’t make it up!
Our soldiers are left feeling persecuted and betrayed. Those still serving are demoralised and people thinking of serving may think again. How on earth will we prosecute a war in the future if at every turn our servicemen and women fear being investigated for doing their duty, which, let us not forget, is to kill the enemy?
Douglas Chapman (Dunfermline and West Fife) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Owen, especially in this debate, which has aroused so much interest around the country and goes to the heart of so much in UK politics at the moment. I thank the hon. and gallant Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon) for bringing the debate to the House.
There is no doubt that the personnel of our armed forces do their job with a minimum of fuss, operating in conditions that most civilians would find intolerable, usually to a remarkable standard, because of which they are worthy of our praise and we must take time to understand specific circumstances. However, just as those men and women are the pride of their communities, we can be proud of our record on human rights, rooted in historic documents such as Magna Carta and, in Scotland, the Declaration of Arbroath.
In this debate, we should remark on the fact that IHAT is something of a classic British fudge. The idea that we should allow the UK to uphold its commitment to human rights, while protecting those who have given so much from unnecessary legal intrusion, has instead become an underfunded, sub-prime body that has lost the confidence of many it purports to help. It is also unfortunate that this necessary debate has been somewhat hijacked by those who seem to be obsessed by promoting an anti-European agenda.
In my work in the Select Committee on Defence, on which I serve with the hon. Member for Newbury and others here today, it has been made clear to me that we have the most professional, dedicated and capable armed forces in the world. They are men and women who hold themselves to the highest standards both at home and abroad. I am sure we agree that they are experienced personnel and professionals who can account for and justify their decisions on the battlefield. That does not mean, however, that there is not room for improvement in their practices.
The three services are a result of steady evolution, adaptation and best practice. It must be noted that a strong commitment to human rights has played a vital part in that evolution. We must agree, however, that the allegations brought forward are serious. The very reputation of our armed forces—indeed, the reputation of the UK and its commitment to human rights—relies on proper adherence to procedures and the rule of law.
On the other side is the ridiculous list of cases brought forward that contain false or exaggerated allegations that exploit the fundamental character of the justice system. Soldiers who have served with distinction and valour in the Iraqi conflict should not be unnecessarily hounded. Many in my party are clear that those who abuse the system must be dealt with severely.
Victoria Prentis (Banbury) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon) for his kind words and for calling for the debate. I will try to reduce my speech in so far as I can, but these matters did concern me in my working life for many years. I was in charge of the MOD’s litigation team in the Treasury Solicitor’s Department when the claims started flooding in in 2010. We faced a tsunami of litigation. I am not going to talk about individual cases, but I will give some recommendations from my experience.
First, IHAT was the least bad option available. The civil courts are not the place for criminal investigations to take place. Some of the claims made were very serious and needed to be investigated. IHAT is independent but secure. It is staffed by excellent officers who can investigate criminal allegations. Unlike the Baha Mousa inquiry, for example, they can refer cases to the Service Prosecuting Authority. Given where we are at the moment, IHAT should be encouraged to press on, but we should find new ways to deal with such issues in any future conflict.
Secondly, lawyers should not act without real clients with whom they are in touch and from whom they can take instructions. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] If, for example, offers of settlement are made, it is essential that a lawyer can get in touch with their client immediately; anything less makes litigation impossible.
Thirdly, access by IHAT officers to the Iraqi complainant should have been provided with speed, but it was not. I can see no explanation for that at all. There is no need, nor is it usual in police investigations, for those who complain of a crime to be represented by a lawyer from the other side of the world.
Fourthly, our disclosure rules should not be used to pervert the course of litigation and push the Ministry of Defence into a position where it feels it cannot defend itself or its soldiers. Fifthly, I support scrutiny of whether legal aid should be available to non-UK nationals bringing action against the Government. That money, in my view, would be much better spent on rebuilding Iraq than on lawyers based in the UK.
Sixthly, I think the UK should derogate from the European convention on human rights—I am certainly no anti-European—whenever we deploy soldiers abroad. The authors of the convention, who were writing at a time when the horror of the holocaust and the battlefield was still fresh, intended international humanitarian law to apply to soldiers. International humanitarian law and the law of armed conflict is robust law, designed for that very purpose; the ECHR is not.
In conclusion, we are not dealing in the main with the fog of the battlefield, but rather with the confusion of detention and interrogation. In Iraq, solders were detaining men who minutes before might have been shooting at them or killing their friends or who were believed to have had information that might have helped us to prevent further attacks on our troops. They were usually not in custody suites, offices or cells, and time for gathering information was perilously short. It was hot—
Johnny Mercer (Plymouth, Moor View) (Con)
I do not want to repeat much of what has been said already, but as everyone knows the situation has got completely out of hand. It is beyond parody, because what we find ourselves in is not the product of any of the individuals now charged with sorting this out. Throughout the rest of the world, there is not another country whose legislators or political representatives are putting its servicemen and women through anything remotely similar. Every day, those same legislators use the freedom of speech and freedom of will that so many have fought so hard to defend. Indeed, we are the only first-world country that seems to take such a passive and reactive approach to anything to do with veterans’ affairs.
That we find ourselves in this situation is astonishing, baffling, embarrassing and wrong. That we can take a battlefield and all that goes into it—train hard, work hard and be the best we can possibly be to ensure success—and then have our homework marked by those whose love of this country does not wander far beyond their own bank balance is simply beyond me. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] We cannot withdraw from IHAT now—I accept that. That we are here is ridiculous, but here we are and we must, as ever, fight our way out.
What is really going on in this investigation? Our soldiers have retired police officers who have answered the noble call of exciting new opportunities and above market rates of pay turning up at their door with a letter summoning them to court, with no warning. Yes, they have access to a lawyer afterwards from the MOD, but they got no warning from the Government they represented that this—a Government inquiry—is turning up. That is not good enough.
No one has a problem with scrutiny. Our professionalism is what separates us from the rest. We work so hard to imbue moral courage in our men and women, along with mental strength and resilience, precisely to get decisions right in warfare. The truth is that, by and large, we do that and, when they do not, someone speaks up and it is dealt with, without fear or favour, for we are the British Army and we are embarked on a relentless pursuit of excellence.
I do not know how many times I must say this in this place, but I will keep going until my time here is done. We have a duty to look after these people and this is not how to do it. I urge the Government to follow the Prime Minister’s lead and do everything they can to protect our men and women: be proactive; warn them of what is coming; calm them; and support their families. The time for letting veterans fend for themselves and seek out a charitable shoulder for support is over. It ends in this Parliament. These people are the best of us—the true patriots; the warrior generation. We owe these men and women. Let us not let them down.
Mr Alan Mak (Havant) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon) on securing the debate. It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer).
We ask our armed forces to serve us abroad, so that we can be safe at home. I represent a constituency with a proud military tradition, particularly in the naval sphere. I hear and see at first hand the service and sacrifice of our armed forces, and therefore my constituents and I share what the Prime Minister described as the “deep concern” that Iraq war veterans could face the threat of prosecution due to fabricated or unjustified claims.
Although we expect our armed forces to adhere to the rule of law and the rules of engagement, we should commit to ensuring that we protect them from those who irresponsibly abuse the process of law. I therefore very much welcome the commitment from the Secretary of State for Defence to clamp down on bad practices. I also support the Prime Minister’s action. Asking the National Security Council to produce a clear, detailed plan of how we can stop our troops facing this torment is positive news.
I hope the Minister will confirm that the National Security Council’s work is proceeding well. Several of the proposed steps are especially welcome. My hon. Friend the Member for Newbury referred to the imposition of strict time limits for the lodging of claims, to residency requirements, to the prevention of no win, no fee deals and to the reviewing of legal aid provision to certain firms that have been implicated in the al-Sweady deal. Those are all very welcome.
The unjustified claims against British troops are harmful for at least three reasons. Operationally, such claims harm morale. They affect recruitment and damage the operational effectiveness of our troops at a time when we are relying on them more than ever. From a financial perspective, every false claim that IHAT and the Government respond to, investigate and defend diverts spending from the frontline at an important time in our country’s activities. Politically, such claims threaten to unjustifiably undermine the outstanding work of our armed forces in the eyes of the public, even when those claims are later found to be unfounded. The al-Sweady inquiry, which reported last year, is a case in point.
Time is short. In closing, I hope that all hon. Members will join me in paying tribute to not only our armed forces but the many charities that champion and care for our veterans when they come home, from Combat Stress and SSAFA to the Royal British Legion. Their approach stands in stark contrast with those who pursue our veterans, rather than protecting and caring for them.
Finally, I congratulate again my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury on securing this timely debate on an important issue. I welcome the Government’s commitment to positive action and look forward to hearing from the Minister. I am confident that when she gets to her feet, she will reassure us that this Government are very much on the side of our brave armed forces personnel, who serve us abroad and protect us at home.
Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con)
It is very difficult for any civilian to sit in judgment of a soldier. I have no experience of the unique and extraordinary pressures under which they operate, nor the snap life and death decisions they are forced to make. Too many people in the legal profession lack the wisdom or the humility to take that view and hound our veterans with self-righteous enthusiasm.
Just this week, the BBC announced that the Iraq Historic Allegations Team has dropped nearly 60 cases of alleged unlawful killing—cases that have cast a shadow over the lives of innocent veterans. As we know, in 2014 the al-Sweady inquiry found that previous allegations against British troops in Iraq were “deliberate and calculated lies” intended to smear our military at a cost of £31 million, as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon) said. As a result, Leigh Day, one of the law firms involved, faces a full disciplinary tribunal from the Solicitors Regulation Authority. The Prime Minister has threatened to sue that company to recover the millions of pounds it has claimed in costs, and I hope he will find support from across the House for that measure. He has also outlined a broader crackdown on so-called tank chasers, including reforms to legal aid, to no win, no fee arrangements and to the civil courts regime.
Clear-cut, conventional wars against uniformed enemies are increasingly a thing of the past. Today’s foes increasingly know no rules of war, yet just as the old conventions of conflict are breaking down, we are handing our opponents unprecedented opportunities to attack our troops in the courts. Even though it is right we hold our armed forces to high standards, such self-flagellation is completely ridiculous.
Such challenges are not confined to the middle east. Veterans of the campaign against IRA terrorism in Northern Ireland face their very own historical inquisition. Meanwhile, the terrorists they were fighting—men and women who deliberately targeted civilians and murdered several Members of this House—are shielded by an amnesty. I understand that it is important to hold our armed forces to account, but this country has one of the most disciplined, effective and professional armies in the world, and we should be proud of it.
Unless we trust our troops and give them the leeway they need to make hard decisions in extraordinary circumstances, we will find it increasingly difficult to wage war at all. Troops on the battlefield will hesitate to act, for fear of years of harassment and potential prosecution. Potential recruits will see the reward for serving and seek careers elsewhere.
War is, and will always be, a messy and brutal business. Rules designed for civilian life are inadequate for its challenges, and we shall only end up crippling the armed forces if we make perfection the enemy of good in upholding the conduct of conflict. Cases against our forces should be considered and advanced by an uninterested party, not by lawyers looking to maximise profit.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
I congratulate my good friend, the hon. and gallant Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon), on securing the debate.
Just over 400 soldiers have contacted me. Most of them I have never met; some I knew from my service. I want to represent them in the short time I have, and I want two thoughts to be brought to the attention of the House. The first is that those soldiers feel they are being chased down by unscrupulous lawyers who do not give a damn about their wellbeing, some of whom seem to imply the soldiers are guilty before that is proven.
The soldiers feel extremely irritated that the Ministry of Defence seems to have set up an organisation to join with those lawyers to chase the soldiers down. I use the word “seem” because the soldiers do not understand why that is happening. We can spend all the time we like explaining and saying, “It’s because we’ve got to investigate things. We’ve got to do it properly, otherwise you’ll go to the International Criminal Court,” but our men and women in uniform do not accept that, so this is a communication problem.
My second thought is this. I have given evidence with my soldiers in Northern Ireland on murder charges and in the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. Our soldiers, our men, our women, our sailors, our airmen and our airwomen loathe doing that. They are frightened by having to appear in court in front of slippery-tongued lawyers who have a much better gift of the gab than they do. They feel they will slip up, and that terrifies them. Often, their thought is, “I’d much prefer to be on the frontline, under fire, than in this poxy court where no one seems to be on my side.”
The problem we have is trying to tell our servicemen and servicewomen that this is actually for their own benefit. I had to tell two soldiers, after they had been in a firefight, that they were being charged with murder in Ireland. They did not believe it was possible. I explained that the reason was to take them to court to prove they had acted under the law, so that they could never be prosecuted again.
I speak, I admit, with some emotion on behalf of our men and women, and I tell you this: we should listen to them and communicate better.
Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon) on bringing forward this important debate, and I also congratulate my hon. Friends who have taken part in it. The debate demonstrates the strength of feeling in the House that our armed forces are not being well served by the campaign of what is known as lawfare, rather than warfare.
Our armed forces go and fight and do their best in the most difficult of circumstances. A number of my hon. and gallant Friends have been out in theatre. I have been to Afghanistan six times, so I know what it is like. I fear that by putting our armed forces into harm’s way in this fashion, we are undermining their morale and thereby threatening the war-fighting capability of the next generation of those who will be called upon to serve their country. I believe we are doing them a disservice.
The Prime Minister is absolutely right to express his concern about this matter. The Government need to do more; we owe it to the 120,000 troops who have served in Iraq in Her Majesty’s armed forces. We cannot have a situation where men and women go out to fight in the most appalling of circumstances, dealing with an enemy that they sometimes cannot distinguish from the civilian population. They do their level best and then come back—many of them suffering injuries and some of them traumatised—and may have to wait years before finding out that they might face prosecution from their own fellow civilians. That cannot be right.
I have constituents in Aldershot, the home of the British Army, who served with distinction in Northern Ireland. They still, 43 years on from Londonderry in 1972, face the possibility of prosecution. That is not right. It is not in the interests of natural justice that our men and women who serve our country should be treated in that fashion.
Steven Paterson (Stirling) (SNP)
I thank the hon. Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon) securing today’s debate. It is crucial that we not only support our service personnel but uphold human rights and have the UK show leadership in promoting international human rights.
Our armed forces carry out a vital role on our behalf, often in harsh and dangerous conditions. Their courage and professionalism are to their immense credit. As part of that professionalism, our armed forces should and must be able to justify their decisions and actions against clearly defined standards of conduct. When allegations are made that conduct has not met the high standards expected by both society and the armed forces, they must be taken seriously. When there is a case to answer, the case must be investigated fully and fairly.
Since the inception of the Iraq Historic Allegations Team, a number of issues have arisen that require consideration, as many speakers have touched on today. They include the scope of the investigations, the considerable volume of the case load, the amount of time that has passed in some of the incidents involved and concerns about the credibility and veracity of the allegations. Each of those issues presents challenges to IHAT and to us, who oversee it, in the dispensing of justice.
The latest figures that I have seen indicate that 1,514 allegations have been reported to IHAT, making up 1,329 cases. Of those, 43 have been closed and 57 dropped, with 280 UK veterans under investigation. It is only fitting and fair that we are concerned about the number of allegations and the speed of the investigations, and it is no surprise that many hon. Members, including the hon. Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax), have raised that issue.
I understand that IHAT has about 150 staff, so in my view, it is reasonable to question the speed at which cases are being dealt with. Indeed, if I were a member of a committee scrutinising the issue, I would have serious questions for witnesses and would be pressing them on the apparently slow rate of progress and for a comparison with other legal jurisdictions.
I fully understand that we are talking about a unique situation in many respects, given the challenges in investigating allegations. However, the rate of progress is an issue. The hon. Member for Newbury raised the issue of trails going cold on some of the investigations. We need to address that and face the reality that in some—indeed, many—cases, it might not be possible to get the evidence we need to establish whether an allegation is true. That might simply mean that the case cannot proceed, and I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say about that.
Turning to the credibility and motives of those bringing complaints, which many Members have raised, I have concerns that there may well be instances in which the current system is being abused, and that spurious allegations are being brought against military personnel and service veterans. The answer lies in ensuring that we have a system in place that allows the prompt dismissal of cases that are brought on flimsy evidence or are not evidence-based. In cases where evidence is found to have been falsified or deliberately distorted, I would want to see penalties imposed for what I consider to be akin to the criminal charges of perverting the course of justice or, at the very least, wasting police time, or its equivalent in Scottish law.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Douglas Chapman) said, our legal system in this area must uphold the values of the European convention on human rights, as well as other international human rights treaties. We have to work with other nations to set an example of our values on human rights. Some Members have expressed the desire to derogate from the convention, but that is not the right way forward. The European convention on human rights was born out of the horrific events of world war two, which rightly made the international community think very carefully.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman is making a very good point, but the problem with regard to derogation is that it was specifically intended by the authors to allow for operations outside the territory. The danger of the argument he is making is that the Scottish National party is turning soldiers from cannon fodder into courtroom fodder.
Steven Paterson
I will resist getting into party politics. This is a serious case and I do not think that the hon. Gentleman made his point very well there—[Interruption.]
Steven Paterson
Time is now against me, but to address the hon. Gentleman’s point, I hope that we all accept the need to uphold standards of human rights. That should be the case across the world, wherever we send our armed forces. Our armed forces have our support and gratitude for the difficult work that they do on our behalf in defending not only us but our values. That means that our armed forces must always live by and espouse the same values that they defend with such distinction.
Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon) not only on securing the debate, but on his excellent contribution and the valuable perspective that he brought to the debate—I think it informed all of us.
This important issue raises emotions and concerns among all hon. Members. It is a matter of tremendous national pride that Britain’s world-class armed forces are renowned across the globe for upholding the very highest military standards, so often while performing in the most dangerous of theatres, and are rightly acknowledged as being expected to conform to, and indeed as achieving, the very highest standards of ethical behaviour. None of us should forget for a moment the debt of gratitude that we owe to our servicemen and women, nor should we lack humility about what we in this House have expected of them under the most trying circumstances imaginable.
I turn to the purpose of establishing the Iraq Historic Allegations Team. Rather than begin a long drawn-out public inquiry, it was considered to be better for all parties concerned to deal with allegations on a case by case basis, managed by a dedicated team, to identify whether there were causes for concern and to manage the process in as timely a manner as possible. In November 2010, IHAT was given full investigatory powers by the coalition Government to ensure that the resulting investigations would be in keeping with the UK’s legal obligations under the European convention on human rights, and I share many of the concerns that hon. Members have raised today.
It is important to re-emphasise that although we all have tremendous respect for our armed forces and the work they do, and although we are all conscious of the danger of malicious inquiries and the effect that they would have on the morale and stress of those serving, nobody in this debate has been arguing that our soldiers are above the law. We have to ensure that when serious allegations are made, they are properly investigated. The UK is among the countries with the highest human rights standards in the world, and we should be proud of being held to those standards.
The work of IHAT, however, was initially due to be concluded in 2012. We are now in 2016, with the conclusion deferred at least until 2019. There is a genuine fear that IHAT is becoming exactly what it was designed to prevent: a drawn-out investigation that becomes a burden on valued members of the armed forces and the taxpayer alike. There is also a sense that the transparency and generosity of spirit evident in the setting up of the team is being abused by irresponsible law firms or malicious complainants.
Although it is right to ensure that allegations are properly investigated, we also have to prevent abuse of the public purse and ensure that our justice system is not being systematically abused. We are all aware of the recent allegations of ambulance chasing by certain law firms, and the Prime Minister rightly said today that certain firms clearly have questions to answer.
As we have heard, only this week 57 allegations of unlawful killing were dropped due to lack of evidence. That is 57 innocent soldiers who have had that hanging over their heads and have faced the prospect of prosecution for crimes of which they knew they were innocent. It is imperative that we do all we can to prevent that from happening again. However, using the alleged cases of ambulance chasing as an excuse to withdraw from the European convention on human rights seems to be the wrong approach. I am happy to look at the details of the Government’s proposals and to support evidence-based measures that discourage claims without merit and make sure they are not funded through legal aid.
Toby Perkins
I do not have time.
I believe that measures such as re-examining the current eligibility criteria for legal aid, or the development of a residency test for civil legal aid, would be very welcome. I know that I, like other Members, would have trouble explaining to my constituents in Chesterfield why an individual who has never set foot on British soil should be able to claim legal aid to bring civil legal action against a member of our armed forces at the UK taxpayer’s expense. Not only is the prospect of prosecution for an alleged historic crime traumatic for the serving soldier, but I am worried, as are other Members, that such a practice could act as a barrier to recruitment in future generations. For that reason, I am also interested to read the Government’s proposals on a time limit for individuals or firms to submit cases to IHAT.
I ask the Minister the following questions. How can the Government guarantee that only individuals with a strong connection with the UK will have access to UK-funded legal aid? Will the Government consider applying a specific time limit or cut-off date relating to allegations of human rights abuse in Iraq? What more can the Minister tell us about the success the Government have had in prosecuting firms who make malicious complaints, as the Prime Minister referred to today? Can she tell us what steps will be taken to enforce that approach and what criteria will be used to decide that a complaint is without merit? What impact do the Government believe the process is having on morale, on the stress levels of people who served in Iraq and on recruitment and retention within the Army, both among those who served in Iraq and more generally? Do the Government think that a timetable of 2019 for concluding the work of IHAT is acceptable, and what steps are they taking to support and reassure servicemen and women who suddenly find themselves within the process?
I want to reiterate our admiration for those who served in Iraq and assure the Government of our intention to support any practical steps that they can take to rebuild confidence in this process.
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Penny Mordaunt)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon) for securing this debate. He is a doughty champion of our armed forces and a former member of their number. I also thank, in particular, my hon. Friends the Members for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat) and for Banbury (Victoria Prentis) who have spoken today and have been a great help to me in the work I have undertaken since May last year.
I also thank all hon. Members who have spoken in support of our armed forces today. We send them into harm’s way, dressed in body armour, to defend our freedom and national interest. It is not just their courage and capability that makes them the best; it is their values and the high standards we hold them to—values of self-discipline and self-sacrifice. Much of what they do in both war and peace is to uphold the rule of law, including international humanitarian law such as the well-known and well-understood Geneva conventions.
As a nation, we have chosen to invest in preserving and promoting those vital rules in armed conflict, ensuring they are reflected in all we do, and using our considerable reach to instil them in armed forces around the world. It is right that we meet the obligations on us to investigate credible allegations of human rights breaches, serious criminality and war crimes. How ironic then that those brave men and women, who do so much to protect and promote human rights and the laws that enshrine them, stand accused of wishing to exempt themselves from such obligations.
I will set out some of the shocking practices of those accusers, mainly two law firms, that concern us and what we are doing to meet our manifesto commitment. I will contrast that with the work of the Iraq Historic Allegations Team and provide an insight into its remit, its methods and some of the cases it has been dealing with which, if I do them justice, will reassure Members of the House and the armed forces.
I want to explain why protecting our armed forces from litigation motivated by malice and money is compatible with upholding human rights and the pursuit of justice, and that human rights and justice depend upon it. It is not about holding our armed forces above the law, as Leigh Day has suggested, but rather that we wish to uphold the primacy of international humanitarian law that helps to keep our armed forces safe, gives them the freedom to act in accordance with those laws, and protects human rights.
The ability to take prisoners, for example, is a well-understood good, and not being able to do so would have very grave consequences for both sides of a conflict. Any action that undermines or deviates from such rules is detrimental to our operational ability and to the safety of our own armed forces. We should make no apology for investigating and holding our armed forces to account for such actions. It is in our national interest to do so, as well as in that of the people who serve in our armed forces.
The steady creep of extending the reach of European human rights legislation, which was not written for conflict situations, is eroding international humanitarian law. The behaviour of parasitic law firms churning out spurious claims against our armed forces on an industrial scale is the enemy of justice and humanity, not our armed forces or the Ministry of Defence.
Tom Tugendhat
When I was interviewing various witnesses for the “Clearing the Fog of Law” report, the former Member, Jack Straw, was very specific about the reason for not derogating in advance of the Iraq conflict, which was that it was never thought that the European convention had extraterritorial jurisdiction. What other Members have called for—I particularly highlight my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis)—is very reasonable in the light of that experience.
Penny Mordaunt
My hon. Friend is right, and he knows what he is talking about.
When the courts entertain claims against our armed forces of the likes of an insurgent bomb-maker suing us for not shooting him in a fire fight, but instead taking him prisoner and holding him until we could guarantee he would not face mistreatment in the local justice system, it is not just our armed forces who suffer the strain on them and the corrupting effect on their behaviour in the field; the cause of human rights suffers too. Today, when faced with the likes of Leigh Day and PIL, we need to wrap our service personnel in more than just body armour when we send them out to defend freedom.
Shortly the National Security Council will meet to decide on a number of options to address all the concerns that hon. Members have expressed this afternoon. Over the last eight months, extensive work has been going on in the MOD and the MOJ on these issues. Hon Members have mentioned some of the options that may be brought forward, and there are others.
Specifically with regard to spurious litigation being brought against our service personnel and the conduct of legal firms, the Prime Minister has announced that the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab), and I will chair a working group to tackle every aspect of that, including conditional fee arrangements, legal aid rules and disciplinary sanctions against lawyers who are abusing the system or attempting to pervert the course of justice.
Against that backdrop, I understand that the work of IHAT has been tarred with the same brush. Hon. Members have spoken about why it was set up. It was to ensure that we have a domestic process as opposed to an international one. I want to give an insight into some of the cases, because they are illuminating.
In case No. 377, it was alleged that a passenger in a car was shot by an
“hysterical British soldier in a tank.”
That IHAT investigation ascertained that PIL had submitted the allegation in October 2014, despite Danish armed forces accepting liability for the incident and paying compensation in 2003.
In case No. 123, it was alleged that a 13-year-old girl had been killed when she picked up part of a UK cluster bomb that had failed to detonate. The IHAT investigation established that a 13-year-old boy had been killed, but was unable to ascertain whether Iraqi or UK munitions were responsible. PIL challenged the MOD’s decision not to refer it to the IFI—Iraq fatality investigations. The MOD defended the challenge on the basis of that information. Shortly before the hearing, PIL disclosed a witness statement by the boy’s father, made before the IHAT investigation, in which he said that the boy had been killed while in the vicinity of an Iraqi mobile missile launcher preparing to fire missiles into Kuwait that was destroyed by a coalition helicopter. There are many other cases that I could mention. It was concluded, after thorough investigation, that UK service personnel had acted in self-defence, in the defence of others, and lawfully.
IHAT enables us to meet our obligations to investigate serious wrongdoing, and its work is exonerating those wrongly accused and rejecting bogus allegations. I would add that the sniper case that my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury mentioned is not an IHAT case. Its investigators—a mix of service personnel, police officers and legal experts—are doing a public service, and I pay tribute to them. They feel their responsibilities keenly. Those investigators did not set up IHAT; we did. That was done not by anyone in this Chamber today, but by a previous Government, and for sound legal and policy reasons—there should be a domestic system of accountability, because without that there would be an international one. I hope that I have set the record straight on that. However, some questions remain for us, the politicians.
Does the existence of IHAT invite such claims? Were we not funding it, would fewer cases be brought? Why are so many cases brought and why are they so poorly researched, lengthening the investigation process? How can we speed that up? What support is given to our armed forces during the process? The work of IHAT is independent of the MOD, and we would not interfere with its investigations or work, but those are genuine questions to look at. It is right that we look at further ways of speeding up the process without compromising the quality of its output or its independence.
I can reassure hon. Members that we do all we can to support our armed forces through such investigations, and that support is also embedded in the practices of IHAT. It does give notice of investigations, and hon. Members must flag it up if they have heard of instances in which that has not been the case. Support that the MOD routinely provides to service personnel includes the funding of legal costs and, where appropriate, the funding of judicial reviews, as well as pastoral support. We fund medical assessments and applications to excuse from giving evidence veterans and serving personnel who are not medically fit to do so. Indeed, some in the judiciary have criticised the MOD for providing the level of support that we do provide. Those obligations remain, whatever the theatre in which the actions took place, whether it is Iraq, Afghanistan, Northern Ireland or elsewhere, but we recognise the cost of all this to our servicemen and women and to the public purse.
The al-Sweady case, in which our armed forces were exonerated and which resulted in Leigh Day being referred to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, cost the MOD and the British taxpayer £31 million to stage—£31 million, I would argue, that would be better spent on equipment and support for our armed forces. The status quo is financially unsustainable and morally unjustifiable. To put this right falls to us in this place, and we must all be resolved to do so. This issue and the solutions that we will bring forward are complex, but the objective is simple: we must protect human rights and we must protect those who defend them—our armed forces.
Albert Owen (in the Chair)
We have run out of time, but I will give the hon. Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon) one minute. I apologise for the time restraints.
Richard Benyon
You are very generous, Mr Owen. I thank hon. Members for taking part in the debate and particularly the Minister, who has proved, as she always does, that she is a very good Minister indeed and has understood the feeling in this place and beyond it—that is what is really important. Can she pick up a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) and really communicate to the cohort in our armed forces today that they will get our support throughout the process and ensure that they understand why this has been set up and that we are moving away from allowing this culture to continue?
I will finish by saying to the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Douglas Chapman) that this has nothing to do with Europe. I have similar views on Europe to my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis). I understand the history of the European Court, its place in our society and the convention on human rights. This is about trying to ensure that we have the best legal vehicle for dealing with these matters.
Written Statements
(8 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Register of People with Significant Control
(8 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Minister for Universities and Science (Joseph Johnson)
My noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Baroness Neville-Rolfe) has today made the following statement.
I laid before Parliament on Monday 25 January draft regulations that implement the public register of information about people with significant control (PSCs) over UK incorporated companies and limited liability partnerships (LLPs). These regulations are derived from powers under Part 21A of the Companies Act 2006.
These regulations form the detailed requirements of the register of people with significant control, which will come into force on the 6 April 2016 subject to consideration. The register is the cornerstone of the UK’s response to the problem of corporate opacity. It ensures the UK meets international standards which tackle the misuse of companies. The reforms provide greater transparency over company ownership and control for enforcement agencies, business, and citizens. By making this information public, without charge, we are setting a standard for open government that we aim to persuade international partners to follow.
On Monday 25 January I also laid, in draft, statutory guidance on the meaning of significant influence or control in the context of companies, for the register of people with significant influence or control. This is required by paragraph 24 to Schedule 1A of the Companies Act 2006, and is subject to the approval of the House. The term “significant influence or control” is included in the fourth and fifth specified conditions for being a person with significant control. The statutory guidance is required to explain how that term should be interpreted.
I have also published, in draft, the statutory guidance on the meaning of significant influence or control in the context of limited liability partnerships. I intend to lay this document in draft before the House, once The Limited Liability Partnerships (Register of People with Significant Control) Regulations 2016 have been commenced, following the approval of the House.
This month I will also publish the general guidance for companies and limited liability partnerships on how to comply with the register of people with significant control requirements. This has been developed with the help of business, civil society and legal experts, and will enable companies, limited liability partnerships and individuals to familiarise themselves with the framework before it comes into force.
[HCWS494]
Securitisation Framework: Justice and Home Affairs
(8 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Harriett Baldwin)
The Government have decided not to opt in to the justice and home affairs (JHA) provisions within the European Commission’s proposal for laying down common rules on securitisation and creating a European framework for simple, and transparent and standardised securitisation.
Article 19(2) of the proposal requires that where member states have chosen to pursue a criminal sanctions regime for breaches of elements of the proposals, those member states must ensure that information can be shared between competent authorities across the EU. As the provision requires co-operation involving law enforcement bodies, the Government believe these are JHA obligations and therefore our JHA opt-in is triggered and we have informed Council of that fact.
The Government have decided not to opt in to these provisions as there are no significant benefits to be gained from doing so. The obligation to share information will fall on member states who have a relevant criminal sanctions regime, and UK competent authorities will be in a position to access this data irrespective of the decision to opt in. The Government have no intention to introduce a criminal sanctions regime in a way that would lead to this regulation imposing an obligation on the UK or on our competent authorities.
[HCWS496]
Foreign Affairs Council and General Affairs Council
(8 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs attended the Foreign Affairs Council and I attended the General Affairs Council on 18 January. The Foreign Affairs Council was chaired by the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Federica Mogherini, and the General Affairs Council was chaired by the Dutch presidency. The meetings were held in Brussels.
Foreign Affairs Council
A provisional report of the meeting and conclusions adopted can be found at: http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/meetings/fac/2016/01/18/.
In her introductory remarks Ms Mogherini welcomed the progress that had been made on implementation of the Iranian nuclear deal and updated Ministers on the political situation in Venezuela. During the morning sessions, Ministers discussed Syria—including the London conference—and Iraq. The Jordanian Foreign Minister joined Ministers for lunch. The afternoon concluded with discussions on Ukraine and the middle east peace process.
Syria and recent developments in the region
Ms Mogherini updated Ministers on the political process in Syria, highlighting recent tensions between Saudi Arabia and Iran. The Foreign Secretary welcomed the Riyadh conference of the Syrian opposition, and underlined the need for confidence-building measures in parallel with the UN-led talks. All member states welcomed the political progress made in the final months of 2015 but cautioned that the process was fragile. Ministers also discussed preparations for the Syria conference taking place in London on 4 February. The conference has three main objectives: to increase available funding to the most affected countries, to address the long-term economic needs of refugees in the region, and increase the protection of civilians. The Foreign Secretary underlined the need to do more for the vulnerable and displaced inside Syria and the millions of Syrian refugees in neighbouring countries.
Iraq
Ministers exchanged views on Iraq following the adoption of conclusions at the December 2015 Foreign Affairs Council. Ms Mogherini focused on how the EU could support the domestic reform agenda and national reconciliation. The Foreign Secretary noted the recent military successes against Daesh in Sinjar and Ramadi, which had relieved some of the pressure on the Iraqi Government.
Lunch with Jordanian Foreign Minister
Over lunch, Ministers exchanged views with the Jordanian Foreign Minister, Mr Nasser Judeh, on foreign policy challenges in the region. They looked ahead to the London Syria conference. Ms Mogherini expressed support to Jordan in the fight against Daesh and counter radicalisation.
Ukraine
Ms. Mogherini opened the discussion by underlining progress made by the Government of Ukraine on their reform programme under very difficult circumstances. She stressed the need for the EU and member states to continue to support Ukraine. Ministers exchanged views on how this could best be achieved.
Middle east peace process Council conclusions
Following discussion, the Council approved conclusions on the middle east peace process. Ministers agreed without discussion a number of measures:
The Council adopted conclusions on Libya.
The Council adopted a regulation concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya.
The Council adopted the EU priorities for co-operation with the Council of Europe in 2016-2017.
The Council set a financial reference amount of EUR 14 850 000 to cover the expenditure related to the EU’s CSDP mission in Mali (EUCAP) Sahel Mali between 15 January 2016 and 14 January 2017.
The Council adopted a decision supporting the biological and toxin weapons convention (BTWC).
The Council concluded that all the conditions have been met for EUNAVFOR MED Operation Sophia to implement on the High Seas UN Security Council Resolution 2240.
General Affairs Council
The General Affairs Council (GAC) on 18 January 2016 focused on the presidency work programme and preparation of the European Council on 18 and 19 February 2016.
A provisional report of the meeting and conclusions adopted can be found at:
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/meetings/gac/2016/01/18/.
Presidency Work programme
The Dutch presidency commenced on 1 January. The Dutch Foreign Minister, Bert Koenders, set out the presidency’s programme and priorities for the current semester, and referred to his letter on improving the role of the GAC highlighting three priorities: open and inclusive dialogue at the multiannual financial framework high-level conference on 28 January; continued work on rule of law; and implementation of the inter-institutional agreement, transparency and better governance.
The Dutch programme is based on the presidency Trio programme, developed jointly with Slovakia and Malta, but focuses on four main themes: jobs and growth; labour mobility; the eurozone; and a union of freedom, justice and security.
I welcomed the presidency’s priorities, particularly those based on supporting job creation and economic growth. I also highlighted the importance of continuity of Trio programmes and looked forward to working with Estonia and Bulgaria—the UK’s Trio partners—and the current Trio to deliver real results on competitiveness, the internal market, investment, and entrenching the EU’s position at the heart of global trade.
Preparation of the February European Council
The GAC prepared the agenda for the 18 and 19 February European Council, which the Prime Minister will attend. The draft February European Council agenda covers: the UK’s EU renegotiation; migration, and economic issues.
On the UK’s EU renegotiation, I reiterated the Prime Minister’s message that what mattered more than the timing of a deal was getting the substance right.
On migration, I highlighted the UK’s role in efforts to tackle the migration crisis through chairing the upcoming Syria conference in London; chairing the Khartoum process; supporting the action plans from the Valletta and Turkey summits; supporting the Turkey Refugee Fund; and providing technical assistance to EU agencies.
[HCWS495]
House of Lords
(8 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Religious Hate Crime
(8 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Pearson of Rannoch
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the risk that Christians could be recorded as having committed an anti-Muslim hate crime from April 2016 by preaching the divinity of Christ or by reading aloud sections of the Bible in public, such as 1 John, Chapter 4, verses 1 to 3.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport and Home Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, reading texts from the holy Bible in public or preaching the divinity of Christ is not a crime, and never will be in this country. The Government’s counterextremism strategy makes it clear that we will protect free speech and the right to profess, practise and propagate any religion, or indeed none.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch (UKIP)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that reply. I must say that I thought it was brave of the Prime Minister to say in his Christmas message that Jesus is the only son of God, because that will not have gone down all that well with the Islamists. Will a Christian preacher be committing this new hate crime if he goes a little further and denies the supremacy of the Koran, and thus the divinity of Allah? Secondly, I assume that the Minister agrees that the serious hatred is coming from the jihadists, against non-Muslims and against those brave Muslims who oppose the jihadists’ evil creed and form the large majority of the thousands whom they have slaughtered. So how can anyone be guilty of hate if they preach their own religion, even outside a mosque, and take part in much-needed debate about Islam?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, the Government are clear that anyone who preaches any kind of hate has no place here, and I believe that all of us across this House unite on that. Bigotry has no place and any kind of hate, be it based on race, sexual orientation or religion, has no place in British society. The Government, our legal system and our police will stand against that. The noble Lord made brief reference to the Prime Minister’s message. My right honourable friend mentioned the holy personage of Jesus Christ, whom Muslims celebrate because, as the noble Lord well knows, Muslims also regard and revere the Prophet Jesus as a prophet of God.
Lord Polak (Con)
My Lords, today is Holocaust Memorial Day—a day to remember those who perished and the brave soldiers who helped to liberate the camps, and to remember and pay tribute to the depleting band of survivors who spend their days educating young people. I also commend the Prime Minister for his announcement today that a fitting memorial will be erected adjacent to this House, in Victoria Tower Gardens. Does the Minister agree that, today of all days, we should acknowledge where hate crime can lead? Does he further agree that the vital task of the Prime Minister’s Holocaust foundation should be to concentrate on educating young people as, sadly, there will soon be no survivors to tell the story?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
I join my noble friend in the sentiments he expressed. Indeed, I believe I speak for every Member of this House as we come together on this poignant day, when we remember those who passed away in the Holocaust—the victims of the biggest crime of genocide against humanity that we have seen in the world. We must work together, including on education. I am therefore proud that on entering my office in the Home Office, if you look to the right, the first certificate you will see is for the Anne Frank Trust UK, which does an incredible job in promoting Holocaust education. I praise the efforts of all organisations and the work of my noble friend in this respect.
The Lord Bishop of Worcester
My Lords, does the Minister agree with me that Questions phrased in this manner are not conducive to building positive relations between faith communities, in particular with Muslim communities, as we are endeavouring to do in the church at a time when Muslims are feeling unfairly stigmatised? Does he further accept that Muslims, and people of all faiths, greatly enrich our society and make a significant contribution to the common good?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
I agree with the right reverend Prelate, but I also believe very strongly that adversity is an opportunity and that Questions such as this present an opportunity to all of us in this House, across the political spectrum, to speak with one voice and unite against bigotry in all its ugly guises.
Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale (Lab)
My Lords, will the Minister agree with me—
Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale
I think it is this side. Will the Minister agree with me that the idea that bigotry and hatred are confined only to the extreme elements in the Islamic religion in this country is absolute nonsense? Historically, bigotry and hatred have been inflicted on both Catholic and Protestant communities right across the United Kingdom by alternative Christian religions. Will he join me in consistently condemning all forms of religious sectarianism and bigotry? If we do that in this House, we will perhaps have a stronger message to tell the country.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
I totally agree with the noble Lord. One other point I would add is that whenever we face such bigotry, the resilience of our country and our historic legacy shows that when we face those challenges, we come together as a more united nation going forward.
Lord Singh of Wimbledon
My Lords, when religions claim competing exclusive truths, the end result is conflict. Is it not better to go along with the proposition that the one God of us all is not in the least bit interested in our different religious labels but in what we do to make life better for those around us?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
I totally agree with the noble Lord, who speaks with great poignancy and expertise in this area. I regard religion very much as a route: we all have the same beginning and the same end, and the religion we follow is but a different path towards that end.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, can the Minister tell the House what research the Government are doing into the causes of the genuine and alarming increase in both anti-Muslim and anti-Semitic hate crime and whether the increasing anti-Muslim rhetoric in some British media—and elsewhere—might be the case?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
The noble Lord is quite right to point out what is being done. He will be aware from his own previous profession that the Government are working with the police and with communities to ensure that any kind of religious hate is formally recorded and that people are educated that they should report hate crime. From April this year, as the noble Lord will be aware, the Government will ensure that anti-Muslim hatred, along with other religious hate crime, is formally recorded by every police force across England and Wales.
Lord Maginnis of Drumglass (Ind UU)
My Lords, is the Minister aware that we have already had a case in Northern Ireland, where a Christian Minister was literally persecuted for months before eventually being brought before our courts, tried and acquitted? Do we still have British law in Northern Ireland, or is that now being adjusted to suit sectarian interests in my part of the United Kingdom?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
I, for one, am very proud of our justice system across the United Kingdom. Despite every challenge and diversity, there is great faith in our justice system. As we have seen previously, our justice system even stands up for those who seek to divide us or promote hate in our society.
Thames Barrier
(8 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord Harris of Haringey
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the length of time for which the Thames Barrier will be fit for purpose.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con)
My Lords, the current and future performance of the Thames Barrier has been assessed as part of the Thames Estuary 2100 plan. This plan, produced by the Environment Agency and stakeholders along the estuary, sets out how to manage tidal flood risk up to the end of the century. The plan is reviewed every five years. Based on these projections, the Thames Barrier is expected to protect London to its current standard up to 2070.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that response, but he will be aware that the Thames Barrier was raised twice per annum on average in its first 10 years of existence and is now raised, on average, eight times per annum. It reached a peak of 48 times in 2014. As a result, in 2012, the Government decided that it was appropriate to extend the life of the Thames Barrier from 2030 to 2070. Despite concern about freak storms and rising sea levels, we know that the Government have been complacent over flooding in the cities of York and Leeds and the county of Cumbria. Why should we have any more confidence in their decision to extend the life of the Thames Barrier by 40 years?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, I reject the noble Lord’s accusation about the good will of this Government. To compare expenditure, this Government propose capital expenditure of £2.3 billion in the next six years. That compares with the previous Labour Government spending of £1.5 billion, a real-terms increase. It is a symbol and shows the record of the Government on flood defences.
Interestingly, the Thames 2100 plan started in 2006, under the previous Labour Administration. There have been 300 components to it, it is reviewed every five years and, from looking at it and having met the Thames Barrier manager and the Environment Agency officials, I am clear that it is a very strong plan. It involves climate adaptation, which is being reviewed consistently. Having had these meetings, I am confident that they have this in good order.
Lord De Mauley (Con)
My Lords, it is often helpful to get the perspective of others who face similar problems. What discussions have the Government had with other countries which face similar problems?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, I am pleased to say that the Thames Barrier officials were the founder members of I-STORM, which is the International Network of Storm Surge Barriers professionals. Four very important barriers in the Netherlands, Venice and New Orleans all peer-review each other. Next year, all those professionals will be peer-reviewing the Thames Barrier. That is really important, and I thank all professionals around the world who will come to help us.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, I am normally a great believer in as much salt water as possible, but there is a slight element of complacency here. I know that a lot of work has gone into this—I was involved in the resilience work—but the speed at which things are changing is such that to say categorically that we need to do nothing with the Thames Barrier until 2070 seems a little over-hopeful. Does not the Minister agree that we may have to do something well before that, and that it will take a considerable time to put it in place?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, I apologise if I in any sense suggested that this would wait until 2070. As I said, the review will be every five years; it is essential that we keep up to date.
The plan is based on a range of sea-level rise scenarios in the estuary to 2100 from 0.9 metres to 2.7 metres; a lot is being factored in. I assure the noble Lord and your Lordships that this is being looked at rigorously. There are three sections of time period to the plan, so that varying work can be done at different stages, but the important thing is the protection of London.
Lord Higgins (Con)
My Lords, as a Treasury Minister I was much involved in the original decisions on the Thames Barrier. I very much wanted to make it part of a hydro-electric scheme, but my officials said that that would cause delay, the Thames would break its banks, the London Underground would be flooded and then asked whether I wanted to take that responsibility—so we are where we are. Will my noble friend consider whether in the plans which he has rightly set out a moment ago one should consider the possibility of using the tidal flow of the Thames to generate electricity, given the increasing claims for non-carbon-based fuel?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, I shall certainly raise this with my noble friend in the Department of Energy and Climate Change. Clearly it is important that in this country we use many sources of alternative energy supply, and that is a very interesting concept.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, is it not the case that the barrier is increasingly being used to protect properties in the Thames valley to the west which are being threatened by rising river levels due to the unprecedented rainfall and not for its original purpose, which was to stop tidal surges from the river mouth to the east? It is now performing a very different function. Given the concerns that have been raised around the Chamber, there is concern that we are being complacent and that there is a further need to evaluate the risk if anything should go wrong. The national flood resilience review that has just been announced is to be chaired by Oliver Letwin. I thought that it was to review all our flood defences. Will it include a specific look at the Thames Barrier? If we are not careful and follow the line the noble Lord has taken there will be one review of the Thames Barrier and everything else will be looked at elsewhere whereas what we need is a concerted response to the whole attack.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, I am very pleased to confirm to the noble Baroness that with the Thames Barrier being a very important part of our national resilience infrastructure it will form part of any consideration chaired by Oliver Letwin to ensure that we are secure.
The noble Baroness is right that the Thames Barrier is used for tidal and fluvial reasons, but last year it was used only once and that was for tidal. It was used a lot during the big floods of 2013-14.
Bilateral Aid Review
(8 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale
To ask Her Majesty’s Government when they will publish their Bilateral Aid Review.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for International Development (Baroness Verma) (Con)
My Lords, we expect to publish the outcome of the bilateral aid review by the spring. The BAR-MAR and DfID’s other reviews aim to build the most effective foundation on which to deliver the new UK aid strategy and respond to the new global goals. Together, they will ensure that we allocate our budget in the right places in the right way and deliver the best possible value for money.
Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful for that Answer. If we are to achieve the global goals or make progress towards them by 2030, surely we need to invest in the capacity of national institutions to deliver services and to raise revenue domestically in the developing world. Will these bilateral aid programmes include significant investment by the United Kingdom in capacity-building and institution-building in the developing world, rather than simply in the provision of services by us and other donors?
Baroness Verma
My Lords, the noble Lord raises some really important questions. That is why we are looking at all our programmes and the programmes we do with the multilaterals to make sure that ultimately, we capacity-build in those countries where the need is greatest. While we are undertaking these reviews, it would not be prudent of me to comment further.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
My Lords, in the light of the current unrest in Burundi, do the Government think it was right to close the UK’s bilateral programme in the last bilateral review? In the light of the Government’s commitment to spend 50% of DfID’s budget on fragile states and the intervention of the African Union as a peacekeeping force, is it not time that the Government reopened our bilateral programme in Burundi?
Baroness Verma
My Lords, of course we are extremely concerned about the ongoing political unrest in Burundi and its humanitarian consequences. The UK is the second largest bilateral donor to the regional appeal, after the USA. We are monitoring the situation closely, and we may consider additional funding for the region. As I said to the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, we are reviewing everything we are doing to see whether we are best placed as we currently are or whether we need to increase or decrease in certain places.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, with DfID increasingly working in fragile and conflict-affected states requiring complex programmes, the department is likely to rely increasingly on contractors and local partners. Is the Minister satisfied that the department has the capacity to manage such projects? The danger is that we will end up with consultants managing contractors, thereby risking vital lines of accountability.
Baroness Verma
My Lords, the noble Lord is of course aware that most of the work is delivered through DfID staff and DfID programmes on the ground in the countries concerned. Of course, we also work with multilaterals where they have a specialism that enables them to deliver better as a multilateral force rather than individually, on bilateral terms. However, where we do need specialist advice or information, we reach out to consultants, and that is right and proper. But it would be discourteous to say to all DfID members of staff that they did not have the right capacities. We of course need to build on those, but we should not be discourteous about their actual strengths.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, do the Government recognise that many of the poorest people in the world are in some of the fragile lower-middle income countries? They, too—especially if they are going to stay where they are—need to have hope and help.
Baroness Verma
Yes, my Lords, and the noble Baroness is absolutely right to say that, when we are working in places where there is conflict—and they are incredibly fragile places—we should work to ensure that people living in those circumstances are seeing signs of hope. That is why we took the decision to work very closely in the region when we were dealing with the Syrian crises. I am really pleased that the Syrian conference is coming up on 4 February, where countries such as Kuwait and the UK are coming together to make sure that we actually address the needs of the people, particularly in the region.
Lord Collins of Highbury
My Lords, I was not suggesting for one moment that DfID staff do not have the capability: my question related to capacity. Clearly, given the reviews that have been undertaken, the number of DfID staff is being substantially reduced. My question relates to the capacity to deliver management to these programmes, particularly in difficult states. That is what I want the Minister to address.
Baroness Verma
My Lords, the noble Lord is assuming that he knows the outcomes of the reviews. Those outcomes have not yet taken place.
NHS: Junior Doctors’ Pay
(8 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Harries of Pentregarth
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the remuneration of junior doctors.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Prior of Brampton) (Con)
My Lords, the review body on doctors’ and dentists’ remuneration stated, in its 2015 report, that total pay for junior doctors compares favourably with comparator groups. This will remain the case under the proposed new contract. Average total earnings range from £31,000 in the early stages of training to £53,000 for those in the later stages when they have specialised.
Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his Answer and declare a personal interest with a wife and son who are doctors. As the Minister will know, medical students do three years after they graduate before they obtain their first job at the age of 24, at which point they will have accumulated between £100,000 and £120,000-worth of debt, and their starting salary will be about £20,000 a year. I heard recently of somebody newly graduated being offered a job in computers for £60,000 a year, and another person newly graduated—at the age of 20 or 21—being offered £60,000 for a job in management consulting. Do the Government agree that there is something fundamentally out of balance in this system, and is the Minister convinced that the Government are doing all they can to ensure that junior doctors get a fair settlement, not just for themselves but for the whole future of the NHS?
Lord Prior of Brampton
My Lords, I should also declare a personal interest, as my son is in his fourth year as a medical student. It is actually two years after undergraduate training when you qualify fully. The base salary is about £23,000—the noble Lord said £20,000—but the average is more like £30,000, when you take into account the supplementary pay that they receive. I, too, see what other people are being paid in other sectors, but the fact of the matter is that, when a young man or woman opts to go into medicine, pay is not their main motivation: there are all kinds of other things as well. One has to take into account the whole package that is offered, not just the salary.
Lord Turnberg (Lab)
Is not the reason why young doctors and not-so-young doctors are threatening to go on strike not so much the pay but because this is the last straw in a continuing series of alienation, and of feeling undervalued and underappreciated by the management from the Secretary of State down?
Lord Prior of Brampton
I agree. I do not think that this dispute is fundamentally about pay; it is much more profound than that. It is about a feeling among many junior doctors, which is shared by many senior doctors as well, that they are not properly valued and fully appreciated. That is the underlying cause of the problems we are facing.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)
Can my noble friend say what the Secretary of State, his Ministers and the senior members of the department are doing to promote the morale of junior doctors in the light of what he has just said? There must be a very important job to be done in that connection.
Lord Prior of Brampton
My Lords, yes; the Secretary of State takes this matter incredibly seriously, and as part of the contract that is under negotiation with the BMA at the moment we are looking very much at the number of hours that junior doctors have to work. Many have worked for too many hours in the past and we want to put a cap on the number of hours they will work in future.
Lord Walton of Detchant (CB)
My Lords, I declare an interest as in 1950 I was elected chairman of the BMA’s Registrars Group, the predecessor of the present Junior Doctors Committee. I express the fervent hope that the current negotiations between the BMA and the Government will quickly be concluded to the satisfaction of both parties. In my view and in the view of many doctors it is a matter of considerable concern that there is a suggestion of further industrial action, which is inimical to the ethos of a caring profession. Will the Minister accept my view that the alleged threat by the Secretary of State to impose a new contract of employment on all junior doctors without agreement is outrageous?
Lord Prior of Brampton
My Lords, I think the whole House will agree with the noble Lord that we all very much hope to avoid another strike. The Secretary of State has asked David Dalton, the very distinguished chief executive of Salford Royal—the noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, will know him extremely well—to head up those negotiations with the BMA, and we are very hopeful that a conclusion to this dispute will be reached before there is any more strike action.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Stowell of Beeston) (Con)
My Lords, I am sorry to intervene, but I know that the noble Lord cannot see that the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, is trying to get in.
Baroness Brinton
I am very grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Pay is only part of the problem for our doctors in this country at the moment. The NHS is increasingly kept afloat by overseas-trained doctors and over 40% of our hospital doctors are now from overseas. In certain specialities such as obstetrics and gynaecology the number is currently over 56%. Can the Minister say what the Government are doing to understand why some specialities struggle to attract enough UK-trained doctors, and, further, what they are doing to increase the number of medical training places for UK-based students?
Lord Prior of Brampton
The noble Baroness raises a very important point that we are highly dependent in a whole range of medical specialties on overseas doctors and of course overseas nurses as well. Health Education England is expanding the number of training places, in particular for GPs; we hope to have an extra 5,000 GPs in place by the end of this Parliament.
Lord Winston
My Lords, I apologise for interrupting the noble Baroness. The Government’s stated objective is essentially to cover NHS hospitals 24/7—that is, with weekend working. Many hospital managers—for example, those in Birmingham—have pointed out that they are perfectly able to staff their hospitals fully under the existing contract. Can the Minister tell us how many NHS hospitals in the United Kingdom have closed as a result of inadequate staffing at weekends?
Lord Prior of Brampton
My Lords, it is not a question of hospitals closing at weekends because of inadequate staffing; it is a question of whether hospitals are able to offer high-quality care throughout the weekend. Some hospitals can but some cannot. We have seen, for example, the reorganisation of stroke care in London. Providing high-quality seven-day services for stroke care can have a significant impact on the quality of patient care. This seven-day issue is not just about junior doctors by any means; it is a question of having diagnostics, senior doctors and a whole range of other specialties on duty over the weekend.
The Lord Bishop of Chester
My Lords, I, too, declare that I have a daughter who is a junior doctor. She is in her fourth year since qualification. To get to the level of remuneration that the noble Lord mentioned—from £23,000—junior doctors have to work jolly long and unsocial hours. But my specific question is: what is the comparator with other developed western countries for the remuneration of our younger doctors?
Lord Prior of Brampton
My Lords, I cannot answer that question as fully as I would like but I shall certainly write to the right reverend Prelate on that. I think that from 2004 to 2007 British doctors were extremely well remunerated by any international comparison but that, over time, that has eroded. But I will write to the right reverend Prelate with those comparisons.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)
My Lords, I think that the House will have been very interested to hear the Minister say, in terms, that seven-day working is not just about junior doctors but about a lot of other healthcare professionals who also need to be able to bring their services to bear at those times. Does he not think that it is a great pity that the dispute, as it has been conducted politically, has focused entirely on junior doctors and that this point has not been brought out? Will he do his best to make sure that it is brought out hereafter?
Lord Prior of Brampton
My Lords, discussions are going on with senior doctors and consultants at the same time, so I can assure the noble Baroness that it is not just with junior doctors that we are having these discussions.
Legal Services Act 2007 (Claims Management Complaints) (Fees) (Amendment) Regulations 2016
(8 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Faulks
That the draft regulations laid before the House on 17 November 2015 be approved.
Relevant document: 10th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. Considered in Grand Committee on 18 January.
Welfare Reform and Work Bill
(8 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
18:03 - Division on Amendment 41 - Ayes: 283 / Noes: 198 - Amendment 41 agreed.
19:42 - Division on Amendment 45 - Ayes: 91 / Noes: 202 - Amendment 45 disagreed.
19:55 - Division on Amendment 46A - Ayes: 113 / Noes: 190 - Amendment 46A disagreed.
(c) an exception applies under section 10(4A) of the Welfare Reform Act 2012, as inserted by section 12 of the Welfare Reform and Work Act 2016”
The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth
My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendment 36 in my name. I express my gratitude to the noble Baronesses who have added their names to these amendments.
The amendments would add further exemptions to the two-child limit of the child element of tax credit and universal credit, and the exemptions that I propose are limited and specific.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Stowell of Beeston) (Con)
I apologise for interrupting the right reverend Prelate but many noble Lords are leaving the Chamber and cutting across him. I remind my colleagues that it would be more courteous to the House if they were to exit without walking in front of him.
The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth
I am grateful to the noble Baroness. At Second Reading and in Committee I, along with others in this House, indicated our regret that these proposals as a whole might be seen as signalling that not every child is precious and deserving of love and support not only from parents and families but from communities, society and nation. Nevertheless, I recognise the intent of the Government.
I do not intend to rehearse the detailed arguments, numbers and costings used in Committee. The Minister and your Lordships are aware of them and of the perspective of my and other faith traditions. Whether personally supportive or not of the Bill’s provisions as a whole, noble Lords will see that my amendments do not challenge the main thrust of this part of the Bill: that decisions about family size should be made with responsibility and care and that any decision to have third or subsequent children should be made without expectation of benefit support. The exceptions I propose do not challenge the central plank of the policy, which seeks to influence parental behaviour.
I was grateful, as I know others were, for the opportunity to meet the Minister last week. I was grateful for his courtesy, candour and understanding, which I hope might be shown today in his response.
The Bill incorporates exemptions for multiple births and after rape, an exemption on which I hope the Minister can provide clarity about the procedure, judicial or otherwise, to be used in relation to that. The further exemptions I propose relate in the same way to specific circumstances or vulnerability. All relate to the common good of society, to an understanding of what is just, right and compassionate, and to characteristics and behaviour that we wish to encourage and enable, sometimes in legislation.
The first three exemptions relate directly to unforeseen circumstances that could not have been planned for when a decision was being made about family size. However carefully and responsibly consideration took place, these circumstances could not have been reasonably expected. The death of a parent drastically changes family circumstances. The death may remove the principal source of income, or increased childcare demands may compel the surviving parent to reduce their working hours or stop working. I hope that the Minister and the Government will, as they have previously, show understanding and accommodate these distressing circumstances at least for a transitional period. Will they indicate some provision here so that the deep sadness of bereavement is not exacerbated cruelly by financial penalty? Parental death is unforeseen when family size is decided.
A parent suffering domestic violence is often driven, as a last and desperate resort, to flee the family home. Everything is left behind as parent and children lose home and security and, sometimes, their main source of income. The Government have boosted refuge provision to support such vulnerable victims of violence. I hope the Minister agrees that it would be consistent to recognise the vulnerability of these children in relation to this Bill. The threat and danger of domestic violence is not chosen or sought. To penalise children taken out of a dangerous situation cannot be right and does not reflect well on the concern we all have for the security and protection of vulnerable young people.
No parent either plans for a disabled child, yet we know that the impact on previously anticipated patterns of work and childcare can be hugely significant. A realistic and rational decision to have a third child can lead to a massive change of circumstance if the child is disabled. I recognise, of course, that a disabled child will, in some circumstances, attract some additional payment, albeit hugely reduced under universal credit. The impact for that family on their employment patterns, on childcare priorities and costs would be exacerbated by the strict application of the two-child limit.
Two of the exemptions I propose relate to the behaviour and decisions which I and, I believe, the Government wish to encourage and which policy and legislation can enable through these amendments. Kinship carers and those fostering and adopting step in to care for children with love and commitment when many would otherwise be in the costly care system. Around and across your Lordships’ House there is a desire to welcome, enable and encourage such generosity, which benefits the children themselves and our society. Surely, when kinship carers or fostering or adopting families take third or subsequent children, often to keep siblings together, we should be supportive of that, not really because it saves money for the public purse and the Exchequer—though it does—but because it is the right and good thing, to be welcomed by this House, Parliament and the Government.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 40, in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Drake, and to support the other amendments in this group in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth, to which I have added my name. I thank him for introducing this group of amendments with what we are coming to see as characteristic clarity and compassion.
I shall say a word first about the two-child policy, which I regard as a regressive piece of social policy. In Committee, we found it hard to get Ministers to put up any kind of cogent argument for the policy as a whole, so why is it being done? Whatever one may hear behind the scenes, this is not about the small number of unemployed parents with lots of children. They would already have been caught by the benefit cap, which we now know would hit a couple with two children living in a modest house in Leeds or Plymouth. This is about a family with three children who are working but struggling anyway. It is about all those who had children confident that they could provide for them until, as the right reverend Prelate pointed out, something went wrong. Perhaps their spouse died, they got sick and could not work, a parent lost their job and so on. Those are all the things that the welfare state is meant to protect against. The nearest we got to a case was in the impact assessment, which states that it is about,
“ensuring those on benefits face the same financial choices around the number of children they can afford as those supporting themselves through work”.
So it is about choice, and my suggestion is that we should use that as a yardstick by which we test these amendments.
Let us take first disabled children. Parents may have felt that they could manage a third child, but then they find that the child is born, or becomes, severely disabled. The disabled child element of tax credits will still be paid, but it does not begin to cover the extra costs. The charity Contact a Family states that it costs three times as much to raise a disabled child as one who is not. It is also much harder for the parents of a disabled child to raise their income through working, because it is difficult to find suitable childcare and more expensive if you can. Did the parents really make a choice to be in that situation?
What about the situation, described so powerfully by the right reverend Prelate, where a family is happily married or settled and the very worst happens, in that one of the parents dies? He described clearly what would happen to that family. As well as the trauma, the finances are going to get worse, especially if the deceased parent had been the main earner. This is almost a classic example of a family that probably did not need benefits or tax credits before, but suddenly finds that it is catapulted into a position where it needs to rely on the welfare state. This is exactly the kind of thing that the welfare state is meant to protect families against. Where was the choice there?
The right reverend Prelate mentioned stepfamilies. Perhaps it is not so dramatic, but what if the relationship breaks up? If the children deserved support when they were living apart, why do they stop deserving it because they are living in the same house?
Then there are the people who literally did not make a choice at all—cases of domestic abuse. Sadly, a child may have been conceived under duress rather than as a clear choice. Abuse can include the refusal to allow a woman to use contraception. It can include pregnancy as the result of rape, which may never have been reported to the authorities because of fear of the partner. Moreover, the fear must be there that the two-child limit will make it harder for a parent to leave an abusive relationship. Too often, they end up fleeing in the clothes they are standing up in. They are homeless and they have to hide from the former spouse, which means moving to a new area, away from jobs, schools and families. It is tough enough anyway to rebuild a life without added financial pressures.
On the subject of rape more generally, I hope that the Minister is now able to explain how the proposed exemption for women who have been raped will work. I hope that he can address the questions I asked in Committee. Will the exemption apply only when a woman has made a complaint to the police, or when someone has been charged or convicted? If not, will she have to give evidence to the DWP, to whom and what kind of evidence, and can the Minister assure us that this process will remain confidential?
We come now to the subject of my Amendment 40, which would exempt children who enter a household as the result of adoption, kinship care or private fostering. I hope very much that the Minister can accept this amendment, as the arguments are completely compelling. Children raised by kinship carers are typically unable to live with their parents because of parental abuse or neglect, perhaps due to alcohol or drug problems, or because the parents are in prison or indeed have died. A grandparent, and sometimes an aunt or a sibling, will then step in and take the children in, often in a case of emergency. There is clear evidence that children in kinship care settings do better than those in unrelated care, even though they have often had similarly adverse experiences in early life.
But kinship carers pay a huge price for their kindness. They face significant additional costs when their family size increases, and sometimes it can double in size overnight. A Family Rights Group survey found that almost half of kinship carers had to give up work permanently to take on the children, thus pushing them into reliance on benefits. The state should not be putting financial barriers in the way of families willing to take on often vulnerable children. It also makes no financial sense. The average child tax credit claimed by families with three or more children is £3,670 a year; it costs £40,000 a year to keep one child in foster care.
A similar argument applies to adoption, particularly of sibling groups. It is the Government’s policy, and I welcome it, to increase the number of children being placed for adoption and to remove any unnecessary barriers to the speed of the process, but this measure will directly undermine that policy objective. Adoptive parents often already have a child or children, so there is a clear disincentive to adopt if it would mean that they would not get payments for each child, and a particular disincentive to adopt sibling groups. There is already a shortage of parents who are willing to take on sibling groups, and this will only make that situation worse. If it delays adoptions, that becomes a vicious cycle. Children grow older and it is harder to place them, and therefore it is even less likely that they will be adopted at all. The only alternative is to break up sibling groups, which damages the children because that is often the only remaining bond they have. I hope that the Minister will consider this carefully.
If we judge the Government by their own yardstick, have they passed or have they failed? Have the families we have described today, who are covered in the amendments tabled by the right reverend Prelate and myself, been reckless in having children or taking on additional children without understanding the consequences? I do not think they have. Even if we accept the premise behind the two-child policy—and I confess that I do not—the Government’s own rationale simply does not work. These amendments make absolute sense both financially and in terms of the Government’s policies, and above all they are right for the people affected.
Baroness Manzoor (LD)
My Lords, we on these Benches have added our name to Amendments 36 to 38. We also support Amendment 40. The amendment is similar to the one that we put down in Committee when it was debated at great length. Noble Lords will be pleased to know that I do not intend to rehearse that contribution again today. Excellent reasons have already been given by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth and the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, as to why exceptions should be made to the two-child limit on receipt of tax credits and the child element of universal credit.
I want to pose a few questions. For those who did not sit through Committee stage, I will read out the exemptions we seek. Under Amendment 38, we seek an exemption if,
“the claimant responsible for children in the household is a single claimant as a result of being bereaved of their partner”—
I ask the Government, where is the choice in that?—
“the claimant has fled their previous partner as a result of domestic abuse”—
where is the choice in that?—
“the child or qualifying young person has a disability”—
where is the choice in that?—
“the child or qualifying young person is in the household as a result of a kinship care arrangement, private fostering arrangement, or adoption”—
where is the choice in that?—
“or … the claimant was previously entitled to an award for the child or qualifying young person and has re-partnered creating a household with more than two children”.
Of course, there is a little bit of choice in that. It is love, which we can believe in or not, but sometimes we do not choose who we want to partner.
Effectively, these circumstances are beyond the control of the claimants. This amendment attempts to demonstrate that the first responsibility is to the child. It must be so, otherwise what kind of society are we really creating? I was, and I remain, particularly concerned that, despite the Government’s laudable commitment to exclude women who have had a child as a result of rape from the two-child limit policy, the Minister did not explain to my satisfaction how this exemption would operate. I will not go into that debate again. It is such a sensitive area. Perhaps he will explain today. Should this amendment be voted on, we on these Benches will wholeheartedly support it.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, I have not taken part in the debate on this Bill before but I was chairman of the Select Committee on adoption. I have been very concerned by the Government’s concerns, which I share, that not sufficient children have been adopted. This is a current problem. We need more adopters. It seems utterly astonishing to have a situation where those who are prepared to take children out of care or take, perhaps, members of the family whom they then adopt when they already have children, will be penalised for doing something that is entirely in line with what the Government have said in their adoption policies.
It seems to me quite extraordinary that the Government do not exclude adoption and kinship care. The noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, has set it out very much better than I could and in greater detail, so I do not want to reflect on it. As she said, it is very expensive to keep children in care. There are practical financial reasons for the Government to look at kinship care and at adoption. They use the Bill as an opportunity to deprive these families of a comparatively small amount of money, put against the cost to the taxpayer of keeping in care children who could otherwise be living in a family of which they are truly members. That is why I support Amendment 40 in particular, and Amendment 38.
The Earl of Listowel (CB)
My Lords, very briefly, I support these amendments as vice-chair of the parliamentary group for young people in care. Having followed this issue through the whole Bill process so far, I was grateful for the opportunity to meet with the Minister last week and for his careful consideration of our concerns on these matters.
Over the course of 10 years of listening to young people in care and hearing about what is important to them, they tell us that the most important thing is that someone sticks with them through the care process. That is why the Government have been so keen on supporting adoption: so that children who have been traumatised go on to have the continuity of care and relationship that helps them to recover. That is where the Government invested in and legislated for “staying put”, to allow children in foster care to remain with their carers to the age of 21.
I am sure that the Minister will give a sympathetic response to this as it is at the heart of government policy. I look forward to his response.
Baroness Drake (Lab)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 30 in the hope that the Minister has been persuaded by the arguments made in Committee that kinship carers and adopters should be exempt from the two-child limit. I also thank him for the very constructive meeting that he held with us.
We have enunciated many times the valuable contribution that kinship carers and adopters make, supporting as they do more than 200,000 children, many of whom have emotional difficulties because they have been living with parents who are drug abusers or who have abused or neglected them. They save the taxpayer the alternative cost of placing a child in care, which is £40,000 a year, and care proceedings of £25,000. The savings that 132,000 kinship carers deliver by voluntarily caring for these children runs into billions. Yet, significant costs fall directly on the carers themselves. Many have to give up work or reduce their hours—a requirement frequently set by the social worker—to settle what is often a traumatised child for a good reason. The need for such carers is not going away. The number of looked-after children has increased steadily over the last seven years, as has the number of care order applications.
The Government’s reasoning for limiting benefits to two children is set out in the impact assessment. It is to reduce welfare costs and introduce a behaviour-related measure that will encourage parents,
“to reflect carefully on their readiness to support an additional child”,
which could have,
“a positive effect on overall family stability”.
It continued that,
“people may respond to the incentives that this policy provides and may have fewer children”.
The policy is intended to deter people having more children where they cannot afford to support them.
The Minister reported in Committee:
“The average number of dependent children in families in the UK in 2012 was 1.7, so … it is fair and proportionate to limit additional support provided by the taxpayer through child tax credit and the child element of universal credit to two children”.—[Official Report, 7/12/15; col. 1328.]
Even if one were to accept that reasoning when applied to birth parents who are considering having more children—I accept that there are many in this House who do not—it is a non sequitur when applied to kinship carers and adopters. It lacks common sense. There, the need is not to get kinship carers and adopters to reflect carefully on their readiness to care for an additional vulnerable child. To the contrary: public policy needs to support carers in their readiness to do so. That is better for the children and their family stability, and secures savings for the state by not placing them in the care system.
Kinship carers and adopters are not the birth parents of the children but they voluntarily embrace them. They are not making a decision to become pregnant; they are making a decision to care for an existing vulnerable child who cannot be raised by their parents. For adopters and kinship carers, the behavioural disincentive in the two-child limit is directed at their taking on responsibility for that existing vulnerable child. Imposing the two-child limit will deter adopters or kinship carers from coming forward to take on a sibling group, or a child if they have dependent children of their own, undermine the child’s interest and potentially increase the number in care. This is inconsistent with the Government’s commitment to ensuring that families are stable and create the best possible environment for children to flourish.
The two-child limit applied to adopters and kinship carers does not even stack up in cost terms. Exempting carers from the two-child limit would cost an estimated £30 million but the limit needs to deter only 200 kinship carers from caring for three or more children in the future before the £30 million saving would be wiped out, as the taxpayer would then have to face the cost of placing a child in care—£40,000 a year—and the cost of care proceedings, which is £25,000. I asked the Minister what behavioural response the Government were seeking to achieve from potential kinship carers and adopters with the two-child limit on benefits but I never had a reply. I returned again to the impact assessment but I could find no answer there either. Indeed, I could find no assessment of the impact on potential kinship carers, adopters or the children.
For kinship carers and adopters, the choice is whether or not to embrace an existing vulnerable child—a different choice to a parent choosing to become pregnant. The Minister advised in Committee that,
“there is a difference between the voluntary and involuntary taking on of children, whether they are your own or anyone else’s. That is what our exemptions are for. We are seeking to try to draw the line between where it is involuntary, as in the case of rape, and where it is not”.—[Official Report, 7/12/15; col. 1332.]
However, taking a behavioural measure into the benefits system for one purpose, then applying it to carers of children who might otherwise enter the care system without an explanation of the behavioural response being sought and with no assessment of the negative impact on the carers or the children is not good public policy.
I hope that the Government have deliberated further on where to draw that line and that they will exempt kinship carers and adopters from the two-child limit. In doing so, they would avoid building a perverse disincentive rather than positive support into public policy on people caring for vulnerable children, avoid undermining the interests of the child and avoid failing to recognise the real savings that these kinship carers and adopters provide.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, I rise briefly to speak in support of Amendment 38 and the other amendments in this group, having spoken on the matter in Committee. In the interests of time, I will focus on two of the proposed exemptions set out in Amendment 38, but I make the point that I consider all five exemptions equally deserving.
On the issue of disabled children, which has already been set out powerfully by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth, the Government have framed the two-child limit as being about choice, but no parent makes a conscious choice to bring a disabled child into the world—a point already made powerfully in the debate today. It is not something you plan for. If that unforeseen event happens, however, surely that child deserves our help to ensure that they can be a fully functioning member of society. Research has shown that raising a disabled child can cost three times as much as raising a non-disabled child. Surely that is part of the rationale for this exemption.
Turning to the proposed exemption when new families are being formed, in a speech last year to the Relationships Alliance the Prime Minister thanked relationship support organisations which help to keep families together and, critically, to bring new families together. I declare an interest as vice-president of the charity Relate. The Prime Minister said that,
“government should do everything possible to help support and strengthen family life in Britain today”.
In fact, he even criticised the welfare state, saying that it was,
“incentivising couples to live apart”.
How, then, can it be that the Government have brought forward a Bill which says that if two lone parents come together to raise a family—one of them having possibly suffered bereavement—their child tax credit will be cut? Surely, creating that incentive in the benefits system would accomplish exactly the opposite of what the Prime Minister wanted to achieve, as I understand it—that is, giving children the right to live in a two-parent household and providing the stability that that often achieves. In saying that, I do not mean any detriment to single-parent families, who do a very good job of raising their children. However, we know that half of all single-parent families find a new partner within five years of their previous relationship breaking up, indicating that cuts in this area could affect as many as 500,000 people. This is not an insignificant matter.
To conclude, we have heard much debate on how these proposed changes will impact vulnerable groups. I think we can all agree that it is better to be pound wise than penny foolish. As such, we need to look at changes holistically and ask whether they help individuals who can work to seek work and whether they help to ensure that the next generation is healthy and ready to contribute to society. How do we ensure that the vulnerable in our country do not start behind and get left further behind? Amendments 38 and others in this group are necessary to ensure that the vulnerable, especially children, do not start behind because of their failure to choose the right parents.
Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top (Lab)
My Lords, I want to intervene briefly. I spoke in Committee about kinship carers. Therefore, I support Amendment 40, which relates to kinship carers and adopters. One reason I take such a strong interest in kinship carers is that the north-east, where I come from, has one of the highest proportions of kinship carers in the country, along with London. I meet, and have met, numerous kinship carers in the region who will be affected by this measure.
Some very powerful arguments have been made today and in our previous debates on this topic. If I were the Minister, I would want to take account of two issues. First, the best outcomes for children are undoubtedly achieved when they are with kinship carers or adopters. Secondly, the Government would show that they are on the side of taxpayers if they exempted kinship carers and adopters from these provisions. I could say a lot about the other proposed exemptions but I have concentrated on kinship carers and adopters in the past and therefore, for consistency, I shall do so again today. When we last discussed this issue, it seemed that the Minister listened to the very strong arguments that were made. My noble friend Lady Drake has reiterated many of those powerful arguments. I felt that after our previous debate the Minister was thinking about those arguments. Therefore, I hope he will have better news for us today.
Baroness Howarth of Breckland (CB)
My Lords, I am going to be extremely brief because the arguments have been powerfully made. Because I have supported some of these issues and do support the amendments, I want to make two points.
I hope the Minister is able to come back with better news than we have had hitherto. I am sure that he will have gone back and looked at the issue. He very often says that this is a manifesto commitment and it links to many other Conservative commitments. The present focus of the Conservative Party on the family test and family life fits very much with the arguments that have been made around the House. If he is not able to come back with better news, I would like to ask him two questions. First, how does he see the family test moving forward, considering my colleagues’ arguments about how more secure families are achieved? Secondly, what discussions has he had with his colleagues in other departments, particularly those who are promoting children’s policy issues and pressing forward further adoption, fostering and kinship care? Do they understand this issue? In my discussions with some people in the other place, concern has been expressed that this will undermine some of those strong, clear and positive Conservative Party policy commitments.
The Lord Bishop of Durham
My Lords, I would like to tell two stories that illustrate why I believe two of these exemptions are important.
A good friend of mine and his wife were unable to have children, and they put themselves forward as adoptive parents. They went through the rigorous process—this was a few years ago—and with great pride entered a room with several of us who had our own children and presented a piece of paper that said, “I have been authorised to become a parent in a way that none of you ever have”. This was a great joy. They were then asked if they would take three children, because those children had been born to the same mother and had experienced serious abuse living in a home with addiction. The absolute conviction of all concerned was that it was vital that these three children remained together. We, as a society, asked them to care for those children. They took up that responsibility and have exercised it for many years. They have, on our behalf, saved an enormous amount of money through those children not going into care. Also, a much longer-term point is that those children are healthy, well-educated and will be fantastic contributors to society. That is one of the reasons why adoption needs to be exempted.
The second story is of another two friends. When their first child was born, they had to come to terms with a severe disability. They had a second child who was fine and healthy. They chose to have a third child. That child also turned out to be disabled. Under the current proposals, without the exemptions they would not be given any support for that child other than the extra disability support. These are the children and the families we are dealing with in considering these exemptions. I sincerely hope, like others, that the Minister has had time really to consider such situations and has better news for us.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham (Lab)
My Lords, I do not want to add to the extremely powerful speeches we have had but I would like to ask the Minister a straightforward question. On Monday, when we discussed the benefit cap, we raised the issue of the guardian’s allowance. As noble Lords who were present at the time will know, the guardian’s allowance goes to those at the very sharp end of kinship care, looking after children who are not just neglected but orphaned and traumatised as a result. That benefit cap obviously interlocks very much with the issues of kinship care. In the light of that, has the Minister been able to think further on the arguments that were put during that debate and reconsider the guardian’s allowance issue? It is a subgroup within kinship care but a few may be affected by a benefit cap, which would have disastrous effects on their capacity to care for some of the most distressed and grieving children society is likely to see.
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Freud) (Con)
I thank the noble Baronesses, noble Lords and right reverend Prelates for their amendments, and all those who contributed to the debate. The amendments all relate to exemptions in certain circumstances from the policy which limits the child element in child tax credit and universal credit to a maximum of two children or qualifying young persons from 6 April 2017. I think we have gone through those exemptions so I will not go through them in the normal way but take them as read.
We have been clear since the summer Budget, when this policy was announced, that we will exempt a third or subsequent child or qualifying young person who is one of a multiple birth where there were previously fewer than two children in the household, and we will exempt a third or subsequent child born as a result of rape. These exemptions will be developed and brought forward in secondary legislation, as subsections of Clauses 11 and 12 permit. We believe that secondary legislation is the right approach for specifying exemptions, to allow for flexibility and engagement with stakeholders. It will be important to get the detail right and we have time to do that before bringing forward regulations for April 2017.
I recognise the deeply felt concern in this House, the other place and more widely about how this exemption will work—something the noble Baroness, Lady Manzoor, pinpointed just now. We all recognise that this is a difficult and sensitive issue and I would like to provide the House with further information. Clearly, we need to establish a way of making this assessment that is sympathetic and responsive to the claimant and timely in determining entitlement to benefit. Our intention is not to focus on or pre-empt criminal justice outcomes but to ensure that mothers receive the help they need at the time they need it, using clear criteria that are straightforward to apply and not overly intrusive, but which secure the system against fraud and error.
While we continue to look at the detail, our thinking is that a third party evidence model offers the most promising approach to striking the balance we need to achieve. This approach would not be new for the benefit system. For example, we use a third party evidence model in universal credit for the temporary relaxation of the requirement to be available for work in cases of domestic violence. The evidence required is the reporting of the abuse to a third party acting in an official capacity, such as a GP or social worker. This model was developed with input from stakeholders.
Of course, a significant amount of work is needed to take forward and develop the detail of the model. I also want development of the model to include working with stakeholders to help ensure that the process is as compassionate and supportive as possible for claimants in these circumstances, while providing the right assurance to government that the additional support is going to those for whom it is intended. We will be getting in touch with organisations with an interest in this policy shortly to seek their input, and I encourage any other stakeholders who would like to be a part of this to let me know. While there is a significant amount of work to do and detailed questions to be answered, I hope this helps reassure the House and stakeholders that we are thinking very carefully about how we respond to this difficult and sensitive issue.
We have been clear since the summer Budget that we will bring forward further exemptions for exceptional circumstances, and we will be doing that today. I am grateful to those who have suggested amendments and contributed to the debate. As a number of noble Lords pointed out, I have been talking to Peers on this matter. We have carefully considered those affected by this policy and the options available, while taking into account the fact that one of our objectives for universal credit is that it will be part of a simpler and workable welfare system that benefits everyone. I know that noble Lords will remember my muttering about adding carbuncles every now and then.
Regardless, I am pleased to announce today that in recognition of the important role which family and close friends can play in caring long term for children who are unable to live with their parents and could otherwise be at risk of entering the care system, we are in favour of an exemption for children in such circumstances. The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Sherlock, Lady Drake and Lady Armstrong, have made persuasive speeches on this issue not just today but in Committee—so it is worth putting the effort into those speeches. We recognise that in these cases such carers, often referred to as kinship carers, are not in the same position to make choices about the number of children in their family as other parents are. I am grateful that the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, is now taking my distinction there in a positive rather than a non-positive way.
As I have already mentioned, the Bill provides the necessary powers to make regulations to provide exemptions to this policy, and we intend to use regulations to provide for this exemption. In developing the regulations, we will need to ensure that we get the definition right to make sure that the exemption applies to the children to whom it is intended to apply. We will work with stakeholders in developing the regulations to deliver a solution which meets the needs of vulnerable children, while protecting the Government from the potential risk of fraud and error.
Baroness Butler-Sloss
If the Minister will forgive me for interrupting, I am having slight difficulty in understanding. I am delighted to hear about kinship carers but adopters are generally not family. One of the great points about adoption is that they come from outside, so the Minister’s suggestions to the House about kinship carers would not cover the majority of adopters.
Lord Freud
That is a timely intervention because I am now going to move on to the very eloquent arguments for exempting adopted children. We think that where a single child is being adopted, it would not be fair to treat the parents adopting more advantageously than other parents. However, where children need to be placed for adoption and have siblings in the same position—this was the example that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham used about one of his, I suspect, many friends—we recognise that it is often in the best interests of the children for them to be placed in their sibling group. Therefore, I am also able to announce that we are in favour of an exemption where there were previously fewer than two children in the household and the adoption of a sibling group causes the number of children to exceed two. Again, we intend to use regulations to provide for this exemption.
This is a good point at which to respond to the question of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, who on Monday night discussed guardian’s allowance—very eloquently, as usual. I am in a position to say that I will continue to explore that particular issue with her and whether it is possible to bring forward something at Third Reading.
In relation to disabled children, the Government are committed to making sure that disability benefits work for these families, so we will continue to support families with disabled children through the disability elements of child tax credit and the equivalent in universal credit. I must point out to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth that the figure is not reduced in universal credit: the absolute figure reads across from the tax credit system into the universal credit system. That will be payable for all disabled children, even when they are a third or subsequent child, so support for families with disabled children will still be reflected in universal credit and tax credits following the introduction of Clauses 11 and 12. There is of course other support for disabled children within the DLA system to recognise the extra costs which, as noble Lords have pointed out, parents with disabled children need to carry. In addition, we are exempting disability benefits such as personal independence payment and disability living allowance from the uprating freeze.
The Lord Bishop of Durham
Could I ask for some clarity on what the Minister has just said? It sounded to me as though there was concern about the length of time that might be involved and so on and so forth, but his tone of voice sounded as though there might be willingness to at least explore the possibility. I am just teasing out whether he meant that he really was not willing to consider this, or whether there may be a possibility of exploring it further, particularly around domestic violence.
Lord Freud
We have a regulatory process where these exemptions will be gone through in detail. I can make a commitment today where I can do so, but I assure noble Lords, including the right reverend Prelate, that the machinery of government is not in a place which allows me to say anything more about anything else at this stage. However, the process of setting out regulations will take place some months from now, and we will be exploring in great detail how they work. If the right reverend Prelate is asking me whether there are going to be more opportunities to put pressure on the Government, I would imagine that there will be.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
In which case, given that helpful and tactful response by the Minister, will he help us even further by agreeing to publish draft proposed regulations before the formal procedure of “take it or leave it” in both Houses, thus allowing various participants to discuss those proposed draft regulations with the Minister before they are formally submitted?
Lord Freud
In practice, I think that what I have said produces that outcome. I have said that we will consult very widely with stakeholders to get this right, because these are very sensitive issues. The rape exemption is very difficult. Getting kinship caring and adoption right is not straightforward. In practice, there will be consultation, but I do not want to overformalise that process. I have committed to a much more open process than you might see in some other regulations that we issue.
The next complicated case is the formation of new households through re-partnering of single parents, which we have looked at very closely and which produces a number of difficulties. First, it would be perceived as unfair by those families with three or more children who stay together and receive a maximum amount of child element or child tax credit in respect of two children, whereas other families who have formed more recently could receive more. Secondly, there is a risk that families may try to manipulate the benefit system by breaking up and re-forming, or even claiming to have broken up and subsequently re-formed in order to increase the amount. Thirdly, there would be a practical issue in assigning children in newly formed families to a particular parent. We have not done that before. Your Lordships will hear me muttering the word “carbunclising”. That is not to mention the intrusive nature of that process.
Finally, I looked at the numbers involved. The reality is that, whether we like it or not, the bulk of children stay with the mother. The number of fathers with children joining mothers with children is not many. Once the measure is fully rolled out, we expect that only 7% of single men will have children, so it is not that substantial a problem. The noble Baroness, Lady Manzoor, talked about half a million. That is just not the reality. I reiterate what I said in Committee about the way it is introduced in 2017 for child tax credit and universal credit. Any household which has claimed within the past six months will also be protected. For those reasons, I urge the noble Baronesses and the right reverend Prelate not to press their amendments.
The Earl of Listowel
Before the Minister sits down, given the fact that, as a nation, increasingly our children are growing up without a father in the family—according to the OECD, in the 2030s, we will overtake the United States in the proportion of children growing up without a father in the family—will he think again about his last statement? It may be a small proportion of fathers who bring children into these mixed families, but surely we want to encourage those larger families, especially, to have a father. The benefits that that father brings to those two children, or whatever, from the mother’s family is important. Will the Minister keep that in mind?
Lord Freud
We have looked at this very sympathetically, but in practice we found it too difficult. We have heard from this Chamber about the kinship and adoption issues, and those are the ones that we want to get absolutely right.
The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth
My Lords, I am grateful to the dozen or so Members of your Lordships’ House who have contributed in the course of these exchanges as we have considered these amendments. I am sure that we have all been touched and moved by the strength of feeling and clarity of argument that have been brought. I am particularly grateful for the Minister’s response a few minutes ago. In my opening remarks, I spoke of the candour and courtesy he showed when a number of us met him last week, and we have been grateful for that again.
We heard very clearly the indication from the Minister of the importance of consideration of the regulations that will be brought forward relating to these measures, and I am grateful for his sensitivity about that. I assure him that we on these Benches and, no doubt, others, too, will certainly engage in the way that he suggested. We are also grateful for some clarification about the reporting model he has in mind to be used where a third child is born as a result of rape. Again, I know that many people will wish to engage in further consideration about that.
I think it is fair to say that we are delighted by the position he has outlined about kinship carers and adoptive parents and are very grateful indeed for that on behalf of the children themselves and of wider society.
On areas where the Minister was not able to satisfy us as much as we might have hoped, I draw his particular attention to circumstances in which children and a parent flee domestic violence. I said at the beginning that violence is never justified in circumstances such as that. I hope that the Minister will understand how difficult it is for me and others to accept what sounds at the moment like a policy which gives a financial incentive to risk staying in a situation where children might be in danger of abuse or in physical danger. It is a very serious matter and I hope that there may be some flexibility in the conversation to which he has pointed.
With grateful thanks to the Minister and to those who have contributed in this conversation and this debate, and welcoming the advances that have been made and the indications of some further changes in the future, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Low of Dalston
Lord Low of Dalston (CB)
My Lords, I have been sitting here listening in amazement as the Minister has been shelling out goodies right, left and centre. It is a quite unfamiliar experience. I just hope that his bag is not now empty; I hope that he has not completely run out of goodies to dole out.
Amendment 41 would leave out Clause 13. It is tabled in my name and those of the noble Baronesses, Lady Meacher and Lady Manzoor, and the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie of Luton. I shall speak also to Amendment 44, which would leave out Clause 14, which is tabled in my name and those of the noble Baronesses, Lady Sherlock, Lady Meacher and Lady Manzoor.
Clause 13 would abolish the work-related activity group component of employment and support allowance —which I shall call ESA from now on—for new claimants from April 2017. Clause 14 abolishes the equivalent component in the new universal credit, which will replace ESA and a number of other benefits. If Clauses 13 and 14 were to remain in the Bill, the effect would be to reduce income for those in the work-related activity group, which from now on I shall start calling “the WRAG”. It would reduce income for those in the WRAG from £102.15 to £73.10 a week—the same level as jobseeker’s allowance—which would be a reduction of £29.05 a week. Existing claimants would be protected but would be affected if they moved into work and then returned to claiming ESA in the WRAG. Furthermore, as the noble Lord, Lord Patel, showed in Committee, anyone initially placed in the support group, but who subsequently moved into the WRAG, would drop from £109 to £73.10, a reduction of £35.90 a week.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, your Lordships will recall that, as the noble Lord, Lord Low, said, we had a very full debate, in which I participated, in Committee, so I shall simply summarise the contrary argument to that of the noble Lord. As I did then, I very much welcome the report that he and other noble Lords contributed to because it has many recommendations, some of which are in themselves very important for the delivery of future policy, and I hope that the document will be used in the future.
The essence of the argument is that the effect of Amendments 41 and 44 would be substantially to leave things as they are. However, things are not satisfactory as they are. Contrary to what the noble Lord, Lord Low, said, it is not just about saving money, although needs must. We have to have regard to the necessity to reduce the overall welfare budget but, in truth, this is fundamentally about the benefit of those who have an albeit limited capability for work actually finding work.
The status quo is that we have a substantial number of people in the work-related activity group, 61% of whom want to work, but each month only 1% are moving off benefits. That is not good enough—it is what we need to move from, and we have to do all the things that are calculated to assist in that. Some of it I know we can agree on. The improvement in the availability of access to work, the extension of work choices, the development of the health and work scheme through to 2017, and the Government’s commitment of £100 million to support that programme are all very important. They are designed to help in the delivery of the objective that we share of halving the disability employment gap, which we also discussed fully on Monday.
Baroness Manzoor
My Lords, I have added my name to Amendments 41 and 44. I have listened very carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, has said and will try to give some answer to the question that I think he is putting forward, which I fundamentally disagree with.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Low, the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, and others for the very good report they undertook. I read it with great interest. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Low, for making a very comprehensive statement regarding these two amendments.
I do not want to spend too much time on this because we have, as the noble Lord, Lord Low, said, already discussed it for over two hours in Committee. However, I want to say a number of things. I was very disappointed to see the BBC news over the weekend state that government sources had said that people who were concerned about the cuts to ESA and the WRAG were “scaremongering”. This really is not the case. The facts speak for themselves. As I said, we had an extensive debate in Committee, which highlighted the research that has been done and the impact that these cuts would have. I do not want to repeat that research, but it is there. This is not scaremongering.
We on these Benches are opposed to the ESA and WRAG cuts, which will affect people when they are at their most vulnerable—when they are sick. These are people who have been independently assessed by government-appointed assessors—not by their own GPs who they have perhaps had a lifetime relationship with, but by independent assessors—as having limited capacity for work or as being able to return to some form of work in the future. As has already been outlined, over 50% of people in this group have mental health problems and it includes people with disabilities, people with progressive diseases, such as MS and Parkinson’s, and people who may be undergoing cancer treatments.
It is interesting to note that the Government have enshrined in law that there is to be parity between acute services and mental health services in the Department of Health, which is laudable. However, another department—the DWP—is penalising people with mental health problems on ESA and WRAG by cutting their benefit as though this will improve their health and will make them better sooner. That is not true, and there is no research which demonstrates it. The Department of Health and the DWP should at least try to have a dialogue to complement respective government policies. If there was more joined-up thinking between departments the taxpayer could save significant sums of money. There is no evidence that cutting £30 a week from the benefit to that of a jobseeker’s allowance will improve these claimants’ ability and fitness to work. Indeed, it may have the opposite effect.
On the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, it is unthinkable that we should put it in the Bill that these benefits should be cut from ESA and WRAG without reviews and without putting into place some of the things that noble Lords have suggested. We and the Government could do those reviews first and then implement a policy. To implement a policy that will have such dire effects first, and then consider that, whatever falls out of it, something will happen, is not right or fair. The Government have to undertake research, think about the policy, consider its impact and then implement it in a fair and considered way.
The Government should strengthen the support that is given to ESA and WRAG claimants by ensuring that specialist advice and support is available to these people. Work coaches should also be given the appropriate training to understand and meet the needs of these claimants.
I look at this issue through the prism of work. The Government must also tackle the thorny issue of employer discrimination—which, although against the law, still exists, sadly, in places—and identify exactly what kind of support they will give to employers to enable them to employ more people with disabilities.
Clauses 13 and 14 should be removed from the Bill. They have no place in a caring and compassionate society.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, I support the proposal to leave out Clauses 13 and 14. I was disappointed in the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. Of course, we all want people to be able to return to work, and employment is incredibly helpful if people are well enough to take it on. On the idea that, somehow, if we are not in favour of cutting these benefits we are content that people should remain out of work for an indefinite period unnecessarily, the crucial point is: can these people return to work, is it reasonable, and will these cuts facilitate that return to work or drive people further from the labour market? That is issue and we have all the evidence we need to raise serious questions about it.
I want to avoid repeating the arguments so ably put by my noble friend Lord Low but to endorse the view that these clauses will not achieve the Government’s objective of increasing the numbers of sick and disabled people moving into and remaining in jobs. It is remaining in a job which is absolutely crucial, because there is no point in getting a job for two weeks and then finding that you are so ill you have to drop out. Then, you will spend months trying to restore the benefits you have been receiving. In fact, it is a very dangerous thing for most people on benefits to take a job, which is one of the big issues the Government need to tackle. Until people feel freer to move in and out of work, we will not achieve the results we want. I know that that is the aim of universal credit and I applaud the objective. The reduction of £30 a week in the incomes of these vulnerable groups will undoubtedly cause the most incredible misery and hardship for a lot of already very vulnerable people.
I want to avoid duplicating the comments of other speakers and rather to draw the Minister’s attention to the four key points made by the Royal College of Psychiatrists about Clauses 13 and 14 and the cuts. First, as others have mentioned, more than 50% of people affected by this cut will be suffering from mental and behavioural disorders. These people find it particularly hard to get into work and, indeed, to maintain a job for reasons that have nothing to do with their benefits but more to do with fears about employers, health problems, travel problems and so on. Secondly, a survey by the Disability Rights Coalition found that almost seven in 10 disabled people say that the cuts to ESA will cause their health to suffer. To judge by my experience of some 25 years in mental health services, mentally ill people’s health will suffer most severely—if I dare say that in front of colleagues who know about other disabilities far better than I do. When faced with severe financial hardship, people with psychiatric and psychological problems will find it extremely difficult to function at all. Common sense tells us that someone with an anxiety disorder or depression will find rising debts and the prospect of eviction from their home impossible to cope with. Are these people really going to be able to search for jobs effectively? Of course not.
The third point made by the Royal College of Psychiatrists reinforces this. It points out that there is no evidence that cutting the amount of benefit someone with mental health problems receives will make it more likely for them to find work. This point has been made in respect of disabled people in general, but given the sizeable number of ESA/WRAG clients with mental health problems, the view of the psychiatrists should not be ignored. Finally, and most important from the point of view of the Government, these cuts could lead to an increase in demand for NHS mental health services. According to a Rethink Mental Illness survey, 78% of respondents said they will need more support from their GP, community services or in-patient mental health services if their benefits are cut. I do not believe that these services have the capacity to deal with an influx of demand from these groups.
Macmillan Cancer Support has made the point that success in finding a job and moving off ESA is related to the quality of back-to-work support offered, the availability of jobs, and the health of the individual rather than impoverishment. Surely these realities should drive the Government’s policy. Macmillan argues that its own research proves the correlation between financial deprivation and poorer health outcomes. In the case of cancer patients, too early a return to work can be dangerous and may drive people into the support group. That is detrimental to them and, of course, to the taxpayer.
The third group I want to mention briefly is the 8,000 ESA/WRAG claimants with progressive and incurable conditions including Parkinson’s, multiple sclerosis and motor neurone disease, as already mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Manzoor. Does the Minister believe that anyone currently unfit for work due to Parkinson’s or motor neurone disease will become fit for work in the near future—or ever? These illnesses are relentlessly, tragically and depressingly progressive. Does not the Minister regard it as quite immoral—I do not often use that word but I feel I need to in this context—to treat such clients in the same way as young, fit people looking for work? I would be grateful for his views on this point.
In conclusion, I find Clauses 13 and 14 immoral in certain respects, as well as counterproductive even in achieving the Government’s own objectives of cutting the costs of sick and disabled people to the taxpayer through driving them back into work.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, in responding to the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, I do not want to go over the debate we had last time, although I pointed out then that in the survey to which he referred, the policy implication it was drawing out more was the need to improve in-work benefits. Since that debate, it has been drawn to my attention that the loss of the limited capability for work element of universal credit will cut the benefits received by disabled people in work. I cannot believe that this is the intended consequence.
This matter was brought to my attention by Sue Royston. I will simply read out what she sent me, as otherwise I could get it wrong—welfare rights can get a bit complicated. She wrote:
“Under Universal Credit, the main additional financial support for disabled people in work to cover their extra costs in work is the limited capability for work element. Any person requiring additional support because of a health condition/impairment will therefore have to take the work capability assessment … and be placed in the limited capability for work group (WRAG group) even if they are working more than 16 hours a week. Anyone on Universal Credit who qualifies for the limited capability for work element currently receives an extra £30 in their Universal Credit regardless of the hours they work.
The limited capability for work element and for some disabled people additional support through the disabled person’s work allowance is meant to replace the additional support disabled people in work of 16 hours or more receive in the current system through the disabled workers element of working tax credit …
Removing the limited capability for work element in Universal Credit will … reduce substantially the additional support a disabled person in work can receive to help with their additional costs … 116,000 disabled people currently receive the disabled workers element in tax credits”.
I cannot believe that this is an intended consequence.
I support the amendment but I hope that, if it is unsuccessful, the Minister will look at this matter. It completely flies in the face of what is said to be one of the purposes of these provisions. Perhaps we need to come back to this on Third Reading because we did not look at it properly in Committee. Only the experts in welfare rights pick up something like this and draw it to our attention. It is a very important point that rather undermines the argument that this is all about improving work incentives, which the noble Lord, Lord Low, had already pretty well destroyed as an argument.
Finally, I do not think that I have ever said that paid work is a cul-de-sac. I have said that the danger is that it becomes a cul-de-sac and that depends on what happens to people who are in paid work. If I said it, I certainly did not mean it. It is the danger that we cannot assume that paid work is a route out of poverty. It certainly will not be a route out of poverty for disabled people if we cut their income by £30 a week.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
My Lords, as I said in Committee, if this reduction in benefits for the disabled is about incentivising work rather than simply cutting costs from the benefit budget, I support the Government’s intention. However, the way in which they are going about the task to cut ESA WRAG and its universal credit counterparts is misguided. Clearly, other noble Lords agree with that. For that reason, I am inclined to support the removal of Clauses 13 and 14.
A number of noble Lords have spoken about this stubborn disability employment gap—this sad indictment on a society that has perhaps for too long been willing to ignore the aspirations of the disabled to engage fully in society through work. Reference has already been made to the Government’s impact assessment, which found that 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 halving the disability employment gap. The problem is that this is a complex issue. Some have a physical disability, others a mental disability. As the noble Baronesses, Lady Manzoor and Lady Meacher, said, people with chronic illnesses are also lumped into this group.
I declare an interest, in that my sister works for the motor neurone disease charity, which has met with me about this. It is deeply worried about this. This is a disease the progression of which is so rapid that many people would be way beyond any possibility of doing any work even before they get any sort of assessment. It is vital for people with this devastating diagnosis—many are young with children—to have all the support that they need immediately.
However, if this cut continues under the Government’s strategy, I fear that it will be a poor strategy. Indeed, I fully concur with the review into these clauses, published by the noble Lord, Lord Low, which found that,
“the Government’s impact assessment of the removal of the ESA WRAG component is lacking in depth and quality”.
It may be that the case for a cut in benefits will act as an incentive to encourage the fully able to find employment, but I have still to see the evidence that that will apply for the disabled. By removing nearly £1,500 from the future budgets of those who join ESA WRAG or those receiving universal credit limited capability for work, it seems that all the Government are likely to succeed in doing is push more disabled people into poverty, and, as others have said, probably destroy what little confidence and hope that they have as they want to get back into work. Those in this group are not in the same position as fully able JSA claimants and should not be treated as such; many are likely to remain in the WRAG for an extended period and their benefits situation must reflect this reality.
Like many noble Lords, I have met people who are disabled who are longing to get back to work. I do not believe that the basic problem is one of incentivising them. It really is a different problem—one of perception. I remember when I was an archdeacon many years ago and we made some major steps when legislation first came through to get ramps for every one of our churches. We looked at these problems and thought, “How on earth are we ever going to do it?”. Actually, there was a massive change of attitude, partly because we insisted that some of the people who argued against it got in wheelchairs and got themselves into churches. They discovered just how difficult it was. I have to confess that I had a change of perception; I had not got my mind around it.
I believe that we have an even bigger leap to take now. The vast majority of disabled people will need customised, individual help. That is part of the issue and the problem. What is needed is not so much carrot-and-stick incentives, but a wider strategy that helps disabled people to overcome the many challenges that they face in entering, or re-entering and staying in, the workplace. We need programmes and interventions designed to help these groups into employment, not arbitrary cuts to the living standards of some of the most vulnerable people in our society.
Baroness Campbell of Surbiton (CB)
My Lords, I also support the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Low and other noble Lords. I will concentrate on an aspect that I do not think has been fully recognised in the Chamber today.
It is important to remember that the cuts to ESA proposed in the Bill are happening not in isolation, but in a certain context. I respectfully disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, who said that we cannot let things remain the same. They are not remaining the same; I am afraid that they are getting worse. For example, I have spoken in the Chamber regularly about the desperate situation in social care, where disabled people are having their support drastically cut. This leaves them no alternative but to fund the shortfall personally or to go without and face the consequences. There are other areas of disabled people’s lives where the extra expense of living with a disability is rising year on year and month on month. My own annual bill comes to just over £12,000, which is checked and verified by my social services department—£12,000 a year. Please do not imagine that DLA or PIP covers this; it simply does not.
We know from the spending review last November that the Government plan to bring forward a new White Paper which is expected to announce further changes and reforms to ESA and benefits to disabled people, as well as to the WCA. Disabled people are fearful that the assault on their personal finances does not end with today’s proposals, and I think that they are right to be anxious. Today, the Minister will ask the House to decide whether to follow my noble friend Lord Low’s amendment on financial support for disabled people who have been assessed as unfit for work. In a few weeks’ time, the Minister will again announce plans to reform the whole system further in the White Paper. Today we are being asked to make decisions on proposals that will soon be impacted by further government changes. This is not joined-up government. It is not the joined-up approach that we have been promised by this Administration.
Frankly, disabled people are worn down by the relentless changes and cuts to their support arrangements and are right to be afraid of what is to come. Their personal finances are not in a good state. I speak for all of us, including some others here today—we should be afraid on their behalf and should support my noble friend Lord Low’s amendment today.
Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB)
My Lords, I ask for a little clarification. I was somewhat astonished by my noble friend Lady Meacher referring to patients with multiple sclerosis, motor neurone disease, Parkinson’s, and diseases that can in fact be terminal. I understand that there is a distinction between the point at which people are diagnosed and the point at which they might be assessed as being able to work, but these are progressive diseases and the danger is that these people could very quickly become not able to work and indeed very ill. It is on this point that I would welcome some clarification.
Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 44 in this group but I also have some comments that relate to Amendment 41. Like many in previous sections of this debate, I have been looking at disabled people getting into work, not what will happen, under Clause 14, to disabled people who are in work. There are some shocking and severe implications for this. The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, was absolutely right that 116,000 disabled people who currently receive the disabled worker element in working tax credit will lose £60 a week. I cannot believe that it would be the intention of the Government to affect disabled people in work in this way. However, if Clause 14 stays in the Bill, that will happen.
In numerous debates, we have talked about universal credit being more simple; quite frankly it is not. I apologise for the somewhat technical nature of what I am going to say, but this is going to affect hundreds of thousands of disabled people. We have been told that a similar amount of additional financial support for disabled people in work would be available in universal credit and would be accessed through the work capability assessment even if the person was working full-time. Any disabled person who is working and requires additional financial support because of the extra costs, which have already been mentioned, would have to take the WCA. If they still qualified as having a limited capability for work, they would receive the £30 element in their universal credit, regardless of the hours that they worked. They would also receive the disabled person’s work allowance. For single people in rented accommodation it is worth a further £30 a week. Together, the limited capability for work element and the work allowance would replace the additional support offered in the current system through the extra element in working tax credit. Removing the limited capability for work element will therefore reduce by about £30 a week, or £1,500 a year, the additional support available to many disabled people in work once universal credit has rolled out. Only those who are working but qualify for the support group will receive an additional element.
Baroness Thomas of Winchester (LD)
My Lords, cutting the benefit of those who are fit for work but unemployed might act as an incentive but it will really not work for those who are found not fit for work. It is likely to have the opposite effect, pushing some in the WRAG further from employment. One fact that has not come out is that it will surely increase enormously the number of work capability assessment appeals—it will probably overload the system.
Muscular Dystrophy UK has found that the extra £30 a week is invaluable to fund those disabled people in the WRAG who, for example, need to get to interviews or to volunteering work, perhaps with a support worker, or to work experience for which Access to Work is not available. Often, suitable work, volunteering or work experience is some way away from where the disabled person lives, so the cost of transport has to be taken into consideration. As for their DLA or PIP taking up the slack, that is not, unlike ESA, an income replacement. It pays for the extra costs of being disabled, and is all too often spent on topping up a disabled person’s direct payment. Another expense common to many disabled people is the need for extra heating because of their condition. Putting an extra sweater on simply is not the answer.
I am sure the Minister will tell us that this is all about trade-offs, and that for all those people made poorer by this cut, there are other things that mitigate their situation, such as increases in the personal tax allowance and the national living wage, and better support in finding a job. But none of these things will help those disabled people who are nowhere near paying tax now, and who want to volunteer or try work experience in order to build up their CV.
Turning to Clause 14 and the impact on universal credit, we have heard extensively from the noble Baronesses, Lady Grey-Thompson and Lady Lister, about how this particular cut is not well enough understood. It is also not well enough understood that universal credit has taken a huge hit from the Treasury since its inception several years ago. We ought to hear more about that and I think we will when we come on to the work allowances, which reflect this, in the next amendment.
Currently, disabled people working more than 16 hours a week are entitled to the disabled workers element of working tax credit. It is currently payable to those who have a disability or condition that makes it more difficult for them to find and sustain employment and can be claimed, not by taking the work capability assessment, but by being passported from DLA/PIP. Under the changes in the Bill, anyone who requires additional support because of a health condition will have to take the WCA, even if they are working more than 16 hours a week. It really does not make sense. If they are found to have limited capability for work, after 2017 any new claimant will not receive this additional support. No wonder it is commonly agreed that disabled people, many of whom are living in poverty, are yet again being hit hard by the Government.
Baroness Hollins (CB)
My Lords, since Committee I have spoken to a number of people with learning disabilities about their aspirations for work. I want to remind noble Lords that the proportion of people with learning disabilities in paid employment has remained stubbornly low, at around 7% of people known to social services. Most people that I have spoken to—and I think most people with learning disabilities—want to work. They do not want to be assessed to be in the support group. They really want help to find work. But the truth is that the vast majority of people with learning disabilities have never worked: back-to-work support is not what they need. Nor do they need a massive cut to their income, which will further marginalise and isolate them. Will the Minister specify exactly what evidence-based support is being planned for this group and how and where it will be delivered? It seems that personalised support in looking for suitable jobs and making written applications—recognising the low literacy levels among people with learning disabilities—and ongoing support to ensure they succeed in work in the longer term, might help a number of people to increase their chances. But will the Minister also acknowledge that people with learning disabilities will be particularly badly affected by a drop in income, given the difficulties they often have with financial management and making the most of a limited income? This group of people is going to be so adversely affected by this change that I feel the need to emphasise again and again that this policy has not been thought through for this group particularly and will affect it really badly.
Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)
My Lords, we have added our names to Amendments 41 and 44. Yet again, we have heard compelling arguments why Clauses 13 and 14 should be removed from the Bill.
I should say, compelling arguments bar one—I say to the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, that if we pass these amendments today it is not tantamount to leaving things as they are. The task from now on in is to do something the Government have genuinely started to do: to look at and tackle the barriers that disabled people face when they are trying to get into work. Surely that should continue and accelerate if the closing of the disability employment gap is to be achieved. I think the noble Lord said it was axiomatic that the bigger the gap between income in work and income out of work, the bigger the incentive. If the noble Lord thinks about it, if you took that argument to its logical conclusion, you would not have any benefits at all, and that cannot be right.
The noble Lord, Lord Low, took us through some of the detail of the report: the hardship that these changes would cause; that somehow recouping the benefit by a few hours’ work simply is not practical for people who have been assessed as not fit for work; and the need to tackle the barriers to work, which was a strong strand of that report. The noble Baroness, Lady Manzoor, made a very strong point when she said that we are doing this the wrong way round: we are cutting the benefit without addressing the issues that need to be addressed to help people into work.
The noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, reminded us that 50% of people with a mental health condition are in the WRAG. She raised the issue of people with progressive conditions—how on earth can we expect such individuals to access work? My noble friend Lady Lister, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Grey-Thompson and Lady Thomas, focused on the impact of Clause 14 and some of the extremely disagreeable consequences that could flow for people in work under universal credit. As has been said, that simply cannot be what the Government intended.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans reminded us that the disability employment gap is a stubborn one and we need to address it not in a generic way but in an individual, focused way. The noble Baroness, Lady Campbell, gave us just a glimpse of what the cuts to ESA will mean for people, pointing out that the extra expenses for disabled people are rising and are not effectively covered by DLA and PIP. The noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, focused on those people whom it has been particularly difficult to help into work—those with learning disabilities. These are fundamental parts of the analysis that underpins why these amendments are so important and why we should not allow these provisions to stay in the Bill.
Of course, the arguments have come not only from noble Lords today and in Committee but from a range of organisations that work day in, day out, with the very disabled people whom these clauses will hurt. Since Committee we have had more time to absorb the report, Halving the Gap, produced by the noble Lord, Lord Low, together with the noble Baronesses, Lady Meacher and Lady Grey-Thompson, which reviewed the Government’s proposals. The report could not have been clearer in concluding that,
“there is no relevant evidence setting out a convincing case that the ESA WRAG payment acts as a financial disincentive to claimants moving towards work, or that reducing the payment would incentivise people to seek work”.
Indeed, as we have heard, there are concerns that reducing the WRAG component would have the opposite effect and push people further away from the labour market. This is why we support Amendments 41 and 44. Frankly, we do not take lightly the prospect of removing whole sections of proposed legislation, but it would be no more significant than the effect these clauses will have on hundreds and thousands of disabled people.
Lord Freud
My Lords, these amendments seek to remove Clauses 13 and 14 in order to prevent the proposed changes to the ESA work-related activity component and the universal credit limited capability for work element. Clause 13 amends existing legislation to remove this additional payment for new claims to ESA and aligns the amount of benefit paid to claimants with limited capability for work with that paid to jobseeker’s allowance claimants. I think I need to clarify that although some Peers have mentioned a loss of £60, the work-related activity component is just under £30 a week. Clause 14 is designed to introduce a similar outcome for UC claimants. The measure will save £640 million over the long term but in 2017-18, it will save £55 million while we will invest £60 million into additional practical support.
This change does not affect the support group component, the UC equivalent or the premiums which form part of income-related ESA. Existing claimants in the support group will be entitled to the work-related activity component if they are reassessed into the WRAG. We aim to protect existing ESA claimants who temporarily leave the benefit to try out work and then return to ESA, an issue which the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, was concerned about.
ESA was set up by a previous Government to support people with health conditions and disabilities into work but it has unfortunately failed the very people who it was designed to help. Despite spending £2.7 billion this year on the WRAG, currently only 1% of people in this group actually move off the benefit every month. As a Government, we want to ensure that we spend money responsibly in a way that improves individuals’ life chances and helps them to achieve their ambitions, rather than paying for a lifetime wasted on benefits.
Currently, those in the WRAG are given additional cash payments but very little employment support. As the Prime Minister recently stated, this fixation on welfare treats the symptoms and not the causes of poverty. Over time, it traps people in dependency. That is why we are proposing to recycle some of the money currently spent on cash payments, which are not achieving the desired effect of helping people to move closer to the labour market, into practical support that will make a genuine difference to people in these groups.
The additional practical support is part of a real-terms increase that was announced at the Autumn Statement. How the £60 million to £100 million of support originally set out in the Budget will be spent is going to be influenced not only by Whitehall but by a task force of representatives from disability charities, disabled people’s user-led organisations, employers, think tanks, provider representatives and local authorities. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Low, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Grey-Thompson and Lady Meacher, for their work during Committee in this area.
The new work and health programme will provide specialist support for the very long-term unemployed. We are committed to supporting everyone who is able to work to do so. The forthcoming White Paper is aimed at ensuring that we offer the best possible support to those with health conditions or disabilities, a point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans.
There have been ongoing discussions with the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, about learning difficulties. Mencap’s website points out that despite the fact that research shows that 65% of people with a learning difficulty want to work, and the fact that with the right support they make highly-valued employees, only one in 10 people with a learning disability known to social services is currently in paid work. The Autumn Statement announced a real-terms increase in funding of almost 15% for those with health conditions and disabilities.
In Committee, some noble Lords raised concerns that we are expecting claimants who have been found “not fit for work” to be able to work. Although this was discussed then, it is important to stress once again that claimants in the work-related activity group have been found to have “limited capability for work”, which is very different to being unfit for any work. That is an important distinction, as this misconception helps drive people further away from the labour market and perpetuates the benefit trap.
As for returning to work and improved mental health, this Government are committed to ensuring that people with mental health conditions receive effective support to return to and remain in work. The noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, was concerned about this issue. We are investing £43 million over the next three years in trialling ways to provide specialist support for people with common mental health conditions. I have trawled the international evidence, and I know that we are going to build up a very substantial body of knowledge in this key area.
The noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, also raised the issue of deteriorating conditions. People with Parkinson’s who are currently getting the work-related activity component will not lose it, and will continue to receive ESA at the same rate, but any claimant who reports a deterioration in their condition can request a WCA to assess whether they may be eligible for the support group. As all Peers in the Chamber will acknowledge, some of these conditions can take a very long time indeed to develop, and there are times when people in the early period of those conditions are able to work, and indeed really want to.
Another area discussed at length in Committee was the evidence to support the Government’s view that the work-related activity component, in some cases, acts as a financial incentive to remain on benefit. I went through that evidence in some detail then but will summarise the points now. The findings of the OECD report, which we have touched on today, covered the whole population. Although the report does not specifically focus on the disabled population, it does not indicate the incentives would not apply there. We have the paper by Barr et al in 2010, which found that,
“eight out of 11 studies reported that benefit levels had a significant negative association with employment”.
It also noted that, “The most robust study”—by Hesselius and Persson—
“demonstrated a small but significant negative association”.
I have already mentioned the Norwegian study of the impact of financial incentives.
It is important to also recognise that the changes to ESA and universal credit work together and cannot be taken forward in isolation. Universal credit will replace income-related employment and support allowance once fully rolled out. We want to ensure that we build on what is working in universal credit to help those with health conditions and disabilities move into work. We have invested a lot in universal credit to make sure that we keep people connected to the labour market from the outset of their claim. Unlike under ESA, UC claimants with a health condition or disability are offered labour market support, where it is appropriate to do so, at the very start of their claim. This helps them to remain closer to the labour market, even if they are not immediately able to return to work.
The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, said that about 116,000 people in the whole country benefit from the disability element of tax credits. The smallness of that number illustrates how the current system is not working. That is why universal credit gets rid of the hours rules that stop people entering the labour market. It makes every hour—every fluctuating hour—pay and gives people the work coach support they need to find and then retain work. I have to say that some of figures from the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, do not accurately reflect the situation. The point is that universal credit will make smaller, regular hours pay. Rather than dealing with a lot of very complicated sums, I will write to her and set out our response.
The findings from Universal Credit at Work show that universal credit is making a real difference in getting people closer to the labour market. It is easier to understand. People are earning more, they say they have better incentives to work and, indeed, they are working more. Universal credit is a step towards modernising the welfare system into one that improves individuals’ life chances, but we intend to go a lot further than that. We will publish a White Paper in the new year that will set out reforms to improve support for people with health conditions and disabilities, including exploring the role of employers, to further reduce the disability employment gap—which we are committed to doing —and promote integration across health and employment.
As for the impact of another budget, I should point out to the noble Lord, Lord Low, what we spend on disability benefit: it went up by £2 billion in real terms over the last Parliament. We spend £50 billion every year on benefits to support people with disabilities or health conditions, which is rather more than we spend on defence and police combined—6% of government spending.
Clauses 13 and 14, together with the additional practical support announced in the Budget, provide the right support and incentives to help people with limited capability for work move closer to the labour market and, when ready, into work. I therefore urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Low of Dalston
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his very full and careful reply. I knew that it was too much to hope that his generous spending spree would continue into this group of amendments, so we will deal with the case that has been made on its merits. I also thank all those noble Lords who have spoken. The amendment has attracted support from right across the House: I made it 10 speeches in all and 9:1 in favour of the amendment.
Lord Low of Dalston
“( ) in section 14 (claimant commitment) after subsection (5) insert—“(6) In preparing a claimant commitment for a claimant, the Secretary of State shall have regard (so far as is practicable) to its impact on the wellbeing of any child who may be affected by it.””
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
My Lords, Amendment 44A is in my name and the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Manzoor, who tabled a similar amendment in Committee. We return to the issue because we were not satisfied with the response in Committee to what we believe is a strong case for explicitly writing into the claimant commitment a provision to ensure that regard is had to the best interests of any child cared for by the claimant, in line with Article 3.1 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Thus the aim of the amendment is to ensure that the well-being of any child is taken into account when a job coach agrees a claimant commitment, which records a claimant’s responsibilities and the agreed actions that they will take to seek and find work. This is something that the Office of the Children’s Commissioner has pressed for as well.
The other reason for returning to the issue is to ask what has happened to a similar provision that was inserted into the Welfare Reform Act 2009, as Section 31, during its passage through your Lordships’ House. I am sure that my noble friend Lord McKenzie will talk about this as well, because he was responsible for adding that section in response to a series of amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, which had the support of the Conservative Opposition, whose spokesperson was the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale. The noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, made a very telling point:
“A work action plan would not be worth its salt if it harmed a participant’s children in some way, through unsuitable hours or a lack of suitable childcare. I suspect that the Minister will resist these amendments by saying that of course we would expect any back-to-work plan to take into account the needs of children. If that is so, he should not be afraid to accept these amendments, or ones very similar to them, as a confirmation of that”.—[Official Report, 11/6/09; col. GC 167-8.]
I am tempted to leave it there and say, “I rest my case, my Lords”. However, there is a bit more to be said, and before turning to today’s amendment, I want to ask the Minister why Section 31 has not yet been brought into force seven years later. When Emily Thornberry MP asked a Question about this recently in the other place, the Employment Minister responded:
“There are no current plans to bring into force Section 31 of the Welfare Reform Act 2009”.
Why not? The case for it is all the stronger today, as conditionality has been ratcheted up with its gradual extension to parents with ever younger children, so that under this Bill parents of children aged three will be expected to move into paid work.
When we debated a similar amendment in Committee, the noble Baroness replied pretty much on the line anticipated by the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, back in 2009. She painted a rather idealised picture of the kind of conversation that work coaches have with claimants, not recognised by organisations such as Gingerbread working in the field. I should say here that I am grateful to Gingerbread for its help with this amendment. She suggested that the aim of the amendment was,
“achievable through existing legislation and it would be unduly burdensome to set out this level of detail in primary legislation”.—[Official Report, 9/12/15; col. 1664.]
However, this is not about some technical detail; it is about a basic principle enshrined in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, to which the Government have signed up. In what way is it burdensome? The implication is that it would be burdensome for job coaches always to ensure that regard is had for a child’s well-being. To repeat what the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, said, a claimant commitment,
“would not be worth its salt if it harmed a participant’s children in some way”,
for instance, through unsuitable hours or unaffordable or inaccessible childcare. I know that Ministers think that parental paid work is intrinsically in the best interests of children, but, as I said in Committee, the evidence from academic work is actually more nuanced than that. The evidence also shows that the existing guidance for parents of young children is too often not followed.
The noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, spoke in support of what became Section 31 during the 2009 debate. She was also part of a 2015 inquiry into women on jobseeker’s allowance, the launch of which I attended. That found evidence of divergence from the guidance in the claimant commitment that parents were asked to sign. This included a survey of lone parents that found that nearly a third of them stated that their commitment was written entirely by their adviser without any input from them and did not take account of their need also to care for their child. It is a common theme on Gingerbread’s helpline each month that parents of young children have been given inappropriate instruction that did not take account of the well-being of their children.
I will give just three examples from within the past six months. A parent with a two year-old child was wrongly told by her adviser that she needed to look for paid work. She is currently not required to do that until her child is five. A mother of a five year-old child had to sign a claimant commitment to say that she had to look for full-time work. She should have been able to look for work during school hours only. A caller with a 20 month-old child was wrongly told by her adviser at the jobcentre that she had to look for work or do courses, or her benefit would stop. These are just examples of what we described in Committee as the “parallel universe” occupied by claimants and their advisers on the ground, so different from the one described by Ministers.
The noble Baroness the Minister also said:
“It would also not be fair only to prescribe that claimant commitments must contain information relating to the well-being of children”.—[Official Report, 9/12/15; col. 1664.]
Could she expand on that, please? In what way would it not be fair to ensure that regard is had to the well-being of children in drawing up a claimant commitment? The intention is not that the commitment has to contain information about any child’s well-being; we are not looking for a survey of how children are doing, or the kind of survey that my noble friend Lord McKenzie was talking about the other day in relation to well-being. It just needs to show that regard has been had to it in a way that was clearly not the case in the examples cited.
Once more I refer back to the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, when he was speaking for the Conservative Opposition: why, if a child’s well-being is being taken into account by work coaches during the drafting of agreements, would the Minister be afraid to have this written into legislation? I urge the department to bring Section 31 of the Welfare Reform Act 2009 into force without further delay and to accept this amendment, or bring forward a similar amendment, at Third Reading. I beg to move.
Baroness Manzoor
My Lords, I support the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, on this amendment. Once again, we had a very good debate in Committee, and, in her usual fashion, the noble Baroness has laid out a very comprehensive argument with which I concur absolutely. I can therefore add very little to that argument except to press the Minister again to say why the well-being of children is not being factored in when it already has been. For noble Lords who were not in the Chamber earlier, I will read what the amendment says. This is all is says—which is why I have difficulty in understanding why it cannot be in the Bill. The amendment states:
“In preparing a claimant commitment for a claimant, the Secretary of State shall have regard (so far as is practicable) to its impact on the wellbeing of any child who may be affected by it”.
What is so wrong with that?
The Earl of Listowel
My Lords, I will briefly support this amendment. Before doing so, however, I have not had an opportunity to thank the noble Lord, the Minister’s colleague, for the assurance and commitment that adoptive parents, kinship carers and others will be kept out of the two-parent limit. I was very grateful to hear that from him.
The amendment, which I support, brings to mind two questions. If a child has had, for instance, pneumonia, and subsequently gets ill on a regular basis, what mechanism is in place to allow for the fact that the child has been and continues to be unwell on a periodic basis, which will allow the parent to give the child the care they need to recover fully from this issue?
The other question—perhaps I am stretching a little—is with regard to dealing with mental health. There has been a great deal of concern about perinatal mental health, and clearly this is an opportunity to spot perinatal mental ill health, including post-natal depression, and to do something about it. I may have missed other debates during the course of the Bill—perhaps the Minister can refer me to them or just drop me a line—but I know that information about the health of welfare claimants cannot be shared with the health service directly. Are the Government thinking of doing what they do in police stations, which is to station a mental health professional in the jobcentre itself so that they can help spot any issues of this kind and ensure that the parent and child get the support they need to deal with that?
Baroness Meacher
My Lords, I will contribute briefly to this debate in support of the amendment. The issue here is that we are in a very different benefits culture from the one we had maybe until 2010—I am not sure when exactly. The point is that the claimant commitment is the basis for sanctioning. If a parent fails to comply with a claimant commitment, that is when they will be sanctioned. If the claimant commitment is completely unrealistic and the parent cannot comply with it—for example, if it requires the parent to travel 90 minutes each way and they manage to have childcare for only five or six hours a day, or whatever it is—it will be physically impossible for them to satisfy that claimant commitment.
We know, certainly from the Fawcett Society inquiry I was involved with, that there is quite a need for training for these staff. That of course goes back for as long as I have ever been involved with welfare matters, which is probably some 40 years. Staff are very poorly paid, they tend to be rather inadequately trained and there is always a rapid turnover of staff, so you always have new staff who are trying to learn the rules, and so on. So this claimant commitment takes on a far greater significance in this day and age than it would have done 30 or 40 years ago.
That is why I ask the Government to take this very seriously. They need to accept that they have low-paid staff, a rapid turnover, poor training, and therefore that sanctions happen utterly inappropriately. The claimant commitments are wildly unrealistic in the experience of the inquiry I was involved with, which is very dangerous for the children. The parent goes along on a Friday to pick up their benefit and is told, “Oh, sorry”—or probably not even “sorry”—“your benefit has been stopped”. Is there any supper for the children? No, sorry, no food in the house—and so on. It is very serious for children affected by sanctions following the claimant commitment. That is why, although this sounds like a fairly innocuous amendment, believe me, it is very important.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I agree wholeheartedly with this amendment. It would be difficult to do otherwise because, as my noble friend reminded us, I moved a parallel amendment to what became the Welfare Reform Act 2009 when we were in government. When one looks back at legislation one has been responsible for there is always a moment of trepidation, but we are on safe ground in this case. Those were the days when the noble Lords, Lord Skelmersdale and Lord Northbourne, were heavily involved in our debates. Having said that—and I underline the importance that the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, has placed on this amendment—it is slightly disconcerting to understand that one’s labours at the Dispatch Box all those years ago have lain dormant and fallow, so I press the Minister to say why it has not been introduced.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)
My Lords, this amendment, tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Lister and Lady Manzoor, seeks to set into primary legislation a requirement for the Secretary of State, when preparing a claimant commitment, to have regard to the impact on any child affected by it. I fully support the principle that requirements should be adjusted according to individuals’ personal circumstances, including the well-being of any children for whom the claimant is responsible. However, this amendment proposes to unnecessarily prescribe the contents of the claimant commitment in the Welfare Reform Act 2012. During discussions with individuals, work coaches already take into account all the personal circumstances relevant to both claimant and child when agreeing work-related activities. We continually review the operation of the claimant commitment and will act on anything we find that can be improved. Claimants can request a review of their claimant commitment if they have concerns.
On the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, about Section 31 of the 2009 Act, it applies to JSA and ESA, not universal credit. As part of the claimant commitment, parents can input into the contents of the commitment within universal credit.
We are very clear about the importance of our responsibilities with regard to the well-being of children. Regulations 98 and 99 cover the circumstances in which all or some requirements should be suspended for a temporary period, which includes circumstances in which a parent has to spend time caring for a child in distress or if they are in the kind of situation which the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, talked about. The number of hours a claimant is expected to spend carrying out work-related activity is also tailored so as to be compatible with the claimant’s individual childcare responsibilities.
These reasonable requirements, including any limiting or lifting and the reasons for this, are recorded within the claimant commitment. The amendment does not specify that it applies to the responsible care of a child; it refers to “any child”, which would make it extremely difficult to determine which children are being referred to other than those within the claimant’s responsibility. This would make it difficult for jobcentres to effectively administer.
The key principle of the claimant commitment is that we treat people as individuals and tailor their requirements accordingly. We have chosen not to prescribe in legislation what a claimant commitment should take account of in order that we can reflect all the possible circumstances people can present with. It would be too prescriptive to single out one element—the well-being of a child—and legislate that claimant commitments must contain this information. It would not be practical to prescribe everything a claimant commitment should contain—we want to take account of a broad range of circumstances.
We know that developing a skilled workforce is key to realising the flexibilities that we have built into the legislative framework of universal credit. We want to empower our work coaches to use this broad discretion to make sound decisions that are right for the individual in front of them. As the noble Baroness said, I talked at length about the work under way to invest in learning and development of our front-line staff, including the work coach delivery model and accreditation. I did that because I wanted to stress the importance we place on making sure that work coaches are trained and that they use their discretion to the benefit of the families they work with. I emphasised that element because I wanted to stress to noble Lords that we take that very seriously.
Existing legislation already enables us to take account of the well-being of children when setting a claimant commitment; it is something that work coaches routinely do. Therefore we do not believe that it is necessary to set out this level of detail in primary legislation. I hope that on that basis the noble Baroness will withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken. The noble Baroness, Lady Manzoor, asked what there is to object to. It is a good question. The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, gave a very good example of what happens when a child is unwell. But the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, in a sense finished off the argument by talking about the implications of the well-being of the child not being taken into account in a culture where many people are sanctioned—and, as the evidence from her inquiry showed, sometimes sanctioned for the wrong reasons.
I am again disappointed by the Minister’s response. It seemed simply to repeat the arguments that were made in Committee and did not really engage with the counter-arguments that I put. She said that Section 31 applies to JSA ESA. Yes, many lone parents are still claiming those benefits and will be for some time. As we know, universal credit is being rolled out slowly and the more complicated cases will move on to it more slowly, so why is it not being introduced in the mean time? I find it very sad that the good work of my noble friend Lord McKenzie is gathering dust. In fact, it was the good work done by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, that started it all, because it was his amendments that triggered this section, but nothing has happened. Therefore, I am afraid that the fact that it is JSA ESA is irrelevant.
This is not just one other detail; the best interests of the child is a fundamental principle that policy-making and legislation is supposed to have regard to in this country, or in any country that has signed up to the UN convention. So I am disappointed. Again, we have evidence of a sort of parallel universe where all the wonderful conversations are being had. It is excellent that the training is happening and I welcome that. However, as I understand it, when lone parents had bespoke advisers who understood the issues, rather than generic job coaches, they tended to be treated much better than they are now.
The helplines of organisations such as Gingerbread are constantly showing that the best interests of the child are not being taken into account. When this Bill is out of the way, I wonder whether the noble Lord or the noble Baroness would be willing to meet those organisations to talk about why there is this difference in perception, and perhaps we could have another look at Section 31.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
I very much appreciate that. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Manzoor
“Universal Credit (Work Allowance)
The Universal Credit (Work Allowance) Amendment Regulations 2015 are repealed.”
Baroness Manzoor
My Lords, I have tabled this new clause because I think it is fundamentally important. Noble Lords will recollect that Members of all parties and none were pleased when the Chancellor dropped his plans to cut tax credits. That happened only because of the pressure put upon him by this House.
I have put down this amendment because the universal credit changes are identical to the tax credit changes, so the arguments are almost identical. Although the universal credit changes come in later and will affect the flow, not the stock, of claimants, they will have exactly the same effect as the tax credit cuts. This impact has been confirmed both in the Red Book and by the Institute for Fiscal Studies, which says that the tax credit cuts will, in the long run, make no difference, as the cuts to universal credit will affect the very same people. On average, low-income working people will lose £1,000—again echoing the tax credit cuts.
Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope (LD)
My Lords, I will add just a word to my noble friend’s excellent speech. I want to do three things: look at the context, share some new analytical evidence that I have just had access to and, finally, talk about the relationship between Amendments 45 and 46A.
For me, this is a significant moment for universal credit. I am determined to do everything in my power to bring universal credit to a successful, sustainable position if it is the last thing I do before I go to the great Parliament in the sky. This is an important moment. What we are arguing about is part of the strategic balance in the architecture of the system. I believe that the Chancellor, who is fully focused on the public finances, as perhaps Chancellors have to be, is completely blind to family budgets. That is evident in the way that he has been seeking some of the necessary public savings. I know that the Minister is completely innocent in terms of any of these changes. My spies are everywhere, and they actually give him quite high marks. One only had to read the newspapers over the late autumn, sensitively and between the lines, to know that we could have been facing rates of change to the reduction in the benefit of not just 65% but 75%. I believe that to be true and believe that the Minister was responsible for stopping that happening. I am deeply grateful for that. If that had happened, I would have given up any further attempt to make this policy work at all.
We are talking about work allowances and how they fit into the system. We have to get this sorted out once and for all, because although people have been told this before, I believe that in the 2016 fiscal year we will see a massive scaling up of universal credit, not just across all the job centres but in terms of the categories and numbers of claimants that will be admitted. I am anxious that that should happen. However, I make the point that there are a lot of problems waiting on the other side of that, which we know about and have been working on. We have to get the architecture right before the scale-up starts, and work allowances are an essential ingredient.
My noble friend’s amendment actually works with the grain of government policy much better than the Chancellor’s proposal does. The universal credit, making work pay and work incentive momentum will be significantly reduced if these work allowances are reduced in the way that is being suggested.
We are able now to start to look at some of the impacts on universal credit recipients as the rollout moves on. I will very briefly sketch through some analysis I have seen from Policy in Practice, a group of people whose judgment I trust. It has done some forecasting of the effects of the impact of universal credit on recipients. The analysis makes three points. First, with no mitigation plan in place for people currently on universal credit, all households in work and on universal credit in April 2016 can expect to be worse off as a result of reduced work allowances. It estimates that 96,000 households in work will be worse off by April 2016. I see the wrinkling of a ministerial nose already. I know that this is the Minister’s territory and I am sure that he will want to look at some of these figures, but that is what I am told and I am reading it as accurately as I can.
The second worrying point raised by the Policy in Practice analysis, and with an indirect relationship to the work allowances changes, is the finding that taking into account the national living wage and higher personal allowance—that is, the government package—35% of universal credit recipients will be worse off in 2020 without transitional protection. If that is anything like true, we should be worried.
Even more interestingly, and perhaps more worryingly, the third conclusion of the analysis is that households that are worse off under universal credit would need to work additional hours in order to not be worse off from these changes. Policy in Practice’s current best estimate puts the combined figure at an additional 10 million hours each week across the United Kingdom that would need to be found and worked before people could protect their income in the long run. Worse than that, it then goes on to say that, at the same time, cuts to work allowances will limit the dynamic effect of universal credit by up to 2.5 million hours each week, and that is on top of the OBR estimate that the national living wage will reduce the weekly hours available by a further 1.8 million hours each week.
If you combine these factors, we are looking at the possibility of making it more difficult for households to make up their shortfall by working additional hours. I am sure that that will all be tested in due course when the figures are made available. However, that is the scale of the challenge that we may be facing as a result of some of these work allowance changes. I am certainly concerned that this is a significant change that we need to think about very carefully.
Lord Oates (LD)
My Lords, I support the amendment of my noble friend Lady Manzoor. One day before I entered this House the Government were defeated on tax credits. The Government were very upset but conceded the issue. Except that they did not—they found another way to cut support for hard-working people on low incomes. It was a more obscure way and they hoped that we would not notice it and that their attempts to bully this House might make us kow-tow.
As my noble friends Lady Manzoor and Lord Kirkwood have set out, these changes to UC have similar impacts on the same people as the tax credit changes. The Liberal Democrats strongly supported universal credit in government because we believed that it would increase work incentives. I am sure that the Secretary of State will be as dismayed as we are that his UC policy is being so consistently undermined by the Chancellor. I am sorry that we are not there any more to help resist that but we shall do so in this Chamber. If we opposed the tax credit changes, it is beyond me why we would not oppose these changes.
The Government have no mandate for the changes—quite the contrary. The Conservative manifesto says that the aim of welfare reform should be to reward hard work and protect the vulnerable. The changes in regulations do the opposite. Not only do they have no mandate, their manifesto requires that they should oppose such changes.
It would be great if Peers on the Benches opposite were to support us—although that may be rather hopeful—but, if they are not willing to do so, they should not trouble themselves to make protestations to the public that they are on the side of the working poor. I await with interest to hear the position of the Official Opposition. I hope that Labour Peers will support us and that, if they were planning not to, they will reconsider. What is the point of all the controversy and antagonism that took place over the tax credits votes if, only three months later, we allow measures that impact on the same people in a similar way to go through? If Labour does not support us through the same opposition that it showed in the House of Commons, as my noble friend Lord Kirkwood pointed out, there will not be any point in it weeping tears of regret when the impact of these measures comes to be felt by the public. It will not be able to wash away its failure to stand with us tonight and to stand up for working people.
Baroness Sherlock
My Lords, Amendment 46A, in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Hollis, would require the Government to produce and lay before Parliament a report assessing the impact on work incentives of the Universal Credit (Work Allowance) Amendment Regulations 2015, which passed through Parliament last year. In particular it would require the Government to analyse data on income and hours worked by household type, and the impact of the regulations on the levels of awards of in-work support payable to claimants who have moved, or will move before 2018, from tax credits to universal credit as a result of changed circumstances.
I shall address the matter of substance first and then move on to the politics of the matter. I raised these matters in Committee to get the Minister to tell the House what would happen to people who were moving across from tax credits to universal credit. The answers were deeply worrying. It is now clear that two big and distinct problems are emerging in relation to universal credit. First, the incentives to enter and progress in work have been severely damaged by a succession of changes made by the Government. As the director of the Resolution Foundation observed, universal credit was set to be £2.3 billion more expensive than the six benefits it replaced. Indeed, versions of the policy early in the last Parliament were even more expensive than that. No wonder the Treasury was nervous about a fast rollout—not, I suspect, the chief concern facing it at the moment. But after repeated chipping away, it seems that universal credit will now actually save the Treasury money—more than £2 billion a year once it is fully in place. Of course, if it saves the Treasury money, it costs claimants money, so universal credit is no longer going to do the job it was meant to.
The final straw was the reduction in the work allowances that went through Parliament last autumn. After weeks of pressure from all quarters and being asked to think again by this House through the Motion of my noble friend Lady Hollis, the Chancellor announced that he was scrapping the equivalent planned cuts to tax credits. I unreservedly welcomed that change. However, the Government decided to press ahead with comparable changes to universal credit. These various changes have done serious damage to work incentives, and, furthermore, the way that universal credit is now structured means that there is a significant problem with lack of work incentives for second earners and the position of self-employed people is a major problem.
Then we have the second problem: transitional protection. Iain Duncan Smith declared on “The Andrew Marr Show” in the wake of the tax credits change that no one would lose a penny from universal credit cuts. That is by no means clearly so. We know that if you take two working families with children in identical circumstances, but one on tax credits and the other on UC, the one on UC could be almost £3,000 a year worse off. How can nobody be a penny worse off? It depends on the transitional arrangements. Evidence given to Members of another place by the department suggests that there are two ways that people could end up moving from tax credits to UC. The first is “managed migration”, as the jargon has it. These are people who are moved over en bloc by the department, but that will not happen until 2018. They will get transitional protection.
The second way is by what is slightly oddly called “natural migration”. This happens when someone who is getting tax credits has a change in circumstances and is forced by the department to move across to universal credit. We now know that this can happen through all kinds of changes, some of which were alluded to by the noble Baroness, Lady Manzoor: if someone loses their job; has a baby or adopts a child; if a lone parents gets remarried or repartnered; if a couple splits up; if someone becomes a carer or ceases to be a carer; or even, slightly oddly, if a lone parent’s child reaches the age of five.
As I understand it, in all of those circumstances and indeed in more, a tax credit recipient will be forced on to universal credit and overnight could see their entitlement fall by up to £3,000 a year. Can the Minister confirm that that is the case? Further, can he tell the House whether any transitional protection will be forthcoming for the group of people in the category called “natural migration”? How many people does his department anticipate will be in that position during the first year of the new work allowance regime? We have a problem of transition and a problem of seriously damaged work incentives. Above all, there is an unacceptable lack of clarity about the impact on low-income working families.
I should probably have declared an interest as I was an adviser to Gordon Brown as Chancellor of the Exchequer when tax credits were invented. He hired me away from the single-parent charity where I was toiling to support him in trying to work out what to do about the fact that we had the second-highest child poverty rate in the developed world. Child poverty had trebled under the previous Tory Government. We also had significant problems around lone parents not working. I worked with Gordon Brown to work out how the Government should tackle what was then a very low rate of single-parent employment. Tax credits made a massive difference. They helped to lift millions of British children out of poverty and led to the most dramatic rise I know of in the proportion of single parents in work. To see this Government damage work incentives that were so hard won breaks my heart.
I fully accept that the noble Baroness, Lady Manzoor, truly cares about the plight of working families, but I do not think that those families are helped by leading them to believe that this House can do things for them that it cannot do. It is clear to me, and I am sure it is really clear to Liberal Democrat Peers—I understand that we have to go with the politics of the age—that there is a distinction between opposing something and feeling that this House should vote it down. I oppose this entire Bill, but I did not vote against it at Second Reading because as a revising Chamber it is not our place to do so. As I say, we are a revising Chamber, and, if that is the case, we should do our job properly.
Rather than using primary legislation retrospectively to repeal regulations which have only recently passed through both Houses of Parliament, and are not even regulations flowing from this Bill, let us focus instead on taking appropriate action to hold the Executive to account. Let us not let the Government off the hook by playing politics with this issue. Let us not pretend that we all take the same view on tactics, but that does not mean we have different views on substance.
I understand that during the tax credits debate, the noble Baroness, Lady Manzoor, wanted to run a fatal Motion against all the conventions of the House. We did not back that; we backed my noble friend Lady Hollis in running a delay Motion which had exactly the right result but in an appropriate constitutional manner. That is the position we are in today. The Chancellor’s cuts are going to do significant damage to working families in Britain. Those people and this House have a right to know what that damage is. That is what we are pushing for today and that is what we on these Benches will be voting for.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
My Lords, all of us in the House supported universal credit and we all recognised the absolutely key role played by the noble Lord, Lord Freud, in seeking to deliver it. Why have those of us who worked on tax credits—my noble friend in the Treasury and myself as the Minister taking the tax credits Bills through this House—none the less gone on to support universal credit? It was because tax credits did make work pay, they transformed lives, and we were and indeed are proud of them.
But, first, without real-time information, we could not keep pace with the changes of circumstance. Half of all lone parents experienced more than a dozen changes of circumstance every year, and the computers never caught up. We had to have end-of-year adjustments and we had the sadness of trying to recover overpayments from people who could ill afford to make them. Secondly, as has been said, we absolutely needed to simplify the benefits system so that people would know what they were entitled to. Finally, tax credits were rightly built on a work model, and work was defined as 16 hours a week. However, we know that for many lone parents a job for fewer than 16 hours a week, a mini job, is the pathway into work. Instead of the cliff-edge of 16 hours, we supported the principle that the noble Lord enunciated in universal credit of a ladder up from mini jobs right on into full-time work. Over some 17 long Committee days, we supported the noble Lord on universal credit.
The architecture of universal credit remains, but to repeat the image of the noble Baroness, Lady Manzoor, the key driver of making work pay is being shrivelled by the cuts, slice after slice. My heart goes out to the Minister because he must hate it. But, of course, he cannot possibly comment. Instead of universal credit being more supportive than tax credits, which is where we came from in helping people into work, as my noble friend Lady Sherlock has said, increasingly the opposite is now true.
Yes, last autumn we protected existing families on tax credits—not new claimants—from cuts to their existing income, given the commitments made on all sides during the general election. The Chancellor accepted that as people move from tax credits to UC as part of the migration timeline, they should not be worse off simply by virtue of that administrative change. It was the right thing to do and I believe that everyone in the House, including of course the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, who was so key to this, was delighted by the move.
However, as my noble friend has said, such transitional protection may not cover situations where there has been a recognised, formal change of circumstance which, as it stands, could bring existing tax credits families immediately into UC over and beyond the migration timeframe, and at that point they will experience cuts in UC. I want the Minister to help us by clarifying the situation. What will take a person who is on tax credits now, who is not part of the planned timeline, into UC and thus experiencing immediate cuts? The reason it is uncertain is that at the moment, certain changes with tax credits must rightly be formally reported to HMRC. As my noble friend set out, that must be done when a lone parent becomes part of a couple or the couple breaks up, when there is another child or a child leaves school, and when hours of work or income change, or childcare costs change—for example, during the summer holidays. And, of course, tax credits rates are now and should continue to be properly adjusted to reflect those natural changes in circumstance. However, will such changes of circumstance, which would bring about a change in tax credits, now instead be a trigger on to UC, at which point families will find themselves caught by the UC cuts, or will they remain outside it? Or does this apply only when the tax credit claims have completely ended, so that no tax credits are in payment? For example, if a lone parent has repartnered and her partner’s income floats them off tax credits altogether and then, say, a year on, sadly, he moves out and she needs to make a fresh new claim, will that fresh claim be under tax credit rules or the more oppressive universal credit rules?
If the oppressive universal credit rules apply, will there none the less be a linking rule—as in the past with a well-established principle for disability benefits—so that within six months, or certainly a year, a new claim is regarded as a resumption of the old claim? In other words, the lone parent remains de facto on tax credits with the protection that that carries when, by the natural time migration, she moves over to UC. I apologise to your Lordships for being quite nerdish about this, but it is essential that the Minister clarify the position for us, which I am sure he will.
Finally, we supported UC over tax credits above all to incentivise people into work. My noble friend has spelt out the additional resource that the Minister was able to achieve to incentivise people into work, especially those more marginal to the labour market, by allowing them to keep more of what they earnt. We all thought that that was the right thing to do. Several years back, the Minister was absolutely right, while criticising tax credits because of the multiplicity of interlocking benefits, when he said that there was a high rate of benefit withdrawal—that is, the taper—which meant that some working people kept only pennies in the pound for every hour that they worked. Therefore, they did not.
However, although the universal credit regulations do not change the taper, in many cases they essentially halve the work allowance which can be earnt before the taper kicks in for many, and they withdraw it in its entirety for some. Therefore, cuts will affect people who come on to universal credit after April 2016. The cut in the standard work allowance for a lone parent working mother, from more than £8,000 to £4,764, means that she will lose half. Effectively, she will lose £2,628 a year by being on universal credit, which she would not if the work allowance had not been halved. Couple families with one partner with limited capacity to work because of disability will lose around £3,000. Single people will lose it altogether. Hence, this amendment.
I am concerned, as are my noble friend and others on our Benches, about the impact of these proposed cuts within universal credit, as we all are about work incentives. We need evidence. The Minister respects evidence. If it is not there it needs to be collected. If it is, I am sure the Minister would want us to address any problems that may arise. My fear is that universal credit, instead of encouraging people into work, will begin to disincentivise them. But I do not know, which is why, as my noble friend has argued, we need that report to determine how, where and with what severity those cuts will fall, and on whom. In particular, how will they affect the key significance of universal credit: to improve work incentives and, as we all wish, to make work pay?
Without improving work incentives, universal credit has lost its moral argument and becomes instead, I fear, a mere administrative tidying up of the current benefit system, with the added risk that we are already beginning to see of repeated cuts. There would be much upheaval for no gain for many claimants, and real, if potential, losses for many more. I hope that I am wrong but we need to know. Such a report would tell us and, if my noble friend chooses to put this to a vote, I hope this House will support her.
Lord Freud
Before I start, I acknowledge my appreciation for what Peers are saying. This is not an attack on universal credit. They are some of its greatest fans and it is in that context that they speak. I absolutely get that and I appreciate it. It has reminded me that I owe regular updates about progress of universal credit and has jogged me to get going on that as soon as this Bill is over.
The amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Manzoor, seeks to repeal the work allowance regulations. I am going to sound like the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock. This measure has been debated and voted on twice in the other place, and both times these regulations have been retained. Therefore, this House should think carefully about using a Bill such as this to introduce opposition to a financial measure that has seen that kind of support in another place.
On the amendment, let me remind noble Lords of the context of those changes. The previous welfare system was not working. Spending went up from £6 billion in 1998 to £28 billion in 2010, when we reached the stage where nine in 10 families with children were eligible for tax credits. Some families could earn £60,000 a year and still receive benefits. Yet, at the same time, the number of people in in-work poverty increased by about 20%. It also did not do enough to support people to get into work, stay in work, and progress in work. People were left with unfulfilled potential and did not have an incentive to progress. Even if we forget the money, it undermined opportunity and aspiration due to the distortions and complexities of the system.
The Government have stated their intention to move from a low-wage, high-tax, high-welfare society to a high-wage, low-tax, low-welfare economy and have set out a package of measures. Let me remind noble Lords that the national living wage is set to reach over £9 an hour by 2020 and the personal tax allowance is set to rise to £11,000 in 2016-17, taking 570,000 more people out of income tax. I remember some debates about increasing support for childcare, and we have moved it up to a rate of 85% of eligible costs. We have doubled the early years’ provision, which is free for the working parents of three to four year-olds. When one looks at the whole of childcare, we now spend £5 billion in total across all the schemes, including UC, tax credits and the early years’ provisions, which is more than any previous Administration. Since 2010, there has been an increase of £1 billion.
To respond to the noble Baroness, Lady Manzoor, the measure is different from the tax credit cuts. Universal credit provides an incentive to making work pay and helps to move people off a life on benefits. They get personalised support through a dedicated work coach which helps them through the barriers. It is a different structure. It is not the same thing as the reduction in tax credits. Clearly, we have two elements; namely, the work allowance and the taper rate. We have already got evidence that it works and gets people into work much more effectively than jobseeker’s allowance. Apart from the savings we will achieve on taxpayers’ money, it will generate—partly by focusing the money more efficiently on the people who need it most—gross economic benefits of £7 billion every year once it is fully in.
Baroness Manzoor
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response, which was very considered. I also thank my noble friends Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope and Lord Oates for supporting me on this amendment. I understand clearly the argument that the Front Bench has put forward and I get the argument because, like the Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, I am very interested in evidence-based decision-making. As a relative newcomer to this House, I sometimes think that we put the cart before the horse, as we saw earlier on when the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, spoke in relation to another amendment—let us do something and then see what the effects are afterwards. But we are talking about real people with real lives, not just figures to be moved around in the budget. These cuts will have an impact on those people’s lives.
I said earlier at Second Reading, a long time ago it seems, that we on these Benches are looking at the Welfare Reform and Work Bill through the prism of work; that is what is really important to us. It is about getting more and more people off benefits and into long-term, sustainable, well-paid work—that is the purpose of this. I do not feel that, as it currently stands, this will be achieved. I have articulated not my figures, but figures from respected bodies, which have indicated what the impact of this cut to universal credit work allowance will be.
I say, again, to all noble Lords on all sides of the House, this amendment is different. It is not like the amendment on tax credits, where there was an issue about constitutional matters—though I took wide advice before I put down my fatal amendment and noble Lords will know that I did not speak in the debate that the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde had; I have immense respect for him—this is something that will affect people’s lives. As I said, 2.6 million individuals are going to be affected. We cannot have this inconsistency in our approach. I passionately believe in consistency and I passionately believe in equality and fairness and this will not allow that to happen. We will see two sets of people who are in very similar or indeed identical circumstances being paid different rates of benefit. That cannot be right. I really do not want to be seen as a rebel in this House, as somebody has called me; that is certainly not my intention. But, for me, this is the principle of the matter and it is on that basis that I beg leave to test the opinion of the House.
Baroness Sherlock
“Universal Credit (Work Allowance) (No. 2)
(1) Within one year of the coming into effect of the Universal Credit (Work Allowance) Amendment Regulations 2015, the Secretary of State shall publish, and lay before each House of Parliament, a report assessing the impact of those Regulations on work incentives.
(2) The report prepared under subsection (1) must contain data analysis of—
(a) income and hours worked, by household type, and(b) the impact of the regulations on the levels of awards of in-work support payable to claimants who have moved from tax credits to universal credit as a result of a change of circumstances, or claimants who will move from tax credits to universal credit as a result of a change of circumstances before 2018.”
Baroness Sherlock
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his commitment to evaluation, but I regret that it is not enough. I therefore wish to test the opinion of the House.
House of Lords: Press Office
(8 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts
To ask the Chairman of Committees whether there are any plans to appoint a unit within the House of Lords Press Office to promote proactively and apolitically the role and work of the House of Lords.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
My Lords, we have just concluded a session during which there has been, in the elegant phrase of diplomats, “a frank exchange of views”. But I hope noble Lords will forgive me if I ask that, for the next hour at least, we leave our party-political weapons at the door. If this is not possible, the underlying reason for raising this issue, which is the need to underpin the reputation of the House as a legislative institution, will be lost.
This Question is not about Governments, Oppositions or Cross-Benchers seeking party-political advantage. It is about seeking ways to ensure that your Lordships’ House as an institution is seen by the general public in as balanced and unbiased way as possible. A political life can be tough—it can be bruising—and that is as it should be because important issues and the future of our country are at stake. Some of that bruising is bound to be felt in an institution in which such arguments are played out—so be it. But my concern is the rising number of snide, unfounded and unhelpful articles about your Lordships’ House that are quite unconnected with our legislative activities.
There appears to be no person or body within the House empowered to correct the facts and, above all, to correct them the very day they appear. The key words in my Question are, therefore, “proactively” and “apolitically”. That this is an issue which has touched a chord I think is shown by the fact that 14 noble Lords, drawn from all parts of the House, put their names down to speak, and I greatly look forward to hearing their views over the next hour.
As I said, my concern is with the steady trickle of articles that put an entirely unfavourable and inaccurate construction on matters concerning the House. Let me run through a few examples. On Monday 8 December 2014, the Guardian ran an article under the headline, “Champagne wars in the Lords as peers say no to a cheaper vintage”. It claimed that your Lordships’ House had refused to serve the same champagne as the House of Commons on account of its inferior quality, that over the past five years £265,000 had been spent buying 17,000 bottles of champagne and that this was equivalent to five bottles of “bubbly”—as they put it—for each Peer per annum.
By Wednesday 10 December, two days later, the Times was repeating the claim, though under a different headline—this time, “Is the House of Lords on a suicide mission?”—and increasing the number of bottles that were being drunk by each Member to 20. By Saturday, the Economist had climbed on the bandwagon under a headline, “A tizz about fizz”, again repeating the allegation about champagne consumption but, rather unattractively on this occasion, linking it to the powers of your Lordships’ House to block and delay legislation, implying that we do so in a champagne-sozzled condition, while at the same time claiming £300 per day, as the Economist put it, “just for showing up”.
On the Friday, too late to correct any of the above, a letter was published in the Times from the Chairman of Committees. He pointed out:
“In the last financial year, 57 per cent of all champagne sold was in connection with receptions and dinners … and 30 per cent through our giftshop. All alcohol sold in the Lords is sold at a profit, which has helped to reduce the cost of the catering service by 27 per cent since 2007”—
and that the proposal to merge the two Houses’ champagne service was a 10 year-old story.
There was nothing wrong with the content of that letter, just its timing. A delay of four or five days between the original article and the rebuttal gave time for the story not only to get legs but also to expand in ways that frankly were still more unfavourable to the reputation of the House.
Lest noble Lords think that this is an isolated example, in September 2015 the Constitution Unit at University College London published a piece entitled, “The Lords’ declining reputation: the evidence”, and, in the excellent note produced by the Library as a background briefing for this debate, there is a table showing a similar, rather discouraging trend.
Finally, just before Christmas, a further set of allegations was made about the travel arrangements and costs thereof of the Lord Speaker. I understand that in several respects these were inaccurate or misleading: for example, excessive car waiting time for the Lord Speaker during her attendance at functions when security arrangements at the function required the clearance of each car.
Some noble Lords may argue that this is the way of the world and that there is nothing to be done about it. In the memorable phrase of the noble Lord, Lord Birt, we risk throwing another log on the fire. The noble Lord is of course vastly more experienced in the ways of the media than I am and I have to respect his view, although I also have to point out that it seems to me that, another log or not, the fire is blazing pretty merrily right now.
Your Lordships’ House has an excellent press office. I do not want what I have said and what I am about to say to be seen as a criticism of it. Its primary role has been to undertake planned press and other publicity linked to the reports being published by the various committees of the House or to its general activities. It is not set up to provide what one might call “rapid rebuttal activity”. I see three broad strands to what this work might entail: first, to say to a journalist or, where necessary, an editor, “This article is factually wrong, please correct it forthwith”; secondly, to offer journalists planning to write about your Lordships’ House a facility for the checking of facts; and, thirdly, to provide for journalists on quiet news days human interest or apolitical stories about the work of the House. This will be a role for a senior individual experienced in press or public relations. He or she would need clear lines of authority and responsibility to be able to carry out this sensitive and demanding task, for which it will be absolutely essential that there is whole-hearted cross-party support.
Several noble Lords, speaking to me ahead of this debate, remarked that such clear lines of authority and responsibility will never be established because there are several parties who will consider this to be their sole prerogative. Such high diplomacy is some way above my pay grade as a humble Back-Bencher. All I would say is that each one of us has been privileged to be appointed to this House and I hope that if there are issues of this sort about sovereignty, they can be reconciled in the greater interest of preserving and enhancing the reputation of this great institution that we are all proud to serve.
Of course, we can go on as we are. My fear is not that such an appointment would lead to more logs on the fire; rather, that if it is not made, the flames of misreporting and consequent mistrust and misunderstanding of your Lordships’ House as an institution of Parliament will become increasingly hot and uncomfortable. I beg to move.
Baroness Donaghy (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, for initiating this debate. I chair the House of Lords Information Committee and we spend a considerable amount of our time promoting and encouraging communications about the work of this House.
I pay tribute to our staff in the press and media area, who provide a 24-hour service in quite difficult circumstances. Why are they difficult? The department provides factual information and rebuttals but cannot—and probably never will—comment on anything that could be regarded as party-political or taking one side or another of a debate; for instance, on the size of the House or on tax credits.
As a self-regulating House, one could argue that no one is in charge or that everyone is in charge. We have the Lord Speaker, the Leader of the House and the Chairman of Committees, as well as the leaders of other groups. If we were to decide to have one spokesperson, they would still need professional assistance and it would require a change in our governance.
What is clear from the excellent briefing provided by the Library is that the work of Select Committees, which can cross party lines, receives enormously positive feedback from the public. The press and media team is able to be much more proactive in this area and the growth of social media coverage is very helpful in showing the positive side of the work that we do.
By far the best advocates for this House are its Members. The reputation of the House depends almost completely on its Members, for good or bad. Nothing beats that personal engagement, whether it relates to work in the House or outreach duties.
The staff work very hard to reach out to people about our work through broadcasting, education, archives, and the work of Parliament and its history. Any perception that they had strayed into the political world would, I am sure, be resisted. But all suggestions made by noble Lords this evening will be very welcome and, I am sure, will be considered by the Information Committee.
Lord Selsdon (Con)
My Lords, I find myself in a difficult situation because for part of my career I was a director of a company called Research Services Ltd, which did the National Readership Survey, which was used as a basis for advertising and all forms of communication. Mark Abrams—slightly to the left of myself—was our guru, and I found myself also involved in the race relations study. Therefore, I have a love of information and data, particularly about your Lordships’ House.
The difficulty I have found with the press department, which I spoke to earlier today, is that its hands are tied. I said, “Well, whose hands are not tied?”. “My Lord, your hands are not tied”. “If you were me, what would you provide me with as a list of those people we should communicate with?”. “My Lord, you may have some suggestions to make”. I made certain suggestions and a list was produced that I would possibly be able to circulate to your Lordships, with emails, telephones—direct things—for 127 journalists, who, when I have introduced a Bill, have effectively become friends because only Peers can talk to the press. I find this very strange and I am not sure how it could be changed in any way, but people are waiting for stories. They can be written by anyone. You have to spend only a moment in the Bishops’ Bar and you have a new story.
On occasions, I made a few mistakes. I made a suggestion that we should possibly look at consulting with the Australians before we had the referendum relating to Scotland because there were 54 million Scots worldwide. To my horror, a journalist called me the next day, saying, “You are front page of the Sunday Post in Scotland: ‘Lord Selsdon says Obama is Scottish’”, because in Scotland you take your seeds, as it were, through the female line.
There are so many stories that we could write about this place and we have so many would-be journalists and writers and preparers of speeches. Therefore, I feel that we should ask ourselves to solve the problem.
The Earl of Sandwich (CB)
My Lords, I was in the press office of a major charity for more than 12 years in the 1970s. It was not easy. The charity, Christian Aid, was constantly being accused of siding with refugees in southern Africa and victims of apartheid. The noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, is absolutely right to raise the subject at this critical time because the House has run the gauntlet of the worst of old Fleet Street and more recently, as he said, the Lord Speaker has personally come under fire, quite unjustly and with very little opportunity to reply.
I had not appreciated the extent of negative coverage until I saw the July-September figures. The press and media team seems to be coping admirably but has only three full-time staff working 24/7, while the House of Commons Media Service has many more. Arguably, the Lords has had a rougher time than the Commons since the expenses scandals. I suspect that the House will have to make at least one additional appointment now, until a major review is undertaken. The website of that other Lord’s press office, at the MCC, has a snappier style and a lot more people dealing with digital media but I am certain that this Lords press office has much more trouble.
I congratulate the press office on its success in promoting the EU Committee’s reports. I have direct knowledge of the Russia and Ukraine report last February, which generated huge publicity. But who is calling the shots? In a House dominated by political parties, all with their own agenda, it is virtually impossible to provide the media with a single version of events. I think that there must be a group of media-aware Peers with recognised responsibility for answering for the House as a whole. But from a press office point of view, it would be helpful to have a more focused message from one central point. I do not advocate the Lord Speaker’s office taking on this role, as some have suggested, unless and until the role of the Lord Speaker is redefined.
Lord Norton of Louth (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Hodgson on raising this timely debate and endorse what he and other colleagues have said. In the time available, I want to raise a fundamental question, one already touched upon by the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, and the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich. It is fundamental to this House, this Parliament and indeed Parliaments generally.
If a crisis erupts affecting a company, there is a chairman or CEO who can speak for the company. Companies can, and good companies do, plan ahead in terms of crisis management. But what happens if a crisis hits the House of Lords? Who speaks for the House of Lords? Who speaks for Parliament? There is no one figure in a position to do so. That is why each House is always on the back foot if it is hit by a crisis. We cannot respond immediately and authoritatively, because there is no equivalent of a chairman or a company CEO. We need to beef up our excellent media team to be ready to respond but press officers can only inform. They can report and give information but they cannot be the face of Parliament or speak authoritatively for Parliament. That is the fundamental conundrum which we, as Members, need to address. We cannot hive off the responsibility; the sooner we address it, the better.
Lord Lipsey (Lab)
My Lords, any serious organisation takes the defence of its reputation seriously—that is, any serious organisation except this House. I will cite only one example. After one scandal—I cannot now remember whether it was over sex or drugs—it took more than two weeks while the Lord Speaker, the Leader of the House and the then Chairman of Committees argued about who should put out a statement. It was amateur night.
Four years ago, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, kindly asked me to compile a short report on the problems, which I did. My principal recommendation, which I did not think was earth-shattering, was that an ad hoc group should be set up consisting of Peers with media and PR experience and staff of the House concerned with information to chew on the coming threats and responses to them, and generally to develop the promotion of the House. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, said yes, and moved on. The noble Lord, Lord Hill, at first said no, then maybe and then—mirabile dictu—yes. He also said that he would attend—except that he had to go to Brussels instead. The noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, with her usual courtesy said no. I do not know why this has proved so difficult. It was not much, was it? Someone, somewhere among the officials of the House seems to think that such a proposal would mean that officials were in some way getting involved in politics. I simply do not get it. I suppose that after 18 years in the House, I should by now understand that even when something about it is clearly broken, someone will find a good argument for not fixing it.
Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury (Con)
My Lords, I want to focus today on the world in which the House of Lords press office has to operate. The reality is that conventional media are in decline and social media are on the rise. There is a market for information and, in the days when newspapers often had 10 million readers, it was a sellers’ market. Today, people choose what information they want through their social media and it is a buyers’ market. People want information which is immediate, bite-sized and punchy, so what is it that propels a message? It is talkability and visibility. By talkability, I mean: is the information or argument relevant and interesting, so that people want to talk about it and it engages them? A message then needs visibility, by which I mean: is it being relayed and disseminated widely across all the social media?
The challenge is what we have faced in our speeches today, with only two minutes per speech: we have to be disciplined in what we communicate and how we communicate. We have to make the message clear, focused and relevant and, as has been said, be very fleet of foot. We must use not only all the different social media but all the media.
Lord St John of Bletso (CB)
My Lords, I join in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, for introducing this short and very topical debate. I was a member of the Information Committee in 2009 when it had a report on the findings of the People and Parliament inquiry, which looked at how the House of Lords could improve public understanding of its work and role, as well as how the public could better interact with this House and Parliament. Thankfully, many of its recommendations have been taken up. There has certainly been an improvement through the information office in increasing the coverage of the role of your Lordships’ House through social media, including the Twitter and Facebook pages, as well as better coverage of some of the two and a half hour debates. Sadly, however, as everyone has mentioned, the press all too often revel in and focus on negative publicity about your Lordships’ House. Few of the public are aware of the enormous depth of expertise here or of the enormous amount of time spent in revising, examining and improving legislation.
The briefing pack for this short debate gave an excellent overview of the work and objectives of the press and media office, especially regarding your Lordships’ Select Committee reports, but there are clear limits as to what it can do to proactively publicise in an apolitical manner the progress of legislation. The press team have done their best with media rebuttals of unfair and inaccurate negative publicity about the work of your Lordships’ House and certain individuals in it. I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, that we should have a specialist communications expert to be responsible for rapid rebuttals.
The Lord Speaker’s regional outreach programme is to be commended as well as the new parliamentary education centre launched last year, which takes between 500 and 600 visitors a day, mostly school groups and teachers, and provides 20 workshops a day. I want to make just one brief recommendation: that Select Committee chairmen should take a bigger role in becoming public spokesmen for their inquiries. We certainly need to become much more proactive.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted that the Chairman of Committees is going to respond to this debate. No one is held in higher regard. He is the epitome of the great public servant and I hope that, following this debate, he will assemble a small group of your Lordships to discuss these issues and advise him as to how we can best project a positive image. It is up to us. There will always be annoying stories about champagne and other things. You only have to go to Buckingham Palace at the moment to see the Rowlandson exhibition to find that we are not the first public servants to be the butt of cruel humour and salacious yarns.
This House is a very positive institution, but the trouble is that people out there do not understand it. I would even say that people down there, in another place, do not understand it. They do not fully appreciate what we do and why we do it, or what our role is. What we have to do—I hope with the aid of the Chairman of Committees—is to extend the Peers in Schools initiatives, so that we can go into all manner of institutions to try to explain what this House does.
The people who know most about politics, it is sometimes said, are the London taxi drivers. Well, some of them do, but in the last couple of months I have had four or five who have brought me here and who have not had a clue what we do. When I have told them, they have been amazed and surprised. I have had two of them have tea with me in the House, and I think they went away with a very much more positive impression of this great institution—and it is a great institution. It is part of Parliament and is not going to be upended in the immediate future, so we have to project a positive image as often as we possibly can.
Lord Empey (UUP)
My Lords, I, too, serve on the Information Committee under the excellent chairmanship of the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy. The noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, is to be congratulated on securing this debate, because this cannot go on any longer. I know the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, said that we have been here before, but it is getting worse. We have not so far referred to the catastrophe that occurred last summer with the publicity surrounding the former Chairman of Committees. Enormous damage has been done, and the fact is that there was nobody able to come out straightaway. The champagne story is another very good example. Perhaps we could have a panel under the chairmanship of the Chairman of Committees, representative of the House, and have a spokesperson from that panel, appointed on a rota basis. Where agreement is sought but cannot be achieved, maybe we cannot move forward on a particular issue, but where there is consensus, there may be some need to go out and rebut. Although we appreciate the officials, the truth is that the media will want a Member of the House to speak to them. I hope that the Chairman of Committees, in his summing up, will address that and other issues.
The one thing I am absolutely clear about is that we cannot leave things as they are. The world is changing, our circumstances are changing, and we are being systematically undermined and ridiculed. Some of that is our own fault, but most of it is not, and we have to be prepared to fight our own corner. Nobody will pay any attention to us if we do not.
Lord Farmer (Con)
My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Empey, that in reputational terms the current situation is simply unacceptable and risks unnecessary damage being done to a vital part of the parliamentary process. Caricatures abound of ermine-clad Peers swilling champagne and swanning around your Lordships’ house at the taxpayer’s expense. That may sell newspapers, but it does not give anything of the true facts. A highly distorted myth is relentlessly peddled of everyone with their snouts in the trough, greedily pocketing £300 a day for turning up.
I do not claim any recompense because I do not need to, and I suspect others take the same approach. However, some depend on the daily allowance to make ends meet because they give so much of their time. If this were made clear to the public, who of course pay garage and plumbers’ bills per hour or per day, they might think the daily fee is in fact rather modest and even inadequate, particularly if they understand that there are many Peers whose work here restricts their earning opportunities elsewhere. Crucially, however, if our contribution is to be considered worthy of public funding, the public need to value and understand the work we do. When I was in Brussels last year for the bicentenary of the Battle of Waterloo, various European officials I met were all of the opinion that the quality of the output from your Lordships’ House—reports and legislation—puts all other secondary chambers they know in the shade.
A proactive unit would, like a think tank, tweet and otherwise publicise whenever the Government accepted an idea or implemented a committee’s recommendation, so that the public would know they were funding a body that makes a difference. Charitable agendas are often championed by Members, so the profile of important national issues is raised and we begin to see cultural change in areas such as mental health, tackling domestic violence and myriad other good causes. There is so much to shout about, every day, that would actually encourage all who pay taxes, whether individuals or businesses, to see that they are in fact getting great value for money. We might even see public support for higher daily allowances—which I would endorse whole- heartedly, although that is a subject for another debate.
Lord Oxburgh (CB)
My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, for introducing this debate and the Information Office of the House for the enormous support it has given. It did a great deal of work, which time precludes my sharing with your Lordships.
Reputations are built up slowly and can be destroyed overnight. If we look back at the press coverage, we see that four or five years ago positive and negative comments on the House were roughly evenly balanced. Since that time, we have had what we might describe as a triple whammy: the expenses scandal; the Sewel scandal; and, most recently, the so-called flooding of the House with 45 new Peers, which was not of our doing but was seen as our doing.
One must read the comments of that supportive and well-informed observer, Meg Russell, after the appointment of the new Peers:
“This has been a disastrous news week for the Lords. David Cameron’s appointment of an additional 45 new peers has met with universal media condemnation … As an Observer commentator put it, ‘where is there left to go when Polly Toynbee of the Guardian and Quentin Letts in the Mail find themselves in perfect agreement?’”.
We have a problem on which we have to act. If we take no action, that will support those who want damaging rather than constructive reform of this House. That reform will be, if you like, riding on the crest of ill-informed populist sentiment. We have to take action.
Lord Balfe (Con)
My Lords, I add my congratulations to my noble friend Lord Hodgson on initiating this most timely debate. The problem we have is that we are now seen as a legitimate target by far too many people. I will make one or two suggestions as to what we have to face up to. The noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, put his finger on one of the problems: we have to change the governance of the House. If we want things to stay the same, they have to change, to quote someone else.
First, we have to have some sort of rebuttal unit. If something appears in the press which is wrong in fact, there must be someone here who is authorised to correct it. I am not talking about the politics of it but the sheer, straightforward facts. For it to take ages for three chairmen—the Leader of the House, the Chairman of Committees and the Speaker—to agree who should write a letter about champagne is just shambolic.
Secondly, we need a proper press cuttings service so that at least in the Library and online your Lordships can see day to day what is being said. Thirdly, the political parties and the Cross Benches have to look at having a press service. There has to be a press officer in each one, so that if the rebuttal person is asked for a comment, they can say, “This is beyond my pay grade. Go to the party press office”. We must reach out. We must be much more flexible. That will require a change in governance, and we will have to face up to some problems.
I am reminded of the words from the Kipling poem,
“it’s Tommy this, an’ Tommy that”,
until you go to war. When the tax credits issue came up, we got an enormous amount of credit. Many people have come up to me about it, including one Conservative MP this week, who said, “You really did the right thing there”, although we were all whipped and did all in our power to defeat the opposition Motion. None the less, we can do things right, we must do things right and we have to shape the balance differently, but we will have to change.
Lord Dykes (Non-Afl)
I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, for initiating this debate and, incidentally, for speaking for less than the maximum time allotted to him, which was very noble and helped other speakers. I agree with virtually all the suggestions that have been made—in particular, the rebuttal unit that the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, and others mentioned. We need the proper leadership of a very senior professional person recruited from outside—without making any criticism of the existing press office, which does a wonderful job within the current framework.
A very tough, brutal American politician of some 70 years ago is known for a famous quote. He said to his rather harassed wife, “Listen honey, I’m a politician, which means that when I’m not kissing babies, I am stealing their lollipops. Never forget it”. That may be a working definition of American politics but it does not bother us, because that is the Commons, that is the Government, and that is raising taxes. We do not have to do that. That is the built-in advantage of this House: that we can—and do—do good work through our wonderful Select Committees, on an elaborate scale; through marvellous work in revising Bills, which the Commons does not have time to do properly at all; and through examples such as tax credits recently, which the public did notice. Many other things can be done, but they have to be led by a senior person recruited from outside, after careful vetting of the candidate, to ensure that we can do this properly in future.
There are so many things that we need to explain. I am very glad that the Visitors’ Unit has started at the Education Centre. It is a very impressive building. If any Peers have not had the chance, I urge them to visit it, as the noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, said. We are increasing the number of visitors to this House per annum, and that will help, but we need clever outside journalistic types to talk to the journalists in the Lobby as well. The Lobby in the Commons is an estimable institution, but it does not have any interest in the House of Lords. We must correct that.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend is to be congratulated on promoting this debate, but I hope that he will forgive me if I express a little anxiety about the particular solution. An apolitical and proactive unit sounds like an expensive unguided missile to me, and I would be cautious about it.
However, I share the great concern expressed in this House about the attacks on it. I have long thought that the second Chamber is of crucial importance to the functioning of the British constitution. That is as much to do with the deficiencies of the House of Commons as it is the excellence of what we do here. The public does not understand that. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, that one of the great counters that we should rely on is the quality of our work and the integrity of our Members, but we must respond to some of the concerns about composition, powers and numbers.
I have always supported an elected second Chamber. It will not happen, because the House of Commons will not wear it, but there are some things that we can do about numbers, for example. I know that a number of noble Lords have worked out a substantial package of proposals. I would not go down that road. I am not in favour of a “big bang” approach. There are too many potential turkeys, and such a Bill would be a Christmas tree on which every bauble is hung. I think we have to be a bit less ambitious. I would go for a few changes, starting now on numbers. I would have life peerages created for fixed terms. I would look at mandatory retirement, with suitable safeguards, and—dare I say it?—although I am conscious of the great cry of “Humbug!” that would rise up, I would also look at the by-elections for hereditaries. These are modest measures, but we need to take some because public anxiety is great.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, for introducing this debate and reassure him that although I am speaking from the Front Bench, this is not a party-political issue. We are all in this together, to quote someone. This is a very good debate, although it is a bit curious that we are rather a male group and we have heard nothing from the Benches on my left, which is very surprising because they are usually quite hot on these issues. I will be interested to hear what the Chairman of Committees is going to say in response.
I will say three things about my feelings on this issue. First, I am not surprised we are getting a bad press. The Leveson report, which was legislated for in this Parliament, was supported unanimously by your Lordships’ House, so the House was bound to be hit by those who feel aggrieved by it. In some senses, I am surprised it is not worse. The noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, may have been overestimating the capacity for gossip in the Bishops’ Bar, but he is not far wrong about where stories could be found if people were seriously trying to bring this place down.
As my noble friend Lady Donaghy and others stressed, the staff we appointed to do the work we have asked them to do so far have done a very good job, and we should compliment them on that, but if that is the case, what is the problem? It is the question that was asked in the middle of the debate about who actually speaks for the House of Lords. We need to have some answers on that. As my noble friend Lord Lipsey said, a serious organisation would make it a key priority to staff it so that a mechanism existed to preserve and enhance the reputation of this House and its work. That seems to be the issue before us today and, given the problems we face and the scale of change in communications in the external world, there is clearly a gap which needs to be filled.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Laming) (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I very much welcome the opportunity to respond to this thought-provoking short debate on a matter that we all agree is of great importance to this House. I am most grateful to noble Lords for their thoughtful contributions and, in particular, I wish to add my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, for securing this debate.
I hope that those who have contributed to the debate will have noticed that throughout I have been taking careful notes of the points that have been made because they have been well made and should be taken seriously. That being so, I hope that noble Lords will allow me to address some key themes rather than refer to individual comments. I hope I can end on something of an encouraging note because of the points that have been made this evening.
It has been very well said that communicating the role and work of the Lords is of great importance. The public must be enabled to know about the distinctive role that this House plays as a second Chamber. Noble Lords will agree that this House has special and specific duties in scrutinising and amending legislation, inviting the Government to think again and debating public policy. In my view, the House carries out those functions very well. There must be no doubt that the House administration is committed to improving the communication of the work of the House and to engaging with the public as part of the strategic plan agreed by the House Committee and the management board.
This debate has reinforced the fact that we have a good story to tell. In that context, I hope that noble Lords have had a chance to read The Work of the House of Lords, which is updated each Session. Just as a headline, it explains how in the 2014-15 Session Members of this House examined in detail 68 Bills, considered 3,449 amendments, agreed 1,257 of them, asked the Government 6,394 Questions and produced no fewer than 27 investigative Select Committee reports.
This evening it is not possible to cover all aspects of the work undertaken by the Press Office, but it is engaged in a wide range of functions and seeks to promote the work of this House proactively and, as has already been mentioned, apolitically because that is necessary in its role. Members of the House will know that the Press Office operates at the interface between the House administration and the media and covers a wide range of the House’s activities, including balloted debates, Oral Questions and legislation.
In that connection, the staff go to great lengths to build good working relationships with journalists across the media in order to explain the House’s work. They conduct fact checks of media reports and respond as quickly as possible. Their work entails daily contact with journalists to provide factual information. However, the House will understand—and this has been touched upon this evening—that the staff are not free to offer their opinions.
The Press Office places a particular emphasis on Select Committee inquiries and reports. That is, of course, because those reports are agreed on a cross-party basis and are clearly of wider interest and extensively covered in the press. The office also provides media handling on issues that affect the reputation of the House.
That is not to say that more cannot be done. We are very conscious of the need to do as much as we can in this area, but I feel sure that colleagues will understand that there are limits to what an apolitical Information Office can do. For example, we all know that one party’s victory in this House is another party’s defeat. I feel sure the House will agree that knowing that the Information Office is promoting the House neutrally and apolitically is just as important as knowing, for example, that the Legislation Office offers the same level of apolitical, professional advice to all Members across the House.
The Information Office has been using new technologies and means of communication to provide further essential information, in this case, directly to the public. We must also not forget—as has been indicated this evening—that there is a role for the political parties in explaining the work that they do in this House, and of course they are better placed to handle the strictly party-political issues.
What is clear is that the press team works hard to communicate creatively and effectively. Its work in promoting the House has developed very considerably. For example, in a recent four-week period, press notices issued by the office generated at least 150 media stories about the work of the House. I was astonished to learn that, last Session, work to promote committees led to 856 positive media items. These issues are being monitored on a daily basis. Moreover, the Press Office also works closely with the broadcasters and the House’s broadcasting unit, aiming to disseminate high-quality audio and video coverage of the work of Parliament.
A number of noble Lords have, understandably, mentioned the adverse press coverage. I want to reassure the House this evening that the Press Office and the Clerk of the Parliaments are doing their best to respond quickly and, where appropriate, robustly to unfair criticisms of this House. They have pre-agreed lines to take about a whole range of issues that one might fairly predict the media might raise. They are available for contact 24 hours a day to react to adverse press coverage. That being so, in recent weeks, as has been mentioned, their work has secured a number of corrections to inaccurate reporting in national newspapers, and this has been done in a timely fashion.
Of course, there are times when it is not possible to comment: they cannot comment, for example, on an ongoing investigation by the Commissioner for Standards or answer subjective questions about the size of the House. There are also times when we need to recognise that difficult stories have to be weathered, rather than responded to in every instance. However, a point which ought to encourage us is that the difficult stories stick rather more in our minds than the positive coverage that we receive.
We must accept that the media will take editorial positions, find stories and want to tell them. However, it is also important to recognise that media scrutiny is not necessarily intrinsically bad, and we must never lose sight of the importance of free speech and a free press to the effective functioning of a modern democracy.
Noble Lords may be interested to know that the daily media summary produced by the press and media team often contains lines taken with journalists, so that staff of the House and Members can understand the background to press stories, appreciate the steps that have been taken and explain the position themselves should they wish to do so. I should add that that daily media summary is always available in the Library on the day, and noble Lords are free to access that facility.
Understandably, we have focused largely on press and media work, but it is also worth while recognising that there are other ways in which the House tries to promote its work. For example, the pages on the website have had 175,000 views each quarter, which is an indication of how many people take an interest in the work of the House. Mention has of course been made of the very effective support that is given to the Lord Speaker’s regional outreach programme and the Peers in Schools programme, and the fact that 75,000 students meet a Member to learn about the work of this House. We continue to work closely with the education centre and with universities on understanding Parliament, and we have a digital engagement facility for the Lords Chamber.
A great deal is happening and I end on what, I hope, will be a source of encouragement for those who have taken part—so well, if I may say so—in this very important debate. The debate is most timely because a new communication strategy for the lifetime of this Parliament is now being constructed and will be considered by the relevant domestic committee of the House for approval. I know that this evening’s well-informed contributions will help to shape that document and inform the House Committee’s thinking on where the administration’s strategic resources, both financial and human, should be utilised.
As I said, this has been a most timely and constructive debate. I take the points that have been made about the possibility of engaging a group of Members in further discussion. I again express my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, for securing the debate and to all who have taken part in such a positive and constructive way. It has been extremely helpful and, from my personal point of view, time very well spent. I am very grateful.
Welfare Reform and Work Bill
(8 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Manzoor
“Application of sanctions and disallowances to Jobseeker’s Allowance
(1) The Jobseeker’s Allowance Regulations 1996 are amended as follows.
(2) After regulation 22 insert—
0“Treatment of people found not to be actively seeking employment or available for employment
22A. The Secretary of State shall, by regulations, provide that the payment of housing benefit to a person in receipt of a jobseeker’s allowance shall not cease solely because that person’s award of a jobseeker’s allowance is reduced in accordance with regulations made under section 19B of the Jobseekers Act 1995 (claimants ceasing to be available for employment etc), including for a period during which the claimant ceased to be entitled to a jobseeker’s allowance by failing to comply with the condition in section 1(2)(a) or (c) of the Jobseekers Act 1995 (availability for employment and actively seeking employment), without other due cause.”(3) In regulation 69B, omit paragraph (7).
(4) In regulation 70—
(a) for paragraph (1)(a) substitute—“(a) in any benefit week, 100% of the allowance payable to the claimant, minus the sum of 10 pence; or”; (b) in sub-paragraph (1)(b)(i), omit from “100%” to the first “couple” and insert “in any benefit week, 100% of the allowance payable to the couple, minus the sum of 10 pence”; and(c) after paragraph (3) insert—“(4) The amount referred to in paragraph (3) may not reduce, in any benefit week, the amount of a jobseeker’s allowance payable to the claimant to less than the sum of 10 pence.””
Baroness Manzoor (LD)
My Lords, I shall be brief. Noble Lords can see very clearly what the issue is—it is technical and rather complicated. It is now late. If the Minister will give the assurance that he is happy to meet me and the Child Poverty Action Group so that we can discuss the amendment in greater detail, that will be really helpful and will save me having to go through a very complex explanation. I beg to move.
Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)
My Lords, in the spirit of comradeship and friendship with the Liberal Democrats, we are very happy to support that request.
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Freud) (Con)
I think there were two parts involved in that question, so let me go through them. In answer to the first part, I will meet the noble Baroness and the CPAG. In answer to the second, I am happy to meet her and the CPAG.
Baroness Sherlock
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I rise to move Amendments 46E and 46F in my name and that of my noble friend Lord McKenzie of Luton. In doing so, I remind the House of my declared interest as a senior independent director of the Financial Ombudsman Service in case it should prove relevant to the debate.
I will not go back over the substance of the matter, as we discussed it in some detail in Committee. However, I want to push two points that I did not feel, in the end, were satisfactorily addressed by the government response. Amendment 46F seeks to retain the SMI grant scheme for claimants who are in receipt of pension credit; in other words, our poorest pensioners. In Committee, I dubbed this the reverse Salisbury-Addison amendment, reminding the House that we were helping the Government to maintain their manifesto commitment to protect all pensioner benefits, since that is, in fact, who this is mainly aimed at. My concern is that the effect of this policy is essentially to wipe out what is usually the only asset of poor pensioners, and currently their safety net in case they need equity released for care or other emergencies. As I reported last time, Age UK expressed a concern that older people would be reluctant to take on extra debt, so whereas they might have taken a grant, they will not take out loans. They may indeed compromise their own well-being by limiting essential spending instead. I do not think the Minister addressed that, so I would be grateful if he would.
I also asked a number of other specific questions. I had answers to some at the time, and answers to others in writing later. Sometimes the answers in writing were not the same as those given in Committee, but we will come on to that in a moment. I just want to deal with a couple that are left.
I raised the issue of people who die without enough equity in the house to meet the debt and who might worry that it would not leave them with enough money to pay for their funeral. I had hoped to persuade the Minister to leave a cushion untouched, but he was not having it. His response was that the family could apply for a grant, a funeral payment, from the Social Fund. So will all SMI loan recipients be automatically entitled to access a funeral payment from the Social Fund? If so, how much is it? Will it be enough to cover the fast-rising costs of a funeral all around the country?
I also asked if the loss of SMI would result in someone no longer being entitled to pension credit and thereby losing access to passported benefits such as cold weather payments, help with health costs or access to funeral payments. After a series of questions, supported by the right reverend Prelate of Durham, about the advice that would be offered to people, and having reread the record and read the letter that was given, I wish to tell the Minister what I think has been said and he can correct me if I am wrong. I understood him to say that people will get generalised guidance rather than advice about their own particular circumstances and what they should do. Is that right? I gather that the claimant may have to pay for the advice. Is that right?
During the debate the Minister assured me that the provision of advice would be independent of the party recovering the debt. He assured me that that was the case but then wrote to me afterwards and said that in fact it was not the case. I assume that he did not change his mind but that he misread his brief. Either way, can he reassure the House about that because it seems to be a potential conflict of interest? If someone who is advising a pensioner to take out a loan is also making money out of the recovery of that debt, is that not a conflict of interest? If not, how not? I asked him whether a face-to-face option would be available, at least for vulnerable clients. Can he tell me that?
Amendment 46E would require regulations for the scheme to be introduced by the affirmative procedure. The House will recall that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee expressed significant concern about the fact that the draft regulations for the SMI loan scheme had not been made available to the House for debate, given the plan that the scheme be set up by negative regulation. Effectively, the Bill abolishes the grant scheme and empowers Ministers to create a loan scheme but there are no draft regulations before us. Under the proposals they would be introduced under the negative procedure. The committee therefore recommended that regulations under this clause should be subject to the affirmative procedure. It is usual practice that such a recommendation would be followed. Can the Minister confirm that this will happen? If for some reason he cannot, can he tell the House when the Government last refused such a recommendation from the DPRRC? I beg to move
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, we briefly went round this course in Committee. The noble Baroness has raised a number of points to which the Minister will want to respond. However, I am not sure that she made a forceful argument for her Amendment 46F, which seeks to exempt a group of people from this new provision.
Looking at the Bill as a whole, this seems the least painful way of reducing public expenditure, and the argument for looking to this clause for savings is not as strong as the case that could be made in other parts of the Bill. The Opposition recognised this because, in their amendment to the Bill on Second Reading in another place, they specifically said that loans for mortgage interest were a necessary change to the welfare system. So the principle of switching from grants to loans was conceded by the opposition party in another place.
The operation of what is proposed makes no difference to the pensioner at all—the money will simply be paid from the department to the lender—and the impact on the standard of living and the income of the pensioner is wholly unaffected; their day-to-day income is unchanged. The Government’s proposal is that they will continue to get exactly the same level of support as they do at the moment. The fact that the loan may eventually be recovered from their estate has minimal bearing on their financial position, although of course their heirs may take a slightly different view. One has to balance the expectations of the heirs against the taxpayer, who at the moment is footing the bill. Given the imperative to reduce welfare expenditure, it seems to me that this is one of the least objectionable ways of doing it, and I very much hope that the amendment will not be pressed to a Division.
Lord Freud
My Lords, Amendment 46E would apply the affirmative procedure to the support for mortgage interest loan regulations as recommended by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. The committee opined that these are novel provisions which are likely to have a significant impact on a large number of people. This is true, but the part which is novel is the change in this support from a benefit to a loan. In all other aspects the level of support offered and the way the system will be administered will simply replicate the existing system. The committee made its recommendation before your Lordships debated these measures in detail. I have been quite clear about how the new loan system will be implemented and that the regulations we will bring forward will replicate the existing SMI system. Using the affirmative procedure for these regulations would therefore not be a good use of parliamentary time.
I will come to the government amendments, which may actually be the real palliative here because we will have SSAC reports in this area. If they come up with something there is space within the negative procedure to bring issues before the House. The committee did not have that information about what we were planning with SSAC. I should also point out that the current SMI regulations are subject to the negative procedure.
Amendment 46F would prevent the Government from changing the benefit into a loan for those on state pension credit. It would allow regulations to be made to create a system of grants for pensioners’ mortgage interest. This would mean that pensioners would receive help with their mortgage interest as a grant rather than a loan and that that would be the case indefinitely. In this context that would be unsustainable and clearly unfair on the taxpayer. It is not right that taxpayers, many of whom of course cannot afford to buy their own home, are subsidising the acquisition of what in many cases is a very substantial asset. Pensioners will have access to the same level of support for mortgage interest payments as the current system provides and the Government will not recover the loan until the property is sold. With pension credit claimants, it is most likely that this will be on their death and therefore will impact not on them but on the beneficiaries of their will. My noble friend made the point that they may not be that pleased, but the balance is between them and the taxpayer.
I shall pick up on some of the specific points. Pension credit claimants will have access to passported benefits such as funeral payments. We would normally provide advice through a telephone conversation and the advice will focus on the circumstances of the individual concerned with regard to their options, asking whether they have alternatives available such as downsizing or help from relatives or their heirs. I think that the noble Baroness should take my last word on the issue of who would do this as I wrote in my letter. To the extent that that contradicts what I said earlier, it should be the latter. Our view is that whatever theoretical potential conflict there might be, we will make sure as we set out the arrangements that there is no conflict in the way it is done. I think that that is what I expressed in my letter, although perhaps not using that language.
Let me reassure noble Lords that the Government will seek to recover the debt only up to the level of available equity when the property is sold. Any outstanding debt will be written off. The amendment would also provide powers to introduce regulations to introduce a waiting period for pensioners before they can receive help. There is currently no waiting period for help with mortgage interest for pensioner claimants and it is not the Government’s intention to introduce one. With those explanations, I urge noble Lords not to press the amendments.
Amendments 47 to 49 and 83 provide that loans for mortgage interest regulations made under the Welfare Reform and Work Bill are submitted to SSAC, the independent statutory body that provides impartial advice on social security and related matters for consideration. With the introduction of the new loans-based scheme, help with mortgage interest will no longer be a part of benefit entitlement. However, we recognise the important role that SSAC plays in the scrutiny of regulations and have accepted the recommendation of the DPRRC to provide that regulations relating to loans for mortgage interest fall within the remit of SSAC. I have just realised that I slightly misspoke when I implied that the committee might not have both those bits of information. Perhaps I may also withdraw that point.
The amendments also ensure that certain decision-making rules in the Social Security Act 1998 apply to decisions about SMI loans in the same way as they apply to decisions about benefits. In particular, this will ensure that an appeal may be brought against a decision relating to a mortgage interest loan in the same way as an appeal may be brought against a decision relating to a benefit. This means that applicants will have the same appeal rights as under the existing provision for support with mortgage interest, ensuring fairness for applicants of the new loan provision. They will allow the department to supply information about SMI loans within the broader welfare system to persons who are concerned with the provision of welfare services. For example, it will allow the Secretary of State to share information with those providing free school meals and health benefits such as free prescriptions, so that recipients of SMI loans can access these “passported” benefits. I think that that picks up on the point made by the noble Baroness about concerns with the passporting issues.
The final amendment is a minor and technical change to the Long Title. The purpose of SMI loans is to prevent repossessions. All types of mortgages and loans are eligible for support under the new loan system. This change ensures that the Long Title accurately reflects the contents of the Bill by including a reference to “other liabilities”.
Baroness Sherlock
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that response. I hope that he will take away again the point about the DPRRC. I certainly welcome the move to refer the regulations to SSAC but, welcome though SSAC is and much as I respect its expertise, it is not Parliament. Parliament should have the opportunity to debate this. He mentioned that the DPRRC recognises that regulations for loans for the grant scheme were negative. I am working from memory but I think that the committee pointed out that, had the draft regulations been available, it would have recommended negative in the ordinary run of things because the original regulations had been negative. In fact, the draft regulations were not available, which is why it recommended the affirmative procedure. Will he go away and think about that?
The fact that the Minister said that the service normally will be by telephone gives me a glimmer of hope that the department might be willing to consider a face-to-face service for vulnerable consumers. I hope he will consider that. I will not take on the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Young, although I disagree with him. Given the lateness of the hour and the fact that we went around this issue fairly effectively in Committee, I will set that to one side. I thank the Minister for his other comments. I hope that when he looks at the record he will check the presumptions that I have made as to the operation of the scheme. Should any of those prove to be wrong and not to have been corrected by him, I hope that he will write to me. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Freud
“( ) In section 170 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 (Social Security Advisory Committee), in subsection (5)—
(a) in the definition of “the relevant enactments”, after paragraph (an) insert—“(ao) sections 16, 17 and 19 of the Welfare Reform and Work Act 2016;”;(b) in the definition of “the relevant Northern Ireland enactments”, after paragraph (an) insert—“(ao) any provisions in Northern Ireland which correspond to sections 16, 17 and 19 of the Welfare Reform and Work Act 2016;”.”
“( ) In section 2 of the Social Security Act 1998 (use of computers), in subsection (2)—
(a) omit the “or” after paragraph (m);(b) after paragraph (n) insert “or(o) sections 16 to 19 of the Welfare Reform and Work Act 2016.”( ) In section 8 of the Social Security Act 1998 (decisions by Secretary of State)—
(a) in subsection (3) (meaning of “relevant benefit”), after paragraph (bb) insert—“(bc) a loan under section 16 of the Welfare Reform and Work Act 2016;”;(b) in subsection (4) (meaning of “relevant enactment”), for “or section 30 of that Act” substitute “, section 30 of that Act or sections 16 to 19of the Welfare Reform and Work Act 2016”.( ) In section 11 of the Social Security Act 1998 (regulations with respect to decisions), in subsection (3), in the definition of “the current legislation”, for “and section 30 of that Act” substitute “, section 30 of that Act and sections 16 to 19 of the Welfare Reform and Work Act 2016”.
( ) In section 28 of the Social Security Act 1998 (correction of errors and setting aside of decisions), in subsection (3)—
(a) omit the “or” after paragraph (i);(b) after paragraph (j) insert “; or(k) sections 16 to 19 of the Welfare Reform and Work Act 2016.”( ) In section 39 of the Social Security Act 1998 (interpretation etc of Chapter 2 of Part 1), after subsection (1) insert—
“(1A) In this Chapter—
(a) a reference to a benefit includes a reference to a loan under section 16 of the Welfare Reform and Work Act 2016;(b) a reference to a claim for a benefit includes a reference to an application for a loan under section 16 of the Welfare Reform and Work Act 2016;(c) a reference to a claimant includes a reference to an applicant for a loan under section 16 of the Welfare Reform and Work Act 2016 or, in relation to a couple jointly applying for a loan under that section, a reference to the couple or either member of the couple;(d) a reference to an award of a benefit to a person includes a reference to a decision that a person is eligible for a loan under section 16 of the Welfare Reform and Work Act 2016;(e) a reference to entitlement to a benefit includes a reference to eligibility for a loan under section 16 of the Welfare Reform and Work Act 2016.””
“( ) In section 131 of the Welfare Reform Act 2012 (information-sharing in relation to welfare services etc), in subsection (12), in the definition of “relevant social security benefit” for the words from “has” to the end substitute “means—
(a) a relevant social security benefit as defined in section 121DA(7) of the Social Security Administration Act 1992, or(b) a loan under section 16 of the Welfare Reform and Work Act 2016 (loans for mortgage interest etc);”.”
“(c) the accommodation is owned by a fully mutual housing co-operative within the meaning of paragraph 12(1)(h) of Schedule 1 to the Housing Act 1988 (local authority tenancies etc);(d) the accommodation is owned by a community land trust within the meaning of section 79 of the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008 (English bodies).”
Lord Best (CB)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendments 50 and 51, the first two amendments in the group, in my name and those of the noble Lords, Lord McKenzie of Luton, Lord Shipley and Lord Kerslake, and to support the other amendments in the group that follow in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Ramsbotham and Lord Kerslake, and the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher.
We return to the rent cuts of 12% over four years for the housing associations and councils. This will achieve savings for the Treasury in housing benefit of approaching £2 billion per annum by 2020 and every year thereafter. The problem is that, although the major developing housing providers can absorb this unwelcome loss of income by reducing the extra services they supply, and/or doing a bit less new building, and/or running down their reserves, some housing bodies cannot take the hit. The aim of Amendments 50 and 51 is to prevent the rent cuts impeding the vital work of these organisations.
There is no margin for a rent cut where the organisation, or the specialist part of a larger housing provider, does not currently make any surplus to set aside, either because rents are carefully kept at a level that covers only loan costs and management and maintenance costs—as with the co-ops and community land trusts covered by Amendment 50—or because the provision of extra services means that existing rents are barely enough, as with the supported housing and extra care housing for older people covered by Amendment 51. The 12% rent cut would clobber the housing associations in these categories for very slim pickings for the Treasury.
I couple my comments on these proposed rent cuts with an equal concern about the proposal that housing benefits for all social housing tenants should be capped at the level for private sector tenants—that is, at the local housing allowance ceilings. Again, the tenants of the major housing providers, whose rents are mostly way below those in the private sector, should not be too hard hit—although, as an aside, I am very worried about some of those aged under 35 who would suddenly get only the shared accommodation rate. But, the biggest problem of the LHA rent cap is, again, supported housing and extra care schemes for older people, where the rents are much higher than for a similar home let by a private landlord because, of course, the work of the provider of supported housing goes far beyond simple property management and maintenance. The LHA private sector cap is clearly entirely inappropriate for supported housing. Applying it in April 2018 for all those who become tenants after 1 April 2016 would mean that very few of the residents who move in just two months from now could continue to stay in this specialist accommodation in two years’ time. Where would they all go if the projects have to close or the supported accommodation has to be switched to general needs housing?
In response to these points on rent cuts and benefit caps, and following representations from many charities working in this field, including Riverside, St Mungo’s Broadway, YMCA, Crisis, Homeless Link and the National Housing Federation, the Minister has taken some very constructive decisions that he will, no doubt, spell out tonight. I am delighted that the noble Lord has determined that housing under all the categories in my amendments—including the housing co-operatives, community land trusts and almshouses, which were of special concern to the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham—are to be taken out of the rent cuts while better arrangements are determined, with increases in rent permitted in line with the existing regulations for the time being.
I welcome the Minister’s decision to work in close collaboration with the relevant specialist providers to use a one-year moratorium on rent cuts to devise a satisfactory basis for determining the funding arrangements for supported housing. This is entirely sensible and the Minister will be able to take into account the findings from an important supported housing review by Ipsos MORI, which he has instigated. I am grateful to him for the care and attention he has given to this matter and for today’s important announcement.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I will not detain the House that long, but I want first to pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Best, in particular and to other colleagues for the progress that has been made in discussions with the Minister on this important matter. Some associations would find it difficult to manage properly with such a reduction.
I received two letters this morning. One was from the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Freud, explaining the policy the Government are now following, which is a welcome change and I thank him for that. I hope it will prove to be a durable, long-term solution to the problem. I also had a letter from the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford, also dated 27 January. I had asked a question about the cost of supported housing being exempt from the 1% rent reduction, and I had been told that the total sum involved was around £75 million a year. There has not been clarity about that sum. I am surprised that the Government do not seem to know the cost they will have to meet, given the decision not to implement the measure for one year and, hopefully, for longer. Is there a figure to which the Government are working? I look forward to the Minister’s reply because when we are discussing policy in your Lordships’ Chamber, it is important that we have some idea of the sums involved. If it proves to be true that the figure is £75 million, that is not in fact a significant sum.
As I say, I look forward to hearing the Minister’s reply. I welcome the progress that has been made on this matter, which will be very gratefully received by many people outside your Lordships’ House.
The Earl of Listowel (CB)
My Lords, having six weeks ago spoken to a mother who had just moved into a refuge with her daughter and granddaughter, and heard from her about the years of abuse she had experienced in her family home, I am very grateful to my noble friends, noble Lords and the Minister for the announcement that he has made today.
Lord Kerslake (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interest as chair of Peabody and president of the Local Government Association. I support Amendment 50 and wish to speak specifically to Amendments 53, 61 and 63. I will keep my comments brief as I am conscious of the hour.
I add my welcome to the movement and the moratorium referred to by other noble Lords. This is a demonstration of the Government listening and acting, which I welcome. I reinforce the importance of taking early decisions and not using the whole year for the review process, not just because of the uncertainty for existing schemes but for investment in new schemes that are so desperately needed.
Amendment 53 follows on from the debate we had in Committee, when we debated the very abrupt move from the 10-year plan of CPI plus 1% for rent increases to a four-year period when there would be a 1% reduction per annum. We had a considerable debate on what the impact of that change of policy would be. In tabling an amendment in Committee, I was ever hopeful that after the four-year period the Government might return to the original 10-year plan. However, the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, made it clear that that was not the Government’s intention and that they would take a decision on future rent movements in four years’ time. Given the difference of view on this issue, with the Institute for Fiscal Studies clearly saying that there will be a loss of housing association new build as a result of this policy and the Government’s view that the figure will be absorbed through efficiencies and reductions in surpluses, it seems to me imperative that an evaluation is undertaken before policy is set in four years’ time. I emphasise that it should be an evaluation, not simply monitoring the existing policies, and that that evaluation should be independently commissioned.
There is plenty of precedent in government for doing this—for example, with the new homes bonus, where such an independent evaluation was produced and published, and, indeed, influenced government policy on the bonus going forward. It is good practice for government when they introduce such a significant change to not just monitor the impact of that change but to evaluate its impact in the widest sense. That is why I think this amendment is so important. I would like to hear from the Minister what the Government’s view of this is but also how they expect to assess this impact.
Amendments 61 and 63 come together because they relate to social rents and affordable rent. I take very seriously the debate we had yesterday on the Housing and Planning Bill, and particularly the Minister’s view that we should do everything possible to maximise new housebuilding in this country. I endorse that view, whatever that new housing happens to be. This issue is specifically about new build schemes and the flexibility there has hitherto been for setting rents at the commencement of those schemes. This relates not to the viability of the housing association but to the individual schemes. It is why I have tabled the amendments which perhaps require a bit of elaboration.
When a housing association considers its investment programme in new supply, it looks at two things. First, it looks at its wider viability as a housing association and the risks attached to the scale of the programme it is undertaking. The second thing is to look at the viability of the individual scheme before it commits to it. In some cases the scheme will be highly viable and profitable and would go ahead regardless of this rent reduction. In other cases there will be schemes that were not viable before and with the rent reduction would most certainly not be viable now.
However, there is a small but important group of schemes which are on the margin of viability, with risks that are evenly balanced. Having the flexibility to start the rent at a slightly different point at the time the scheme starts will crucially influence whether those schemes go ahead and whether they do so now. This is the particular issue that I am focused on. It will not be a big cost but the numbers could be important. Given the crisis that we face on housing, “every little helps”. I hope that Ministers will hear this point and retain that flexibility. The small cost that is involved will be far outweighed by the confidence it gives to housing associations to go ahead with their schemes. I urge the Government to consider this carefully.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham (Lab)
My Lords, I have a brief comment and a brief question.
I support everything that the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, has said. On Amendment 53, I urge the Minister to take seriously the need for housing associations to be able to plan their building programme and their revenues more than three to four years ahead. The viability of their bank covenants depend on that, and, therefore, their capacity to manage new investment. If there is a query as to whether this 1% rent reduction will be continuing in three years, in whatever form, there will be a serious question mark over the Government’s ability to meet their goal of affordable housing through the social landlord sector.
I urge the Minister to take that amendment very seriously. Some of us have been engaged in negotiations with banks worried about there being no direct payments and therefore tenants having to pay rent out of their UC. They were worried that this would destabilise the rent roll and asked if they could refloat their loans at X, Y or Z. Some of us have already been through that and banks are quite willing to inflate a risk in order to get the revenue returns they would like to see on their covenants. Therefore, the more predictability the Minister can give us, the better. I hoped we would have a clear line, and that after 2019-20 this would stop. If it does not, housing associations and local authorities will have real difficulty in managing their business plans.
Like everyone else I welcome the one-year suspension of the 1% rent reduction in the social rental and supported housing sector. Can the Minister tell me how that will end? Does he expect to notify the House by virtue of an SI? In other words, will he say to the House that from this point on this accommodation will, as a result of this review, be expected to have a 1% rent reduction? Will the Government claim financial privilege, given that it will be a financial measure, so that this House will find it very difficult to discuss it and, possibly, ask the other place to reconsider?
The Lord Bishop of Durham
My Lords, I support Amendment 51 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Best. I am speaking partly on behalf of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Rochester, who spoke on this matter in Committee.
Prior to being the Bishop of Durham I was the Bishop of Southwell and Nottingham, and I had the privilege of working closely with Framework, which provides much supported housing across Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire, Lincolnshire and South Yorkshire. Andrew Redfern is its incredibly impressive chief executive, and I quote him:
“We house more than 1,200 of the most vulnerable people in the communities we serve. They include rough sleepers, people with mental health, drug and alcohol problems, care leavers, young mothers and people with multiple and complex needs”.
He goes on to say:
“The exemption of specified accommodation from the 1% rent cut will offer some breathing space—a fighting chance to save what has survived the various rounds of local authority de-commissioning. If specified accommodation is not exempted, we will lose about half of our current provision over the next four years. Homelessness and rough sleeping will continue to increase”.
I am delighted to hear that the Minister has proposals that will be good news to Framework and many other providers, and I look forward to conveying it to them.
Baroness Manzoor
My Lords, I, too, very much welcome the letter that the Minister sent to all noble Lords earlier today. As I said in Committee, it is vital that supported housing and specified housing are looked at very carefully because this would have had an adverse impact on them. I hope that during this period while evaluation takes place, as the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, argued, so that there is some comfort for the future as to what happens within this type of accommodation. It is the very basic bare necessity for people who need it, and we have already discussed the people who need to use not only the accommodation but the services that are provided by these types of organisations.
In my haste to withdraw Amendment 46C, I did not thank the Minister for saying that he would meet me and the Child Poverty Action Group. I thank him very much for that.
Lord Ramsbotham (CB)
My Lords, in speaking to my Amendment 52, I do so very much in context rather than proposing it. I thank the Minister, first, for seeing me before Christmas on this and other issues and, secondly, for his very welcome letter this morning. At the same time, I salute my noble friend Lord Best for his mastery and tireless pursuit of social housing issues.
I am very glad that this moratorium has been imposed and I sincerely hope that the Minister will encourage urgent consultation with organisations such as the almshouses and the YMCA, which he mentioned in his letter, and which I would have mentioned if the amendment had been going forward as normal. What was unfortunate about the way that the Bill was proposed was that it led to unintended consequences, which I think officials would do very well to consider in the consultation, in which they will hear from the YMCA, the almshouses and others about what would have been the effect if these proposals had been allowed to go forward.
Lord Young of Cookham
My Lords, from these Benches I join other noble Lords in commending the negotiating skills of the noble Lord, Lord Best. As a former Housing Minister, I know what a plausible advocate he can be on behalf of those in social housing. I also commend my noble friend the Minister for listening to the case made by both sides in this House a few weeks ago.
The only clarification I seek from my noble friend is in relation to Amendment 51, which says:
“Section 21 does not apply to social housing which meets the definition of supported housing”.
I wonder if my noble friend can confirm that it will be absolutely clear, if we go ahead with this amendment or something similar to it, exactly which housing schemes will benefit from the exemption and which will fall outside, and, related to that, how the good news he is about to announce will be communicated to those associations or organisations which run operations that will qualify under Amendment 51 and indeed some of the other related amendments.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I declare an interest as the chair of the National Housing Federation. I speak in favour of Amendment 51, which seeks to protect schemes that house some of the most vulnerable people in the country from a damaging cut to their rents.
In answer to a question from me on Monday on the associated issue of the local housing allowance cap, the noble Lord, Lord Freud, referred to a review of the supported housing sector. That review was referred to again today in another place. Indeed, much has been said today in another place on both rent cuts and the LHA cap. It is only right that we fairly consider what has been said in another place and factor that into our discussions here. Referring to the review, the Government said that it would report urgently by the end of March. In addition, we have heard of a one-year delay in the implementation of the 1% rent cut for supported housing. This extra year’s delay is welcome, since it means that incomes will not be reduced as much as feared. Unfortunately, that is only at the margins when measured against the impact of the LHA cap on supported housing as announced in the spending review. This will have a much more significant and lasting impact, and is a threat to the very existence of much supported housing.
The National Housing Federation has been pressing the Government to urgently clarify that the LHA will apply only to working-age tenants in general needs accommodation. The Government have not done so. A survey of NHF members showed that this lack of certainty will result in 156,000 homes becoming unviable and being forced to close—41% of the sector—while 2,400 homes planned for development will now not be built. I find it hard to believe that it can be even remotely possible that it is the Government’s intention to put all this supported housing at risk. The impact on vulnerable people will be acute: on the elderly, people with disabilities, those fleeing domestic violence and those who served our country in the Armed Forces. The knock-on impact on public services in trying to pick up the pieces will be immense. These services desperately need a long-term commitment to safeguard their future.
The Government had the opportunity today in another place to set this right and clarify their intentions. They did not do it. The Government will carry out a review of how supported housing is funded—excellent. But surely the purpose of a review is to think first and only then act. Why create this level of uncertainty leaving housing association boards, which have to take decisions about future provision now, completely blind-sided about whether or when the cap may now be introduced? A one-year delay on the rent cut, welcome though it is, may not make much difference at all on this issue. The uncertainty is having a damaging and dangerous effect now. Tough decisions are being taken already: to close supported housing schemes; not to renew contracts; and to halt development of new schemes because there is not the certainty that they will be affordable in the near future, whether that be in two years or three. Protective redundancy notices are being prepared now. No provider can risk the cost of new building unless they are confident that the rent will cover that cost.
The announcement made by the Government today will do nothing to allay the fears on this issue of housing associations or the people living in these homes. I urge the Minister to think again and announce now that the LHA cap does not apply to supported and sheltered housing. I also urge the Government, through him, to work with the sector to develop a long-term sustainable funding model for supported housing.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, we support each of the amendments set down in this group and have added our names to some of them. On Amendments 50, 51 and 52, we join other noble Lords in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Best, on his negotiating skills—doubtless assisted in that endeavour by the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake—and the Minister for listening and helping with at least a partial solution.
The deferral of the rent reduction programme is clearly welcome. The clarification on the comfort in respect of LHA caps is clearly important as well. The more that the Minister can say on that, the better. My noble friend Lady Warwick has outlined some of the problems because of the known existence of that aspiration. The Minister could, I hope, therefore go further. It is always the way that Ministers come forward with concessions, and then everybody piles in and wants just that little bit more, but this is a very important issue.
That raises the question of where that leaves the amendments, as the Minister’s proposition in his correspondence effectively covers co-operatives, almshouses and community land trusts, as well as housing associations. Are the Government going to accept the amendments, substitute something for them or simply rely on what is on the record of this debate?
The noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, spoke to Amendments 53, 61 and 63, each of which we can support. He stressed the importance of an independent evaluation of what has gone on, in good time for rent policy for the subsequent period to be settled. In respect of Amendments 61 and 63, the noble Lord explained the importance of flexibility in respect of new-build, particularly for schemes of marginal feasibility. We had a very helpful meeting with members of the Bill team and the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, on this. Hopefully, embedded in this long list of government amendments is one that addresses that issue specifically. It may not necessarily have the breadth or flexibility the noble Lord is seeking, but I think it at least seeks to address the principle.
Amendment 59A, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Manzoor, proposes a report on local housing allowance rates. We debated this in Committee, but the Minister probably still owes us a reply. The purpose of that discussion was to recognise that, with the moratorium following the 1% limitation, LHA rates are increasingly going to move away from the reality of what renting in the private sector actually entails.
The noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, was clearly pleased with the outcome for almshouses. All in all, we should be grateful to the Minister for responding as he has—or hopefully will—at the Dispatch Box in confirming this. This is a real issue of substance which was worrying many people.
The noble Lord, Lord Best, is probably happy with the definition of supported housing that we have here, which is the broadest possible. I know there have been issues with specified support—what is in and what is out—but I take it from the correspondence and what has gone before that the moratorium is in respect of the widest definition of supported accommodation.
Lord Freud
I will start by picking up a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, on unintended consequences. The House of Lords has done its job in alerting us to some unintended consequences in time for us to sort them out. I know that I rely on this House for that again and again, and in this case I express my gratitude to a number of noble Lords—with the noble Lord, Lord Best, leading the field—for enabling us to deal with these issues.
Let me now do the business on these amendments. Amendments 50 and 51 would exempt housing co- operatives, community land trusts and supported accommodation, while Amendment 52 would extend that exemption to almshouses. I will just make a few comments before I turn to the rent reductions in social housing. We face a challenge on the overall housing benefit bill and believe that social housing providers need to play their part in helping to bring that bill down. However, we also recognise the vital role that many housing providers play in supporting people who need the most help.
The Government have always made it clear that our policy will protect the most vulnerable members of society. To achieve that, the Bill has built into it the flexibility to except some social housing and provide exemptions for providers facing financial difficulty as a result of the reduction. We have also made several amendments to the Bill, including some today, which we believe will be helpful.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe
Might I press the Minister for a moment on the LHA cap issue? I am not quite clear about what he means. He said that he could not be specific, and I understand that, but I am very conscious of the uncertainties that boards now face as regards the decisions they have to take in the next few weeks. Do we take it from what he said that the slate is clean as far as they are concerned, there is no assumption that the LHA cap will be applied and that the outcome of the review will look at this afresh?
Lord Freud
There will be a review, which will look at how we fund. We have given ourselves a year to come up with that, so clearly they can look to that in the medium term. However, I have already said that we accept that it is urgent to make sure that their immediate concerns are taken off the table, and we are working to make sure, as we look forward to a more fundamental review, that those protections in that short-term period are in place.
Lord Kerslake
The proposal with regard to the exemption and flexibility for the regulator in those difficult circumstances is entirely welcome. Although it does not go as far as I sought, it is a very helpful move indeed, so I thank the Minister.
Lord Best
My Lords, this has been an excellent debate. Many thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, my noble friends Lord Listowel and Lord Kerslake—I was pleased to hear him say that he welcomed the announcement by the Minister—and the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, who may have been satisfied to some extent on the process. We should have a chance to debate these things in the future. I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham, who told us about the work of Framework, a typical housing association, which is feeling very nervous and which, I hope we are pretty well fully reassured, will not go out of business as a result of these measures—that will just not happen. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Manzoor, my noble friend Lord Ramsbotham, for championing the cause of the almshouses, the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, for joining in very helpfully; and the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick. She continues to feel fearful but I hope that she gained the distinct impression that it would be a bad idea to hold back on the basis of thinking, “The Government will probably let us down; the rents won’t meet what is required”.
For some years I chaired one of the housing associations—Hanover, which runs the most extra care housing schemes in the country. I thought to myself, “Knowing what I know, would I say to my board that it is too risky to go ahead with an extra care scheme in these circumstances, because by 2018 we may find that there is no money on the table and we will go out of business?”. I would say from the chair, “Let’s go for it. I don’t believe we’re going to be put out of business”, but I fully accept that some of my fellow board members might take a more cautious view. That is the anxiety that remains until the Minister is able to come up with something that has a watertight guarantee. However, his words tonight were as reassuring as we could expect them to be.
I echo the Minister’s tribute to the many organisations that have beaten a path to his door. I am sure that they were much more influential than myself or anyone else in this House because they bring the real experience of the front line through to the ministerial office. I am delighted that he is deeply committed to engaging those same organisations in the process that now follows to find a permanent solution.
However, best of all, I am very pleased that the Minister has been able to announce that, while the review takes place and Ipsos MORI comes up with its research, with the providers being part of the process of finding a permanent solution, rents can be increased by CPI plus 1% in these schemes. That will keep the wolf from the door. I have pleasure in begging leave to withdraw the amendment.
“(b) regulations under section 26 of that Act, or(c) Part 1 of Schedule 2 to that Act.””
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)
My Lords, the amendments in this group are mainly technical in nature. The majority of them respond to points raised by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and we hope that they will be welcomed. Others stem from issues which we have identified might have been of concern to social housing providers, or they might be helpful to them in accommodating the rent reduction measure.
I start by addressing some of the points raised by the committee. In its report it expressed concern both that the power in Clause 26 to make provision for excepted cases through regulations was drafted too widely, which could provide latitude to make different provision for rent control or enforcement, and that negative procedures apply here. The powers under Clause 28 provide important flexibility to put in place, by means of regulations, alternative provision for how maximum rents should be determined in special cases. Our broad intention is to use these powers either to relax the requirements for social housing providers or to protect tenants.
However, we recognise some of the committee’s concerns and, in response, have brought forward Amendment 77, which restricts the use of the power so that it may not be used to increase the annual 1% reduction specified in the Bill or to impose a maximum rent below the social rent rate in a case where an exception from Part 1 of Schedule 2 applies. The amendment also provides clarity regarding how the power may be used to apply modifications of the provisions.
The power remains a wide one, and necessarily so, because it will allow the flexibility to put in place provisions which soften the effect on providers of the rent restriction measure. It will also put in place protection for tenants and, if necessary, make provision for new rent products launched during the life of this measure. These are important flexibilities to ensure the proportionate application of the Bill’s provisions so that they are aligned, as far as possible, with the current rent policy, and they will enable us to respond to developments in the sector. It is not our intention to use them to put in place significantly different or more onerous provision for large swathes of social housing. That is why we have not accepted the committee’s recommendation that regulations under this power should be affirmative. That would make implementing measures intended to assist providers or help tenants more burdensome and it would curtail the Government’s ability to act quickly to modify the effect of provisions where required.
Amendment 80 is consequential on Amendment 77, and Amendment 65 is, in turn, consequential on Amendment 80.
The committee also expressed concerns about the different approach to enforcement of Part 1 of Schedule 2 and of regulations under Clause 26—both, as originally drafted, powers to provide for enforcement—as well as enforcement of Clause 21, which is on the face of the Bill. We accept that there should be consistency of approach, so Amendments 54 to 58, 74 and 78 align enforcement of Schedule 2 and Clause 26 with that of Clause 21 so that all enforcement will be provided for on the face of the Bill through Clause 24. Amendment 60 is consequential on Amendment 74. Amendment 59 is a consequential amendment which transposes Clause 24 to after Clause 28.
We are grateful to the committee for identifying an inconsistency in drafting relating to the definition of formula rent and have brought forward Amendment 64 to address this. We have also taken the opportunity to clarify that the power to define formula rent includes the power to provide that it is a rent set in accordance with a method specified in regulations. The committee also expressed the view that delegation of the power to define “formula rent” is inappropriate in the absence of a proper justification and includes unacceptable sub-delegation. I hope that I will be able to reassure the House on both points.
As many of your Lordships will know, formula rent is a principle that is well understood in the social housing sector and a key element of the current rent policy regime. We have been clear that the definition of formula rent in the Bill will be aligned to the definition under the rent standard and government guidance on the reference date, albeit with the qualification that the flexibility to deviate from formula in exceptional circumstances will no longer be available. That policy intention has been subject to parliamentary scrutiny and, given that the method for determining formula rent is complex and involves reference to numerous tables of supporting data, we remain of the view that it is appropriate to set the definition out in secondary legislation and to refer to the rent standard and guidance from which that definition is derived. We do not accept that cross-reference to these historic documents is inappropriate, but do accept that the drafting did not make the intentions in this regard clear. Amendment 64, therefore, restricts such references to the rent standard and guidance documents applicable on the reference date.
Finally, the committee expressed similar reservations about the power to define affordable rent. Having reflected on them, we have tabled Amendment 70 to address the criticism of sub-delegation. We agree that cross-referring from the regulations to the content of the rent standard and guidance documents is not necessary. Instead, the regulations may provide that it is a rent set in accordance with a method specified or described in regulations. However, again, the Government’s clear view remains that the complexities of the definition are such that they are more appropriately dealt with in secondary legislation, which can, if necessary, be adjusted to reflect the terms of new affordable rent agreements.
I now turn to Amendments 66 to 68. These are important amendments to address a drafting oversight and to allow the continuation of the present policy that affordable rent housing may be let at the social rent rate when this is higher than the affordable rent, as may be the case in some low market-value areas.
Amendments 71 and 82 will enable continuation of the present policy that affordable rents are inclusive of service charge when determined on the percentage of market rent principle, but exclusive of service charge when determined on the social rent model.
Amendment 79 is a consequential amendment and removes the definition of “affordable rent housing” and “affordable rent” from the interpretation section, as these terms are no longer used other than in Schedule 2. Amendment 69 adds an example to the list in paragraph 4(4) of types of arrangements and agreements to which the definition of “affordable rent housing” may refer.
I now turn briefly to Amendments 72 and 73. I know that my noble friend Lady Williams had a helpful meeting with some of your Lordships to explain the purpose of these amendments. They amend Schedule 2, paragraphs 6(2) and (8), and would enable the regulator of social housing or the Secretary of State to issue an exemption allowing a provider to set initial rents at a specified percentage above the social rent rate if the statutory conditions for granting such an exemption are met.
Amendment 81 is a small clarification that, for the purpose of calculating rent reductions, the day on which a tenancy begins or ends should be treated as a full day. The purpose of this is to simplify calculations for providers.
Amendment 62 modifies the principles for determining the assumed rent in order to avoid disadvantaging providers who implement their annual rent increases later in the year than 8 July. An “assumed rent” is a rent set by reference to the rent of a previous tenant, and this amendment corrects a drafting anomaly which could have meant that, in certain circumstances, the assumed rent would be determined by reference to the provider’s 2014-15 rate, not the 2015-16 rate as intended. Again, the Government’s intention here is that this amendment should prove helpful to providers.
Amendments 75 and 76 are consequential amendments.
I apologise to noble Lords, but I misspoke earlier: I was supposed to have said Clause 26 and not Clause 28. Due to the technical nature of these explanations, if it would be helpful, I am happy to write to noble Lords to clarify exactly what I meant and to correct what I said. Because it is late and these are technical amendments, I am very happy to pick up other points in correspondence if, having read what I said, noble Lords would like any further clarification. I am sorry about the length of time that that took. I beg to move.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that quick but extensive exposition of what is in the amendments. Clearly there is a lot that we need to study in the record. I thank her for the notes we received in advance but we have had a limited time in which to absorb them. If we need to, perhaps we could take up the offer of a meeting between now and Third Reading, whenever that is. However, as a matter of prudence, we reserve the right to come back at Third Reading if anything proves to be contentious. We accept the proposition that these are enabling, protective or technical amendments and that that situation should not arise but, frankly, until we have had the chance to study them in detail—which we should have—I hope the Minister will accept that.
Lord Freud
“(b) regulations under section 26 of that Act, or(c) Part 1 of Schedule 2 to that Act.””
“(b) regulations under section 26 of that Act, or(c) Part 1 of Schedule 2 to that Act.””
“(ii) regulations under section 26 of that Act, or(iii) Part 1 of Schedule 2 to that Act,”.”
“(ii) regulations under section 26 of that Act, or(iii) Part 1 of Schedule 2 to that Act,”.”
Lord Freud
Lord Freud
“(i) was payable at the beginning of 8 July 2015 by the person who was the tenant of that social housing, in a case where 8 July 2015 is the relevant day,(ii) was payable at the beginning of the relevant day by the person who was the tenant of that social housing, in a case where the relevant day falls after 8 July 2015 and the person who was the tenant at the beginning of 8 July 2015 continued as tenant until at least that later time,(iii) is likely to have been payable at the beginning of the relevant day by the person who was the tenant at the beginning of 8 July 2015 if the person’s tenancy had continued until at least that later time, in a case where the relevant day falls after 8 July 2015 and the person who was the tenant at the beginning of 8 July 2015 ceased to be the tenant before that later time, or(iv) is likely to have been payable at the beginning of the relevant day by a tenant of that social housing, in a case where there was no tenant at that time and sub-paragraph (iii) does not apply,”
Lord Freud
“(6A) The Secretary of State may by regulations define “formula rent” and may, in particular, provide that it is a rent set in accordance with a method specified in the regulations.
(6B) Regulations under sub-paragraph (6A) may, in particular, make provision by reference to—
(a) the standard published in January 2015 by the regulator under section 194(2A) of the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008 (the powers of the regulator to set standards relating to levels of rent),(b) Rent Standard Guidance published in January 2015 by the regulator, or(c) Guidance on Rents for Social Housing published in May 2014 by the Secretary of State.”
(a) the amount found by—(i) determining the rate of the market rent for that social housing when the tenancy begins, and(ii) determining the amount that is 80% of the amount that would be payable in respect of a year if that rate had applied during the year, and(b) the amount that would be payable in respect of the first relevant year if the tenant were paying rent at the social rent rate.”
“(3A) The amounts referred to in sub-paragraph (3) are—
(a) the amount found by—(i) determining the rate of the market rent for that social housing when the tenancy begins,(ii) determining the amount that is 80% of the amount that would be payable in respect of a year if that rate had applied during the year, and(iii) (if necessary) reducing that amount in proportion to the part of that relevant year that elapsed before the tenancy begins, and(b) the amount that would be payable in respect of the period in question if the tenant were paying rent at the social rent rate.”
“( ) an arrangement between a local authority and the Homes and Communities Agency, the Greater London Authority or the Secretary of State under which rents for social housing may be set on a particular basis.”
“(4A) Regulations under sub-paragraph (2) may define “affordable rent” and may, in particular, provide that it is a rent set in accordance with a method specified, or of a description specified, in the regulations.
(4B) The methods that may be specified in the regulations include, but are not limited to, methods that provide for a maximum level of rent when accommodation is initially let to be a certain percentage of market rent in certain cases or circumstances.”
“( ) A reference to an amount of market rent includes a reference to an amount payable by way of service charge.”
“( ) a direction that Part 1 is to have effect in relation to a private registered provider specified in the direction as if a reference in Part 1 to the social rent rate were a reference to that rate increased by the percentage specified in the direction;”
“( ) a direction that Part 1 is to have effect in relation to a local authority specified in the direction as if a reference in Part 1 to the social rent rate were a reference to that rate increased by the percentage specified in the direction;”
Lord Freud
“(3A) Regulations made by virtue of subsection (3) may, in particular, provide for section 21 or Part 1 of Schedule 2 to have effect with modifications.
(3B) The modifications that may be made by virtue of subsection (3A) include (but are not limited to) modifications that—
(a) provide for the maximum amount of rent to be increased from year to year by no more than a percentage specified in the regulations;(b) provide for the maximum amount of rent to be determined by disregarding the effect of a temporary reduction or waiver of rent;(c) provide for the maximum amount of rent to be determined by reference to a different period;(d) provide for section 21(1) or paragraph 1(4)(c) or (5)(c) or 3(4) of Schedule 2 to have effect as if it referred to a different percentage;(e) provide for paragraph 1, 2 or 3 of Schedule 2 to have effect as if the social rent rate were uplifted by a percentage specified in the regulations;(f) provide for paragraph 3(2) or (3) of Schedule 2 to have effect as if paragraph 3(2)(a)(ii) or (3A)(a)(ii) referred to a different percentage;(g) provide for the maximum amount of rent to be determined by reference to what would have been the amount if an exception in regulations under section 22 or paragraph 5(5) of Schedule 2(including an exception making such provision as is described in section 22(7) or paragraph 5(7)) had not applied.(3C) Regulations made by virtue of subsection (3B)(d) may not provide for a higher percentage to have effect.
(3D) Regulations made by virtue of subsection (3B)(e) may, in particular, make provision in relation to cases where an exception in regulations under paragraph 5(5) of Schedule 2 making provision about social housing which satisfies conditions prescribed by the regulations as to design, facilities, use or the provision of support to tenants applies.
(3E) Regulations under subsection (1) may not provide for a maximum amount of rent payable by a tenant of social housing in respect of a relevant year, or a part of a relevant year, which is less than the amount that would be payable by the tenant in respect of that period if the rent was payable at the social rent rate in that period, in a case where an exception in regulations under paragraph 5(5) of Schedule 2 applies.”
Lord Freud
““social rent rate” has the meaning given by Schedule 2;”
“( ) In determining the maximum amount of rent payable by a person who is a tenant of social housing for part of a relevant year, a fraction of a day during which the person is a tenant of that social housing is to be treated as a whole day during which the person is a tenant of that social housing.”
“(a) in a case where the maximum amount applying under regulations under section 26 or Part 1 of Schedule 2 is determined on a basis that treats an amount, or a description of an amount, payable by way of service charge as part of the rent payable, includes a reference to an amount, or an amount of that description, payable by way of service charge,(b) in a case where section 21 applies after regulations under section 26 have, or Part 1 of Schedule 2 has, applied a maximum amount determined on a basis that treats an amount, or a description of an amount, payable by way of service charge as part of the rent payable, includes a reference to an amount, or an amount of that description, payable by way of service charge,(c) in a case not falling within paragraph (a) or (b) where, under the terms of the lease or agreement, an amount, or a description of an amount, payable by way of service charge is part of the rent payable, includes a reference to an amount, or an amount of that description, payable by way of service charge, and(d) in any other case,”
Baroness Meacher
“Housing costs: payments to landlordsHousing costs: payments to landlords
(1) Regulations made by the Secretary of State under section 5 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 (claims and payments regulations) must provide for the payment of the housing costs element of an award of universal credit to the landlord where the claimant requests such payment to be made to the landlord.
(2) In this section—
“landlord” means the person who is entitled to payment of rent for the occupation of the accommodation occupied by the claimant as his or her home;“rent” includes the license or similar payment for the use and occupation of the accommodation.”
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 82A I hope not to take up much of the House’s time. The amendment requires the Secretary of State to make regulations that would enable tenants receiving universal credit to choose to have the housing element of universal credit paid directly to their landlord.
We debated this matter in relation to an earlier welfare reform Bill and I am aware of the Government’s resistance to the measure. As benefit levels fall drastically under successive rounds of cuts, the need for this provision has grown over time. Until the introduction of local housing allowances, private tenants were able to choose to have rent payments paid direct to their landlord. Currently, social tenants can still request that housing benefit be paid direct to their landlord. However, under universal credit, tenants, whether social or private, will lose this flexibility and thus the opportunity to ensure that their rent is paid regularly so that they can at least be guaranteed a roof over their heads even if they cannot feed their children.
The Government argue that to include housing benefit payments within the universal credit payment promotes financial responsibility and helps prepare claimants for the world of work, when they will need to manage their entire budget without help from the state. Of course, in a perfect world this is a reasonable argument. However, it fails to take account of government policy to ensure that work pays. But this is being done by reducing out-of-work benefits substantially. The result is that it is highly doubtful that any of us in this House could manage to live on out-of-work benefits—pay the bills, feed the family and pay the rent. If we could not do it, why should we expect others far less privileged to be able to do so?
The Government’s attitude to this matter suggests to me, I fear, little understanding of the incredible challenges faced by out-of-work claimants under the regime which has been unfolding since 2010.
I wish to put on record in your Lordships’ House that tenant choice, as set out in the amendment, was supported by the Work and Pensions Select Committee in its report Support for Housing Costs in the Reformed Welfare System published in April 2014. The Select Committee suggests that such arrangements could be available at least for the first few years of a UC claim as a transitional measure. I hope the Minister will be able to respond to that proposal.
There is considerable support for direct rent payments to landlords if claimants request it. In February 2015, for example, the Northern Ireland Executive confirmed that landlords will be paid benefit directly to cover tenants’ rent. The Scottish Government have also indicated their wish to introduce such a provision. Both Shelter and Crisis support it, for obvious reasons.
An important point raised by the Residential Landlords Association is that direct payments will prevent an abusive partner using the rent money for their own purposes, an issue I had not thought of. Partners with a gambling or drink problem too often reduce their families to destitution. In fact, I was very familiar with such problems years ago, although they had rather gone out of my mind. This amendment would provide some protection for such families.
Finally, the Minister will be well aware that this is a big issue for landlords and hence for the adequacy of housing supply for benefit claimants. It seems that this is as powerful an argument for the amendment as the concerns about tenants. Quite simply, if landlords cannot be sure that the claimant will be able to pay the rent on time every time, they would be sensible not to rent their properties out to universal credit claimants. We already have an excess of demand for housing over supply. Does the Minister have an estimate of the expected fall in the supply of properties for rent for claimants in the coming years? Is the Minister concerned that research by the RLA earlier this year showed that 63% of private landlords with tenants on universal credit said that their tenants were in arrears with the rent? How many of those landlords will be willing to risk renting to benefit claimants again? In my opinion, only very few.
I very much hope that the Minister will be able to persuade the Secretary of State to take this amendment seriously in order to avoid a likely catastrophe in housing provision for universal credit claimants, and serious consequences for the children of the many parents who will be unable to cope. I beg to move.
Earl Cathcart (Con)
My Lords, as the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, has just said, under the old housing benefit scheme the tenant had the choice of the payment going to him or directly to the landlord. The Minister said that, under the new scheme, the,
“position is for universal credit to be paid as a single monthly sum direct to the claimant; that is designed to mirror what would happen if the claimant was in full-time employment, when they would be responsible for managing their own funds and paying their own rent”.—[Official Report, 21/12/15; col. 2438.]
In an ideal world that is an excellent idea, but in the real world it invariably does not happen. As a landlord, I can foresee that when the tenant receives the universal credit, the temptation will be to buy the weekly shopping, petrol, clothes and so on, and by the time the rent becomes due there will not be enough money left, so the spiral of debt takes hold. But the Government are adamant that paying universal credit only to the claimant not only will work but does work. Is this experiment working as the Government say it is?
According to a survey conducted by the Residential Landlords Association, it is not. It found that of those private sector landlords who had tenants on universal credit, some 63% had tenants in arrears on their rent—a point just made by the noble Baroness. Of that group of landlords, 85% had contacted the Department for Work and Pensions to have the housing element of the universal credit paid direct to them after eight weeks of arrears, as is their entitlement. More than 57% of that group said that it had taken the department more than five weeks to respond to the request, which means that the landlord is already more than three months out of pocket. I understand that the problem is even worse for social housing, with nearly 90% of tenants in arrears. It is heartening that the Minister said in Committee that,
“we are doing a lot of work now with social landlords to get the problem under control”.—[Official Report, 21/12/15; col. 2437.]
At least my noble friend admits that there is a problem and that the new system is not working quite as planned. Much of this could have been avoided if the rent had been paid direct to the landlord.
In October 2012, a survey of more than 1,000 landlords carried out by the Residential Landlords Association and the Scottish Association of Landlords found that more than 91% of landlords were less likely to rent to tenants on benefits as a direct result of the decision not to allow payment of the benefits direct to the landlord. Not making the payment direct to the landlord is not helping the landlords and it is certainly not helping the tenants. All the evidence, backed by Shelter, Crisis and the Money Advice Trust, has been that paying it direct to the landlord was popular with tenants, as they were assured that their rent was covered before they decided how else to spend their money.
If the Government really want to make tenants,
“responsible for managing their own funds and paying their own rent”.—[Official Report, 21/12/15; col. 2438.],
what better way than the tenant asking for the rent to be paid direct to the landlord? To my mind, that is the height of responsibility for the tenant: to ensure that the roof over their heads is paid for before deciding how to spend any remaining money.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
My Lords, I strongly support the amendment moved so ably by the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher. This is a real problem. The previous proposals that we were given, and the previous explanations that we wanted to model on the world of work, frankly belonged to a different planet. Those tenants, particularly in social housing, who need housing benefit are not those, for the most part, who are paid monthly. They very often are on ZHCs, have insecure or short-time jobs, or have fluctuating incomes week by week. That is topped up by universal credit. They want and need the security of a home in order to continue often to be able to find the jobs that they want, which would give them greater security. If they seek direct payments to the landlord, why does the Minister think that the Government and the DWP can second-guess what is in their best interest? Why not treat them as moral adults who can make their own judgment? The result that we are already seeing and beginning to worry about is, given the refusal to give alternative payment methods until after six to eight weeks’ arrears, and the time of processing that, we can be talking about debts of more than £1,000, from which tenants never recover.
The alternative is to try to help tenants to find ways to bypass the rigidity of DWP. So we are busy setting up jam-jar accounts and other friends are busy trying to use credit unions in order to bypass the total universal credit going into the bank account where the bank then takes payments for any other outstanding debts or anything else. As a result, HB becomes the last thing to be paid to the landlord. Many are already experiencing those problems. Certainly, one local authority tenant said to me, “Well, I won’t worry about that because that will be the last thing that gets paid. The local authority won’t evict me. It costs them more to send me into temporary housing and, given that I’ve got kids, I can run that risk”. That is the mental framework. She said, “I would be perfectly willing if they took it at the beginning of the month. But if I put it in the bank, it will be gone by the end of the month before I pay the rent”.
I suggest that the Minister responds very positively to this amendment. Where the tenant seeks it, the department should agree that alternative payment arrangement and stop all the futile effort that so many of us are making trying to find ways to loop around the system, to overcome the rigidities of the department, to help tenants avoid what will probably be debts from which they will never recover. I hope that the Minister will take the words of the noble Baroness and the noble Earl very seriously. It is a real problem on the ground.
Lord Layard (Lab)
My Lords, the Government are great believers in the principle of “nudge” and have greatly expanded the nudge unit. The fundamental principle of nudge is that, by quite small differences in institutional arrangements, you can produce big differences in outcomes. One principle of nudge is to give people an opportunity to protect themselves against their worse natures. That is exactly what this is about: offering people an opportunity to protect themselves against their own weakness. It is difficult for me to understand why the Government are not willing to use this elementary psychological principle. Would the Minister consider consulting the nudge unit before insisting that this ideological line that is being pursued is consistent with modern psychology?
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, we strongly support the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher. Indeed, it replicates part of an amendment moved in Committee by the noble Earl, Lord Cathcart. We know from the Government’s point of view that there is an article of faith here. Their starting point is that they overwhelmingly want and expect universal credit to be paid as a single monthly payment in arrears to the claimant. We know that there are opportunities for alternative payment arrangements and my noble friend Lady Sherlock set down our understanding in responding to the amendment in Committee.
The issue of eight weeks has been raised, but it is not eight weeks before you get to a solution. As I understand it, the guidance states that, when arrears reach one month’s rent, the DWP will review the situation—I am not sure how long it takes it to do that—following notification by the claimant or landlord. When they hit two months or eight weeks, either the landlord or the claimant can request an APA. Again, I think the point was raised about how long it takes the DWP to respond to those questions. Even then, there is no automatic right to one because the Government are still clinging to the concept that managing benefits should mirror choices in managing money which they say that those in work have to make.
The issue is one not only of having a nominal system in place under which alternative payments can be made, but of how those are put into practice and what realistic timescales are involved. Even if it were on the dot of eight weeks, that is a time for a landlord to wait. Some landlords might be left in a marginal economic situation.
A question was posed about what information we have about claimants of universal credit and other benefits being effectively denied access to properties available for rent. It might be quite hard to get hard statistics on that, but it would be interesting to know what the department has. The landlords fear, even if they may ultimately get paid, that they will have to wait eight weeks or even longer before they get their money.
My noble friend asked about what is happening with universal credit and how many people are in the system at the moment. At December 2015, there were 287,000 universal credit claims—I think that this is internal management information and therefore not fully verified—and some 37% of those payments included a housing element. Again only preliminary analysis showed that 19% of those had a managed payment to the landlord. I suppose that that gives a glimpse of something that is working to an extent, but clearly is not working in a sufficiently robust way to address the very real concerns that have been raised.
We debated this endlessly during the passage of the Welfare Reform Bill. My noble friend will remember it, and jam-jar accounts have featured already this evening. The arguments were strongly made against not only monthly payments but the opportunity for direct payments, particularly in relation to housing. My noble friend Lady Hollis made an extremely important point that the fundamental is a roof over your head—pretty much everything else flows from that. How can you get a job if you do not have secure accommodation? How do the kids get to school if you do not have secure accommodation? It is a fundamental issue. Just a relatively small change to the system, giving people the choice of having direct payments, means the prospect of removing what is clearly a growing problem, as explained, and fixing it in an effective way, so we support the amendment.
Lord Freud
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to make regulations that would allow universal credit claimants to opt to have the housing cost element of their award paid direct to the landlord, irrespective of the reason. One key principle of UC is that the single, monthly payment mirrors the payment of monthly wages that most claimants would receive if they were in full-time employment. Whether they are receiving UC or are working, tenants need to make similar decisions on managing their money, including paying their own rent.
The Government understand that a move to a single, monthly household payment is a significant change for many claimants and that some will require help and support. Regulations came into force in February last year to allow DWP to inform social landlords whenever one of their tenants makes a claim for or is awarded universal credit with housing costs or when an existing universal credit claimant moves to one of their properties. This enables the social landlord to decide whether the claimant requires advice, support or assistance in budgeting so that they can manage their rental payments.
There will, of course, be instances where the claimant needs additional support and, to this end, the Secretary of State already has powers to pay all or some of a claimant’s UC entitlement to a third party through alternative payment arrangements—or APAs, in the trade. There are three APAs: paying rent directly to the landlord; making more frequent than monthly payments; or splitting the payment within the household. APAs can be considered by the Secretary of State at any point during the universal credit claim, whether at the outset or later on, if a claimant cannot manage the monthly payment arrangement.
Recent improvements allow the landlord to email their APA requests, which are dealt with in a matter of days as a priority—so some of the early teething problems as we started rolling out the system have been addressed to speed up that process. Wherever possible, these arrangements are time-limited and delivered with appropriate budgeting support to help claimants make the transition to monthly budgeting.
The arrangement also covers claimants who are in rent arrears, and managed payments to the landlord will be considered where claimants have arrears of at least one month due to repeated underpayment or where the claimant owes arrears of at least two months and is at risk of eviction. These protections, combined with the measures enabling landlords to recover arrears from a tenant’s UC award, already mitigate any impact on landlords’ income or on homelessness.
We are in fact making a series of initiatives in this area and one of the most interesting is the trusted partner trials, where we are working with local authorities so that they decide the people who should be put on an APA, at least initially, and then look to see the budgeting support that a person needs to run their own funding.
Picking up the point made by my noble friend Lord Cathcart on experience, in terms of arrears we did an elaborate direct payment project and we found that, in the early stages, the numbers who paid in full were running at 95.5%, compared with 99% of those where the state paid. However, by the 18th payment—these were weekly payments in the comparator in this project—the direct payments figure had risen to 99%. Interestingly, this happened when the removal of the spare room subsidy came in, and those tenants who had become used to managing their own rent handled the removal of the spare room subsidy better than the ones who had been on the state-managed payments system. That is not surprising because the managed payments system is not necessarily an easy option where there are reductions for non-dependants, the spare room subsidy and so on, because the claimant will still need to pay the shortfall to the landlord.
The other factor, which I am surprised that noble Lords have not clocked, is that a large number of the families on universal credit are in work. It is not like the old legacy system where you have one lot out of work and one lot in work; this is a blended group and people are moving from the out-of-work group into the in-work group. Therefore, the idea that you can be halfway down the taper—in the jargon—and have a managed payment would be incredibly hard for any organisation, including the DWP and the tenant, to manage. Two million households is equivalent to a quarter of the case load.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
The noble Lord makes our point for us. If a substantial number of people are in work and managing fine—as, indeed, is the case; it is one of the reasons for supporting UC—they will not seek alternative payment arrangements. Who will seek them? It is those who have the self-knowledge to know that they are vulnerable when it comes to paying their rent, given the pressure of debt payday loans and all the other debts they may accrue. If they are being hounded, as we know they are, what will go first is the money that should be earmarked for their rent. I urge the Minister not to superimpose on people who find it hard to manage assumptions about how those of us with rather more comfortable incomes and reliable monthly salaries handle our accounts. It can be a very different and very difficult world.
Lord Freud
The core reason why I dislike this measure—and I do dislike it, so it is not a question of persuading the Secretary of State—is that we can actually see this situation right now. Interestingly, my understanding from conversations I had with welfare rights people in the 1980s was that they were against managed payments because they disempower tenants. It is funny that the political debate has come full circle. If you say that tenants can choose but you have an imbalance of power between the landlord and the tenant, which is the reality, you will find very quickly that every tenant will choose to have a managed payment because they will be told by their landlords—who would love to have someone with an AAA credit rating paying them—“You must have a managed payment”. That is what has happened. Some 93% of people in social housing choose to have a managed payment. They are disempowered, which makes it hard for them to get back into work—I think the noble Baroness is shaking her head, as a landlord. You say lots of good things—
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
I have spent years in either local authority housing management or housing association management. I have represented, possibly unlike the noble Lord, a council estate—one of the largest in the city of Norwich—and day by day, week by week, year by year, we went knocking on doors. We know what we are talking about.
Lord Freud
Perhaps I should not have personalised it.
The reason this idea of choice does not work is that it is too attractive for a landlord to have an AAA income stream. That is why the solution of the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, cannot work. It is a retrograde step away from claimants being job-ready. We know that we need to give an enormous amount of help to people with budgeting, and we are doing so. We are looking to social landlords to help us with that, and many are doing a great job. But I am afraid that I must ask, with some passion, that the noble Baroness withdraws this amendment.
Baroness Meacher
It is extremely late but I would like to thank the noble Earl, Lord Cathcart, the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, and the noble Lords, Lord Layard and Lord McKenzie, for their very helpful and powerful contributions. The Minister and I will have to disagree passionately about this issue: I do not think we are going to agree. The Minister is right that landlords have a lot of power. They will walk away. Why should they let out their properties and not have their rent paid? They will not do it. That is my big worry—I say that seriously to the Minister: they will not do it. One can talk about budgeting help and all sorts of things but this is very difficult. As benefits reduce, people are going to find it incredibly difficult to manage at all. They simply will not be able to leave any money in the pot until the end of the month to pay their rent because of the pressures they will be under. I profoundly and passionately disagree with the Minister, as much as I respect and like him. But what am I supposed to do but withdraw my amendment?
Lord Freud